ECT Peter in Acts 3:21 on the Gospel since time began

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
What Peter is saying in Acts 3:21 is very significant for the whole Bible. He says that the reception of Christ by heaven on behalf of sinful man has been expressed by all the prophets since the world began. There it is; it's a lot to swallow. It is what the Bible had been saying since Genesis 3, blurred by the tutorial stage of Judaism.

One difficult expression is 'whom heaven must receive.' This is not a time-frame or chronological language as much as it is about the approval of Christ on behalf of sinful mankind. He has been accepted because he was holy and his life was perfect and would not see corruption, as the Psalms had said. The D'ists have switched this over to a primarily chronological concern--because that is what they are primarily concerned about! Not with justification from our sins. If they would really grasp how central the redemptive message is, they wouldn't spend so much time in time-puzzle-problem-solving.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
:chuckle:
Click to expand...


Just look into what would be the difficulty of heaven receiving Messiah. The apostles were give the task of teaching the astonishing fact that we now had a man in heaven! His life was approved by God the judge and therefore resurrected from death itself. It is very much about the issue stated. How can God accept sinful mankind? By His acceptance of Christ. That is how we ourselves gain access into this grace, Rom 5.

Peter was saying that Heaven itself (a Judaistic way of referring to God) is required to accept what Christ has done for mankind until the end of time when there will be the proper reward given to Christ.

Nothing chronological about distant modern Israel was meant. Not a shred.
 
steko

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Interplanner said:
What Peter is saying in Acts 3:21 is very significant for the whole Bible. He says that the reception of Christ by heaven on behalf of sinful man has been expressed by all the prophets since the world began. There it is; it's a lot to swallow. It is what the Bible had been saying since Genesis 3, blurred by the tutorial stage of Judaism.

One difficult expression is 'whom heaven must receive.' This is not a time-frame or chronological language as much as it is about the approval of Christ on behalf of sinful mankind. He has been accepted because he was holy and his life was perfect and would not see corruption, as the Psalms had said. The D'ists have switched this over to a primarily chronological concern--because that is what they are primarily concerned about! Not with justification from our sins. If they would really grasp how central the redemptive message is, they wouldn't spend so much time in time-puzzle-problem-solving.
Click to expand...

'until/Grk achri' is a time word.
The context with the word 'achri' makes it a chronological concern.
 
Bradley D

Bradley D

Well-known member
The Bible tells me to be ready each day.

"Take heed, keep on the alert; for you do not know when the appointed time will come" (Mark 13:33).

I live on a daily chronological order.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
steko said:
'until/Grk achri' is a time word.
The context with the word 'achri' makes it a chronological concern.
Click to expand...


Of course, there are conditions on earth now UNTIL the 2nd coming. That is much different from 883 working parts to a 'clock' that have to be all fitted perfect. I just listened to a teacher on Joel 3 and whatever spiritual value was there was completely lost in this non-knowledge of fitting everything into an utter hodge podge of a chronology in which the nation Israel is both spiritual and secular at the same time. No thanks.

What matters to Judaism, what is shocking, about what Peter is saying, is that God has accepted Christ's work--a man, a HUMAN has been allowed to enter heaven! On behalf of us all. That stands to the end of human history.

"If justification by Christ is lost, all doctrine is lost and darkness." --Luther
(Justification is to be accepted by God in Christ)
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
jamie said:
Would God abandon his eldest son? Not a chance. Jesus is the King of Israel.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but your objection is not worth dealing with. Christ is the one recieved by heaven/God in this verse. Obviously he is not abandoned. The sin upon him was abandoned in his saying 'why have your forsaken me?'--that was the baggage of ours being carried by Christ.

As for the Israel, you must have missed what the apostles are saying in Ephesians 2-3, the most widely circulated document of the 1st generation. There is nothing in Rom 2, 8, 11, Acts 17, I cor 15, 2 Pet 3, 2 Tim 4, Heb 9 about Israel the nation needing to be in their land for the 2nd coming in judgement to take place.

