How to interpret the scripture?

[OzSpen]

OzSpen
Oh boy you poked your finger right into the middle of it.

Of this I see the analogy of the three blind men trying to describe an elephant by what they feel.

This is the very Crux of blending art and science together to form Hermeneutics.
Where you apparently have theological Father's shoulders you stand upon(Norman Geisler)...it's still acceptable to reach farther than they did.
Knowing this...
No one individual can hold an all encompassing hermeneutics of the whole Bible and hold it accurately. There's simply too much information there to try to disseminate.

But that doesn't mean that trying isn't fun... until your head gets stuck in the clouds and talking to people becomes difficult.
(Solomon said as much in Ecclesiastes)

Surely you have a good grasp beyond the elementary aspects of theologies at this time. (How many PHDs should a man earn?)

What is the purpose of going so far in theological studies? Why does God see fit for some of us to study and know so much? He must...He gave us the desire. Others first need to find their Bible and blow the collected dust off and ensure the binding hasn't aged to the point of breaking. And yet they are busy going about God's tasks as well.

All have value to their Creator, all driven by a divine purpose...why?

 

[OzSpen]

The solid rock, or unshakable foundation is that the true church is taught directly from God.


This is how the Lord desired to teach Adam
This is how Abraham lived; by faith.
This is the promise of the New Covenant.

But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” Jeremiah 31:33-34

• No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord

John says it this way -

But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him. 1 John 2:27

• you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you

JLB

JLB,

What is the meaning of Matt 18:17-19 (NIV) in context and through exegesis?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

OzSpen

Surely you have a good grasp beyond the elementary aspects of theologies at this time. (How many PHDs should a man earn?)

John,

Why would you ask this question of me?

Oz

 

[JLB]

JLB,

What is the meaning of Matt 18:17-19 (NIV) in context and through exegesis?

Oz

The immediate context of Matthew 18:17, begins in verse 12, where Jesus uses parabolic reference in verse 12-14, then explains in verses 15-17, I say “immediate context”, because the overall context begins in Matthew 18:1 where Jesus begins a teaching that stems from a question from His disciples which asks: Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

Jesus then uses the example of children to make His point.

Matthew 18:12-17


“What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine and go to the mountains to seek the one that is straying? And if he should find it, assuredly, I say to you, he rejoices more over that sheep than over the ninety-nine that did not go astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.
“Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. Matthew 18:12-17


Jesus is using parabolic imagery to emphasize how important each one of His people in kingdom of God, which includes “little children”. Going after those who become lost may start with an individual but culminates in a Church community effort if the person who sinned is obstinate.

The meaning of verse 17 is after the sinning brother is confronted about his sin by the individual and then two or three, don’t give up, but rather get the church (elders) involved, however if he still refuses to repent, he is to be as a “sinner” in need of repentance, being “unjust” and is not to be a part of the church community, just like a heathen and tax collector.


Verse 18, which is connected more with verses 19-20, shows the authority we have on earth to forgive sin or not and release them from the bondage and effects of it, in harmony with heaven.




JLB

 

[JohnDB]

John,

Why would you ask this question of me?

Oz

I thought that you were holding at least one PHD...
Am I remembering incorrectly?

What I do know is that you, like I have, and others that I know,....
We have gone wayyyyy beyond the "basics" of knowledge. There's not many in several of the local churches that could keep up with either you or I when we wish to discuss the details of some of the things we have studied. (At least intelligently)

I know that some write research papers...
Others are educating our next generation of pastors.
But often these things have come about as an afterthought...they never were a focus.
I never had a vision of teaching or writing research papers. I never envisioned making it through the doors of a Seminary unless visiting a friend there. So I studied in a much less formal manner. But I was still driven to do so...it became an obsession....as it is for the others I know that have done so. And that rabbit hole we have gone down is very very deep indeed.

So I am asking you for your testimony of why. Because in that answer is part of the reason why we all use the hermeneutics that we use.

There's many ways to study the scriptures. I recently was involved in a Gospel reading exercise proposed to me by Jeff.
It was good...and different...and difficult all at the same time.
To sit down and simply read a Gospel account as quickly and accurately as possible.
It gave me a view of the mind of the author.
It was difficult (especially in John for me) to keep focused on the larger task without getting caught up in all the many details.

I've also chased down guys in the Old Testament like Caleb...his story is spread across several books.

Like you, I have chased down original language...meanings and grammar and vocabulary words and why it was said the way it was said. Always asking "why this detail?" "Why this story was chosen to be told and not others?"

