Bible Study 'I give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven'

[OzSpen]

In Matt 16:19 we have the ‘figure of a building with keys to open from the outside’. However, Rev 1:18 and 3:7 state that the Living One who was dead and is now alive holds the ‘keys of death and Hades’ and the ‘keys of the kingdom of heaven’.

Jesus hands the keys of the kingdom over to Peter (Matt 16:19). This is not to make Peter the first pope. From Matt 16:18 we learn that Jesus hands the building (oikodomew) over to Peter for him to be a ‘gatekeeper’ or ‘steward’. The same power was given to the other apostles and belongs to every believer down through the centuries.

We know in the context this is not promoting Peter the pope because the disciples were having an argument over who would be the greatest in the kingdom and they presented this dispute to Jesus (Matt 18:1). They were at it again in Matt 20:21.

Surely these verses confirm that Jesus did not make Peter the foundation of the church and the first pope.

Peter held the keys just as every preacher-teacher does in proclaiming the Gospel. Alfred Edersheim in his massive exposition on the life of Christ expounds the significance of 16:19,

Viewing ‘the Church’ as a building founded upon ‘the Petrine,’ it was not to vary, but to carry on the same metaphor, when Christ promised to give to him who had spoken as representative of the Apostles - ‘the stewards of the mysteries of God’ - ‘the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.’ For, as the religious unity of His disciples, or the Church, represented ‘the royal rule of heaven,’ so, figuratively, entrance into the gates of this building, submission to the rule of God – to that Kingdom of which Christ was the King. And we remember how, in a special sense, this promise was fulfilled to Peter. Even as he had been the first to utter the confession of the Church, so was he also privileged to be the first to open its hitherto closed gates to the Gentiles, when God made choice of him, that, through his mouth, the Gentiles should first hear the words of the Gospel [Acts 15:7] and at his bidding first be baptized (Edersheim 1953:1035).​

We see this understanding implemented in the Book of Acts: ‘After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe’ (Acts 15:7 NIV).

So the ‘keys of the kingdom’ of heaven relate to the offer of salvation that any preacher, teacher or disciple can make to encourage all people to go through the gate of salvation to enter God’s kingdom. Jesus reminded us:

‘Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it (Matt 7:13-14 NIV).​

​

Oz

wondering has asked for a copy. Binding and loosing is coming in another thread.

 

[GodsGrace]

In Matt 16:19 we have the ‘figure of a building with keys to open from the outside’. However, Rev 1:18 and 3:7 state that the Living One who was dead and is now alive holds the ‘keys of death and Hades’ and the ‘keys of the kingdom of heaven’.

Jesus hands the keys of the kingdom over to Peter (Matt 16:19). This is not to make Peter the first pope. From Matt 16:18 we learn that Jesus hands the building (oikodomew) over to Peter for him to be a ‘gatekeeper’ or ‘steward’. The same power was given to the other apostles and belongs to every believer down through the centuries.

We know in the context this is not promoting Peter the pope because the disciples were having an argument over who would be the greatest in the kingdom and they presented this dispute to Jesus (Matt 18:1). They were at it again in Matt 20:21.

Surely these verses confirm that Jesus did not make Peter the foundation of the church and the first pope.

Peter held the keys just as every preacher-teacher does in proclaiming the Gospel. Alfred Edersheim in his massive exposition on the life of Christ expounds the significance of 16:19,

Viewing ‘the Church’ as a building founded upon ‘the Petrine,’ it was not to vary, but to carry on the same metaphor, when Christ promised to give to him who had spoken as representative of the Apostles - ‘the stewards of the mysteries of God’ - ‘the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.’ For, as the religious unity of His disciples, or the Church, represented ‘the royal rule of heaven,’ so, figuratively, entrance into the gates of this building, submission to the rule of God – to that Kingdom of which Christ was the King. And we remember how, in a special sense, this promise was fulfilled to Peter. Even as he had been the first to utter the confession of the Church, so was he also privileged to be the first to open its hitherto closed gates to the Gentiles, when God made choice of him, that, through his mouth, the Gentiles should first hear the words of the Gospel [Acts 15:7] and at his bidding first be baptized (Edersheim 1953:1035).​

We see this understanding implemented in the Book of Acts: ‘After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe’ (Acts 15:7 NIV).

So the ‘keys of the kingdom’ of heaven relate to the offer of salvation that any preacher, teacher or disciple can make to encourage all people to go through the gate of salvation to enter God’s kingdom. Jesus reminded us:

‘Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it (Matt 7:13-14 NIV).​

​

Oz

wondering has asked for a copy. Binding and loosing is coming in another thread.

Hi Oz,,,
I missed the above...

As you must surely know,,,the keys are a symbol of authority.
Isaiah 22:20-23
20“Then it will come about in that day,
That I will summon My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah,

21And I will clothe him with your tunic
And tie your sash securely about him.
I will entrust him with your authority,
And he will become a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.

22“Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder,
When he opens no one will shut,
When he shuts no one will open.


I do NOT believe that Peter was the first Pope. This is not correct history. He was, however, the first Bishop of Rome.

However I do believe that Jesus meant to give him authority over the church...The belief is that Peter went to Rome in about 45 AD, but we can't be certain of this. I DO believe, however, that he was in Rome since churches there are named after him and there's a prison there where he was imprisoned (and which I've visited).

I think the keys relate to the offer of salvation in that whatever they open will not be shut...
whatever they shut will not be open. (as above highlighted).

Someone has to be the leader...I don't have a problem with this.

 

[Sparkey]

On a different server (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/) we may see a record of a conversational Q & A thread, where 7 years ago, a similar question was asked:
"Mike" asked the question: "When Jesus gave Peter his name (rock) what is the significance that he then said upon a ‘different’ kind of rock he would build his church?"

Spoiler: The Full Question of Mike

When Peter made his famous confession, Jesus responded by saying:

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. (NIV Mathew 16:18)

Looking up the original Greek I see that Jesus is referring to two types of rocks and one is related to the other, but they are not the same.

Peter = Πέτρος, Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway.​

Rock = pétra (a feminine noun) – "a mass of connected rock”​

The question is, "What is the point of bringing in two types of rocks in response to Peter’s confession?"

What is the point of the word-play?

Mason Wheeler's reply is seen below:
A large, solid rock that served as a foundation to build something upon that nothing could wipe out calls to mind the end of the Sermon on the Mount:

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

So we know that Jesus was familiar with this sort of imagery. The question, then, is what he was referring to in this specific passage?

Catholics claim that this is the point where Jesus established the church, and its authority, in the hands of Peter, naming him the first Pope, the small rock, an individual example of the large rock (the office of Pope that holds the authority over the church.)

And yet this answer feels somewhat unsatisfying. Popes are human too. Peter was human too. Peter was hotheaded and a bit boastful, and he had some serious problems with his faith. When Jesus invited him out onto the water to walk to him, he was actually able to do it, but then, after it had already been proven to him beyond any doubt that he was in the middle of a bona fide miracle, he doubted! Peter the Rock began to sink like a stone and Jesus had to run over and save him from drowning. And who can forget his cowardice in the face of Jesus's trial and crucifixion, denying his Lord three times just hours after he had boasted of his willingness to follow him even unto death? This is not the picture of a solid foundation that will uphold the church no matter what bad weather beats against it!

But if we reject this interpretation, we are under the necessity of providing a better one, because Jesus did still say that he was going to build his church upon "this rock". So the question becomes, what is "this"? For that, we need more context. Let's look back a few verses:

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?"

And they said, "Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets."

He saith unto them, "But whom say ye that I am?"

And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

And Jesus answered and said unto him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Mt 16:16 (NIV)

Wheeler's response continues, "Here we see what it is that they were talking about when he said this. Peter was blessed for the testimony he had received, not by men but by revelation from God, of the divinity of Jesus. Men don't understand who Jesus is--they have all sorts of weird and conflicting theories--but by the power of God, men can have the truth revealed unto them. This revelation, being from God, is infallible, and if the Church is built upon it, it can never fall. Simon was named petros because he was the archetype, the first (of his contemporaries at least) to have received this personal revelation from God. (See Matthew chapter 4, where he and his brother Andrew are named as the first two of Jesus's disciples.)

______________________________________
Link to exegesis: Christianity Stack Exchange Thread

 

[GodsGrace]

On a different server (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/) we may see a record of a conversational Q & A thread, where 7 years ago, a similar question was asked:
"Mike" asked the question: "When Jesus gave Peter his name (rock) what is the significance that he then said upon a ‘different’ kind of rock he would build his church?"

Spoiler: The Full Question of Mike

When Peter made his famous confession, Jesus responded by saying:

Looking up the original Greek I see that Jesus is referring to two types of rocks and one is related to the other, but they are not the same.

Peter = Πέτρος, Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway.​

Rock = pétra (a feminine noun) – "a mass of connected rock”​

The question is, "What is the point of bringing in two types of rocks in response to Peter’s confession?"

What is the point of the word-play?

Hi SH,,,,

I'd like to start by disagreeing with the explanation for
Petros
Petra

I'd love to see something written about how Petra means a "mass of connected rock". This cannot be correct. I don't need a lexicon or an expert to know the difference:

Pietro is the name of Peter and means A ROCK (or stone).
MASCULINE

Pietra means A ROCK (or stone).

Pietro is just the masculine name for Pietra...which means ROCK or STONE.

Pietro DOES NOTE mean a pebble as found along a walkway....it just means a stone -

it could be a small stone or a big stone...
BUT THE WORD FOR STONE IS THE SAME.

Mason Wheeler's reply is seen below:
A large, solid rock that served as a foundation to build something upon that nothing could wipe out calls to mind the end of the Sermon on the Mount:


So we know that Jesus was familiar with this sort of imagery. The question, then, is what he was referring to in this specific passage?

