Acts 2.38 is to Israel not gentiles

[Scribe]

There is no good news to the gentile until Paul .

20And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast: 21The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus. 22Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus. 23And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. 24Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. 25He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. 26If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

I believe this was explaining to the disciples that this was for these Greeks who came to see him as much as it was for them. Hallelujah!

 

[JaumeJ]

Just a note to all who believe they are being just in telling the poster of a reply they are off subject.


Check first to see what that poster is referring to. We receive alerts on our page ergo we reply to the alert. I do care what the original subjects are, but it is never in error to reply in CC to an alert directly.

All of the initial posts, that is authors of the original post, change, evolve, and continue due to dialog, however this in itself is no excuse to change the op meaning,. yet it is replying to the built-in alert system

Otherwise people who jump at the opportunity to tell a poster he is off subject is saying the construct of this website is wrong, and it is not.

 

[Scribe]

Yet the instructions are different in all 29 conversion accounts in Acts .

Not at all. Luke did not included everything said or spoken or that happened. He specifically wrote what he did to explain the big picture as a theologian in his own right he emphasized what needed to be emphasized and the main truths are made perfectly clear.

By reading all of the accounts we understand that one account included the details of another account when it is repeated several times it can then be simply understood based on previous mentions. It is no different than how we write today.

It is not fair to Luke to demand that he keep repeating every detail over again instead of allowing him to refer to what he has already stated enough to prove a pattern. At some point he can just say "they were saved" and we know that included repentance, faith and even water baptism and baptism in the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues because he has shown the pattern several times. It was a normative experience for all Christians to go through these things in various orders.

 

[throughfaith]

Not exactly in the way you are suggesting. The invitation was to be given to the Jew first because of the prophesies needing to be fulfilled but even a Samaritan, a Roman, or a Greek could step up by faith and receive it and Jesus was well pleased and made a point of telling everyone to notice it.

Do your remember those several examples? They were repeated because it is a very important theological message about the offer being to all those who would have faith not just Jews.

And remember the woman who asked for the crumbs from the table and how she received by faith going around the rules of the Jew first idea? So there are exceptions because it is not a hard fast rule. The Gospel has always been extended to all nations from the very beginning even if those who were dull of understanding did not grasp it.

You never really explained how you present the Gospel to people today so I still don't understand what is different in your message than what Peter preached.

Where do we first read " to the Jew first then the Greek " ?

 

[throughfaith]

20And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast: 21The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus. 22Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus. 23And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. 24Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. 25He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. 26If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

I believe this was explaining to the disciples that this was for these Greeks who came to see him as much as it was for them. Hallelujah!

Acts 2 .10
10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes.

Those GREEKS were proselytes .
They were allowed to come to the outer court .
My point still stands.
Jews and proselytes. Not Gentiles ,as in non proselytes.
proselytes had to convert first .

 

[Scribe]

Where do we first read " to the Jew first then the Greek " ?

In the Old Testament but you have to have ears to hear. Paul was making known mysteries that were in the scriptures but not grasped by the dull of heart. It is called the Missio Dei (mission of God) by theologians and is a truth that begins in Gen 3 and continues with the call of Abraham to bless ALL NATIONS through his SEED singular.

 

[throughfaith]

In the Old Testament but you have to have ears to hear. Paul was making known mysteries that were in the scriptures but not grasped by the dull of heart. It is called the Missio Dei (mission of God) by theologians and is a truth that begins in Gen 3 and continues with the call of Abraham to bless ALL NATIONS through his SEED singular.

Yes Paul . Thats my point. The jew first then the Greek is from Paul . Which is not where Peter is coming from . Not until ten years after Acts 2 for Peter to start Jew first then Greek .

 

[throughfaith]

Not at all. Luke did not included everything said or spoken or that happened. He specifically wrote what he did to explain the big picture as a theologian in his own right he emphasized what needed to be emphasized and the main truths are made perfectly clear.

By reading all of the accounts we understand that one account included the details of another account when it is repeated several times it can then be simply understood based on previous mentions. It is no different than how we write today.

It is not fair to Luke to demand that he keep repeating every detail over again instead of allowing him to refer to what he has already stated enough to prove a pattern. At some point he can just say "they were saved" and we know that included repentance, faith and even water baptism and baptism in the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues because he has shown the pattern several times. It was a normative experience for all Christians to go through these things in various orders.

Its not until Mathew 27 do the disciples understand the cross. Its even after the women go to the tomb that Peter and the rest don't even believe the resurrection. So what good news ( Gospel)were they preaching before mathew 27 ?

 

[Scribe]

Yes Paul . Thats my point. The jew first then the Greek is from Paul . Which is not where Peter is coming from . Not until ten years after Acts 2 for Peter to start Jew first then Greek .

This is like packaging fog. I don't know if we have gained any ground on identifying your main message.

 

[Scribe]

Its not until Mathew 27 do the disciples understand the cross. Its even after the women go to the tomb that Peter and the rest don't even believe the resurrection. So what good news ( Gospel)were they preaching before mathew 27 ?

That they would be saved from their sins.
That the hour for their deliverance had come and that all the promises spoken of by the prophets about the kingdom of God and a deliverer was upon them. That their prison doors would be opened, the blind would see, the lame would walk, that the broken hearted would be healed. The cross was prophesied, they did not understand it but it was being preached by Jesus to them and they thought he was speaking riddles. They did not comprehend the details of the prophesies about his resurrection but they believed the promises of salvation, they understood it mainly as salvation from sin and the punishment of sin and they looked for a national promise of restoration, freedom from Rome, and eventually that they would inherit the whole world and that this prophesy had finally come.

 

[Nehemiah6]

So we ignore the details and context? Just generalise everything ? Can we just randomly apply all verses to mean the same in all situations?

No we do not ignore the details nor the context. Instead we arrive at the conclusion that when the Holy Spirit caused Luke to record Acts chapter 2, it was meant to be a blueprint for the Church and churches in the future. Therefore everything that was recorded was to be interpreted and applied.

Since the New Covenant was to Israel, and the Gospel was to be preached in a specific progression (Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, the rest of the world), it was a divine necessity that the Holy Spirit be poured out first at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (which was a type of the harvest of souls). However, everything recorded from Acts 2:21 through 2:47 would be of universal application.

 

[throughfaith]

That they would be saved from their sins.
That the hour for their deliverance had come and that all the promises spoken of by the prophets about the kingdom of God and a deliverer was upon them. That their prison doors would be opened, the blind would see, the lame would walk, that the broken hearted would be healed. The cross was prophesied, they did not understand it but it was being preached by Jesus to them and they thought he was speaking riddles. They did not comprehend the details of the prophesies about his resurrection but they believed the promises of salvation, they understood it mainly as salvation from sin and the punishment of sin and they looked for a national promise of restoration, freedom from Rome, and eventually that they would inherit the whole world and that this prophesy had finally come.

Isn't it great how confident we can look back ?

 

[throughfaith]

No we do not ignore the details nor the context. Instead we arrive at the conclusion that when the Holy Spirit caused Luke to record Acts chapter 2, it was meant to be a blueprint for the Church and churches in the future. Therefore everything that was recorded was to be interpreted and applied.

Since the New Covenant was to Israel, and the Gospel was to be preached in a specific progression (Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, the rest of the world), it was a divine necessity that the Holy Spirit be poured out first at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (which was a type of the harvest of souls). However, everything recorded from Acts 2:21 through 2:47 would be of universal application.

/____//_it was meant to be a blueprint for the Church and churches in the future. Therefore everything that was recorded was to be interpreted and applied////_/_ This is a private interpretation. Highly presumptuous to say the least. This is not how we decide on whats true surely?


Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, the rest of the world is still to Jews and proselyte. Those scattered .
Acts 11 .19¶Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

 

[throughfaith]

No we do not ignore the details nor the context. Instead we arrive at the conclusion that when the Holy Spirit caused Luke to record Acts chapter 2, it was meant to be a blueprint for the Church and churches in the future. Therefore everything that was recorded was to be interpreted and applied.

Since the New Covenant was to Israel, and the Gospel was to be preached in a specific progression (Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, the rest of the world), it was a divine necessity that the Holy Spirit be poured out first at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (which was a type of the harvest of souls). However, everything recorded from Acts 2:21 through 2:47 would be of universal application.

You say ////However, everything recorded from Acts 2:21 through 2:47 would be of universal application.//// No where does it say this ? Universal Application ' ? Do you realise how slippery that statement is ?

 

[throughfaith]

No we do not ignore the details nor the context. Instead we arrive at the conclusion that when the Holy Spirit caused Luke to record Acts chapter 2, it was meant to be a blueprint for the Church and churches in the future. Therefore everything that was recorded was to be interpreted and applied.

Since the New Covenant was to Israel, and the Gospel was to be preached in a specific progression (Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, the rest of the world), it was a divine necessity that the Holy Spirit be poured out first at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (which was a type of the harvest of souls). However, everything recorded from Acts 2:21 through 2:47 would be of universal application.

Blue print for the church? ' This comes from sermons not the scriptures. This is why we have so much confusion . Folks trying to apply everything in Acts onto the church.

 

[Scribe]

You say ////However, everything recorded from Acts 2:21 through 2:47 would be of universal application.//// No where does it say this ? Universal Application ' ? Do you realise how slippery that statement is ?

To all that are afar off everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” is understood to include the gentiles by almost all if not ALL evangelical bible scholars and theologians.

I doubt you will find even one or two commentaries that does not interpret it that way. I understand it that way. I don't know why you insist on it meaning Jews since you know that God calls gentiles also. everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”, should be enough to make it clear that it applies to gentiles also.

How can you exclude Gentiles if God is calling Gentiles? How can you take "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” and say in your mind "but he only means all of the Jews that God calls, not the gentiles that God calls." Such an interpretation would be unnatural because it would no longer be "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” but instead it would be The Jews whom the Lord calls to himself and this interpretation no one agrees with.

everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself. would therefore make it universal application. Nothing slippery about that. Changing "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” to "of the Jews only" would be a gross violation to the text and intended meaning,

 

[Scribe]

Blue print for the church? ' This comes from sermons not the scriptures. This is why we have so much confusion . Folks trying to apply everything in Acts onto the church.

The book of Acts reveals many great examples of how the Holy Spirit went about establishing the first church and how the world first began to be evangelized with the Gospel. The book of Acts should be meditated upon for your guidance in how to fulfil the great commission even today. The principles are revealed, the exact details such as where to meet or order of service is dynamic according to each local assembly but the idea of local assemblies meeting, pastors, bishops, deacons, women in ministry, gifts of the spirit all these things are revealed to give us an idea of how we are to continue following the same Holy Spirit's leading today.

 

[throughfaith]

To all that are afar off everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” is understood to include the gentiles by almost all if not ALL evangelical bible scholars and theologians.

I doubt you will find even one or two commentaries that does not interpret it that way. I understand it that way. I don't know why you insist on it meaning Jews since you know that God calls gentiles also. everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”, should be enough to make it clear that it applies to gentiles also.

How can you exclude Gentiles if God is calling Gentiles? How can you take "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” and say in your mind "but he only means all of the Jews that God calls, not the gentiles that God calls." Such an interpretation would be unnatural because it would no longer be "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” but instead it would be The Jews whom the Lord calls to himself and this interpretation no one agrees with.

everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself. would therefore make it universal application. Nothing slippery about that. Changing "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” to "of the Jews only" would be a gross violation to the text and intended meaning,

So why does Peter need a vision from heaven to command him to now go to gentiles. Why does he argue against going to gentiles with the vision? " Not so Lord " . Why is Peter Amazed and those with him that repentence has been granted to Gentiles ? That the Holy spirit has been given to them ?
You need to remember from the beginning Peter and the apostles are commanded not to go to the gentiles.
Thats why they are shocked 10 years after Acts 2 about Cornelius.
You think Peter has gentiles in mind in Acts 2 ? when they say this 10 years later in Acts 11.

18¶When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Avoid commentators that usually have strong bias .

 

[throughfaith]

The book of Acts reveals many great examples of how the Holy Spirit went about establishing the first church and how the world first began to be evangelized with the Gospel. The book of Acts should be meditated upon for your guidance in how to fulfil the great commission even today. The principles are revealed, the exact details such as where to meet or order of service is dynamic according to each local assembly but the idea of local assemblies meeting, pastors, bishops, deacons, women in ministry, gifts of the spirit all these things are revealed to give us an idea of how we are to continue following the same Holy Spirit's leading today.

its a historical narrative. Its a transitional book about the acts of the apostles. Its the worst place to get doctrines for the Church from . There's nothing normative in Acts until the latter part, where we see things being established. We look to Paul's epistles for church doctrine. We don't look to the birth of something to gain doctrines from.

 

[FrankChatter]

Sounds to me like this is old two gospel "idea", one gospel for the Jews and different one for the rest.