Thoughts on II Peter 3:15&16

[Rose]

As I was reading through II Peter trying to gain a better understanding of the 'End Times', I came to a verse near the end that caused me to stop and meditate upon the significance of it.

Stepping back into time, I thought of Peter, who walked and talked with Jesus, the one whom Jesus called the Rock, upon whom He would build His church, the one whom He told to feed His sheep if he loved Him; also the one who agonized over denying his Lord three times. This is the man who wrote the first and second epistles of Peter, who wrote the verse that is the object of my thought.

II Peter 3:15 & 16 says ' consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation- as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.'

The significance this verse gives to the relationship that Peter had with Paul is very insightful to me. Peter’s epistle was written in the mid 60’s AD and Paul’s epistles are dated from the late 40’s to early 60’s AD, so it appears Peter had first hand knowledge of Paul’s epistles to the churches, giving credence to the veracity of Paul’s writings being God inspired, and totally accepted by Peter, the Rock, one of the disciples who walked with Jesus the Son of God.

It is also plain to see that people were already trying to twist and change Scripture, ending in their own destruction.

[joel]

Rose, as we study and contemplate the letters of what we call "The New Testament", it is evident that there is a distinction between those things written by Paul, and, those things written by those who followed after Paul; the writer of Hebrews, James, John and Peter.

As we study the Acts of the Apostles, we see that there was a definitive adjustment between Paul and the apostles in Jerusalem. These matters, to some who argue that it shows a division within the body, and, then, to some, who say that it is important to follow either in one direction or the other, are important to all of us who seek to hear accurately what the Lord is saying to His body.

Paul takes considerable time to explain that our standing with God (justification) is not a matters of our works, or efforts, to please God. It is purely a matter of the sacrificial "works" of Christ, and His faith.

The following writers, James and John and Peter, focus on matters of works that follow faith.

What may appear to be an argument between them is actually a completion of our faith.

We cannot do anything that would cause God to owe us "salvation" (Paul's view).
But, we are to demonstrate that our faith produces corresponding "works" (the view of the others).

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Rose, as we study and contemplate the letters of what we call "The New Testament", it is evident that there is a distinction between those things written by Paul, and, those things written by those who followed after Paul; the writer of Hebrews, James, John and Peter.

As we study the Acts of the Apostles, we see that there was a definitive adjustment between Paul and the apostles in Jerusalem. These matters, to some who argue that it shows a division within the body, and, then, to some, who say that it is important to follow either in one direction or the other, are important to all of us who seek to hear accurately what the Lord is saying to His body.

Paul takes considerable time to explain that our standing with God (justification) is not a matters of our works, or efforts, to please God. It is purely a matter of the sacrificial "works" of Christ, and His faith.

The following writers, James and John and Peter, focus on matters of works that follow faith.

What may appear to be an argument between them is actually a completion of our faith.

We cannot do anything that would cause God to owe us "salvation" (Paul's view).
But, we are to demonstrate that our faith produces corresponding "works" (the view of the others).

Joel

Hi Joel,

Great to see you here!

I agree that there is a distinction in style between Paul and the other Apostles, and that it helps to discern their differences in emphasis. But in that process, some have erred and taught that the later epistles are contrary to Paul and not even addressed to Christians. I first ran into this idea at a Berean Church in Seattle, which teaches that "rightly dividing the word of truth" means that we need to discern between books addressed to Gentile Christians (Paul's letters only) and those addressed to "Jewish Christians." Have you encountered this idea? What do you think of it?

The worst case scenario is the extreme error amongst some messianics who want assert we are still supposed to "keep Torah" and who actually deny Paul altogether, calling him a "false apostle."

When I read Rose's post, it makes me appreciate the integrity of the Bible. Peter walked with Jesus and he bears witness of Paul as both a Christian brother and prophet of God who wrote inspired Scripture. For me, it is a great joy to see one part of Scripture bearing witness to another part.

Richard

[joel]

Amen, Richard. And it is good to be here.

(Richard said....)
"I first ran into this idea at a Berean Church in Seattle, which teaches that "rightly dividing the word of truth" means that we need to discern between books addressed to Gentile Christians (Paul's letters only) and those addressed to "Jewish Christians." Have you encountered this idea? What do you think of it?"
---------------------------------

Yes, I am familiar with those who separate Paul's teachings as to those of the nations, and, the teachings of the others, as to those of the circumcision.

I believe that there is some validity in considering the differences in these messages.

On the other hand, it is becoming increasingly evident, that, as we approach the end of this current era, we are to identify the unity between them, in contradistinction to the differences.

The revelation that may be impending is the understanding of what the nation of Israel is called to accomplish, and what the body of Christ is called, in the celestial realm, to accomplish.

Is one the bride (Israel) on the earth, and, the other (those called out of the nations, in the dispensation of Paul), the body of Christ?

In one realm, that which applies to the earth, the relationship between the man and woman, the bridegroom and the bride, may apply specifically to Israel, as a nation.

In the other realm, that which applies to the heavenlies, the relationship between the man and woman is dissolved. There is no distinction between male and female in the heavenly realms. Consequently, the body of Christ is comprised of the members, and the head.

These are matters which are of great importance, and, your input, as the administrator of this site, are so vital to help us in our joint quest of truth.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Amen, Richard. And it is good to be here.

(Richard said....)
"I first ran into this idea at a Berean Church in Seattle, which teaches that "rightly dividing the word of truth" means that we need to discern between books addressed to Gentile Christians (Paul's letters only) and those addressed to "Jewish Christians." Have you encountered this idea? What do you think of it?"
---------------------------------

Yes, I am familiar with those who separate Paul's teachings as to those of the nations, and, the teachings of the others, as to those of the circumcision.

I believe that there is some validity in considering the differences in these messages.
It would be good to explore that more. I know that one primary point they stress is that God revealed the idea of the "Body of Christ" only through Paul. But I would have to do a little research before commenting more, since I don't know where they try to go with that idea. I mention it because I notice it relates to your comments below.


On the other hand, it is becoming increasingly evident, that, as we approach the end of this current era, we are to identify the unity between them, in contradistinction to the differences.
One interesting point here. As far as I know, folks who divide between Paul and the "Hebrew epistles" group the book of Hebrews with the latter, for obvious reasons. And this is one point that the structure of the Bible Wheel impacts, since we have a large-scale symmetry only when we consider Hebrews a "Pauline Epistle." Here is the pic of the symmetry. Its from page 98 of the Bible Wheel book, which I still need to translate into html and post. If there are 14 Pauline epistles, then their is a common divider across all three cycles between Spokes 14 and 15.

http://www.biblewheel.com/Canon/OT_Symmetry.gif


The revelation that may be impending is the understanding of what the nation of Israel is called to accomplish, and what the body of Christ is called, in the celestial realm, to accomplish.

Is one the bride (Israel) on the earth, and, the other (those called out of the nations, in the dispensation of Paul), the body of Christ?
Well ... I've never thought of that possibility. I've always thought that the Church was both the Body and the Bride of Christ, and that those were just two different metaphors. But if we press them to be literal descriptions, then I guess we would have a bit of a conundrum! Its definitely worth pursuing ... the truth needs to be clarified.


In one realm, that which applies to the earth, the relationship between the man and woman, the bridegroom and the bride, may apply specifically to Israel, as a nation.

In the other realm, that which applies to the heavenlies, the relationship between the man and woman is dissolved. There is no distinction between male and female in the heavenly realms. Consequently, the body of Christ is comprised of the members, and the head.
Well, one immediate challenge to that view is the fact that the marriage of the lamb takes place in heaven:

Revelation 19:1 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God: ... 6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. 7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.


