Big Business
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. Matthew 16:18 KJV
Church – It should be evident to most believers that Yeshua is not speaking of what we call “the church” when he addressed Peter in this famous conversation. The Greek, ekklesia, is often translated “church,” but that is a cultural accommodation. The word literally means “assembly,” and in classical Greek it is never used for a religious assembly. Furthermore, Yeshua wasn’t speaking Greek. In Hebrew, the word is qahal, a word that also means “assembly,” but in Jewish context carries the idea most similar to a synagogue. We should then ask the question, “Why does the Bible routinely translate this Greek word as ‘church’?” The answer is a bit disturbing. It’s really all about a massive change in the paradigm that governs our world.
Perhaps the best way to articulate this change is to refer to the book by Peter Leithart, Against Christianity. It is a penetrating examination of the difference between the post-modern view of the world and the biblical view. According to Leithart:
Modernity refers to the civilization of the West since about 1500. Culturally, modernity is characterized by “value pluralism,” which entails the privatization of religious institutions and religious claims. Every individual and every group chooses its own shared values, and civil society is the arena where those values enter into combat. Politically, modernity is shaped by “liberalism,” the political system dedicated to the one proposition that political systems must not be dedicated to one proposition.
Through its roots in the patristic period, Christianity in its more developed form is the Church’s adjustment of the gospel to modernity, and the Church’s consequent acceptance of the world’s definition of who we are and what we should be up to. Christianity is biblical religion disemboweled and emasculated by (voluntary) intellectualization and/or privatization.
Christianity is not merely haphazard embrace of the values and practices of the modern world. Worldliness in that sense has plagued the Church since Corinth and will be a temptation to the end of time. Christianity is institutionalized worldliness, worldliness accepted in principle, worldliness not at the margins but at the center, worldliness built into the foundation.[1]
Leithart draws a needed distinction between Christianity (the “official” religion of the West) and the Church (God’s people in the world). Christianity is a part of the world culture, accommodated to the systems of the world through its organization, goals and operation. Just think about the scope and actions of the Roman Catholic Church. It is big business with a worldwide organized hierarchy. In fact, it is probably the first multi-national company. Of course, any of the mainline denominations fit the bill today. What this implies is that the members embrace a cultural orientation that is dictated by the religion and that religion is in cooperation with the state. So, state and religion work out a pact of mutual non-aggression. The state passes laws that endorse or protect certain religious freedoms and the religion endorses and supports certain activities of the state. Just consider the almost universal acceptance of democracy as the proper political system of Christianity. Nothing in the biblical record supports this idea. Where did it come from? From the Greeks. The Church is not a democracy. The Kingdom of God is not a democracy. But most Christians have accommodated to the state by accepting democracy as the correct political system.
This same shift can be seen in economic policy, social liberties, civic responsibilities, education, ethics and philosophy. The biblical worldview is an all-embracing reorientation of life to a radically different culture. It is Semitic, ancient, theocratic, without hierarchy, distributive economics and maximized personal responsibility. Its legal system is compassionate but without appeal (there is no supreme court that can overrule God’s law). Its educational system is focused nearly exclusively on Torah. It is exclusive (drawing careful distinctions between those who are followers and those who are not) and intolerant (demanding repentance). In fact, it is a lot more like the culture of Islam than it is like the culture of the West.
Most Christians today have absorbed the cultural values of post-modernity. They believe in tolerance, inner truth, private religion and the separation of State and Church. They just don’t realize that none of these are biblical. So, they act more like Greeks than followers of the King, but they aren’t aware that there is really a difference.
It’s time to open this discussion, to realize that living a “Christian” life is not the same as being a good, morally upright member of the nation. Everything must change if we are really going to embrace the teachings of the Messiah and make him our King. How can “Your will be done on earth” be our motto if what we do is nothing more than proper ethical behavior as outlined by the laws of the land?
Topical Index: Christianity, ekklesia, Matthew 16:18
[1] Peter J Leithart, Against Christianity, p. 17.
119 Ministries created a meme that sums up today’s TW:
Christianity started in the Middle East as a “fellowship”
It moved to Greece, and became a “philosophy”
It moved to Italy, and became an “institution”
It moved to Europe, and became a “culture”
It moved to America, and became an “enterprise”
“An enterprise. That’s a business. A business?
But isn’t it supposed to be a body? When a body
becomes a business, isn’t that a prostitute?”
“Come out of her my people…” (Rev 18:4)
Yes, I know that “Christianity” did not start in the Middle East. But the focus of 119 Ministries (at least to my understanding) is to reach those in the “Church” (Christianity), and to bring them into a deeper understanding of YHWH’s Torah.
I just learned of 119 ministries in a wonderful compilation of 12 testimonials. “They overcame him (the adversary ) By the blood of the lamb and the Word of their testimony “. It is called “THE WAY THE TRUTH & THE LIFE” It is full of powerful stories of those who have “come out of her”. Link Removed
Taking the gloves off are we? Brovo!
Mark and others shalom does Hellenism ?fit in as one side of his boxing match?
The kingdom of YAHWEH and the kingdom of this present world system are simultaneously coexisting but mutually exclusive. One must chose, moment by moment, thought by thought, word by word and action by action, just whom you shall serve and in what kingdom you will live. It’s that easy and that heard.
Heard= hard…
Thank you Mark this reminds me clear up the issue of our daily bread enough for today unless it is the day before Sabbath biblically and historically. We certainly do not want to leave the Lord behind and get ahead of him Nor do we what the Lord to get behind us either way we might lose sight of him someone once told me the world incumbent it is still in my thought process about the Lord and his word.
Powerful documentary. We laughed…. and cried.
Peter Leithart also wrote The Sin of Certainty – Why God Desires Our Trust more than our “Correct Beliefs”. It’s well worth reading.
While it’s true that ekklēsia means “assembly”, and the term is never used in classical Greek as a religious assembly, a cursory look at its usage in the Greek NT indicates it cannot mean “synagogue” in all cases: Acts 8:1 (great persecution by Saul caused tēn ekklēsian at Jerusalem to scatter, except the apostles); 8:3 (Saul began to destroy tēn ekklēsian at Jerusalem); 19:32 (this ekklēsia was an angry throng in a theatre); 19:39 (tȩ̄ ennomō ekklēsia̧ – a legal {regular?} assembly); Romans 16:5 (ekklēsia that meets at their house). At its root, the word just means “assembly”, and context will have to determine the specifics.
In fact, there’s a separate Greek word for “synagogue” – synagōgē. There were individual synagōgēs with their own ekklēsias. An assembly (ekklēsia) gathers at a synagogue (synagōgē) – or a theatre (Acts 19:32).
Questions to ponder from this passage:
(a) What was the significance of Simon Peter being “blessed” by having the identity of Yeshua revealed to him by the Father?
(b) Why is it Yeshua will build His (“My”) tēn ekklēsian, when the synagogue was already established?
(c) How do we identify and just what is this petra that this ekklēsia is to be built upon? [I don’t think it’s the RCC.]
And, I’ve not yet addressed how one can know with absolute certainty that Jesus didn’t speak Greek. Even if this were somehow able to be established as fact, it doesn’t change the fact that the documents we have making up the NT are in Koine (common) Greek.
Having said all the above, I’ll agree with the main thrust of this post: “Institutional Christianity” is way off track.
“how (can) one know with absolute certainty that Jesus didn’t speak Greek” ?
We can’t but I think it is reasonable to assume that Yeshua spoke to the Jews primarily, if not exclusively, in the mother tongue of Aramaic before he spoke to them in Greek if he wanted to be clearly understood, which surely he would.
We can NEVER know with absolute certainty what anyone at any time, even in the not so distant past, has exactly said or in which language (quelle dommage), but we can come to reasonable assumptions. In officially bi-lingual Canada the Quebecois francophones are mostly raised speaking French as a first language but they are surrounded by anglophones within Canada as well as the dominant American culture and their English language. The vast majority of Quebecois speak and understand English although they are taught in French first and foremost. However, when they speak amongst themselves the default is usually French, it just comes naturally.
It is a similar situation in multi-linguistic countries like Switzerland that has four official languages (and none of them is English). Three Cantons are bi-lingual and one is tri-lingual. Having said all that, you can communicate with most people in English as well. So what? Well the Swiss naturally speak the language that makes the most sense according to their geography if they can. French in the west, German centrally and Italian in the south. C’est la vie.
One may want to check out Donald Hagner’s WBC on Matthew (Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1995). He believes an Aramaic original underlies the text of this exchange 16:17-19. I disagree, for reasons I’ll state below. For now, let me quote him briefly regarding ekklēsia (Hebrew text eliminated, while transliteration retained; bold and brackets added):
One can see an overlap in, yet a distinction between, the two terms qāhāl and ēda. However, in the Greek NT, there is a clear distinction between ekklēsia and synagōgē.
Now as to my position regarding Aramaic in the text, I think some words derive from the Aramaic – Simon Bar-Jonah, e.g. – but, I don’t think we have to see the Greek text here as a translation of an “original” Aramaic. Hagner feels that the word-play for “rock” in this text is best seen in the Aramaic, though “[f]ortunately the play also worked in Greek” (p 470); however, I think it works much better in Greek. There is only one word in the Aramaic for “rock”, kep̲ā, yet the Greek text has two different ones. I’ll quote Stanley Porter here (“Vague Verbs, Periphrastics, and Matthew 16:19” in Studies in the Greek New Testament [New York, NY: Peter Lang, 1996]):
Do I think Jesus spoke in Aramaic? Yes; but, I think he also spoke in Koine Greek, the lingua franca (“bridge” or “common” language) of the day, just as English is the common language for international business in our day. But, here’s the thing: I don’t think the red letters in red letter edition Bibles are the literal words of Jesus, recording his conversations verbatim. The Gospel writers couldn’t possibly have recalled Yeshua’s exact words. So, the words are likely paraphrases, though some may reflect very accurate recollections. Nonetheless, the NT we have is in Koine Greek, and to suppose this word or that word is a translation of some other word – except in cases of transliteration – is, at best, speculation, at worst, anachronistic eisegesis.
I should more accurately call it catachronistic eisegesis – projecting something from the NT’s prehistory into the text (a catachronism), as opposed to projecting something from a time after the NT was written into the text (an anachronism).
Craig, I appreciate your “Greek” analytic approach to the subject but I think after 300 years of Hellenization virtually everyone spoke Koine Greek of some sort in the eastern Mediterranean however I believe Yeshua preached the Messianic message primarily, if not exclusively, to the Jews not the Gentiles in which case he would have had no good reason to preach in simple pigeon Greek. Yeshua had enough difficulty delivering his message to the Jews who were expecting a Messiah of some sort for hundreds of years and many of them still blew it!
The Gentiles may have been exposed to Yeshua but why would they be listening to any Jew preaching anything in any language let alone one that sounded seditious? It was the job of the apostles and Paul to take the gospel of good news to the Gentiles AFTER the resurrection when it all became clear and manageable for them after Pentecost.
George,
We can debate whether or not Jesus spoke Aramaic to the disciples and/or to his larger audiences, but I hope you see the larger point of my April 14, 2017 2:28 pm comment. (Also, we must ponder why, circa 200BC, 72 or so Jewish rabbis translated the Tanakh to Greek resulting in the LXX text.) That is, the NT documents are all in Greek – and there’s absolutely no credible evidence of an Aramaic or Hebrew ‘original’ from which these Greek texts are translated – and no matter what language Jesus actually spoke at any given time, we still have Greek NT texts. We cannot attempt to catachronistically impose Aramaic (or Hebrew) upon the Greek NT, as that would smack of eisegesis. And, any argument from silence is never a good argument. Let’s stick with the Greek texts and properly exegete them, beginning with assessing what the text says, then interpret it in light of then-current culture.
Your points are well-taken. I can’t imagine any reason to suppose Yeshua taught in any language except the same one used by the rabbis for 300 years before he began his ministry. The fact that the gospels are in Greek is interesting, but not telling since internal evidence exists in at least Matthew that there is a Hebraic use of the Greek (cf. Blizzard and Gruber, et. al.). While exegesis of the Greek text is crucial, interpretation without consideration of the cultural and linguistic circumstances of the speaker seems untenable. Finally, it seems to me that Christianity has basically hijacked the text, converting it into a Christian theological tome rather than a living Hebraic interpretation of the events. I have no doubt Paul wrote in Greek (considering his audience) and that might also be true of some of the gospels, but communicating in Greek does not make the original author a Greek in thinking or perspective. It seems to me that Christianity as a whole has simply ignored the Hebraic Yeshua and converted the whole argument into a technical Greek exercise loaded with theological assumptions. Take a look at Boyarin’s book on the gospels for some further explanation.
There is no doubt Hebraic use of the Greek (Semitisms), not just in Matthew, but in other NT texts. And, I’m not disputing some of what you write here. However, I don’t think the chasm between “Greek thinking” and “Hebraic thinking” is as wide as what’s portrayed overall here. Perhaps I’m wrong, but that’s how I see it.
As for the “linguistic circumstances of the speaker”, see the views of Hagner and Porter I’ve juxtaposed above. In my mind, Porter’s position is persuasive – at least on that verse.
I’m in the midst of writing a blog article on John 19:28-30 (I hope to finish today), consulting various commentaries, and what I’m finding is a plethora of what seem to be “Hebraic thinking” insights; so, I’m not so sure about a global Christian ignoring of the “Hebraic Yeshua”. Some now doubt do, but not all. Check out Craig Keener’s 2 Volume commentary on John’s Gospel, e.g.
Skip,
I believe i was told once (or twice) that in the first rendition of the gospels that after they were sent/received that they would be copied, over and over, by those wishing to take those words on to their groups (congregations, other cities, etc.).
In doing so, the straight word for word copying may or may not have taken place as even in those first days, people might have paraphrased, dropped topics that were of no concern or slanted towards their own biases.
Care to comment? even if to say i’m totally (again) out to lunch.
oh….CRAIG!!! HELLO!
Skip, i have heard that it was common when the gospels were written, for representatives from different groups would copy the original and take it back to their group.
Is there any evidence that would be true?
thanks,
I know this was addressed to Skip, but if you don’t mind, I’ll provide an answer: yes and no. There were various pseudo- and quasi-Christian groups who took the Scriptures and amended them to their own liking, including the Ebionites, e.g. However, those who actually followed the Apostles respected the writings enough to faithfully (as possible) copy them for their own use. At least some of Paul’s letters, which (mostly, at least) preceded the writing of the Gospels, were purportedly said to be “circular letters” — intended to be distributed as teaching to other churches. For example, the Letter to the Ephesians, which was written to the church at Ephesus, would be distributed to others in the general region.
Of course i don’t mind, and thanks for insights.
A tad disappointed at the humdrum way they were presented tho, sans any kind of window dressing.
My memory serves me well then, at least on this point. I appreciate the confirmation.
Welcome all of you to life in diaspora! There is a King coming and may it be soon
Craig: here is a little question concerning the Greek for this passage…
I notice that the Interlinear (Green) for Acts 16:18 says “… and on this rock I will build of me the church…” I find it interesting in this case that mou (S3450) precedes the noun ekklesion(S1577). In the vast majority of examples I looked up the mou normally follows the noun or verb. Is it possible that Jesus/Yeshua is not in fact referring to “his church” at all but rather to his contribution to the church of God? I did a little search for “church of Jesus”, “church of Christ” and got NO verses. Yet when I searched for “church of God” I got the following: 1 Tim 3:5, 2 Cor 1:1, 1 Cor 1:2, Gal 1:13, Acts 20:28, 1 Cor 11:22, 1 Cor 15:9, 1 Tim 3:15, 1 Cor 10:32, Acts 12:5. Similarly we find references to “flock of God” in 1 Peter 5:2, Acts 20:28 to name a couple. Of course there are many references to flock of God in the OT. Examples include Zech 9:16, Psalms 95:7, Ez 34:31, Ez 34:17, Ez 34:8. Jer 23:2. We know that believers are part of the “body of Messiah” where he is the head! I was surprised at the lack of reference to “church of Messiah/Jesus”. To a Trinitarian this whole little study is no doubt moot if Jesus is in fact God. But again I encounter the lack of explicit connection of church to Jesus. In my opinion the “rock” referred to in verse 18 is God Himself. He is called rock frequently in the OT. In fact Jesus has just mentioned Him by name in the preceding verse 17: “flesh and blood did not reveal this to you but My Father in Heaven. I suggest there is a natural flow into the next verse… and on THIS ROCK I will build of me the church (of God).
I would be interested in your thoughts about the placement of “mou” after the verb build, not the noun “church”.
HSB,
First I want to applaud your efforts here. Don’t ever take my, or anyone else’s, word. Search it out for yourself!
With that said, I’ll address what you wrote. First of all, mou is a genitive, which will modify either a noun or an adjective, so its placement relative to the noun/adjective it modifies is what determines emphasis. You’ll find it following the noun most times, because that’s its usual placement. In this verse, it may be possible (I’m not 100% sure of this possibility) that mou modifies petra (rock, the 2nd occurrence) – if so, it would be deemphasized because it doesn’t immediately follow the noun it modifies, with the verb “(I) will build” in between – however, that would seem highly unlikely. It would then be “and upon my rock I will build the church”, i.e. ‘upon Peter, my (this) rock’. Now, IF mou were placed just after petra/before the verb, THEN this would be much more likely. It may be helpful to show the individual clauses in the sentence.
I tell you that you are Peter / and upon this rock / I will build / mou tēn ekklēsian / and the gates of Hades will not prevail
The first clause is independent, as is the third (the one-word “I will build”) and the fifth/final one. The first and final independent clauses can be set off on their own; they can be taken out of our analysis. The second is a prepositional phrase with the dative “this rock”. Tēn ekklēsian is an accusative (direct object). We could rearrange the three middle clauses: I will build mou tēn ekklēsian upon this rock = I will build my church upon this rock.
You may want to check a passage that’s similar contextually (to Matthew 16:19): Rev 1:17-18 (Jesus’ words). As far as “rock”, you may want to check 1 Cor. 10:4, Ephesians 2:19-22 – in fact, just do a search for “rock”, “stone”, and “foundation” in the NT and see what you find.
Craig,
Re: First I want to applaud your efforts here. Don’t ever take my, or anyone else’s, word. Search it out for yourself!
I knew i liked you.
Craig: Thank you for the helpful response.
It seems to me that Jesus is making a contrast between Peter (petros/detached stone) and Father God (Petra/bedrock) in verse 18. This contrast was established in the preceding verse in which flesh and blood are contrasted with revelation from God Almighty. Bedrock/petra to the disciples would only mean the God of Israel ( I can provide numerous OT references if you like), not to Peter the stone or even Jesus who is the cornerstone which is laid as a foundation. One does not “lay” bedrock, rather one lays a foundation ON bedrock. (e.g. Luke 6:48 … and laid a foundation on the rock/bedrock) Notice in Isaiah 28:16 that God/YHWH says “Behold I am laying in Zion… a costly cornerstone for the foundation” We know that this cornerstone is Messiah Jesus. I find it interesting that foundations are part of the building, actually the most important part since they support the entire structure. Just like the head (Messiah) is the most important part of the body of which he is also an organic part.
So it is possible that Jesus is saying “and upon my Rock (Father God Almighty) I will build the church” even though this is “highly unlikely”.
I don’t see why that conclusion is “highly unlikely”. The allusion to the “Rock” in the Tanakh is being played on here. It can mean nothing else BUT YHVH; the Salvation of Israel, for He is the one being called that Rock in the OT. It is also a fact, though, that Yeshua takes on this name of Rock in the New Testament, and the epistles call Him that, too.
