Peter on the Last Days - Part Two

[Omegaman 3.0]

Peter on the Last Days - Part Two
( part 1 is here )

     I do not know how many parts there will bet, but this is the second installment, and deals with a little something we can glean from Act 3. Many will think I go too far - maybe I do. However, this is what I think I see there, related to end times sequences.

     In Acts Chapter 3, Peter is again addressing a group of people and lets us know something of what has been revealed to him about the last days. Now, the context is not a lecture on eschatology, it is a presentation of the Gospel near the temple in Jerusalem.
Peter and John were there and encountered a man, crippled, who was begging. Peter said he did not have any money, but what he did have, he would give to the man. Then he said "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Walk!"
(Act 3:6)

     The man was healed and walked with Peter and John, into the temple courts. The man seemed to be a bit excited (and why not) by his ability to walk for the first time in his life. The people round about, recognized the man as the guy who used to sit around begging for money and they were amazed.
Peter seized this opportunity, to launch into a presentation of the Gospel, (Acts 3:12-25), part of which I will reproduce for you here:

     “Fellow Israelites, why does this surprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or Godliness we had made this man walk? 13 The God of  Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus.
You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. 14 You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. 15 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. 16 By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus’ name and the faith that comes through Him that has completely healed him, as you can all see.

     17 “Now, fellow Israelites, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. 18 But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Messiah would suffer. 19 Repent, then, and turn to
God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, 20 and that He may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. 21 Heaven must receive Him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. 22 For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything He tells you. 23 Anyone who does not listen to Him will be completely cut off from their people.’

     The reason I have only given you part of that sermon here, is that I am focusing in this series, on what Peter tells us, about the end times. So, in keeping with that, I want to point out verse 21 to you:
“Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. “

     Now, to restate that into plainer language, we could paraphase that sentence in this way:
He (Jesus) must remain in Heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, just as He (God) has promised long ago through the prophets (in the scriptures)
Now certainly, Peter is not here, giving us a discourse on eschatology, but he has revealed a little detail, that could clear up a misconception that some might have about the future actions of Jesus, things Jesus will be doing in our future.

     Peter has let us know here, that Jesus must remain in Heaven until certain things have happened, things which have been revealed, prophesied to happen, which are in our Old Testament. I am not certain what things Peter had in mind (possibly Isa 2:1-4, Isa 35, and Zech 14:1&14:8-11) when he said "the time to restore everything", but I think we can reasonably conclude certain things about this concept.

     For example:
        · The fact that Jesus must remain in Heaven until . . . the until lets us know that there will be a time where Jesus is no longer going to be restricted to Heaven, and He may return.
        · Clearly, this had not yet happened at the time Peter gave this sermon, and would be yet future
        · We know that Jesus has not returned as of this study, so it is still a future event
        · We know (from Matt 24 and other passages, that there is coming a time of great tribulation, and since the
tribulation is the world at it's worst, that the tribulation does not qualify as a 'restoration of all things'
        · Since Jesus will not return until the time of restoration, and since we also know that Jesus WILL return, immediately after the great tribulation (Matt 24:29-31), it is a reasonable assumption, is that Jesus will not return before or during the tribulation
        · Since Jesus can not return UNTIL it is time to restore all things, and He will return after the tribulation, therefore, His return after the tribulation has to be the time to restore all things, there is no alternative that harmonizes with what we know from these verses which we have just examined.

     Psalm 110 says:
1The Lord says to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” 2The Lord will extend your mighty scepter from Zion, saying, “Rule in the midst of your enemies!” 3Your troops will be willing on your day of battle. Arrayed in holy splendor, your young men will come to you like dew from the morning’s womb.

     Now, in this context of Jesus not returning until some event, notice that Jesus (apparently) is told by God the Father (in Heaven) to remain (there in Heaven, at God's right hand).

     The Bible is nothing, if not consistent. It is always agreeing with itself. If you have an understanding of a text, which does not harmonize with other Bible texts, then you have a wrong understanding, assuming that the Bible is accurate. While the ideas that I am pulling from these texts, may not be a correct understanding, they are not incompatible with each other, or other points of scripture, so they may well be correct.

     If my understanding is correct on these texts we are examining, then it appears again, that if Peter had the notion that Jesus would return (and he did), then Peter seems to understand that His return, will be after the great tribulation. Not only does he imply that Jesus will return after the tribulation, he states that Jesus will not return before it, making a pre-trib rapture impossible.

[Last Daze]

A nice dialectic.

[Ezra]

Some observations on this post focused on Acts chapter 3:

1. Peter was the apostle to the Circumcision (the Jews) -- "Ye men of Israel".

2. The Church had recently become a reality but there were no Gentiles at this point.

3. The restoration ("restitution") of all things would be in the context of OT prophecies primarily related to Israel and the Abrahamic covenant. 

