What Verse or Passage of scripture do you find difficult to interpret?

[GracethroughfaithinChrist]

Others here have offered their contributions to this thread prior to this one and are still addressing those verses.

When possible, and if possible I would like to discuss the following.

1 Corinthians 15:29
Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?

This is a difficult verse.

Perhaps we won't know the exact meaning. Only that Paul is using these words to support the resurrection of the dead?

 

[Snacks]

I just addressed some of these questions on another thread!

Why do people think anyone was in Nod when Cain arrived? Why not assume he went there with his wife? Just because she conceived there does not mean he met her there, or that he married her there, or never knew her in either manner of speaking, before he/they got there. Cain built the city he lived in. How do we interpret that? It can be interpreted to mean that Cain and his descendants were the originators of that city. Even if people were there before he arrived, why assume they were not relatives of his as the population grew, and naturally spread into outlying areas? People jump to so many wrong conclusions making assumptions that are not in any way supported by the text, and then compound their error by refusing to acknowledge what is in the text.

I didn’t make any assumptions, I simply asked a few questions. 😊❤️

 

[Amanuensis]

Yes, I agree with you concerning it was the disobedient in prison, not the righteous; and I agree that those in Hell/Hades can get another chance to receive Jesus Christ, they just don’t have any rewards in Heaven but they can be saved by Jesus Christ alone.

However, ONLY Jesus Christ has the keys to Hell/Hades which means ONLY Jesus Christ can preach to the spirits in prison.

This is where we would need to see of there any other scriptures that support the idea that the disobedient in hell get another chance to receive Jesus.

I suppose we also need to stick to only this select group of disobedient while the Ark was preparing.

Not all the disobedient from the creation of the world until the flood, but just those who were disobedient while the Ark was preparing which would be about 120 years according to Gen 6:3

So why just them?

Jesus said in Luke 12:5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

We don't think that these get a second chance. Why would only those who were disobedient when the Ark was being prepared get a second chance?

The more we analyze it the less likely it is that this would be a correct interpretation. Disobedient people in hell getting a second chance to repent? It does not say they repented. It just says he preached to them. It does not say they got out of prison. It just says he preached to them that were in prison.

What about the Rich Man in the story about the Rich Man and Lazarus? Does he finally get out? Who would not repent and believe in hell if they get another chance?

My inclination would be to doubt that as a correct interpretation because the implications of such an interpretation would violate so many other areas of theology. Therefore on the basis of the hermeneutical rule concerning theological context I would reject such an idea as not what Peter intended to communicate.

 

[Aaron56]

Luke 16:
He also said to His disciples: “There was a certain rich man who had a steward, and an accusation was brought to him that this man was wasting his goods. 2 So he called him and said to him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward.’
3 “Then the steward said within himself, ‘What shall I do? For my master is taking the stewardship away from me. I cannot dig; I am ashamed to beg. 4 I have resolved what to do, that when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.’
5 “So he called every one of his master’s debtors to him, and said to the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ 6 And he said, ‘A hundred measures of oil.’ So he said to him, ‘Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.’ 7 Then he said to another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ So he said, ‘A hundred measures of wheat.’ And he said to him, ‘Take your bill, and write eighty.’ 8 So the master commended the unjust steward because he had dealt shrewdly. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light. 9 “And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by unrighteous mammon, that when you fail, they may receive you into an everlasting home.

Perhaps it is just straight forward. But I've often felt that I am missing a portion of understanding.

 

[Amanuensis]

Post-mortem evangelism seems to be a theologically sound doctrine.

1 Peter 3:19
19By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

1 Peter 4:6
6For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

Romans 8:38-39
38For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

John 4:24,25
24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

25Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

None of these verses teach postmortem evangelism.

1 Peter 3:19 we are discussing, does not say they got saved or had faith.

1 Peter 4:6 Is about those who had been killed for their faith. They loved not their lives unto death knowing they have a better resurrection.
Luke 12:5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

The same for Romans 8:38-39
John 4:24,25 as in being born again

25Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. The Resurrection. Both the unrighteous and the righteous will be raised but there is a difference between them. One to Eternal life the other to the eternal Lake of Fire.