I think we can get hung up on the isolated personages aspect of God to the detriment of seeing that the function of God washes across all personages and representations. If a rock acts like a rock and quacks like a rock and smacks of looking like a rock, it may be a rock. Function determines form. Try that. And, RCC, – I am talking to you – FYO, Peter never acted like that foundation, did he? Perhaps because he wasn’t. Ya think?
There is no doubt that underlying “rock” here is the Tanakh, and hence YHWH – and by extension Messiah. But see my comment above to HSB @ 8:01.
YHVH yes, but “by extension” is a theological conclusion, not a linguistic one, as far as I can tell. Not wanting the re-engage this paradigmatic debate as I believe it cannot be settled linguistically.
You’re misunderstanding my intention here – though I didn’t make it clear. I purposely left my brief statement sufficiently ambiguous such that one could interpret my it either as Trinitarian or as Christ as agent. Either way, Christ is the rock by extension.
WoW! Craig, do you realize how much you have changed since you got here? “Trinitarian or Christ”. You may not agree, but i don’t think you could have responded that way a mere couple of months ago.
Good on YOU!
I’m tryin’…
Most people would have moved on in a huff a long time ago.
I can’t find your site…i had it saved and now it’s gone off my favorites (but, seriously YOU >i<are my favorite.
HSB,
Perhaps you missed my point in the grammar: (1) I’m not sure if we can apply mou to petra in the first place, though I don’t think so (I’m not sufficiently grounded in Koine Greek to determine this 100%); however, (2) even if mou were to modify petra then it would be deemphasized by its location — not just after petra (the usual location), but further behind it after the verb. It’s for this latter reason (2) I find it “highly unlikely” even if the former (1) does not obtain. Could we conceive of Jesus deemphasizing His Father in any way? Most logically, if the understanding were to be “my foundation” (my petra) in reference to the Father, then mou should be in the emphatic position, in front of petra.
The word-play is clearly between Simon as Peter, petros, and petra. Therefore, the “foundation”, petra, here most logically refers to Peter. But this needs qualification. We have to see this foundation as the NT church built upon the ‘bedrock’ of the OT. The RCC constructs all kinds of extra-biblical teachings around this, but this needn’t be. Biblical evidence does show Peter given primacy quite often (though not exclusively) throughout the NT – though he certainly proved his humanity quite often! – but, this needn’t mean that he should receive some sort of lingering authority or elevated status. Christ is the keystone/cornerstone of the foundation, with Peter the leader of the Apostles (and prophets, which may also include OT prophets), who/which collectively make up the remainder of the foundation upon which Jesus builds “My church” – see Ephesians 2:19-22.
Craig: I am learning Greek grammar slowly. I appreciate your help. Regarding the de-emphasis by placing mou later than normal, I assume from what you are saying that the de-emphasis would be the petra as distinct from de-emphasizing the mou. Certainly if Petra refers to God it would be totally inappropriate to de-emphasize Him, but perhaps quite appropriate to de-emphasize the “my”. I hope you do not consider this trivial. I am trying to understand. Clearly there is a difference between “MY petra” and “my PETRA” if you follow my question.
You said the “foundation ‘petra’ here most logically refers to Peter”. I guess we can agree to disagree on that point. I tried to show the contrast of Peter the little stone with God Almighty the Rock of Gibraltar. Note that in my thinking the ROCK to which Jesus is referring is below the foundation as bedrock. So based on the previous verse Jesus, in my opinion, is highlighting the relative weakness of Peter as opposed to the Strength and immovability of God Almighty. Interesting to consider all of this.
Finally, I would like to underscore a point Skip frequently makes about what these things meant to the original hearers. The audience knew their Tanach thoroughly. So the meaning of terms like ROCK should be understood at least initially in that context. I suspect you agree with that point. I think the bedrock is God Almighty, the foundation that is laid involves a cornerstone (Messiah Jesus) and the apostles and disciples, then the superstructure is the rest of us “living stones”.
HSB,
If mou is in a deemphasized position with respect to petra – and that’s a BIG if grammatically (again, I’m not sure this is even a possiblility) – then, below is how it would look. For my purposes here in the following, plain text is for deemphasis, italics is standard, and bold is for emphasis. This is only assuming that mou can be deemphasized, as I’m just not sure if this is even plausible syntactically – I don’t think so, as it would lend too much confusion as to which noun or adjective mou would modify in a multitude of cases.
noun = standard (noun)
noun + mou = standard (my noun)
mou + noun = emphasized (MY noun)
noun + verb + mou = deemphasized (?)
The point is that, even assuming for the moment that mou can be deemphasized in this manner, this would have no effect on the noun/adjective it modifies. In other words (again, assuming this is even possible), deemphasizing one word does not emphasize the other.
You’ve earlier raised the issue that nowhere else is “church of Jesus” or “Jesus’ church” to be found in NT Scripture; similarly, nowhere in the NT do we find Jesus refer to the Father as “My Rock”. However, there are NT verses in which clearly Christ = petra: Romans 9:33; 1 Cor. 10:4 (twice); 1 Pet. 2:8. But, then again, petra has a number of different meanings, depending on context, and in some its meaning seems we’re not able to definitively determine (Luke 6:48/Matt. 7:24 – is it Christ, the {Christ’s} Word, God?). In other words, because NT usage is not specific to one entity, and it seems ambiguous in some contexts, we can’t appeal to NT usage to ascertain its meaning here. All we have is the immediate context. And even though Protestants have employed Olympic-worthy grammatical gymnastics in their polemics against the RCC (‘the referent is Peter’s confession’; ‘no, it’s Christ’, etc.), the bottom line is that the referent is almost certainly Peter (perhaps, certainly), from a grammatical perspective. I wish it weren’t the case!
In fact, I’d think that if it were possible that mou could modify petra, then the RCC would have declared this long ago, given that there’s no ambiguity about who would be building the church (Christ). Then it would be “I [Christ] will build the church upon my Peter”.
Sorry, on the last sentence “my” shouldn’t be italicized.
I understand this as a two fold message.
1. Those who say, “Blessed is He that comes in the name of God” …
2. Will be gathered in His name and there He will be in their presence.
Not the place built with humans hands but those coming together in His name to share…
The “In” Crowd
If any man be “in Christ” [the Scriptures state in 2 Corinthians 5.17], he (or she) is a new creation… Are you “in?” A sheep or a goat? Wheat or tares? Who knows? God does. And so do we, for “The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.” (Romans 8.16)
When you pray, do you say “Father?” What gives you (or me) the “right” to be so (yes) brazen as to claim this as truth? ~ Beloved, “now” are we the sons [and daughters] of God, and it does not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when ‘He’ shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is! ~ (I John 3.2)
Who (sumdumguy inquired) is “He?” Christianity centers entirely in, on and around Christ. He is both the Author and the Perfecter of our [common] faith. And the culmination of His work, while He was yet with us was not the healing of the deaf, or the giving of sight to the blind, or the feeding of the hungry masses – these were but “proofs” of Who He was. The mission of the Messiah was the Tslav, the execution stake. Hear the prayer of the Pascal Lamb: “I have glorified You on earth by accomplishing the work You gave Me to do. And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world existed.”… (John 17.4,5)
Now back to our Savior’s statement: ~ Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. *(Matthew 16:18)
First, let us consider “this rock.” You are petros (little rock) and upon this Rock (petra – a firm foundation or footing of rock), I WILL build my church. (Selah). Yes, let us pause here to consider what He just promised. “I will build.” I love [love] this. Beloved brother or sister, when Christ says He is going to do something — it gets done. He is the Builder of His Body and His beloved Bride. The church, [the ecclessia] is NOT a building. It is an “organism,” (living stones, bro!), — not an organization! And, as far as your particular “brand?” of Christianity (with over 30,000 denominations!) – Let the Scriptures speak: “other sheep have I which are not of this fold!” (John 10.16) Welcome the words of our crucified, buried and resurrected Savior, who is BTW, the incarnate Word of God: ~ My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me ~
(John 10.27) And now, these parting, yes “personal” words: [The One who spoke, still speaks!] “Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts..” (Hebrews 3.15)
Amen “do not harden your hearts” “for I(Yeshua) did not come into the world to judge the world….but that it might be saved”
My comment/question is very elementary for this group,I know, so please forgive me if I sound some what ignorant. But what does this mean to us in real life? This message has pricked my heart in a way that I have not experienced in a long while. I know there is something here that can change me but I don’t know how that looks. Please tell me what this means for us on a daily basis. If being a moral and compassionate person is not what following the Messiah means than what? What am I missing and it is stirred in me that something is missing. Thanks for all your thoughts and comments in advance.
Cheryl
Good morning Cheryl, here are some thoughts you might muse over concerning “morality” as the modern world understands it versus “biblical morality”. Laws concerning morality in a community setting are put in place to gain an order and to provide protection along with a host of other reasons. While all that is a good thing, the bible is written from a covenant perspective, and while it may provide all the same things (protection, etc.) the thrust of obedience to the covenant isn’t about the consequences of breaking or upholding lawful behavior in itself, as much as it’s concerning reflecting the god you worship by your activities. It’s an agreement between us and God as a “joint effort”. While much of the difference (in behavior) looks very similar, you run up against the difference in passages such as those concerning Joshua and his destruction of some surrounding nations. What he accomplished we wouldn’t consider as “moral” and yet, he was acting according to covenant. In the covenant, morality (if that’s even an appropriate term) is determined by what God Himself dictates. The question for us is, am I walking lawfully because I fear retribution from the state if I murder, or if I walk that way because it reflects my God to those I encounter.
I’ll take a stab at it. Love the Lord Yahh with all your self your whole being and love your naighbors as your self. This is the summation of the law and the prophets.
I have long belived that true genius is the simplification of the complex. The distillation of many issues into a simple, clear concise expression that sums up and exposes true light is genius. I have also concluded it requires the light of Yahh illuminating the mind of man and men willingly giving it expression. If those men do not humble themselves and acknowledge the source of that light the will be destroyed by it. One good example of genious would be the author of these words “Politically, modernity is shaped by “liberalism,” the political system dedicated to the one proposition that political systems must not be dedicated to one proposition.” Another good example would be; “And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche
Coming back agin remembering one must be carefull with such truth. ..
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. “
Arthur Schopenhauer BTW.
Jesus did not speak Hebrew, if he and his followers spoke hebrew the new testament would have been written in hebrew for ease and the fact that it was their sacred langauge, but it was written in coptic greek, which was the inforced langauge of the jews since alexandre the great,, if he meant to say assembly then thats what he meant. 300 hundred years of a langauge is enough to forget the real sence of your mother tounge and add confusion.
While I appreciate you fervor, your argument is flawed. The fact that the New Testament text is written in Greek says nothing about what language was SPOKEN. You might want to do some investigation here. Read Biven and Blizzard, for example. Or Fluser.
hebrew was their sacred langauge, for all their sacred texts, if they spoke hebrew, why did they write in coptic Greek, a second langauge in which they might note keep the sublety of their hebrew, it is illogical, so i say they had lost their hebrew as first langauge, and spoke greek with ease. the links with greek myth and new testament symbols are very clear too. so it might even have been written by Greeks, It’s clear in the 12 tribes and 12 deciples we see a rewritting of the old testament in the new, by a greek thinking mind,
If you want to hear a former Orthodox Jewish Rabbi linguist scholar argue for 2 hours on You Tube that Matthew WAS originally written in Hebrew, search this
Nehemia Gordon
The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus
Gordon was RAISED by an Orthodox Jewish rabbi but no where do I learn that he WAS a rabbi although obviously he was taught Torah. He is a Karaite Jew, a fringe sect of Judaism at best and is rejected by many more traditional Jews of many kinds. I don’t think there can be much to learn from him about Judaism IMHO Dan.
A considered reply would be much more useful than hiding behind an anonymous “thumbs down.”