Featured The Resurrection Body and 1st Cor. 15

How exactly is DNA purely physical when there are chemical elements? But regardless-- do angels bypass this when these spirits take physical form in an angelophany? Even if we limited DNA to physical, once they become tangible do they take on DNA? (& what is your evidence for what makes up a spirit--'not flesh & bone' is only limited to the statement not what elements are actually there) --& for that matter what studies prove what angels are compatible with? The Bible never says & the Matthew quote certainly doesn't contribute, especially when you actually take into account the context

 

chemical elements are material physical substances!

So you think that angels have creative power to create a new race of human beings simply void of the human spirit in order to indwell on earth for a few minutes and then it physically dissolves???? The human likeness is appearance only!

The scriptures explicitly deny that Jesus took upon the nature of angels but rather took upon himself the nature of man. Hence, the nature of angels is not the nature of man. Jesus did say that a "spirit" doth not have "flesh and bone" and that the image of God was "INVISIBLE." However, the appearance of angels as men is not "invisible" but visible and unless there is immediate procreation of the body used it is merely an allusion. God is spirit and God is not part of the physical creation. Demons can indwell human beings as the Holy Spirit can indwell human beings but the Holy Spirit does not create a human body to dwell in and neither do angels, fallen or unfallen have creative power.

 

Biblicist--I’m glad you actually answered—I love discussing this topic---& while I can admit the issue as a whole is not a 1st rate doctrine—accurately interpreting Gen 6 does have critical consequences on proper biblical angelology/demonology. And I say this with no disrespect---But--your counteraction has nothing but unverifiable assumption with statements that lacks any real scriptural or scientific evidence (in addition-you basically just paraphrased the original post with no new support.) The fact is--You’ve never studied the chemical make of an angelic ‘spirit’ or an angelic ‘spirit’ in physical form--& considering the Bible never clearly explains it—your entire premise falls short of any biblical credibility. Yet the angelic interpretation of Gen 6 has biblical credibility w/ the NT evidence of 2 pet 2 & jude 6—now I saw you try to sidestep this earlier—but the truth of the matter is-- every modern evangelical commentary acknowledges the angelic interpretation of Gen 6 in these verses (ie. Baker Exegetical on NT; NAC; WBC; Pillar; Niv Application; & ect)—the primary support for this is found: in the context of the verses; the history of interpretation (no counteracting view until the 3rd century AD among Christians); & the fact that the only ‘chained angels’ commonly known during NT authorship were those from Gen 6 (no other historically known option). To add to this--the fact is-- the exact Hebrew phrase used in Gen 6 is only found in Job-- to say ‘its only used once in Job’ like this fact is somehow irrelevant--overlooks the uniqueness of the exact Hebrew phrase & the importance of systematics in accurately interpreting the original language (although I rarely use this support in my personal argument—it is relevant in this conversation). In all honesty, this is only the tip of the iceberg for supporting the angelic interpretation of Gen 6; however; I actually like hearing responses to these points & this discussion will actually help me with a writing—I look forward to your response—& I’ll check back in the morning—God bless

 

On the contrary, I gave you explicit Biblical data. The Bible says God "is spirit" just as it says angels are ministering "spirits." Nowhere does scripture provide this description of the human nature. Man has a "spirit" but nowhere does scripture say man "is spirit." DNA and chemicals are all CREATED physical/material substances never associated with the nature of God or angels. You are assuming the appearances as men by God and angels demands actual creation of the human nature for that appearance. In Genesis 6 you are assuming that ministering "spirits" created their own physical human bodies for procreation whereby spirit "dna" was passed on in physical human beings. Spirits do not have flesh and bones and flesh and bones is required to be a man. The Second Person of the Godhead did not take upon the nature of angels but of men, thus distinguishing they are not compatible in nature but different. Procreation is not a part of angelic nature as Jesus clearly states but is part of human nature, thus making procreation something foreign to the nature of both God and angels as both are equally "spirit" in nature.