 

[Runningman]

None of these verses teach postmortem evangelism.

1 Peter 3:19 we are discussing, does not say they got saved or had faith.

1 Peter 4:6 Is about those who had been killed for their faith. They loved not their lives unto death knowing they have a better resurrection.
Luke 12:5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

The same for Romans 8:38-39
John 4:24,25 as in being born again

25Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. The Resurrection. Both the unrighteous and the righteous will be raised but there is a difference between them. One to Eternal life the other to the eternal Lake of Fire.

The dead were preached the gospel to and they that heard the voice of the Son of God; those that heard will live. Not sure what’s unclear to you about the quoted scriptures, but I’m going with what the Bible says. Post-mortem evangelism is theologically sound. As to whether or not Jesus still does it is a matter of speculation, but at one point He obviously did it. As to whether or not anyone got saved is not the point. Evangelism does not require converts.

 

[Amanuensis]

Luke 16:
He also said to His disciples: “There was a certain rich man who had a steward, and an accusation was brought to him that this man was wasting his goods. 2 So he called him and said to him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward.’
3 “Then the steward said within himself, ‘What shall I do? For my master is taking the stewardship away from me. I cannot dig; I am ashamed to beg. 4 I have resolved what to do, that when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.’
5 “So he called every one of his master’s debtors to him, and said to the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ 6 And he said, ‘A hundred measures of oil.’ So he said to him, ‘Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.’ 7 Then he said to another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ So he said, ‘A hundred measures of wheat.’ And he said to him, ‘Take your bill, and write eighty.’ 8 So the master commended the unjust steward because he had dealt shrewdly. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light. 9 “And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by unrighteous mammon, that when you fail, they may receive you into an everlasting home.

Perhaps it is just straight forward. But I've often felt that I am missing a portion of understanding.

This is a great topic to discuss. I find it rather difficult to interpret also.

Luke highlights a collection of things Jesus said related to preparing for the coming judgment. The urgency to prepare for that day. This parable seems to teach that people are being really dumb for not preparing for the day of accounting. As if they are going to live forever with no urgent effort to prepare. But I don't quite grasp the wording at the end. Is it facetious?

 

[Amanuensis]

The dead were preached the gospel to and they that heard the voice of the Son of God; those that heard will live. Not sure what’s unclear to you about the quoted scriptures, but I’m going with what the Bible says. Post-mortem evangelism is theologically sound. As to whether or not Jesus still does it is a matter of speculation, but at one point He obviously did it. As to whether or not anyone got saved is not the point. Evangelism does not require converts.

I don't know that postmortem evangelism means. You would have to explain your theory and why you think these scriptures you posted support it.

 

[RichMan]

What Verse or Passage of scripture do you find difficult to interpret. Let's see if we can discover authorial intent using the rules of hermeneutics.

"Interpreting" Scriptures leads to all kinds of false teaching and understanding.
I just accept what it says.

 

[Magenta]

I didn’t make any assumptions, I simply asked a few questions. 😊❤️

That was my post from the other thread... I simply copied it over

 

[Amanuensis]

"Interpreting" Scriptures leads to all kinds of false teaching and understanding.
I just accept what it says.

Our goal as the reader is to identify what the author intended to communicate to our understanding.

"what it says" = "what he expected us to understand by the use of those words and sentences"

This is an interpretation based on following agreed upon rules of reading comprehension. Violate one or more of those rules and you get two people arguing over "what it says" both claiming to be sticking to "what it says"

How do you identify which one is sticking to what it says? Rules of language. Word definitions. Sentence rules. Original language, immediate context, surrounding context, cultural context, theological context. etc.

We are always interpreting sentences. You can't read without that. The question is whether you are interpreting them correctly. Correctly means identifying what the author intended for you to understand.

If the author was here and you could ask him. "Paul, what did you mean when you said that sentence?" and he would explain it to you maybe a bit more verbose or using different words what would he most likely say? Since we can't ask him we can use rules of interpretation to get as close to that answer as possible.

I know that I am being obvious but I also know that it helps people to state the obvious sometimes.

 

[Amanuensis]

I just addressed some of these questions on another thread!

Why do people think anyone was in Nod when Cain arrived? Why not assume he went there with his wife? Just because she conceived there does not mean he met her there, or that he married her there, or never knew her in either manner of speaking, before he/they got there. Cain built the city he lived in. How do we interpret that? It can be interpreted to mean that Cain and his descendants were the originators of that city. Even if people were there before he arrived, why assume they were not relatives of his as the population grew, and naturally spread into outlying areas? People jump to so many wrong conclusions making assumptions that are not in any way supported by the text, and then compound their error by refusing to acknowledge what is in the text.

Yes, Cain and his kids built it. Why would one man need a city. The city was the dwelling place of his clan which was large after a hundred years no doubt.

I would assume that the writer of Genesis is saying that the Land of Nod was what his readers understood at the time of writing. That area they now know as the Land of Nod but not that Cain knew it by that name. But I could be wrong.

 

[Aaron56]

The dead were preached the gospel to and they that heard the voice of the Son of God; those that heard will live. Not sure what’s unclear to you about the quoted scriptures, but I’m going with what the Bible says. Post-mortem evangelism is theologically sound. As to whether or not Jesus still does it is a matter of speculation, but at one point He obviously did it. As to whether or not anyone got saved is not the point. Evangelism does not require converts.

I agree. But I also think that those who died before Christ, but were waiting for His appearing, received eternal life. They were held in Abraham's bosom. Until Christ, Death had a right to keep them dead as there was not, yet, victory over death.

Jesus Christ gained victory over Death and Hell by allowing Himself to be killed unrighteously: He had no sin but Death took Him any way. This was against the Law. Upon that violation, the authority of Death and Hell was surrendered to the One who was unlawfully killed and detained. This also explains how the prisoners, once dead, could arise from their graves and walk among the people. They must have received Christ otherwise Death and Hell would have maintained their hold on them.

 

[Aaron56]

This is a great topic to discuss. I find it rather difficult to interpret also.

Luke highlights a collection of things Jesus said related to preparing for the coming judgment. The urgency to prepare for that day. This parable seems to teach that people are being really dumb for not preparing for the day of accounting. As if they are going to live forever with no urgent effort to prepare. But I don't quite grasp the wording at the end. Is it facetious?

Right?! I doubt it is facetious as the Lord had no guile. And why was the servant commended for short-changing his boss? If it was simply about being shrewd I could settle it, but I sense there is something more at stake.

 

[Runningman]

I agree. But I also think that those who died before Christ, but were waiting for His appearing, received eternal life. They were held in Abraham's bosom. Until Christ, Death had a right to keep them dead as there was not, yet, victory over death.

Jesus Christ gained victory over Death and Hell by allowing Himself to be killed unrighteously: He had no sin but Death took Him any way. This was against the Law. Upon that violation, the authority of Death and Hell was surrendered to the One who was unlawfully killed and detained. This also explains how the prisoners, once dead, could arise from their graves and walk among the people. They must have received Christ otherwise Death and Hell would have maintained their hold on them.

Love the way you broke that down. As far as I can tell it seems to jive with scripture very well. Very eye-opening too. Some of those points I’ve never considered. I feel like a kid on Christmas with a new toy. 😊

 

[Mem]

Our goal as the reader is to identify what the author intended to communicate to our understanding.

"what it says" = "what he expected us to understand by the use of those words and sentences"

This is an interpretation based on following agreed upon rules of reading comprehension. Violate one or more of those rules and you get two people arguing over "what it says" both claiming to be sticking to "what it says"

How do you identify which one is sticking to what it says? Rules of language. Word definitions. Sentence rules. Original language, immediate context, surrounding context, cultural context, theological context. etc.

We are always interpreting sentences. You can't read without that. The question is whether you are interpreting them correctly. Correctly means identifying what the author intended for you to understand.

If the author was here and you could ask him. "Paul, what did you mean when you said that sentence?" and he would explain it to you maybe a bit more verbose or using different words what would he most likely say? Since we can't ask him we can use rules of interpretation to get as close to that answer as possible.

I know that I am being obvious but I also know that it helps people to state the obvious sometimes.

It would appear "obvious" now days that if we use the word 'unicorn' everyone would assume we're talking about fanciful horses so, I often wonder what else might've been "sensationalized" to make it seem more, well, idk, less mundane and common and more "out of this worldly." You see, I've come to the conclusion that the most 'mundane,' should be considered miraculous and wonderfully fantastic phenomena, such as the breathing we take for granted as a 'normal' function of life. And so thinking, I've been brought and have yet to reach any definitive answer to the question I find difficult to interpret. That is, "Whom, or maybe even 'what', if I'm aiming for exactness, are angels?"

Psalm 104:4 He makes the winds his messengers, flames of fire His servants.

And addressing the current conversation; I interpret spirits in prison as the convicted and sentenced, and bound by the law, whether they regarded the law or not, as explained, the majority did not. Considering the question of "what did Jesus preach?" led me to this conclusion as "faith in the God's Word (of coming judgment in flood form) and deliverance (in the form of the Ark) to those who believe it (eight in the instance of Noah's time).

 

[Amanuensis]

It would appear "obvious" now days that if we use the word 'unicorn' everyone would assume we're talking about fanciful horses so, I often wonder what else might've been "sensationalized" to make it seem more, well, idk, less mundane and common and more "out of this worldly." You see, I've come to the conclusion that the most 'mundane,' should be considered miraculous and wonderfully fantastic phenomena, such as the breathing we take for granted as a 'normal' function of life. And so thinking, I've been brought and have yet to reach any definitive answer to the question I find difficult to interpret. That is, "Whom, or maybe even 'what', if I'm aiming for exactness, are angels?"

Psalm 104:4 He makes the winds his messengers, flames of fire His servants.

And addressing the current conversation; I interpret spirits in prison as the convicted and sentenced, and bound by the law, whether they regarded the law or not, as explained, the majority did not. Considering the question of "what did Jesus preach?" led me to this conclusion as "faith in the God's Word (of coming judgment in flood form) and deliverance (in the form of the Ark) to those who believe it (eight in the instance of Noah's time).

I like the way your write.

 

[Amanuensis]

What about this mysterious passage.

If they appeared to people in Jerusalem and were recognized then that would mean they were holy people who had recently died. Maybe the were raised from their sleep in the way that Lazarus was. Maybe that is all that it means. No going up with Jesus is a train and other things I have heard people say.
They probably died again later. I don't know. I have this one on a shelf until I get more information.

What does "appeared to many" mean? Wouldn't that mean they were recognized by those who knew who they were before they died?

Maybe these were recently dead saints in the tombs near Golgotha and when Jesus Cried out with a loud voice they were raised from the dead like Lazarus.

Matthew 27:
50But Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and gave up his spirit.a 51Suddenly, the curtain of the sanctuarya was torn in two from top to bottom, the earth quaked, and the rocks were split. 52The tombs were also openeda and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53And they came out of the tombs after his resurrection, entered the holy city, and appeared to many.

KJV 52And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

John 11:11
He said this, and then he told them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep,a but I’m on my way to wake him up.”

 

[GaryA]

John 5:

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. 25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

The word 'dead' in verse 25 is referring to the spiritually dead.

The last phrase in verse 25 is referring to becoming spiritually alive.

The word 'hear' in verse 25 is referring to 'believing [on] Christ'. (listening, understanding, accepting, trusting)

It is not referring to the physically dead.

 

[Amanuensis]

John 5:

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. 25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

The word 'dead' in verse 25 is referring to the spiritually dead.

The last phrase in verse 25 is referring to becoming spiritually alive.

The word 'hear' in verse 25 is referring to 'believing [on] Christ'. (listening, understanding, accepting, trusting)

Yes I agree with that in the context of John 5 he is talking about being born again.
Like hearing the Gospel and the teachings of Christ and believing it and being given life.

And yet I also do think there is the prophetic application of the resurrection from the dead. That which we see an example of with Lazarus. And maybe another example is intended with the saints coming out of the graves when he cried out loudly on the cross and there was an earthquake. Maybe that was another prophetic example of what is coming. The Son of Man will Speak and the dead will be raised. There is a shout and the voice of the Archangel but the Son of Man is the one who is behind it all. His voice will be the one that causes the bodies to be raised glorified.