And maybe if you know why you have that desire to study the way that you have it could answer a question I have held:
Why me? There are obviously better choices than me out there. And hopefully a reason of something better than "a twisted sense of humor".

 

[LovethroughDove]

LTD,

I agree we need the Holy Spirit to help us interpret Scripture. Do we need anything else?

Does Matt 16:18 confirm that Peter was the first Pope: 'And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell[b] shall not prevail against it'?

If not, why not?

Oz

He is. Peter as we all know denied Christ 3 times. He also was not acting in line with the gospel and Paul had to rebuke him. Peter gets it right in the end.

Luke 22:34
Galatians 2:14-16

1 Peter and 2 Peter

Peter was martyred

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,

Would you please help me to understand how you reach this conclusion when Peter (Cephas) is petros = a Peter and 'on this rock (petra) I will build my church?

Do you consider that Peter was the first Pope?

Oz

No. Peter was not the first Pope.
This is not historically correct.

I said why I'm beginning to believe this.

Why would Jesus have gone up to Peter and said:
You are Pietro (rock) (masculine of rock)

and then say...
And on this pietra (rock) (feminine of rock)
I will build my church.

What Jesus is saying is:

YOU ARE (A) ROCK
AND ON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH.

Jesus could have just said: I will build my church on MYSELF.

You know Greek...
why do you disagree?

Please leave Catholic/Protestant beliefs out of this.
I remind you that I'm not Catholic.

 

[OzSpen]

No. Peter was not the first Pope.
This is not historically correct.

I said why I'm beginning to believe this.

Why would Jesus have gone up to Peter and said:
You are Pietro (rock) (masculine of rock)

and then say...
And on this pietra (rock) (feminine of rock)
I will build my church.

What Jesus is saying is:

YOU ARE (A) ROCK
AND ON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH.

Jesus could have just said: I will build my church on MYSELF.

You know Greek...
why do you disagree?

Please leave Catholic/Protestant beliefs out of this.
I remind you that I'm not Catholic.

wondering,

I'm in the midst of writing an exegesis of Matt 16:18-19 for my friend who asked about this passage. Here's a copy of part of what I've written:

According to this verse,

• ‘You are Peter’. Here, Peter is the Greek, petros (masculine, singular), which was a proper name for the Aramaic, Cephas. It is indefinite = a Peter.
• Then there is a pun, a play on words. This pun has caused theological heart-burn down through the centuries.
• ‘On this rock’ uses petra (feminine, singular ) for rock and not petros – and a different gender. It is definite = 'this rock'. What could Jesus be referring to?
• Some interpreters have tried to see Peter as a rock on which Jesus builds his church but Jesus is the foundation.
• A play on words, a pun, is common in Scripture (e.g. Ex 3:14) and should not be minimised because of this. It is still God-breathed Scripture.

It is true petros and petra mean ‘stone’ and ‘rock’ respectively in earlier Greek than the NT. However, in this passage, Jesus probably means in the underlying Aramaic, ‘You are kepha and on this kepha’ since the word was used both for a name and a ‘rock’ (Carson 1984:368).

If Jesus wanted to say (through Matthew’s Gospel) that Peter was a stone in contrast to Jesus, the Rock, he could have used lithos for ‘stone’ but there would be no pun used and that would defeat Jesus’ purpose.

The objection that Peter considers Jesus the rock is insubstantial because metaphors are commonly used variously, till they become stereotyped, and sometimes even then. Here Jesus builds his church; in 1 Corinthians 3:10, Paul is “an expert builder.” In 1 Corinthians 3:11, Jesus is the church’s foundation; in Ephesians 2:19-20, the apostles and prophets are the foundation (cf. also Rev 21:14), and Jesus is the “cornerstone.” Here Peter has the keys; in Revelation 1:18; 3:7, Jesus has the keys. In John 9:5, Jesus is “the light of the world”; in Matthew 5:14, his disciples are. None of these pairs threatens Jesus’ uniqueness. They simply show how metaphors must be interpreted primarily with reference to their immediate contexts (Carson 1984:368).​

The point is that Jesus is speaking of the building of the ekklesia (church). In the NT ekklesia is used of both a local congregation and in the general sense of ‘the church’. Usually, the word referred to a local assembly (e.g. Acts 19:39) but became associated with an unassembled group that was persecuted (Acts 8:3).