Catholics claim that this is the point where Jesus established the church, and its authority, in the hands of Peter, naming him the first Pope, the small rock, an individual example of the large rock (the office of Pope that holds the authority over the church.)

To Catholics, Jesus established the Mass and thus the church at the Last Supper. He meant for Peter to be the head of the new church Jesus wanted since He was rejected as Messiah and had to find a different way of announcing His message.

As to the Pope,,,if a Catholic wants to be intellectually honest, he will know that Peter was NOT the first Pope but the Bishop of Rome who then became known as Pope in about the 600's.

And yet this answer feels somewhat unsatisfying. Popes are human too. Peter was human too. Peter was hotheaded and a bit boastful, and he had some serious problems with his faith. When Jesus invited him out onto the water to walk to him, he was actually able to do it, but then, after it had already been proven to him beyond any doubt that he was in the middle of a bona fide miracle, he doubted! Peter the Rock began to sink like a stone and Jesus had to run over and save him from drowning. And who can forget his cowardice in the face of Jesus's trial and crucifixion, denying his Lord three times just hours after he had boasted of his willingness to follow him even unto death? This is not the picture of a solid foundation that will uphold the church no matter what bad weather beats against it!

But if we reject this interpretation, we are under the necessity of providing a better one, because Jesus did still say that he was going to build his church upon "this rock". So the question becomes, what is "this"? For that, we need more context. Let's look back a few verses:

So are we to doubt Jesus' decision to pick WHICH Apostle He wanted to be the leader of the others? And thus the leader of the new church?

Mt 16:16 (NIV)

Wheeler's response continues, "Here we see what it is that they were talking about when he said this. Peter was blessed for the testimony he had received, not by men but by revelation from God, of the divinity of Jesus. Men don't understand who Jesus is--they have all sorts of weird and conflicting theories--but by the power of God, men can have the truth revealed unto them. This revelation, being from God, is infallible, and if the Church is built upon it, it can never fall. Simon was named petros because he was the archetype, the first (of his contemporaries at least) to have received this personal revelation from God. (See Matthew chapter 4, where he and his brother Andrew are named as the first two of Jesus's disciples.)

Does Wheeler believe the other Apostles had received no revelation? As we would say today --- were they not saved?
So everyone that receives revelation from God that Jesus is the Son of God becomes a small pebble on which Jesus depends?

This sounds like an old and worn out concept.

Jesus is the foundation upon which His church was built.
Peter is the rock upon the foundation...He was looked up to and respected by the early church and when there was a question he was sought.

The fact the Peter "rejected" Jesus 3X was due to fear. I tire of hearing this. How would one of us like to go to the cross?

And I don't understand why this is so important a matter.
Could any human take away from God??
Which is what it would seem Protestants are afraid of.
(I'm Protestant BTW).

______________________________________
Link to exegesis: Christianity Stack Exchange Thread
[/QUOTE]

 

[Boaz]

Hi SH,,,,

I'd like to start by disagreeing with the explanation for
Petros
Petra

I'd love to see something written about how Petra means a "mass of connected rock". This cannot be correct. I don't need a lexicon or an expert to know the difference:

Pietro is the name of Peter and means A ROCK (or stone).
MASCULINE

Pietra means A ROCK (or stone).

Pietro is just the masculine name for Pietra...which means ROCK or STONE.

Pietro DOES NOTE mean a pebble as found along a walkway....it just means a stone -

it could be a small stone or a big stone...
BUT THE WORD FOR STONE IS THE SAME.


To Catholics, Jesus established the Mass and thus the church at the Last Supper. He meant for Peter to be the head of the new church Jesus wanted since He was rejected as Messiah and had to find a different way of announcing His message.

As to the Pope,,,if a Catholic wants to be intellectually honest, he will know that Peter was NOT the first Pope but the Bishop of Rome who then became known as Pope in about the 600's.


So are we to doubt Jesus' decision to pick WHICH Apostle He wanted to be the leader of the others? And thus the leader of the new church?




Does Wheeler believe the other Apostles had received no revelation? As we would say today --- were they not saved?
So everyone that receives revelation from God that Jesus is the Son of God becomes a small pebble on which Jesus depends?

This sounds like an old and worn out concept.

Jesus is the foundation upon which His church was built.
Peter is the rock upon the foundation...He was looked up to and respected by the early church and when there was a question he was sought.

The fact the Peter "rejected" Jesus 3X was due to fear. I tire of hearing this. How would one of us like to go to the cross?

And I don't understand why this is so important a matter.
Could any human take away from God??
Which is what it would seem Protestants are afraid of.
(I'm Protestant BTW).

______________________________________
Link to exegesis: Christianity Stack Exchange Thread

[/QUOTE]
I have been looking into this a bit, using the ESV, it's cross references and notes. In the past I determined from my own thought processes, that the meaning of Matthew 16:15-20, specifically v 18 "on this rock". Was that it was the revelation God gave Peter that Jesus is the Christ. That knowing this is what saves. The rest of the passages Have always been a bit of a mystery.And that has always been one explanation but I discovered there are three other debated interpretations.
1. Jesus Himself is the rock. (1Peter 2:5-8)
2. Peter as the representative apostle is a foundation IN the church (Ephesians 2:20)
3. Peter represents by his confession the type of person on which the true church will be built.
This last one is most likely in my opinion because it helps to clarify the keys to the kingdom, which is metaphorically describing how the Apostles are foundational to the church. They are given binding and looseing powers (keys). The apostles open the kingdom to those who share Peter's confession and exclude those who will not receive their testimony of Christ.

 

[Sparkey]

Hi SH,,,,

Ahhhh.... /please don't call me "SH"

I'd love to see something written about how Petra means a "mass of connected rock". This cannot be correct. I don't need a lexicon or an expert to know the difference:

I don't know these guys (the authors of the OP I quoted) but I don't mind doing a little research for you. Here's the link: Mike & Mason thread on Christianity.stakexchange Server

My best guess is that Mason was thinking about Peter's comment in 1Pet 2:5.


If we broaden our concept of "The Rock" (which is Theós) to include rocky ground we may also want to check Luke 8:6. /hope this is helpful

Spoiler: Become like Children

It's okay to become like children. It's also okay to be like the Bereans. Balance is oftentimes needed especially as we teeter between Law and Spirit.

PS -- > Did you catch the pun in Wheeler's dissertation? He mentioned Peter before he was filled with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost and spoke of a crisis of Faith. This really caught my eye because Peter is the FAITH guy (to me).

He said,

"When Jesus invited him out onto the water to walk to him, he was actually able to do it, but then, after it had already been proven to him beyond any doubt that he was in the middle of a bona fide miracle, he doubted! Peter the Rock began to sink like a stone and Jesus had to run over and save him from drowning."

 

[Sparkey]

/snicker "In the middle of a bona fide miracle ... He [sank] like a stone." It made me groan a bit.

2. Peter as the representative apostle is a foundation IN the church (Ephesians 2:20)

cf. Eph 2:20 with Rev 21:14 imagery.

 

[Boaz]

Hi SH,,,,

I'd like to start by disagreeing with the explanation for
Petros
Petra

I'd love to see something written about how Petra means a "mass of connected rock". This cannot be correct. I don't need a lexicon or an expert to know the difference:

Pietro is the name of Peter and means A ROCK (or stone).
MASCULINE

Pietra means A ROCK (or stone).

Pietro is just the masculine name for Pietra...which means ROCK or STONE.

Pietro DOES NOTE mean a pebble as found along a walkway....it just means a stone -

it could be a small stone or a big stone...
BUT THE WORD FOR STONE IS THE SAME.


To Catholics, Jesus established the Mass and thus the church at the Last Supper. He meant for Peter to be the head of the new church Jesus wanted since He was rejected as Messiah and had to find a different way of announcing His message.

As to the Pope,,,if a Catholic wants to be intellectually honest, he will know that Peter was NOT the first Pope but the Bishop of Rome who then became known as Pope in about the 600's.


So are we to doubt Jesus' decision to pick WHICH Apostle He wanted to be the leader of the others? And thus the leader of the new church?




Does Wheeler believe the other Apostles had received no revelation? As we would say today --- were they not saved?
So everyone that receives revelation from God that Jesus is the Son of God becomes a small pebble on which Jesus depends?

This sounds like an old and worn out concept.

Jesus is the foundation upon which His church was built.
Peter is the rock upon the foundation...He was looked up to and respected by the early church and when there was a question he was sought.

The fact the Peter "rejected" Jesus 3X was due to fear. I tire of hearing this. How would one of us like to go to the cross?

And I don't understand why this is so important a matter.
Could any human take away from God??
Which is what it would seem Protestants are afraid of.
(I'm Protestant BTW).

______________________________________
Link to exegesis: Christianity Stack Exchange Thread

[/QUOTE]
Plus. Regarding Peter's humanity in being fearful enough deny he knew Jesus. Jesus told him that Satan had been given to sift him and then Peter would return. And Peter came back strong and got down to business.

 

[Sparkey]

And Peter came back strong and got down to business.

Well, maybe. Peter credited the Holy Spirit with the power that made the real difference in him. Where was that? Acts 2? Yep.

"All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them."

Jesus told them he would do it in Acts 1, "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

But you're right. There was a tremendous difference in that man, our 'little rock' when we look at who he was able to become after that 50 day mark (Pentecost). Of course, this deserves an entire book on it own. It's like John said. (John 21:25).

 

[Boaz]

Well, maybe. Peter credited the Holy Spirit with the power that made the real difference in him. Where was that? Acts 2? Yep.

"All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them."

Jesus told them he would do it in Acts 1, "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

But you're right. There was a tremendous difference in that man, our 'little rock' when we look at who he was able to become after that 50 day mark (Pentecost). Of course, this deserves an entire book on it own. It's like John said. (John 21:25).

Hey Sparrow
Yeah I know. There was a bit of time in there before any of the Apostles got to work. They had to wait for the Holy Spirit, as Jesus instructed and that was what they did.
Just a thought I had never thought before. Why was there that period of waiting before the Holy Spirit came. Any ideas? I'll be real embarrassed if you come back and tell me it is in a certain passage in black and white;and I missed it all these years!

 

[Sparkey]

Why was there that period of waiting before the Holy Spirit came. Any ideas?

What I've been taught on that subject is about the Holy Days of the Tribes of Israel. We can't do it justice here but I have a link that should help give a Jewish Perspective to what was being fulfilled in the Days following the Passover and leading toward Shavuot. Originally, Pentecost was a Jewish holiday held 50 days after Passover that celebrates the Torah (Law) being rec'd on Mt. Sinai.

OUTDATED Hebrew / Christian Calendar

Paul was a student of the Law and really knew his stuff. You already know that God commanded Sabbath (a time of Rest). It was a token of Him resting on the 7th Day of Creation. But there's more. There are instructions in the Law about Sabbath and you know me, I love to look at similes, metaphors, analogies and especially things that foreshadow future events.

It's not too much of a stretch to understand that God speaks to us by way of instruction even in the way He created the seasons. Don't overburden the land (the Eretz). But here's the key to the secret. He wasn't just concerned for the land. That foreshadowed the lives of the saints and the Sabbath Rest coincides with the Rest that Peter received, that we are given by the Holy Spirit. Now, Peter and those guys back then had a special immersion (baptism) that was accompanied by tongues of flame and other miracles.

We don't see that experience in modern times, but when the Kingdom of Heaven was expanded later (during Peter's ministry to Cornelius) the Holy Spirit fell. This was the first time that Gentiles were allowed into the group of the called-out ones, the Ecclesia, also known as the Church.

So it starts with God in the beginning. And He spoke true, of course, "I declare the end from the beginning." It starts with God taking a day of Rest. This is all in the WONDER that may be called the "Plan and Purpose of God."

Man messes things up by his rebellion but God is not thrown into a state of confusion by this. He continues with Man even in his fallen state and His Name starts to be known. Cast your eye way, way back and look from the Heavenly View with me for a moment. Imagine your God and what He wanted. He would become our savior but only in the fullness of time.

God knew that the Law would become a Guardian and a Transporter eventually. He seemed rather harsh to those who followed Moses. But wait, there's more. From the Original command, to keep holy the 7th day, to the Law regarding the tilling of the soil, there was a grand guiding principle. God was foreshadowing out participation. Symbolically, that land that He cared so much about represented us.

The SEED was being planted (in us) and much of the Law was given by way of instruction for us. So God's resting was for us. The command for His children to allow for Sabbath was for us and the Seasons and even the Miracles that the Nation of Israel celebrated teach about us. Jesus came first to the the Jews, was rejected and the rock that was a block of stumbling became the chief cornerstone. But wait, there's more.

Spoiler: The Sabbath Rest is a Symbol of . . .

Hebrews 4 New International Version (NIV)
A Sabbath-Rest for the People of God
4 Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. 2 For we also have had the good news proclaimed to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because they did not share the faith of those who obeyed.[a] 3 Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,

“So I declared on oath in my anger,
‘They shall never enter my rest.’”[b]
Read more here: Hebrews Chapter 4 [NIV]

I could (and will) go on and on about Our Christ. He is our betrothed. That means he has (to speak more like the KJames guys) "pledged his troth," and is our betrothed. We are Children of the Promise and the Promise is here with us, the Living promise of God who said, "Where two or more of you gather (join together), there also am I.

Here, let me fetch something by way of a conclusion:
It's worth a look or two and has taken my breath away more than I can say:
Ready? Find a quiet place. Do you have an AUDIO app for your phone maybe? Something that will read to you? I like that so much because I tend to learn through my ears. To each his/her own.
KJV isn't the easiest "read" but it's free: https://www.audiobible.com/bible/hebrews_11.html
In any case, without further adieu, allow me to present to you the Faith chapter. Now, I like to keep things simple, rather than mysterious so it's easy for me to think of Faith in terms of something I like to call [God-Trust]. It is by [God-Trust], I say, that we are saved. (It is by Faith ye are saved). It helps me and you're welcome to my transliteration, should it please.

Spoiler: The Faith Chapter: Hebrews chapter 11

The Faith Chapter: Hebrews chapter 11

Bible Gateway passage: Hebrews 11 - New International Version

Faith in Action - Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. By faith Abel...

www.biblegateway.com

Here then is a conclusion (for now, but wait, there's more).
Hebrews 11:39-40

And, because the chapter divisions in the bible were added later, we can just ignore them and continue naturally to include that next little bit.

Hebrews 12:1-3

Grace be with you.

 

[Boaz]

What I've been taught on that subject is about the Holy Days of the Tribes of Israel. We can't do it justice here but I have a link that should help give a Jewish Perspective to what was being fulfilled in the Days following the Passover and leading toward Shavuot. Originally, Pentecost was a Jewish holiday held 50 days after Passover that celebrates the Torah (Law) being rec'd on Mt. Sinai.

OUTDATED Hebrew / Christian Calendar

Paul was a student of the Law and really knew his stuff. You already know that God commanded Sabbath (a time of Rest). It was a token of Him resting on the 7th Day of Creation. But there's more. There are instructions in the Law about Sabbath and you know me, I love to look at similes, metaphors, analogies and especially things that foreshadow future events.

It's not too much of a stretch to understand that God speaks to us by way of instruction even in the way He created the seasons. Don't overburden the land (the Eretz). But here's the key to the secret. He wasn't just concerned for the land. That foreshadowed the lives of the saints and the Sabbath Rest coincides with the Rest that Peter received, that we are given by the Holy Spirit. Now, Peter and those guys back then had a special immersion (baptism) that was accompanied by tongues of flame and other miracles.

We don't see that experience in modern times, but when the Kingdom of Heaven was expanded later (during Peter's ministry to Cornelius) the Holy Spirit fell. This was the first time that Gentiles were allowed into the group of the called-out ones, the Ecclesia, also known as the Church.

So it starts with God in the beginning. And He spoke true, of course, "I declare the end from the beginning." It starts with God taking a day of Rest. This is all in the WONDER that may be called the "Plan and Purpose of God."

Man messes things up by his rebellion but God is not thrown into a state of confusion by this. He continues with Man even in his fallen state and His Name starts to be known. Cast your eye way, way back and look from the Heavenly View with me for a moment. Imagine your God and what He wanted. He would become our savior but only in the fullness of time.

God knew that the Law would become a Guardian and a Transporter eventually. He seemed rather harsh to those who followed Moses. But wait, there's more. From the Original command, to keep holy the 7th day, to the Law regarding the tilling of the soil, there was a grand guiding principle. God was foreshadowing out participation. Symbolically, that land that He cared so much about represented us.

The SEED was being planted (in us) and much of the Law was given by way of instruction for us. So God's resting was for us. The command for His children to allow for Sabbath was for us and the Seasons and even the Miracles that the Nation of Israel celebrated teach about us. Jesus came first to the the Jews, was rejected and the rock that was a block of stumbling became the chief cornerstone. But wait, there's more.

Spoiler: The Sabbath Rest is a Symbol of . . .

Hebrews 4 New International Version (NIV)
A Sabbath-Rest for the People of God
4 Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. 2 For we also have had the good news proclaimed to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because they did not share the faith of those who obeyed.[a] 3 Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,

“So I declared on oath in my anger,
‘They shall never enter my rest.’”[b]
Read more here: Hebrews Chapter 4 [NIV]

I could (and will) go on and on about Our Christ. He is our betrothed. That means he has (to speak more like the KJames guys) "pledged his troth," and is our betrothed. We are Children of the Promise and the Promise is here with us, the Living promise of God who said, "Where two or more of you gather (join together), there also am I.

Here, let me fetch something by way of a conclusion:
It's worth a look or two and has taken my breath away more than I can say:
Ready? Find a quiet place. Do you have an AUDIO app for your phone maybe? Something that will read to you? I like that so much because I tend to learn through my ears. To each his/her own.
KJV isn't the easiest "read" but it's free: https://www.audiobible.com/bible/hebrews_11.html
In any case, without further adieu, allow me to present to you the Faith chapter. Now, I like to keep things simple, rather than mysterious so it's easy for me to think of Faith in terms of something I like to call [God-Trust]. It is by [God-Trust], I say, that we are saved. (It is by Faith ye are saved). It helps me and you're welcome to my transliteration, should it please.

Spoiler: The Faith Chapter: Hebrews chapter 11

The Faith Chapter: Hebrews chapter 11

Bible Gateway passage: Hebrews 11 - New International Version

Faith in Action - Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. By faith Abel...

www.biblegateway.com

Here then is a conclusion (for now, but wait, there's more).
Hebrews 11:39-40

And, because the chapter divisions in the bible were added later, we can just ignore them and continue naturally to include that next little bit.

Hebrews 12:1-3

Grace be with you.

That was very, very interesting and refreshing! I even enjoyed your way of writing. I will check out all the references you gave though I may not be able to get back to you on it til tomorrow.

Your idea on the reason for the waiting period before the coming of the Holy Spirit bears looking into. Obviously there was a reason, and it goes without saying it was a good and necessary one. I suspect there is a profound and humbling purpose within the Godhead for this. And possibly it was so obvious to the Jews because it related to their culture that it didn't need to be spelled out, yet it might be an eye opener to us. (Sorry for the run on sentence. Oh well. Paul used them a lot too.) I am not in anyway suggesting there is a hidden meaning cloaked in the message that we have to search for. I hate that stuff.
The entire purposes of God though are integrated throughout the years and years of His working it out. It all connects, actually in one consistent straight line. You touched on it in your explanation of our connection to the Sabbath rest and the land and they are all over the Bible if we pay attention. It is in the story of Ruth and Boaz with the kinsman redeemer and the bringing in of the Gentiles. It is even in Esther going uninvited before the king and him holding out the golden scepter, inviting her before the throne. That so reminds me of Hebrews "now we come boldly before His throne of grace to receive mercy in our time of need." And we go through the blood of Jesus and the sacrifice of His body.
And the land. I remember reading in one of the prophets, and this is terrible, but I don't remember which one, and I have never been able to find it again. For some reason I think it is Jeremiah. But it said one of the reasons for the 70 years of captivity why it was 70 was to let the land rest for all the years they were supposed to and didn't. You probably know chapter and verse. I hope so. Tell me where it is.! There is something really beautiful about that.
Well, there are hundreds of examples I could bring up but won't. Maybe one here and there, now and then. I'll check out those resources and thanks
Boaz

 

[Boaz]

Sparrowhawke
A P.S Hebrews, from the first time I read it, a few weeks after my redemption, has always been one of my favorite books in the Bible. It tied the two Testaments together so beautifully and clearly for me.

 

[Sparkey]

Lev 25:4? 2 Chron 36:21? ---> Oh! Jer 25:11.
Hmmm... One sec, let me get you a gift.


Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

It's better than "The Google" -- and if you love digging for treasure? Invaluable. Just remember, if you find a nugget consider sharing it here, right?

 

[Boaz]

Lev 25:4? 2 Chron 36:21? ---> Oh! Jer 25:11.
Hmmm... One sec, let me get you a gift.


Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

It's better than "The Google" -- and if you love digging for treasure? Invaluable. Just remember, if you find a nugget consider sharing it here, right?

The 2Chronicles was close. It was a long time ago that I came across it so I'm not sure what translation I read it in, but it really stuck in my mind, because it thrilled me for some reason, that it said the 70 years was for the times that they didn't give the land it's 7th year rest---10times. But maybe I imagined it. I have read through several translations a few times and am always on the lookout for it.
thanks for looking! And thanks for the gift. I will put it to good use.

 

[GodsGrace]

I have been looking into this a bit, using the ESV, it's cross references and notes. In the past I determined from my own thought processes, that the meaning of Matthew 16:15-20, specifically v 18 "on this rock". Was that it was the revelation God gave Peter that Jesus is the Christ.

God, of course, did give Peter the revelation that Jesus is the rock. Peter and John, IMO, understood Jesus more than the other Apostles...at least from what is written in scripture...

But then why say:
YOU ARE PIETRO.......

But,,,,ha ha....on THIS ROCK (Jesus) I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH.

You see, it doesn't make any sense as to why Jesus would first tell Peter he is ROCK and on THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH...

Was Jesus just kidding around?
They call this a play on words,,,I've come to understand that it would not be a play on words but a downright .....I don't know the right word to use (sarcasm?).

That knowing this is what saves. The rest of the passages Have always been a bit of a mystery.And that has always been one explanation but I discovered there are three other debated interpretations.

Right...this is one explanation.
The reason I can't agree with it is because while Jesus was still alive the concept of "being saved" did not exist. What Jesus said in John 3:3,5 is that we must be born from above...we must get in tune with our spirit...we must come to understand and serve God.
This is not the same as what we today call "being saved".
This might be a new idea to you...but take the time to think about it. Jesus spoke about the Kingdom of God (on earth) and how to be a part of it...He only mentions salvation a few times.

1. Jesus Himself is the rock. (1Peter 2:5-8)
2. Peter as the representative apostle is a foundation IN the church (Ephesians 2:20)
3. Peter represents by his confession the type of person on which the true church will be built.

Agreed on number 3.

Numbers 1 and 2 are not very clear to me.
In no. 2 you said PETER is the foundation ..... Ephesians 2:20
In 1 Corinthians 3:10-11 tells us that Jesus is the foundation.

1 Corinthians 10:4 tells us that Jesus is the rock.

Of course, foundations at that time were made of rock...
so is there really even a difference? Is this even something to be argued?

Jesus is the foundation.
Jesus is the cornerstone upon which the church will be built.

Ephesians 2:19-22 has both concepts incorproated:
19So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household,
20having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,
21in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord,
22in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

The above states that the Apostles are the foundation...and Jesus is the cornerstone.

The whole building is growing into a holy temple in the Lord.

I understand this the best in reference to Matthew 16....
Peter was like a rock to Jesus...thus the name Cephas ,,, which means Rock in Aramaic.

Jesus is the foundation upon which all will be built
1 Cor 3:10-11

He is also the cornerstone which holds up the other stones/rocks.
Peter will be the main rock upon which Jesus' church will be built.

IOW,,,He was going to trust in Peter,,,,the leader of the Apostles, to continue to built His church.

This last one is most likely in my opinion because it helps to clarify the keys to the kingdom, which is metaphorically describing how the Apostles are foundational to the church. They are given binding and looseing powers (keys). The apostles open the kingdom to those who share Peter's confession and exclude those who will not receive their testimony of Christ.

