In Response to: Principles of Interpretation

[writer4hisglory]

I was reading the thread, but by the time I got through with it and had worked up my reply, it was gone. This is, by and large, a post specifically for Epouraniosis, and I think the issues brought up within it transcend what was spoken specifically within the work that was done in the referred to thread. I look forward to our interaction.My Response:Epouraniosis, I have just finished reading through the first part of your 2 part lesson, and must say that I have enjoyed it very much, and I thank you for the work that you have put into it. There are a few questions that I have, and I am sure that you will answer them as best as you can. I can see that we are bound to get along quite well here on the boards as we both like to place great emphasis on what the word of God says, rather than what we feel the word of God should say, and that is greatly lacking in many of the contemporary circles. I agree with your assessment that we must not be focused so much on what the gifts are that we have received, but rather upon the unification of the body of Christ, and with the proper use of these gifts, such unification will come. Is this the main point of your work here, to encourage us in this manner? There is a bit of a difference between you and I, and that shall affect how we come to conclusions on certain passages, and even whole books that are in the New Testament. I do not believe that this difference, however, will affect us much within the Old Testament. You draw a line at Acts 28:28 for the beginning of the Church, and before that, the Church was Jewish and nothing but (am I correct in making this statement?). I, however, hold that the Church began on the day of Pentecost, and although it was greatly Jewish for a time (all that were present at the Pentecost were devout Jews from every nation Acts 2:5) the Church was not specifically for the Jews alone, but for every nation, tribe and tongue, as seen within the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations , baptizing them in the name of the father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the age.” Amen. Matthew 28:19-20. The command from Christ to His disciples at this time was to go out among all the nations. We see another break in the logic that the Church began at Acts 28:28 (and that the epistles written before then were for the Jewish Church rather than the Gentile Church) in Acts 10 when Peter is commanded to minister the house of Cornelius, a gentile, the vision showing that the “unclean” Gentiles were just as much part of the Church as were the “clean” Jews. What of the time that Paul went to Athens, while there were Jews there (hence the synagogue) Paul also ministered to the Greeks (Acts 17:22-34). Romans 11 is written about the Jews to the Gentiles who were the branch grafted in. Why would it make sense that the branch that was cut off for the moment (the Jews) would immediately be grafted back on, but then exhorted that they could just as easily be taken off because they were not the original branch? While Acts 28:28 does mention that the gospel was going out to the Gentiles, it is simply stating what has already been going on for some time before that verse. I hope this makes sense. Your distinction in Acts 28:28 does make sense, and you are not the only one who holds to it, though it is not a widely held view (which neither affirms or discredits the viewpoint – there are more covenant theologians than there are dispensationalists, but I do not believe that covenant theologians are correct in their conclusions). This, therefore, affects much of what you write in your exhortation here and thus, I do not agree with a lot of what you have written. But let it be known that I do agree with your underlying argument of this paper for unity with the gifts. Just a few other points: 1 Corinthians 12:6, the book that you mention is before the Gentile Church, makes mention that those whom Paul is addressing were at one time Gentiles given over to dumb idols. If the Church were for the Jews at this point, there would be no mention of them being at one time Gentiles. The argument could be made that they had to convert to Judaism before they could part of the Church then, but I believe that Paul addresses that argument elsewhere, and the argument is also found in Acts 15, before the line that you make mention of. I do agree that there is a decrease or a change in the gifts as you made mention of:
In Ephesians 2:19, 20 we read our church is built upon the foundation of the apostils and prophets with Christ Jesus being the chief corner stone. These are our duties, but in a different order. We shall accept that the apostils and prophets were a foundation ministry which has finished. There are no more apostles, and no more prophets in the extra Biblical sense of the words. But they are succeeded by evangelists and teachers.
And I believe that you are correct in your assessment that some of these positions and gifts were foundation positions and gifts, and the succeeding ones are building and maintaining position and gifts (if that makes sense). This is not indication of a line as you mention, but rather of a change in the way that the Church operates. You open your paper with:
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: Eph 4:13 The measure-Of the stature-Of the fullness-Of the Christ-
I do not know that I would break apart the sentence here as you did. I would, rather break apart in the following way:Till we all come in the unity of:-the faith-the knowledge of the Son of GodUnto a perfect man:-unto the measure of the stature (of the fullness of Christ) Of the fullness of Christ modifies what Stature we are speaking of. The stature that we are seeking is the measure that we are seeking to obtain. If this makes sense. Excellent work on describing the original languages and the challenges of interpretation and translation! Thank you for that!

 

[epouraniois]

I will have to read the rest of what you wrote later, as it is getting past my bed time.While I readily admit that A church began at Pentecost, it was certainly not 'the church which is His body, the fulness that filleth all in all' that Ephesians reveals (and what a glorious title this particular church has). For Peter therein makes mention of Joel the prophet, wherein no hint of gentiles can be found.From the CB, app. 183. "THIS IS THAT" (Acts 2:16). 1. "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. 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. Is it about the Christian Dispensation? or The Dispensation of judgment which is to follow it? or Is it about the Jew and the Gentile? or Is it about the church of God? 2. The Structure on p. 1224 gives the scope of Joel as a whole, while that on p. 1227 gives that of the last member B (p. 1224) 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; see A, Structure, p. 1224). 3. But the key to the correct understanding of Peter's quotation 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 (p. 1227) 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," &c. 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. 4. Thus, from a careful study of the two passages, it will be seen that there is a wide divergence between the statements of apostle and prophet on the one hand, and the general belief of Christendom, which the majority hold so tenaciously, not to say acrimoniously, that "the church" was formed at Pentecost (see App. 181 and 186), on the other. 1. There can be no mistake about the meaning of Joel's word "afterward". It is not the simple Heb. word 'ahar = after (cp. Gen. 5:4, &c.). 2. It is therefore certain that the word "this" in Acts 2:16 refers to what follows, and not to what precedes; to the future events predicted by Joel, and not to those then taking place in Jerusalem. 3. As Joel speaks of no gift of tongues, "this" cannot refer to these Pentecostal tongues, the outstanding cause of all the wonder and excitement. 4. None of the things detailed in vv. 17, 19 came to pass. "This" therefore could not be the fulfillment of Joel's prediction, as the "pouring out" was only on the apostles and those associated with them. 5. To sum up: As we have seen, there is in Acts 2:16 no fulfillment of Joel's prophecy either expressed or implied, and Peter's argument narrows down to this, viz. that a charge of drunkenness can no more be sustained against "these" than it can be against those in the yet future scenes spoken of by Joel, when the wondrous spiritual blessings will be poured out on all flesh AFTER THAT, i.e. after all the temporal blessings spoken of have been bestowed upon Israel's Land and Israel's People.
we both like to place great emphasis on what the word of God says, rather than what we feel the word of God should say, and that is greatly lacking in many of the contemporary circles
Yes, it does seem that the word 'fellowship' takes on different forms with various folks. To me it means studying in the word of truth one with another. Friendship is more like going to the movies, going to the beach, or going sailing together, not that friendship does not overlap with fellowship.Tell me, what do you think this means and to whom it was spoken, and had any of God's stewards ever made this known prior to this occurrence ~ Acts 28:28 (KJV)Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

 

[writer4hisglory]

1. "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.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.Is it about the Christian Dispensation? orThe Dispensation of judgment which is to follow it? orIs it about the Jew and the Gentile? orIs it about the church of God?
I believe that the prophecy made by Joel, as I am sure that you will agree, is yet to be fulfilled in the future. There are several parts to this prophecy, and I am understanding that they shall be fulfilled literally—1. I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh 2:282. Your sons and daughters shall prophesy 2:283. Old men shall dream dreams 2:284. Young men shall see visions 2:285. Wonders shall be shown (as those that follow) 2:306. The sun shall be turned to darkness 2:307. The moon shall be turned to blood 2:30As I understand it, this will all occur at the same time, not intermittently throughout several thousand years. There will come a time when 1-7 are being fulfilled simultaneously, that was not happening at Pentecost, so that could not be to what Peter was referring when he made mention of the prophecy of Job. Might I submit that Peter was showing that just as Joel was speaking of the Spirit doing great things in the end times (causing sons and daughters to prophecy, and old men to dream dreams and young men to see visions) so was the Spirit doing a great thing at that very point in time through the men speaking in tongues. This is the understanding of most theologians, and as I have one readily available, I shall quote him for you, from the John MacArthur study Bible, notes on page 1635 for Acts 2:16-21: “Joel’s prophecy will not be completely fulfilled until the millennial kingdom. But Peter, by using it, shows that Pentecost was a pre-fulfillment, a taste of what will happen in the millennial kingdom when the Spirit is poured out on all flesh (cf. 10:45).” I do not believe that this is a fulfillment of the prophecy at all, as the prophecy does not segment itself, saying that one part will happen at one point in time, and the others will at another. I believe that Peter is showing here that this Spirit is the Spirit mentioned in Joel’s prophecy which made mention of the Spirit doing great things, and that the people should not be surprised that they are witnessing the Holy Spirit doing such great things in their presence.
2. The Structure on p. 1224 gives the scope of Joel as a whole, while that on p. 1227 gives that of the last member B (p. 1224) 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; see A, Structure, p. 1224).
I understand what you are saying here, but I have to disagree. There is no mention of a second Church within scripture, nor is there a mention of a Jewish Church and a Gentile Church. No distinction is made within the epistles, and none is made by Christ Himself. He, Christ, states that upon this rock (whether you take that to mean the truth of Peter’s confession of Him being the Son of God, or upon Christ, Himself) He will build His Church (not Churches). There are not two Churches mentioned. If there are two Churches, why then is there no mention of the separate Church in any of the epistles? Why is it only in Acts 8:28 that we supposedly find support for such a doctrine? Romans is written to the Gentiles, thus the reason for the entire chapter 11. Paul cannot be writing to the Jews referring to the Jews in this way, for how can God break off the original branch only to graft it back in, and then say that they are not the original, and Romans would be one of the supposed epistles to be before the dividing line.
3. But the key to the correct understanding of Peter's quotation 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 (p. 1227) 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," &c.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.
Agreed, as my explanation prior will show. Peter’s reference to this prophecy is to show the power of the Spirit that they are now witnessing at work. The men speaking in tongues was not a result of a supposed drunken stupor, but rather of the power of the Holy Spirit, as Joel made mention of in his prophecy. If that same Spirit could cause all of these wonderful signs to come to pass in the end times, why then should we think it a marvelous thing that He is able to something so much more miniscule than this as causing people to speak in a language they had never known before? (I’ve just learned that I will need to be going here, so I will need to cut this short, my sincerest apologies.) I believe that my arguments here may only repeat themselves over and over again as I go through your post. Let me know what you think. I am most interested in knowing where we find support for a separate Gentile and Jewish Church, and why was it that Peter was admonished by Paul when he went to sit with the Jews rather than the Gentiles? What was the point of the Rebuke and why was an explanation not offered of there having at one point been a Jewish Church but now there is a Gentile one? Thank you for your time.

 

[Christina]

To find these answers we must go to Joel The subject of the entire book of Joel is the "Coming of the Lord's day". It is written to the people who live in "The time of the End" or "To our generation," people that were born following the return of the Jews to Palestine, and the establishment of the tiny nation of "Israel". Joel addresses the events that will usher in "The day of the Lord." That day is at the Seventh Trump, and on that day, Jesus our Lord will come to earth and establish His world wide Kingdom, which will have no end.Verse 4 is a time when the whole world believes in the Antichrist (Satan). This deception will come in the four stages of the Locust. The Palmerworm, are the gnawers who prepare the way for the Locust. We know them as the "Kenites" (Satan's Children) (Matt. 13:38-39) The "Kenites" infiltrated the ranks long ago. They took over the offices of the scribes, as reported in (I Chronicles 2:55), they tampered with the word of God. The Kenites took over the priestly duties that God gave Levi, during the time that the Jews went out of Babylon (Ezra 2:43-67). Verse 4 is a time when the whole world believes in the Antichrist (Satan). This deception will come in the four stages of the Locust. The Palmerworm, are the gnawers who prepare the way for the Locust. We know them as the "Kenites" (Satan's Children) (Matt. 13:38-39) First stage. Is now in process One World SystemThe second stage is the arrival of the Locust, the fallen AngelsThe last two stages are the locust Army. It will come when the fallen angels are on earth. These angels will intermingle with all of mankind around the earth. These spiritual beings will appear to be human beings in form, similar to those recorded in Genesis 6. Their message will be taught by most ministers, priests and religious leaders of all faiths. These religious leaders will promote Satan as their Messiah. These religious leaders will set the stage that Joel calls the canker wormThis symbolizes the perverting and destroying the truth in God's Word. God's House is a house of Prayer.Joel1:4locust breakdown in hebrew; all from Strong's Concordance- check it for yourselfpalmerworm: H1501 gâzâm, gaw-zawm'. From an unused root meaning to devour; a kind of locust: -interesting side note:- H1502 gazzâm, gaz-zawm'From the same as H1501; devourer: - Gazzam, one of the Nethinim: - Gazzam.=============================locust: H697 'arbeh, ar-beh'. From H7235; a locust (from its rapid increase): - grasshopper, locust.H7235 râbâhraw-baw'A primitive root; to increase (in whatever respect): - [bring in] abundance (X -antly), + archer [by mistake for H7232], be in authority, bring up, X continue, enlarge, excel, exceeding (-ly), be full of, (be, make) great (-er, -ly), X -ness), grow up, heap, increase, be long, (be, give, have, make, use) many (a time), (any, be, give, give the, have) more (in number), (ask, be, be so, gather, over, take, yield) much (greater, more), (make to) multiply, nourish, plenty (-eous), X process [of time], sore, store, thoroughly, very.[a swarming locust]==================================cankerworm H3218yeleqyeh'-lekFrom an unused root meaning to lick up; a devourer; specifically the young locust: - cankerworm, caterpillar.===================================caterpillar H2625châsîylkhaw-seel'From H2628; the ravager, that is, a locust: - caterpillar.H2628châsalkhaw-sal'A primitive root; to eat off: - consume.=================================a definite order here;1. devourer2. swarmer3. young locust [nymph]4.ravagerthere are no worms here, this has been added...this has confused this verse [joel 1:4]i wonder who would do such a thing?-----------------------------------------------Isa 40:6 The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: Isa 40:7 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass.Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. (Flesh? What's this Flesh?). Mat 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. Rom 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.[grass is flesh, flesh is people who sin according to the fleshly lusts, not having spiritual insight][locusts eat grass, get it? they devour those who are not spiritual in mind, that is, specifically do not have the Word of God impregnated into their mind]-----------------------The men speaking in tongues was not a result of a supposed drunken stupor, but rather of the power of the Holy Spirit, as Joel made mention of in his prophecy. If that same Spirit could cause all of these wonderful signs to come to pass in the end times, why then should we think it a marvelous thing that He is able to something so much more miniscule than this as causing people to speak in a language they had never known before? {quote}you have this right here and this speaking of the Holy spirit through the elect will happen again we we are brought up before the synagogue of Satan Luke 12:8-10 this is the only time the unforgivable sin spoken of can be committed because you still have free will if you deny this Holy spirit you will have committed the unforgivable sin Mark 13:11Isreal and the gentile church can not be separate see my post to Epo at link http://www.christianityboard.com/ot-study-...-sow-t2592.html

 

[Bamp;#39;midbar]

I think Acts 2:14-36 is a masterful response to a partly scoffing crowd. I think it strongly demonstrates the power of the HS that has fallen upon Peter and the others. Peter was so weak, he had denied Christ to a servant girl when warming himself by the fire, yet here he is, bold. He does not accuse them; rather, he pulls them in with scripture, which they listen to. He obliquely moves them to a correct idea of what is happening before them, implanting the idea that such things could happen to them too, since Joel talks about how things will happen to “your sons and daughters”. Joel also mentions signs in the sky, very portentous things, creating a frame of mind where they listen with attention. THEN he lays it on them about crucifying Jesus, the Messiah. He answers their question from verse 12, “What does this mean?” He tells them that Jesus has poured out the HS as he promised. Their hearts are pierced, and they repent. Many are added that day. They too receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.I think the words from Joel prepare them to hear what they need to hear.

 

[Christina]

I don't think you can draw that conclusion about Peter being so weak because, he denied Christ we do not know the fear,shock or other emotions Peter was feeling at that time. If Christ choose him as a disciple we have to trust he knew exactly what he was doing.In fact scripture seems to favor that Peter was very beloved by Jesus.Do you recall what was happening at the time? The fact Peter momontarily reverted to his human insticts. By no means meant he was weak.

 

[Bamp;#39;midbar]

(kriss;9535)
If Christ choose him as a disciple we have to trust he knew exactly what he was doing.
Kriss, I didn't mean it to sound quite that way. Christ picked correctly! I really just wanted to say the Holy Spirit made him bold and helped him. Being bold is one of the things the HS seems to help with. I think the HS helped with the speech on that Pentecost day, don't you? Something about it reminds me of what is later mentioned, Acts 4:13 Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus.
Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place where they had gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God with boldness.
Paul himself asked in Eph 6:19,20 that prayers be made so the he will be given an utterance and speak with boldness.

 

[Christina]

Yes I do. I think that moment must have been a miracle to behold and can't wait till we wittness it with our own eyes.When it happens again. see unforgivable sin thread

 

[writer4hisglory]

I will limit my discussion to Epouraniosis alone in this thread, my apologies, but I am interested in his responses alone on this subject at this point. May the Lord bless.

 

[Bamp;#39;midbar]

(writer4hisglory;9549)
I will limit my discussion to Epouraniosis alone in this thread, my apologies, but I am interested in his responses alone on this subject at this point. May the Lord bless.
No problem. FYI, he is unable to post to the boards.

 

[Christina]

(writer4hisglory;9549)
I will limit my discussion to Epouraniosis alone in this thread, my apologies, but I am interested in his responses alone on this subject at this point. May the Lord bless.
this is a public forum all can reply to posts,however you do have the right not to reply to anyone you do not wish to others are free to reply to you.Epo is no longer on this site you can PM swampfox or myself for futher information

 

[writer4hisglory]

Please PM me concerning the issue with Epo.