Are you ready to rightly divide the word of truth?
- Thread starter John Zain
- Start date
I cannot believe you are arguing that Peter did not know what he was talking about!
The only response I can make to this is that at Pentacost the HOLY SPIRIT spoke through Peter. That is the whole point of the dramatic change that overcame the disciples at Pentacost. To say Peter did not know what he was talking about is to say the Holy Spirit did not know what He was talking about.
I will leave it to others to judge your argument for themselves.
Yes. I believe Peter as well. (That should not be a question IMO).
I do not believe that the pouring out of the Holy Spirit as posted in Acts by Peter is the event Joel was speaking of and I so stated that opinion.
My comment in post # 76 was..........
" The Joel passage describes the supernatural activity of God’s Spirit at work in events surrounding a yet future coming of Christ. Thus, Peter’s point is that of similarity or analogy between what the Holy Spirit will do in the future with the nation of Israel and what He was doing in the first century when the church was founded."
Now, do I believe in the "INDWELLING" of the Holy Spirit as the moment of salvation.....ABSOLUTELY my dear friend. What Christian dosen't? In fact, can one be in Christ WITHOUT the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit???
Am I a servant of Christ?
Does my postings sound to you as if I am not a servant of Christ and if so...which ones my brother???
Again I say to you that we all do not share the same opinions of certain Bibical things. In this case, neither one of use can be wrong...just different.
So, as we discuss the CONTEXT, moving on.........
"This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel." there is nothing in the words to tell us what is "this" and what is "that". The word "this" is emphatic and the word "But", with which Peter's argument begins, sets what follows in contrast. This shows that the quotation was used to rebut the charge of drunkenness (v. 13)
So far from these signs and wonders being a proof that "these men" were drunken, "this", said the apostle is "that" (same kind of thing) which Joel prophesied would take place "in the last days". Peter does not say these were the last days, but this (that follows) is what Joel says of those days. He does not say "then was fulfilled", nor "as it is written", but merely calls attention to what the prophet said of similar scenes yet future. So the CONTEXT or CENTER of discussion is NOT IF it happened or if it will happen but WHEN.
Therefore to understand what Peter really meant by "this is that", we must turn to the prophecy of Joel. And in order to understand that prophecy, we must see exactly what it is about.
1. Is it about the Christian Dispensation?
2. The Dispensation of judgment which is to follow it?
3. Is it about the Jew and the Gentile?
4. Is it about the church of God?
The Structure gives the scope of Joel as a whole, in which occur the "signs" to which Peter points in connection with "this is that". From this it will be seen that the prophecy of Joel links up with the last clause of the "song of Moses" in Deut. 32:43 (see Rev. 15:3), which ends .......................
"And (He) will be merciful unto His Land and to His People."
So Joel 2.18 begins....................
"Then will Jehovah be jealous for His Land, and pity His People."
"THIS", therefore is "THAT". It is the subject-matter and remote context of Acts 2:16. It concerns Jehovah's Land and Jehovah's People, and has consequently nothing to do with the church of this Dispensation. Peter calls "the house of Israel" (v. 36) to the very repentance spoken of in the call to repentance of Joel (1:14 - 2:17.
But the key to the correct understanding of Peter's quotation in my opinion lies in the word "afterward" of Joel 2:28. The question is, after what? This we can learn only from Joel himself. Peter does not explain it, nor can we understand it from Peter's words alone.
The Structure again shows us that the whole subject of 2:18 - 3:21 is, --evil removed from the Land and the People, and blessing bestowed on both; and these are set forth alternately. In 2:28, 29 we have spiritual blessings connected with the temporal of the previous verses, introduced thus:
And it shall come to pass AFTERWARD, that I will pour out My spirit upon all flesh,".
After what? The answer is AFTER the temporal blessings of vv. 23-27. It is important to note that the temporal precede the spiritual blessings. The holy spirit was not poured out on all flesh at Pentecost: only on some of those present. None of the great signs in the heavens and on the earth had been shown. No deliverance took place in Jerusalem: both Land and People were still under the Roman yoke.
Always nice to speak with you!
.
Yes the word "but" signifies that what follows it is in contrast to what PRECEDED it. Peter is clearly saying that these men are not drunk as you suppose BUT this is THAT (meaning the very thing) that Joel spoke of when he said ... Then Peter re-emphasizes that point in Acts 2:32.
Now our choices are to believe what Peter actually said, or to raise the question "Did Peter REALLY SAY??...". Or to argue as DOK appears to have done agree that that is what Peter said but he did not know what he was talking about. I have simply chosen the first option.
