EarlyActs
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2023
- Messages
- 3,448
- Reaction score
- 398
- Points
- 83
It appears I have tried to declare this theme before with "All theology must stop in here". But I have a proposition which I have a hard time classifying in any of the categories. It could be in eschatology, but that is so often treated as OUR future, instead of as the thinking of the 1st readers of the NT and their future.
It could be in Messianics, but people tend to think that is for Jewish Christians to deal with.
It could be in Dispensationalism, that is, if the reader is aware of objections to that system.
IIt could be in apologetics, because it deals with what exactly was being said in early Acts, and how it was defended, and what it was rejected. But people seem to be quite busy with their own questions about defending the faith, and 'the faith' usually means their system, and so there are all the categories here about reformed and freewill and catholic. The apostles doctrine was spoken to Judaism, so it's shape was meant to answer things Judaism said.
It could be in Amillenialism, but that term actually means a-(against)-Dispensational-millenialism and thus the title is a bit unfair from the start. There might be another definition of the millenium than that which the D'ists have and "Amillenialism" does not then deal with that other definition and is not a productive study.
My proposition is that the resurrection is the enthronement of Jesus Christ. This is meant in the sense of Acts 2-4, Rom 1, Eph 1, Phil 2, and Heb 1.
The grammar of Acts 2:30 is that David foresaw the resurrection. He did not foresee a reign of the Christ apart from the resurrection. There was no mysterious form introduced even though it is not 'the news' yet as it will be in the NHNE. At one point, the Christians were accused of referring to a king other than Caesar. We simply need to unpack what nuance was intended here.
What he meant was that the reign of Christ was imperative; that which every person should obey. This is from Ps 2 and 110, the most often quoted psalms as the apostles got started, because they were taught completely during the 40 days. The Son is to be honored for what he has accomplished, and failure to do so is a huge risk; "lest He be angry and smash you."
It is treated this way in Acts 2-4; v30, of course; then, 'God has made Jesus Lord and Christ'.
In ch 3, Christ is the guest of heaven's reception until God will deal with His enemies. He gets to sit and his enemies will be made a footrest for Him. In ch 4, Ps 2 is actually prayed as the reality of the opposition to it sinks in to the apostles; why do (our current rulers) rage against Christ? They realize this has been allowed, yet still pray that it will cease. At the end of the superlative letter to Hebrews, we are mere thoughts away from the entire heavenly host and mountain and kingdom of God in Christ, and should never ignore it nor consider it distant.
The 'reception' business in ch 3 is quite striking because in 2 Cor 10, Paul used the same term to ridicule the zealots of Judaism who went around bothering his fellowship groups. He said that they were 'welcomed/made reception guests' in place of Christ, and himself, at these fellowships and this was despicable. It sounds very much to me like we should be keeping an honorary reception for Christ fresh and alive.
The resurrection was the enthronement of Christ; it was an award given to the Hero of the universe who did what was needed to repair all things. We are in the difficult phase where we must decide to bow the knee in the face of opposition and ridicule, before the end when all creation will bow the knee to Christ and God.
It could be in Messianics, but people tend to think that is for Jewish Christians to deal with.
It could be in Dispensationalism, that is, if the reader is aware of objections to that system.
IIt could be in apologetics, because it deals with what exactly was being said in early Acts, and how it was defended, and what it was rejected. But people seem to be quite busy with their own questions about defending the faith, and 'the faith' usually means their system, and so there are all the categories here about reformed and freewill and catholic. The apostles doctrine was spoken to Judaism, so it's shape was meant to answer things Judaism said.
It could be in Amillenialism, but that term actually means a-(against)-Dispensational-millenialism and thus the title is a bit unfair from the start. There might be another definition of the millenium than that which the D'ists have and "Amillenialism" does not then deal with that other definition and is not a productive study.
My proposition is that the resurrection is the enthronement of Jesus Christ. This is meant in the sense of Acts 2-4, Rom 1, Eph 1, Phil 2, and Heb 1.
The grammar of Acts 2:30 is that David foresaw the resurrection. He did not foresee a reign of the Christ apart from the resurrection. There was no mysterious form introduced even though it is not 'the news' yet as it will be in the NHNE. At one point, the Christians were accused of referring to a king other than Caesar. We simply need to unpack what nuance was intended here.
What he meant was that the reign of Christ was imperative; that which every person should obey. This is from Ps 2 and 110, the most often quoted psalms as the apostles got started, because they were taught completely during the 40 days. The Son is to be honored for what he has accomplished, and failure to do so is a huge risk; "lest He be angry and smash you."
It is treated this way in Acts 2-4; v30, of course; then, 'God has made Jesus Lord and Christ'.
In ch 3, Christ is the guest of heaven's reception until God will deal with His enemies. He gets to sit and his enemies will be made a footrest for Him. In ch 4, Ps 2 is actually prayed as the reality of the opposition to it sinks in to the apostles; why do (our current rulers) rage against Christ? They realize this has been allowed, yet still pray that it will cease. At the end of the superlative letter to Hebrews, we are mere thoughts away from the entire heavenly host and mountain and kingdom of God in Christ, and should never ignore it nor consider it distant.
The 'reception' business in ch 3 is quite striking because in 2 Cor 10, Paul used the same term to ridicule the zealots of Judaism who went around bothering his fellowship groups. He said that they were 'welcomed/made reception guests' in place of Christ, and himself, at these fellowships and this was despicable. It sounds very much to me like we should be keeping an honorary reception for Christ fresh and alive.
The resurrection was the enthronement of Christ; it was an award given to the Hero of the universe who did what was needed to repair all things. We are in the difficult phase where we must decide to bow the knee in the face of opposition and ridicule, before the end when all creation will bow the knee to Christ and God.