Stephen,
|
> > It is clearly useless reasoning with you. |
If you don't try you'll never know, will you? It would be great if you could come up with some reasons for your beliefs, but arguing that because Jesus prayed for Peter therefore Peter must have been the head of the early church is not logical. Obviously this is something that convinces you, but it is not reason and argument. If you were able to find a text which said "Peter, who was their leader" or something similar, then that would be the sort of evidence you need. If you look up "leader" in the concordance you will, however, find there are no such texts connected to Peter.
| > You have taken many texts and twisted them to mean something they simply cannot mean. |
This remains to be demonstrated. For example you claim Acts 15 shows that Peter is head of the Council of Jerusalem, I point out that the structure of the chapter makes it clear it is James who is the leader. You perhaps think I am "twisting" this text, but are unable to show where my argument fails. Indeed, the Lutterworth Dictionary of the Bible states:
"Certainly James was the leader when the Jerusalem Council met (Acts 15)" (page 672).
So you cannot simply insist that my reading of Bible passages twists "them to mean something they simply cannot mean" if you are unable to show where that reading misrepresents the facts and if also in addition reputable scholars also agree with me.
|
> You refuse to debate the clear meaning of Matt 16:18 that states that Peter is > the Rock on which the Church is built. |
Not at all, right from the beginning of our dialogue I have gone in great detail through Matt 16, line by line, word by word, examining each symbol and how it relates back to the Old Testament and other parts of the New Testament. I would be interested in your own close reading of this passage. In case you have forgotten my detailed analysis of this passage, I will include it at the end of this response.
|
> Many times you have grossly misinterpreted what I say. > After going back to check if I made ambiguous > statements, all I can conclude is that you are deliberately twisting my > words. I do not have the patience to go and rehash everything I say to make > it crystal clear so that you cannot put words into my mouth as you are > doing, especially in this last response. |
Perhaps you could provide some examples of my "gross misinterpretation"? Let's go through some examples:
1) You claimed "everyone accepted papal authority" in the early church, I asked you to clarify what you meant by everyone and you said "I mean everyone except groups rejected as heretics by mainstream Christianity". I then provided detailed evidence that early church fathers such as Hippolytus and Tertullian rejected papal authority. Is this misinterpretation of what you said?
2) On the role of Peter in the early church, I said "stories concerning Peter seem to cast him as being caught in the middle between the Paul and James groups". Your response to this was "as is expected when two sides of a debate come to the Pope for a decision", to which I pointed out that by "caught in the middle" the Bible shows Peter agreeing first with one side, the with the other - hardly leadership behaviour. Is this misinterpretation of what you said?
3) You claimed Peter is always mentioned first in a list of disciples,
implying authority: "the leader is always mentioned first", I disputed the
idea that the first person mentioned must be the leader by pointing out
passages where the first person mentioned clearly was not the leader, for
example In Acts 4:27 we read: "Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together
with the Gentiles", here we have the name of the Roman Governor and the
local Jewish king. I think you will agree the Roman Governor was the leader
here, yet is mentioned second. I also pointed out there are a number of
passages where Peter is not mentioned first, for example:
Gal 2:9 "James, Peter and John"
1 Cor 3:22 "Paul or Apollos or Peter"
1 Cor 1:12 "one of you says 'I follow Paul'; another 'I follow Apollos';another 'I follow Peter'"
1 Cor 9:5 "the other apostles, and the Lord's brothers and Peter"
Again, how is this misinterpretation of what you have said?
In each case we find I have shown your argument to be flawed. Your only response appears to be to generally argue that I am misinterpreting what you say, but perhaps you would like to show in detail where this can be said to be true?
|
> If you can only twist or ignore the Bible verses I provide, and provide none > of your own, then that is sad. Paul clearly gives a description of the > heirarchical structure of the clergy, but as I noticed and pointed out > last time, you are clearly willing to ignore certain texts if they don't fit > your own personal world view. |
Where have I ignored your texts? Look back over the previous reply and you will see that I have responded to each text you have cited, with the exception of the "proofs" of the leadership of Peter which consisted of simply quoting nearly every passage in the New Testament which mentioned Peter, and as I pointed out it got laborious to repeatedly point out that the verse cited had nothing to do with leadership.