As to my question "I am a servant of Christ, are you NOT also?" you will note it is in the form of a rhetorical question. The inclusion of the word "not" makes the question based on the presumption you are a servant, not the presumption you are not.
But perhaps you can answer this conundrum. How is it those in Christ can be filled with the Holy Spirit if the Holy Spirit has not yet been poured out on us as you are arguing??
As to Joel's "afterwards" it is now clear that the "afterwards" is the coming (first) of the Messiah and the issuing in of a NEW Covenant between God and man. A covenant in which He will pour out His Spirit on ALL His servants not just selected servants as was the case under the OT. Do you NOT agree (note a rhetorical question just to avoid confusion) that we are now under the NEW covenant of Christ and not the old covenant of Moses?
WOW! I certainly didn't intend for the font to be that size! It wasn't when I reviewed it, then posted! Anyway, I didn't say that Peter didn't know what he was talking about. I intended to point out that he was speaking with the revelation that had been given to him at that time. Obviously, he did not have the revelation of salvation by grace through faith, the secret or mystery that was not revealed until the Apostle Paul. Peter was still ministering in terms of the Law, the oral traditions, the rules, regulations, stipulations of Jewish thought. Peter doesn't comprehend that the message is for Jew and Greek until Acts 10. Not only Paul had to rebuke Peter to his face, but the Son of God, as well!
The size of the font was not what troubles me but your apology for it is accepted. These days we all make "technos" as well as typos.
That you elevate the authority of Paul above the authority of Peter is no less worrying to me for Paul certainly does not. But regarding the matter under discussion where exactly does Paul correct the words of Peter at Pentacost?
The Jew v Gentile question did not raise itself at Pentacost because Acts 2 makes the point that those Peter was addressing were all Jews from many parts of the world and Peter addresses them as "Ye men of Israel". And later in Acts 2:36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly. ".
Please appreciate my concern when i say the argument you make is without Biblical foundation nor is it relevant in this instance.
The "argument" (rather, the defense of the Gospel) is relevant when one refers to the original topic for this thread, "rightly dividing." Our failure to rightly divide (rightly interpret scripture literally-historically, with due regard for the audience involved, is at the heart of the denominational furor of today. We simply cannot place Judaism and Christianity in a blender, mix for a 200 generations, and pronounce that we are practicing exegesis, led by the Holy Spirit, that we can readily share with others. Many millions have utterly, totally, without a second thought, ignored the audience in Acts 2! They have scooped up Acts 2:22 and 29 thru 38 and presented it as "gospel" for we Christians! It is not, and was not intended to be. We Christians erroneously do the same with one scripture after another. The writer reported literally what was said to which audience in an historical context under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and denominations extracted the information and gave it their slant! I can post the entire contents of my "argument," but I suspect that folks would either announce that they were confused by it all, or simply grow tired of reading it!
I only said that Dok's font size was just an accident.
I'm sorry Dok but this, again, was said in a very irresponsible way. Just like what mistmann has pointed out originally, Peter clearly had the Holy Spirit when that spiritual phenomena was happening in Acts 2. From what I've seen here, there are statements that a Holy Spirit-led believer would not say.
Peter answered the men who heard them speaking in tongues (spiritual phenomena) by quoting the Prophet Joel.
Acts 2:11-21
11Cretans and Arabs--we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God."
12So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "Whatever could this mean?"
13Others mocking said, "They are full of new wine."
14But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words.
15For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day.
16But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
The Prophet Joel, being quoted by Peter here, talks about the Promise of God to send the Holy Spirit upon the world. Joel carries it into the 2nd coming of Christ through the great tribulation period.
17'And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams.
18And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; And they shall prophesy.
19I will show wonders in heaven above And signs in the earth beneath: Blood and fire and vapor of smoke.
20The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord.
21And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be saved.'
Therefore, Peter, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, knew about the great tribulation and Christ's second coming.
I took DOK's explanation of it being unintended as also an apology for it. It just seemed polite to aknowledge and accept it as the rest of the posting seemed to be a response to me. In truth I hadn't even paid much attention to the font, only the content.
May I ask, have any of you reviewed the Book of Joel as you are discussing this? Afterall, that is key to understanding, since Peter specifically states the prophesy is being fulfilled at Pentecost.
I'm just asking because it appears to me you are all only focusing on verse 28 and not considering the context of the chapter.
Ginger
I'm just asking because it appears to me you are all only focusing on verse 28 and not considering the context of the chapter.
Ginger
Misty, with all due respect to you as learned man of God, you appear to be "forceing" what you want to see in the Scriptures.