The NT is full of the declaration that the kingdom is now in action, in force. It is actually the 'reign' of God which exists through the Gospel and the proclamation of it. God compels sinful men to obey him through it. So proclaim away, but don't waste any time on amateur D'ist eschatology and chronologies.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Thanks PJ for your agreement and enjoyment. Heaven receives Christ on our behalf. It has to. His work was perfect. It had to resurrect him for the same reason.

The idea that Peter or others were expressing the great grace of God so passionately and then just sort of doinked into eschatology now and then to make all the the little puzzly pieces fit just perfect is as much sense as a fish needing a fire. They did of course make harsh warnings to Israel about what would happen in that generation, like Christ had. If they did not believe the message of justification from sins, they would be disinherited.

But we knew that because those who have faith, whether female or Barbarian, share in the promises to Israel, says Eph 2-3.
 
jamie

jamie

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Interplanner said:
As for the Israel, you must have missed what the apostles are saying in Ephesians 2-3, the most widely circulated document of the 1st generation. There is nothing in Rom 2, 8, 11, Acts 17, I cor 15, 2 Pet 3, 2 Tim 4, Heb 9 about Israel the nation needing to be in their land for the 2nd coming in judgement to take place.
Click to expand...

I said nothing about land. The Israel of God has been transformed to Spirit by Christ's Spirit.

But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. (Romans 8:9)​

Jesus said he was sent to the lost sheep of Israel, and here we are.
 
D

Danoh

New member
Amusing, Inter - that you assumed PJ, of all people, was agreeing with you. To quote him :chuckle:
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Danoh, since you don't know what the Bible is saying, I'm not sure you know what PJ is saying. I'll let him speak for himself.

That's the ambiguity of icons instead of language and propositions.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
My mistake not to include v24 in the overall understanding of what Peter is saying here. He's saying that what the prophets were referring to were 'these present days.' This confirms again:

1, that the apostles thought that everything eschatological was about to happen--the judgement of Israel and then the judgement and renovation of the whole earth. Romans 2 still sounds this way in 56 AD. Luke (Paul's teaching through Luke) sounds this way about the DofJ. Luke does not mention a delay option like Mk 13 or Mt 24. Nor does Paul in I Cor 7 and many other places.

2, Christ already is the chosen Messiah for this Jewish audience. But of course, he doesn't do anything among those who don't believe. There is no sense at all that this passage is about some other time period when they will if they don't now! There is the harshest of warnings if they don't believe now! Extirpation is to disinherit. This fact is the most egregious about D'ism--thinking that this is not the last call to Israel.

3, The TEV and NIV went with the least frequent usage and changed the subject and object by saying 'he must remain in heaven.' It is not that sense at all. 'Heaven' is a Judaistic way of referring to God and is the one doing the action of this verb 'dexasthai.' The usual meaning of 'dechomai' (the base form) is to grant approval, to receive, to accept, to accept hospitably. So they really doinked into futurism on that one. Thumbs down.

4, The TEV and even the NIV missed the verb tense. It is 'Heaven received him' (aorist).

5, This imagery of being received by heaven originates in Ps 24 and Dt 30 about 'who would be allowed to be received by heaven?' 'Who can stand in the holy place?' This is exegeted in Rom 10:5+ and is a core doctrine of justification, or at least when explaining it to Jews. The 'God raised him from the dead' of v9 is also in this sense. It is not a question of whether God can raised the dead at all, but whether Christ's righteousness (AKA the righteousness of faith in the context of the chapter) was acceptable to God for sinful mankind. Praise God it was! The believer no longer wonders how a person can be accepted by God, nor whether a representative victim who suffers for mankind can be brought back from the dead!

Lewis captured this beautifully in LION, WITCH AND WARDROBE when post-resurrected Aslan explains the ancient law of the universe of Narnia: 'When a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor's stead, the Table would crack and death itself would start turning backwards.'

