|
(Protestant # 1) I was always told that the church was built on revelation! To be more specific, Peter had a DIVINE REVELATION of exactly who Jesus was. It came from the Father. This is so obvious the correct interpretation. ** It is quite true that Peter's revelation came from God, but the idea that this revelation is the rock is apparently not so obvious, since there is disagreement between you, me, various Presbytarian, Lutheran, Baptist, etc. ** (Protestant # 2) You are right _____,IT IS THE ROCK, OF REVALATION [sic], that Peter recieved from God , that Jesus was talking about .This revalation That Jesus is the Christ , the SON of the living God ,is a revalation [sic] , that i believe we all need to have still today .as there sure a lot of false Christs out there , as Jesus warned us there would be .mathew 24 :24 ** Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the rock was Peter's revelation - not in English or even the original Greek translated from Aramaic. If it had been the case, Jesus would have said something like, "blessed are you Peter for your revelation, and it is this revelation upon which I will build my church" - but He didn't. Also, by what criteria do you identify "false Christs"? ** (Protestant # 3) I agree, though, with ____, _____, ____, ____ and ____ that our faith and hope is based on our revelation of Jesus and who he is to us and what he hopes for us, not on Peter. ** It is truly wonderful for us Christians that Jesus is the source of our faith and hope - I completely agree! I'm not suggesting otherwise. ** Peter was given certain responsibilities that Jesus thought he could handle since his faith in the Lord was rock solid. ** Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom (Mt 16:19), a highly significant gesture, not just certain janitorial responsibilities. ** Apparently, the faith of all 11 of the disciples was sure after the sacrifice and suffering they went through in following Jesus teachings and dying for them. ** Note also that Peter took the initiative in replacing the 12 apostle Judas with Matthias (Acts 1:22) He preached the first sermon (Acts 2:14-26). He brought the first Christian community into being (Acts 2:41), and he already was acting as the spokesman for the 12 (Acts 3:12, 4:8). He alone was the one who decided to allow the Gentiles directly into the Christian community against all opposition (Acts 10:9-48) He was the one who settled the dispute at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:7-11). He was even the first after Christ to raise the dead! (Acts 9:40)** John was also quite precious to Jesus. The one who we could tell in the book of John was quite close to Jesus. John wrote many wonderful things we are privileged to be able to read in the scriptures with the 4th gospel by him. Later in the NT, we have more from John in his 3 epistles. The book of Revelations was also revealed to John, not Peter. Peter, James and John went up to the mount with Jesus when he was transformed. We have the epistles from Peter and James also along with John's after Paul's letters. ** Paul identifies Peter as one of the pillars of the Church (Gal 2:9) along with James and John. Many were close to Jesus - this does not detract from Peter's unique position as leader. In fact, he was given special recognition apart from the others; for example, Jesus instructed Peter alone to feed and tend his sheep (Jn 21:15-17)- it is particularly helpful to note in verse 16 that the word "tend" in Greek is poimainein, which means to lead, or govern (see also Mt 2:6 and Rev 2:27, 12:5, 19:15). Note also that Jesus prayed specifically for Peter: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you (plural "you" in Greek) like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you (singular "you" in Greek)must strengthen your brothers" - Lk 22:32** (Protestant # 4) Why would God build His church on a man when it was His Son who did the work of redemption, not Peter or any other person.When He uttered thos words "It is finished" He had completed the work, lived the law and opened the Holiest of All to mere mortals through His great Love for us. ** It certainly is Jesus who did the work of redemption, not Peter or any other person. However, when He uttered the words, "it is finished" (Jn 19:20) it was in reference to the 4th cup of the Passover meal. How do we know this? Because the Last Supper was a Passover meal, which in the Jewish tradition includes 4 cups during the liturgy. Anyway, since Christ wasn't resurrected until 3 days later (Jn 20), was "it" really finished simply at the time of His death? Notice also that when Mary sees that the tomb is empty, she runs to whom? Peter (Jn 20:2). The other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first, but didn't go in (Jn 20:5) He waited for Peter to enter the tomb first (Jn 20:6), and then he entered (Jn 20:8), and after the Crucifixion God's angel gave Peter special recognition, saying, "But go and tell his disciples and Peter" (Mk 16:7) These actions speak directly to the leadership position given to Peter by Jesus. I heartily affirm with you all Jesus did the work of redemption, and He is the source of our faith and hope. Don't equate this with the role given to Peter by Him to be the leader of the physical body of Christ, the new Christian Church, until His return. ** (Protestant # 5) 1 Corinthians 10 verse 4 clearly says that the Rock was Christ."