Peter's contribution towards the growth and developement of the Church

[Classik]

NLV
Mat 16:8: Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means'rock'), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it.

Jn 21:17: A third time he asked him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt that Jesus asked the question a third time. He said, "Lord, you know everything. You know that I love you." Jesus said, "Then feed my sheep.

 

[Classik]

Re: Peter's contribution to the Church

What was Peter's contribution to the growth of the church (read those verses -the OP). Peter died! What kind of transition (power) took place. Who took over from him?

 

[felix]

Re: Peter's contribution to the Church

Christ is always the head of the Church not Peter. Nowhere, Peter was made head nor the church was handed over to Peter. He was a laborer assigned with a task to build Christ's Church. When did a builder started to own things? He labored and died with his fellow apostles and his labor is recorded in the first few chapters of Acts building the first church on the foundation of Christ.

What makes you think Peter as the head of the church and he has to have a successor for a transition to happen?

 

[Classik]

Hello, Felix thanks for your input. I wasn't talking about ownership of the church really. After Peter died what happened. What kept the church running (looking at the verses) Thanks

 

[felix]

Hello, Felix thanks for your input. I wasn't talking about ownership of the church really. After Peter died what happened. What kept the church running (looking at the verses) Thanks

I don't understand what you are after. It is Christ who had given the Holy Spirit to us.

NLV
Mat 16:8: Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means'rock'), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it.

Jn 21:17: A third time he asked him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt that Jesus asked the question a third time. He said, "Lord, you know everything. You know that I love you." Jesus said, "Then feed my sheep.

I will build my church - meaning, Christ will build His Church. The task given to Peter according to Jn 21:17 is to feed His sheep. He had fed His sheep and died. He had also raised several other shepherds to feed His sheep.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Hello, Felix thanks for your input. I wasn't talking about ownership of the church really. After Peter died what happened. What kept the church running (looking at the verses) Thanks

Nothing happened when Peter died. He was but a worker in the building of the church, and the John 21 passage was not a command for Peter to "build the church," it was exoneration for his failure the night of Jesus' arrest, and the Lord's assurance to the fisherman that he still had a place in service to the Lord. So what kept the church going when Christ, the true Builder, died? That's easy: The Holy Spirit, within every believer.

 

[Aardverk]

There seems to be a reluctance to point out 'the elephant in the room' - that Peter is the most revered of the apostles to the majority of Christians. He was the first head of the Church of Rome and was the first step in the apostolic succession claimed both by Catholics and Orthodox Christians.

Peter is sometimes depicted in the Gospels as spokesman for the Apostles and he certainly seems to have been one of Jesus' favorites. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox refer to Peter as the chief or head of the apostles.

Perhaps just to be different, or perhaps just to belittle the apostolic succession , many Protestants deny that Peter was in any way special to Jesus. That seems to dismiss the reports that, for some reason, Jesus changed Simon's name to 'rock' on the day he met him. Much later He said, .... "on this rock I will build my church". That could have been a witticism or Jesus could have known on the day they met, what he would want Simon/Peter/rock to do. No one really expected Jesus to act as a carpenter or stonemason in the building of His church. His words were always metaphorical and can quite reasonably be taken to mean that he wanted Peter to be the 'foundation' of His church.

Complying with Jesus' apparent wishes, Peter went to the 'center of the world', Rome, and became the first Bishop of Rome (or whatever title you may wish to give him) before being executed some 25 years later. The problem is that we now have little idea what form of Christianity Peter 'taught' in Rome. His own Gospel was declared Gnostic some 300 years later and is left out of the Bible. Paul, instead, becomes far more prominent because of his many writings which have been widely accepted as divinely inspired even where they conflict with the teaching of Jesus.

Shortly after the creation of the Bible, Theodosius burned every historical and religious document which in any way conflicted with The Bible, so we have a worrying gap in our knowledge of the early Christian churches. The precise answer to your question is unknown largely because of that act of mass vandalism by Theodosius. I have grave doubts about the trustworthiness and motives of people who do such things. Hitler was into burning books as well

James, another favorite and potential leader of the apostles, became Bishop of Jerusalem but that Church pretty well died out. THE 'Church' then, that He has built, like it or not, stems from Peter. That is exactly what Jesus appears to be saying He will do.... 'upon this rock I will build my Church'.

 

[Aardverk]

I was hoping someone would explain the flaws in this view. I genuinely have never understood the demotion of Peter. :dunno

 

[felix]

I was hoping someone would explain the flaws in this view. I genuinely have never understood the demotion of Peter. :dunno

I don't think there is any demotion of Peter.

Theodosius did the right thing to burn everything that conflicts the Bible which is under his control. It is not wise to compare Theodosius with Hitler. May be you should compare with Saudi Arabia or China for how they treat the same Bible today.

 

[Slider]

Re: Peter's contribution to the Church

Well, the two verses you gave I don't believe to be the most important when discussion Peter's roll in the Church development. I'd rather go to the book of Acts. However, I'll stick to the ones you listed.

I want to start with John 21 first. I don't think this scene has anything to do with Peter's roll. It's been a few years since I've read those verses in this light, but I believe this is the first time Jesus spoke directly to Peter since his resurrection. Now, this is just a theory of mine (so I won't claim it to be a doctrinal truth), but I see it more as a scolding rebuke to Peter. One of the last (if not the last) things Peter did before Jesus died was deny him three times. Jesus asked him "Do you love me?" three times. Peter was very upset! There must have been some remorse about his actions. and perhaps this was Jesus telling him to get back in (and stay in) line. So the purpose was two fold: 1. Jesus was letting Peter know he is still in the ministry; but 2. Jesus was scolding Peter for his actions.

As for Matthew 16.... we see one of my favorite traits of Peter. His boldness and willingness to step up to the plate -- even if it got him in trouble. Jesus did in fact call him Cephus here and gave him a special gift in doing that. Names are important to God, and not everyone gets a name change (Jacob, Abraham, Paul, Sarah are the only ones I can think of at this time).

However, "The Rock" Jesus was going to build his Church on was not Peter himself, but his statement of faith at that moment: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." THAT was the Rock Jesus built his Church on.

Jesus gave the keys to the Kingdom.... To Peter? Or to all the Apostles? I believe all the Apostles got it, but I can't deny that he was speaking directly to Peter at the time, so if the others did have the keys, Peter received them first.

Jesus also said [paraphrasing] that whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. It may seem that Jesus was saying that Peter had authority do make decisions and Heaven would back him. Well, that's true, but there was a catch. Jesus did say "whatever you decide I'm going to back you on, now let me tell you what you will decide!" Remember, it wasn't long after Peter got this great gift that Jesus went back to rebuking him and calling him Satan!

Jesus at one point had to remind the disciples that no one of them was more prominent than the other, but from our fleshly perspective Peter was very prominent. I say this in the same light that we may see Isaiah and Jeremiah as two of the more prominent prophets, while knowing the truth that they weren't "more important" than say Micah or Amos, whom some call "the minor prophets".

Peter did have a special roll in the development of the Church, but just as John the Baptist decreased, so did Peter when Paul began his ministry. That's not to down play the importance of his roll, both then and now.

 

[Classik]

This is very interesting. Thanks

 

[Aardverk]

Re: Peter's contribution to the Church

Thank you Slider for that considered response. I will ponder your words at length.

For now, I would appreciate a bit more on the following:

..........However, "The Rock" Jesus was going to build his Church on was not Peter himself, but his statement of faith at that moment: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." THAT was the Rock Jesus built his Church on.........

This is the view which has long bothered me. It seems too much of a coincidence to me for Jesus to have deliberately re-named Simon 'rock' and then said 'upon this rock I will build my Church'. Obviously it could just have been coincidence but it seems far more of stretch to me to interpret it the way you, and some others do, that 'this rock' is 'faith'.

If you have any more thoughts on why we should interpret 'this rock' as 'faith', I would appreciate your ideas.

It is worth bearing in mind that Young's Literal Translation is: "And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly"

I find that I can't ignore the very clear 'thee' and 'thou' in Jesus' words. It does not appear that Jesus was talking about faith, otherwise He would have said something rather different. Also, whilst 'assembly' is usually mis-translated as 'church', that was not the word used. I recognize that 'assembly' could mean all sorts of things, and we really don't know what Jesus had in mind for his 'assembly', but what we do know is that Peter went to Rome and started the Christian 'church'. I think that adds weight to the interpretation that Jesus meant Peter to be the foundation of His church.

300 years later it was a very different church heavily influenced by Paul rather than Peter. Whether that is a good or a bad thing - I have no idea - but it seems like a fact to me.

 

[Slider]

Re: Peter's contribution to the Church

Aardverk,

You sure you want to hear? Ok… There are a few reasons why I believe Jesus was talking about the statement Peter made and not Peter himself:

1. When we take what Jesus answered to Peter out of chapter and verse format, it reads a little differently. We tend to read the Bible verse by verse and not as a whole like it was intended. Here is what Jesus answered:

“Blessed art thou,Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hathnot revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou artpeter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shallnot prevail against it. And I will giveunto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoevever thou shalt bindon earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earthshall be loosed in heaven.” KJV

When we read it like that, the emphasis is on what wasrevealed by the Father, and not so much Peter. Even the language Jesus used (this rock, against it)suggests that Jesus was talking about a thing, not a person. In other words, Jesus didn’t say “upon you Iwill build my church” and he didn’t say, “the gates of hell shall not prevailagainst you”. What was the “it”? the revelation that Peter brought: “Thou art the Christ, the son of the livingGod.”


We do have to talk about the keys of the kingdom… yes, Petergot them. I’d like to think all theother apostles did too, but clearly Jesus was talking to Peter at thismoment. So the question is, what werethe keys: the church or the message (thegospel)?

As a side note, was what Peter “bind or loose on earth”bound or loosed in heaven? Ultimately,sure. What Jesus didn’t tell him is thatHe was going to tell him what that would be. In other words, Peter needed a lot of correction even after this(remember Cornelieus, and his argument with Paul in Galatians, for example). He needed “the key” to make the rightdecision.

<o:p2. </oWhile Peter translates to Cephas and “Rock”, the epistles (Romans 9:33, 1 Cor 10:4, Eph 2:20 and even 1 Peter 2) all speak of Jesus being “the rock” (or variants thereof). The last two are interesting and specifically deal with the church. Eph 2 says the foundation was the apostles and prophets (not Peter alone) with Jesus being the chief cornerstone. When you look at what Paul said in several places (1 Cor 3:10, for example) he talked about building a foundation as the preaching of the Word – not the men themselves. Furthermore, Peter spoke of lively stones and a chief cornerstone. The lively stones were all them that believe the gospel (1 Peter 1:23-25 confirms the gospel is what made the lively stones) – not just apostles themselves.


I realize that may not have been the most coherent paragraph… Let me try to sum it up: Christ (the Word) is the Rock and chiefcornerstone. The foundation of theChurch is the preaching of Christ bythe apostles and prophets given to allthem that believe (the lively stones), inwhom the Word abideth. Perhaps a bitphilosophical, but it is enough to note nowhere did it ever say Peter was thefoundation or the rock the church was built on. At best we can only say he was a piece.

3. That being said, when we examine what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18, we can note a difference in the Greek words for “Peter” and “rock”. I’d be surprised if you didn’t hear this part before, but the former is Petros (meaning a piece of rock), where the latter is Petra (meaning a mass of rock).

4.Luke 9:46 is parallel to Mat 18:1 (which comes after 16:18). This is where the disciples argued which of themselves is or should be the greatest among themselves. Suffice to say Jesus shut down the discussion quickly. So it does not seem reasonable to believe that the Church was going to be built on him alone.
<o:p</o

There are a few other things to address: First, whether you want use “assembly” or “church”it is fine with me. I don’t see it asimportant to the overall concept. The secondhas to do with the belief that Peter started a church in Rome, as well that if he did, it was “the Christian ‘church’” as you suggested. "A Christian Church", fine....


There is scant Biblical evidence that Peter was even inRome. In 1 Peter 5:3 he notes that theChurch at Babylon salutes you, which could be interpreted as “Rome”, but somesay it was in Iraq or even Jerusalem. Personally,I do believe it to be Rome. However, henever states it was his Church, nor does it state that he was actually therewhen he wrote the letter (though that is the reasonable conclusion).

Personally, due to other historical references, I do believehe was in Rome, and suffered martyrdom there. I do not believe however, he started a Church there as Paul is noted tobeing there much longer than Peter and starting a Church. Likewise, I do notbelieve the Church in Rome (whether started by Peter or Paul) was anymoreimportant than the Churches at Antioch, Galatia, Corinth, Ephesus or Jerusalem.I haven’t looked into it, but it is reasonable to believe that it was the last churchstarted by either of these apostles, and thus, wouldn’t have been any sort of astarting point or of higher importance.

A lot to chew on, I know (hey, I warned you!). Let me conclude that in no way does any ofthis take away from Peter’s importance.

 

[Aardverk]

Re: Peter's contribution to the Church

Slider, thank you for taking the trouble to provide a considered answer. In another thread, discussing this same issue, I was rudely dismissed as 'stupid' without even an attempt at an explanation.

