Who is the messiah?
tom in ga
Why do we have this name "Peter", retaining the Greek form, instead of "Rock"? We hear it as a proper name, but it is a nickname. Why isn't it translated like the rest of the passage? It's like the word "angel", which means "messenger", but the translators of the Bible seems to prefer that we have this other-worldly idea that God's messengers are totally unlike everything we have seen before, and so they keep using a foreign word for it.
Sara in GR,MI
Sara in GR, MI
While your observation may be true of 'angel', there is some validity to 'Peter' being a proper name (or at least more than a nickname)
First, In the greek, the syntax of the word used 'Petros' is different from the common noun 'petra' (for rock) which is used also in 16:18. thus making the interesting play of words in 16:18 You are 'PETROS' and on this 'PETRA' I will build my church). (Those more versed in Greek please give a rebuttal if I am wrong here).
Second, the word 'Petros' is used with Simon in 16:16 (and other locations in scripture) to act as a proper name, Simon Peter.
Finally, although 'Petros' is translated Peter and not the nickname 'rock' the scripture gives ample evidence that Peter is not other-worldly and is very much like everyone else, mistakes and all.
Jeff in AR
I will be preaching on this text and the reading from Romans on Aug. 22 as my congregation (Disciples of Christ) joins with the United Methodist church in worship, preparing for a week of vacation bible school together. Peter's confession (should I say Rock's confession?) is one we share with all Christians. It becomes the basis of the ministry in which we engage. The warning in vs. 20 was for the disciples then, not now. We must joyously proclaim that Jesus is the Christ--the Messiah. Ah, but how many questions that simple declaration can raise. I may take the easy way out and focus more on our response to Christ, especially since the reading from Romans deals in part with using our variety of gifts. Any way, I'd appreciate help in developing a sermon for shared ministry based on these texts. Any help available? Blessings, Pam in San Bernardino.
The theme here seems to be personal responsibility--in this case, for recognizing Christ.
We're all subject to gossip, "what will the neighbors say," rumors, and often, mediocrity by consensus. "THEY" seems very powerful. These days of instant e-mail often makes matters worse.
Here Jesus puts it simply: 1. Who do "THEY" say that I am? 2. Forget that. Who do YOU say that I am?
oops! The previous message was brought to you by Jay in Alabama.
I find the location of this story very important. Caesarea Philippi is a very beautiful place where some very ugly things happened. It is located very near the Banias springs, one of the sources of the Jordan River. This is also the location of 'Pan's cave' -- a pagan worship site where human sacrifices were commonly performed to aid an army in battle. In Jesus' time, it was not only the center of worldly power (The capital of Philip's territory, one of Herod's sons) but a major center of pagan religion with a large complex of temples to various gods.
In the heart of worldly power and pagan religious power, this is where Jesus asks the crucial question and where Peter responds in faith. And today, it is the place where a church was built and still remains on the rock, long after the destructrion of Philip's capital city and the pagan temples where he worshipped. A testament to whose truth really is eternal -- that of men who would seek to become gods, or a loving God that would become a man.
Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter and the rest of us (Mt18:18), so where are they? What are they? Most of my reading thus far calls the keys symbols of God's power and the means excluding or admitting people into the kingdom. Are the keys then, love, compassion, forgiveness, healing etc.? Any other insights as to the 'identity' of the keys? I'll likely call the sermon "Where Are My Keys?" and approach it as Jesus asking the church today how we are doing the with gift/responsibility we've inherited from Peter. Joe in Zion
Jesus said to them, 'Who do you say that I am?' They replied, 'You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the kerygma of which we find the ultimate meaning in our inter-personal relationships.'
And Jesus said, 'WHAT?'
In many ethnic/religious/cultural groups it is customary for a person to have a name belonging to that culture, by which s/he is known within the culture, and another one for outsiders. A Japanese-American girl may be known as Keiko in her family, but as Connie everywhere else. I had a Jewish friend named Sam, whose "Jewish" name was Shlomo. Saul the apostle had a Greek name as well, Paul, which means "Shorty," so to speak. Jesus gave his disciple Simon bar-Jonah a nickname, Cephas, which is translated into Greek as Petros, and transliterated into English as Peter. If we had translated the name instead of simply rendering the Greek, we probably would have called Simon bar-Jonah "Rocky." And I think it's interesting that Peter was "rocky" in both senses. In the end he WAS a rock, called in Acts one of the "Pillars." But until the Spirit came upon him at Pentecost, he was as rocky as they come, even denying he knew Christ.
There's no doubt that Peter has come quite a way in his faith journey by now, and I think his journey offers hope to many people who think of the early Christians as larger than life. Peter had to learn. As Jesus said, it was God who gave Peter the grace to know that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, the son of God. And even so, Peter had quite a way to go. In the next breath, he tries to prevent Jesus from carrying out his mission, and Jesus calls him a devil. And we all know what happened when Jesus was arrested.
Sister Elias Freeman, Sol.S.B. Trinity Episcopal Church, Woodbridge, NJ
Joe, I love the "Where are my keys?" idea. Sometimes I think better when I'm laughing. The keys of love, compassion... opened the gates of Pharoah's own household to a Hebrew infant he had ordered killed because Pharoah's daughter unlocked her heart to an alien family and raised their son in safety. (in our Exodus reading this week.) " What ever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and what ever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Maybe all we can ever truely bind or loose are our own hearts and our hearts will be either free or tied up in heaven by our choices about opening or closing our hearts to God and to each other on earth. DL in ME
WOW! lots of great ideas here to begin the week! Thanks, everybody. Janet in NY
Keys can be used to either release or to lock something away. They can be used to protect or to confine. What is it that the Keys to the "Kingdom of Heaven" unlock, protect, confine, or release? Who controls them? What is our responsibility as the key holders? Are we the key holders? Wish I had some answers, but today all I have is question. Please help! Brent MS
Here is what Luther's Small Catechism says about the Office of the Keys. It may be helpful or it may not. Tom in Ontario
What is the Office of the Keys? The Office of the Keys is that special authority which Christ has given to His church on earth to forgive the sins of repentant sinners, and to withhold forgiveness from the unrepentant as long as they do not repent.
Where is this written? This is what St. John the Evangelist writes in chapter twenty: The Lord Jesus breathed on His disciples and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." [John 20: 22-23]
What do you believe according to these words? I believe that when the called ministers of Christ deal with us by His divine command, in particular when they exclude openly unrepentant sinners from the Christian congregation and absolve those who repent of their sins and want to do better, this is just as valid and certain, even in heaven, as if Christ our dear Lord dealt with us Himself.
Amen Tom in Ontario!!
The key is repentance. The door is Christ. The room into which both lead is salvation in the hereafter and abundant life now.
Rick in Va
Not to disagree with Luther, but a good explanation I've heard of the keys, is that when we share God's love with others, we "loose" them to experience God's grace for themselves; but when we neglect or refuse to share love and forgiveness, we "bind" or block them from receiving God's grace through us. Fortunately, God has other people to reach that "bound" person, but we are hurting ourselves by being ungraceful. - Mike in Maryland
16:17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven.
Great thoughts everyone! I am considering preaching a sermon that asks, "What is God revealing to you?"
Because we all come to come Christ from different paths and because the body of Christ is so diverse and because each of our encounters with Christ is so personal...
I intend to offer everyone present in worship the opportunity to silently reflect on when they first knew who Jesus was... what was it they felt... where have they journeyed since then...
and to ask them what is God revealing to them now.
ah, the self-revelation of God and the working out of our salvation contiues - as does the kingdom.
Malcolm (WhoSo the Clown) On the beach in TX
Keys of the kingdom. . . hmmmmmm . . . my wife plays the piano while I sit in the study and work on sermons, and I love to listen to her play, soft, harmonious chords, sometimes in a major KEY, sometimes in a minor KEY, usually not OFF-KEY. When she hits one of those klunkers (harldy ever, dear) I cringe, laugh, take notice. It requires diligent practice never to play out of key.
I know this isn't the kind of key Jesus was talking about. Yet, like Peter, I sense that when I live in right relationship with Jesus, sometimes I live in a major key, sometimes a minor one, usually not off-key. That's when I'm not paying attention, when I'm distracted by something and lose my focus; I want to be in harmony with him, and share that harmony with others. (I just don't do it by playing the piano--I preach!). -- Tim in Deep River
Barbara Bruce wrote the following article relating to "keys". I offer it here as fodder for desperate preachers:
Keys are defined as the authority Christ delegated to His disciples to proclaim forgiveness and pronounce judgment.