 

Biblicist--This certainly is an interesting theory & one that actually shows thought on your part. But let me explain what I mean when I say ‘unverifiable assumption with statements that lacks any real scriptural or scientific evidence.’ The Bible does not speak of the chemical makeup of spirits—i.e., it is silent on this issue (it never says they don’t have chemical components or that they do have them—it simply just doesn’t say). So for either of us to attempt to argue this point would lack genuine biblical evidence & force the argument to go on pure assumption. Let me give an example--I could easily say that all created things have some kind of chemical element (b/c we’ve never studied a created thing that doesn’t) & given that angels are created (Ps 148, ect) they by definition must have a chemical component. But for me to make such a statement, would be giving my philosophical syllogistic logic—not pure biblical evidence; thus causing my entire premise to fall short of what is needed to uphold Scriptural authority. This is what I’m saying about your argument, when you say things like ‘DNA and chemicals are all CREATED physical/material substances never associated with the nature of God or angels’—such a statement runs purely on syllogism—& bases its argument on scriptural silence- not clear biblical proof. Although Scripture says God is spirit & angels are spirits-- it never says what components make up a spirit. Furthermore, it never technically addresses how man possesses DNA, thus going on your argument it could be said man doesn’t have any DNA (simply b/c Scripture doesn’t say). In fact I could say that your association of DNA with that which is created hinders your entire assumption, b/c angels are created—therefore they must have some-kind of DNA or chemical component (simply based on your own logic that DNA is connected to something being created). Furthermore, when angels manifest visibly it could be said there has to be a kind of physical makeup (or tangible DNA) b/c they have the ability to eat/swallow food as is seen in Gen 19; thus they must be somehow tangible (no mere immaterial illusion). But saying these kind of things would lead us in a never ending circle of syllogistic logic—never getting us anywhere in this discussion.

But since I do love discussing this with you (considering you do take the time to think) & the fact that I need to get back to work for now-- I do want to quickly clear a few things before we go any further.
When you say ‘‘You are assuming the appearances as men by God and angels demands actual creation of the human nature for that appearance’—No I’m actually not assuming this b/c a visible manifestation is different from creating—I’m only pointing out that when angels do visibly manifest there is scriptural proof that they can do similar functions to humans; functions that require them to be physical & humanlike. Does this alone prove they have the ability to procreate—of coarse not—but it does open the door to the fact that in their visible manifested forms they have taken on more human-like features than their purely spiritual form has (the very fact they are visible to the human eye & can eat demonstrates this).
Next you say ‘In Genesis 6 you are assuming that ministering "spirits" created their own physical human bodies for procreation whereby spirit "dna" was passed on in physical human beings’—This is not what I’m saying—b/c I’ve yet to address “how” the sons of God did the act in Gen 6—which could have been by angelophany or by possession of humans. Furthermore, while Scripture verifies that ‘spirits do not have flesh & bone’ it never addresses if they take on flesh & bone in a visible manifestation & if they are using possession for this act- then they do at least have access to flesh & bone.

On your incarnation/angel theory I find it intriguing (esp considering how it might impact one’s view on the 'angel of the Lord', although supporters here make sure to distinguish between function vs ontology)-- but when you say ‘The Second Person of the Godhead did not take upon the nature of angels but of men, thus distinguishing they are not compatible in nature but different’—how exactly does this show that they aren’t compatible in nature—such a statement is reading into Scripture; & overlooks what the author of Hebrews is actually saying; ie- that Christ was superior to angels, that he humbly lowered himself during the incarnation (lower than angels); & that the purpose of the incarnation was for human salvation-- not angelic salvation (Heb 2:14-18)—-nothing is ever said about his nature being incompatible with angels, if humans & angels have incompatible natures (eliminating their ability to conjointly procreate); or give any hint of addressing the ‘sons of God’ from Gen 6—thus—when we consider the actual context of the Hebrew passages; it becomes obvious your entire proposal is irrelevant to the Gen 6 debate. (But I would like to say more on this later—b/c the theory as a whole could potentially be useful for other angelology issues.)

