Knowing that the theme of Israel is burning for many, I'm going to dodge that bullet, and reflect on something else. He claimed that in 1Pt 1:5 the word οἰκοδομεῖσθε (oikodomeisthe) should be translated as in indicative instead of imperative. Therefore it would go like this:
you are (being) built up as living stones...instead of
keep on been built up as living stones...There are no textual variants supporting the indicative reading. Stylistically it is cleaner, but I'm afraid that we are missing something here. Peter's concern in his epistle is a moral one; how the believers are sojourning amidst all the trials, pain and persecution. The textual connections to the Old testament seem to speak very strongly about sexual purity in particular. In this larger context it would make more sense for Peter to have exhorted the believers to keep on being such material that could be used by God as living stones when he is building his spiritual house. The implication is that ones not pursuing purity are not suitable to be living stones, and would be rejected as weak concrete.
The conversation that followed the presentation, especially Dr. Scott Hafemann's question/comment about the covenantal issue in 1 Peter, and how Israel can be seen as a substructure for the 1 Peter, was inspiring. There are (at least) three connection points: Past - calling/election, Present - holiness, Future - eschatological promises. However, as I said earlier, I'm going to dodge this bullet, I just wanted to test the sight.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti