When Christ said he would build his church, does it really matter if...

Matthew 16:15-19
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

Christ wasn't talking about building the Church on Peter or the "profession of Peter". The rock that He built His Church on is Himself. Jesus Christ is the rock, not Peter.

 

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

 

You will need to explain your point.

 

I still don't understand your point or your question.

 

I agree with Daniel David. I think it is possible Christ is talking about Peter, that certainly doesn't lead to what Catholisim has done with it. Christ would simply be refering to the historical reality that the Church would begin with Peter (perhaps the sermon at Pentecost), not that he was creating some super apostle position that could be passed down, had infallible authority, etc.

I personally don't lean towards Peter as the answer, but John Calvin did.

 

Sure, there are some who would agree that Jesus was referring to Peter. But a major problem with this view for the Church of Rome is that no where in Scripture do we see Peter in Rome or being sent to Rome.

Paul, yes, Peter, no.

Acts 28:16 And when we came to Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard: but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him.

Do we bow to the Magesterium of Rome and agree that Peter (the supposed first Pope) "founded" the Church of Rome, whom Paul did not greet or mention in his Epistle to the Romans?

HankD

 

I think Peter is an excellent possibility. The foundation of the church was laid by him and the disciples.

The cornerstone is Christ, the apostles and their writings are the foundation, and we are the living stone who make it up.

 

Not Peter as in the person per se, but Peter as in the profession of faith that Peter gave him (answering, "whom do you say I am"). Peter was, however, one of the leaders of the early church. There's no need to shy away from that point just because Catholics view Peter as being the first pope.

I think there's fair amount of "distancing" in Baptist circles when it comes to things Catholic. SOmetimes we tend to "look for" alternate views just to avoid being aligned with anything Cathlic. I agree with you. One's personal views about the RCC should not be used as an excuse for not correctly interpreting texts.

 

John 2:19-21
"Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
But he spake of the temple of his body."

What did Jesus talk about? He stood in the temple! This strongly suggests that He was talking about the temple. What else was Jesus talking about? But Scripture shows us that He was talking about Himself in third person.

I believe in Matthew 16 Jesus did the same. He talked about Himself, the Rock, in third person.
Because Jesus is clearly identified as "the Rock" (not that eye brow raisin´ muscle guy ) and there is no other foundation than Jesus alone (1. Corinthians 3:11). So I believe it MUST be Jesus.

 

AMEN brother!

Jesus is the Rock, Peter was the hammer. In fact all the disiples were.

 

Daniel David makes a good point.

(Wait - did I say that ?)

I think many Christians do interpret this verse as relating to the "profession of Peter" or to Christ Himself - but is some of this because of a desire not to legitimize the papacy?

I think it is fairly clear that Jesus speaks about building the church on the rock, namely Peter.

The Greek words petros and petra do not make this less likely. We know that petra was a loan word in some Rabbinic Hebrew and that the Yalkut Shimoni midrash speaks of God building His kingdom on Abraham - "on this rock I'll build my kingdom" - "w'al ha petra eh'eh sah malkti". It only makes sense for Jesus to speak of building on "petra" since "petros" is a stone. Yet "petros" is the more likely word to be used as a name (although we note that it was NOT a common name).

I think that the text clearly speaks of Peter. We shouldn't be afraid to interpret it as such. The fact that jesus entrusted the formation of His church to the apostles, and specificallt to Peter, should not be seen as legitimizing the unilateral authority of one who has no specified inheritance of this authority.

 

Which explains perfectly why Jesus used two different words in one sentence in saying that the disciples name was "petros" and the foundation of the church would be "petra" which in the NT is clearly identified as Jesus himself?

 

When Christ spoke regarding building his church upon this rock, the "rock" he was referring to was the mutual understanding between Christ and his disciples. Peter knew that Jesus was the "Christ" and Jesus "knew" Peter. That relationship between believers and Christ and between Christ and believers is paramount to the building of a true church. We know our Savior and He knows us.

 

This is an example of the complexity of language study - like the thread on "definitions" in the versions forum.

Jesus likely uses "petra" because it conjures up familiar imagery - like the midrash about Abraham being God's petra. We would assume Jesus was speaking Aramaic - or maybe even Hebrew. Peter is the "petros" because petra is not a male given name. The "rock idea" is the same. I see any attempt to explain this otherwise as trying to twist the obvious to fit what we WANT to see.

 

I find this to be an interesting conversation.

Was it not the confession of Peter that is the Rock which the church would be built upon? It was Abraham's faith that made him God's "petros". It was based on his relationship with the living God. The same is the case of Peter's statement and life.

But taking this a little further ... does this simply mean that if we make the relationship with God and our faith in Him our main focus, that God would build (attract) those who needed salvation to those with the relationship? That our focus should not be on nickels and noses, but on relationship by which God will draw all men unto himself.