I agree with the above except I can't agree that number 3 would be the best answer for the reasons I've given.

 

[GodsGrace]

Ahhhh.... /please don't call me "SH"



I don't know these guys (the authors of the OP I quoted) but I don't mind doing a little research for you. Here's the link: Mike & Mason thread on Christianity.stakexchange Server

My best guess is that Mason was thinking about Peter's comment in 1Pet 2:5.


If we broaden our concept of "The Rock" (which is Theós) to include rocky ground we may also want to check Luke 8:6. /hope this is helpful

Actually, I don't care about reading the other forum...

But...

1. 1 Peter 2:5
WE are the living stones...
Not the dead stones found in a building.
This is what this means.

Yet another element brought into the concept of
Jesus or Peter or the Apostles being the stone.

2. Theos means rock?
Doesn't it mean God??

It's okay to become like children. It's also okay to be like the Bereans. Balance is oftentimes needed especially as we teeter between Law and Spirit.

Sure. No disagreement here!

PS -- > Did you catch the pun in Wheeler's dissertation? He mentioned Peter before he was filled with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost and spoke of a crisis of Faith. This really caught my eye because Peter is the FAITH guy (to me).

He said,
Wheeler said:
"When Jesus invited him out onto the water to walk to him, he was actually able to do it, but then, after it had already been proven to him beyond any doubt that he was in the middle of a bona fide miracle, he doubted! Peter the Rock began to sink like a stone and Jesus had to run over and save him from drowning."

I don't understand your point.
Peter was the faith guy. Right.
But he was still human and fear set in,,,here as in after Jesus was arrested and he was being asked if he was a member of Jesus' disciples.

Are you saying that after Acts and Peter became filled with the Holy Spirit he was no longer ever afraid again?

 

[Sparkey]

I tend to ramble too much (it's obvious, isn't it?) I don't apologize for that and there's probably nothing that I can do except I would like to apologize to the OP for having burdened his thread overly (should that have been the case). That said:

2. Theos means rock?
Doesn't it mean God??

Yes. That is correct. I did not mean to try to change the meaning of the Gk there. /smile

Spoiler: Oh! Pun the Door (Open the Door)

For the most part, my preference is to allow the original meaning of the words to remain true, slang often attempts to change meanings (for instance) and many members of the 'Old Dudes Society' resist such notions. For instance, I still think that the word, rock, is is synonymous with stone and pebble etc. and doesn't have anything to do with Elvis and/or The Beatles. Playing with words is okay though. Sharp minds can handle it; rocks too, can be sharpened.

Music didn't enter fully into Worship service until the Temple of David. Theós' Temple in the Wilderness wasn't ready for that kind of thing. Where would they get the instruments while wandering? We are being prepared to become His dwelling place. I'm sure you know songs about that, right?

It's a journey. Each person is on at a different spot and the HS meets us on the road. Please pardon me when I sing off-key.

I don't understand your point.

Just pointed to a pun. 'Little rock' when down like a stone when his trust wavered.

 

[GodsGrace]

I tend to ramble too much (it's obvious, isn't it?) I don't apologize for that and there's probably nothing that I can do except I would like to apologize to the OP for having burdened his thread overly (should that have been the case). That said:

Rambling is OK on this forum...as long as it's about God and His servants....us. No need to apologize.

Yes. That is correct. I did not mean to try to change the meaning of the Gk there. /smile

]For the most part, my preference is to allow the original meaning of the words to remain true, slang often attempts to change meanings (for instance) and many members of the 'Old Dudes Society' resist such notions. For instance, I still think that the word, rock, is is synonymous with stone and pebble etc. and doesn't have anything to do with Elvis and/or The Beatles. Playing with words is okay though. Sharp minds can handle it; rocks too, can be sharpened

Why these spoilers? I'll be some don't even click on them...
rock, stone is the same...pebble denotes a measurement for the rock and the stone, so it would be different.

Rock and Stone may not have anything to do with Elvis or the Beattles....but it has a lot to do with The Rolliing Stones, or as they are affectinately called The Stones. Of course because there's more than one of them.

Rocks can be sharpened....
But can minds be sharpened with Rock(s)??

Music didn't enter fully into Worship service until the Temple of David. Theós' Temple in the Wilderness wasn't ready for that kind of thing. Where would they get the instruments while wandering? We are being prepared to become His dwelling place. I'm sure you know songs about that, right?

Amazing Grace comes to mind -- an all-time favorite of mine.

It's a journey. Each person is on at a different spot and the HS meets us on the road. Please pardon me when I sing off-key.

Amen

 

[Sparkey]

Why these spoilers? I'll be some don't even click on them...

My response: We're not on the phone and I don't know how to respond by typing out an answer to every question that occurs. Pardon me, I'm not ignoring except by necessity. Eventually we'll get to use mass media devices that will allow face-to-face like the big-boys do in their business meetings, right?