These are matters which are of great importance, and, your input, as the administrator of this site, are so vital to help us in our joint quest of truth.

Joel
Yes Joel, you are absolutely correct, these are very important, and intriguing questions that touch up many different aspects of our biblical understanding. I'm glad you brought them up! I can see you are going to be a great asset to our community. :)

Richard

[Stephen]

Hi Joel and Richard!

This is a really interesting thread. You raise postulations that show a great deal of insight and breadth of understanding. I am very impressed, and grateful for the sharing.

Joel, like you I see a distinction between the Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ, and along similar lines as you. My understanding is that we, the Spirit-filled believers, form the Body of Christ; and that Israel is the Bride of Christ. When I say Israel I don't mean the nation state of Israel. I mean the 12 tribes of Israel, and the nations they have become today, which includes America (in fact, is mainly America). I follow your thoughts, as you have expressed them, and am intrigued by your reasoning.

Richard has added further to our understanding through the Bible Wheel. It offers graphic evidence to Joel's postulations. I find Richard's cutout of the Bible Wheel compelling. I agree with the Pauline nature of Hebrews being verified through the Bible Wheel. What is even more fascinating is that the Bible Wheel divides the Pauline epistles from the following epistles along the Post-Exilic axis. This is a tremendous insight!

I had never contemplated the idea that Paul's epistles serve a different function to those it precedes. The Bible Wheel appears to support this position. I say that because the Post-Exilic letters that follow are part of a schema that runs through all three levels of the Wheel. If there's any single aspect that rubber-stamps the veracity of the Bible Wheel, then this is surely it.

Now, if we are to make a distinction between the Pauline epistles / Post-Exilic epistles along the lines of Body of Christ / Bride of Christ, we have a very interesting thematic shift that ties in with the subject of who Israel is today. It follows that if Paul is writing to the church, the Body of Christ, then James and Peter must be writing to Israel, a nation which is yet to come out of exile! Two distinct entities, related though not the same.

Richard, as you know from another thread, I oppose replacement theology, which says that the church is Israel. This aspect of distinguishing between the Pauline and the Post-Exilic epistles along the lines of the intended audience is evidence that I wished to introduce at some later stage. This thread, and the sharing between Joel and yourself, has preempted that discussion.

I believe the Post-Exilic epistles are intended chiefly for the Bride, i.e Israel. That's not to say that they are not intended for the church, too. Of course, all the epistles are intended for all believers to learn from! What I am saying, though, is that they have a more fundamental purpose. That purpose is to address biblical Israel once she has finished the exile begun under Tilgath-Pilneser III, whose reign began in 745 BC. Israel was to serve her 'seven times' punishment first, as prescribed in Leviticus 26, specifically verses 27 and 28 (note the change in voice and severity in these two verses). This punishment was to last seven (times), being 7 x 360 = 2520. More on this some other time.

It so happens that America dates from 1776, exactly 2520 years from when Tilgath-Pilneser III acceded to the throne of Assyria, founding the neo-Assyrian Empire. It also just happens that 1 Peter begins with the words 'Petros apostolou' which sum to 1776. It also just happens that much of the imagery in 1 Peter is taken from scriptures relating specifically to Israel, its origins as the people of God, its exile, and its reformation in the fullness of time. It also just happens that 'Petros apostolou' means 'stone set apart', or 'commissioned stone'. It also just happens that there is a stone set apart over the pyramid on the Great Seal. It also just happens that Peter quotes Psalm 118:22,23; a stone that has become both a corner-stone and a head-stone ... in other words, an apex or zenith.

I could go on and on from 1 Peter, and probably will do so at another time. The point I would like to make is this. The Bible Wheel distinguishes between Pauline epistles and Post-Exilic epistles. It is possible that it does so along the lines of dividing epistles specifically intended for the church, and epistles addressing the post-exilic Israel - a yet future event at the time of their writing. Moreover, the Bible Wheel informs us that there are groups of Books intended to be understood in the context of post-exilic. I have quoted 1 Peter, but the Bible Wheel tells us that on spoke 16 there are supplementary Books in Nehemiah and Zechariah. And when these supplementary Books are examined, they only reaffirm through their symbolism that (chiefly) America is post-exilic Israel, the ten-tribed Northern Kingdom, the sinful nation that God cast off, calling her Lo-Ammi, Not-My-People, the daughter of a harlot; the nation to whom God also said that, in the fullness time, He would call My People once more, the nation that would accept the call to take the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to the ends of the Earth.

The Bible Wheel actually supports the belief that 1 Peter may have been written specifically to America! In this respect, it is an epistle of a thoroughly prophetic nature, a miracle in its own right when understood in this light. Small wonder, for the Lord Jesus Christ himself prophesied very specifically of America over 17 centuries before the nation ever came into existence!

Stephen

PS: 1 Peter opens 'Petros apostolos Ihsou Xristou', summing to 37 x 112 (YHWH Elohim). The two nominals, 'Petros' and 'Ihsou', sum to 1443 = 37 x 39; and the two titles, 'apostolos' and 'Xristou', sum to 2701 = 37 x 73. Also, as stated, 'Petros apostolos' sums to 1776; and 'Ihsou Xristou' sums to 2368 = 37 x 64. There is deep numerical integration in the opening words of Peter, the 'stone set apart of Jesus Christ'.

PSS: Richard, the term 'apostolos' has very interesting roots. The prefix 'apo' means 'to separate one thing from another; to make a distinction'. These resonate precisely with the meaning of 'badeel', as in 'haAben haBadeel' in the hands of Zerubbabel, found in Zechariah 4. There is some dense post-exilic stuff in that chapter that finds its outlet in 1 Peter, and its prophecy for America. The second root is 'stello', meaning 'to place, to prepare'.

[joel]

Stephen, I look forward to fellowship with you, and Richard, and others on these matters of consequence. YOu obviously have important input. Thanks, Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Joel and Richard!

This is a really interesting thread. You raise postulations that show a great deal of insight and breadth of understanding. I am very impressed, and grateful for the sharing.

Joel, like you I see a distinction between the Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ, and along similar lines as you. My understanding is that we, the Spirit-filled believers, form the Body of Christ; and that Israel is the Bride of Christ. When I say Israel I don't mean the nation state of Israel. I mean the 12 tribes of Israel, and the nations they have become today, which includes America (in fact, is mainly America). I follow your thoughts, as you have expressed them, and am intrigued by your reasoning.
Hi Stephen,

This is something I want to pursue with both your and Joel. It doesn't make any sense to me.

The New Testament explicitly likens the Church to both the Body and the Bride in a single passage:

Ephesians 5:22-32 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

There it is. The Body of Christ is the Wife of Christ is the Church, all in the same passage.

I would really like to know the origin and proof of the idea that Israel, as opposed to the Church, is the Bride of Christ.


Richard has added further to our understanding through the Bible Wheel. It offers graphic evidence to Joel's postulations. I find Richard's cutout of the Bible Wheel compelling. I agree with the Pauline nature of Hebrews being verified through the Bible Wheel. What is even more fascinating is that the Bible Wheel divides the Pauline epistles from the following epistles along the Post-Exilic axis. This is a tremendous insight!
Yes, I find that quite astounding too! Especially since the "Epistles to the scattered - James, 1,2 Peter - align with the Post-Exilic history and prophecy.


I had never contemplated the idea that Paul's epistles serve a different function to those it precedes. The Bible Wheel appears to support this position. I say that because the Post-Exilic letters that follow are part of a schema that runs through all three levels of the Wheel. If there's any single aspect that rubber-stamps the veracity of the Bible Wheel, then this is surely it.
I see it as one of many such confirmations ;)


Now, if we are to make a distinction between the Pauline epistles / Post-Exilic epistles along the lines of Body of Christ / Bride of Christ, we have a very interesting thematic shift that ties in with the subject of who Israel is today. It follows that if Paul is writing to the church, the Body of Christ, then James and Peter must be writing to Israel, a nation which is yet to come out of exile! Two distinct entities, related though not the same.
But where do we get such an idea in the first place? What in the text would suggest that the catholic epistles are for "Bride" versus the "Body" of Christ? I never would have gotten the idea from just reading the text. I always feel that Paul, James, Peter and John are speaking with one voice to the Body/Bride of Christ.


Richard, as you know from another thread, I oppose replacement theology, which says that the church is Israel.
You know Stephen, I would be really interested to know where you got your understanding about the definition and meaning of "replacement theology." Can you quote any "replacement theologians? Do you have any sources of people who profess those ideas? I feel like I'm working in a bit of a vacuum. Its like talking about "Calvinism" without a single quote from Calvin, Spurgeon, Sproul, James White, or any of the authorities who claim to be Calvinists.


This aspect of distinguishing between the Pauline and the Post-Exilic epistles along the lines of the intended audience is evidence that I wished to introduce at some later stage. This thread, and the sharing between Joel and yourself, has preempted that discussion.

I believe the Post-Exilic epistles are intended chiefly for the Bride, i.e Israel.

Before we get to that, I want to the idea that Israel is the Bride of Christ derived and supported from the Bible. The problem right now is that I'm not aware of a single verse being put forward in support of this idea. We need to focus on the foundation right now.


That's not to say that they are not intended for the church, too. Of course, all the epistles are intended for all believers to learn from! What I am saying, though, is that they have a more fundamental purpose. That purpose is to address biblical Israel once she has finished the exile begun under Tilgath-Pilneser III, whose reign began in 745 BC. Israel was to serve her 'seven times' punishment first, as prescribed in Leviticus 26, specifically verses 27 and 28 (note the change in voice and severity in these two verses). This punishment was to last seven (times), being 7 x 360 = 2520. More on this some other time.
I don't get it. My understanding of Scripture says there is no Jew or Gentile, no "commonwealth of Israel" separate from the Gentile believers because we are one new man, as it is written:

Ephesians 2:11 - 3:1 11 ¶ Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel [= all Israel = the Circumcision], and strangers from the covenants of promise [note the promise was first to the Jews/Israel then to the Gentiles], having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one [no more Israel vs Gentile, we are ONE], and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man [Jew/Israel + Gentile = ONE], so making peace; 16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: 17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. 18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. 19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints [we are ONE PEOPLE OF GOD], and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.


It so happens that America dates from 1776, exactly 2520 years from when Tilgath-Pilneser III acceded to the throne of Assyria, founding the neo-Assyrian Empire.
That's interesting .... there could be a meta-fulfillment of prophecy here. But it still seems wrong to suggest that that actual people are the actual descendants of actual Israel (in the 12-tribe sense). The Gospel went to the whole world, God is not interested in one ethnic group, Jesus is the Saviour of the World.


It also just happens that 1 Peter begins with the words 'Petros apostolou' which sum to 1776.
That is striking! Especially given the symbolism of the Pyramind (Stone/Petra) and Spoke 16 (Zechariah upon one stone, Capstone, etc) and its alignment with 1 Peter. Very tight stuff.


It also just happens that much of the imagery in 1 Peter is taken from scriptures relating specifically to Israel, its origins as the people of God, its exile, and its reformation in the fullness of time. It also just happens that 'Petros apostolou' means 'stone set apart', or 'commissioned stone'. It also just happens that there is a stone set apart over the pyramid on the Great Seal. It also just happens that Peter quotes Psalm 118:22,23; a stone that has become both a corner-stone and a head-stone ... in other words, an apex or zenith.
We're definitely tracking here. You just said what I wrote before I got to this part of your LOOOONNNGGG note!

The idea of Petros Apostolos is interesting, but I'm not sure I could commit to its meaning the way you put it. Apostolos is from the root meaning "sent" not "set apart." And the Greek word for the cornerstone quoted from PS 118:22 is lithos rather than petros. Sure, the meanings overlap, and are coherent, but the connections is not as strong as you made it seem.



I could go on and on from 1 Peter, and probably will do so at another time.
Please do! That would be a valuable addition to our knowledge.


The point I would like to make is this. The Bible Wheel distinguishes between Pauline epistles and Post-Exilic epistles. It is possible that it does so along the lines of dividing epistles specifically intended for the church, and epistles addressing the post-exilic Israel - a yet future event at the time of their writing.
We really need to find a reason from Scripture to even be talking about post-exilic Israel as having any role to play in anything. This is the missing foundation stone in the whole edifice you are presenting to me. I have been reading the Bible for many years, and this idea never has occurred to me.


Moreover, the Bible Wheel informs us that there are groups of Books intended to be understood in the context of post-exilic. I have quoted 1 Peter, but the Bible Wheel tells us that on spoke 16 there are supplementary Books in Nehemiah and Zechariah. And when these supplementary Books are examined, they only reaffirm through their symbolism that (chiefly) America is post-exilic Israel, the ten-tribed Northern Kingdom, the sinful nation that God cast off, calling her Lo-Ammi, Not-My-People, the daughter of a harlot; the nation to whom God also said that, in the fullness time, He would call My People once more, the nation that would accept the call to take the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to the ends of the Earth.
I understand your assertion, but where is its biblical support? I want you to quote me chapter and verse. To paraphrase Luther, my heart is captive to the Word of God. If you can't prove it to me from the Bible, then I can not change my point of view.


The Bible Wheel actually supports the belief that 1 Peter may have been written specifically to America! In this respect, it is an epistle of a thoroughly prophetic nature, a miracle in its own right when understood in this light. Small wonder, for the Lord Jesus Christ himself prophesied very specifically of America over 17 centuries before the nation ever came into existence!

Stephen
Thanks again Bro - very helpful post. I really look forward to getting down to the bedrock on this question.


PS: 1 Peter opens 'Petros apostolos Ihsou Xristou', summing to 37 x 112 (YHWH Elohim). The two nominals, 'Petros' and 'Ihsou', sum to 1443 = 37 x 39; and the two titles, 'apostolos' and 'Xristou', sum to 2701 = 37 x 73. Also, as stated, 'Petros apostolos' sums to 1776; and 'Ihsou Xristou' sums to 2368 = 37 x 64. There is deep numerical integration in the opening words of Peter, the 'stone set apart of Jesus Christ'.
Excellent numbers. If you like, we can follow them up in the Gematria section.

Thanks again for a most interesting post!

PS: I have to increase the size allowed for posts from 10,000 to 15,000 characters to post this reply! We gotta break things down into more "byte-size" pieces, if ya know what I mean. :rolleyes:

[joel]

Richard, you said;

"The New Testament explicitly likens the Church to both the Body and the Bride in a single passage:

Ephesians 5:22-32 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

There it is. The Body of Christ is the Wife of Christ is the Church, all in the same passage.