For example the texts you cited were Acts 15:6,23, 1 Tim 4:14, 5:17-22, 2 Cor 5:18, James 5:13-15, 1 Cor 12, as I pointed out "These texts simply indicate a very common sense structure for the early church, (a) decisions made by general concensus, (b) listen to all the arguments put forward, (c) appoint people to organise and run local churches, for example make arrangements for collections, help the poor etc, (d) respect the elders who have had more experience and understanding, respect the apostles who are able to tell us about what Jesus said and did".
Show me where the texts say any more than this?
|
> > As for second hand Bible study - that is EXACTLY how the Bible describes > learning about the truth. The very fact that the Apostles gave sermons > and preached, explaining the Bible to the hearers, shows that this method > works. |
We've already been through this lesson last time, and obviously the point hasn't sunk home yet. Those who listened to the disciples then went to the Bible to prove it for themselves, that is what you failed to understand originally from Acts 17 - you claimed it proved "the Bereans and the Thesselonians accepted the message of the Apostles without questioning", whereas a simple reading of the story reveals the opposite to be true, they "examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true" (Acts 17:11). Now you are repeating the same mistake, claiming those who heard the Apostles simply believed what they were told without checking it against the Scriptures. Think about it this time - study the Bible for yourself, don't let someone else do it for you.
|
> Naturally first hand Bible study is just as important, and I partake of that > method too. |
Not on the current evidence, as you appear to be quoting "proof texts" from other sources.
|
> However God has given us the gift of OTHER people's studies, > and made them available to us, and I think it is wise to acknowledge the > previous work done and benefit from that too. Your method of ignoring all > other Bible study done in the past, and being your own interpreter of the > Bible, has been proven to have disastrous consequences, visible in this > dialogue too. |
Not at all. I have read a great deal of other Bible study, and am aware of the various theories of interpretation, and I am not saying don't listen to them. Go back to the example in Acts 17. They *listened* to Paul, but then *checked* for themselves. You have to have a solid understanding of the material to make a judgement on what other interpreters say. As I have already pointed out, I can give examples of scholars who agree with my interpretations if you think that is more important than solid reasoning, but personally I prefer to see if someone can argue their own case, rather than just say they agree with some famous scholar.
|
> > This dialogue is going nowhere, and I am quite sick of your twisting of my > words and those of the Bible, so I am going to leave it here. And follow > the biblical advise of Titus 3:10-11 and Luke 10:10-12, |
|
> which give general instruction to Christians (not only clergy, as you falsely claim I said) |
"Unwilling laity were expelled from the congregation, or simply never included, as instructed by Jesus in Luke 10:10-12, and by Paul in Titus 3:10-11. False doctrine was not tolerated in biblical times."
This was in response to my point that the church leadership
"Rule in the sense of manage, yes, rule in the sense of imposing their beliefs on unwilling laity, no"
So clearly you were applying the text to the clergy.
|
> as well as specific instruction to the circumstances described. Unless any > follow-up arguments contain material of sufficient integrity (not the > moral type, note) I will not continue this dialogue. |
All I can hope is that you read the truth with an open mind and prayerful heart, and listen to that "still small voice" that sounds louder than the thunder and lightning.
Dominus vobiscum
John Mann
Here is the explanation of Matt 16:18 again.
The idea that Jesus gave authority to the Church of course comes from Peter's confession to Jesus (Matt 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-27). I shall not comment on the contributions made by Bible scholars on the variations between these gospel accounts, nor on the fact that most historians regard James, not Peter, as the leader of the Jerusalem church. Rather I shall focus on the meaning of the Jesus' reply to Peter's confession:
The key phrase occurs in Matt 16:17-19.
Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not
revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you
are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades
will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven;
whatever you bind in earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose
on earth will be loosed in heaven."
The phrase "I tell you that you are Peter" has a footnote in the NIV explaining that Peter means "rock", hence the change of name. This text has of course been used to support the claims that (a) Jesus established the institution of a Church, (b) he made Peter the head of the Church, and (c) the Church itself had power to grant salvation.
I shall show that this is certainly not the meaning of this text.
The first part of Jesus sentence points us to a revelation granted Peter, "this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven".
This phrase points us back to the prophets, "this vision of Obadiah" (Ob 1), "the vision of Nahum" (Nah 1:1), "write down the revelation" (Hab 2:2), "the vision I had seen" (Ez 11:24), "I, Daniel was the only one who saw the vision" (Dan 10:7). So Peter has been granted a revelation similar to that revealed to the prophets. Indeed, Jesus' phrase "not revealed to you by man" is very close to the phrase used in Daniel 10:7 "I, Daniel, was the only one who saw the vision". So Peter has been granted a prophetic revelation by God.
Jesus then introduces the concept of the rock: "And I tell you that you are Peter (rock), and on this rock..". The rock is an important concept in the prophets, Daniel 2 31:35 reads:
"You looked, O king, and there before you stood a large statue - an enormous, dazzling statue, awesome in appearance. The head of the statue was made of pure gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay. While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were broken to pieces at the same time and became like chaff on a threshing-floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth"
Later in the chapter the meaning of the rock is explained (Dan 2:44-45):
"In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure for ever. This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands - a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces."
So Peter has a vision "not revealed to you by man" and is identified by Jesus as a "rock" which, if our link with Daniel is correct, was not cut "by human hands". How certain can we be that Jesus had this rock from Daniel in mind? There are a number of important indicators that Jesus understood his times as being described by Daniel. In Matt 24:15-16 Jesus says "so when you see standing in the holy place the abomination of desolation, spoken of in the prophet Daniel - let the reader understand - then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains". Perhaps even more important is the symbol of the harvest used in Daniel 2, when the nations of earth "became like chaff on a threshing-floor in the summer" (Dan 2:35), for this symbol is constantly used by Jesus to describe his mission ("the harvest is plentiful but the workers are few" Matt 9:37 etc).
Jesus' following phrase echo's Daniel:
"on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Matt 16:18)
"the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people" (Dan 2:44)
This symbol of the rock is not unique to Daniel. In the prophetic part of Deuteronomy, chapter 32 the Song of Moses, the symbol of the rock is used to identify God:
"he abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Saviour" (Deut 32:15)
"You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth" (Deut 32:18)
"unless their Rock had sold them, unless the LORD had given them up? For their rock is not like our Rock" (Deut 32:30-31)
Deut 32 is an extraordinarily important chapter as it has God speaking directly to his people. The whole chapter is about God's new kingdom and judgement, again linking in with Jesus' teaching about the rock and the coming kingdom.
The next part of the text in Matthew we are looking at concerns the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Jesus says "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven".
There are a number of keys mentioned in the Bible. The key of David (Is 22:22, Rev 3:7), the key to the bottomless pit (Rev 9:1, Rev 20:1), the keys to death and Hades (Rev 1:18). How does Jesus' "keys of the kingdom of heaven" relate to these other keys?
The key of David sounds very similar to the keys Jesus mentioned: "I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no-one can shut and what he shuts no-one can open" (Is 22:22)
Compare this with the text of Matt 16:
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind in
earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be
loosed in heaven."
This key of David appears in the Book of Revelation:
"These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of
David. What he opens, no-one can shut; and what he shuts, no-one can open"
(Rev 3:7)
So we have put this text from Matthew into the context of Bible prophecy and discovered that this vision given to Simon (Peter = rock) shows the coming kingdom of God. Yet how can Simon Peter hold such an important position? This new name Jesus has given him appears to make him not the leader of the Church, but into some divine Saviour figure. How can Peter be this Rock, identified with God in the Song of Moses, and with the coming kingdom in Daniel? How can he have the keys of the kingdom, the key of David? The answer lies as we continue reading about the kingdom in Revelation.
"Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name" (Rev 3:12)
"To him who overcomes I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give him a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to him who receives it" (Rev 2:17)
So Jesus has given to Simon a new name, Peter=Rock. But this new name for Peter only symbolises the new name all believers will be given, and as part of this new name, the new power and authority given to all believers.
Far from establishing a hierarchical human institution of the Church, Matt 16:13-20 reaffirms Jesus' message that believers will be directly joined up in the kingdom of God, full of his Spirit, one with Jesus. Priests who control access to God are abolished in the Kingdom of Jesus.
Stephen Korsman is a Roman Catholic
John Mann is a Seventh-day Adventist
© John Mann 2000
New Perspectives on Seventh-day Adventism
jon.mann@btinternet.com