Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Acts 2:33 (*Promise*) | Acts 2:33 | Ray | 72806 | ||
Hi Logix, You have written words like "he has poured forth his spirit". I am a person who capitalizes pronouns of Deity because I believe that it is one way that we show that we "exalt" Him and show that He is God. So if you were to write "He has poured forth His spirit" then I would see Him exalted even through that means. I like the desire that you have expressed of exulting Jesus, but I do not agree that the "promise" is the exalted Jesus. May I suggest that the promise is the gift of the holy spirit. Acts 2:38, "...and you shall receive the gift of the *holy *spirit. For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself." Our translations capitalize Holy Spirit, but I do not believe that the Person is spoken of here in verse 38. I believe that the holy spirit is what is poured out and is what the people both saw and heard. I put in lower case the "Spirit" in Acts 2:18, "Even upon My bondslaves, both men and women, I will in those days pour forth of My *spirit And they shall prophesy." Yet I believe the Holy Spirit is a Person: Acts 2:33 to my mind could also read, "and having received from the Father the Holy Spirit's promise, He has poured forth this [holy spirit] that you both see and hear." What do you think? May God indeed guide us. From the heart, Ray |
||||||
2 | Acts 2:33 (*Promise*) | Acts 2:33 | logix | 72825 | ||
You have made a valid argument. In view of what we have both said, could this verse not be rendered as, The Two Promises of Acts 2:33? Something like; The promise of the Father to Jesus, and the promise of Jesus to his disciples. We both agree that Peter is refering to the promised Holy Spirit in the last phrase of Acts 2:33. But, we disagree about the usage of the term *promise in the first line of the verse. I believe you properly defined the promise in Acts 2:38 as being Jesus's promise to the disciples. But what of the exaltation? Jesus could not send the Holy Spirit until He had been exalted. I think Peter is saying that Jesus has recieved the promise of the Father [the Holy Spirit], and is now giving to his followers, his promise; the gift of the Holy Spirit. I think one argument which may be a solid refutation to my idea is, that here Peter is qouted in the Aorist tense. Therefore it appears he is not concerned with the order of events; Peter simply knows the promises are fulfilled. This may be why the translators placed the emphesis of the *promise in Acts 2:33 on the Holy Spirit. If Peter was not concerned with order, and the rest of his sermon deals with the gift of the Holy Spirit, then the emphesis of promise in Acts 2:33 should be on (that) promise, the promised Holy Spirit. This may have been their line of reasoning. However, I think that the Dual Promises of Acts 2:33 best captures what Peter was trying to say. I believe this (for now) because of a strong Hebrew idiom, (I think) is at the root of what Peter is saying. Even with the book of Acts being written in Greek, we cannot remove from its message the Hebrew mindest of its characters. So much to learn, so little time..... God Bless, logix ****Bless****means, speak well of! May God speak well of you! Spoke the world into existence...imagine when He speaks of you? :) |
||||||