Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | An Exegete of Acts 2 | Acts 2:16 | DocTrinsograce | 158939 | ||
In response to the request to give a sound exegete of Acts 2, I offer the following. I apologize that it was written in haste. I hope, however, that everyone who reads it will come away having learned something about properly dividing the Word of God. One of the most valuable principles of sound hermeneutics is that Scripture explains Scripture. This passage is a perfect example. Here we have a didactic message of Peter taking place in a historical narrative. In his sermon, Peter cites an Old Testament passage, quoting it in full. "And it shall be afterward, I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh. And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions. And also I will pour out My Spirit on the slaves and on the slave-girls in those days. And I will give signs in the heavens and in the earth: blood, and fire, and columns of smoke. The sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the coming of the great and awesome day of Jehovah. For it shall be, all who shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be saved. For salvation shall be in Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, as Jehovah has said, and among the survivors whom Jehovah shall call." (Joel 2:28-32 LITV) The wonderful thing is that Peter tells us that this -- what his audience was witnessing there at Pentecost -- was the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy. No one needs to wonder any more about what Joel was talking about at the end of chapter 2 of his prophecy. Scripture has explained Scripture! Now, keep in mind that all such Old Testament prophecy has at least two purposes: It is a message to the people for whom it was written (that is true of all Scripture, of course), as well as a message to God's elect. (I will not, in this post, address the former purpose of Joel's prophecy, as that is beyond the scope of the current discussion.) Peter states clearly that this passage is fulfilled in Pentecost! Consider: What else does he say about it? He launches directly into an evangelical message directed at the very men who were responsible for Christ's crucifixion. Indeed, you will find nothing about normative Christian behavior in this passage. The fact of the matter is this: Peter wasn't giving a sermon on how the church should discover revelation. Indeed, the only revelation that he discusses is the fact that God Himself has spoken through the prophet Joel and through His Son! Joel brings up several points: 1. God will pour out His Spirit on all flesh. This will be apparent for how people will prophecy (declare the truth of God). Which is what was happening all around Peter's audience. 2. God will give signs in the heavens and the earth. These things took place in the ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ. (I'll leave it to the reader to find the appropriate references.) Peter goes on to say that these signs were how God "approved" of Jesus; i.e., gave proof that Jesus was the Messiah (see Acts 2:22). 3. God will save all who call upon His name. Certainly that was happening at Pentecost! Talk about revival! 4. God will bring about salvation to His called in Jerusalem. Again, clearly this was happening. Peter harkens back to this in Acts 2:39. Then Luke affirms this act of God in the 47th verse, making sure we understand that it was the Lord who was adding to the church. So, why did God want this included in His Word? Was it not to magnify the Lord Jesus Christ, as Luke explains the acts of the apostles? A sound hermeneutic never tries to derive normative behavior from narrative. Period. If you want to talk about dreams and visions, don't do it with a passage like this. It just isn't there, folks. Go instead to specific didactic teachings that do, indeed, speak of these things. Derive your doctrines from doctrinal teaching! You can root your doctrines much more soundly in the teachings of Paul, for example, to the church of Corinth. Those passages are much more difficult to refute. But bending the arm of the wrong kind of genre of Scripture into saying something it doesn't say is erroneous at best. We simply are not granted the authority to bend the Word of God to our will, no matter how many tel-evangelists try to persuade you otherwise. In Him, Doc |
||||||
2 | An Exegete of Acts 2 | Acts 2:16 | mark d seyler | 158943 | ||
Hi Doc, I think you made a very thorough presentation of a preterist view of Joel’s prophecy, as referenced by Peter in Acts 2. My only issue with this exegesis of the passage in Acts is that it does not account for all elements of the prophecy quoted. There are exactly 3 places in scripture that speak of the moon becoming blood. Those are Joel 2, Acts 2, and Revelation 6. When during the life of Jesus, or during the times of the apostles, do you see the fulfillment of "Blood, fire, and columns of smoke. The sun will be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood"? You say you will let others find those references, but the truth is that they are not there to be found. The sun was darkened, according to Luke 23:45, but we do not see these other references except in the prophecies of John and Ezekiel. The opening of the sixth seal, and the judgment against Gog and the hordes with him are parallel to this passage, which also both