I would really like to know the origin and proof of the idea that Israel, as opposed to the Church, is the Bride of Christ."
----------------------------------------------------

Richard, let's try to dissect the passage (Eph. 5:22-32) into components parts;

(Wives)
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
(Husbands)
23 For the husband is head of the wife,
(Christ)
even as Christ is Head of the church:
and He is the saviour of the body.
(Wives)
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
(Husbands)
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as
(Christ)
Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
(Christ)
26 That he might santify it and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing: but that it should be holy and without blemish.
(Husbands)
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies.
(Husbands)
He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
(Husbands)
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it,
(Christ, the Lord)
even as the Lord the church:
(Wives, and husbands, specifically, and all believers included)
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
(Husbands and wives)
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined
unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
(Christ, and the church)
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
--------------------------------------

As we remain on the earth, in these bodies of flesh, and, we, as men and women, enter into a marriage, there is a definitive order concerning the roles of the men (husbands), and the women (wives).

The woman is to be subject to her husband. This is appropriate concerning her role as a married woman. Her subjection is in accordance with her subjection to the Lord.
The husband is the head of the wife in relation to their respective roles. His "headship" is reflective of the headship of Christ as the head of the church.
In verse 23, in last section of the verse, there is introduced an additional truth; "....and he is the saviour of the body." This role is descriptive of Christ in relation to the church, which is his body. He is the saviour of the body.
The husband is not said to be the "saviour" of his wife.

As the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives are to be subject to their husbands, in every thing.

The husband is then instructed to "love" his wife. In the same manner as Christ loved the church, he (Christ) gave himself for it (the church).

Note that the wife's role is to be "subject to her husband".
Note that the husband's role is to "love" his wife.

Please note that in this section of Ephesians, he (Christ) is "the saviour of the body".

Beginning in chapter 4 of Ephesians, Paul discusses our "walk" as we remain on the earth. God has placed us in different roles, as we learn to "walk", and in those roles we have relationship responsibilites that can be compared to
the relationship responsibilities between members of his body, the called out "church" as it continues to function on the earth.

The question is; do we conclude that the "Bride", and the "church", which is His body, are the same? If so, or, if not, is it important?

I do believe that it is important. And, as we continue our search, let us look to other sections of scripture.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The question is; do we conclude that the "Bride", and the "church", which is His body, are the same? If so, or, if not, is it important?

I do believe that it is important. And, as we continue our search, let us look to other sections of scripture.

Joel

Hi Joel,

I agree with all the Scriptures you quoted, and I think you stated the big question well:

Are we to conclude that the Bride is the Church?

Of course, I already answered that in the affirmative.

Let me explain my answer. There are many metaphors for the Church. She is called a "Temple" of God's Spirit and the "Body" of Christ, who is Himself called the "Temple" of God. This shows how the metaphors overlap and interrelate. We don't think about a physical bricks when Peter says we are "lively stones" being "built up a spiritual house" (1 Pet) or when Paul says "all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord" (Eph 2.21) Why then would we take the Bride metaphor "literally", and try to separate it from the metaphors of the Body and the Temple?

Note also that the Bible mixes the metaphors of City, Bride, and Tabernacle in Revelation 21:2-3

And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

Richard

[joel]

Richard, thanks for your response.

I would ask that you consider some thoughts concerning this very important matter.

1.) When a man is joined in marriage to a woman, he has a physical body, and she has a physical body as well. They, as two individuals, are said to be "one body" when they are married.
2.) We know that in the heavenly realms there is no distinction between male and female. Such a distinction is appropriate to the earth, and, disappears when we are taken into the celestial.
3.) The apostle Paul, when we study his letters, never uses the term, "bride". He does, however, use the relationship between the man and the woman, as they exist within their respective roles as husband and wife on the eath, and calls them "husband" and "wife". Paul is the apostle to the nations, and, in that role, is responsible to bring the truth to the nations.
4.) Peter, the apostle to (of) the circumcision, is responsible to bring the truth to the "out-called assembly" of the called believers of the twelve tribes of Israel, in anticipation of the Kingdom of God being brought into reality on the earth.

As long as the church, the body of Christ, remains on the earth, there is a definite relationship between wives and husbands, and the head of the church, Christ Jesus, our Lord.

When, however, the time is appropriate, I believe that Paul teaches that His called-out assembly, the church, which is His body, will be transferred to a another realm (the celestial) where a specific role will be fulfilled by His body.

At that time, in a concurrent manner, the "Bride of the Lamb" will be called forth to fulfill a role, separate from the body which is the celestial complement, on the earth, where the marriage relationship is appropriate.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard, thanks for your response.

I would ask that you consider some thoughts concerning this very important matter.

Certainly! I am very happy to consider your ideas, but please be patient with me as I obstinately disagree with you! :lol: I can't help it, because we have very different opinions on this matter. But I respect you and thank you for trying to explain your opinions to me. I think we both, and everyone else lurking, will benefit.


1.) When a man is joined in marriage to a woman, he has a physical body, and she has a physical body as well. They, as two individuals, are said to be "one body" when they are married.
2.) We know that in the heavenly realms there is no distinction between male and female. Such a distinction is appropriate to the earth, and, disappears when we are taken into the celestial.
The distinction between male and female is already gone, as it is written:

Galatians 3:28-29 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Yet we still are "male and female" in a physical sense. Do you think it will be different in heaven? Jesus isn't "male" anymore because He ascended to heaven and has His resurrection body?

What do you imagine our glorified bodies will be like?


3.) The apostle Paul, when we study his letters, never uses the term, "bride".
Correct, but John uses "bride" in what I believe is a reference to the church [John 3:29], and I see a perfect unity in the teachings of all the apostles.


He does, however, use the relationship between the man and the woman, as they exist within their respective roles as husband and wife on the eath, and calls them "husband" and "wife". Paul is the apostle to the nations, and, in that role, is responsible to bring the truth to the nations.
True, he was the Apostle to the Gentiles. But that does not mean the truth he brought them was one whit different than the truth proclaimed by the other apostles. There is one Gospel, one Lord, one body:

Ephesians 4:4-6 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.


4.) Peter, the apostle to (of) the circumcision, is responsible to bring the truth to the "out-called assembly" of the called believers of the twelve tribes of Israel, in anticipation of the Kingdom of God being brought into reality on the earth.
The church is the "out-called assembly." That's the literal meaning of ecclesia. We are the ones "Called of God." God does not have separate groups of people called "Bride" and "Body". Peter and Paul are in absolute accord. There are not two gospels.


As long as the church, the body of Christ, remains on the earth, there is a definite relationship between wives and husbands, and the head of the church, Christ Jesus, our Lord.
Christ is the head of the Church which is both "His body" and "His bride."


When, however, the time is appropriate, I believe that Paul teaches that His called-out assembly, the church, which is His body, will be transferred to a another realm (the celestial) where a specific role will be fulfilled by His body.

At that time, in a concurrent manner, the "Bride of the Lamb" will be called forth to fulfill a role, separate from the body which is the celestial complement, on the earth, where the marriage relationship is appropriate.

Joel


So where did you get this idea that the Body and the Bride are separate groups of people? If it were a clear biblical teaching, why don't you just take me to chapter and verse, so we can clear it up?

Thanks for trying to make this dense head of mine see another point of view, and God bless you Joel!

:thumb:

[Abigail]

If we think back to Adam and Eve, then because she was taken from him, together they did form one body. She was also his bride because she was made for the specific purpose of being a partner and helper to Adam. Overall I think both the body analogy and the bride thing are fitting because it captures the paradox in that we are one but we not the same.