Old Testament: The holder of the keys had the power to admit or deny entrance to the house of God (1 Chron. 9:22-27; Isa. 22:22). In late Judaism, this key imagery was extended to angelic beings and to God as keepers of the keys of heaven and hell.
New Testament: In the New Testament, keys are used only figuratively as a symbol of authority, particularly the authority of Christ over the final destiny of persons. The risen Christ holds the key of David and controls access to the New Jerusalem (Rev. 3:7). By overcoming death, He has the keys to the world of the dead (Rev. 1:18).
In Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus delegated the power of the keys to His disciples, combining the imagery of keys with that of binding and loosing. When Peter confessed that Jesus was the Son of God, Jesus proclaimed that the gates of death would have no power over His church. The gates would not be able to resist the keys he was giving to Peter as a representative of the church.
With the other apostles, Peter also received the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19; 18:18), a phrase used to describe the work of scribes who sought God’s will through a study of Scripture and declared it through teaching and judging. The scribes could also exclude persons from the community (compare Matt. 18:15-17), but Christ denounced them for misusing their key (Luke 11:52) and blocking the entrance to the kingdom (Matt. 23:13). In their place, through the gift of the Spirit, the disciples received the authority to proclaim forgiveness and judgment (John 20:23).
End of Bruce article.
What I find so interesting in this week's lesson (and the John 20:23 reference) and in Barbara's words is the awesome yet completely unpopular idea that as Christ's disciples we have the power to proclaim forgiveness and judgment. Again the double edged sword of grace and justice, Law and Gospel, from the pages of Holy Scripture.
Also the apologetic implied here, where Jesus blesses Peter for proclaiming Him to be the Messiah, The Son of God. I still shake my head at the memory of a Catholic priest, at the baptism of my youngest niece a few years ago, proclaiming arrogantly and condescendingly that Christ never claimed to be Divine (I wondered then as I do now, why in God's name this man was baptizing anyubody). Yet here we have the proclamation that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church as a comment that follows Peter's confession that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God!
This week's text is a clarion call to evangelize the lost, to proclaim the uniqeness of Christ in a world dying in pluralistic confusion, to announce that Jesus is the Way, the only way, to Salvation, and that we all must be born again (or as the Romans text so aptly puts it, be transformed by the renewing of our minds, a renewal that takes place when we agree with Peter, that Jesus is the Messiah, the only Son of God).
Preach it people, for if this don't preach, nothing preaches!
Rick in Va
Rick in VA: I'm not sure what point the Roman Catholic Priest you cited a proclaiming that Christ never claimed to be divine was trying to make. Technically, he is correct. The word divine does not occur in the Gospels at all. Note also that in the trial scenes, Jesus makes no such direct claim. In Matthew the high priest says to him "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." Jesus replies: "Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heavens." (Matthew 26:3-64, KJV). Which raise the question of why does Jesus not give a straight forward answer to the high priest, as Peter had given him in the passage for this Sunday? What is the relation of words, and of living? Just wondering R.J. in ND
Dear Friends,
Thank you for your comments and I am looking forward to watching for more insights through the week. I sense that this is a site where we can think out loud so here are some of my first impressions.
Jesus takes his disciples all the way up to Caesarea Phillipi and we are not told why. Is it to do ministry up there? I think not. It is to show the disciples the world they will face as belivers in this new way. It is a retreat of sort where Jesus wants them to think about not only who He is but the journey that lays ahead for them all. Note CP was a resort area for the wealthy, and the rulers of their world. Probably the very place Jesus asks them questions was a pagan worship site. As I see it, Jesus was once again revealing where the power of His movement comes from and at the same time giving them a glimps of the worlds powers they would face as builders of his church.
The name change of Simon to Peter (the rock) in my opinion tells us we are people of another world when we are in Christ. The new name is a reminder to us, just as the cross is a reminder, of who we are and who's we are as kingdom people of the way. Our names give us our identity and our belonging.
The keys Jesus talks about, again in my opinion, are keys to understanding. Keys that give us knowledge of the God of the universe. They are keys that unlock what our existance, our meaning, our task is in the wide spectrim of eternity. Jesus is talking about keys to a world we have not seen but will be able to view because the Father gives his faithful church the keys to see the plan.
Just some thoughts.... Kris
RJ in ND,
I probably didn't make myself as clear about the priest in question as I should have. He wasn't just making a technical point. He very clearly belonged to the revisionist camp, the Spong-ian cult, that wears the clerical collar and robe and yet diminishes the Holy Scriptures and the divinity of Jesus Christ. I shudder to think that my sister and her husband allowed the man to baptize their child. He was no ambassador of Christ. He was an ambassador of secular humanism, of the ivory tower intellectuals that arrogantly proclaim 'truths' that deny or diminish Scriptural Truth. He was (and I presume still is) a sham, a wolf in sheep's clothing. He needs to be bound or loosed (whichever is appropriate) and repent of his condescension toward Scripture, especially as one who took an oath to shepherd God's people.
Rick in Va
The comments regarding Matthew 16 have set me off in many directions. The geography is an important point, and the word-play between PETRA and PETROS was something that had not struck me as significant until I connected it with Peter's "rocky" beginnings as a leader.
What keeps pricking my spirit, however, is the question of what we hold as the Keys to the Kingdom. I believe that Christians do have the power to forgive or condemn, but I think that the way we operate under that power is a "key" witness to the community of faith.
I am asking my congregation how they can put the Kingdom Keys into action in their own lives. I am connecting the Keys to the Kingdom to the Fruit of the Spirit. GAL 5:22
Through the actions of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control we are able to put a bind upon the wickedness of this world while we loose the Holy Spirit upon those who are searching for the truth in their lives. Binding and Loosing requires action!!
Richard- N. Florida
The comments regarding Matthew 16 have set me off in many directions. The geography is an important point, and the word-play between PETRA and PETROS was something that had not struck me as significant until I connected it with Peter's "rocky" beginnings as a leader.
What keeps pricking my spirit, however, is the question of what we hold as the Keys to the Kingdom. I believe that Christians do have the power to forgive or condemn, but I think that the way we operate under that power is a "key" witness to the community of faith.
I am asking my congregation how they can put the Kingdom Keys into action in their own lives. I am connecting the Keys to the Kingdom to the Fruit of the Spirit. GAL 5:22
Through the actions of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control we are able to put a bind upon the wickedness of this world while we loose the Holy Spirit upon those who are searching for the truth in their lives. Binding and Loosing requires action!!
Richard- N. Florida
Hello all. I want to bounce off of Rick in VA's comments for a moment, becasue that it the general direction in which I was headed as I thought about the passage. My attention was drawn to the declaration of Jesus as the Messiah, I know of an Episcopal priest who sent his entire career preaching Jesus as a great man, but not the Son of God. This begs the question: Is it important who Jesus is? Is it necessary that Jesus be divine? Or is it ok to assume that he was just an incredibly spiritual man?
As Christians, we must confess Jesus as deity. He embodies the mystery of 100% man and 100% God. The efficacy of our salvation hinges on the reality of who he is. We must be open to the wisdom and knowledge that can only come from the Holy Spirit so that we can confess the truth of Jesus. We also must embrace the power of the Spirit so that we can share our knowledge with others -- that others may be able to confess Jesus as the Son of the living God.
Revrosser in NC
Hi, all. This is my first contribution, although I've read a good deal of other peoples' stuff over the last couple of weeks. Thanks for all the insights. As I read this text, I can't help but hear that question ring out, "Who do you say I am?" And I think in terms, not just of vocal proclamation, but in a reflective way, how our lives proclaim Jesus. I may ask my folks to do some reflecting, like looking in a mirror, at our various ministry efforts so we can get an idea of who, as a community of faith, we are saying Jesus is by what we are doing in his name. How do we embody the love, grace, and mercy of the Christ? How are we participating in the openness of the kingdom of Heaven? But the idea of the keys gets me, too, since I am always losing mine! "Now, where are those keys?" One might even play around with the notion the growing popularity of "keyless" keys, the remote things you aim at your car and click. Anyway, a rich text and lost of good sharing.
Becca in OH
To Rick in Va: Don't shudder at the thought of someone, whom you deem unworthy, baptizing your sister's child. It isn't the priest's worthiness, the child's worthiness, the parents' worthiness nor the sponsors' worthiness that matters most in the baptism. It is the water together with God's word and by God's command that validate the baptism. What God does for us in baptism does not depend on who or how we perform it. Baptism is valid because of what God does for us through it. Tom in Ontario
Rick in VA, An early decision of the Church was to validate the baptism even if the baptizer was not valid. If we try to base the validity of the baptism on the worthiness of the baptizer, we all get in real trouble. But then, we must also realize the validity of the baptism is not in the water, person or the act, for that matter. Baptism is an outward sign of an inward transformation, or in the case of infants a transformation to come one day and to be later personally acknowledged by the youth or adult. (That is, unless one believes baptism actually bestowes the salvation, a theory Jesus clearly disawowed with the repentant unbaptized thief on the cross. "Today you will be with me in Paradise.") revup
Many of the contributions subscribe to the thought that one's declaration must be backed up by one's perspiration. An earlier comment states it well: "binding and loosing require action." Unfortunately, the better passage for this theme is next week's text which asks us to pick up our crosses.
If I yoke the two passages together, I can get at least three sermons:
A. Our words (v16) must be followed by actions (v24)
B. Our impression of Christ's divinity and messiahship (vv13-20) may contrast with his lowly death and his ability to be tempted (16:21-28).
C. Jesus praises Peter in vv13-20 and then rebukes him in verse 23.
All in all, these two passages seem to be a study of the contrast between life on Sunday morning and life the other six days of the week.
DeepSouth Steve
When did Jesus ever say that one must believe He is divine (or His mother a virgin) in order to follow Him? Jesus called for persons to follow Him. What restrictions were there? Didn't the knowledge that Jesus is divine come as revelation after Easter, an implication of the Resurrection? Were the disciples of lesser faith because they did not have our creeds and dogmas? This was a debate that would not be won for centuries, perhaps still not (cf. Arian controversty). Gil in IN
THREE VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS:
1. Exactly why did Jesus want his messiahship to be kept secret?
2. Note that Jesus uses the title "Son of Man" (v13), but Peter calls him "the Son of God." What are the differences between "the Son of Man," "the Son of David," and "the Son of God?" The Gospels refer to Jesus using each of these titles though they carry different meanings. What are their etymologies, and how did Jesus and his followers use them?
3. Matthew has Jesus ask, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" Mark and Luke instead ask, "Who do people say that I am?" If we could not cross-reference with Mark and Luke and we did not know that the Matthian Jesus often refers to himself as "the Son of Man," we could easily assume that Jesus is asking an ordinary question about the heroes of Israel and Judah. As it is, there are several ways to interpret the disciples' answer. This question is multiple choice.
a). The disciples did not think the question had anything to do with his identity. They simply state that the people believe the Son of Man to be Elijah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, or some other prophet. Note that Jesus is not on this list; therefore, the people did not regard him as highly as John the Baptist and the others.
b). The disciples knew that Jesus is the Son of Man, and, had they been asked what they believed, they would have responded accordingly. However, since they were only asked what other people thought, they listed a bunch of other names.
c). The disciples in Matthew interpreted the question to be the exact same question Jesus asked in Mark and in Luke: "Who do people say that I am?" Therefore, the people believe that Jesus is the reincarnation of a dead prophet.
I DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN UNDERSTAND THIS PASSAGE UNLESS WE KNOW WHAT IS MEANT BY THE DECLARATIONS IN VERSES 13-16. (Not that I haven't ever preached a passage without comprehending at least some of it first, but I felt as though I were cheating my congregation when there was more that I could try to understand.)
DeepSouth Steve
I remember reading somewhere once that throws a new twist on the "Peter" and "Rock" connection. The scholar conveyed that he beloieved that we may be looking at this wrong, that we should look at it something like this, 'When Jesus says to Peter "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church," Jesus is referring to this declaration of faith as the rock, not Peter. For if the church was built on Peter, it would be built on something fallible, man. But built upon true faith in Christ, it is built upon a rock solid foundation.' Anyway, I remember reading that somewhere. I am still not quite sure how this sermon will develop, but it is "food for thought." Consume it, savor it, or spit it out. We all need to taste different things. Tim in NC
It's been a long time since I have made a contribution, although I have enjoyed reading all the comments from time to time. In this passage I happened to notice a unique parallel. Peter says, "You are the Messiah, . . ." The Jesus says, "You are Peter . . . " Then Jesus goes on to describe the protection for and duties of the church. It seems that who we are as a church depends directly on our confession of who Jesus is as the Messiah. Just some initial thoughts. Art in KY
It's been a long time since I have made a contribution, although I have enjoyed reading all the comments from time to time. In this passage I happened to notice a unique parallel. Peter says, "You are the Messiah, . . ." The Jesus says, "You are Peter . . . " Then Jesus goes on to describe the protection for and duties of the church. It seems that who we are as a church depends directly on our confession of who Jesus is as the Messiah. Just some initial thoughts. Art in KY
I am preaching a sermon called "BYPASS SURGERY" i am gonna talk about the heart surgery performed on Peter...he opened Peter's heart.... MARTY
To me, the Messiah means the Son of the living God who created and creating. This phrase talks about not the Christology but Messiology. The Messiah, the Christ who saves the world is the son of God. Whoever identifies oneself as part of God's good creation and live accordingly is joining in God's creating work. Those who accords with/in God's creating Spirit are the sons and daughters of God. TO john
Great discussion again this week. How can persons claim Jesus in their own lives. I have found too many people claiming other people's faith, instead of claiming it for themselves. It's always easier to say "well my grandmother believed... or my father says, or my Sunday school teach thinks, or even my pastor believes. This passage challenges us to claim Jesus for ourselves, we cannot get to heaven on someone else's faith--it must be our own. The disciples gave other people's answer until Jesus challenged them, "What about you, who do YOU say that I am?"
just some thoughts as I am working on this week's sermon.
Love, Paula on the beach in sunny Florida.
Tom in Ontario and Revup,
Thanks for attempting to ease my concerns over the baptism of my niece. A clarification. It's not the baptism or more specifically the baptizer that makes me shudder. It is the knowledge that my sister and her husband are so nonchalant about baptism, about their responsibility, the responsibility of this priest, and the responisibility of the church community at large to uphold the teachings that baptism and the service of baptism symbolize.
When Jesus asked Peter, who do you say that I am, and blessed him when Peter answered, Jesus was clearly implying that there is a right answer to the question and that Peter answered correctly.
Parents who do not rebuke the arrogant in the pulpit who deny or diminish who Jesus is are failing their own responsibility to teach truth to their children. A Church (or a denomination) that under the guise of diversity, under the misguidance of tolerance, refuses to correct a priest who denies the divinity of Christ, is seriously harming or intentionally misleading those they are charged to teach truth to.
If truth cannot be defined as Christ being the Son of the living God, the Messiah prophesied from the Old Testament, the fulfillment of the Law and the embodiment of God's love and mercy, then truth cannot be defined at all.
Proclaim the Truth, DPS'rs! Rebuke and correct the false prophets and teachers who deny Christ as God. This is your charge. This is your mission.
Rick in Va
OFF TOPIC.
Rick in VA
You are a Bible-believing person, that much is clear. You shudder about the priest and his humanistic belief. I would have thought that a bible-believing person like yourself would shudder about the very act of infant baptism. Nowhere in the Bible is infant baptism practiced. Infant baptism is a phenomenon instituted by Constantine and justified by Augustine. It isn't Biblical. This week's text is a reminder that each individual has to proclaim Jesus as the Messiah. I don't know any infants with the ability to do that. And, according to this scripture and others, it does no good for someone else to proclaim Jesus as Messiah on my behalf. In other words, my parents can't do that for me when I am an infant.
Dick
HEAVEN IS OPENED
Oh my disciples who do the people say the son of man is the people are divided as they wonder of the blessings you give
John the Baptist Matthew yelled out I heard the people speak this as I travel about
Elijah Elijah Thaddaeus responded to the quiz they say you have his power in what you give
Jeremiah Jeremiah Bartholomew broke his silence still for the people now believe he still lives
The Peter signaled with a fervent cry you are the Messiah the son of the living God from upon high
Jesus sternly looked at his chosen twelve and severly warned them that what my father has revealed you must not now tell
--Matt 16:13-20 X August 22, 1999 ---Copyright c 1999
Hi folks, Special deep thanx to Malcom...Mind if I quote u from the pulpit this weekend: "I intend to offer everyone present in worhship the opportunity to silently reflect on when they first knew who Jesus was...what was it they felt...where have they journeyed since then...and ask them what is God revealing to them now." Great stuff!
Thanx, too, to Paula on the beach "we cannot go to heaven on someone's else's faith." Rick in VA also alluded to this.
AS I read all your comments each week I am slowly realizing that the same passage of Scripture can mean different things to diffent people. Some "feel" it means THIS, while others because of their higher studies in Scripture offer scholarly opinions that it means THAT. If this is what is going on here then we are quite foolhardly if we do not consult the EARLIEST Christian preachers to find out what they thought. Their opinion is worth more than mine and yours because they were so close to the Apostles in time and many of them suffered for Christ. Of course they cannot address the specific problems of today in order to APPLY the teaching but even here, as the French say, "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose."
Joe in Maine
More on the Peter/Rock theme:
Linda Maloney, in Augsburg Fortress' "Proclamation" series, makes the point that the meaning of the name is not as clear as it first seems. Both Aramaic "kepha" and Greek "petros" refer to a smallish stone, such as one might throw, rather than to a firm bedrock. So, Peter might be more like a small, precious stone...a jewel, even. This could easiliy be connected to the Romans text, pointing out that we all have gifts, as we are all small yet precious stones in the eyes of God.
As always I have gained insights from your postings. I want to bounce something off all of you. I am looking at the reference to on this rock I will build my church. It seems to me that it is the confession(word) of Peter that is the rock, that the church is built on confessing people. As I have thought about the word in Scripture, I am reminded that when God built/created the world it was through the word, and Jesus in 1 John is the Word made flesh. So could the rock that the church is built on be the "revealed word of God"? Let me know what you think. Teri in TX
Thanks for all your insights. I want to bounce something off all of you. As I have considered the verse upon this rock I will build my church, it seems to me that the rock is Peter's confession(word) revealed by God. As I have thought about the word used throughout Scripture, I am reminded that God built/created the world through God's word, and in 1 John Jesus is referred to as the Word made flesh. So could it be that the rock is the revealed word of God? Let me know what you think. Teri in Tx
Thanks for all of your insights. I want to bounce something off all of you. It is in regards to the verse, upon this rock I will build my church. It seems to me that the rock is Peter's confession(word) revealed by God. So the church is built on confessing people. As I have thought about the word throughout Scripture I am reminded that God built/created the world through God's word and in 1 John Jesus is the Word made flesh. So could the "rock" be the revealed word of God both then and now? Let me know what you think. Teri in TX
PETER/ROCK
Our English text certainly makes it seem that Jesus is establishing Peter as the rock of the Church. Precedent for this is in the Isaiah 51 passage which refers to Abraham as the rock of faith (verses 1, 2).
David Garland in "Reading Matthew" (Crossroad, 1993) and C.C. Caragounis in "Peter and the Rock" (Walter de Gruyter, Inc, 1990) persuasively argue that the rock which Jesus builds his church is not the man Peter but Peter's confession, "You are the Christ, son of the living God." Caragounis interprets the passage to say, "As sure as you are called Petros, on this rock of what you have just said I will build my church" (Caragounis p 108).
Their arguments, great and small, are as follows:
1) The demonstrative pronoun "this" would not be used if Peter were the rock since Jesus was speaking directly to him. Jesus would instead say, "And you are the rock."
2) Petros usually refers to a free-standing stone, one that can be picked up. Petra, on the other hand, usually means "rock," "cliff," or "bedrock." If the words were meant to refer to the same thing, Matthew would have used the same word. Rather, we have a pun which implies that "Petros has given utterance to a petra, but the petra is not Petros" (Caragounis, p 109).
3) The pericope is about Jesus' identity, not Peter's. The passage opens with a question about what people think of Jesus, and it ends with a command to keep his messiahship a secret from the people. The next passage explains what it means that Jesus is the messiah; Jesus is to be crucified and resurrected.
4) Though Peter is always first in every list of disciples, he is never again mentioned as the foundation rock of the Church. However, his confession does become that which holds the Church firm and defends it from the powers of Hades.
Dick,
There is much we agree on...
I think infant baptism has been relied on far too much by the church, especially when it's taught as that act that 'makes' a person a believer.
My preference would be for a person of age to be baptized, and that the event would mean so much more than it does today in main-line churches. If baptism is the act by which we are to be saved, we no longer need churches, we need the equivalent of drive-through baptismal fonts.
Rick in Va
Wow, I can tell THIS is gonna be a fun week!
A look at the Gospel parallels is VERY interesting with this text. A few of many possible observations when comparing Matthew 16 with mark 8 and Luke 9...
> In each version the Jesus’ question sets up foretelling his Passion, and...
> the call to cross discipleship (deny self, take your cross, follow me)
> Matthew elaborates the most on Peter’s confession (Mark--the earliest version of it--is also the simplest)
> Matthew changes Jesus’ question, from "I" to "Son of Man" --i.e., more elaboration
> Matthew show Jesus with the most elaborate response to Peter’s confession
> Only in Matthew is this where Simon becomes "Peter"
> Luke’s version (the latest?) is the most different; it has NO rejection of the passion by Peter, amongst many other differences
> So, Matthew seems intent upon establishing Peter’s leadership credentials for the early church--the issue of the "keys" may well be only a sidebar -- the THEOLOGICAL focus must be elsewhere
SO WHAT? -- So, the ONLY CONSTANT in the parallels is JESUS’ QUESTION:
"But who do you say that I am?"
Jesus doesn’t care much about his own identity in asking this question. He is remarkably silent in all the gospel narratives about his identity. If he cared about his own identity, he would have stopped after the FIRST question, not needing to ask the second--changing from "people" and "crowds" to YOU. No, It’s more a question about WHO WE ARE. And this is not a question we can well answer with words at all; we certainly cannot FULLY answer this question with our words--or beliefs, or doctrines, or dogma. Nor with liturgy, nor rituals of any kind. They may point us in the right (or wrong) direction, serving as road signs along the way. But in fact, our words so often seem only to divide us.
Our words have often been pressed into service for distinctly unchristian motives; have too frequently been used to separate, condemn, torture, and even kill. Perhaps the only way we can answer the question is by how we live out a life a faith--the sum total of who we are AND who we are trying to become. To borrow from Fred Buechner, my life--its events, choices, leanings, failures, recoveries, etc.--is an "alphabet of grace" spelling out the answer to the question. And my life’s holiest moments are when I can hear/see that what is being spelled out is that very grace by which I live; and when I can see how it is being spelled out in your life, in every life. Even in the lives that we would condemn and reject, lives that seem to be spelling out a huge "NO." No is also an answer. An allowed answer. A very human answer.
And the miracle of grace, of course, is that it need NEVER, EVER be the final answer. Unlike our human alphabets, constrained as they are by grammars and syntax and endless rules, grace remains beyond the reach of our limited, limiting speech. And mercifully therefore, beyond our control.
In every life, a new word is always possible. On every heart, new hope being written.
"Who do you say that I am?"
Lord: you are the possibility of my completeness.
--Barry in OH
How often do we take the credit for having "persuaded" someone to become a Christian? I think that the central point of this passage is a reminder that we, as flesh and blood, can only set the scene for conversion through education and example. It is then the action of the Holy Spirit entering upon request that really accomplishes the conversion. This passage reminds me that I must not lose sight of who the real miracle worker is!
Mike in Chatham, OH
I think that the message here is contained in 16:17. I wonder how often we credited ourselves with having brought someone to Jesus, forgetting that we only set the scene. It is the Holy Spirit that accomplishes the true conversion. This passage reminds me that I can only go so far without divine intervention.
Mike in Chatham, OH
To Rick in Va, Since you wrote about parents who do not rebuke the arrogant, I'm writing to do my duty and rebuke you. You give new meaning to the word arrogant. I appreciate the fact that you want to change the world, but start with yourself. Pete in Texas
To Rick in Va, Since you wrote about parents who do not rebuke the arrogant, I'm writing to do my duty and rebuke you. You give new meaning to the w
I apologize for the similiar three postings. I am still learning this and I did not think the first two got sent. Again I am sorry. Keep up the good theologizing! Teri in TX
As a former Roman Catholic, now Protestant (UCC) I found I needed to try to look at this passage with fresh eyes. After all, I have heard this for years used to base 1) the basis of the Pope's role and 2) the priests role in absolving people from their sins. So I ran to the trusty Greek/English lexicon to look up some the words in the Greek. And I was suprised to see the lexicon say that the Greek words for loosed and bound may actually be translated better "whatever you say is permitted is allowed,and what you say is not permitted is not" And this brought me to acts, where Peter has his dream about the food coming down from heaven that was non-kosher, and then when Peter sits with the Gentiles to eat. So it appears the Peter took this role of Jesus seriously. Just an interesting connection that popped into my mind. And a totally different perspective from the one of absolving sin. One question that nags on my mind though- WHY does Jesus tell his disciples NOT to tell anyone he is the Messiah? Later, after the resurrection, Jesus sends them out to proclaim the Good News- but why not here? Any one have any insights.
