Bible Study What Kind of Church Do You Have?

[atrhick]

What Kind of Church Do You Have?
In Matthew 16, Jesus asks His disciples, “Whom do men say that I … am?†They answered, “Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; … or one of the prophets.â€Â
Yet Jesus pressed His disciples: “But whom say ye that I am?†Finally, Peter proclaimed, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.â€Â

To this startling confession, Jesus responded, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.†To come to a correct understanding of Jesus requires more than an understanding of history, it requires a revelation from the Holy Spirit.

Jesus then added, “Thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.†Of course, the rock upon which the church is built is not the fickle apostle, but rather Jesus Christ. Peter didn’t see himself as the foundation of the church; rather, he says in Acts 4:11 that Jesus Himself is the chief cornerstone.

That’s why the church, empowered by the living Christ, is able to break down the gates of hell. Filled with God’s Spirit, Christ’s church is to conduct aggressive spiritual warfare, rescuing lost souls from the enemy. Why then are there so many churches intent on avoiding this battle, even though they have been promised in Luke 10:19, “I give unto you … over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you�

For the sake of God’s people and those who are lost, let’s do an experiment. Below, I have divided churches into three primary mentalities. I want you to consider these church types and honestly determine where your church fits in. After that, we’ll discover how to make sure you have the church that Christ wants you to have as we approach His soon return.

The Castle Mentality
A castle has high walls and iron gates to protect those on the inside. Thus, the castle church is more concerned about protecting itself, something like a monastery on a secluded hill cloistering the residents, than fulfilling the mission of preaching the gospel and making disciples.

In the castle mentality, institutionalism takes the place of mission. The church forgets why it was established, believing its primary purpose is to preserve itself and establish comfort and security. It makes decisions to prosper itself rather than on the basis of being a beacon of truth to the entire world.

It also prefers tradition over principle. After the Jews returned from their Babylonian exile, they were so afraid of losing their identity that they sought to safeguard the Sabbath by creating countless traditions. As time passed, these traditions became more important than the principles upon which they were established. They valued their outward display so much that they accused Jesus of Sabbath-breaking when He healed a person in need on the Sabbath.
Traditions are good when founded upon solid biblical principles, but when the traditions become more important than the principles they supposedly serve, the church’s activities become empty ceremonies void of the power of the Holy Spirit. Outward display takes the place of inward purity, and the power of the gospel is eclipsed by manmade rituals.

The castle church is focused on preserving and protecting itself from influences that would disrupt the status quo and its power structure, all the while neglecting its true mission  gathering sheep to His flock.

The Resort Mentality
Imagine palm trees swaying in the wind, white sandy beaches, poolside lounge chairs, popular music  everything to please and entertain. Welcome to the resort church.
With a resort mentality, churches focus primarily on drawing large crowds. For them, bigger is better: The larger the attendance, the more successful it considers itself to be. The resort church spends most of its resources developing new and exciting programs to increase attendance.

Resort churches rely on “worship†that is entertaining, appealing mostly to the unconverted heart. Jesus said of the hypocrites, “This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me†(Mark 7:6). Worship without genuine conversion is worthless. True worship is the out-flowing of the Holy Spirit, happening mostly in the heart of the worshipper.

This church also de-emphasizes fundamental truths, ignoring such vital lessons as surrender, consecration, and obedience. Some resort pastors doesn’t teach about the Sabbath or stewardship, but rather only preach fluffy sermons on positive thinking and the promise of prosperity. Otherwise, someone might be offended and leave. In many cases, the very message that needs to be heard is not because it is unpopular. This allows selfishness and sin to continue festering unchecked.

The resort church is more concerned about marketing prosperity than conversion. Its function is to please. Like the castle mentality, it exists primarily for itself and is guilty of misrepresenting the truths of Scripture for its own ends.

The Seek-and-Save Mentality
The seek-and-save church exists primarily for two reasons: to reveal the character of God and to labor for the growth of His kingdom. Evangelism, in other words, is its focus.

Thus, this church has a clear understanding of its true mission. It’s not just a gathering of the like-minded, but a church that exists for the very reason God established it.