A T Robertson’s conclusion is a sound one:

The wealth of imagery in Matthew 16:18 makes it difficult to decide each detail, but the main point is clear. The ekklesia which consists of those confessing Christ as Peter has just done will not cease. The gates of Hades or bars of Sheol will not close down on it. Christ will rise and will keep his church alive. [Robertson 1930:131-132]​

Today I'm working on 'binding and loosing' to gain a better biblical understanding.

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,

I'm in the midst of writing an exegesis of Matt 16:18-19 for my friend who asked about this passage. Here's a copy of part of what I've written:

According to this verse,

• ‘You are Peter’. Here, Peter is the Greek, petros (masculine, singular), which was a proper name for the Aramaic, Cephas. It is indefinite = a Peter.
• Then there is a pun, a play on words. This pun has caused theological heart-burn down through the centuries.
• ‘On this rock’ uses petra (feminine, singular ) for rock and not petros – and a different gender. It is definite = 'this rock'. What could Jesus be referring to?
• Some interpreters have tried to see Peter as a rock on which Jesus builds his church but Jesus is the foundation.
• A play on words, a pun, is common in Scripture (e.g. Ex 3:14) and should not be minimised because of this. It is still God-breathed Scripture.

It is true petros and petra mean ‘stone’ and ‘rock’ respectively in earlier Greek than the NT. However, in this passage, Jesus probably means in the underlying Aramaic, ‘You are kepha and on this kepha’ since the word was used both for a name and a ‘rock’ (Carson 1984:368).

If Jesus wanted to say (through Matthew’s Gospel) that Peter was a stone in contrast to Jesus, the Rock, he could have used lithos for ‘stone’ but there would be no pun used and that would defeat Jesus’ purpose.

The objection that Peter considers Jesus the rock is insubstantial because metaphors are commonly used variously, till they become stereotyped, and sometimes even then. Here Jesus builds his church; in 1 Corinthians 3:10, Paul is “an expert builder.” In 1 Corinthians 3:11, Jesus is the church’s foundation; in Ephesians 2:19-20, the apostles and prophets are the foundation (cf. also Rev 21:14), and Jesus is the “cornerstone.” Here Peter has the keys; in Revelation 1:18; 3:7, Jesus has the keys. In John 9:5, Jesus is “the light of the world”; in Matthew 5:14, his disciples are. None of these pairs threatens Jesus’ uniqueness. They simply show how metaphors must be interpreted primarily with reference to their immediate contexts (Carson 1984:368).​

The point is that Jesus is speaking of the building of the ekklesia (church). In the NT ekklesia is used of both a local congregation and in the general sense of ‘the church’. Usually, the word referred to a local assembly (e.g. Acts 19:39) but became associated with an unassembled group that was persecuted (Acts 8:3).

A T Robertson’s conclusion is a sound one:

The wealth of imagery in Matthew 16:18 makes it difficult to decide each detail, but the main point is clear. The ekklesia which consists of those confessing Christ as Peter has just done will not cease. The gates of Hades or bars of Sheol will not close down on it. Christ will rise and will keep his church alive. [Robertson 1930:131-132]​

Today I'm working on 'binding and loosing' to gain a better biblical understanding.

Oz

Hi Oz,,,
Just got this alert when I was logging off.
1:25 am here!!
It's too deep...will read the above in the morning.

Just to clarify....The church is built on Jesus...
Peter was a means for this to happen.
Paul ended up writing all the theology, so I'm not sure what role Peter had except for being in Rome and being the first Bishop there.

I don't know which of the two was more important....
This might make a good thread?? Maybe some history could come out of it.

Anyway, let me say good night and I'll write in the morning.
It's so nice to post to you,,,I always learn so much.

 

[OzSpen]

Hi Oz,,,
Just got this alert when I was logging off.
1:25 am here!!
It's too deep...will read the above in the morning.

Just to clarify....The church is built on Jesus...
Peter was a means for this to happen.
Paul ended up writing all the theology, so I'm not sure what role Peter had except for being in Rome and being the first Bishop there.

I don't know which of the two was more important....
This might make a good thread?? Maybe some history could come out of it.

Anyway, let me say good night and I'll write in the morning.
It's so nice to post to you,,,I always learn so much.

wondering,

These are some details of Peter's ministry in the early church:

We see Peter's active role in the early church in passages such as Matt 16:17-19 and his thrice denial of Jesus.