4. Therefore Peter's address was not necessarily including God's plan for the Church, which was a mystery finally revealed to Paul.

5. The Rapture is a doctrine pertaining to the ultimate salvation of the Church (Jew and Gentile in one Body).

[Omegaman 3.0]

Some observations on this post focused on Acts chapter 3:

1. Peter was the apostle to the Circumcision (the Jews) -- "Ye men of Israel".

2. The Church had recently become a reality but there were no Gentiles at this point.

3. The restoration ("restitution") of all things would be in the context of OT prophecies primarily related to Israel and the Abrahamic covenant. 

4. Therefore Peter's address was not necessarily including God's plan for the Church, which was a mystery finally revealed to Paul.

5. The Rapture is a doctrine pertaining to the ultimate salvation of the Church (Jew and Gentile in one Body).

To observation 1:

Peter was the apostle to the Jews, does not make anything he says untrue for Gentiles. The great commission was preach the Gospel to the world:

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” 

Jesus had already told them:

"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

So, since there is no instruction to give one version of the Gospels to Jews and another to Gentiles, since there is not difference Jew not gentile considering salvation (Gal 3:28), all are saved the same way and under the same plan. Arent most pre-tribbers fond of pointing out there was a dispensation of Law previously, before the church age, that started at Pentecost? Isn't this Gospet being preached here then, during the Church age to all people, starting in Jerusalem? 

I think your observation is accurate, but I do not see in what way that changes the message Peter is giving. It says what it says, more on that later.

Your point two. Yes, it could be that there are no Gentiles in the church yet, a fair observation, but how is that relevant in your mind?

You point number 3 is interesting. Are you proposing that this restoration or restitution has already happened or what? My point is, the the text says that Jesus must remain in Heaven until the time of restoration. Since we know with certainty, that Jesus will return after the Tribulation, then this time of restoration has to have come by the end of the tribulation. There is no wiggle room there. For Jesus to leave Heaven (for  pre-trib rapture, this time of restoration has to have already happened by then. So, in your mind, what was/is this restoration exactly. You stated: "in the context of OT prophecies primarily related to Israel and the Abrahamic covenant". Do you have a verse for that, and some event that happens or happens pre-trib, that fulfill the notion that everything or all things, have been restored? Or that the time for that has happened?

Your point number four, "therefore", strikes as nothing other that a faulty conclusion with out any basis given.

I really do not think I can disagree with your point number five. I agree that is what will happen. I just see that as happening after the tribulation, not at some invisible, secret coming which scripture never mentions.

Thanks Ezra, I can always count on you to check my work!

[Ezra]

Peter was the apostle to the Jews, does not make anything he says untrue for Gentiles.... Isn't this Gospel being preached here then, during the Church age to all people, starting in Jerusalem?

25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.  Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

Please note above that while the Church Age began at Pentecost, there would be a gradual progression to the preaching of the Gospel – Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, the rest of the world.  The above verse make it clear that this message is for the Jews and their blessings through the Abrahamic Covenant.  “Thy seed” is Christ, but as Paul said, the Gospel was “to the Jew FIRST”, and that is what we see here.

I think your observation is accurate, but I do not see in what way that changes the message Peter is giving. It says what it says, more on that later.

For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

These words would only make sense to those familiar with the Torah – the Jews.  They would be meaningless to Gentiles. Therefore the  message is indeed for the Jews and not the entire Church.

Your point two. Yes, it could be that there are no Gentiles in the church yet, a fair observation, but how is that relevant in your mind?

Extremely relevant.  God has a plan for redeemed and restored Israel, and Peter is referring to that plan.  Please note his emphasis on the Hebrew prophets and what they had prophesied regarding restored Israel:

And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.  Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days

You point number 3 is interesting. Are you proposing that this restoration or restitution has already happened or what?

No, it has not happened already because Israel in part was blinded (after they chose to be blind to their true Messiah). Therefore God’s plan for Israel has been postponed UNTIL THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST.

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

If one wants to know what these “times of refreshing” refer to, one must read the prophecy of Ezekiel when the kingdom Israel has been restored under Christ, and all those in Israel are regenerated under the New Covenant.

My point is, the the text says that Jesus must remain in Heaven until the time of restoration. Since we know with certainty, that Jesus will return after the Tribulation, then this time of restoration has to have come by the end of the tribulation. There is no wiggle room there.

 For Jesus to leave Heaven (for  pre-trib rapture, this time of restoration has to have already happened by then. [/quote]

There is indeed wiggle room there.  Let’s set aside the Tribulation and its connection to the Rapture.  If you study 1 Thess 4:13-18 (the Resurrection/Rapture) JESUS DOES NOT LEAVE HEAVEN BUT IMMEDIATELY RETURNS TO HEAVEN. So the Rapture is not directly connected to the “restitution of all things”, but indirectly. Christ descends from Heaven, gathers all the saints together, and returns to Heaven with His glorified saints.  WE believe that there is sufficient scriptural evidence that this is separate from the Second Coming WITH the saints to the battle of Armageddon (Rev 19).