But I do need to address one last point—when you say ‘Procreation is not a part of angelic nature as Jesus clearly states but is part of human nature, thus making procreation something foreign to the nature of both God and angels as both are equally "spirit" in nature.’—Jesus never clearly says anything about the procreative capability of angels-he only refers to the fact that angels are not designed for marriage (ie at the very least it could be deduced that angels are not supposed to marry, but Matthew never specifically says anything about procreative capabilities)—but even if angels aren’t supposed to marry (which I agree they are not)—we must not forget that these are rebellious angels that are being talked about in Gen 6 (either they were fallen or this event caused them to fall)--Scripture is clear that fallen angels don’t always obey God or do what they were designed/created to do (submit to & praise God)—b/c if they did they would not sin, would remain holy, & never be fallen in the 1st place. Thus for a fallen angel to do something they weren’t supposed to do—would not be out of character for what is known about rebellious angels.
In addition I’ll add 3 quick points that need to be considered about the context of Jesus statement-
1--the angelic beings referred to by Jesus are clearly elect and holy angels, whose home is “in heaven.” This qualifying phrase distinguishes the angels Jesus refers to from the angels in Jude 6 who “left their natural habitat” & were punished for it. Although, the angels in heaven do not marry, the angels referred to in Gen 6: 1-4 as sons of God were no longer in heaven as Jude 6 explains
2--one has to remember that Jesus is speaking of heaven & the resurrection life. Since fallen angels will not be in heaven they would not qualify for this comparison, thus only those who remained loyal & holy fit the description of not marrying
3--Jesus is speaking to Sadducees in these verses. Ironically, they did not believe in angels or the resurrection (Acts 23:8). For Jesus to include angels in the statement when the resurrection is the focus, probably hints at his attack on their faulty belief system, not his exegesis against the angelic interpretation of Gen 6

There is so much more I want to say-- but time is an issue right now—but I would ask you to consider something about this topic--- why do so many modern scholars admit the angelic Gen 6 reference in 2 Pet 2 & Jude 6 (see all the commentaries I previously listed by highly accredited theologians such as Schreiner, Moo, Bauckham, Davids, Green, Jobes, ect)—& why don’t hardly any modern scholars (if any) use the idea of 'DNA incompatibility' to attempt & disprove the angelic interpretation of Gen 6 (I’ll recheck this but I know it’s not a major argument addressed by Matthews or Walton who deny the angelic idea)-- I’m not saying just b/c scholars say it-it makes it automatically right/wrong—but considering their job credibility is on the line- they do have good, biblically credible reasons for making the points they do about the reliability of the angelic idea in Gen 6-& if it could be undeniable refuted w/ the DNA idea- they wouldn’t be so adamant about the angelic interpretation—thus (at the very least) it should be admitted that the angelic theory of Gen 6 does have genuine biblical possibility & should not be easily dismissed as some kind of illogical proposal----I look forward to your response & will try & get back with you when I can (& if need be-I will take the time to re-learn the break down quote feature on here—sorry about that- it’s been a while since I’ve posted-lol)—God bless

 

God is a Spirit


So does that mean that the God, the Father, is not actually the Father of the Son of the God, born of woman.

Relative to the woman was Jesus a procreation? Did she believe a son had been created in her?

 

"chemicals" by their very nature are MATERIALISTIC. We can see them, study them, examine them and often feel them. The "spirit" of God is not MATERIALISTIC. You cannot examine God's Spirit, feel it with your hands or see it with your eyes as the Spirit of God is "INVISIBLE" to the human eye. Chemicals, DNA can be seen with the human eye. They can be examined under a microscope but you cannot do that with the "spirit." The spirit of angels is not MATERIALISTIC. The spirit of man is not MATERIALISTIC. The concept of "spirit" in the Bible is the very opposite of MATERIALISTIC. That is what Christ meant when he said a "spirit hath not flesh and bone" or MATERIALISTIC.

If God makes himself manifest to us where we can examine and see Him it is not His "spirit" but some other form he has adopted for our sake. Likewise, with angels or any "spirit" as the nature of "spirit" is INVISIBLE to the eye and NON-MATERIALISTIC.

 

Now its been a while since I’ve taken a chemistry class (about 10 years ago while finishing my undergrad)—but I do remember the professor addressing the issue of how certain gases (which are made up of chemical components) could be studied-- when they have no way of being observed by any of the human senses (which is contrary to your proposal). Furthermore, I remember the scientific debate about ‘atomic structure’ which by itself cannot be observed by any of the human senses without interaction (ie it requires bouncing electrons off to see if even possibly present, but even then it could be uncertain). And certain theoretical theories that were being debated b/c all that was available was possible residual evidence, but no real observable evidence. (And I’m not 100% sure but unless things have changed there are some chemical gases that can’t be observed by a microscope)---But even getting into all this sides steps the real issue---there is more than enough biblical evidence to make the angelic theory of Gen 6 a real possibility---we have no idea of the complete realm of angelic capability when they manifest visibly or in possession (bc scripture is silent)—we have no biblical or scientific proof that speaks of angelic incompatibility w/ humans (in fact that they both are spiritual beings might prove they are actually compatible)—the fact so many scholars are willing to risk their job credibility by supporting the angelic theory of Gen 6 in an overwhelming majority of 2 peter/Jude commentaries speaks volumes of biblical reliability---the fact there were no other ‘chained angels’ well known during NT authorship besides those in Gen 6 has serious consequences on 2 pet 2:4/jude 6--And how the exact Hebrew phrase for ‘sons of God’ is only used of angels in the Bible—honestly--I could go on & on & on—so please address some of the things in my last post-before going any further—b/c I would actually like to talk to you about why I’m so adamant about the angelic theory of Gen 6—but continuing with syllogistic logic based on scriptural silence-- instead of using proper hermeneutics-- is getting us nowhere—I’m not so naive as to think I’ll completely convince you of the angelic understanding of Gen 6—but at the very least it could be shown why it’s not so easy to disprove --God bless

 

Just because something is invisible to the human eye does not mean it is invisible. Have you ever heard of a microscope or a telescope??? Just because the human eye is not powerful enough to the atomic structure does not mean the atomic structure is not materialistic and visible. Just because human senses cannot perceive something does not mean it is not materialistic as dogs can sense and hear what human's cant.

 

Did you even read my post? Please actually take the time to read what I'm saying--& more importantly address the theological issues I'm raising--if not its all good--no love lost--God bless & keep up your studies

 

I read what you said. Don't agree with it. I read your arguments and see any weight in them. God is "spirit" as to his essence, just as angels are "spirit" as to their essence, just as the human "spirit' is spirit as to its essence. What is "spirit" is always contrasted to the material universe and DNA and chemicals are part of the material universe. DNA is found in your physical human cell structure but nobody has ever found DNA in the "spirit" as nobody has been able to examine "spirit" because it does not belong to the material universe. This is very simple but it seems to be above your capability to accept.

 

Give me 1 Bible verse that explains the make up of a spirit--give me 1 scientific study that has studied what makes up an angel--Give 1 shred of evidence that totally explains angelic capability when they (spirits) become tangible (in angelophany)--(& btw in possession they technical do control the material)--its not above my capability to accept--the fact is every counter proposal you offer has no biblical substance that allows the angelic theory of Gen 6 to be denied--even if we accept what you've said in your post to be true (which is simply for the sake of argument)--it does not show that angels & humans couldn't be the subject of Gen 6--instead it is a theory concerning chemistry that doesn't address the theological issue at hand--furthermore--angels do become material in scripture--& even in spirit form there is no evidence they aren't chemically composed--you simply assume they are not compatible with te material based on biblical silence in regard to spirit make up--however by your own syllogistic logic (ie everything in your previous posts) when spirits are visible they must be material (bc they can eat)--therefore they must have the capability to do what the material can do--but saying this is just using the same unprovable logic your proposing instead of using scriptural evidence--the truth of the matter is-- without scripture- what authoritative evidence do we have to understand angelic activity? And if Gen 6 is about angels--it demonstrates w/ Scripture their capability to do exactly what your denying--in addition you've yet to address the hermeneutics of everything that goes into this topic--i've oversimplified some of the weighty evidence you need to consider--but you just keep repeating the same thing & have yet to demonstrate how any of this is truly relevant to the Gen 6 debate--i feel like you simply don't want to address any of these topics w/ real biblical substance b/c it would force you to admit your original DNA idea has no real bearings on this topic when it comes to biblical scholarship--if you want to discuss this topic I'll be back Thursday--but if you just want to keep regurgitating the same things I've already addressed & not address anything I'm showing about the Gen 6 debate--just let me know--bc like I said my goal is not to convince you of the angelic idea--but I do want to show you & any one else who reads this-- how credible the angelic idea is & how a few simple sentences will never disprove this theory-- based on the overwhelming hermeneutic evidence the interpretation genuinely possesses--God bless