It is interesting that John makes the statement he does in John 3:29 about the bridegroom. I remember listening to 'Hark the Herald Angels' once and I had been reading Psalm 19 and I was struck by how the song verses just seemed to shed light for me on the Psalm. The songs words:
'Late in time behold Him come, Off-spring of the virgin's womb. Veiled in flesh the God-head see,Hail the incarnate deity! Pleased as man with men to dwell, Jesus our Immanuel.
Hail the heaven born Prince of Peace! Hail the sun of Righteousness! Light and life to all He brings, Risen with healing in his wings'

I thought about how Paul would refer to our physical bodies as 'tents' and wondered if the second half of Psalm 19:4 could be referring to the incarnation

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It is interesting that John makes the statement he does in John 3:29 about the bridegroom. I remember listening to 'Hark the Herald Angels' once and I had been reading Psalm 19 and I was struck by how the song verses just seemed to shed light for me on the Psalm. The songs words:

'Late in time behold Him come, Off-spring of the virgin's womb. Veiled in flesh the God-head see,Hail the incarnate deity! Pleased as man with men to dwell, Jesus our Immanuel.
Hail the heaven born Prince of Peace! Hail the sun of Righteousness! Light and life to all He brings, Risen with healing in his wings'

I thought about how Paul would refer to our physical bodies as 'tents' and wondered if the second half of Psalm 19:4 could be referring to the incarnation

Excellent insight!

Psalm 19:4 their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,

It is John who reveals the Logos (Word) most clearly. And it was he who declared "the Word became flesh, and tabernacled amongst us." And it was he alone who, amongst the four gospel writers, refused to use the word sun (cf. Shin KeyWord Shemesh), preferring the phrase "light of the world" which forced an association with the title that the Incarnate Logos used as His own. Indeed, thy Word is a Light! (Ps 119:105) Thus "His face" shines like the sun (Rev 1:16).

The typology is profound. The incarnation of the Word was prophesied in the image of the Tabernacle,which had the Ark of Testimony in its heart, the Holy of holies. And in the Ark was the Ten Commandments (prototypical Word of God) and the Manna (another symbol of the Word as proclaimed in John 6.) The the "Word" became "flesh" and tabernacled as the literal tabernacle with the children of Israel in the wilderness!

What a rich vein of pure gold!

Thanks Abigail.

[joel]

And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

Richard
------------------------------------------

If there is no distinction between the calling of the body and the calling of the bride, then, it is appropriate to assume that this section of scripture is speaking of the bride and the body as if they are one in the same.

If, however, the calling of the body and the calling of the bride are not the same, then, this section of scripture applies to the events that will occur on the earth........"the tabernacle of God is with men,......".

Paul clearly teaches that we, the body, are the temple of God. Is the tabernacle of God, and the temple of God the same?

The tabernacle is a temporary dwelling place. When all is accomplished, at the consummation, when God is all, and in all, and He dwells within all, will this "tabenacle" remain?

We should identify those things which are different, and treat them accordingly, rightly dividing the word of truth and in so doing, we will be workmen, not ashamed.

Everything in scripture does not belong to the "church" which is called out now in this era.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If there is no distinction between the calling of the body and the calling of the bride, then, it is appropriate to assume that this section of scripture is speaking of the bride and the body as if they are one in the same.

If, however, the calling of the body and the calling of the bride are not the same, then, this section of scripture applies to the events that will occur on the earth........"the tabernacle of God is with men,......".
I don't know anything about two different callings. Did you tell me, and I missed it? Please clarify.


Paul clearly teaches that we, the body, are the temple of God. Is the tabernacle of God, and the temple of God the same?
Historically, no. The tabernacle was introduced in Exodus. The first Temple was built by Solomon in 1 Kings.

On the other hand, I believe the typology of the tabernacle and temple as the "dwelling place of God" is identical in both cases. Is there any reason I should think differently? Both had the Ark of the Testimony in the Holy of holies. Also, Rev 21 uses the word "skene" which is probably derived from the Hebrew shakan (to dwell) and Shekinah (Glory). The same word, skene, is used in the LXX to refer to the tabernacle in Exodus.


The tabernacle is a temporary dwelling place. When all is accomplished, at the consummation, when God is all, and in all, and He dwells within all, will this "tabenacle" remain?
No - the shadow will give way to the Reality to which it pointed. Its like what happened with the passover lamb. It no longer is sacrificed because the True Lamb of God fulfilled the Type.


We should identify those things which are different, and treat them accordingly, rightly dividing the word of truth and in so doing, we will be workmen, not ashamed.
Amen! We must discern between the Type and its Fulfillment (Antitype).


Everything in scripture does not belong to the "church" which is called out now in this era.

True. There are things future. But I don't know of any prophecy yet to be fulfilled that applies to Israel in the flesh.

Keep working with me Joel. I'm sure we have much to teach each other.

God bless!

Richard

[joel]

(Richard commented)

I don't know anything about two different callings. Did you tell me, and I missed it? Please clarify.
---------------------------------------------

Let's consider two sections of Paul's Letter to the Romans.

In chapter 8, starting with verse 28,

28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called, and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

This section concerns the body of Christ whose members are called out of the nations.

The calling is in accord with the purpose of God.

God's revelation of the gospel through Paul which concerns His Son, includes the calling of the body out from the nations.

When Paul moves into a discussion of Israel, his brethren according to flesh, beginning in Chapter 9, and continuing through Chapter 11, he discusses their calling.

There are facets of their calling that include;
.....the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises (9:4).
Additionally, ....the patriarchs.....and most importantly, ...of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (9:5).

Paul's heartfelt concern is to understand what then of Israel?

He clarifies in Romans 9, beginning in verse 8;

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

9 For this is the word of the promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Paul points out as his discussion concerning Israel continues, that He (God) makes choices that align with His purposes.

He choice of Israel to be the channel of blessing to the nations as they "stumbled over the stumbling stone" would result in salvation coming to the nations.

But, God is not through with them, as Paul makes abundantly clear.

Yes, during this current era, believing Jews become joint members with those of the nations in the body of Christ.

This is a part of their calling as well.

But, when the complement of the nations enters in, the callousness upon Israel will be removed (Romans 11:25), and, then, they (Israel) will be brought into the fulfillment of their calling which concerns the earth, and the nations of the earth, after the body of Christ is removed, having bodies changed to enter the celestial realm.

That which belongs to Israel has not been permanently taken away, Their service unto God, as illustrated in the olive tree, has been temporarily terminated, but not permanently. The gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

If these things that I have stated above are in line with the revealed truths as presented by Paul, why is it difficult to see that the body and the bride are not one in the same?

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Joel,

I agreed with pretty much everything up until this point ...


But, when the complement of the nations enters in, the callousness upon Israel will be removed (Romans 11:25), and, then, they (Israel) will be brought into the fulfillment of their calling which concerns the earth, and the nations of the earth, after the body of Christ is removed, having bodies changed to enter the celestial realm.
I don't see it this way at all. Up to this point, you and I were in perfect agreement that all believers were one body. Now you have introduced a new idea suggesting that Christians will enter the celestial realm with new resurrection bodies while God unfolds a continuing drama here on earth. I do not recognize that as taught in Scripture. It sounds like pre-mill rapture theory and so seems to me like a huge invention - a cobbling together of half-understood passages into a fantastic and unbelievable story that contradicts the general thrust of the whole Bible.

I trust you recognize I am honoring you by speaking frankly and freely. You have my full respect. I just happen to disagree with your position on this point.