Every member is involved in outreach  utilizing their individual talents. In an army, not every soldier is on the frontlines; some supply the resources, others help with communications, and still others orchestrate the battle from behind the scenes. So it is in evangelism: Not everyone can preach, but everyone in the church can do something.
Therefore, this church also supplies the training and equipment to lay members. A victorious army is a well-trained army that works together, using all their talents effectively in one effort. So it is with church evangelism.

The seek-and-save church is also concerned with the ongoing process of conversion, not simply baptism. The apostle Paul said he died daily and that sanctification was the work of a lifetime (1 Corinthians 15:31; Philippians 3:12). The seek-and-save church is not satisfied with merely a form of godliness; it wants to see the power of God at work in the hearts of people, giving them victory over sin, the fruit of the Spirit, and a desire to share the gospel.

This church also desires to affect the discipleship of all members, in accordance with Matthew 28:18–20. Its congregation isn’t satisfied with bringing people to church; it wants to sustain spiritual growth in all members and, especially, those new in the faith.

The seek-and-save mentality functions under the banner “save at any cost.†Whatever time, resources, and effort it takes to reach someone with the gospel, the sacrifice is willingly made.

Three Choices: One Best Answer
What type of church mentality does your church have? Is it a castle mentality, focused on preserving itself? Or is it the resort mentality, focused on drawing large crowds rather than making genuine conversions?

Or is it a seek-and-save church, focused on fulfilling the gospel commission? Don’t you want a church like that?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

...Jesus then added, “Thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.†Of course, the rock upon which the church is built is not the fickle apostle, but rather Jesus Christ....

Ah, you are back, my friend. Where have you been?

Well, your post is mighty long. I shall have to divide and conquer. :D Lets start with this quote of yours, which is totally incorrect. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was thatâ€â€aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2â€â€in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youthsâ€â€Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.

Look at the scene. Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).

The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name, while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges.

Well, that covers that one. More to come.......... :-D

 

[atrhick]

Been busy running my forum and building website, working lol


But it’s nice to be back but before we get carried away let me respond to one thing.

Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was thatâ€â€aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2â€â€in the Old Testament only God was called a rock.


The verse in question is Mat 16:18 "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."


The name Peter derived from the Greek ΠεÄÃÂο (Petros) meaning "stone". This is a translation used in most versions of the New Testament of the name Cephas, meaning "stone" in Aramaic, which was given to the apostle Simon by Jesus; however there is two rocks spoken of in Mat 16:18

18 And I tell you, you are Peter [Greek, Petros--a large piece of rock], and on this rock [Greek, petra--a huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades (the powers of the infernal region) shall not overpower it [or be strong to its detriment or hold out against it].

So then, let’s take the “original†English phrase that we have…
You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.
Next, we swap in the Greek words (my apologies, but I am not scholarly enough to deal with the whole passage in Greek)…
You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my church.
Next, we assume that Jesus was speaking Hebrew or Aramaic (both of which are closely related, and to my knowledge, have very similar words, grammar, etc). We see that other locations in scripture in fact use an Aramaic name for Simon Peter (which is obviously derived from a Hebrew word), so we swap that in with reasonable confidence…
You are Cephas, and on this petra I will build my church.
Finally, we must figure out what word Christ would have used in the place of petra. In Matthew and Luke, we see that Jesus told the parable of the wise man who built his house on the rock. The word used there was petra. Obviously, we see from that parable that the wise man built his house upon a firm foundation. This is right in line with both the lexical definitions of petra that I have available to me, as well as with the use of the Hebrew word sela’. Thus, we can reasonable assume that that sela’, or an Aramaic derivitive (shu’a), and not keph (or an Aramaic derivitive or hellenized form like cephas) was used…
You are Cephas, and on this shu’a I will build my church.

As you can see Jesus was not referring to Peter, I know this will be hard for you to accept because you are very zealous and I do admire that. But the fact still remains that the interpretation that I have put forth is the correct one.

 

[Pogo]

Hmm...Well, it seems that neither of your interpretations accurately reflects the message of the passage involved!

Matthew 16:15-18 KJV
(15) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
(16) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
(17) 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.
(18) 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.

The rock upon which Jesus tells us that His church is to be built, is a LAW.

A LAW that Christ binds in the passage above.

First, Jesus asks those gathered, His disciples, who are the people saying that He is?

When no one answers, He then asks His disciples who do they think He is?

When Peter finally states that he recognizes Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus blesses Peter for telling the truth, even though he was helped by God, through the Holy Spirit, to understand this truth!