 

Noah was
(1) a just man, and
(2) perfect in his generations [genetically pure human], and
(3) Noah walked with God. Genesis 6:9

Noah was selected because his DNA was not corrupted by angelic hybridization.
Satan's attempt to prevent a savior of mankind was thwarted.

 

I have already done that, and in addition showed you texts where "spirit" is described as the essence of God's substance in contrast with created MATERIAL SUBSTANCES. God does not procreate Himself as that is impossible. Angles do not procreate among themselves just as Jesus clearly states. Spirits are not materialistic as Jesus also clearly states. You simply will not believe the scriptures that clearly state these things but continue to demand WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE and contrary to all Biblical evidence that "spirits" have materialistic qualities. They do not as Jesus directly denies they have materialistic qualities in regard to PHYSICAL BODIES -"flesh and bone."

We are talking about the ability to procreate are we not???? God cannot procreate another "spirit" God. He cannot procreate a PHYSICAL MATERIAL God as he is "spirit" as opposed to physical materialism. Angles are likewise the same substance as God - "spirit" and as Christ says they cannot procreate themselves as "spirit." The human "spirit" outside the materialistic bodily nature cannot procreate itself any more than God or angels can. Why Because NOWHERE does the Bible attribute "spirit" procreation, not even in Genesis 6. That is a function restricted ONLY to the human physical nature and to the physical nature of animals and plants.

Nowhere does God's word say to angels "their seed is within themselves" or "be fruitful and multiply" - Nowhere! Your position is purely speculative and speculation against all known Biblical facts about "spirit" and ability to procreate itself.

First, you cannot prove they become tangible real human bodies any more than you can prove Christ previous to the incarnation appeared in tangible real human bodies. The vast majority of theologians call such manifestations "theophanies" or merely "appearances" without regard to any the scientific conclusion of the actual make up of those appearances.

Second, "scientific" demands "repeatability" then "observation" and then you draw a hypothesis. It is impossible to conduct any scientific investigation on this matter as you cannot "repeat" or "observe" this.

 

Now you have finally said something that contributes! This is a good question--but you've failed to take in the proper order--for example the Trinity is illogical to the human mind--but Scripture affirms this so we know its true--the incarnation of Jesus being 100% God & 100% man in 1 undivided person is considered illogical by many heretics so its denied--but Scripture affirms it--the same is true with angelic procreation--its not logic we are looking for--its Scripture--
here is a quick summary of Gen 6
Gen 6:1-4- When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years." 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown

Who are the “daughters of man”? Human woman (no family classification)
Since “ha’adam” is used as a generic term for mankind as a whole in verse 1, it should also be used as a generic term for mankind as a whole in v 2. Thus the daughters of ‘man’ are simply human women with no classification or family distinction. In essence, based on the original language & the context-- these daughters cannot be limited to the line of Cain. In fact, based on the preceding chapters mention of ‘daughters’ 9 times (5:4,7,10,13,16,19,22,26, 30)—the Sethite woman would be the logical identity of the these daughters. However, this misses the point of the text. Basically all that it is saying is that more women were born in the pre-flood world, than one might expect based on the genealogies given in Gen 4-5. The Main focus of v 1 is: The multiplication of mankind (population expanse) and in particular the existence of women. Verse 2 explains what specific role these human woman played.