Peter and Paul in fundamental agreement...
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
My mistake not to include v24 in the overall understanding of what Peter is saying here. He's saying that what the prophets were referring to were 'these present days.' This confirms again:

1, that the apostles thought that everything eschatological was about to happen--the judgement of Israel and then the judgement and renovation of the whole earth. Romans 2 still sounds this way in 56 AD. Luke (Paul's teaching through Luke) sounds this way about the DofJ. Luke does not mention a delay option like Mk 13 or Mt 24. Nor does Paul in I Cor 7 and many other places.

2, Christ already is the chosen Messiah for this Jewish audience. But of course, he doesn't do anything among those who don't believe. There is no sense at all that this passage is about some other time period when they will if they don't now! There is the harshest of warnings if they don't believe now! Extirpation is to disinherit. This fact is the most egregious about D'ism--thinking that this is not the last call to Israel.

3, The TEV and NIV went with the least frequent usage and changed the subject and object by saying 'he must remain in heaven.' It is not that sense at all. 'Heaven' is a Judaistic way of referring to God and is the one doing the action of this verb 'dexasthai.' The usual meaning of 'dechomai' (the base form) is to grant approval, to receive, to accept, to accept hospitably. So they really doinked into futurism on that one. Thumbs down.

4, The TEV and even the NIV missed the verb tense. It is 'Heaven received him' (aorist).

5, This imagery of being received by heaven originates in Ps 24 and Dt 30 about 'who would be allowed to be received by heaven?' 'Who can stand in the holy place?' This is exegeted in Rom 10:5+ and is a core doctrine of justification, or at least when explaining it to Jews. The 'God raised him from the dead' of v9 is also in this sense. It is not a question of whether God can raised the dead at all, but whether Christ's righteousness (AKA the righteousness of faith in the context of the chapter) was acceptable to God for sinful mankind. Praise God it was! The believer no longer wonders how a person can be accepted by God, nor whether a representative victim who suffers for mankind can be brought back from the dead!

Lewis captured this beautifully in LION, WITCH AND WARDROBE when post-resurrected Aslan explains the ancient law of the universe of Narnia: 'When a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor's stead, the Table would crack and death itself would start turning backwards.'

Peter and Paul in fundamental agreement...
Click to expand...

There you have it, folks; the books based Bible "expert."

Your problem, Interplanner is that you have wasted decades in the writings of men supposedly about the Bible. You come away from all that concluding you know what's what.

Fact is you are Biblically illiterate - your every post littered with someone else's conclusions along with a dash of your own based on said conclusions.

You consistently misquote Scripture references while very adept at talking the endless histories you continue to waste your time in.

I know you alright - you are a carbon copy of countless others just like you.

But it is too late for you to see this obvious problem.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Danoh said:
There you have it, folks; the books based Bible "expert."

Your problem, Interplanner is that you have wasted decades in the writings of men supposedly about the Bible. You come away from all that concluding you know what's what.

Fact is you are Biblically illiterate - your every post littered with someone else's conclusions along with a dash of your own based on said conclusions.

You consistently misquote Scripture references while very adept at talking the endless histories you continue to waste your time in.

I know you alright - you are a carbon copy of countless others just like you.

But it is too late for you to see this obvious problem.
Click to expand...


The problem with dealing with you Danoh is that most posts are like the above: pounds of insults and discreditation, but 'saved' in Rom 11's quote of Isaiah never gets answered--you simply won't deal with the theocracy, or show how a restored Israel is NOT a theocracy (I'll take either).

As you can see from the exegetical work above, I spend time in the original and notice the mistakes of mostly worthwhile translations. (The ABS uses the TEV as the parallel for their Greek text workbook format; ie, the ABS considers it worthwhile enough for that). I did not get those thoughts from 'books' unless you are now speaking derisively of the originals!!! I wouldn't put it past you!

It is not a misquote of Scripture to say that 'saved' in Rom 11 is about justification from the debt of sin. It is exactly why it quotes Isaiah. The two meant the same thing. As did John the Baptist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top