...for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ". Note: THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST.We sing the Rock of All Ages and in no way are we singing about Peter. ** Of course Jesus is the "spiritual rock" of our salvation, and He also declared Peter the rock, or foundation, of the church in Matthew's Gospel - there is no incongruity here. Peter's primacy and "rockness" is through the power of Jesus Christ, not instead of Him, indeed, "for this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named" (Eph 3:15). All through Scripture, the changing of a person's name was a highly significant event, for example, "No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come forth from you."(Gen 17:5-6). Incidently, note that Abraham was also referred to as "rock", in Isaiah 51:1-2 "Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you who seek the LORD; look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the quarry from which you were digged. Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you; for when he was but one I called him, and I blessed him and made him many." ** I have NEVER heard of Peter being refered to as The Rock. Jesus has always been The Rock and never have I heard anything preached in any Baptist, Presbyterian or other church, or read anything, to the contrary. ** Well, here's a Presbytarian who preaches it - David Hill, minister at the University of Sheffield, who writes, "On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. Attempts to interpret the 'rock' as something other than Peter in person (e.g. his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of which is highly unlikely." ("The Gospel of Matthew" in The New Century Bible Commentary, R.E. Clements and Matthe Black, eds., p. 261)These are his words, not mine! :-) ** I say: If Jesus was refering to Peter he would have said, upon You I will build my church. What in the world will they think of next? ** Consider reading the passage again, "17 Blessed are YOU Simon Barjona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to YOU but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell YOU , YOU are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give YOU the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' (Mt 16:17-19). Even with the more cumbersome KJV's "thee" and "thou", it is clear that Jesus is referring to Peter through this entire passage, You might also consider reading the early Church Fathers, who also considered Peter to the the rock (Greek "petros") - a belief held since the very beginning of Christianity. ** The other day we had _____ quoting from the Course of Miracles saying that Jesus saw the Christ in his brothers, when the Bible is clear that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God. Not that he saw God or had a relationship with him.I enjoy diversity of thought but come on folk, lets get real. ** What happened to tolerance of opposing views? :-) Is it really the Holy Spirit who is leading everyone to draw such different conclusions? Here's what reformed Baptist bible scholar Dr. John Broadus writes, "As Peter means 'rock', the natural interpretation is that 'upon this rock' means upon thee. No other explanation would probably at present day be attempted...But there is a play upon words, understand as you may. It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play on words if we understand the rock to be Christ; and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter's confession" (Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, p. 355)"In this series of posts on the subject of Peter I've listed many scholars and theologians who share this same view, so I'm not sure why this comes as a surprise. ** (Protestant # 6)I am SO relieved to know that Christ built His church on Peter. I could always identify with Peter. He was a sinner, lied about ever having been with Christ, and forsook Him in His darkest hour. Christ told Him that he savored more of man than of God. That gives me so much more hope. Sounds something like me ! ! Once saved always saved. If Peter never lost his salvation, neither will I, even I could have been the corner stone for his church. Happy Day. **Although I'm sensing some sarcasm, isn't it reassuring for us to know that even Peter, with all of his human faults, was given the keys to the kingdom by Jesus? I'm glad you agree with me :-)** (Protestant # 7) I just wanted to add a few thoughts to the current discussion about Peter. Jesus said, "I will build my church". And what is the church? It is not a visible organisation. A church is a group of people. The word "church" is from the Greek "ekklesia" meaning a gathering. So Jesus is saying, "I will gather my people. I will bring them together. ** The Greek "ekklesia" for the word "church" meaning gathering of believers is quite true. However, it says nothing about this gathering of believers being invisible, does it? On the contrary, it was the very visible early Church that wrote the books of the New Testament, worshipped in the safety of the catacombs, were persecuted by the Romans, etc. Jesus quite visibly gave Peter the keys to the kingdom and spoke of a very visible church that was to be the "light of the world" (Mt 5:14). If this church was just some nebulous "gathering of believers", to whom would early Christians turn in the event of a dispute? Jesus instructed us to take arguments to "the church" (not the Bible) in Mt 18:17 - how would this be possible with your definition of "church". ** Turning to Matthew 16:13-28. The whole passage is on the identity. Christ and the cost of discipleship. Jesus asks who people say He is. The disciples reply with, John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, one of the prophets. Then Jesus asks them (plural) who He is. Peter answers with, "You are Christ, the Son of the Living God." Jesus then tells Peter he is blessed. Why? Not because of some capricious stroke of genius but because God in Heaven revealed it to Peter. We are truly blessed when God reveals His Son to us. ** Of course it is a blessing to confess Jesus as Lord; however, the above statement ignores the response Jesus gave to Nathaneal when he did the EXACT same thing Peter did in Mt 16:18. Note in John 1:49-51 Jesus does NOT bless Nathaneal, nor does he change his name, nor does he give him the keys to the kingdom - clearly, this was a significant event in Peter's (and the church's) life.