However, in Acts 1-12, Peter is a prominent figure in the spread of the church. He was involved in preaching, healing and other miracles. Initially his ministry was around Jerusalem and especially among his own people, the Jews. However, the early chapters of Acts indicate his mission to Samaria. He was involved in leadership at the Jerusalem Council, along with James

James was the head of the Church in Jerusalem (Acts 15). It is understood that James may have been the half-brother of Jesus.

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,

These are some details of Peter's ministry in the early church:

We see Peter's active role in the early church in passages such as Matt 16:17-19 and his thrice denial of Jesus.

However, in Acts 1-12, Peter is a prominent figure in the spread of the church. He was involved in preaching, healing and other miracles. Initially his ministry was around Jerusalem and especially among his own people, the Jews. However, the early chapters of Acts indicate his mission to Samaria. He was involved in leadership at the Jerusalem Council, along with James

James was the head of the Church in Jerusalem (Acts 15). It is understood that James may have been the half-brother of Jesus.

Oz

Yes, but the above does not explain why we have St. Peter's Basilica in Rome and not St. Paul's Basilica.

It seems to me that Paul was the most influential in developing the theology of the new religion. WHY did Jesus die on the cross? WHY leave the law? What did it mean to be saved? Jesus never really spoke of these ideas.

Peter was very respected by the early elders in the church and was sought for his advice. Maybe he was more available than Paul since Paul travelled more (do we even really know this) and was "to the gentiles" and Peter attended to the daily problems of the church.

Anyway, let me get to your other post....

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,

I'm in the midst of writing an exegesis of Matt 16:18-19 for my friend who asked about this passage. Here's a copy of part of what I've written:

According to this verse,

• ‘You are Peter’. Here, Peter is the Greek, petros (masculine, singular), which was a proper name for the Aramaic, Cephas. It is indefinite = a Peter.
• Then there is a pun, a play on words. This pun has caused theological heart-burn down through the centuries.
• ‘On this rock’ uses petra (feminine, singular ) for rock and not petros – and a different gender. It is definite = 'this rock'. What could Jesus be referring to?
• Some interpreters have tried to see Peter as a rock on which Jesus builds his church but Jesus is the foundation.
• A play on words, a pun, is common in Scripture (e.g. Ex 3:14) and should not be minimised because of this. It is still God-breathed Scripture.

It is true petros and petra mean ‘stone’ and ‘rock’ respectively in earlier Greek than the NT. However, in this passage, Jesus probably means in the underlying Aramaic, ‘You are kepha and on this kepha’ since the word was used both for a name and a ‘rock’ (Carson 1984:368).

If Jesus wanted to say (through Matthew’s Gospel) that Peter was a stone in contrast to Jesus, the Rock, he could have used lithos for ‘stone’ but there would be no pun used and that would defeat Jesus’ purpose.

The objection that Peter considers Jesus the rock is insubstantial because metaphors are commonly used variously, till they become stereotyped, and sometimes even then. Here Jesus builds his church; in 1 Corinthians 3:10, Paul is “an expert builder.” In 1 Corinthians 3:11, Jesus is the church’s foundation; in Ephesians 2:19-20, the apostles and prophets are the foundation (cf. also Rev 21:14), and Jesus is the “cornerstone.” Here Peter has the keys; in Revelation 1:18; 3:7, Jesus has the keys. In John 9:5, Jesus is “the light of the world”; in Matthew 5:14, his disciples are. None of these pairs threatens Jesus’ uniqueness. They simply show how metaphors must be interpreted primarily with reference to their immediate contexts (Carson 1984:368).​

​

​

​

Yes,,,I agree with the above.​

When I was in the Catholic church they insisted that Peter was the Rock....​

When I joined the Protestant church they insisted Jesus is the Rock.​

​

Again, I don't know how we could be absolutely sure especially in view of the fact that the gospels were written so many years after Jesus died.​

​

I tend to like Ephesians 2:19-20....​

The dicsiples are the foundation because all will be built up on what they teach others...​

Jesus is the cornerstone....maybe this could even mean that, yes, HE is the rock since the cornerstone is made of stone.​

​

I just don't understand why Jesus would say:​

Tu sei PIETRO​

e su questa PIETRA .......​

​

Why say YOU ARE PIETRO???​

​

It just doesn't make common sense to me...​

​

But all this just to prove that Peter was NOT the first pope is a bit much for me.​

​

Some of the beliefs at the reformation were specifically against the former doctrine, so these conflicts are not longer considered to be very important to me.​

​

All I find important is what Jesus taught.​

(the problem is that there are variations on this too).​

The point is that Jesus is speaking of the building of the ekklesia (church). In the NT ekklesia is used of both a local congregation and in the general sense of ‘the church’. Usually, the word referred to a local assembly (e.g. Acts 19:39) but became associated with an unassembled group that was persecuted (Acts 8:3).