Debbie in Bangor, ME
Pete in Texas,
You forgot to correct. I believe I said that we must rebuke and correct the arrogant. I'm willing to be corrected. I must first however, as a matter of necessity, know how it is that I'm arrogant.
Please share that with me (write me at Rickinva@desperatepreacher.com) so that if your words to me are insights from God, I can act upon them and if they are not, I can dismiss them as nothing more than your expression of disagreement with my viewpoint.
Thanks,
Rick in Va
Is it possible that the rock upon which Jesus promises to build the church is the divine revelation given to Peter (and ultimately each of us) that enabled him to recognize Jesus as Messiah/ Savior. No one can come to God unless drawn by the Spirit, therefore the building of the church is truly the work of God, not a matter of human (flesh and blood) accomplishment. The plan of God from the very foundation of time, executed by the Son and delivered by the Spirit. Peter's confession was not to his credit, it was a gift. Through divine revelation we come to know God and through the work of the cross we are recognized and accepted by God. Sinbad Goose Creek, SC
I have seen the "loosed" and "bound" section of this scripture used as Debbie mentioned, to say what is permissible and what is not. Perhaps this is where we can go to really look at ourselves as Christians. What is permissible and what is not? Historically we look at what the "Church" has said is permissible or NOT, for example...people of color in churches and their respective roles, women in the church and their respective roles, divorce, homosexuals and on and on.
Many of these issues have been "loosed", some, have remained "bound". When and who makes these decisions?
MJ in NWOhio
Dick: Sorry to have to directly challenge you, but I must as you appear to be "inventing" some scripture and ignoring other seripture. I cannot find any mandate in scripture for restricting baptism to "Believer's Baptism" which you seem to profess. And if you use your King James Version Bible for Acts 8:37, (The Ethiopian Eunuch) sorry, that verse does not appear in the earlier, more accurate manuscripts of the Bible. (An in depth study of the origins of the KJV is illuminating.) Acts 8:37 was added at some point, but not by the early writers. You say infant baptism is not in the Bible, however there are at least three passages that say a man AND HIS FAMILY were baptized. Families in New testament times virtually always included babies as well as children and grandparents. Please show me a place in scripture where one had to personally believe before being baptized, or three places to refute the baptism of entire families. revup
MJ in NWOhio: I heard somewhere that whoever changes the ancient boundaries and rules is stealing.
Regarding the "Keys": Is Jesus here teaching us the theory of "Tough Love?" One of the hardest decisions we make is to define the difference between tough love and unconditional love. We cannot "enable" an alcoholic or abuser to abuse themselves or others. We must apply tough love. Nor can we reject those with problems that Jesus can solve. Anybody else see the keys as "Tough Love?" revup
1). The faith vision of Jesus as the "anointed" implies a unity between the "ministry" involving the Kingdom of God and the person of Jesus. 2). In this faith vision of the covenant/Kingdom come on earth in the person and work/ministry of Jesus there is an identity to the one who has this faith vision as belonging to the "gathered", the "church", the servant of the covenant. 3). "Keys to the Kingdom" are a part of this faith vision that deals with not only how we see God in the Christ but how God-in-Christ sees us as servants of the sacred covenant in the coming of God's Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. PaideiaSCO in north ga mts.
revup: Since I was directly challenged I will respond. Concerning the three occasions when a man and his family were baptized (actually three men and a woman: Crispus, the jailor, Stephanas, and a woman named Lydia): you are making an ASSUMPTION about the children. It does not say anything about children being baptized in these passages.
Also: 1) Acts 8:12 "But when they believed Philip, who was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." First, there is the belief thing. Second there is specifically no mention of children here (men and women, NOT men, women and children). (By the way, that is from the NRSV.)
2) Mark 16:16 "The one who believes and is baptized will be saved." Hmmm. How many infants have the capacity to believe? (And that is straight from the NRSV! Imagine that.)
3) John 3:16 You know it by heart. Even the NRSV includes that pesky "believes" word.
4) Acts 2:38 "Peter said to them, 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" How many infants have the capacity to repent? (Man, that came from the NRSV, too.)
I guess we could trade quotes and sarcasm for the next month and not convince each other. Quite frankly, I don't care if I convince you or anybody else. Each faith tradition has its theology for baptism and the scripture to support it. Lutherans are taught that in baptism, "Here God approaches man and communicates himself to man in a special way." Methodists are taught that in baptism God "doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in him." UCC teaches "In Holy Baptism God imparts that gift of new life unto man, receives him into his fellowship as his child, and admits him as a member of the Christian church." I believe baptism is twofold. It is first a confession of sin on my part and the forgiveness that God grants upon that admission. And secondly, entrance into the family of faith, accepting the responsibilities that go with discipleship. Not only being held accountable but holding others in the faith accountable. I believe a certain level of belief and faith is required for that. That is what I was taught and I have the scripture to back it up. Fact is, we have both bored everyone with our discussion. The bottom line is we are on the same team -- a couple of preachers trying to introduce folks to Christ so they can enjoy a life of forgiveness and joy. I am beginning to believe that the Society of Friends with their lack of public ritual are onto something.
Dick
Re the comment about if Peter is a rock, then he is a small one, perhaps a jewel; if Peter is a jewel, he is certainly a diamond in the rough at this point in the story! Cf. next week's lesson, where Peter gets rebuked by Jesus. But part of the point of the story is that the church is full of diamonds in the rough, sinners and saints, and yet God makes His kingdom out of such as us. Mike in Maryland
This comming Sunday as I baptize an infant, which I strongly believe in, I will charge the congregation with the responsibility. Who do you say Jesus is? And who will you tell this child that Jesus is. Baptizim is not an end but a beginning. A beginning of a lifetime of learning to know who the Son of the Living God is and what that means to our everyday lives. One just needs to listen to the children in the children's message some time to see the disciples at work. "Go ye, therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and ofthe Son and + of the Holy Spirit.
novice in nebraska
MJ in NW Ohio -- I'm also in NW Ohio. Were are you at? revbarryb@aol.com
Wow! I wasn't going to get into the baptism thing (Infant vs. Believer) but I may as well put in my two cents worth. Our baptismal liturgy says the following, "In Holy Baptism our gracious heavenly Father liberates us from sin and death by joining us to the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. We are born children of a fallen humanity; in the waters of Baptism we are reborn children of God and inheritors of eternal life. By water and the Holy Spirit we are made members of the Church which is the body of Christ. As we live with him and with his people, we grow in faith, love, and obedience to the will of God." Martin Luther says, in the Small Catechism. "What does Baptism mean for daily living?" "It means that our sinful self, with all its evil deeds and desires, should be drowned through daily repentance; and that day after day a new self should arise to live with God in righteousness and purity forever." If you feel like it you can check out an essay I wrote about the Integrity of Baptism at www.cgocable.net/~tparth/th540b/essay540b4.htm Those were my thoughts on the matter last spring. I may not have expressed them the way I wanted to but see what you think. Maybe this discussion should be in the Discussion Forum. Tom in Ontario
To Debbie in Bangor: We talked in class about Jesus wanting to keep his Messiahship secret until his crucifixion. It may be that he did not want to be seen, at the time, as a majestic, miracle working, kingly Messiah but as a suffering Messiah. Only once he is bound and being tried by the Sanhedrin does he finally admit that he is the Messiah, the Son of God. It's a topsy turvey view of a king. A humble, serving king. Tom in Ontario
Rick in VA -- We share a state, but we are worlds apart.
Jesus asked, "Who do YOU say that I am?" NOT, "Who do you say that your niece's parents says that I am?" NOT, "Who do you say that Bishop Spong says that I am?" NOT, "Who do you say that a 'secular humanist' or 'Catholic priest' says that I am?" NOT, "Who do you say that "ivory tower intellectuals" say that I am? And, well ... the point is made. As I understand the text, you are out of line answering for others. Is it possible that God has a deeply personal relationship with individuals in ways different than your own? Is it possible that each of those persons also answers the question, "Who do you say that I am?" And, though their answers might differ from your own, they are still called by God by name?