** Jesus says that this is a rock on which the church will be built. Jesus didn't say YOU are the rock. He said THIS is the rock. ** Actually, Jesus did not say "a rock" or "the rock", he said "this very rock" (Greek tautee) is what I shall build my church upon - my visible gathering of believers. This is the same language Jesus used in Mark 14:30 ("This day, even in this night ... you will deny me thrice"). He did this at the site of the large, and therefore, quite visible rock formation at Caesarea Philippi to drive the point home even further - you can't get much more visible than that! ** The rock is the identity of Christ, that He is the Son of God and God the Son. Are we to imagine that Peter is the unmovable rock that Hades can't overcome? Hardly. He was a whimsical man. ** God worked through fallible men to write the books which become Sacred Scripture, right? Don't forget that the rest of the Apostles had their share of human shortcomings - they, too, fled after the betrayal and arrest of Jesus (Mt 26:56), and they argued among themselves who would be "first" when Jesus foretold his betrayal (Lk 22:24). Are we also to imagine that Jesus would give the keys to the kingdom to a mere "whimsical man" and not have a very good reason for doing so? Are we to imagine that the highly symbolic giving of the keys to the kingdom (Is 22) was to last only for Peter's lifetime? We see that Jesus wanted a strong foundation for the church in the years to come (Mt 27)** What then shall we say of Peter? Yes, he was A leader in the early church but hardly THE leader. I'm afraid I don't see where Paul acknowledges Peter as THE leader. ** Scripture clearly shows that Peter was considered the leader of the apostles, for reasons I've already outlined in detail, and especially when he settled the dispute at the quite visible first council at Jerusalem (Acts 15). ** And even if by some stretch of imagination we assume Peter WAS the leader, how do we jump from his leadership to a direct descent of leaders, to a papacy? The NT does not reveal any such thing. ** Does the NT reveal its own canon? Does the NT prove its own inspiration? The answer is no. The NT doesn't mention the American Civil war, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. If you actually read the patristic texts you will find agreement with the NT; for example, Clement I's letter to the church in Corinth around 90 A.D. (during which the apostle John was STILL ALIVE) clearly demonstrates that there was a successor to Peter who was considered the leader. Now, by what stretch of the imagination would Jesus establish a leader of the new Church, only to have it end at the time of Peter's death? Jesus doesn't; in fact, he promises that the church will never fall (Mt 16:18, 18:18, 28:20) and would be guided by the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:16) The early Church would need a leader as it struggled to flourish amid controversy (Acts 15 and the numerous previously cited examples), then Arianism, Marcionism, Iconoclasts, and so on. Matthew's reference to Isaiah 22 clearly shows a succession of office in Eliakim, in that Shebna's position was about to end, but there would be a replacement - and Shebna was to "be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. Similarly, Peter initiated a replacement for Judas among the Apostles (Acts 1:15)** A foundation is laid once. There is no need to lay a new foundation every generation. ** Matthew makes the point of Peter being given the keys, reminding his Jewish audience of the necessity of a successive leadership (Isaiah 22). ** There's no need for a new "Peter" every time a>prior one dies. No one disputes he took a prominent role in the early church, but Jesus came that He might be the head. ** Of course Jesus is the head, but there needs to be a visible leader here on earth** With Him as leader we don't need, nor was it instituted, a visible single leader of the church. ** Earlier, I gave a list of Protestant scholars who do believe that Peter was the rock, the foundation of the Church. In view of the events of the past 500 years, I'd say that we actually DO need a leader in the face of everyone giving their own contradictory interpretations while collectively and simultaneously claiming the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. ** (Protestant #8) I have been amazed at the various Churches and organization, that " build" their church on " Peter", the ROCK.... Some times I feel that I have the ONLY Bible of one translation in the world ! ! ** Peter is the only apostle who is given a new name, "this Rock", and it was done so in a solemn manner. (Jn 1:42, Mt 16:18). In fact, at no time in history had "rock" ever been used for someone's name! On what basis is your conclusion to the contrary more correct? ** Matthew 16, starting at verse 15, Jesus asked