Posted on 01/25/2007 10:49:26 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
Amen.
Excellent.
Thanks.
And thanks for all your prayers--chest congestion is abating.
Exactly
Quite so.
What is so difficult to discern about
[EVERYONE=EVERY BELIEVER]
EVERYONE EQUAL BEFORE THE CROSS.
EVERYONE EQUAL BEFORE DADDY IN ESSENTIAL RESPECTS.
EVERYONE WITH ACCESS TO DADDY DIRECTLY.
EVERYONE ENJOYING RESTORED ONE ON ONE FELLOWSHIP WITH DADDY.
NO LOFTY SPIRITUAL ELITE LORDING IT OVER ANYONE ELSE
NO holier than thous brazenly pointing fingers before The Father.
Perhaps a thread on the humility saturated equality before The Cross and before Daddy would be good for someone to do.
. . . someone with better scholarship on such than mine.
Of course the kingdom is all of ours. But only Peter has the keys. In the same way, I might say..."Here...you all have this vacation home. But I'm giving Silverlings the keys".
Truly I see Peter as a humble man - or better still, a humbled man, like Paul. Certainly Cornelius was directed to him by the angel - and Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem for a decision concerning Gentile converts and Peter spoke up.
But Peter's boldness concerning the gospel was never self aggrandizing. Thus if any of us deign to walk in the footsteps of Peter, it will be walk of humility - as it would have been for anyone trying to walk in the footsteps of Abraham.
Indeed! But note what you just said...Jesus' name for HIM. It was a personal name. You don't give a personal name to a "confession".
Again, the Scriptures are 100% clear here. SU EI PETROS You. Are. Rock.
There is really no room for ambiguity. It doesn't say "your confession is the Rock." It doesn't say I am really the rock and you are something else. Bringing up all these other metaphors is helpful and instructive and ehlkps us flesh out the context. But they still do not change the plain fact that Christ named Peter the Rock. However we explain this passage, we can't pretend that He didn't say what he said.
Alamo-Girl, you are absolutely 100% correct. Remember Christ's advice to Peter, that when he was older, they would lead him where he didn't want to go.
Who must be the first among you, must be a servant. Any other attitude is simply not Christian.
elhkps = helps. Sheesh. :)
Great thread. Bookmarked.
Seems to me the mention of the vision of the new heaven and earth in Revelation - and especially the New Jerusalem - has much to tell, as previously mentioned on this thread.
There is a separate foundation gemstone named for each of twelve apostles, and a separate gate named for each of the twelve tribes of Israel. (Rev 21) But there is no special honor for Abraham, Moses, David - and no special distinction among the foundation gemstones for Peter, John, James or Paul.
I assert the point is wrapped up beautifully in the end of the book, by the testimony of the angel here:
IOW, it is all too easy to get caught up in the majesty when we have a "vision" - a revelation of God, but the servant of the Master is the servant of all, like the Master (Philippinas 2).
Claud, nobody disputes that Jesus called Peter "rock". Grammatically, however, the Rock that Jesus is referring to in the second half of the sentence is a thing, not a person. When speaking to a specific person I would not say "You are a rock, and upon this rock I will...." I would say "You are a rock and upon you...."
Simon, you are a "rock" and upon THIS ROCK I will build my church.
You is a personal pronoun
This, in this case, is an adjective modifying Rock (a thing not a person). Which Rock? This one.
Thus is was Peter's confession, not Peter that would be the rock upon which Christ's church would be. It was his exclamation that "Jesus is the Christ" that would be foundational to the starting of the Christian religion.
Further, I think it is at least possible that the "gates of Hell will not overcome 'it'" could refer to the confession rather than the church (though Christ will preserve His church through the end).
Peter, you are a Rock, and upon this Rock [i.e. some other rock] I will build my Church.
That doesn't make a lot of sense, frankly.
Moreover, if you're right, then all of a sudden Jesus switches back to the second person for no explicable reason. I will give *you* the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and what *you* bind in heaven will be bound, and what *you* loose. If the confession is the subject of the sentence, then what's the deal with the switch back to "you"? Isn't it easier and simpler just to assume that it was "you" all throughout in the first place?
I assert that everything we read in Scripture must be viewed in context with the whole.
For instance, if we narrow in on some of the dialog in Job, we'd miss the point that God was not pleased with their pronouncements starting around Job 38.
Likewise, if we focus on the first few chapters of Ecclesiastes, we might end up with a rather depressed view of mortal life, i.e. why bother? But taken in the whole, the meaning of those chapters changes.
Moreover, I aver the Scriptures come alive within us from the indwelling Spirit who leads us into all truth - if we only let Him (John 14-17, Romans 8, I Cor 2). If it weren't for the Spirit, the Scriptures would be just another collection of ancient manuscripts:
And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. - Deu 30:6
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. - Col 2:11-12
[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit...
For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his...
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. - from Romans 8
No, your idea is more like a father buying his son a new home but he'll keep the keys. You give a person property, you give him the keys. What's the point of an evangelical making a person a disciple as commanded by the great commission, then have to say, oh well, now I have to run it by Peter? Does not make sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.