Perhaps your answering for others or claiming some special access to Truth is what some of us experience as 'arrogant.'
Maybe the next level for each of us is to return the question to Jesus, "Who do YOU say that I am?" Please think (and even pray!) on this one before firing off a quick post! --meredith in va
Dick, I was trying hard not to get involved in the discussion of "infant baptism" but I feel that I need to clarify you on something as a third party. It appears to be you who was sarcastic. You trounced on a brother because of a theological difference. We must ALL remember not to let our beliefs get in the way of our FAITH. Let us also remember that when it comes to the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, we all lack the understanding, regardless of our age. We are not able to comprehend the magnitude of grace, but we accept it by faith. May God bless us all as we continue to grow in our knowledge and dedication to Him and His church. Godspeed, Tim in NC
Meredith (and the rest of you who mistake my confidence for arrogance),
I made a decision some time ago to trust the Scriptures as God's Word, to trust Jesus Christ as the embodiment of Truth, to trust the Bible as a means of conveying truth to God's people. It's a decision I've committed to. It is a lens through which I see the world. Yes, I'm pre-disposed to the notion that Truth exists. Yes, I have prejudicially decided that relativism is hogwash and that we as individuals do not define truth. And yes, I've experientally had confirmation, time and again, that my predispositions towards the Word, towards Christ, towards the existence of Truth has a basis in objective reality.
As a human being, I'm fallible. I make mistakes. Since I'm not divine (though my dog thinks that I am), I'm prone to error. But my error-prone ways do not deny objective reality. My error-prone ways does not diminish the fact that 2 + 2 = 4. That the sun rises daily and that it sets nightly. And that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Son of God!
You want to label this arrogance, then do so ignorantly, especially as a Shepherd of God, entrusted with not just the expression of faith in Christ but with the responsibility of speaking against falsehood.
My critiques, my admonitions, my so called arrogant words, are aimed directly between the eyes of those in the Body of Christ, who diminish the person of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God based solely on their inability to trust and believe, or more bluntly, their inability to submit to God's Word. An inability to submit to God's Word is how I define arrogance. It is the placing of one's intellect above the revealed word (and subsequently, the Word) of God.
I see this as confidence in who Christ is, as humbling my intellect in favor of the unreasonableness of the supernatural. My criticism is rarely aimed at anyone in the pews. It is aimed at leaders in the Church, at those who by their position are responsible for the teaching of Truth.
And Meredith, it is arrogant of you, (and typically hypocritical), to assume that my views have not been arrived at prayerfully, simply because they don't line up with yours. Where my views don't line up with Scripture, the whole of it, and not that taken out of context, then please rebuke AND correct me. But do so with supporting evidence. I'm always open to convincing. I'm never open to criticism based solely on the fact that your viewpoint is different than my own, especially when that viewpoint is nothing more than a less than convincing attempt to diminish the existence of truth.
God's blessings,
Rick in Va
I hope I am not to late. This is the first chance I had to visit your site this week. The Greek word Petros means rock. The Greek word Petra means little rock or even pebble. Chirst is the Rock, Peter is the Petra, the small stone. The Greek text accuratly gives Peter his charge, under Christ.
RevRon
For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish THEIR OWN, they did not submit to God's righteousness. Romans 10:2 -3 (NIV)
But if anyone causes one of these little ones SUCKLINGS) WHO BELIEVE IN ME to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Matthew 18:6(NIV)
People were also bringing BABIES to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." Luke 18:15-17 (NIV)
Please, SOMEONE tell me how we got onto Baptism in this passages.
I look forward to all views and understandings expressed here, and assume that if you are at this spot, you are here because even though a desperate preacher, you are trying to be a faithful one. And as the disciples did not always agree exactly on who Jesus was or what exactly it meant (look at the Letter of James versus Paul's Roman's- is it faith with out works is dead or we are justtified by faith alone?) neither will we. But I would hope that this would be at least ONE site I could find where we could bring our prayerful questions, beleifs and convictions, air them, discuss them, but not destroy each other.
I have found this site ao helpful the last two months- PLEASE don't turn it into yet another nasty arguementive site, or a site where only one way of thinking is allowed. There are already too many of those on the web.
May the Peace and Grace of God prevail on these boards and in ALL your lives, Debbie in Bangor, ME
It's unfortunate that the discussion about the meaning of the "rock" digressed into a rock throw- ing session. I really would be interested in feedback/comments on my entry of yesterday concern- ing the rock being the gift of divine revelation. My thoughts have been influenced my church tradition (pentecostal/holiness)which has not been in the mainstream of orthodoxy (if such a thing exists). The idea seems to be exegetically plausable. What do you think? Sinbad Goose Creek SC
Hi all,
I usually come to this site and feel inspired. I usually find a story I can use. I am usually taken with something that Nailbender or Latina has to offer. Usually there is some piece of theology or detail of information that I have not yet read. But this week, save the discussion of the Rock there has been much bickering, name calling, judgments and, for me, frustration and deep sadness. I cannot see the discussion on baptism as something that I can use to preach on. I am tempted to vent my opinion on this whole thing: Rick being arrogant, the right of us to judge, adult and infant baptism, but I will consciously swallow the lump in my throat and refrain from doing so. I do, however have something to offer and I would love it if we could get back to the passage. I AM GETTING DESPERATE!!
I think it is important to understand the phrase: Son of Man. Ezekiel uses the phrase 76 times to refer to himself. In Ezekiel, Son of Man means that Ezekiel is mortal, just a man. One could presume that Ezekiel made up the phrase.
Son of Man is used again, once, in Daniel 7:13 to refer to the coming of the Messiah. The messiah will be human. Anyone familiar with the Old Testament would have known these two understandings of Son of Man. And so Jesus uses the Son of Man, in a very subtle way, to hint that he is the Messiah and that he is mortal.
I found this in Westminster's dictionary of theological terms.
Frustrated, pissed off, tempted to leave but I won't flee, Kelly in Alberta
Regarding the Son of Man phrased used here; According to the Anchor Bible Dictionary- in a very long article about the Son of Man that I would recomend to anyone who has the time- Matthew is using Son of Man in his gospel as reference to Daniel. And Daniel's son of Man was a heavenly being that "appeared as a son of Man" So another view point on this. Anybody else have resources on the use of "Son of Man" that they would care to share?
I plan to focus my sermon around the question of "who do you say I am?" so any input on what the "scholars" have to say about the Son of Man phraseology would be appreciated.
Peace and Grace, Debbie in Bangor
revup - I like your thought of Jesus teaching the theory of 'Tough love'. From what you say I can guess a little of what you mean by that, but I'm not familiar with the term - is it an American expression? Would you mind posting a sentence describing tough love? (Scottish) John in Australia
revup - I like your thought of Jesus teaching the theory of 'Tough love'. From what you say I can guess a little of what you mean by that, but I'm not familiar with the term - is it an American expression? Would you mind posting a sentence describing tough love? (Scottish) John in Australia
Kelly in Alberta,
Please swallow the anger, and stick around. I may or may not agree with you, but leaving is certainly not necessary or productive.
I appreciate your references to Ezekiel's use of the Son of Man. And Christ's use to imply his Messiah-ship. More evidence of Jesus claiming Divinity in the fulness of his humanity. More reason for me to trust Him as my Messiah.
'preciate ya,
Rick in Va
Since I have managed to offend everyone maybe I can redeem myself.
Jesus and his disciples have traveled to Caesarea Philippi in northernmost Israel, away from the distractions and confusions of Jerusalem. Jesus there confronts his "students" with, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
"Son of Man" appears regularly as Jesus' favorite term for himself. Obviously the disciples are familiar with this self-designation. They do not hesitate to answer with a series of possibilities. But, like the Son of Man title itself, all the identities offered are pulled from Israel's established, traditional past. The people Jesus has preached to, healed, fed and taught are capable of understanding him and his mission only by pigeonholing him into some past identity, now brought back to life.
Herod himself had guiltily voiced the possibility that Jesus was John the Baptist "raised from the dead" (Matthew 14:2). And didn't the Scriptures promise that Elijah would return (Malachi 4:5-6) immediately prior to the "day of the Lord," reconciling children and parents so that they may be spared the wrath that is to come? The disciples' further reference to Jeremiah or "one of the prophets" continues to emphasize that the people of Israel still only conceive of Jesus as one in a long line of remarkable human figures God has used over the centuries to speak to humanity. Moving beyond traditional understanding is not yet possible for them.