Peter who HE said that Jesus was, and Peter answered, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living god ". Then Jesus called Peter blessed and said that flesh and blood had not revealed this to him, but the Father which is in Heaven. Then Christ said, The art Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church , and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. WHAT ROCK?? PETER???? **Yes, Peter - in the words of Jesus himself. Peter had understood that Jesus was the Messiah, not because he was brilliant, but because it was revealed to him ,and no one else, by God (Mt 16:17). Peter was obviously chosen (and certainly not for his tact) to be the rock, or the foundation, of the Church. Just as Abraham was the rock of Israel in the OT(Is 51), Peter was the rock of the new Israel, in the NT (Gal 6:16) ** Let us read on. Starting at verse 21 Jesus explained to Peter, that He was going to be crucified. Peter rebuked Christ and said " no way". NOW what does Jesus say to Peter??? " GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN. YOU ARE AN OFFENSE UNTO ME,AND YOU SAVOR NOT THE THINGS OF GOD, BUT OF MAN. ** So, not only was Peter not the rock, now he is Satan? Scripture doesn't bear this out. Peter simply doesn't want to accept Jesus' prediction of His suffering, and Jesus dismisses this satanic attempt to prevent the forthcoming salvific crucifixion and resurrection, just as he dismissed Satan earlier in Matthew 4:10. Note that it was to Peter that Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom, and no one else (Mt 16:19). These keys to the kingdom refer to administrative authority (Rev 3:7, Is 22:22) , which was given only to him. When Jesus says, "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.", Peter is the only apostle mentioned by name. (Mt 16:19) I quote from Jesus, Peter, and the Keys: "Is Jesus referring to Peter as the "evil one" in Matthew 16:22-23? No, he is rather rebuking Peter as one who is attempting, albeit unwittingly, to obstruct his mission. The Hebrew word satan, in this context, means "adversary", "opponent in war or before a tribunal". A satan is one who obstructs another's way. Whether the adversary is evil depends on the context of the passage. Cf. Numbers 22:22, 1 Samuel 1:6, 29:4, 2 Samuel 19:22, 1 Kings 5:4 and 11:14, 23, 25. Yet, the word satan generally has a negative connotation in the New Testament. Peter had lapsed from supernatural revelation (Mt 16:16) into misperception (Mt 16:22) after his regental appointment (Mt 16:18-19)" (Butler, Dahlgren, and Rev. David Hess, p. 149)** Then Christ plainly, extols the virtues of Salvation. We all remember that Peter LIED. Am I to assume then, that Christ built His Church on a sinful liar, and Satan ????? ** Aren't we all sinners? To "assume" otherwise is to ignore the fact that Jesus not only foretold Peter's denial, but also followed up with "AND ONCE YOU HAVE TURNED BACK, you must strengthen your brothers (Lk 22:32). Jesus specifically prays for Peter so that his "faith may not fail" (Lk 22:32), and singly instructs him to "feed my sheep" (Jn 21:15-17) Furthermore, not only did Jesus single out Peter, but so did the angel in Mk 16:7, who identifies Peter as the representative of the apostles, AFTER the crucifixion. ** Christ did not " build" His Church on Peter or any other MAN. He built His Church, On Himself, the " chief ", corner stone and was the complete and entire foundation. He built His Church on the " belief", of Peter, and others who believe by "faith" make up the Church that Christ built ! ! ** If Jesus meant this, he would have said so. Nowhere in scripture does Jesus say that His Church was built on the "belief of Peter", so this is an unbiblical assumption. Peter's name is mentioned 195 times in the NT, far more than the next apostle. And, when mentioned, his name almost always comes first (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the "first" (10:2), and to further demonstrate the significance of being named first, Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last. Note also in Mt 10:2, Peter was not chronologically first, but the Greek protos meaning "foremost", etc. As further proof of the primacy of Peter, see where Peter is the source of instruction for Cornelius (Acts 10:1-6), he utters the first anathema to Ananias and Sapphira which God emphatically affirms by killing them (Acts 5:2-11), he was the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40), he performs the first miracle in the new Church by healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12), and there are many more examples.** I cannot even imagine any one connected to the Bible in any way shape of form, believing for one moment, that Christ would build His Church on any MAN ! ! ! ** Actually, there are many - I'll list a few: Gerhard Maier (leading Lutheran theologian), Donald A. Carson III (Baptist Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary), J. Knox Chamblin (Presbyterian New Testament Professor Reformed Theological Seminary), William Hendriksen (Reformed Christian Church Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary), John Peter Lange (German Protestant scholar), John A. Broadus (Baptist author), Craig L. Blomberg (Baptist Professor of New Testament Denver Seminary), David Hill (Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies University of Sheffield, England), Suzanne de Dietrich (Presbyterian theologian), and Donald A. Hagner (Fuller Theological Seminary) - Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess, 1996 ** back | home |