Matt. 16:17-19, the Pope
- Thread starter rembrandt
- Start date
- Status
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Peter calls himself an apostle,
"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ..." (1 Peter 1:1)
and he calls himself an elder,
"I who am a fellow elder..." (1 Peter 5:1)
I think we should leave it where he left it. He was an apostle and an elder, and, as Gal. 2 illustrates, a fallible one at that. Let us not promote him higher than he would promote himself.
"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ..." (1 Peter 1:1)
and he calls himself an elder,
"I who am a fellow elder..." (1 Peter 5:1)
I think we should leave it where he left it. He was an apostle and an elder, and, as Gal. 2 illustrates, a fallible one at that. Let us not promote him higher than he would promote himself.
[quote:51bf572da4][i:51bf572da4]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:51bf572da4]
Peter calls himself an apostle,
"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ..." (1 Peter 1:1)
and he calls himself an elder,
"I who am a fellow elder..." (1 Peter 5:1)
I think we should leave it where he left it. He was an apostle and an elder, and, as Gal. 2 illustrates, a fallible one at that. Let us not promote him higher than he would promote himself. [/quote:51bf572da4]
Peter was a leader of leaders. He was the first to open the gospel of the Kingdom on Pentecost. He was given especial attention my Jesus. He was the only disciple to walk on water. etc. etc. etc. He wasn't perfect, but he had an extra-ordinary calling.
Paul
Peter calls himself an apostle,
"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ..." (1 Peter 1:1)
and he calls himself an elder,
"I who am a fellow elder..." (1 Peter 5:1)
I think we should leave it where he left it. He was an apostle and an elder, and, as Gal. 2 illustrates, a fallible one at that. Let us not promote him higher than he would promote himself. [/quote:51bf572da4]
Peter was a leader of leaders. He was the first to open the gospel of the Kingdom on Pentecost. He was given especial attention my Jesus. He was the only disciple to walk on water. etc. etc. etc. He wasn't perfect, but he had an extra-ordinary calling.
Paul
[quote:25625e6c2c][i:25625e6c2c]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:25625e6c2c]
[quote:25625e6c2c][i:25625e6c2c]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:25625e6c2c]
Peter calls himself an apostle,
"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ..." (1 Peter 1:1)
and he calls himself an elder,
"I who am a fellow elder..." (1 Peter 5:1)
I think we should leave it where he left it. He was an apostle and an elder, and, as Gal. 2 illustrates, a fallible one at that. Let us not promote him higher than he would promote himself. [/quote:25625e6c2c]
Peter was a leader of leaders. He was the first to open the gospel of the Kingdom on Pentecost. He was given especial attention my Jesus. He was the only disciple to walk on water. etc. etc. etc. He wasn't perfect, but he had an extra-ordinary calling.
Paul [/quote:25625e6c2c]
Ok,
But why then did Peter not chair or lead the Council of Jerusalem? Did that make James the first Pope?
Why do we cease to hear basically anything about Peter after Acts 15, instead with all the focus on Paul? Where does Paul get the right to rebuke Peter [b:25625e6c2c]publicly[/b:25625e6c2c] in Galatians 2?
Wasn't John the only disciple at the cross? Wasn't John the one to whom our Lord committed his mother?
All of these things prove difference and emphasis, none a "pope."
Finally, Peter can not be more than what Patrick has said, else the Biblical view on ecclesiology is wrong.
[quote:25625e6c2c][i:25625e6c2c]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:25625e6c2c]
Peter calls himself an apostle,
"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ..." (1 Peter 1:1)
and he calls himself an elder,
"I who am a fellow elder..." (1 Peter 5:1)
I think we should leave it where he left it. He was an apostle and an elder, and, as Gal. 2 illustrates, a fallible one at that. Let us not promote him higher than he would promote himself. [/quote:25625e6c2c]
Peter was a leader of leaders. He was the first to open the gospel of the Kingdom on Pentecost. He was given especial attention my Jesus. He was the only disciple to walk on water. etc. etc. etc. He wasn't perfect, but he had an extra-ordinary calling.
Paul [/quote:25625e6c2c]
Ok,
But why then did Peter not chair or lead the Council of Jerusalem? Did that make James the first Pope?
