06-03-2004, 12:23 AM
Hi Paul,
I don't know that much about Aramaic but I wanted to comment on your possible changing of the word "received" to "take up" in Acts 3:21. Now, this could just be a side affect of the English language but I thought I would say it anyway. If you change it to "take up" then the action appears to be placed on Heaven, as if to reach down and bring up the Messiah. But it seems to me that a very important underlying truth is that Messiah is the one who went in Himself--hence, Heaven would accept Him with open arms, so to speak.
It is kind of like the priest that would go into the Most Holy Place every year. Well, so did Messiah, once and for all, only it is the spiritual Most Holy Place as He removed the veil. The Temple did not reach out and bring in the priest when the time was right, but the priest went in at the appointed time.
Does that make sense?
David
I don't know that much about Aramaic but I wanted to comment on your possible changing of the word "received" to "take up" in Acts 3:21. Now, this could just be a side affect of the English language but I thought I would say it anyway. If you change it to "take up" then the action appears to be placed on Heaven, as if to reach down and bring up the Messiah. But it seems to me that a very important underlying truth is that Messiah is the one who went in Himself--hence, Heaven would accept Him with open arms, so to speak.
It is kind of like the priest that would go into the Most Holy Place every year. Well, so did Messiah, once and for all, only it is the spiritual Most Holy Place as He removed the veil. The Temple did not reach out and bring in the priest when the time was right, but the priest went in at the appointed time.
Does that make sense?
David