A T Robertson’s conclusion is a sound one:

The wealth of imagery in Matthew 16:18 makes it difficult to decide each detail, but the main point is clear. The ekklesia which consists of those confessing Christ as Peter has just done will not cease. The gates of Hades or bars of Sheol will not close down on it. Christ will rise and will keep his church alive. [Robertson 1930:131-132]​

​

​

Excellent point !​

The Church (capital C) will not cease.​

Even though atheists are working hard to remove religion from our daily life permanently.​

Today I'm working on 'binding and loosing' to gain a better biblical understanding.

Oz

Please start a thread on this.
I've never understood this at all.

Some say the binding starts in heaven...
Some say it starts on earth....

(tag me in if you do).

 

[JohnDB]

wondering,

I'm in the midst of writing an exegesis of Matt 16:18-19 for my friend who asked about this passage. Here's a copy of part of what I've written:

According to this verse,

• ‘You are Peter’. Here, Peter is the Greek, petros (masculine, singular), which was a proper name for the Aramaic, Cephas. It is indefinite = a Peter.
• Then there is a pun, a play on words. This pun has caused theological heart-burn down through the centuries.
• ‘On this rock’ uses petra (feminine, singular ) for rock and not petros – and a different gender. It is definite = 'this rock'. What could Jesus be referring to?
• Some interpreters have tried to see Peter as a rock on which Jesus builds his church but Jesus is the foundation.
• A play on words, a pun, is common in Scripture (e.g. Ex 3:14) and should not be minimised because of this. It is still God-breathed Scripture.

It is true petros and petra mean ‘stone’ and ‘rock’ respectively in earlier Greek than the NT. However, in this passage, Jesus probably means in the underlying Aramaic, ‘You are kepha and on this kepha’ since the word was used both for a name and a ‘rock’ (Carson 1984:368).

If Jesus wanted to say (through Matthew’s Gospel) that Peter was a stone in contrast to Jesus, the Rock, he could have used lithos for ‘stone’ but there would be no pun used and that would defeat Jesus’ purpose.

The objection that Peter considers Jesus the rock is insubstantial because metaphors are commonly used variously, till they become stereotyped, and sometimes even then. Here Jesus builds his church; in 1 Corinthians 3:10, Paul is “an expert builder.” In 1 Corinthians 3:11, Jesus is the church’s foundation; in Ephesians 2:19-20, the apostles and prophets are the foundation (cf. also Rev 21:14), and Jesus is the “cornerstone.” Here Peter has the keys; in Revelation 1:18; 3:7, Jesus has the keys. In John 9:5, Jesus is “the light of the world”; in Matthew 5:14, his disciples are. None of these pairs threatens Jesus’ uniqueness. They simply show how metaphors must be interpreted primarily with reference to their immediate contexts (Carson 1984:368).​

The point is that Jesus is speaking of the building of the ekklesia (church). In the NT ekklesia is used of both a local congregation and in the general sense of ‘the church’. Usually, the word referred to a local assembly (e.g. Acts 19:39) but became associated with an unassembled group that was persecuted (Acts 8:3).

A T Robertson’s conclusion is a sound one:

The wealth of imagery in Matthew 16:18 makes it difficult to decide each detail, but the main point is clear. The ekklesia which consists of those confessing Christ as Peter has just done will not cease. The gates of Hades or bars of Sheol will not close down on it. Christ will rise and will keep his church alive. [Robertson 1930:131-132]​

Today I'm working on 'binding and loosing' to gain a better biblical understanding.

Oz

To me,
It appears to be that "the Rock" the church is built upon is the focus of the lesson that Jesus is giving the Apostles.
The lesson started out by Jesus asking "Who do others say that I am?" And then contrasted with "But who do you say that I am" because the Apostles knew Jesus better than anyone else. They knew him on a much more personal level.
This story takes place about a little over 3 years into Jesus' ministry tour.
Of course Jesus is the Messiah...the Christ.

And that this lesson takes place at Cesarea Phillipi is also significant because of the pagan temple in the backdrop. It's always been a water source for the Jordan River and a place where the Romans have had a temple to one of their gods.
But they weren't discussing the idol worship...so it often gets overlooked. But it's the part of the "elephant in the room" that must be overlooked when telling others about how good, kind, accessable, and personable Jesus is that matters.

The primary focus of the lesson that Jesus is the Messiah is of course the foundation stone the Church today is built on. It is it's focus. It makes us different and unique from every other religion out there.
Peter is named "Rock" as a humorous title by Jesus...ironic, dry-wit is almost an understatement with this title given to Peter.

 

[JLB]

Just to clarify....The church is built on Jesus...

So true.


“Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.
“But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”
And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. Matthew 7:24-29


The foundation or beginning of building our lives upon Christ and His teachings, is understanding who He is;

He is the Christ, The Son of God.

He has all authority.

• for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

He is omnipresent, and dwells in all true believers, in which He teaches them directly.


But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him. 1 John 2:27



JLB

 

[GodsGrace]

So true.


“Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.
“But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”
And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. Matthew 7:24-29


The foundation or beginning of building our lives upon Christ and His teachings, is understanding who He is;

He is the Christ, The Son of God.

He has all authority.

• for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

He is omnipresent, and dwells in all true believers, in which He teaches them directly.


But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him. 1 John 2:27



JLB

I believe Jesus wanted to start a new church. He was rejected by the Jews and realized He'd have to start a new "religion" or somehow start a faith that worhipped God in spirit and in truth.

John 4:23-24
God is spirit and we must worship Him in spirit.

Also, the Banquet of the Wedding Feast...the called did not attend...so the servants went out into the streets and called all who would come.
Matthew 22:1....

So, of course the founder of any new venture is the foundation of that venture...but then there are those that build it.

I believe Jesus meant for Peter to be the builder of the new church....He was a "rock"...someone Jesus could depend on...a leader of the 12. He apparently had leadership qualities.

 

[JLB]

I believe Jesus meant for Peter to be the builder of the new church...

I definitely believe He wanted to work through Peter to build His Church, even though He had to say this to him in the next breath...


“Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”
Matthew 16:23




JLB

 

[GodsGrace]

I definitely believe He wanted to work through Peter to build His Church, even though He had to say this to him in the next breath...


“Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”
Matthew 16:23




JLB

Gosh J,,,, I know you don't think Jesus was calling Peter satan.
The above might lead some to think that you do.

Jesus was referring to the thinking that Peter had...he was being influenced by satan. He was just being human and didn't want Jesus to die. Jesus could not be tempted by satan, but Peter could and he did not want to accept that Jesus had to die.

Jesus was speaking to satan in Matthew 16:23a and to Peter in Matthew 16:23b.

 

[JLB]

Gosh J,,,, I know you don't think Jesus was calling Peter satan.
The above might lead some to think that you do.

Why don’t we define that word Satan, so we can understand each other better and I will explain.


Also, consider these words, that Jesus also spoke to Peter, that tells us He was addressing Peter.


But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” Matthew 16:23


JLB

 

[GodsGrace]

Why don’t we define that word Satan, so we can understand each other better and I will explain.


Also, consider these words, that Jesus also spoke to Peter, that tells us He was addressing Peter.


But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” Matthew 16:23


JLB

Satan means different things:

He is the accuser Rev 12:10
He accuses US in order to make us doubt our faith and/or cause guilt that is not from God.

He is the adversary --- He obstructs Christianity, he obstructs persons in either an act of theirs or a purpose of theirs.

He is the tempter Matthew 4:3
He can tempt us in any way...as he did Jesus.

He is a murderer John 8:44
A liar "
The prince of this world John 12:31



and much more....

source: NIV TOPICS
SATAN

 

[JLB]

Satan mean adversary.


Satan - G4567 - Satanas

1. adversary (one who opposes another in purpose or act), the name given to
   1. the prince of evil spirits, the inveterate adversary of God and Christ
      1. he incites apostasy from God and to sin
      2. circumventing men by his wiles
      3. the worshippers of idols are said to be under his control
      4. by his demons he is able to take possession of men and inflict them with diseases
      5. by God's assistance he is overcome
      6. on Christ's return from heaven he will be bound with chains for a thousand years, but when the thousand years are finished he will walk the earth in yet greater power, but shortly after will be given over to eternal punishment
   2. a Satan-like man

Jesus was telling Peter that he was being an adversary, opposing God’s will for the Lord, who was destined to die for the sins of the world.


Peter was mindful of the things of man, thinking about his place with the Lord in His ministry.


Jesus was rebuking Peter for opposing the will of God for His life.

He wasn’t saying Peter was Satan, he was saying Peter was acting in opposition to God’s plan for His life.


JLB