Here, we have Simon Barjona, Peter, proclaiming aloud before others, the truth!

The truth, in this case, is that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the Saviour, the one true living Son, of the one true living God!

And then, Jesus immediately responds by recognizing Peter, stating that the one known as Simon Barjona was, indeed, also Peter!

This understanding, spelled out above, is the LAW (rock) upon which His church is built!

This LAW (rock) of Jesus' states that if we will publicly recognize Him here, while we are in this world, then He will publicly recognize us before God, His Father, in the next world!

Which, as I see it, will be key to one's salvation!

May God bless us all,

Pogo

 

[Catholic Crusader]

...The rock upon which Jesus tells us that His church is to be built, is a LAW....

Huh?
There is nowhere in the Bible where the word "rock" is equated with "law".

 

[atrhick]

The father had revealed one truth (v. 17); Jesus now adds to it another. These words have been variously interpreted: (1) that Peter is “this rock,†(2) that Peter’s faith in Jesus as the Christ is “this rock,†(3) that Christ Himself is “this rock.†Persuasive reasons have been set forth in favour of each of the three explanations. The best way to determine what Christ meant by these cryptic words is to inquire of the Scriptures themselves what this figure of speech meant to Jewish listeners, particularly to those who heard Jesus use it upon this occasion. The testimony of the writings of the disciples themselves is obviously superior to what men have since thought Jesus meant. Fortunately, some of those who were eyewitnesses upon this occasion (see 2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1–3) have left a record that is clear and unequivocal.

For this part, Peter, to whom the words were addressed, emphatically disclaims, by his teachings, that the “rock†of which Jesus spoke referred to him (see Acts 4:8–12; 1 Peter 2:4–8). Matthew records the fact that Jesus again used the same figure of speech, under circumstances that clearly call for the term to be understood of Himself (see on Matt. 21:42; cf. Luke 20:17, 18). From very early times the figure of a rock was used by the Hebrew people as a specific term for God (see on Deut. 32:4; Ps. 18:2; etc.). The prophet Isaiah speaks of Christ as “a great rock in a weary land†(see on ch. 32:2), and as “a precious corner stone, a sure foundation†(see on ch. 28:16). Paul affirms that Christ was the “Rock†that went with His people in ancient times (see 1 Cor. 10:4; cf. Deut. 32:4; 2 Sam. 22:32; Ps. 18:31). In a secondary sense the truths Jesus spoke are also a “rock†on which men may build safely and securely (see on Matt. 7:24, 25), for He Himself is the living “Word†“made flesh†(see John 1:1, 14; cf. Mark 8:38; John 3:34; 6:63, 68; 17:8).

Jesus Christ is the “rock of our salvation†(Ps. 95:1; cf. Deut. 32:4, 15, 18). He alone is the foundation of the church, for “other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ†(1 Cor. 3:11), “neither is there salvation in any other†(Acts 4:12). Closely associated with Jesus Christ as “the chief corner stone†in the foundation of the church are “the apostles and prophets†(Eph. 2:20). In the same sense that Christ is the Rock, “a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God,†all who believe in Him, “as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house†(1 Peter 2:4, 5), “fitly framed together … an holy temple in the Lord†(Eph. 2:21). But Jesus is ever and only the “Rock†on which the entire structure rests, for without Him there would be no church at all. Faith in Him as the Son of God makes it possible for us also to become sons of God (see John 1:12; 1 John 3:1, 2).

The realisation that Jesus Christ is indeed the Son of God, as Peter emphatically affirmed upon this occasion (see Matt. 16:16), is the key to the door of salvation. But it is incidental, not fundamental, that Peter was the first to recognise and declare his faith, which, upon this occasion, he did as spokesman for all the disciples (see on v. 16).

Augustine (c. a.d. 400), the greatest of Catholic theologians of the early Christian centuries, leaves it for his readers to decide whether Christ here designated Himself or Peter as “the rock†(Retractiones i. 21. 1). Chrysostom, the “golden-tongued†preacher, another Father of the early centuries, says that Jesus promised to lay the foundation of the church upon Peter’s confession [not on Peter], but elsewhere calls Christ Himself truly our foundation (Commentary on Galatians, ch. 1:1–3; Homilies on 1 Timothy, No. xviii, ch. 6:21). Eusebius, the early church historian, quotes Clement of Alexandria as declaring that Peter and James and John did not strive for supremacy in the church at Jerusalem, but chose James the Just as leader (Church History ii. 1). Other early Fathers of the church, such as Hilary of Arles, taught the same.