immediately precede the Day of the LORD. A correct exegesis of any scripture must completely and fully harmonize with all the rest of scripture, and to claim that this prophecy was fulfilled in its entirety at that time is to assume facts not in evidence, as these cosmic signs (particularly the blood moon) are not recorded as having happened. To account for all the elements of Joel’s prophecy, I believe it is a prophecy not of just the events of that day, but rather is a prophecy of the Church, which I addressed more fully in my post 158801. Peter did not in fact say “this is the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy”, but he did say “this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel”, which includes the thought of the fulfilling of Joel’s prophecy, but does not come right out and state that it is now a past tense completed fulfillment. But more to the point, let’s ask the question, “What, exactly, was it that Peter meant when he said ‘this’?” “This is that which was spoken of.” The people came because they heard the disciples speaking in their own languages, and asked “what is this?” Peter answered “this is that which was spoken of…”, but it wasn’t the disciple’s speaking in tongues that he was refering to, that was just an outward manifestation. He was refering to the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, citing Joel’s prophecy. “What is this you see happening? You see the pouring out of God’s Spirit. And some will prophecy, and some dream dreams, and some see visions. And you will see signs, in the heavens and on earth.” How do we justify going back and saying that the middle of the prophecy happened before the beginning, and the end happened, well, sometime, we really don’t know when, but it did? What is the textual basis? We are told when the sun is darkened and the moon turns to blood. It will be when John has said it will be, at the openning of the sixth seal, the beginning of the wrath of God, when God removes His church which He founded on that Pentacost. “This, that you see and hear happening, this that Joel wrote about, this is the birth of the Church! The Church that will be filled with the Holy Spirit, that will prophecy, and dream dreams, and see visions! During this time of the Church, you will see signs in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke, the sun darkened, the moon turned to blood, before the Day of the LORD, when this time of the church will be over, because it will be the time of God’s wrath.” Also, would not prophecy mean “to speak forth the words of God” rather than “to declare the truth of God” which I understand you to mean (correct me if I am wrong) “to talk about God”? This passage, if understood in this way (as of the Church), is in complete harmony with Paul’s teachings in Romans 12, Corinthians 12-14, Ephesians 4, and other places that teach us regarding how the Church is empowered, and how it functions. This passage, if understood in this way, let’s us see the God’s plan for the Church concealed in the Old Testament, and revealed in the New. This passage, if understood this way, is harmony with all other church doctrines. These are my thoughts. (I didn’t get them from televangelists) Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
3 | An Exegete of Acts 2 | Acts 2:16 | jlhetrick | 159005 | ||
Hi Mark, Thanks for putting this issue into proper, contextual perspective. It's unfortunate that others will pick and choose (not to mention leave out) scripture in order to support their argument; and then send the less learned on a wild goose chase after something that's not there. That is not very good bible study (not to mention bad teaching methods). I have studied this passage in context and heared it taught on several times. I have never had it presented to me in the way that Doc did. I gave considerable time to his post and, like you, couldn't line it up with scripture. I'm not trying to degrade him I just don't understand why he continues to do this post after post. Your post on the other hand was very well laid out and supported with scripture in context. Thanks for that. It is a very dangerous thing to manipulate scripture to make it make your point, especially for those witnessing that are trying to learn. Thanks for taking the time to study and put things in their proper perspective. Jeff |
||||||
4 | An Exegete of Acts 2 | Acts 2:16 | mark d seyler | 159099 | ||
Hi Jeff, Thank you for your kind works and support. I appreciate your interest in determining the correct way to view this passage. For what it's worth, I don't think Doc is just trying to make his point at any cost, I think he is intending to share the conclusions he has honestly arrived at, and honestly believes. I have no criticism of Doc, I simply disagree with him. You and he are both my beloved brothers, and I pray that the defining feature of our interactions with be love, In Christ, Mark |
||||||
5 | An Exegete of Acts 2 | Acts 2:16 | jlhetrick | 159153 | ||
Hi Mark, I appreciate your position with Doc. I am not trying to criticize Doc for the sake of criticisim. I am offended as are others at the way he approaches this forum. As though he is the end all authority on scripture. He belittles others and disregards honest questions people have about his posts. His behavior should be unacceptable on the forum. There can be no honest and otherwise appropriate study and dialogue when one who claims such authority expects others to except it and refuses to address honest questions regarding his statements. We all struggle with pride but it is much more obvious in some. A perfect example is that he did not simply disagree with you as you say you do him. No, he simply refused to honestly debate the disagreement in order to do the best justice to the issue and those looking on. I may be wrong, I didn't check before responding now, but I don't think he even responded to your clear teaching which was, well, impossible to dispute as the word of God always is. Instead he jumped right in with the intentions (I'm sure) of minimizing my responses and "clouding" the issue by redirecting the topic. Really pay attention to his post and I believe it will be clear. Doc is my brother too. And many who read and follow the threads on this forum are our brothers and sisters as well. We can't allow any who might convince themselves that their understanding and conclusions are authoratative, to behave irresponsibly by disregarding the honest efforts of others. Nor should we allow them to declare truth that they are unable or unwilling to support with scripture. It doesn't work that way. Finally, I don't believe that I stated anywhere that Doc was trying to make his point "at any cost". What I do believe is that pride sometimes stands in the way of one ever excepting that he/she may be wrong or from excepting that he/she may not know. And it is possible to share a conclusin that you have come to honestly and honestly believe without attempting to be intellectually offensive. Doc has a lot of knowledge that can possibly be turned to wisdom. I have learned from many of his post. I have also been left very concerned by some too. Sincerely, Jeff |
||||||
6 | An Exegete of Acts 2 | Acts 2:16 | Wild Olive Shoot | 159156 | ||
I’m going to offer my opinion on this whether it is warranted or not. Personally, I disagree with your assessment of Doc and what he offers to the forum and will confidently state there are far many more that would also disagree with you than agree. It’s obvious that Doc has come to his standing and belief based on years of diligently searching Scripture for the truth and has formed his opinions based on those studies. His knowledge and elucidation of what he has learned to others, has proven to be nothing less than helpful in my search for the truth and I’m sure he has been more helpful than not to many more. I say this knowing that I have at times disagreed with Doc on certain subject matter but even so, I would never disregard what he says and would do myself wrong if I did not honestly consider his views. (Just to let you know, in my humble opinion, he has proven worthy and correct time and time again) There are many others using this forum that have known Doc much longer and could state from their experience of how his activity on the forum is helpful. One will find criticism whenever one looks for it. One will also find offense when opinions differ. That’s just life isn’t it? It’s all about the perspective one has when discussing a certain topic. I have found Mark’s post to be as helpful as Doc’s, I just haven’t personally conversed with Mark as often as I would like to. Differing opinions and thorough discussion of a topic is helpful to most forum members, I would assume, as it allows one to research, study and learn and form their own opinion. What kind of world would we live in if we couldn’t form our own opinions and then respectfully share those with others? I guess I’ll leave my two cents at that. I think both Doc and Mark have proven to be nothing less than beneficial to the forum, or at least in my short experience with it. To be honest, I’ve seen harsh criticism on the forum, not siding one way or another as to whether or not it was called for, but Doc’s posts are what I would consider, mild mannered, compared to some. You stated: “What I do believe is that pride sometimes stands in the way of one ever excepting that he/she may be wrong or from excepting that he/she may not know.” Pride will also stand in the way of one accepting another’s personal views that disagree with their own and can even lead to rash and harsh criticism when we feel we have been belittled, when in fact, that may not have been the case. Respectfully, WOS |
||||||
7 | An Exegete of Acts 2 | Acts 2:16 | jlhetrick | 159195 | ||
Hello WOS, Thaks for the post. I won't be long winded here because I wont allow this to turn into a situation of splitting by those who wish to make more of my comments than was intended or plainly stated. Let me just say this. A "battering" is a "battering", whether it's done intellectually or not. I agree that personal views are appropriate and helpful, it's the unsupported declaration of truth that I have a problem with. If you were to research my post (well for one you would be bored) you would see that I too have openly defended Doc when other's didn't agree with his post. But when I did so it was because he was right. He was right because scripture, taken appropriately in context, said he was right. lets let the personal opinions help in our study, lets not let it attempt to add to scripture what is not clearly there. Dangerous. Again, sincere thanks for your post. It is always helpful for me to read how others are reading into what I post. Sincerely, Jeff |
||||||