That which belongs to Israel has not been permanently taken away, Their service unto God, as illustrated in the olive tree, has been temporarily terminated, but not permanently. The gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

If these things that I have stated above are in line with the revealed truths as presented by Paul, why is it difficult to see that the body and the bride are not one in the same?

Joel

Well ..... we were tracking pretty well until you added a huge chunk of theology that we have not yet discussed, let alone come to an agreement upon. Your entire presentation hinges on the idea that the "body" will be "raptured" and then the eyes of the "bride" will be opened.

I don't believe in the rapture, as stated in another thread (http://www.biblewheel.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=22). It might help you understand where I am coming from. If you would like to pursue the question of the rapture itself, you could answer in that thread.

This is an example of why biblical discussions can be so difficult. We all have different sets of assumptions that require a lot of discussion just to uncover, let alone resolve!

[joel]

"This is an example of why biblical discussions can be so difficult. We all have different sets of assumptions that require a lot of discussion just to uncover, let alone resolve!"

Amen. And, that is why I respect you too, Richard, your lack of contention.
I will view the other thread.

In the meantime, grace and peace to you.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

"This is an example of why biblical discussions can be so difficult. We all have different sets of assumptions that require a lot of discussion just to uncover, let alone resolve!"

Amen. And, that is why I respect you too, Richard, your lack of contention.
I will view the other thread.

In the meantime, grace and peace to you.

Joel

Amen, and thank you my God-blessed brother.

Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

[Kdana]

As I was reading through II Peter trying to gain a better understanding of the 'End Times', I came to a verse near the end that caused me to stop and meditate upon the significance of it.

Stepping back into time, I thought of Peter, who walked and talked with Jesus, the one whom Jesus called the Rock, upon whom He would build His church, the one whom He told to feed His sheep if he loved Him; also the one who agonized over denying his Lord three times. This is the man who wrote the first and second epistles of Peter, who wrote the verse that is the object of my thought.

II Peter 3:15 & 16 says ' consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation- as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.'

The significance this verse gives to the relationship that Peter had with Paul is very insightful to me. Peter’s epistle was written in the mid 60’s AD and Paul’s epistles are dated from the late 40’s to early 60’s AD, so it appears Peter had first hand knowledge of Paul’s epistles to the churches, giving credence to the veracity of Paul’s writings being God inspired, and totally accepted by Peter, the Rock, one of the disciples who walked with Jesus the Son of God.

It is also plain to see that people were already trying to twist and change Scripture, ending in their own destruction.

Rose,
Do you believe the following verses suggest that Jesus called Peter the Rock and is building his church upon him (Peter)? I believe Jesus said he was building his church upon the fact that He was the Christ, the Son of the living God>
Kdana


Mat 16:13 ¶ When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?


Mat 16:14 And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.


Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?


Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.


Mat 16:17 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.


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.


Mat 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.


Mat 16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Rose,
Do you believe the following verses suggest that Jesus called Peter the Rock and is building his church upon him (Peter)? I believe Jesus said he was building his church upon the fact that He was the Christ, the Son of the living God>
Kdana


Hi Kdana,

Since this is my first post to you, let me say "Welcome to our forum!"

:welcome:

I thought I'd jump in here while we're waiting for Rose to find time to answer.

Your question makes me think of this verse:


Ephesians 2:19-22 19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
Paul said that the church is built on the foundation of the "the foundation of the apostles and prophets" with "Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone."

Was Peter an Apostle? Yes.

Was Peter a Prophet? Yes. He wrote Holy Scripture.

Did Jesus say that he would build His Church upon Peter? Yes, that is the most literal and natural reading of the passage. The word play between Petros and petra is inescapable, and there is no indication in the text that Peter's confession should be taken as the antecedent of "this rock." If that were Christ's true intent, then we must ask why He made it seem otherwise.

Do all these answers cohere? Yes.

Do these interpretations of Matthew 16 and Ephesians 2 cohere? Yes.

The interpretation you offer does not flow naturally from the text. It appears to have been invented by Protestants to counter the claims of the Catholics. I don't think we should let a squabble between Christians determine how we interpret the Bible. We must look to the Bible for the truth. We must be careful not to twist it to fit our own agendas. We must never let our prejudices color what we read. I sincerely doubt that anyone ever would have invented that novel interpretation of Matt 16:18 if not for the battle with the Catholics. We must always be on guard against letting such things influence our interpretation of Scripture.

Of course, I don't think Matt 16:18 justifies the Catholic claims in any way at all. By their fruit ye shall know them. I need no contrived biblical argument to recognize the errors in the Catholic church.

Richard

[Rose]

I would also like to say.... welcome to the forum, Kdana :yo:

In response to your question about Peter being the rock upon which Christ would build His church?

That wasn't the object of my post, which was to draw attention to the fact that Peter had intimate knowledge of Paul's teaching having read and approved of his letters.
But as to your question; I read Richards post in reply to yours and he pretty much sums up the way I feel so I will just leave it at that.

Thanks for your participation :)

Rose

[Stephen]

Hi Kdana!

I agree with your perspective, and don't believe Jesus said he would literally build his church on Peter. However, it is true to say that Peter was a leader of the early church.

Richard takes a hyper-literalist view of the verses in question, which I think is a mistake. And here's why.

Jesus wasn't, in my view, talking literally of a man named Peter on whom he would build his church. If he was, indeed, referring to the person of Peter, that reference ought to be understood as the words Peter confessed: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God". That confession is what Jesus was most likely referring to if you want to link it to Peter, but certainly not the man himself. After all, just a few verses on and Jesus calls Peter satan! Are we then also to take this literally?!!! Certainly not. Jesus is rebuking Peter for his confession, not for his person, just as he is praising Peter for his confession a few verses earlier. Therefore the only sensible answer is that Jesus wasn't referring directly to the man Peter. You can't have your cake and eat it.

To summarise, the rock upon which Jesus said he would build his church is the confession that he is the Christ, the Son of the living God. That was Peter's confession. It is a confession every Christian shares. It is the rock of our faith. Peter is certainly not that rock!

Stephen

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Kdana!

I agree with your perspective, and don't believe Jesus said he would literally build his church on Peter. However, it is true to say that Peter was a leader of the early church.

Richard takes a hyper-literalist view of the verses in question, which I think is a mistake. And here's why.
Ahh ... come on Stephen, let's get real. "Hyper-literalism" is not an accurate description of my position. I didn't take anything excessively "literally" - I interpreted the words in the way they were meant to be interpreted, as I will explain below.


Jesus wasn't, in my view, talking literally of a man named Peter on whom he would build his church. If he was, indeed, referring to the person of Peter, that reference ought to be understood as the words Peter confessed: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God". That confession is what Jesus was most likely referring to if you want to link it to Peter, but certainly not the man himself. After all, just a few verses on and Jesus calls Peter satan! Are we then also to take this literally?!!! Certainly not. Jesus is rebuking Peter for his confession, not for his person, just as he is praising Peter for his confession a few verses earlier. Therefore the only sensible answer is that Jesus wasn't referring directly to the man Peter. You can't have your cake and eat it.
I think you are confusing things with your strange use of the word "literal." When Jesus said "You are the Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church" no one is taking anything "literally." The language is obviously symbolic. You seem to have forgotten that it was the Lord Jesus Himself who gave Peter the name "Rock." The fact that He then uses it in this verse can not be so glibly dismissed. We must assume that Jesus knew what He was doing when He named Peter the Rock and then said "Upon this Rock I will build my church."

If Jesus wanted us to understand that Peter's Confession was the "Rock" then He very easily could have told us so. But that's not what He did.