It was only when scriptural support was sought in behalf of the claims of the bishop of Rome to the primacy of the church (see Vol. IV, p. 836) that the words of Christ upon this occasion were taken from their original context and interpreted to mean that Peter was “this rock.†Leo I was the first Roman pontiff to claim (about a.d. 445) that his authority came from Christ through Peter. Of him, Kenneth Scott Latourette, a leading church historian, says: “He insisted that by Christ’s decree Peter was the rock, the foundation, the door-keeper of the kingdom of heaven, set to bind and loose, whose judgements retained their validity in heaven, and that through the Pope, as his successor, Peter continued to perform the assignment which had been entrusted to him†(A History of Christianity [1953], p. 186).

Strange indeed it is, that if this is really what Christ meant, neither Peter nor any other of the disciples, nor other Christians for four centuries thereafter, discovered the fact! How extraordinary that no Roman bishop discovered this meaning in Christ’s words until a fifth-century bishop considered it necessary to find some Biblical support for papal primacy. The significance attributed to Christ’s words, by which they are made to confer primacy upon the so-called successors of Peter, the bishops of Rome, is completely at variance with all the teachings Christ gave to His followers (see ch. 23:8, 10).

Perhaps the best evidence that Christ did not appoint Peter as the “rock†on which He would build His church is the fact that none of those who heard Christ upon this occasionâ€â€Ânot even Peterâ€â€Âso construed His words, either during the time that Christ was on earth or later. Had Christ made Peter chief among the disciples, they would not thereafter have been involved in repeated arguments about which of them “should be accounted the greatest†(Luke 22:24; see Matt. 18:1; Mark 9:33–35; etc.).

The name Peter is derived from the Gr. petros, a “stone,†generally a small slab of stone. The word “rock†is the Gr. petra, the large mass of rock itself, a “ledge†or “shelf of rock,†a “rocky peak.†A petra is a large, fixed, immovable “rock,†whereas a petros is a small “stone.†To what extent Christ may have had this distinction in mind, however, or may have explained it as He spoke, is a matter that cannot be determined from these words themselves, because Christ certainly spoke Aramaicâ€â€Âthe common language of Palestine at that time. The Gr. petros undoubtedly represents the word kepha (cephas) in Aramaic (see on ch. 4:18). And, very likely, petra also represents the Aramaic word kepha though there is a possibility that Christ used some other synonym or expression in Aramaic, which would agree with the distinction between petros and petra that is made by the gospel writers in Greek.

It seems probable that Christ must have intended to make such a distinction, however, or Matthew, writing in Greek and guided by the Holy Spirit, would not have made one.
Obviously a petros, or small stone, would make an impossible foundation for any edifice, and Jesus here affirms that nothing less than a petra, or “rock,†could suffice. This fact is made even more sure by the words of Christ in ch. 7:24: “Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them†is like “a wise man, which built his house upon a rock [Gr. petra].†Any edifice built upon Peter, petros, a weak, erring human being, as the Gospel record makes plain, has a foundation little better than shifting sand (see on ch. 7:27).

Gates. In ancient cities the gate was the meeting place of the city fathers and the key place in the defence of the city against an attacking army (see on Gen. 19:1; Joshua 8:29). Hence to capture the gate would make possible the capturing of the entire city.

Christ’s triumph over death and the grave is the central truth of Christianity. It was not possible for Satan to hold Christ with the cords of death (see Acts 2:24), nor will it be possible for him to hold any of those who believe in Christ (see John 3:16; Rom. 6:23). Figuratively speaking, Satan holds the “gates of hell,†but Christ, by His death, entered Satan’s stronghold and bound the adversary (see on Matt. 12:29). Upon this sublime fact rests the Christian’s hope of deliverance from the wiles of Satan in this life, from his power over the grave, and from his presence in the life to come. “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death†(1 Cor. 15:26). Death and the grave will eventually be “cast into the lake of fire†(Rev. 20:14).

To make Christ’s words mean that the “gates of hell†are not to prevail against Peter is to deny Christ’s own explanation in Matt. 16:21 (to which vs. 13–20 are introductory), and to make Peter’s reaction meaningless (see vs. 22, 23) -- Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, [Matthew 16:18].

 

[Pogo]

The rock equals the truth!

Jesus's sayings are commands, commands are law.

Thus, the New Testament's laws, such as grace, etc., are truth.

Therefore, the rock is truth, the truth is law, the rock is law!

In Christ,

Pogo

 

[Catholic Crusader]

.
Ah, the fruits of Sola Scriptura.

 

[atrhick]

please read my last post

 

[KenEOTE]

Well I don't have a church. God has one though. Actually he has a body, we are it. We are a pretty beat up looking Body. Maybe one day we will be united and a beautiful Bride for Christ.

 

[lovely]

Hi, interesting reading here too.

Peter, or Petros, means small stone. Jesus is saying, You are a small stone, and on this rock I will build My church, and I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. God revealed to Peter who Jesus was, and that witness was the first living stone among many witnesses, but remember Jesus said, "My church'. Jesus wasn't giving Peter the church, He wasn't even saying Peter was the Cornerstone...which is the largest stone, not a small stone. We know that place belongs to Christ alone...the Head and the Foundation. He was saying that you are the first stone, which is laid upon the Rock (Jesus), upon which I will build. Peter's witness would support many other living stones, as well as the other apostles and believers whom Jesus would also build upon. We all are living stones, bearing witness of Christ...we are all part of this priest hood that can bind and loose, and Jesus is continually building upon us. Peter was just the first in the New Testament church to have it revealed to Him.

Peter later uses the same imagery in his first epistle to explain things to us...

1 Peter 2
4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Certainly Jesus is the only Rock upon which this foundation could ever be laid...all else would be shifting sand, huh? The Lord bless you.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Peter, or Petros, means small stone. Jesus is saying, You are a small stone....

Just one problemo:

Jesus didn't speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas"). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of "small stone" and "large rock" in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).

Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church."

Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, "and the Rock was Christ" though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from "Rock . . . rock."

If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.

The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.

 

[lovely]

Catholic Crusader,

Hi again, and thanks for your response.

Even if we put the word Cephas in place of Peter in this text, a stone, then my post would still be accurate. I am taking the text as it is plainly written. Gigantic Rock, or tiny pebble, doesn't change the meaning in any real way to me. I am not giving rock any other meaning than rock....and agreeing that it refers to Peter. (Of course, next to Christ we are all grains of sand, I'd say.)

Peter was weak, as you said, but Jesus would use him in a great way, especially in the early church. And, God chose to reveal to him first that Jesus was the Son of the Living God...maybe because Peter was so outspoken and bold enough to proclaim it, even to the point of rebuke at times. (We are to proclaim it by the Spirit just as boldy, I think.) In fact, a few verses further on we see Jesus telling him, "Get thee behind me, Satan!", because Peter could not bear the thought of Jesus' Death. Only Peter would attempt to rebuke our Lord! LOL! He was the first stone, and his fellow Apostles were also stones...stones are still being laid.

Anyway, again, I am saying that rock refers to Peter here in this text, not Jesus. I ask you to read my first post again if you have time, because I believe you misunderstood it somewhat. Probably in that Crusader mindset! :-D

The text still doesn't say that Peter is the Cornerstone, however, only that Peter is the rock upon which His (Jesus') church is built. Peter's first epistle is very relevent to this, I think, as he himself explains the concept of the living stones. Peter himself said that Jesus was the Cornerstone...Surely you would agree with that Jesus is the solid Rock upon which we stand, and that He is Head and Foundation of His church; The Rock upon which Peter, and all other believers have been laid?

I won't get into the chain of the papacy, or Apostolic sucession here, since we have already strayed a bit from the OP, but I will say that I belive to assume this from the text is to add to it and not take it simply for what it says. It would also contradict Peter's own words. The Lord bless you.

 

[Vic C.]

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek...

Sorry for butting in but there is not one "shred" of evidence that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic. Not one piece of Aramaic text has ever been found to my knowledge. They nay have spoken in Aramaic but the author wrote in Greek and felt the need to use petros and petra when and where the context dictated. Assuming the author was Matthew, he would have know who the real Rock was and conveyed that to us.