Why do we cease to hear basically anything about Peter after Acts 15, instead with all the focus on Paul? Where does Paul get the right to rebuke Peter [b:25625e6c2c]publicly[/b:25625e6c2c] in Galatians 2?
Wasn't John the only disciple at the cross? Wasn't John the one to whom our Lord committed his mother?
All of these things prove difference and emphasis, none a "pope."
Finally, Peter can not be more than what Patrick has said, else the Biblical view on ecclesiology is wrong.
[quote:6d6b72ce0e]But why then did Peter not chair or lead the Council of Jerusalem? Did that make James the first Pope?
Why do we cease to hear basically anything about Peter after Acts 15, instead with all the focus on Paul? Where does Paul get the right to rebuke Peter publicly in Galatians 2?[/quote:6d6b72ce0e]
All I said was that the keys were given to the Church and [i:6d6b72ce0e]especially Peter[/i:6d6b72ce0e]. I don't know how long the "especially" lasted. It could have been until he opened the Kingdom at Pentecost. I don't know.
[quote:6d6b72ce0e]Wasn't John the only disciple at the cross? Wasn't John the one to whom our Lord committed his mother?[/quote:6d6b72ce0e]
Yes, I was also going to point out the pre-eminence of John, to show that some of the apostles were clearly more favored by our Lord than others. Just because Jesus had a close personal friendship with John, it doesn't mean that he was the leader of the band.
[quote:6d6b72ce0e]All of these things prove difference and emphasis, none a "pope."[/quote:6d6b72ce0e]
I agree. I said in my first post that I was joking about him being a "pope." So, you do admit a "difference and emphasis."
[quote:6d6b72ce0e]Finally, Peter can not be more than what Patrick has said, else the Biblical view on ecclesiology is wrong.[/quote:6d6b72ce0e]
I never said he was more than an apostle, only a very extra-ordinary apostle with an extra-ordinary privilege.
Paul
[Edited on 5-30-2004 by rembrandt]
Why do we cease to hear basically anything about Peter after Acts 15, instead with all the focus on Paul? Where does Paul get the right to rebuke Peter publicly in Galatians 2?[/quote:6d6b72ce0e]
All I said was that the keys were given to the Church and [i:6d6b72ce0e]especially Peter[/i:6d6b72ce0e]. I don't know how long the "especially" lasted. It could have been until he opened the Kingdom at Pentecost. I don't know.
[quote:6d6b72ce0e]Wasn't John the only disciple at the cross? Wasn't John the one to whom our Lord committed his mother?[/quote:6d6b72ce0e]
Yes, I was also going to point out the pre-eminence of John, to show that some of the apostles were clearly more favored by our Lord than others. Just because Jesus had a close personal friendship with John, it doesn't mean that he was the leader of the band.
[quote:6d6b72ce0e]All of these things prove difference and emphasis, none a "pope."[/quote:6d6b72ce0e]
I agree. I said in my first post that I was joking about him being a "pope." So, you do admit a "difference and emphasis."
[quote:6d6b72ce0e]Finally, Peter can not be more than what Patrick has said, else the Biblical view on ecclesiology is wrong.[/quote:6d6b72ce0e]
I never said he was more than an apostle, only a very extra-ordinary apostle with an extra-ordinary privilege.
Paul
[Edited on 5-30-2004 by rembrandt]
[quote:35e6f4aed9][i:35e6f4aed9]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:35e6f4aed9]
[quote:35e6f4aed9]First, Joel Garver is not trustworthy.
{edited for tone}
[/quote:35e6f4aed9]
Who is the fellow, and why do you say that? I only read one thing by him that I thought was helpful. [/quote:35e6f4aed9]
Ok, I'm in the midst of Sabbath study, so here is a quick comment without an incredible amount of interaction:
[quote:35e6f4aed9]First, Joel Garver is not trustworthy.
{edited for tone}
[/quote:35e6f4aed9]
Who is the fellow, and why do you say that? I only read one thing by him that I thought was helpful. [/quote:35e6f4aed9]
Ok, I'm in the midst of Sabbath study, so here is a quick comment without an incredible amount of interaction:
[*:35e6f4aed9]Garver is a supporter of the New Perspective
[*:35e6f4aed9]Garver is a supporter of Norman Shepherd and his theology
[*:35e6f4aed9]Garver believes that his "new" take on covenant theology "solves" all sorts of ecclesiatical problems
[*:35e6f4aed9]Garver is a paedocommunist
[*:35e6f4aed9]Garver believes in baptism regeneration
[/list
:35e6f4aed9]
Here are just a few links:
On Baptismal regeneration
http://www.lasalle.edu/~garver/wcf.htm
On his support for Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) :
http://www.lasalle.edu/~garver/ACE.html
A quote on God's ability to "unforgive" sins (from his [u:35e6f4aed9]Apostasy: Introducing the Issues[/u:35e6f4aed9] which was online but the link I have is bad)
[quote:35e6f4aed9]"Apparently, then, God forgives the sins of covenant members so long as they persevere within the covenant by faith, working in love. But if they apostatize in ingratitude and hatred, then their sins will no longer be forgiven and they will fall under God's condemnation."[/quote:35e6f4aed9]
Here's an interesting observation on Garver's (bad) influence on Wilson:
[quote:35e6f4aed9]
Finally, much of this book is derived from a fairly uncritical use secondary sources and does not evidence much wrestling with the primary sources of the Reformed tradition itself. Every time he quotes from Calvin, it is from a secondary source. In fact, most of his important arguments are derived from four sources: Peter Leithart, Joel Garver, Randy Booth, and especially, Lewis Schenck, whose book The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant was recently republished by P&R Publishing.
Schenck is especially interesting; as a former minister in the PCUS, Schenck was trained with the best neo-orthodox education money could buy in those days (Davidson, Union Seminary in Virginia). His book is dedicated to vindicating Horace Bushnell's view of Christian nurture by rescuing Calvin from the 19th century Calvinists. But in my view, his appeals to Calvin (along with others made more recently, such as those by Mark Horne and Rich Lusk) are pretty selective and flawed. In brief, Calvin must be read as a whole in all his defenses against the Anabaptists in order to discern properly his view of baptism; it doesn't appear that Schenck (with Horne and Lusk) do that. Still, Wilson using Schenck makes some interesting bedfellows.
I wonder, though, for someone who is claiming to walk in the "old paths in the right ways," why Wilson hasn't done the heavy lifting of looking at Calvin directly, pondering other Reformed folks from that first Reformation generation, considering the debate among the Westminster divines on WCF 28, and investigating early American Presbyterian usage of baptism? If one is going to put their views out there, and claim that his Reformed brothers are not "Reformed enough," it would be good actually to have looked at the material himself, rather than relying solely on friends who write articles and books.
From: http://www.lucaslexicon.blogspot.com/
[/quote:35e6f4aed9]
<<<<andreas, you have written too much for me to attempt to respond. Look over these verses again that you ignored:
quote:
Matthew 16:19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Matthew 18:17-18. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. John 20:21-23. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. 2 Corinthians 2:6-8. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him.>>>>
The keys of the kingdom refers to the authority to proclaim the terms of salvation in Christ.You can not get into the kingdom without Christ.Proclaiming salvation in Christ is the duty of all true christians.The authority to bind and loose,is the commission to proclaim the gospel, which liberates those who believe it and binds those who reject it.Furthermore, the words of Mattew 16,18,and John 20,were not only spoken to the apostles but also to those believers that were with them.We are to preach repentance,but nothing here about hearing confessions and granting forgiveness of sins.It is the word of God that has the power,not the mere man that proclaims it, let alone forgive sins. All three quotations are misinterpreted by the Roman Catholic church in order to support her tribunal upon earth.All of us have the duty to preach the gospel,and those who believe are freed from the old serpent ,while those who reject it remain his slaves.
"if the son makes you free you shall be free indeed".John 8:36
andreas.
quote:
Matthew 16:19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Matthew 18:17-18. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. John 20:21-23. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. 2 Corinthians 2:6-8. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him.>>>>
The keys of the kingdom refers to the authority to proclaim the terms of salvation in Christ.You can not get into the kingdom without Christ.Proclaiming salvation in Christ is the duty of all true christians.The authority to bind and loose,is the commission to proclaim the gospel, which liberates those who believe it and binds those who reject it.Furthermore, the words of Mattew 16,18,and John 20,were not only spoken to the apostles but also to those believers that were with them.We are to preach repentance,but nothing here about hearing confessions and granting forgiveness of sins.It is the word of God that has the power,not the mere man that proclaims it, let alone forgive sins. All three quotations are misinterpreted by the Roman Catholic church in order to support her tribunal upon earth.All of us have the duty to preach the gospel,and those who believe are freed from the old serpent ,while those who reject it remain his slaves.
"if the son makes you free you shall be free indeed".John 8:36
andreas.
[quote:6b7e40ca89]All three quotations are misinterpreted by the Roman Catholic church[/quote:6b7e40ca89]
If you are going to make that statement, you must also say that Luther, Calvin, the Reformed Churches and Creeds were wrong. And you must also admit that you do not hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith on this one. Rome uses all kinds of proof texts for various doctrines that Protestants also use. The problem comes when Rome institutes foreign things such as the sacrament of penance etc.
You completely ignore even the modern Protestant interpretation of these verses, that they are referring to Church discipline and not just preaching the gospel.
[quote:6b7e40ca89]We are to preach repentance,but nothing here about hearing confessions and granting forgiveness of sins.[/quote:6b7e40ca89]
Oh really? [quote:6b7e40ca89]John 20:21-23. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.[/quote:6b7e40ca89]
The Church has a ministry of forgiveness and a ministry of withholding blessing from the unrepentant. God is working through the Church during Church discipline. This is not the mere doing of men.
[quote:6b7e40ca89]WCF 30.2. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.[/quote:6b7e40ca89]
Paul
If you are going to make that statement, you must also say that Luther, Calvin, the Reformed Churches and Creeds were wrong. And you must also admit that you do not hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith on this one. Rome uses all kinds of proof texts for various doctrines that Protestants also use. The problem comes when Rome institutes foreign things such as the sacrament of penance etc.
You completely ignore even the modern Protestant interpretation of these verses, that they are referring to Church discipline and not just preaching the gospel.
[quote:6b7e40ca89]We are to preach repentance,but nothing here about hearing confessions and granting forgiveness of sins.[/quote:6b7e40ca89]
Oh really? [quote:6b7e40ca89]John 20:21-23. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.[/quote:6b7e40ca89]
The Church has a ministry of forgiveness and a ministry of withholding blessing from the unrepentant. God is working through the Church during Church discipline. This is not the mere doing of men.
[quote:6b7e40ca89]WCF 30.2. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.[/quote:6b7e40ca89]
Paul
[quote:e373e82471]Evangelical scholar D. A. Carson writes, "If it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter" (Carson 1986, 368).[/quote:e373e82471]
My interpretation that Peter is the 'rock' spoken of in this passage is very Evangelical.
My interpretation that Peter is the 'rock' spoken of in this passage is very Evangelical.
[quote:bce937a80e][i:bce937a80e]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:bce937a80e]
[quote:bce937a80e]Evangelical scholar D. A. Carson writes, "If it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter" (Carson 1986, 368).[/quote:bce937a80e]
My interpretation that Peter is the 'rock' spoken of in this passage is very Evangelical. [/quote:bce937a80e]
I must admit that this is somewhat typical of Carson, who speaks in bold strokes and thrusts aside the past. He also is a good evangelical, and that causes otehrs to make the mistake of hearing him uncritically.
So should we agree with Carson, or:
Ryle
[quote:bce937a80e]
The Lord Jesus Christ tells us, "Upon this rock will I build My Church." This is the Foundation upon which the Church is built. What did the Lord Jesus Christ mean, when He spoke of this foundation? Did He mean the apostle Peter, to whom He was speaking? I think assuredly not. I can see no reason, if He meant Peter, why He did not say, "Upon thee will I build My Church." If He had meant Peter, He would surely have said, "I will build My Church on thee," as plainly as He said, "To thee will I give the keys." No, it was not the person of the apostle Peter, but the good confession which the apostle had just made! It was not Peter, the erring, unstable man, but the mighty truth which the Father had revealed to Peter. It was the truth concerning Jesus Christ Himself which was the rock. It was Christ's mediatorship, and Christ's Messiahship. It was the blessed truth that Jesus was the promised Saviour, the true Surety, the real Intercessor between God and man. This was the rock, and this the foundation, upon which the Church of Christ was to be built.
Ryle, J.C. [i:bce937a80e]Holiness : It's Nature, Hinderances, Difficulties and Roots, 214.[/i:bce937a80e][/quote:bce937a80e]
And A Brakel:
[quote:bce937a80e]
Objection #1:
"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" (Matt. 16:18). They say that Christ here makes an extraordinary promise to Peter upon his glorious confession, this promise being that Christ would build His church upon him. Peter therefore of necessity must be the chief of all the apostles and the head of the church.
Answer:
(1) The promise here made to Peter by Christ is that He indeed was the Christ, the Son of the living God, and that He would therefore not build his church upon a sandy foundation, but rather upon Himself as the immovable Petra, that is, rock. He would make this foundation so solid and immovable, that all the subtlety and power of Satan would not be able to prevail against her, and that therefore Peter also had no reason to fear, but would also certainly be kept and established. Upon this he could reflect with comfort after he had denied Him thrice; and not only he, but also all the other apostles who were present, as well as all who cherish the preservation of themselves and of the church. He should therefore not be offended when he would observe that Christ died on the cross, and when he would encounter many adversities in his office as apostle. This is the literal meaning of these words. It is thus evident that there is no reference whatsoever to the supreme headship of Peter.
(2) Petros (Peter) and Petra are clearly distinguished here, just as these two words are distinct in their original meaning. Petros refers to a stone, a pebble, or a brick. Petra refers to rock layer, or a rocky mountain formation upon which one would build a house. Such houses are so immovable and strong that they can withstand storms, torrential rains, and floods, which is not true of those which are merely built upon sand (cf. Matt. 7:24-27). The Lord Jesus here refers to Peter as Petra, making an allusion to his name as the Lord Jesus generally did in His parables which are recorded in the gospels. From Petros He proceeds to Himself, calling Himself Petra, having previously been promised by that name. "I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste" (Isa. 28:16). "The stone which the builders refused" (Psa. 118:22).
In the New Testament these texts are applied to Christ. It is therefore also stated concerning Christ in 1 Corinthians 10:4, "For they drank of that spiritual Rock ( Petra) that followed them: and that Rock ( Petra) was Christ" (1 Cor. 10:4). Christ is likewise called Petra in Romans 9:33, where we read, "...rock ( Petra) of offence" (cf. 1 Pet. 2:7).
(a) Christ is called Petra in God's Word, however, and this name Petra is never attributed to Peter.
(b) The endings of the words petros and petra are different. The one noun is masculine, and the other feminine.
(c) The conjunction which is placed between the two words indicates that the subsequent word petra has a different meaning from the previous word petros. It is therefore not stated that the church will be built upon Peter, an apostle, but upon Christ, the spiritual Petra.
(3) What is stated concerning this petra cannot be said of Peter; namely, that the church would be built upon him, and that therefore, being built upon this petra, the gates of hell would not prevail against her. Is the church built upon a man? Is she immovable because of a man? Is everyone called to put his trust in a man, and to make flesh his arm and strength? A curse is pronounced upon such in Jeremiah 17:5. Those who, having hearts of stone, wish to put their trust in a pope-in a man whose heart is as hard as a rock-will with him not escape the curse. "Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD" (Jer. 17:7). Christ is the foundation, the only foundation upon which the church is built. "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 3:11). This was the foundation of the apostles and the prophets. They were not the foundation themselves, but they laid this foundation by preaching Christ, "Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord" (Eph. 2:20-21). The apostles, and thus also James, Cephas, and John, were eminent supporters of this congregation which was built upon Christ. For this reason they are called "pillars" (Gal. 2:9). Therefore Peter is not the petra, that is, the foundation upon which the church is built, but it is the Lord Jesus Christ who endures forever, is omnipotent, and preserves Peter and the church from apostasy, causing her to remain unmovable against all the attacks of the devil. The name "Cephas," as Peter is called in Galatians 2:9, is not a derivative of the Greek Word &#922;&#949;&#966;&#945;&#955;&#942; ( kephal&#305;= head), but rather of the Syrian word &#1499;&#1488;&#1508;&#1488; ( kepha= stone), which was the language Christ and the apostles used, as was generally true of all the Jews at that time.
a Brakel, Wilhelmus. [i:bce937a80e]The Christian's Reasonable Service, Volumes 1 and 2 : In Which Divine Truths Concerning the Covenant of Grace Are Expounded, Defended Against Opposing Parties, and Their Practice Advocated as Well as The Administration of This Covenant in the Old and New Testaments[/i:bce937a80e], II.112.[/quote:bce937a80e]
John Owen:
[quote:bce937a80e]
The disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ having made that great confession of him, in distinction and opposition unto them, who accounted him only as a prophet, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God"(Matt. 16:14, 16), he does, on the occasion thereof, give out unto them that great charter of the church's stability and continuance, "Upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," verse 18. He is himself the rock upon which his church is built, as God is called the rock of his people, on the account of his eternal power and immutability (Deut. 32:4, 18, 31, Isa. 26:4); and himself the spiritual rock which gave out supplies of mercy and assistance to the people in the wilderness (1 Cor. 10:4).
The relation of the professing church unto this rock consists in the faith of this confession, that he is "the Christ, the Son of the living God." This our Lord Jesus Christ has promised to secure against all attempts; yet so as plainly to declare, that there should be great and severe opposition made thereunto For whereas the prevalence of the gates of hell in an enmity unto this confession is denied, a great and vigorous attempt to prevail therein is no less certainly foretold. Neither has it otherwise fallen out. In all ages, from the first solemn foundation of the church of the New Testament, it has, one way or other, been fiercely attempted by the "gates of hell." For some time after the resurrection of Christ from the dead, the principal endeavors of Satan, and men acting under him, or acted by him, were pointed against the very foundation of the church, as laid in the expression before mentioned. Almost all the errors and heresies wherewith for three or four centuries of years it was perplexed, were principally against the person of Christ himself; and, consequently, the nature and being of the holy and blessed Trinity. But being disappointed in his design herein, through the watchful care of the Lord Christ over his promise, in the following ages Satan turned his craft and violence against sundry parts of the superstructure, and, by the assistance of the Papacy, cast them into confusion, nothing, as it were, remaining firm, stable, and in order, but only this one confession, which in a particular manner the Lord Christ has taken upon himself to secure.
Owen, John. [i:bce937a80e]The Glory of the Trinity[/i:bce937a80e]: Taken from the Works of John Owen, Volume 2 (Preface).[/quote:bce937a80e]
Matthew Henry:
[quote:bce937a80e]Evangelical scholar D. A. Carson writes, "If it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter" (Carson 1986, 368).[/quote:bce937a80e]
My interpretation that Peter is the 'rock' spoken of in this passage is very Evangelical. [/quote:bce937a80e]
I must admit that this is somewhat typical of Carson, who speaks in bold strokes and thrusts aside the past. He also is a good evangelical, and that causes otehrs to make the mistake of hearing him uncritically.
So should we agree with Carson, or:
Ryle
[quote:bce937a80e]
The Lord Jesus Christ tells us, "Upon this rock will I build My Church." This is the Foundation upon which the Church is built. What did the Lord Jesus Christ mean, when He spoke of this foundation? Did He mean the apostle Peter, to whom He was speaking? I think assuredly not. I can see no reason, if He meant Peter, why He did not say, "Upon thee will I build My Church." If He had meant Peter, He would surely have said, "I will build My Church on thee," as plainly as He said, "To thee will I give the keys." No, it was not the person of the apostle Peter, but the good confession which the apostle had just made! It was not Peter, the erring, unstable man, but the mighty truth which the Father had revealed to Peter. It was the truth concerning Jesus Christ Himself which was the rock. It was Christ's mediatorship, and Christ's Messiahship. It was the blessed truth that Jesus was the promised Saviour, the true Surety, the real Intercessor between God and man. This was the rock, and this the foundation, upon which the Church of Christ was to be built.
Ryle, J.C. [i:bce937a80e]Holiness : It's Nature, Hinderances, Difficulties and Roots, 214.[/i:bce937a80e][/quote:bce937a80e]
And A Brakel:
[quote:bce937a80e]
Objection #1:
"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" (Matt. 16:18). They say that Christ here makes an extraordinary promise to Peter upon his glorious confession, this promise being that Christ would build His church upon him. Peter therefore of necessity must be the chief of all the apostles and the head of the church.
Answer:
(1) The promise here made to Peter by Christ is that He indeed was the Christ, the Son of the living God, and that He would therefore not build his church upon a sandy foundation, but rather upon Himself as the immovable Petra, that is, rock. He would make this foundation so solid and immovable, that all the subtlety and power of Satan would not be able to prevail against her, and that therefore Peter also had no reason to fear, but would also certainly be kept and established. Upon this he could reflect with comfort after he had denied Him thrice; and not only he, but also all the other apostles who were present, as well as all who cherish the preservation of themselves and of the church. He should therefore not be offended when he would observe that Christ died on the cross, and when he would encounter many adversities in his office as apostle. This is the literal meaning of these words. It is thus evident that there is no reference whatsoever to the supreme headship of Peter.
(2) Petros (Peter) and Petra are clearly distinguished here, just as these two words are distinct in their original meaning. Petros refers to a stone, a pebble, or a brick. Petra refers to rock layer, or a rocky mountain formation upon which one would build a house. Such houses are so immovable and strong that they can withstand storms, torrential rains, and floods, which is not true of those which are merely built upon sand (cf. Matt. 7:24-27). The Lord Jesus here refers to Peter as Petra, making an allusion to his name as the Lord Jesus generally did in His parables which are recorded in the gospels. From Petros He proceeds to Himself, calling Himself Petra, having previously been promised by that name. "I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste" (Isa. 28:16). "The stone which the builders refused" (Psa. 118:22).
In the New Testament these texts are applied to Christ. It is therefore also stated concerning Christ in 1 Corinthians 10:4, "For they drank of that spiritual Rock ( Petra) that followed them: and that Rock ( Petra) was Christ" (1 Cor. 10:4). Christ is likewise called Petra in Romans 9:33, where we read, "...rock ( Petra) of offence" (cf. 1 Pet. 2:7).
(a) Christ is called Petra in God's Word, however, and this name Petra is never attributed to Peter.
(b) The endings of the words petros and petra are different. The one noun is masculine, and the other feminine.
(c) The conjunction which is placed between the two words indicates that the subsequent word petra has a different meaning from the previous word petros. It is therefore not stated that the church will be built upon Peter, an apostle, but upon Christ, the spiritual Petra.
(3) What is stated concerning this petra cannot be said of Peter; namely, that the church would be built upon him, and that therefore, being built upon this petra, the gates of hell would not prevail against her. Is the church built upon a man? Is she immovable because of a man? Is everyone called to put his trust in a man, and to make flesh his arm and strength? A curse is pronounced upon such in Jeremiah 17:5. Those who, having hearts of stone, wish to put their trust in a pope-in a man whose heart is as hard as a rock-will with him not escape the curse. "Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD" (Jer. 17:7). Christ is the foundation, the only foundation upon which the church is built. "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 3:11). This was the foundation of the apostles and the prophets. They were not the foundation themselves, but they laid this foundation by preaching Christ, "Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord" (Eph. 2:20-21). The apostles, and thus also James, Cephas, and John, were eminent supporters of this congregation which was built upon Christ. For this reason they are called "pillars" (Gal. 2:9). Therefore Peter is not the petra, that is, the foundation upon which the church is built, but it is the Lord Jesus Christ who endures forever, is omnipotent, and preserves Peter and the church from apostasy, causing her to remain unmovable against all the attacks of the devil. The name "Cephas," as Peter is called in Galatians 2:9, is not a derivative of the Greek Word &#922;&#949;&#966;&#945;&#955;&#942; ( kephal&#305;= head), but rather of the Syrian word &#1499;&#1488;&#1508;&#1488; ( kepha= stone), which was the language Christ and the apostles used, as was generally true of all the Jews at that time.
a Brakel, Wilhelmus. [i:bce937a80e]The Christian's Reasonable Service, Volumes 1 and 2 : In Which Divine Truths Concerning the Covenant of Grace Are Expounded, Defended Against Opposing Parties, and Their Practice Advocated as Well as The Administration of This Covenant in the Old and New Testaments[/i:bce937a80e], II.112.[/quote:bce937a80e]
John Owen:
[quote:bce937a80e]
The disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ having made that great confession of him, in distinction and opposition unto them, who accounted him only as a prophet, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God"(Matt. 16:14, 16), he does, on the occasion thereof, give out unto them that great charter of the church's stability and continuance, "Upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," verse 18. He is himself the rock upon which his church is built, as God is called the rock of his people, on the account of his eternal power and immutability (Deut. 32:4, 18, 31, Isa. 26:4); and himself the spiritual rock which gave out supplies of mercy and assistance to the people in the wilderness (1 Cor. 10:4).
The relation of the professing church unto this rock consists in the faith of this confession, that he is "the Christ, the Son of the living God." This our Lord Jesus Christ has promised to secure against all attempts; yet so as plainly to declare, that there should be great and severe opposition made thereunto For whereas the prevalence of the gates of hell in an enmity unto this confession is denied, a great and vigorous attempt to prevail therein is no less certainly foretold. Neither has it otherwise fallen out. In all ages, from the first solemn foundation of the church of the New Testament, it has, one way or other, been fiercely attempted by the "gates of hell." For some time after the resurrection of Christ from the dead, the principal endeavors of Satan, and men acting under him, or acted by him, were pointed against the very foundation of the church, as laid in the expression before mentioned. Almost all the errors and heresies wherewith for three or four centuries of years it was perplexed, were principally against the person of Christ himself; and, consequently, the nature and being of the holy and blessed Trinity. But being disappointed in his design herein, through the watchful care of the Lord Christ over his promise, in the following ages Satan turned his craft and violence against sundry parts of the superstructure, and, by the assistance of the Papacy, cast them into confusion, nothing, as it were, remaining firm, stable, and in order, but only this one confession, which in a particular manner the Lord Christ has taken upon himself to secure.
Owen, John. [i:bce937a80e]The Glory of the Trinity[/i:bce937a80e]: Taken from the Works of John Owen, Volume 2 (Preface).[/quote:bce937a80e]
Matthew Henry:
It doesn't seem like any of them, except maybe Henry, gave much thought to the fact in Eph. 2:20 the apostles and prophets are said to be an [i:d1f471006a]actual foundation themselves[/i:d1f471006a]. There is nothing wrong with calling people "stones" (1 Pet. 2:5), "foundations," or "pillars," as long as we understand that we don't stand by ourselves, but by the chief and corner stone, Jesus Christ. There are alot of different foundations (pillars, walls, cement on top of other cement) to houses, but it only has one undergirding foundation upon which the other supporters (or foundations) of the "spiritual house" rests.
It seems like alot of the interpretations above are outgrowths of not wanting to call man a "foundation" in any sence.
Paul
[Edited on 5-31-2004 by rembrandt]
It seems like alot of the interpretations above are outgrowths of not wanting to call man a "foundation" in any sence.
Paul
[Edited on 5-31-2004 by rembrandt]
Rembrandt,
you are completely missing what the keys of the kingdom are, and Peter is not the rock.......
The church cannot forgive (absolve) sins, only God forgives sins.
And your position on this matter and on the issue of the authority of the church is Roman, not Protestant, Reformed, or orthodox.
Check these out before continuing this discussion:
Upon This Rock
Jesus, Peter, and the Keys
Documentation of the Patristic Exegesis of the Rock of Matthew 16:18
The Church Fathers' Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18
Phillip
you are completely missing what the keys of the kingdom are, and Peter is not the rock.......
The church cannot forgive (absolve) sins, only God forgives sins.
And your position on this matter and on the issue of the authority of the church is Roman, not Protestant, Reformed, or orthodox.
Check these out before continuing this discussion:
Upon This Rock
Jesus, Peter, and the Keys
Documentation of the Patristic Exegesis of the Rock of Matthew 16:18
The Church Fathers' Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18
Phillip
- Status