So, in your mind, what was/is this restoration exactly. You stated: "in the context of OT prophecies primarily related to Israel and the Abrahamic covenant".

This is what the “restoration” or “restitution” is (Ezek 37:21-28):

21 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:

22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:

23 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.

24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.

26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.

27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

28 And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.

[Omegaman 3.0]

Very interesting. I am fascinated, that you see some of the same things I do, and come up with evidence for them that I buy as valid, Things then go off track, when you do that "it says this but it mean that" sort of thing. Example, you point out:

"No, it has not happened already because Israel in part was blinded (after they chose to be blind to their true Messiah). Therefore God’s plan for Israel has been postponed UNTIL THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST.

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;"

You acknowledge that it has not happened already, that is good, we have common ground there. You give a reason why it has not happened, but the bottom line for me is that indeed, it has not happened.

You also point out, that there are a times of refreshing which shall come from the presence of the Lord, and rightly associated that with Jesus second coming at least I think that is what you were saying.

Here is where I am troubled: Peter says, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that Jesus must remain in Heaven. Then he says UNTIL, (do I really need to state this again?) Again, we know Jesus will return (and be present) at His second coming, which we agree is after the tribulation. 

Follow the flow of logic here, and address this please (or not and we can just move on).

Jesus must remain in Heaven until the time for the restoration, whatever that is. Just a fact, nothing vague on that point.

Jesus will return after the trib, immediately after in fact, again, just a fact, also clear, not muddy at all.

If He MUST remain until He returns, then once he does return (which we know He will do at the second coming, then necessarily the time of restoration has come by the time of that second coming, otherwise He would remain in Heaven. It does not matter how you interpret the time of restoration, what it is etc, Whatever it is though, that time has come when Jesus returns, and He will not return until that time has come. Those two things are linked together solidly in  Act 3:21. No interpretation is necessary on that point, is is just a statement made by Peter under inspiration.

Now, I once saw an attemp made, to say that Jesus does remain in Heaven, as long as He is in the air and His feet have not yet touched the ground. That to me, was the most embarrassing attemp to defend a position, that I think I have ever seen from a Christian. It also seems to be destroyed when God says "Remain at my right hand until" . . . another "until", pesky things, aren't they? 

So, it seems to me that there are a few alternatives.

We could assert that God did not foresee the fact that Israel would reject her Messiah, and so he spoke out of turn when He inspired Peter, or, perhaps, God just changed His mind, and went to plan B for some other reason. Another possibility. is that Peter was not speaking under the inspiration of God, OR, Luke was not writing the book of Acts under that same inspiration, in which case, either the idea that all scripture is God breathed is wrong, or the book of Acts does not belong in the Bible.

For those of us who hold to an inerrant, inspired Bible, I do not think we can, in good conscience, try to make this verse say something other than what it says. If it means what it says, then Jesus cannot return, until He shall return, after the great trib, and therefore, there can be no pre-trib rapture, unless the raptured are called up to heaven instead of meeting the Lord in the air, as the Bible says.

I find it truly amazing, that people will stick to a faith in the pre-trib rapture, and choose that over plain teaching from plain texts.

I believe that here, when a Christian looks that Acts 3:21, and considers all that is said and the necessary implications, that such a Christian is presenting the case, that the Bible has contradictions, contradictions that are harder to explain, that any I have seen brought up by an unbeliever.

I prefer, therefore, to just believe the Bible and hold fast to my belief that scripture is inspired and true, than to believe that scripture is wrong, and J.N. Darby or whoever one believes really first explicitly taught a pre-trib rapture. The Bible is true, therefore Darby was wrong.

Just as an aside, not evidence of anything, nor can I even prove this, but I believe that nothing has done more to advance post-trib belief, than the arguments of  pre-tribulation rapturists. Keep up the good work!

[Last Daze]

.5. The Rapture is a doctrine pertaining to the ultimate salvation of the Church (Jew and Gentile in one Body).

The rapture follows the resurrection.  They can't be separated.  Its a time when all who are Christ's put on immortality, OT & NT saints.

[Esther4:14]

Omegaman, 

I think this is probably the best counter argument to the pre-tribulation rapture theory that I have ever heard in my life.  Very well done.  

[Omegaman 3.0]

Thank you Esther, but, not all will see it that way, nor even acknowledge it's validity. As with anything, there are always some who are determined to believe certain things, and no argument nor evidence is persuasive enough. Thanks for reading it, getting what I was saying, and taking the time to post a kind reply. 

[missmuffet]

Time will tell.