Tina as correct:

Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Eph 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

Jesus IS The Rock; there is no substitute, no "vicar". Besides, James had more say over the early church in Jerusalem than Peter.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

[quote="Catholic Crusader":c21d1]When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek...

Sorry for butting in but there is not one "shred" of evidence that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic......[/quote:c21d1]
There is evidence. It may not be evidence that you will accept, but there is evidence nonetheless. There has been extended discussion about the possibility the first version being in Aramaic. There is a Jewish dimension in the Gospel of Matthew, suggesting that the author was of Jewish-Christian background and was writing for Christians of similar background: Christ's fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies are emphasized. Jesus is represented as a new lawgiver whose miracles are a confirmation of his divine mission. Some scholars have suggested that the Papias's statement about Matthew's collection of Jesus' sayings is a reference to the earlier version of the Gospel in Aramaic. However, even if the original were in Greek, that doesn't change the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and said "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church", with no disntcion between the words.

Tina as correct... ..Jesus IS The Rock...

No she is not correct. Even many protestant scholars disagree with that:

ALBERT BARNES
(NINETEENTH-CENTURY PRESBYTERIAN)
"The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion" [Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOHN BROADUS
( NINETEENTH-CENTURY CALVINISTIC BAPTIST)
"As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession" [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CRAIG L. BLOMBERG
( CONTEMPORARY BAPTIST)
"The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification" [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. KNOX CHAMBLIN
( CONTEMPORARY PRESBYTERIAN)
"By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself" ["Matthew" in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

R. T. FRANCE
( CONTEMPORARY ANGLICAN)
"The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied" (Gospel According to Matthew, 254).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HERMAN RIDDERBOS
( CONTEMPORARY DUTCH REFORMED)
"It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter" [Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DONALD HAGNER
( CONTEMPORARY EVANGELICAL)
"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

 

[lovely]

Hi Vic and Catholic Christian,

I didn't speak to this issue about the orginal text, not because I don't care about it, but because Scripture doesn't address the subject of the chain of the Papacy...Scripture must be addressed as a whole. AND, if we are not actually reading each others post, but answering with perscribed apologetic rhetoric, then an honest discussion is impossible...I say that sincerely and with all humilty knowing that I have been guilty of this myself.

CC, please, if you have time, read my posts...I did say that rock in the Matthew text refers to Peter. ButI also said, in light of the whole of Scritpure, that Peter explains the meaning later...and confesses that Jesus is the ROCK. I don't think you are actually addressing the Scriptures. If you feel you have, then I apologize, but to me it seems you are skipping them over.

May the Lord bless you both today. I am off to meeting for now.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

...CC, please, if you have time, read my posts...I did say that rock in the Matthew text refers to Peter. ButI also said, in light of the whole of Scritpure, that Peter explains the meaning later...and confesses that Jesus is the ROCK....

I missed that. Well, I will meet you part way and say this: I do agree that some scriptures can have more than one meaning. A good example is the "woman" in Rev 12. The "woman" there refers to Mary, but in another sense, it also refers to Israel.

 

[Vic C.]

I think I will let the Bible interpret that for itself:

Gen 37:9 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.
Gen 37:10 And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?

The notion of Mary being in this prophetic revelation was not a part of the early church nor was it a part of the early church fathers' beliefs. The Bible is God's revelation of Himself and His Son to man and His plans for His chosen ones, which are the Israelites and His ekklesia. The Mary interpretation takes a back seat in light of what the Bible reveals cover to cover. Also:

Pope Alexander III (1169) wrote “Mary conceived without shame, gave birth without pain, and has departed from earth without undergoing the corruption of the tomb, thus proving - according to the word of the angel - that she was full of grace and nothing less.†(Duhr, ibid., p. 59; cf. Denzinger-Schoenmetzer, 1963, no. 748).

http://www.cts.org.au/1997/assumpt.htm

Yet the verse says this:

Rev 12:2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

Israel, throughout history, had been in pain; Mary, according to this pope, was not in pain.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

....The notion of Mary being in this prophetic revelation was not a part of the early church nor was it a part of the early church fathers' beliefs.....

Neither was Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide, but there they are, ensconced in youer belief system.

Doctrine and understanding develops over time, sometimes rightly, sometime wrongly. It took 300 years for the doctrine of the Trinity to fully develop.

 

[atrhick]

Did I miss something ?