Jesus then asks, "But who do you say that I am?" The disciples are now on the spot. This is no parable or image or suggestion or story - this is a straightforward question.
Biblical scholars often part ways at interpreting Simon Peter's eager leap into the awkward silence that followed. Some insist that Peter was simply the representative voice of all the disciples there - suggesting that his view was not unique. It was just that his unruly, impetuous nature got him first in line to speak what they all acknowledged.
Whatever judgment is made at this juncture colors the interpretation for the remainder of the exchange between Jesus and Peter. If Peter is speaking on behalf of all the disciples, then Jesus' blessing and the investiture of the "keys" may also be viewed as communal property, held equally among all those confessing believers. If, however, Peter is making a personal observation - one perhaps not shared by the others at this time - it would seem that Jesus' words are for Peter in particular.
Peter's confession defines Jesus as Messiah (or Christ) - and further stipulates that he is "the Son of the living God." Peter's emphasis on Jesus' sonship may be an attempt to further distinguish Jesus' unique identity. While the historic rulers of Israel, once anointed and coronated, could also claim the messianic title, only Jesus, Peter insists, is the true Son of the divine.
Jesus' praise of Peter for his words is immediate and emphatic. Jesus blesses Peter, identifying the disciple's lineage even as Peter has just cited his. Perhaps it is because Jesus knows Peter's normally all-too-human tendencies and temperament that he playfully adds the observation that not "flesh and blood" but only "my Father in heaven" could have made such an insight possible.
Now Jesus moves beyond mere praise to purpose - redefining Peter's own identity. In typical fashion Jesus adds humor even to this most significant moment - for he founds the messianic community, the church, on a pun. His play on words between Peter/Petra and rock/petras is well known. Also familiar to his first century Jewish audience would be the tradition that often cited Abraham as the rock from which Israel was hewn. They also remembered Abraham's name change in that process. Thus, as Abraham served as the foundation from which sprang the first chosen community, the first Israel, Peter stands as the foundational rock for Christ's church, the second Israel.
The strength of this foundation, Jesus next insists, will be so great that the "gates of Hades" will not be able to destroy it. To the disciples listening to this exchange, and to all the generations of the church that have followed, these are comforting words. Any doubts about Jesus' wisdom in choosing Peter as this foundational figure dissipate in the face of this straightforward promise.
Numerous scholars from all confessions have begun to see the investiture of the "keys" to Peter as being on behalf of the church, not based on his own position as "rock." Indeed, Peter as the rock is to be the foundation, the base, the unyielding, unchanging ground for a vital, moving, ever-challenged community to be known as the church. The gates of Hades cannot prevail against this church. The image suggests a community on the move, marching forward to defeat the powers of death and darkness that Hades represents. Thus, it would seem logical that it is to this community, his church, that Jesus entrusts the keys and the power to bind and loose - a dynamic image for a dynamic entity.
This dialogue concludes with Jesus warning the entire band of disciples not to reveal his true identity. As verse 21 reports, it is immediately after this that Jesus begins to tell his disciples of his impending death and resurrection. Having introduced these slow students to the truth about himself, Jesus is concerned that they understand what his messiahship means and what tremendous cost it entails before they speak about it to anyone else.
Dick
How are we as the church to use our power to bind and loose? A story from the East (as told by Indian Jesuit Anthony DeMello) that speaks powerfully to me of Jesus and his desire for his church:
The devotee knelt to be initiated into discipleship. The guru whispered the sacred mantra into his ear, warning him not to reveal it to anyone.
"What will happen if I do?" asked the devotee.
Said the guru, "Anyone to whom you reveal the mantra will be liberated from the bondage of ignorance and suffering, but you yourself will be excluded from discipleship and suffer damnation."
No sooner had he heard those words than the devotee rushed to the marketplace, collected a large crowd around him, and repeated the sacred mantra for all to hear.
The disciples reported this to the guru and demanded that the man be expelled from the monastery for his disobedience.
The guru smiled and said, "He has no need of anything I can teach. His action has shown him to be a guru in his own right.
— From Heart of the Enlightened, p.40
Compare Philippians 2:5-7a: 5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, 7 but emptied himself...
Glen Michaels in Essex, NY <gfmichaels@aol.com>
Dick,
If your words are offensive, then please, offend me time and again...
Glen,
I'm afraid I'm a bit too slow and didn't 'get' your post considering the guru. Could you possibly write me (rickinva@desperatepreacher.com) and expound?
To (Scottish) John in Australia: Thank you for responding to my idea. Putting "Tough Love" into a sentence is rather impossible. American (Christian) psychologist Dr. James Doson wrote a whole book, "Love Must be Tough." "Tough love" refers to a procedure to follow when a person, say an alcoholic or spouse abuser, continues in a self abusive and/or other abusive behavior. (A wife too often covers up for the husband by giving excuses, and we in the States call that "enabling" the behavior.) "Tough love" theory states we will no longer help or allow the person to abuse us and/or others. In fact, in many cases the abused person will leave the abuser because they love them too much to continue to support the behavior. Leaving can be an act of love, designed to force the person to face their problem and hopefully REPENT and seek counseling and help to end their abusive behavior. (SOME claim unconditional love means we need to continue to accept the bad behavior.) The text reads, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
My point was that Jesus seems to be saying here His church has the power to use "Tough Love" to get people to repent of their sinful ways. If we get them to repent, God will forgive their sins as well. (Per Tom of Ontario's 8/16/99 Luther quote post) I am open to hearing contrary opinions, for a change I am not sure I am right! revup
PS to John: My daughter arrived safely home from Australia last month. She did come home with the scary story of one American student evidently getting eaten by a crocodile! Thanks for those who prayed for her safety the past few months.
Ooops, it was James Dobson.
It seems to me much posting on this site is off the track of Matthew 16:13-20. How did we get to infant baptism and unworthy ministers? This kind of posting belongs more on the discussion portion of this site. Regarding this scripture text, I was thinking about the kind of faith that is "testimonial" in nature, eg. This is how I see the Lord working in my life....this is my experience of God. Peter's confession of faith was testimonial in nature. And Jesus reaction was great..(paraphrased)...How I have waited for this kind of faith!!...on this kind of faith, I can build my church..and nothing can prevail against it!!! Does this make sense to anyone reading this??? Just one more thing regarding negative or critical posting, I seems to me that to the righteous-sounding and condemning, Jesus preached judgement -- to the humble, Jesus preached forgiveness, salvation and good news. That's all I have to offer...bob in MI
It seems to me much posting on this site is off the track of Matthew 16:13-20. How did we get to infant baptism and unworthy ministers? This kind of posting belongs more on the discussion portion of this site. Regarding this scripture text, I was thinking about the kind of faith that is "testimonial" in nature, eg. This is how I see the Lord working in my life....this is my experience of God. Peter's confession of faith was testimonial in nature. And Jesus reaction was great..(paraphrased)...How I have waited for this kind of faith!!...on this kind of faith, I can build my church..and nothing can prevail against it!!! Does this make sense to anyone reading this??? Just one more thing regarding negative or critical posting, I seems to me that to the righteous-sounding and condemning, Jesus preached judgement -- to the humble, Jesus preached forgiveness, salvation and good news. That's all I have to offer...bob in MI
What a wonderful story about the guru, Glen. Now that will preach! It also seems to me that it is an interesting commentary on the discussion this week. Peter, not unlike some of us, seemed sometimes to claim the truth as his personal property. (For example, he even rebukes Jesus in 16:22) The good news is too good to keep -- encounter with the living Christ demands that we share the marvelous relationship with others. Yet,in spite of our desparate efforts, we cannot control the character and nature of another relationship. That is, if I share Christ with my friend, the friend's relationship (insights, theology, beliefs?) will not be a duplicate of my own. Christ comes to each of us in unique, personal, and totally adequate ways. Once the gospel is loosed, the wind blows where it will.
Ev in Kansas
Thanks for the good, stimulating and thought provoking discussion. Rick in VA - don't worry - God does the baptizing - as he has even worked through pagans for His good. Dick - it's not what we do that saves us - but what Christ does. That's so hard for us to accept. We want some credit for doing something, making the right decision, doing some act to show how 'we' changed. It is God how works in us just as he told Jeremiah --and others, including you and me--that he knew us while we were unborn.
