Peter's authority on His Office let another take

[Mannyfit75]

Let me begin by quoting the Acts of the Apostles.

In those days Peter stood up upon the brethrens (the company of persons was in alll about a hundred and twenty), and said, "Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry. Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness, anf falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gush out. And it became know to all inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that field was called in their language, "Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood. FOr it is written in the book of Psalms,

"Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it and his office let another take."

So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus Christ went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection." And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed, Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “Lord, you know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turn aside, to go to his own place.” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.

So where in the Book of Psalm do we find what Peter was referring to?

It’s Psalm 69:25

It said: "May their camp be desolation, let no one dwell in their tent."
Compare that with Acts:

"Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it and his office let another take."

Tim Staples pointed this out in his Apologetic CD on Mary and pointed this passage to me. He brings a interesting point. Does anyone noticed that Peter did not use the exact words of the Psalm 69?

 

[Todd_Easton]

The notes in my Bibles indicate that Peter may have combined passages from two different psalms, Psalm 69:25, that you mention, and Psalm 109:8.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The notes in my Bibles indicate that Peter may have combined passages from two different psalms, Psalm 69:25, that you mention, and Psalm 109:8.

Yip, Psalm 109:8 reads,

“May his days be few; may another seize his goods.”

It also apparent, that none of the Apostle or the disciple objected to his interpretation. No one came out and cried out, “Simon Peter, you taking the book of Psalms out of context.” This kinda refute the concept of Sola Scriptura…

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I think in Acts 1, Peter was acting in the flesh, as he was not filled with the Holy Spirit until Acts 2. Yes, all the apostles recieved the Holy Spirit in John 20:21. But, the overall, full control was not until they started walking in the spirit in acts 2. And, if you read through Acts one had to be refilled often, based on Romans 12, daily.

 

[NotWorthy]

I think in Acts 1, Peter was acting in the flesh, as he was not filled with the Holy Spirit until Acts 2. Yes, all the apostles recieved the Holy Spirit in John 20:21. But, the overall, full control was not until they started walking in the spirit in acts 2. And, if you read through Acts one had to be refilled often, based on Romans 12, daily.

Except that Jesus prayed for Peter (I believe in Acts) that Satan wanted to sift the Apostles like wheat. But when Peter turned back, he would strengthen the others.

Would this be part of the fulfillment of Christ’s prayer?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Except that Jesus prayed for Peter (I believe in Acts) that Satan wanted to sift the Apostles like wheat. But when Peter turned back, he would strengthen the others.

Would this be part of the fulfillment of Christ’s prayer?

That’s well noted

 

[NotWorthy]

That’s well noted

You gotta wonder. Jesus had Ascended, and left the Apostles with the cryptic instructions to go to Jerusalem and wait for Him.

Instead of sitting around and waiting for Jesus to determine how to make the Apostles complete, Peter makes the decision for them.

And did you notice the two Psalms that Peter cited? They didn’t exactly go together, until you placed them in the context of replacing Judas. Like was earlier noted, that would make a Sola Scriptura-ist strain a brain muscle.

 

[Mannyfit75]

You gotta wonder. Jesus had Ascended, and left the Apostles with the cryptic instructions to go to Jerusalem and wait for Him.

Instead of sitting around and waiting for Jesus to determine how to make the Apostles complete, Peter makes the decision for them.

And did you notice the two Psalms that Peter cited? They didn’t exactly go together, until you placed them in the context of replacing Judas. Like was earlier noted, that would make a Sola Scriptura-ist strain a brain muscle.

I did. I find it very interesting

 

[dacoobob]

I’ve noticed that the NT writers frequently interpret OT prophecies VERY loosely and out-of-context. One thing to keep in mind is that they were using the Septuagint (the Greek version of the OT), which sometimes differed from the Hebrew version. Another is the idea that prophecies can and often do refer to multiple events/persons (some literal, some metaphorical) simultaneously. Looking at how the NT writers (and Christ Himself!) interpreted the OT dumped a big bucket of cold water on my former literalist tendencies.

I like the NKJV because it has footnotes with references whenever a NT passage quotes or refers to an OT one*. Look up a few, it’s a bit shocking sometimes.

*except for references to Wisdom, Maccabees, etc.-- sorry, Catholics

 

[Mannyfit75]

I’ve noticed that the NT writers frequently interpret OT prophecies VERY loosely and out-of-context. One thing to keep in mind is that they were using the Septuagint (the Greek version of the OT), which sometimes differed from the Hebrew version. Another is the idea that prophecies can and often do refer to multiple events/persons (some literal, some metaphorical) simultaneously. Looking at how the NT writers (and Christ Himself!) interpreted the OT dumped a big bucket of cold water on my former literalist tendencies.

I like the NKJV because it has footnotes with references whenever a NT passage quotes or refers to an OT one*. Look up a few, it’s a bit shocking sometimes.

*except for references to Wisdom, Maccabees, etc.-- sorry, Catholics

Actually they are.

Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42 (not found in the Protestant Bible)

1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul’s description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7

 

[NotWorthy]

I’ve noticed that the NT writers frequently interpret OT prophecies VERY loosely and out-of-context. One thing to keep in mind is that they were using the Septuagint (the Greek version of the OT), which sometimes differed from the Hebrew version. Another is the idea that prophecies can and often do refer to multiple events/persons (some literal, some metaphorical) simultaneously. Looking at how the NT writers (and Christ Himself!) interpreted the OT dumped a big bucket of cold water on my former literalist tendencies.

I like the NKJV because it has footnotes with references whenever a NT passage quotes or refers to an OT one*. Look up a few, it’s a bit shocking sometimes.

*except for references to Wisdom, Maccabees, etc.-- sorry, Catholics

Soooooo, the Holy Spirit inspired the authors of the NT books to interpret the OT Scriptures “out of context”??? I think the NT authors looked at the OT Scriptures in “the light of Christ”, therefore, they understood the OT Scriptures better than the OT prophets.

 

[dacoobob]

Soooooo, the Holy Spirit inspired the authors of the NT books to interpret the OT Scriptures “out of context”??? I think the NT authors looked at the OT Scriptures in “the light of Christ”, therefore, they understood the OT Scriptures better than the OT prophets.

Maybe I worded that badly. The point is they went about interpretation differently than a lot of people (read: fundamentalists) do today. I’m certainly not trying to imply that they were in error or not inspired by the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, I think we can use their example to open our minds to the deeper Truth to be found in Scripture.

 

[benedictgal]

Soooooo, the Holy Spirit inspired the authors of the NT books to interpret the OT Scriptures “out of context”??? I think the NT authors looked at the OT Scriptures in “the light of Christ”, therefore, they understood the OT Scriptures better than the OT prophets.

Whoever said that “out of context” statement in the previous post you quted is perhaps looking at this as the Jews would. However, if the poster would closely look at the OT prophecies, they do match up very closely with everything about Jesus, even right down to the Passover ritual, which, is for another post because I don’t want to hijack this post.

However, I will add my two-bits the quoted comment. As my parochial vicar (who is also my NT teacher) said, “The Church maintained that the Septuiagent (sp?) was a part of Sacred Scripture because it was something that Christ had known and used. When the Council of Namnia convened, the Pharisees took out the Greek-language Scriptures because they weren’t written in Hebrew.” This included the Maccabees and the other ones not found in the Protestant version. The Church pretty much said, “it doesn’t matter what you do; we are keeping things as is.” Therefore, the Church is the depository of the full Old Testament.

Oddly enough, the Biography Channel had a show about the Maccabees and the rabbis thought that it was rather odd that the only ones who kept a record of the Maccabees were the Catholics. Go figure.

 

[dacoobob]

Actually they are.

Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42 (not found in the Protestant Bible)

1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul’s description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7

Right, I meant that the NKJV, being a Protestant-made version, doesn’t include footnotes for the references to the “Deuterocanonicals.”

Guess I am 0-for-2 on making myself understood today…

 

[dacoobob]

I’ve noticed that the NT writers frequently interpret OT prophecies VERY loosely and out-of-context EDIT: by the standards of many modern Christians. One thing to keep in mind is that they were using the Septuagint (the Greek version of the OT), which sometimes differed from the Hebrew version EDIT: we use today. Another is the idea that prophecies can and often do refer to multiple events/persons (some literal, some metaphorical) simultaneously. Looking at how the NT writers (and Christ Himself!) interpreted the OT dumped a big bucket of cold water on my former literalist tendencies.

I like the NKJV because it has footnotes with references whenever a NT passage quotes or refers to an OT one*. Look up a few, it’s a bit shocking sometimes.

*except for the references to Wisdom, Maccabees, etc.-- sorry, Catholics

 

[NotWorthy]

Maybe I worded that badly. The point is they went about interpretation differently than a lot of people (read: fundamentalists) do today. I’m certainly not trying to imply that they were in error or not inspired by the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, I think we can use their example to open our minds to the deeper Truth to be found in Scripture.

I’m much happier with that answer.

It would have seemed to the casual Jew that Peter tipped two verses out of separate Psalms, and spliced them together to create a whole new context (and you’re right, this is a common practice today among many Christians - Catholic and non-Catholic, IMO).

But the difference is, Peter is interpreting these Scriptures in the light of Christ, something the ancient Jew would have been unable to do without knowing Christ.