“Blessed art thou,Simon Bar-jona: 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. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoevever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” KJV

When we read it like that, the emphasis is on what was revealed by the Father, and not so much Peter.

I can see how it could be read that way but don't ignore the preceding passages. Jesus was specifically praising Simon for his 'God the Father - given' discernment in clear contrast to others who didn't really know who Jesus was. I'm sure I don't need to quote it for you.

Even the language Jesus used (this rock, against it)suggests that Jesus was talking about a thing, not a person.

I must disagree. In any translation that I have read, 'it' is clearly 'my church', not 'this rock'. i.e. the gates of hell shall not prevail against my church.

In other words, Peter needed a lot of correction even after this(remember Cornelieus, and his argument with Paul in Galatians, for example). He needed “the key” to make the rightdecision.

An interesting extension. Simon (Peter) did indeed need correction, he also had doubts and fears (cock crowing etc) but maybe Jesus chose him for that reason? Of course I may be wrong but I feel that far too much emphasis is placed upon Paul's writings. He often seems to me to be teaching the opposite lesson to Jesus and was too much of a politician for my liking. I do recognize that is my prejudice - but I have difficulty shaking it off.


The rest of your explanation is interesting but stretching things too thinly for me. Barnes' - 'Notes on The Bible' sets out the probable reason for this better that I can:

Others have thought that Jesus referred to himself. Christ is called a rock,Isaiah 28:16; 1 Peter 2:8. And it has been thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said, "Upon this rock, this truth that I am the Messiah - upon myself as the Messiah, I will build my church." Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it. Another interpretation is, that the word "rock" refers to Peter himself.
This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the Church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other interpretation would have been sought for. "Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm, and suitable for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it.

I agree entirely.


Again, many thanks for your time Slider. I remain unconvinced but I do understand your case a little better. I will let it roll around in my head a while longer

 

[Slider]

Hi Aardverk,

Well, I presented my case the best I could, so I'll leave it at that. Just to clarify something and comment on another:

We aren't in disagreement as far as I can see on the issue of "against it" vs. "against my church". Of course he meant his church. My intention there was to show the emphasis was not on Peter, but on the revelation he brought (upon this rock). So perhaps the "against it/my church" wasn't so much a factor other than Jesus didn't say "against you". That's all my point was about.

As for your feelings about Paul.... Hey, when one person writes 13 or 14 books compared to just two books.... People are naturally going to talk more about one person than the other! It doesn't take away from the greatness of 1 & II Peter. It's obvious to me that Peter is your favorite, and that's ok.... I like Peter's writing and he gave my number one favorite apolistic sermon (in acts 2). But I tend to enjoy Paul's writing a bit more. That's ok as long as we realize that neither is wearing a bigger crown in Paradise than the other and that no jot nor tittle -- much less an epistle -- is to be missed.

 

[Aardverk]

Hi Aardverk,

Well, I presented my case the best I could, so I'll leave it at that. Just to clarify something and comment on another:

We aren't in disagreement as far as I can see on the issue of "against it" vs. "against my church". Of course he meant his church. My intention there was to show the emphasis was not on Peter, but on the revelation he brought (upon this rock). So perhaps the "against it/my church" wasn't so much a factor other than Jesus didn't say "against you". That's all my point was about.

As for your feelings about Paul.... Hey, when one person writes 13 or 14 books compared to just two books.... People are naturally going to talk more about one person than the other! It doesn't take away from the greatness of 1 & II Peter. It's obvious to me that Peter is your favorite, and that's ok.... I like Peter's writing and he gave my number one favorite apolistic sermon (in acts 2). But I tend to enjoy Paul's writing a bit more. That's ok as long as we realize that neither is wearing a bigger crown in Paradise than the other and that no jot nor tittle -- much less an epistle -- is to be missed.

Thanks Slider. Good to have met you.

 

[Aardverk]

My Uncle is head of the gnostic church in Norway, and I own a copy of Alister Crowleys Magick. It teaches that man is God, the slaves shall serve, follow thy will (not God's will but you own), love whomever you want etc. etc. He also love to state that there exist no God.

Sooo, if this is the case that Peter's message was gnostic, then judging from modern gnosticism I would conclude Peter did not follow the word of Jesus at all.

Do you know more about this?

EDIT: I also own and have read the book "Thelema" which is the "Bible" of the gnostic church, and its certainly the work of the devil.
EDIT: Not that they keep the Satan worship as a secret, or even sun worship, they claim this openly.

:haloWill someone else tell him what 'gnostic' means please. He really won't accept it if I tell him :gah