That is not what Peter says. Here is the relevant passage, from the NET Bible:
Peter says that Christ's flesh did not see corruption. I believe him when he says that.
Let's use all of Peter's words. Peter says that Christ's body was not left to decay because it was raised. I believe him when he says that.
Peter confirms that David was speaking about the resurrection of Christ in two respects:
2:25 For David says about him, 'I saw the Lord always in front of me,
for he is at my right hand so that I will not be shaken.
2:26 Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue rejoiced;
my body also will live in hope,
2:27 because you will not leave my soul in Hades,
nor permit your Holy One to experience decay.
2:28 You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will make me full of joy with your presence.'
2:29 "Brothers, I can speak confidently to you about our forefather David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.
2:30 So then, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne,
2:31 David by foreseeing this spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did his body experience decay.
2:32 This Jesus God raised up, and we are all witnesses of it.
- he (Gk: his soul, 'psuche') was not abandoned in the grave;
- his body (Gk: flesh, 'sarx') did not experience decay.
But Peter does not make the second point, that Christ's flesh did not experience decay, simply a consequence of his being raised, as you have done. There is no "because" in what he says. His claim is that the resurrection of Jesus is a unique event; it is unlike the natural experience of all others (including David) who have died, in two ways: (1) God did not allow Jesus stay in the grave, and (2) his flesh did not experience decay. Neither of these things is at all normal, and Peter confirms David's prophecy that both were true of Jesus in his resurrection. Your reading of the words does not follow that structure, which is plain in the text.
Neither was the extra manna of the 6th day "magic". But on the morning of the sabbath, it had not corrupted, as would be expected. Clearly, therefore, God had done something special to bring that about. Yet whilst you allow that God did that for for the manna, you refuse to allow that God did the same for the body of his own son, so that his flesh was likewise not corrupted, exactly as David and Peter said it would not be?
Do you think that actually his flesh was corrupting in the grave, as any corpse normally would?
Of course it was. His body wasn't magic, his body was corrupting from the time that he died on the cross.
Paul later confirms the exact same point that Peter makes in Acts 2, and he makes an explicit contrast on this very issue. Speaking to this in the synagogue in Antioch, he says:
Paul makes an explicit contrast between David experiencing decay and Jesus not experiencing decay. Your claim is quite opposed to that - you claim that Jesus body did experience decay. Fort, I believe the description given by David, Peter and Paul. I do not believe your account.
13:35 ... he also says in another psalm, 'You will not permit your Holy One to experience decay.'
13:36 For David, after he had served God's purpose in his own generation, died, was buried with his ancestors, and experienced decay,
13:37 but the one whom God raised up did not experience decay.
You've generalised greatly from what I said, incorrectly. I have never said that "manna in the Pentateuch represents resurrection", i.e. as a general principle. My point is much more specific than that. It is that the absence of corruption in the extra manna gathered on the 6th day, when it was taken from the vessel on the morning of the sabbath day, is a symbol for the resurrection of Christ, whose flesh did not experience corruption even though he tasted death for a short time.
I just pointed out that there's nothing in John 6 which substantiates your point that the manna in the Pentateuch represents resurrection.
Sorry, Fort, but by creating your own summary version of my argument, in your own words, you're making a straw man, something easy to knock down. Your arguments need to be made against the specific actual words I have used, not your own incorrect re-presentation of what I have said, turned into a form you can criticise. In this summary, you've left out a number of aspects of my logic, and in particular the key linkages in the scriptural reasoning, the specific words that connect the relevant passages in how they are used of the different elements.
I said that here Jesus is showing the manna was a figure for himself, and indeed he is. He says that he is the true bread, the bread from heaven which fulfilled - but went far beyond - the pattern of the manna in the wilderness. He said that the bread, eating of which can bring eternal life, was his flesh. The connection with resurrection comes then in Acts 2 where Peter says of Christ that his flesh did not see corruption. It is in this respect that the figure of the preservation of the 6th day's manna, which was, unnaturally, found uncorrupted (without worms, and not stinking) on the morning of the sabbath, is a figure for Jesus' resurrection, when he was raised from the death, not having experienced corruption.
Your reasoning is:
1. The manna is a figure of Christ.
2. Christ said that eating his flesh brings eternal life.
3. Christ's flesh did not see corruption.
4. Christ was raised.
5. Therefore the manna being uncorrupted on the 6th day is a figure for Christ's resurrection.
There is no logical chain of reasoning here which results in the manna being a symbol of Christ's resurrection. As has been pointed out again and again, the manna was never in a state analogous to death, let alone 'corruption'. Furthermore, examining each point we find:
1. Christ did not use the manna as a figure of himself. He contrasted himself with the manna saying he is the true bread from heaven, which if a man eat he will receive eternal life.
2. Christ was not speaking of his literal flesh, so the chain of reasoning "manna = Jesus' flesh = uncorrupted flesh = uncorrupted flesh which was raised" is simply a non-sequitur; the conclusion does not proceed logically from the premise.
3-4. Christ's body was not left to decay because he was raised.
But briefly to deal with the first two points now (I already dealt with your 3rd point, above):
1. Jesus clearly does make the manna a figure for himself. The key issue here, which I outlined earlier, is how a figure works, what makes it a figure. In a scriptural figure, there is necessarily a combination of elements showing similarity and elements showing difference. In an earlier comment I referred to Heb 9:24, which makes this point very clear: the holy places made with hands - the tabernacle with its first holy place and its second, the holy of holies - are "figures" (Gk: 'antitupos', anti-types) of the "true", which is heaven itself. The holy places are not the true dwelling place of God, because of the differences between them and heaven; but they are figures of heaven, because of certain deliberate and explicit similarities between them and heaven.
The fact that both Jesus and the manna are called "bread from heaven", and can be eaten of, is one of several points of similarity, showing the genuine figurative relationship between the manna and Jesus. And it is the contrast between Jesus and the manna, that eating of him brings eternal life whereas eating of the manna did not, a specific difference, which shows that the manna, the bread from heaven indeed is indeed a figure of him, and not itself the true bread from heaven, which is Jesus himself. The manna is the figure; Jesus is the true.
2. When Jesus said "the bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world", he was indeed speaking of his actual physical flesh. When he gave himself in sacrifice, it was his actual flesh and blood body which was nailed to the tree. We show this in figure every week, when he partake of bread and wine, the communion of the body and blood of Christ.
Edited by Mark Taunton, 21 November 2010 - 09:05 AM.