marco wrote:
if we start to accept words written in the Bible, then it is reasonable to take that interpretation of Christ's words.
I agree with this; it is reasonable. And it is just as reasonable to read it how I read it -- that the antecedent of 'this' in both verse 17 and 18 is Christ Himself. Catholics will not agree with that, but it's true nonetheless: it makes just as much sense. The problem, really, is the translation from Greek to English, which, as you know, is a very dirty language.
marco wrote:
It makes far more sense than your substitution, whether it is right or wrong.
I don't completely disagree; it is at least a little disjointed -- in English. But in the original Greek no. And since it was originally written in Greek, that makes the English (or any other) translation irrelevant in that sense.
Bearing that in mind, I am not denying that Peter is a "rock" of some sort, and I am not even denying that Peter holds some extent of primacy in Christ's universal Church itself. Let me explain:
PETER A ROCK
Peter’s confession is the rock to which Jesus refers, and this makes good sense, but we err if we say that Peter himself is not in any sense a rock upon which the church is built (again, as I have referenced several times, Ephesians 2:22).
But there is a play on words in the original Greek text. Peter’s name, Petros, is based on petra, that is, “rock� (v. 18). In other words, Jesus declares, “Simon, you are the rock, and on this rock I will build my church.� Peter
has primacy in the church — a historical primacy, not papal primacy. Jesus addressed Peter as representative of the Twelve. The use of the two different forms of the Greek for rock would be explained by the masculine petros being used of Peter as an individual man and petra being used of him as the representative of the larger group. So, Jesus says, in effect:
- " You are Peter, a small stone (as all other believers are), and on this group of small stones (you and the other apostles) and Me as the cornerstone, I will build My church."
It was not on the apostles themselves, much less on Peter as an individual, that Christ built His church, but on the apostles as His uniquely appointed, endowed, and inspired teachers of the gospel.
PETER'S HISTORICAL PRIMACY
Aside from being the first to confess Christ, Peter is the first apostle to extend the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10), and his leadership and teaching set the stage for the church’s expansion and maturity (chap. 1–15; 1 and 2 Peter).
PETER ON PETER
Two things (I have pointed these things out before and will do so again):
- * Peter, by His own testimony, did not see himself as the rock on which the church was founded. He wrote that we are living stones, but Jesus is the cornerstone. We could say that Peter was the “first rock� among “many rocks.�
* Peter said as much in 1 Peter 2:4-5: "Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
THE CHURCH?
The ancient Greek word 'ekklesia' was not primarily a religious word at all; it just meant, “group� or “called-out group.� In describing the later group of His followers and disciples, Jesus deliberately chose a word without a distinctly religious meaning.
CONCLUSION
Thus, in my continuing, unwavering opinion, we must conclude (with John Calvin, as abhorrent as that may be to some):
- “It is a foolish inference of the Papists, that he received the primacy, and became the universal head of the whole Church. Rank is a different thing from power, and to be elevated to the highest place of honor among a few persons is a different thing from embracing the whole world under his dominion.�
marco wrote:
The problem with claiming you get your words from Christ...
I'm not claiming that at all. At least not directly, anyway. Tam does that from time to time, and it's really irritating to me in an eyebrow-raising sort of way because the insinuation is, "I cannot POSSIBLY be in error," and that... Well, we all get things wrong, at least from time to time.
What I AM claiming, on the other hand, is that I believe the Holy Spirit, Who is in each of us believers, has helped me (He is the Helper, according to Jesus Himself in John 14:16, right?) to discern correctly what is being said in Matthew 16. You may not see any difference in the two, and that's... okay.
Bearing that in mind, I am still fully recognizing that it is entirely possible that I may be in error. But I don't think so, and what you and RightReason are saying is doing absolutely nothing to convince me otherwise.
Likewise, I'm quite sure that what I am saying is doing absolutely nothing to convince you to back off of your stance. So there's really no need to continue, is there? I'll be glad to answer that on behalf of all of us: No, there's not.
Grace and peace to you both.