Furthermore, your response failed to address the fact that Paul also told us that the church was founded upon the Apostles and Prophets, with Christ as the Cornerstone. Thus Paul and Jesus confirm each other about Peter. There is no "hyper-literalism" here.

So what does the "Rock" symbolize? I agree it is not merely the "man" Peter, but his entire testimony - not merely the testimony preserved in Matt 16:16, but rather his entire testimony as preserved in his two letters and the effect he had as the Christ-appointed leader of the fledging church. It was Peter the man to whom Christ thrice repeated "Feed my sheep." You did not address this point either.

As for Christ's rebuke of Peter's fleshly opposition to the plan of God - it would be folly to take that literally, just as it would be folly to think that Peter was "literally" a piece of granite! Let's strive to use our words a little more precisely, shall we, my friend (and worthy opponent, I might add!) :fencing:


To summarise, the rock upon which Jesus said he would build his church is the confession that he is the Christ, the Son of the living God. That was Peter's confession. It is a confession every Christian shares. It is the rock of our faith. Peter is certainly not that rock!

Stephen

Yes, every Christian shares that confession, but that does not make it the "Rock" of our faith. The true Rock of our Faith is Christ Himself. There is no contradiction, let alone "hyper-literalism" in taking Jesus at His Word when He established Peter as the leader of the fledgling Church in Jerusalem. This was, in fact, the common understanding of Christians until Roman arrogance rose up and attempted to use this fact to justify their wicked usurpation of authority over all other churches. But I will not allow that error of the Roman Church - no matter how grievous it be - to prejudice my interpretation of Holy Scripture.

Richard

[Stephen]

Hi Richard!

Thanks for your reply. You appear to be somewhat sensitive to certain criticisms that relate to the rcc, as you put it. Anyone who takes a stronger view - by which I mean a view more in line with the early protestant view of the rcc - seems to come within your radar as being prejudiced. Accusations of taking a prejudiced view of Scripture are quite a strong statement to make, although they don't personally bother me.

I see that we agree on certain things, that it isn't Peter the man that Jesus was referring to as the rock upon which he would build his church. However, I see nothing in your last post to dissuade me from the view I espoused earlier. Peter is not the rock upon which the church was built. That Rock can only be Jesus Christ, and the acknowledgment of his divinity.

I am fully aware of John 21 and Paul's references to the church being founded on the apostles and the prophets, with Christ as the chief corner stone. My point exactly. Christ is the Rock, and Peter is himself founded on that Rock. But do not mistake Peter as the Rock. He isn't. Christ is the Rock, the chief corner stone. This is the Rock upon which the church is built, and Peter's confession of that truth earnt him the title of Peter.

No worries about Peter being the early leader of the church. Everyone knows that. Indeed, he was a rock, with his zeal for Christ being an outstanding attribute. But so were John and Paul and the rest of the bros. Peter ain't the Rock Jesus referred to as the foundation of his church. That Rock is Christ, both in the OT and the NT (1 Corinthians 10:4 etc.). That Rock is the chief corner stone. Jesus Christ.

Therefore my assertions in my previous post stand. The naming of Peter by our Lord I believe is in reference to Peter being the first to understand and confess this truth. Truly, a chip off the old block. There is no need to introduce any notion of anti-rcc bias into the discussion. Why would anyone need to do so, unless they were particularly sensitive to this subject? Personally, I couldn't care less. The scripture speaks plainly enough as it is. It's obvious to me Christ was referring to himself as the Rock at Matthew 16:18.

Stephen

[shalag]

I find it interesting that Jesus chose the name 'Peter' for 'Simon Bar Jona'. Although it is written in the Greek I often wondered if Jesus wasn't speaking Hebrew as a play on the Greek - as confirmation of his choice:

Strong's 6363 Original Word Transliterated Word rtp peter Phonetic Spelling Translated Words peh'-ter http://www.searchgodsword.org/images/audio.gif (http://www.searchgodsword.org/cgi-bin/Lexicon.pl?id=6363h.rm&l=en) firstling, open, first issue, first offspring

Exodus 13:2 Sanctify unto me all the firstborn [peter], whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.Just as Jesus is 'firstborn' - so too was Peter according to Jesus appointment:

Colossians 1:18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

Hebrews 12:23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect,

[Kdana]

Thank you all for the welcome's!! I'm very happy to be here :)

As I was reading Matthew 16:13 - 16:20 over again and all the the replies, I believe the Lord showed me another meaning. We are all aware of the different layers (?) of meaning scripture has. So now I believe the following -

"the Rock" Jesus refers to is

1. Peter - a "founder" of the early church

2. Jesus Christ - the "cornerstone"

3. The Revelation - The Lord is building His church on the "revelation" God
gives to people who seek Him!

I love when that happens!:lol:

[Stephen]

Hi shalag!

That's a really good point about the name Peter being a wordplay on the Hebrew peter. I had considered that myself some 18 years ago when I first began researching the breastplate of Aaron. At that time I was wondering if there may have been a miscopy of the name of the second breastplate stone in the Hebrew. The Hebrew is pitdah, and I was musing over that being a possible corruption of pitrah, with the Hebrew daleth and resh being so similar in appearance. The corruption of these two letters had happened elsewhere in copying. While pitdah has no etymological traces in Hebrew, a reading of pitrah would suit a Hebrew root.

Peter's name was originally Simon, and he shared many similarities to the biblical patriarch Simeon, to whom belonged the pitdah stone in the breastplate. That's another fascinating topic worth covering in the far-flung future. You know, the violent use of swords and the idea of imprisonment, that sort of thing.

Stephen

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Thank you all for the welcome's!! I'm very happy to be here :)

As I was reading Matthew 16:13 - 16:20 over again and all the the replies, I believe the Lord showed me another meaning. We are all aware of the different layers (?) of meaning scripture has. So now I believe the following -

"the Rock" Jesus refers to is

1. Peter - a "founder" of the early church

2. Jesus Christ - the "cornerstone"

3. The Revelation - The Lord is building His church on the "revelation" God
gives to people who seek Him!

I love when that happens!:lol:

Hey Kdana,

Me too! I love it when we get a multilayered view of the polychromatic wisdom of God!

I think its pretty difficult to deny that Peter was the leader of the church in Jerusalem. But that didn't make him the "Pope of Rome" now did it?

Glad to have you here. Talk more soon,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard!

Thanks for your reply. You appear to be somewhat sensitive to certain criticisms that relate to the rcc, as you put it. Anyone who takes a stronger view - by which I mean a view more in line with the early protestant view of the rcc - seems to come within your radar as being prejudiced. Accusations of taking a prejudiced view of Scripture are quite a strong statement to make, although they don't personally bother me.
No no no - I didn't call you prejudiced - I was talking about the reason some people feel a need to dispute the plain reading of Matt 16:18. And I don't think I have given you any reason to think that I am "sensitive" about the RCC. I am not a member of that church, or any denomination for that matter. I identify with all true Bible believing blood bought Christians. Standard stuff, ya know?

You can take the historic Protestant position concerning the RCC as the antichrist system without distorting the Bible. That's my point. If I am "sensitive" to anything, lets say its distortions of Scripture. (Not that I'm claiming you are distorting anything! Now who is acting like the "sensitive" one? <snicker> :lol: )


I see that we agree on certain things, that it isn't Peter the man that Jesus was referring to as the rock upon which he would build his church.
Actually, I would say that it was Peter the man that Jesus was speaking of, in the sense that He set Peter up as the leader of the early Church. That is indisputable, is it not? Peter is always listed first in the lists of the disciples. Jesus prayed specifically for Peter and told him "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." And He told him three times to feed His sheep. So is it not obvious that He set up Peter in a specially role of leadership in the early church? Are you really contesting that point?