Baptizing infants shows dramatically that It is not what we do, but what God does--before we ever have a clue what has gone on--come-- for our behalf. Through Jesus Christ, it is God's gift. The meaning and effect is what Jesus does for us. Can we accept it? Who do we say that Jesus is? Or do we have to add something about who we are in order for us to feel good about it? Do we think we are saved because we know the Bible so well, know Lutherıs Small Catechism by heart, make 'proper and timely decisions', worship faithfully every week, tithe and-and-then some? These are fruits of the spirit of being forgiven, but do not bargain, buy or argue for our salvation. I am saved, therefore I respond (repent) and hope my actions may be acceptable to Godıs eyes. Itıs very difficult for us, in our sinfulness, to trust God and all his grace through Jesus. I have enjoyed and am enjoying Robert Farrar Caponıs books. He has helped me Œget itı better. Itıs quite a journey. Can we celebrate it and let doors open for others by the power of the keys God gives?
Thanks for your contributions Rick in va, Dick, novice in nebraska, Meredith in va, Tom in NC, RevRon. How about those keys. We each are 'key' to God's call. As Eugene Peterson says through 'The Message' you can loose people from their sins, but if you don't, what are you going to do with them? We are called to be little Peters, to do our best to loose people from their sins, to use our gifts-keys-to pass on the love of God through Christ Jesus. How do you say that I am? Jesus asks. Thanks everyone. This is a good day. This is a good discussion. Please, pardon my rambling. Peace SinNEr
I apologise to the group for the discussion meant for other forums. I realize for this venue to work we must let things slide and just use the ideas we can. I try hard to do that! My soft spot is when I see the clear scriptural mandates of God's gospel turned into law. Next time I will refrain and bite my tongue.
Blessing, RevRon
Thanks to all of you for the wonderful insights and discussion this week! Rev Ron, and others, thanks for the "rock vs pebble" clarifications.
One little note: Please try to remember that the written word does not carry "tone of voice" very well, and we often read into it something that is not really meant by the writer. This is not a criticism, but a gentle reminder that we should not jump to an offended stance at something said by a brother or sister on the site. We are all sharing because we love the Lord, and are concerned enough to help each other understand His word, and share it with others.
Janet in NY
Responding to Debbie in Bangor, ME
Jesus' disciples were "DULL" and we today have that same "DULLNESS". Your inquiring mind has brought forward two points:
1. "loosed and bound" as these words are exact opposites.
Here is the meaning. "While it might be uncertain for you, you could release whatsover things there are in regard to sins. For of a certainty, sins have been released."
"While it might be uncertain for you, you could retain whatsoever things there are in regard to sins. For of a certainty, sins have been retained."
Now the meaning of the "son of man" Jesus has in mind his relationship to ADAM. After ADAM sinnned, no "MAN" has been, but Jesus, the son of man...
Will in California
Hi all! I've been hiding out over at the Epistle reading, since my ECUMENICAL sermon is going to be focusing upon the way the Body of Christ is made up not only of individuals with gifts from God, but also of congregations with specific gifts. We will be looking at ways that we can join in ministry together--specifically with our joint vacation bible school program.
I have to tell you that your ongoing argument (Yes, it does sound argumentative) about baptism is not where I want to go this week. Our church practices "believers baptism" and the congregation we're meeting with baptises infants. Will this difference keep us from sharing our faith with each other? Will it keep us from worshipping together and proclaiming God's love to our children? No. We will instead focus on what links us. Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God, is our confession too. It is the confession of all Christians, and it is that confession of faith which allows us to function as a complete body, despite our differences. What a cause for celebration. What joy it will give me to recognize the face of God in the face of each person worshipping with me this Sunday.
by the way, Have any of you troubled by the baptism issue ready "Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry" lately? BEM is a fine document to fall back on when our differences begin to cause us trouble.
Pam in San Bernardino
revup,
I can appreciate your post concerning Dr. James Dobson and his "tough love" approach; however, the best "parenting process" I have utilized is a paradigm promoted by Doctors Jim Fay and Foster Cline -- Parenting with Love and Logic. It states: That we set limits by telling our children what we will do (not by telling them what they will do). That we offer up lots of options. And that we allow our child to suffer the consequences of their mistakes while showing them empathic concern and understanding. It focuses on the way God loves us -- not through punishment, but through the consequences of our actions. There is a major difference. I give this technique my greatest endorsement (whatever that is worth) and can tell you that experientially, it does work.
Shalom, Nail-Bender in NC
A couple of random comments:
Go,Dick.
Hang in there, Kelly.
Do ya'll know this little song: I go to the rock of my salvation I go to the stone that the builder rejected I go to the mountain and the mountain stands by me All around me is shifting sand On Christ the solid rock I stand When I need shelter When I need of a friend I go to the rock, rock, rock, rock.
It rocks. Blessing, Susan in SanPedro (at St. Peter's, by the way -- so this is a fun text and Sunday for us!)
This is my first input. I have enjoyed the lively discussion. Another sight that has been very helpfull to me is SermonIllustrations.com. The bot sends these by email each Wednesday. This week I found the quote by Martin Luther very interesting, "I care not whether he be Christ, but that he be Christ for you." Peter responded: Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God. My sermon title will be "Who Was This Man?" Starting with the fact that he did first come as a man, no deference to man/woman, but mankind, 2nd point, he was a perfect man, "Image of GOD, 3rd point, Upon resurection, savior, and GOD the son. Pastor Keith N. OKlahoma
This is my first input. I have enjoyed the lively discussion. Another sight that has been very helpfull to me is SermonIllustrations.com. The bot sends these by email each Wednesday. This week I found the quote by Martin Luther very interesting, "I care not whether he be Christ, but that he be Christ for you." Peter responded: Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God. My sermon title will be "Who Was This Man?" Starting with the fact that he did first come as a man, no deference to man/woman, but mankind, 2nd point, he was a perfect man, "Image of GOD, 3rd point, Upon resurection, savior, and GOD the son. Pastor Keith N. OKlahoma
Nail-Bender in NC Yes, I agree on "options" for children, at least. I am raising a two year old adopted son (we adopted our grandchild) and am trying to give him the options approach. However, for his biological mother, my 22 year old daughter, we have had to resort to tough love. I see tough love more as an approach for adults to use with other adults. revup
Given the distinctions between petros and petra, maybe Jesus is saying the Simon is going to be a chip off the old block<G>. And then reminding him later on, when Peter rejects a suffering Messiah, that his faith is nothing to be taken for "granite." <VBG>
Peace to all, Sister Elias Freeman, Sol.S.B., Trinity Episcopal Church, Woodbridge, NJ
Sister, you could be "stoned" for puns like that!
Can anyone explain to me why the editors of this text CAPITALIZE the first letter of Hades and leave Heaven's first letter in lower case? HELP!! revup
Revup, they, obviously, made a hell of a mistake!
I wonder if the "rock" upon which the church is to be built is that of personal encounter with the Christ? The spiritual journey seems to me to be anchored in that deeply mystical and personal encounter with the Christ that leaves us both humbled and feeling loved at the same time. What others were saying were sort of intellectualizing, "in the head" kind of things. What Jesus is calling for, i think, is an expression of a deeper knowing. "I know that my redeemer liveth", not a knowing that is of the head, but, one that is of the heart, a knowing that transcends circumstances, transcends events; one that binds us at an almost unspeakable level to the One that is present to us no matter where we are or what we may be going through. It is from this deep place of being, that all doing flows.
The experience is similar to that of friends or lovers, whom we know, at a profoundly deep level would never do anything to harm us intentionally, or whom we know would always be faithful to us no matter what. This kind of knowiing is the eternal flame, if you will, out of which the entire relationship radiates. And all that the lovers or friends do hinge on this deeper way of knowing and trusting. This is the "rock" of any relationship that is life-giving and life-enhancing. I wonder if this is not part of what Jesus is asking Peter when he asks, "who do you say that I am?"
Richard Cambridge, Ill
Boy is it late. But the discussion is good. However, and with fear of being struck down for "questioning"scripture, why all the discussion about big and little rocks. Is there such a distinction in hebrew or aramaic, or was Jesus actually speaking Greek to the disciples? Wasn't last week's text something about swallowing camels and choking on gnats? But thanks to the many for some other great thoughts this week. Deke of the North
Glen Michael in Essex,
At first I couldn't connect your story to this passage, and now in the 11th hour it fits perfectly into my sermon. Thanks, you are indeed a God-sent.
Kelly in Alberta