Who are the “sons of God”? Angelic/celestial beings (fallen angels or angels that fell b/c of this sin)
Evidence for angelic interpretation of “sons of God”:
The original language: ‘Sons of God’ (Hebrew: bene ha’elohim) is Hebrew idiom for angelic/celestial beings. The only other time the exact phrase is used in Scripture is in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; & the LXX of Deut 32:8—all of which clearly refer to celestial creatures. The closest other use of the phrase is in Ps 29:1 & 89:6, both of which refer to angels. There is no instance in Scripture where this idiom refers to anything other than superhuman entities. The closest argument against this would come with Ps 82. But the exact Hebrew phrase is not used & more modern scholars are opting for a celestial interpretation of this passage as well (see Michael Heiser)

The context of Gen 6:2, 4-In the Hebrew the phrases “sons of God” & the “daughters of men” are meant to be contrasted from each other. The contrast that is implied between ha’adam (mankind, earthly sphere) & bene elohim (divine or heavenly sphere) is achieved in an angelic view but not with a purely human view.

The NT evidence (esp 2 Peter 2:4 & Jude 6, & possibly 1 Pet 3:19, 1 Cor 11:10)-- There is clear historical evidence that the angelic theory of Gen 6 existed during NT authorship (cf 1 Enoch 6-19; Jubilees 4: 15, 22; 5: 1; Damascus Document 2: 17-19; 1QapGen 2: 1; Testament of Reuben 5: -7; Testament of Naphtali 3:5; 2 Barach 56: 10-14)—some of these Jewish writings even describe the angels of Gen 6 as being locked away in chains (similar to 2 Pet 2:4 & Jude 6), while 1 Enoch actually uses the rare term Tartarus that is found in 2 Pet 2:4 (Greek tartarosas). There is no biblical or historical record of any other chained angels that would be relevant to NT readers besides the “sons of God” in Gen 6 (see the context here versus Rev 20). As Thomas R. Schreiner explains in regard to 2 Peter 2:4, “Peter’s readers would naturally have understood the account in terms of such tradition unless Peter indicated clearly that he was departing from the common understanding of his day.” In addition, the simple fact that Peter followed his account of the sinning angels with a description of the flood, allows a natural connection to be drawn between 2 Pet 2:4-5 and Gen 6:1-4. Although Jude does not follow his description of the sinning angels with a reference to the flood, he does show familiarity with 1 Enoch by quoting the work in Jude 14-15. This is important because 1 Enoch treats Genesis 6:1-4 as the sin of the angels. 1 Enoch also describes the fallen angels from Genesis 6 as imprisoned (e.g. 1 En 10:4-7, 12-14; 19:1; 20:2-3; 21:10). Based on this, Jude should offer an explanation to his readers if he is referring to another group of chained angels. [ie, Jude talks about angels being chained—he then a few sentences later shows familiarity with 1 Enoch—considering the brevity of Jude’s letter & emphasis of the angelic interpretation of Gen 6 in 1 Enoch, it seems most logical that Jude agrees with 1 Enoch’s identification of the sons of God in Gen 6 as angels]. Further, Jude follows his description with a reference to Sodom & Gomorrah, linking the sexual sin of the two with the Greek phrase: ton homoion tropon toutois or “in the same manner as these.” As Schriner explains, “this establish a parallel between the sexual immorality of the angels and the sexual immorality of Sodom.”

The History of interpretation- The angelic view can be dated back to the early 3rd century BC (with parts of 1 Enoch). It was maintained by Jews & Christians alike until late 2nd century AD, when Rabbi Simeon b. Yohai proposed a human ‘nobles’ interpretation. The Sethite view did not originate until the 3rd century AD, with Julius Africanus’ proposal. It was not popularized until the 4th century AD when Augustine favored it. Regardless, the angelic view dominated the first 300 years of Christian thought being supported by such thinkers as: Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Lactantius (to name a few). In addition, the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) actually translates Gen 6 as angels, although some scholars question if this is original.

 

Actually everything I just went over briefly says otherwise


And here is another issue that many modern scholars are connecting to the angelic understanding of Gen 6--its 1 Pet 3--here is a summary of the debate
(its a handout i use for teaching)
1 Pet 3:18-20, 22-For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in/by the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared..[Jesus] has gone into heaven & is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, & powers having been subjected to him
• V 18-detailed Christological statement--Peter once strongly objected to the thought of the Messiah suffering (Matt. 16:22), but now he firmly declares that it was through suffering that Christ achieved his ultimate victory. The apostle depicts Christ as the sin offering (Greek peri hamartion) whose one time sacrifice was sufficient for atonement, distinguishing him from the Jewish sacrificial system of his day (Heb. 9:24-28; 10:12). The plural "sins" points to the great mass of sins which Christ in His death bore for mankind. Furthermore his perfect obedience to the Father & sinless earthly life is highlighted by the phrase “the righteous for the unrighteous.” The reason Christ's death is sufficient is precisely because he was sinless. He could not have died on behalf of his people if he himself were stained by sin. However, his sinlessness also meant that Jesus’ personal suffering was undeserved. Finally Peter uses the aorist compound verb prosagage (might bring), which indicates that the purpose of Jesus suffering was to bring estranged sinners into an actual intimate relationship with God (ie reconciliation).
• being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit- ‘Put to death’ is the Greek thanatotheis & declares the violent death of Jesus, terminating His life as a man here on earth (ie the crucifixion). ‘Made alive’ is zoopoietheis (lit: being made alive). How one interprets this has great implications on the rest of the passage. Although there are various possibilities, the strongest argument is that it is referring to Jesus’ resurrection. This is b/c the same Greek verb is used to describe the resurrection in a number of NT texts & the connection of Christ’s death with his resurrection is a common NT theme (ie treated as one event). Although the Greek dative used for Spirit could allow this to refer Christ’s actions in the spiritual realm before his resurrection, it could also be interpreted as the Holy Spirit giving him life at his resurrection.
• in which he went & proclaimed- ‘he went’ implies that a real change of location takes place. Considering that the same Greek term is used in v 22 to describe his Ascension many scholars think that the timing of Christ preaching was when he ascended into heaven to take his place at the right hand of the Father. But in v. 22 the upward movement is indicated by the words "into heaven." Here there is no indication & considering the term is neutral the exact timing of v 19 is unclear. The Greek term for proclaimed/preached very often carries the idea of proclaiming the Gospel. However there are other instances where the term refers to the proclamation of judgment or the announcing of triumph. Context has to decide the meaning, but most scholars support the idea of judgment. (see 1 En 12)

V 19-the “spirits in prison” & the various theories
1. Descent of Christ into hell-The idea that Christ went on a divine rescue mission between his death & resurrection to save the OT saints has a long standing in Church history, even being a part of certain versions of the Apostles Creed. Potential support for this idea can be seen in Eph 4:8-9 which states "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men." In saying, "He ascended," what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth?” Although there are other possibilities, the most likely explanation is that this refers to Christ going to the realm of the dead between his death & resurrection. His liberating OT believers is seen in Matt 27:51-53, when they came back to life after his own resurrection. Thus it is very possible that Christ did free these individuals in his postmortem state. Yet, for the immediate text, this theory is problematic, b/c even if 1 Pet 4:6 refers to the event (which is questionable), it is very difficult to link this to 1 Pet 3, b/c as v 20 explains the spirits in prison are connected to the pre-flood world, not OT times as a whole. While some have tried to say that Christ preached salvation to those that died in the pre-flood world, this idea has many difficulties. In particular it would have to uphold the doctrine of 2nd chance which clearly contradicts Scripture & runs the risk of Universalism.
2. Christ preached through Noah-As Schriner explains, “According to this view, Christ was not personally present but spoke by means of the Holy Spirit through Noah. The spirits are not literally in prison but refer to those who were snared in sin during Noah's day.” This theory is filled with difficulties, one of which being the fact that Christ does not really go anywhere if he preaches "through" Noah (an idea the Greek verb does not allow). Although a long list could be given as to why this theory is inaccurate, most believe this one piece of information makes the entire theory impossible.
3. Christ's proclamation of victory & judgment over evil angels- This is by far the most upheld view by modern scholars. First, the Greek term for “spirits" (pneumata) in the plural almost without exception in the NT refers to angels (the only exception is Heb 12:23 but this has a qualifying term). Second, the Greek term for prison is never used to describe humans in the afterlife but is used in Rev 20 for Satan’s future imprisonment. Further the idea of imprisoned angels is found in numerous places in Jewish tradition & is mentioned by Peter himself in 2 Pet 2:4 when he writes, ‘For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into Tartarus & committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment.’ In addition, the idea of sinning angels connected to Noah’s day is seen in Gen 6:2, 4 (see summary below). These evil angels, according to Gen 6, had sexual relations with human women & were imprisoned b/c of their sin (Jude 6, 14-15). Finally, this view has the contextual support of v 22, which speaks of Christ’s subjection & victory over evil angelic powers. Taken as a whole this view has Christ proclaiming his victory over the sinning angels of Gen 6. Why he made this proclamation only to this particular group can be debated, but it’s possible they represented all fallen angels or they were singled out b/c their attempt to disrupt Gen 3:15. Regardless, this idea is the best explanation for v 19. (also see the angel offspring view & the angel/human/offspring view)

V 20 broken down---the term ‘because’ explains why the spirits were imprisoned (ie they disobeyed), while the term ‘when’ locates the exact time of disobedience as being in Noah’s day. The Greek verb for disobedience involves deliberate defiance or conscious resistance to authority. In essence, they clearly knew the act was rebellion against God & they carried it out anyway, which corresponds to the angelic transgression of Jude 6. God’s attitude is described as “patiently waiting,” which in the Greek indicates an approach of "waiting it out.” What He was waiting for is not stated, but more than likely it is referring to God's patient forbearance with evil before judgment falls. The phrase, ‘during the construction of the ark’ is a present tense participle & indicates the prolonged activity extending over an unknown number of years before the great Flood (possibly Gen 6:3).

Now please address the Biblical issues I've posted--thank you--God Bless

 

It is obvious he cannot. It's even more obvious he only cares about hearing himself/ reading himself online. He fails to ever read others posts maybe he skims and then makes a fanatic reply. His only goal online is to bait people into a pointless arguments. It's a circle system of unstable personal abuse he garners onto himself and his family. When he feels insecure out of control and not the "man" he shuttles himself to his computer seat to get a taste and falls back into the same online trap he has set for himself his whole life. It's unfortunate that there is a baptist lair online for him that has other like minded reprobates who put on the cloak of Christ but are nothing but controlling, manipulative, egotistic, extremely insecure online hermits. He is entangled in the devil and cannot escape it. He posts on other sites saying "priorities" have come up that will not allow him to post but he continues to post over and over again only a day later. He sickeningly enjoys negative responses and so mine will act has a stimulate and make him feel even more grossly exalted and desiring to reply promptly with child like banter. His posts remind me of a 5-10 year old little boy with no mother seeking approval,acceptance and attention by any means necessary. Negative or positive and his fanatic mind is so far gone he no longer can trick himself into getting it in a positive way and only trying to suck it out negatively through the internet. My pray's will be with him. That maybe he will truly relaize and feel the saving grace of God.

It's sad that I will probably be banned by this post and (hopefully so) but I see a multitude of other posters including the Bib write the most degrading, immature, ad -hominen, "UN Godly" grade school verbally abusive crap and get away with it. This online board reeks as do the trolls that lurk here. Including myself. I am SO glad I don't live down here like you all do.

 

Anyways,

Time to log off because of priorities (That are more important then my self and my own ego). Won't see me logging back in. :thumbs: