St. Peter thought that Jesus was "made" both Lord and Christ?

[MH84]

My understanding is that because Jesus is God, He was always “Lord”. How come in Acts 2 St. Peter says:

36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” ?

www.biblegateway.com

 

[jfallaw]

My understanding is that because Jesus is God, He was always “Lord”. How come in Acts 2 St. Peter says:

36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” ?

www.biblegateway.com

I don’t understand the question fully. Are you asking if the implication is that Jesus was created (made) rather than begotten? Or that He somehow was not divine or the messiah until some time after He was born? That smacks of ‘Word of Faith’ evangelicalism- the movement’s founder, Kenneth Hagin, states in one of his books that Christ did not become divine until he had been crucified, gone to hell and ‘fought the devil’. Many evangelicals believe this ‘new revelation’ though it is entirely unscriptural.

 

[Milliardo]

My understanding is that because Jesus is God, He was always “Lord”. How come in Acts 2 St. Peter says:

36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” ?

www.biblegateway.com

Jesus as Lord can certainly be inferred in John 1:1; thus, Peter would not contradict this. However, the understanding of this is that Jesus’ humanity did indeed have a beginning, and so we can that this is what Peter inferred, not to the divine aspect of Christ.

 

[MH84]

I don’t understand the question fully. Are you asking if the implication is that Jesus was created (made) rather than begotten? Or that He somehow was not divine or the messiah until some time after He was born? That smacks of ‘Word of Faith’ evangelicalism- the movement’s founder, Kenneth Hagin, states in one of his books that Christ did not become divine until he had been crucified, gone to hell and ‘fought the devil’. Many evangelicals believe this ‘new revelation’ though it is entirely unscriptural.

I dont know about the guy you are talking about, but I may have heard of him. Please dont start with evangelicals.

Why dont you just answer the question please? Why did St. Peter say that Jesus was MADE Lord and Christ?

 

[MH84]

Jesus as Lord can certainly be inferred in John 1:1; thus, Peter would not contradict this. However, the understanding of this is that Jesus’ humanity did indeed have a beginning, and so we can that this is what Peter inferred, not to the divine aspect of Christ.

I can understand Jesus being made to be the Messiah. But how can God the Son be “made” Lord? Why did St. Peter say this?

 

[Milliardo]

I can understand Jesus being made to be the Messiah. But how can God the Son be “made” Lord? Why did St. Peter say this?

Made Lord…certainly not saying that Jesus being Lord is imputed to Him at birth, which would be heresy. To understand what Peter means, one must read the verses before it, wherein we see that he tells of who Jesus is. We can see then what Peter means–that God raised Jesus up for us all. Again, nothing there which would mean His Lordship was imputed.

 

[po18guy]

My guess is the translation/transliteration over the centuries has lead to this verbiage. With God’s blessing, we’ll be able to ask one day.

Christ’s peace.

 

[jfallaw]

I dont know about the guy you are talking about, but I may have heard of him. Please dont start with evangelicals.

Why dont you just answer the question please? Why did St. Peter say that Jesus was MADE Lord and Christ?

…ummm i said i didn’t understand the question

 

[MH84]

Made Lord…certainly not saying that Jesus being Lord is imputed to Him at birth, which would be heresy. To understand what Peter means, one must read the verses before it, wherein we see that he tells of who Jesus is. We can see then what Peter means–that God raised Jesus up for us all. Again, nothing there which would mean His Lordship was imputed.

dictionary.com:

made:
v. Past tense and past participle of make…

adj.
Produced or manufactured by constructing, shaping, or forming. Often used in combination: handmade lace; ready-made suits.
Produced or created artificially: bought some made goods at the local store.
Having been invented; contrived…

Listen, before we start talking about heresy, how can you read what St. Peter said… and simply say that “nothing there which would mean His Lordship was imputed”. I’m not talking about Church doctrine, but what is written in the bible. (which as Catholics we claim is inerrant.)

Acts 2:
29"Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ,[f] that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. 32God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. 33Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. 34For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,
" 'The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
35until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet…”

www.biblegateway.com

After this why didnt Peter then simply say something like:

“From all eternity Jesus is Lord, and when He walked among us he also became the Christ.”

Why does St. Peter seem to say that Jesus was made Lord and Christ on the condition that the Father willed this? otherwise would Jesus not be Lord? This is impossible.

 

[MH84]

…ummm i said i didn’t understand the question

How can Jesus be made to be Lord by God, when He was always God/Lord? If it was so obvious to Peter that the Son was God the Son, why would he even think to say it was God who made Jesus to be Lord? Jesus is Co-eternal with the Father isnt he? so it seems to be a strange saying for a Catholic to read.

Is that clear enough for you?

 

[Milliardo]

“From all eternity Jesus is Lord, and when He walked among us he also became the Christ.”

Why does St. Peter seem to say that Jesus was made Lord and Christ on the condition that the Father willed this? otherwise would Jesus not be Lord? This is impossible.

Again, context: as I’ve said, obviously Peter cannot contradict what John wrote, nor what Paul wrote. Taken these passages into the equation then, it would show us that Jesus’ Lordship was not imputed on Him upon His birth, or at any time after He was born, but was with Him from time immemorial–in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Similarly, Paul calls Jesus as Lord, and Peter as well here. As I have stated previously, the point of Peter would be Jesus being made man and thus being made, so to speak. Not certainly though that Jesus’ Lordship was made by God after His birth, or given to Him anytime after that.

 

[jfallaw]

How can Jesus be made to be Lord by God, when He was always God/Lord? If it was so obvious to Peter that the Son was God the Son, why would he even think to say it was God who made Jesus to be Lord? Jesus is Co-eternal with the Father isnt he? so it seems to be a strange saying for a Catholic to read.

Is that clear enough for you?

I don’t know. But I do know there is a difference between the word translated as Lord (lowercase letters) and LORD (small caps). The one translated LORD referrs to God. Any king or noble person could be called Lord (lowercase). Ref: where the apostle cried ‘My Lord AND my God!’

 

[Todd_Easton]

The Son of God was always Lord (God) but in his incarnation as Jesus of Nazareth, from his conception in the Virgin’s womb until his death on the cross, his divinity was hidden for the most part from the people around him. Perhaps what St. Peter meant was that by Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead and his ascension into heaven, God had made publicly manifest that Jesus is both Lord and Christ, had made publicly manifest that Jesus is the divine Messiah long-promised to Jews.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Acts 2:23-42 (King James Version)

23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

24Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

25For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:

26Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:

27Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine **Holy One **to see corruption.

28Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.

29Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, **he would raise up Christ Messiah ] to sit on his throne KING ] **;

31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, **The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, **

35Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, **both Lord and Christ. **

37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

40And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

41Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

42And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

You need only read the text in context to see that Christ or Messiah is made KING or Lord. Yes, it is that simple in this context, Lord simply means Jesus was made ( to set up as ) both Messiah and King. Nothing more.

Now explain, “Holy One” --Is not only God is Holy?, “baptized in Jesus name for remission of sins”, and Zechariah 3:2

1And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.

2And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?



My Catholic Brothern simply need to learn that one does not need to see a reference to the deity of Christ everywhere. First, read the text for context. In this text, Lord refers back to being King. Jesus was “set up as” ( the literal meaning of “made” in its hebrew context here ) both Christ and King ( Lord ).



Second, read the church fathers,

1. To no purpose, then, is the heretics’ customary citation of the Scripture, that “God made Him both Lord and Christ.” Let these ignorant persons read the whole passage, and understand it. For thus it is written. “God made this Jesus, Whom ye crucified, both Lord and Christ.” It was not the Godhead, but the flesh, that was crucified. This, indeed, was possible, because the flesh allowed of being crucified. It follows not, then, that the Son of God is a created being.

newadvent.org/fathers/34041.htm

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Arians like Christadelphians and Jehovah’s Witnesses for example use Acts 2:36 as a proof text, trying to say that Jesus was “made” ( using English defintion ) God, LORD.

first using the English dictionary definition of “made” is just plain stupidity on their part because the book of Acts is written in Greek within a Hebrew context.

If you go to Strong’s Concordance, you will see that the word translated “made” here from the Greek has a wide range of meanings,

1. to make

a) with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.

b) to be the authors of, the cause

c) to make ready, to prepare

d) to produce, bear, shoot forth

e) to acquire, to provide a thing for one’s self

f) to make a thing out of something

g) to (make i.e.) render one anything

1. to (make i.e.) constitute or appoint one anything, to appoint or ordain one that

1. to (make i.e.) declare one anything

h) to put one forth, to lead him out

i) to make one do something

1. cause one to

j) to be the authors of a thing (to cause, bring about)

1. to do

a) to act rightly, do well

1. to carry out, to execute

b) to do a thing unto one

1. to do to one

c) with designation of time: to pass, spend

d) to celebrate, keep

1. to make ready, and so at the same time to institute, the celebration of the passover

e) to perform: to a promise

cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=4160

The natural meaning from context is to “appoint”, “declare” or “set up as” ( this is from a hebrew translation of the text that I read ). The meaning of a word like “Lord” comes from its context in the passage. The only reasonable understanding of “Lord” in this specific context is that of being declared to be a King.

You will see that Arians are fond of committing word study fallacies. Expect to see many of the following fallacies in their posts, writings, etc.,

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

You will see that Arians are fond of committing word study fallacies. Expect to see many of the following fallacies in their posts, writings, etc.,

1. The root fallacy. One of the most enduring of errors, the root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root or roots of a word." But this is easily seen to be folly if we consider the etymology of English words. Our word nice, comes from the Latin nesicius, meaning “ignorant.” Our “good-by” is a contraction for Anglo-Saxon “God be with you.” But who today in saying a person is “nice” is saying he or she is ignorant or that everyone who uses “good-by” is giving a spiritual blessing?

"…[T]he meaning of a word may reflect the meanings of its component parts…[but] we cannot responsibly assume that etymology is related to meaning…[E]tymology [however] is important…especially in attempts to understand the meanings of words that appear only once…[T]he lack of comparative material means we sometimes have no other choice…

“2. Semantic anachronism. This fallacy occurs when a late use of a word is read back into earlier literature. At the simplest level, it occurs within the same language…But the problem has a second face when we also add a change of language.” For example, our words dynamite and hilarious are derived from the Greek dunamis and hilaron, respectively. But it is foolish to read back into the occurrence of these words explosives or hilarious laughter, as is commonly done.

"3. Semantic obsolescence. In some ways, this fallacy is the mirror image of semantic anachronism. Here the interpreter assigns to a word in his text a meaning that the word in question used to have in earlier times, but that is no longer found within the live, semantic range of the word…In short, words change their meaning over time…It follows, then, that we should be a trifle suspicious when any[one] tries to establish the meaning of a word by appealing first of all to its usage in classical Greek [pre-Alexander] rather than its usage in Hellenistic Greek [Alexander the Great (350 B.C.) to the Roman Empire (31
B.C.)].

“4. Appeal to unknown or unlikely meanings.” Examples include the attempt by some recent feminist writers to say that “head” in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, speaking of husbands in relation to wives, really means “source” or “origin,” not authority.

“8. False assumptions about technical meaning. In this fallacy, an interpreter falsely assumes that a word always or nearly always has a certain technical meaning-a meaning usually derived either from a subset of the evidence or from the interpreter’s personal systematic theology.” An easy example is the word sanctification.

“6. Problems surrounding synonyms and componen-tial analysis…[First,] the terms synonymy and equivalence are so little understood by many of us that adequate distinctions are not always preserved…The fallacy is that ‘synonyms’ are identical in more ways than the evidence allows…In a sense, of course, two terms are virtually never strictly synonymous if by ‘synonymous’ we are saying that wherever they are used the two terms mean exactly the same thing denotatively and connotatively…But a pair of words can be strictly synonymous in certain contexts…” Agapao and phileo, for example (John 21:15-17).

“7. Selective and prejudicial use of evidence…I am referring to the kind of appeal to selective evidence that enables the interpreter to say what he or she wants to say, without really listening to what the Word of God says.” It also includes using only part of what some source that is appealed to for authority has said about a word in order to slant the conclusion in the direction the interpreter wants it to go.

“8. Unwarranted adoption of an expanded semantic field. The fallacy in this instance lies in the supposition that the meaning of a word in a specific context is much broader than the context itself allows and may bring with it the word’s entire semantic range. This step is sometimes called illegitimate totality transfer.” In this fallacy, all the possible meanings of a word are declared to be the actual meaning in each single place it appears.

1. Failure to recognize that different authors may use the same word in different ways. The fallacy in this case is the false assumption that one NT writer’s predominant usage of any word is roughly that of all other NT writers; very often that is not the case.

“10. Unwarranted linking of sense and reference.” The “sense” of a word is not equal to its basic meaning or definition. All that can be said of a word in a definition in a lexicon is that it has the “sense” of this or that. Its actual meaning depends on how it is used in the context of a sentence. (Exegetical Fallacies, D.A.Carson; Baker Book House: Grand Rapids,MI; 1984, pp. 26-66)

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

"10. Unwarranted linking of sense and reference." The “sense” of a word is not equal to its basic meaning or definition. All that can be said of a word in a definition in a lexicon is that it has the “sense” of this or that. Its actual meaning depends on how it is used in the context of a sentence. (Exegetical Fallacies, D.A.Carson; Baker Book House: Grand Rapids,MI; 1984, pp. 26-66)

In addition to these, we might add one more:

1. Failure to properly distinguish tense, mood, and voice for meaning. The “mood” of a verb is a “distinction of form to express whether the action or state described is conceived of as fact or some other manner, as command, possibility, or wish (indicative, imperative, subjunctive, optative moods).” The “voice” of a verb is the “distinction of form to indicate the relation of the subject of the verb to the action the verb expresses-active (subject performs), middle (subject both performs and is subjected to the action, as in “I wash myself”), and passive (subject acted upon)” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary). The actual meaning of a Greek word in any specific instance depends upon and is influenced by these things, which are generally quite out of the reach of common people.

geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4610/biblio/use.html

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

My understanding is that because Jesus is God, He was always “Lord”. How come in Acts 2 St. Peter says:

36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” ?

www.biblegateway.com

But not publicly - until His Resurrection - or perhaps His Crucifixion-Resurrection-Ascension.​

Until then, he was Messiah designate - Messiah in waiting. Afterwards, He was “constituted” (as St. Paul puts it in Rom. 1.3) Lord - see Psalm 110:

• Psa 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
• **Psa 110:2**The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
• **Psa 110:3 **Thy people [shall be] willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
• **Psa 110:4 **The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
• **Psa 110:5 **The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.
• **Psa 110:6 **He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill [the places] with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.
• **Psa 110:7 **He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.

• and Messiah. His Messianic identity was a secret during His ministry: which is why those episodes in the gospels which include recognitions of it, are so significant. The secrecy & mystery of His Messianic & royal identity is a very important NT theme.

 

[jfallaw]

"10. Unwarranted linking of sense and reference." The “sense” of a word is not equal to its basic meaning or definition. All that can be said of a word in a definition in a lexicon is that it has the “sense” of this or that. Its actual meaning depends on how it is used in the context of a sentence. (Exegetical Fallacies, D.A.Carson; Baker Book House: Grand Rapids,MI; 1984, pp. 26-66)

In addition to these, we might add one more:

1. Failure to properly distinguish tense, mood, and voice for meaning. The “mood” of a verb is a “distinction of form to express whether the action or state described is conceived of as fact or some other manner, as command, possibility, or wish (indicative, imperative, subjunctive, optative moods).” The “voice” of a verb is the “distinction of form to indicate the relation of the subject of the verb to the action the verb expresses-active (subject performs), middle (subject both performs and is subjected to the action, as in “I wash myself”), and passive (subject acted upon)” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary). The actual meaning of a Greek word in any specific instance depends upon and is influenced by these things, which are generally quite out of the reach of common people.

geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4610/biblio/use.html

wow good posts!

 

[MH84]

Again, context: as I’ve said, obviously Peter cannot contradict what John wrote, nor what Paul wrote. Taken these passages into the equation then, it would show us that Jesus’ Lordship was not imputed on Him upon His birth, or at any time after He was born, but was with Him from time immemorial–in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Similarly, Paul calls Jesus as Lord, and Peter as well here. As I have stated previously, the point of Peter would be Jesus being made man and thus being made, so to speak. Not certainly though that Jesus’ Lordship was made by God after His birth, or given to Him anytime after that.

I was looking a this thread again, I I have some questions about this post.

Again, context: as I’ve said, obviously Peter cannot contradict what John wrote, nor what Paul wrote.

But Acts was written before the Gospl according to John.

Similarly, Paul calls Jesus as Lord, and Peter as well here. As I have stated previously, the point of Peter would be Jesus being made man and thus being made, so to speak. Not certainly though that Jesus’ Lordship was made by God after His birth, or given to Him anytime after that.

In the passage, Peter doesnt say he was made man, he said he was made Lord. There’s a difference.