Your comment was...............
"Now our choices are to believe what Peter actually said, or to raise the question "Did Peter REALLY SAY??...". Or to argue as DOK appears to have done agree that that is what Peter said but he did not know what he was talking about. I have simply chosen the first option".
And I have chosen the SECOND option my friend.
IMO, and reaing the Scripture AS THEY ARE,...........
Acts 2:16
"But this is THAT which was spoken by the prophet Joel".
Peter uses the prophecy as an answer to the cynical, unbelieving mocker. This is his purpose for quoting it.
He says clearly 'THIS IS THAT", WHICH IS SAYING...this is similar to ..... this is like that.
He DOES NOT SAY THAT THIS IS THE FULFILLMENT of that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.
Now when we read Acts 2:17-21 we have listed for us what is to come.
17 ‘ And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God,
That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
Your young men shall see visions,
Your old men shall dream dreams.
18 And on My menservants and on My maidservants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days;
And they shall prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in heaven above
And signs in the earth beneath:
Blood and fire and vapor of smoke.
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD.
21 And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls upon the Lord shall be saved."
I do not see how anyone can claim that on the Day of Pentacost the moon turned to blood or that the sun was was turned to darkness. There was 3 hours of darkness on the day Christ was crucified BUT NOT on the Day of Pentecost.
Neither were there wonders of heaven above nor signs in the earth beneath. There was NOT blood and fire and a vapor of smoke. Peter quotes this passage to these mockers to show them that the pouring out of the Spirit of God should not be strange to them. Joel had predicted it, AND IT WILL COME TO PASS.
Notice verse #17............"And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God".
When you read Joel you will see that he is the 1st writing prophet and he is the 1st prophet to use the phrase "DAY OF THE LORD"/ LAST DAYS.
Pentecost WAS NOT THE DAY OF THE LORD! The day of the Lord will begin the with the Great Tribulation Period. It will go on to the Millennioum Period. Joel talks ablout the fact that that time will be a time of war, judgment. THAT HAS NOT YET BEEN FULFILLED, and it was not fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost.
It just isn't there my friend. IF YOU CHOOSE to put it there, then that is of course your doing.
Now to your question of ....
"How is it those in Christ can be filled with the Holy Spirit if the Holy Spirit has not yet been poured out on us as you are arguing??"
1st of all.....I am not ARGUING. I am simple stateing what I understand in this situation just as you are stating yours. NO ARGUMENT.
Acts 2:4..........
"And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."
Were they filled with the Holy Ghost? YES!
Jesus had told them already in Acts 1:4-5.............
"And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
The fact that they were filled with the Holy Spirit tells us that all the other ministries of the Holy Spirit to believers in this age had already been performed.
1st......They were REGENERATED by the Holy Spirit of God. ......................... (John 3:5).
2nd....They were INDWELT by the Holy Spirit of God............................ (Rom. 8:9)
3rd.....They were SEALED by the Spirit into an eternal relationship with God. (Eph 1:13-14).
4th.....They were BAPTIZED of the Holy SPirit....................................................(Acts 1:5).
When the filling of the Holy Spirit took place on Pentacost, it indicated that the other four ministries of the Holy Spirit had been accomplished. The filling of the Holy Spirit was for SERVICE. The experience of the Day of Pentacost came from the FILLING of the Holy Spirit (not the the baptism of the Spirit). It is still the same today IMO.
Gemma,
Please note on post #76 my comment was.....................
Dear Misty, we have had this discusssion before and in fact your responce is the reason why I said to you that you "appear" to be PRETERIST in your theology. That is NOT a condemming comment, simply an observation on my part. Having said that, lets see what it is we are speaking about, shall we?
I did not say he was or is, only that it appears he has that theology. I do not know one way or the other, only IMHO. And since that posting, Misty has not said that he does not have that way of thinking.
Always good to hear from you! I pray all is well with you today.
That is because I have already told you a number of times Major that I am not. Must I keep repeating it because you keep inferring I am?? How many times must I refute it before you stop saying it?
I am not judging anyone. I have enough problems on my own without judging others of theirs.
I am not taking sides but simply making an observation on this idea of Peter not knowing what he was talking about.
Do we think that every prophet and or spokesman for God knew what they were saying when they spoke???
Weren't the prophets being obedient and giving out the Word of God as it was given to them, and a lot of the time they simply said the Word of God without understanding what they were saying.
Just something for all think about!
My apologies to you.
Yes Ginger I have. Extensively I might add, and that is where my understanding of Acts 2 is rooted in.
Excellent observation.
