:chuckle:
ECT Neither option in Eph 3:5 is D'ist
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
:chuckle:
Interplanner
Well-known member
You're thoroughly confusing, Danoh. Totally. I don't even care if you have something anymore.
What are you basing your immediately above assertion on?
Where in Scripture prior to Acts 10?
You lament the deriding labels you yourself do not cease from hurling.
And you lament wanting an exchange, only to cop out with the above, when exchange is presented.
A Pre Acts 10 answer would shed some light on the actual sense of Gal. 3:17.
Don't tell me you cannot see that.
I'll ask you again - Where in Scripture prior to Acts 10?
andyc
New member
Not even sure what your point is here.
God talking to Abraham about the fulfillment of him being the father of many nations, which is accomplished through the receiving of the Holy Spirit, made possible by the DBR (Christ the seed).
What's your point?
Peter is NOT being CORRECTED.
Rather, he is being UPDATED about a CHANGE in God's view of BOTH Jew and Gentile.
IP disagrees with that.
He asserts that Peter was wrong and was being corrected - that God was not apprising Peter of a change in Gentile status.
So I asked him to prove his case via PRE-Acts 10 passages.
If God was not then revealing His Own changed attitude towards the Gentiles, prove it via PRE-Acts 10 passages that clearly state said case.
I doubt this will go anywhere, though.
andyc
New member
Well it was obviously an update, as the gentiles were officially inaugurated into the body of Christ. Peter had to be corrected with the understanding that faith in Christ removed the bondage of being under the ceremonial law. Jesus had sated that it wasn't what goes into a man that makes him unclean, and Peter must have either forgotten this, or not understood it.
He was not talking about their diet under the Law having been done away, but about how that their eating it with unwashed hands (and this, given the circumstance they found themselves in that prompted their having had to eat with dirty hands in that moment) was not a violation of the Law.
Matthew 15:20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
That is not the "unclean" that Acts 10 is dealing in.
Acts 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
You aren't addressing the verses in Eph 2. What do you think they mean?
Interplanner
Well-known member
There could be Jewish evangelists today; there just aren't that I know of.
way 2 go
Well-known member
Interplanner
Well-known member
Perhaps he was not corrected here, but he was in Gal 2. But if he was corrected here in Acts 10, it is because there were non Jewish people at Pentecost and the verses about the blessing to the whole world were being used (don't bother me with some theory about the far-off children of 2:39, because the promise to Abraham is to all mankind).
God had not changed his attitude toward the Gentiles, it was always planned that they would be blessed in the same Gospel. 3:25
"It is too small a thing for you to restore the fortunes of Israel; I will make you a light to the nations." One of a hundred indicators.
The reason all this started in Israel (besides being what Christ said in Mt 28) was that the recruiting of missionaries needed to continue. Israel was supposed to be a light to the nations by being immersed in the Gospel, Acts 13:47. Their mission work would have happened automatically that way. But they believed the promises meant something other than the Resurrection of Christ, Acts 13:33.
Notice also the prayer for all the nations to submit to Christ Acts 4. The apostles knew they were commissioned to affect all kings and rulers.
As usual Danoh misses so much.
Interplanner
Well-known member
There were a minimum of 221 missionaries prepared by Christ by Pentecost. There would now be an influx. They were to speak to the nations. Peter knew this, but he has a problem.
10:28 is the corrective: 'God has shown me that...'
v35 is saying that justification from sins is for all mankind, and v36 is saying that THAT is the message to Israel, which they could not see very well, but were supposed to. That would help them complete the mission.
v43 says that ALL the prophets speak of this salvation for the whole world. Only the veil of the old covenant would keep a follower of Judaism from seeing that it was in all their prophets. It is removed in Christ.
He was corrected from "opposing God." 11:17.
To further illustrate the place of the mission that Israel was supposed to be on, see 12:11. Peter had just declared that the mission was what Israel was supposed to be doing, but opposition to this increased. In this verse, they were hoping to silence him. Instead he is rescued. They were not just hoping to silence the Gospel but also the fact that the Gospel had a mission for them to complete.
This underlies the time Paul spent with the apostles, and then what do we see Paul teaching after that? It is Acts 13's sermon, in which the Resurrection is everything promised to Israel and is (automatically) a mission that they should all be working in.
Opposition by Jews in various cities continued.
Whatever confusion Peter had, however he opposed God, it had cleared up, enough for him to announce to the council in ch 15 that God had selected him to reach the Gentiles.
There is no point in Danoh's comments so long as he avoids details.
10:28 is the corrective: 'God has shown me that...'
v35 is saying that justification from sins is for all mankind, and v36 is saying that THAT is the message to Israel, which they could not see very well, but were supposed to. That would help them complete the mission.
v43 says that ALL the prophets speak of this salvation for the whole world. Only the veil of the old covenant would keep a follower of Judaism from seeing that it was in all their prophets. It is removed in Christ.
He was corrected from "opposing God." 11:17.
To further illustrate the place of the mission that Israel was supposed to be on, see 12:11. Peter had just declared that the mission was what Israel was supposed to be doing, but opposition to this increased. In this verse, they were hoping to silence him. Instead he is rescued. They were not just hoping to silence the Gospel but also the fact that the Gospel had a mission for them to complete.
This underlies the time Paul spent with the apostles, and then what do we see Paul teaching after that? It is Acts 13's sermon, in which the Resurrection is everything promised to Israel and is (automatically) a mission that they should all be working in.
Opposition by Jews in various cities continued.
Whatever confusion Peter had, however he opposed God, it had cleared up, enough for him to announce to the council in ch 15 that God had selected him to reach the Gentiles.
There is no point in Danoh's comments so long as he avoids details.
Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
way 2 go
Well-known member
Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
which is what he told peter
Act 10:15 And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has made clean, do not call common."
do you agree with the following:
both one one is the Circumcised and uncircumcised now one
wall of partition is clean vs unclean
between us- us is the Circumcised and uncircumcised
you say we became one at the cross, right?
I say it happened when he called Paul to send to the gentiles .
can you show Jesus or Peter declaring gentiles
no longer enemies or clean
before this
Act 10:15 And the voice spoke to him again the second time, What God has made clean, you do not call common.
now to check my math.
Eph 3:1 For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles—
Eph 3:2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace that was given to me for you,
Eph 3:3 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly.
Eph 3:4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ,
Eph 3:5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.
Paul was given a dispensation to gentiles 3.1 3.2
it was a mystery revealed to Paul 3.3 3.4
confirmed by Peter by his recounting of acts 10:15 story
not a retelling of what Jesus told him when he was here
because he never told Peter gentiles were clean till acts 10:15
the mystery was made known by the spirit 3.5
when Jesus was here he did not reveal this mystery.
Peter could have used the words of Jesus when he was here
to quote to prove gentiles were clean .
Eph 3:6 This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Way2Go,
I think you've got most of it.
On the unclean thing, keep two things in mind. The apostles knew Mt 15A. 2, In Acts 10 Peter says that he is talking about things (food) but the result is not being divided from the people eating those things.
ON the mystery, it was not a mystery that the nations would come into a 'community' of some kind that was a unity. 'In your seed all the nations will be blessed.' The mystery was HOW. The grammar of 3:6 falls on 'through the Gospel' to answer this. Of course that's the opposite of the law.
way 2 go
Well-known member
thank you
you came up with hand washing not food
do not see the connection
neither did peter or do you have him repeating this
Mat 15:1 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said,
Mat 15:2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat."
Peter repeated the vision from acts 10:15 repeatedly .
the mystery was made known by the spirit 3.5
when Jesus was here he did not reveal this mystery.
Peter could have used the words of Jesus when he was here
to quote to prove gentiles were clean .
peter never ate unclean food to this point
Act 10:14 But Peter said, "By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean."
even tho you try to say Jesus is saying its OK here:
Mat 15:11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person."
:nono:
:nono:
Eph 3:6 This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs,
fellow heirs
a person who inherits or has a right of inheritance
Gentiles had no right of inheritance
Interplanner
Well-known member
The mystery is not the inheritance or unity with Israel. It is that it is THROUGH THE GOSPEL. The grammar of 3:6 puts its weight on that. Ch 2 had already said there was a resolving unity. The OT and the Abrahamic promises said so. None of that was a mystery. The mystery was HOW it would channel, happen.