And if anyone is "hyper-literalizing" the metaphor of Peter as the "rock" (leader of the early church) I think it is you when you force the term "rock" to mean the ROCK which in the ultimate sense is Jesus Christ.

Now before we let this conversation get to hot, please realize that we are simply repeating standard stale arguments that have around for centuries. A good review of the various positions is found here:

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2701


However, I see nothing in your last post to dissuade me from the view I espoused earlier. Peter is not the rock upon which the church was built. That Rock can only be Jesus Christ, and the acknowledgment of his divinity.
I think that is a rather obvious misinterpretation of Matt 16:18. Here, let me follow your suggestion:

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock [of Myself Jesus Christ] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Sure, its a true statement; but is it a true interpretation of the words spoken by Jesus Christ? I don't think so. Here's a quote from that site I linked above:


Exegetically, it seems least probable that Jesus is referring to himself as the pevtra. Carson maintains that if Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was the stone while Jesus was the rock, then the more common word to use would have been lithos (which denotes a 'stone' of almost any size) and no pun would have existed.95 It is true that there are numerous instances of God the Father being described as 'rock' in the OT (see above) and Jesus being described as 'rock' or 'foundation' in the NT (1 Cor 3:11, 10:4); however, that does not necessarily mean that Jesus is referring to himself (or the Father) as the 'rock' of Matt 16:18.96 As a chapter, Matthew 16 does concentrate heavily on the theme of Jesus’ identity, but vv. 17-19 seem to focus particularly on Peter and his statements regarding Jesus’ identity. Therefore, it would seem likely that the pevtra of v. 18 either refers to the man or to his confession of faith.
And that's just a small snippet of that one article. We could pile citations like this from here to the moon. There are arguments for all three positions:

Christ spoke of Peter as the Rock
Christ spoke of Peter's Confession as the Rock
Christ spoke of Himself as the Rock.
I am fully aware of John 21 and Paul's references to the church being founded on the apostles and the prophets, with Christ as the chief corner stone. My point exactly. Christ is the Rock, and Peter is himself founded on that Rock. But do not mistake Peter as the Rock. He isn't. Christ is the Rock, the chief corner stone. This is the Rock upon which the church is built, and Peter's confession of that truth earnt him the title of Peter.

That whole paragraph is a continued example of forcing the meaning of "this rock" to be THE ETERNAL ROCK OF JESUS CHRIST which is probably not what Christ meant, as discussed above. Sure, we could take that meaning and read it into the text and it makes for a true statement. But what do you think Christ would have said if you asked Him what He meant? Maybe He would say "All three."


No worries about Peter being the early leader of the church. Everyone knows that. Indeed, he was a rock, with his zeal for Christ being an outstanding attribute. But so were John and Paul and the rest of the bros. Peter ain't the Rock Jesus referred to as the foundation of his church. That Rock is Christ, both in the OT and the NT (1 Corinthians 10:4 etc.). That Rock is the chief corner stone. Jesus Christ.
If Christ meant "this rock" why did He direct His speech to Peter and make a point of his name meaning "rock"? Your explanation does not explain the text.


Therefore my assertions in my previous post stand. The naming of Peter by our Lord I believe is in reference to Peter being the first to understand and confess this truth.
There is nothing in the text to suggest that Peter was the "first." Nathaniel understood Christ as the "King of Israel" and the "Son of God" long before Peter made his confession.


Truly, a chip off the old block. There is no need to introduce any notion of anti-rcc bias into the discussion. Why would anyone need to do so, unless they were particularly sensitive to this subject?
Because anti-rcc bias has often been the motivation. But not always. For example, Augustine argued that the Rock was Christ. Here is one scholars view (again from the article cited above):


If Peter’s confession of faith is the 'rock,' then why did Jesus not say 'upon this faith' or 'upon your words' I will build my Church? According to R. T. France, it is overreaction against the papal claims of the Roman Catholic Church that has inspired some Protestants to view the 'rock' as Peter’s faith rather than the man. It seems that the word-play and the whole structure of the logion demands that v. 18 is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as v. 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus.98So there you go. I had a good reason to warn against anti-RCC bias. And it wasn't out of concern for the RCC. It was entirely out of concern that we keep our biblical interpretation free from prejudice so as to be as true as possible. That is our common concern here.


Personally, I couldn't care less. The scripture speaks plainly enough as it is. It's obvious to me Christ was referring to himself as the Rock at Matthew 16:18.

Stephen

It may be obvious to you, but it has not been obvious to many Christians throughout the history of the church, which is why it is still debated.

Anyway, let's not get too hot on this one. There is enough info out there and enough articles written by really thorough people that we should probably just collect the best arguments and weigh them in a more irenic spirit. Yes?

Cool!

Richard

PS: I know I get pretty hot under the collar myself, so I'm talking to myself as much as to you when I say let's "keep it cool." ;)

[Stephen]

Hi Richard!

Yep, no worries at all from my side. I'd be telling a big lie if I said I believed this was an important issue. And I guess if we asked the Lord what he meant he would say something of all three. I'm just pleased Kdana got something out of this thread, as did I through reading the opinions of many others. Your references were helpful in explaining your view. Thanks.

Stephen

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard!

Yep, no worries at all from my side. I'd be telling a big lie if I said I believed this was an important issue. And I guess if we asked the Lord what he meant he would say something of all three. I'm just pleased Kdana got something out of this thread, as did I through reading the opinions of many others. Your references were helpful in explaining your view. Thanks.

Stephen
Excellent!

And yeah, I learned that I had lots to learn on this issue too. Its been around for a long time.

See ya in the other threads.

:planeup:

Richard

[Geoffrey]

Very interesting, shalag!

[Geoffrey]

Hallo Everybody!


"the Rock" Jesus refers to is

1. Peter - a "founder" of the early church

2. Jesus Christ - the "cornerstone"

3. The Revelation - The Lord is building His church on the "revelation" God
gives to people who seek Him!

Right on, Kdana!

How can people argue about whether the church is built on Peter only or on Jesus only? Ephesians 2:19 is clear: the church is built on the apostles (plural), the prophets (plural) and Jesus; neither on Peter only, nor on Jesus only, but on Peter, Paul, John, James, Jeremiah, Moses, Jesus, etc.

In what sense is the church built on them? Obviously, on what they taught. But what they taught is not to the benefit of all the hearers! That is because not all the hearers understand the doctrine. On what then is the church built? On the revelation of the teachings of the apostles, the prophets and Jesus Christ, because when a person understands the gospel he or she is converted, born again and added to the body of Christ.



Matthew 13:15-16 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. (16) But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.


Consider this parable:



Matthew 7:24-25 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: (25) And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not; for it was founded upon a rock.


Now, compare that with:



Matthew 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.


and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Exactly, because the winds blew and the floods came and beat upon the house, but it fell not! What is it to hear His sayings, but to understand them. Jesus said that to understand His Word is like unto builing upon a rock.

When Peter said: "Thou art the Christ.", he was confessing Jesus and when Jesus said: "Thou art Peter.", He was confessing Peter. Jesus said in:



Matthew 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.


When He said: "Thou art Peter.", He was fulfilling His promise.


I love when that happens!:lol:

Me too!:thumb: