I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it (Matthew 16.18).
Introduction
Many see this passage as the beginning of Christianity and the establishment of the Church. The Lord’s words are viewed as giving Peter the leadership of the Church and Christianity. Is this the correct interpretation of the passage?
The Rock
Jesus declared, “upon this rock will I build my church.” Who was the rock? Was it Peter? Do the Scriptures provide evidence what the Lord had in mind with His statement and the identity of the “rock?” Paul and Peter give valuable insight into the identity of the “rock.” Paul wrote the Corinthians:
1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and all ate the same spiritual food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ (1 Corinthians 10.1-4).
Paul’s passage referred to the first time the imagery of the rock was used in the Scriptures of Christ (Exodus 17). After God delivered the Jews from slavery in Egypt He led them into the wilderness. Water became scarce and the people became so angry with Moses that they were about to kill him (Exodus 17.4). Moses appealed to God who said:
Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb; and you shall strike the rock, and water will come out of it, that the people may drink.” And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel (Exodus 17.6).
Moses obeyed God and water came from the rock. The Jews understood nothing more of this miraculous event than that they now had water. They had no idea God was using the incident to portray the work of Christ. We know now that the struck rock portrayed Christ being struck for our transgressions to give us life. We see how intricately God wove these events and how He had our salvation in mind all along. Indeed, everything God did in revealing Himself to the Jews spoke of Christ (Luke 24.13-27). Moses faced a similar situation again, recorded in Numbers 20.1-11. In that incident, he failed to obey God. Yet God was faithful and provided water. But because of his disobedience, God did not permit Moses to enter the promised land (Numbers 20.12). Israel’s experience of God bringing water from the rock was well known to the Jews (cf. Psalm 78.16, 20, 105.41, 114.8; Isaiah 48.21).
Peter also referred to Christ as the Rock:
4 And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For this is contained in Scripture: “Behold, I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious cornerstone, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.” 7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, “The stone which the builders rejected, this became the very cornerstone,” 8 and, “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense”; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed (1 Peter 2.4-8).
Peter quoted the Messianic passages Isaiah 8.14, 28.16, and Psalm 118.22. In these passages, God revealed how He would work to secure man’s salvation.
The Old Testament Witness of the Rock
Two Hebrew words are used for rock. One is צוּר and the other is סֶלַע. No significant difference exists in their meanings–they are used interchangeably. The word “stone” אֶבֶן is also used (Psalm 118.22; Daniel 2.34-35, 45). The word “rock” is used 108 times in the Old Testament. At least half of the times it referred to Christ. These include the following: Exodus 17.6; Numbers 20.8, 10-11; Deuteronomy 8.15, 32.4, 15, 18, 30-31; 1 Samuel 2.2, 23.28; 2 Samuel 22.2-3, 32, 47, 23.3; Psalm 18.2, 31, 46, 19.14, 27.5, 28.1, 31.2-3, 40.2, 42.9, 61.2, 62.2, 6-7, 71.3, 78.16, 20, 35, 89.26, 92.15, 94.22, 95.1, 105.41, 114.8, 144.1; Isaiah 2.10, 8.14, 17.10, 22.16, 26.4, 30.29, 32.2, 33.16, 44.8, 48.21, 51.1, Habakkuk 1.12. A sampling is the following:
Deuteronomy 32:4 The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; A God of faithfulness and without injustice, Righteous and upright is He.
Deuteronomy 32:31 Indeed their rock is not like our Rock, Even our enemies themselves judge this.
1 Samuel 2:2 There is no one holy like the LORD, Indeed, there is no one besides You, Nor is there any rock like our God.
2 Samuel 22:2 He said, The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer;
2 Samuel 22:3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold and my refuge; My savior, You save me from violence.
2 Samuel 22:32 For who is God, besides the LORD? And who is a rock, besides our God?
2 Samuel 23:3 The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spoke to me, ‘He who rules over men righteously, Who rules in the fear of God,
Psalm 18:2 The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer, My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge; My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.
Psalm 18:31 For who is God, but the LORD? And who is a rock, except our God,
Psalm 18:46 The LORD lives, and blessed be my rock; And exalted be the God of my salvation,
Psalm 19:14 Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in Your sight, O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer.
Psalm 28:1 A Psalm of David. To You, O LORD, I call; My rock, do not be deaf to me, For if You are silent to me, I will become like those who go down to the pit.
Psalm 31:3 For You are my rock and my fortress; For Your name’s sake You will lead me and guide me.
Psalm 42:9 I will say to God my rock, “Why have You forgotten me? Why do I go mourning because of the oppression of the enemy?”
Psalm 61:2 From the end of the earth I call to You when my heart is faint; Lead me to the rock that is higher than I.
Psalm 62:2 He only is my rock and my salvation, My stronghold; I shall not be greatly shaken.
Psalm 62:6 He only is my rock and my salvation, My stronghold; I shall not be shaken.
Psalm 62:7 On God my salvation and my glory rest; The rock of my strength, my refuge is in God.
Psalm 71:3 Be to me a rock of habitation to which I may continually come; You have given commandment to save me, For You are my rock and my fortress.
Psalm 78:35 And they remembered that God was their rock, And the Most High God their Redeemer.
Psalm 89:26 “He will cry to Me, ‘You are my Father, My God, and the rock of my salvation.’
Psalm 92:15 To declare that the LORD is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him.
Psalm 94:22 But the LORD has been my stronghold, And my God the rock of my refuge.
Psalm 95:1 O come, let us sing for joy to the LORD, Let us shout joyfully to the rock of our salvation.
Psalm 144:1 Blessed be the LORD, my rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle;
Isaiah 8:14 “Then He shall become a sanctuary; But to both the houses of Israel, a stone to strike and a rock to stumble over, And a snare and a trap for the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
Isaiah 17:10 For you have forgotten the God of your salvation And have not remembered the rock of your refuge. Therefore you plant delightful plants And set them with vine slips of a strange god.
Isaiah 26:4 “Trust in the LORD forever, For in GOD the LORD, we have an everlasting Rock.
Isaiah 30:29 You will have songs as in the night when you keep the festival, And gladness of heart as when one marches to the sound of the flute, To go to the mountain of the LORD, to the Rock of Israel.
Isaiah 44:8 ‘Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.'”
Habakkuk 1:12 Are You not from everlasting, O LORD, my God, my Holy One? We will not die. You, O LORD, have appointed them to judge; And You, O Rock, have established them to correct. _
All these passages refer to the LORD, יְהֹוָה, the Lord Jesus Christ, the God of Israel, as the Rock. Perhaps the most telling verse is God’s declaration of Himself to Isaiah:
‘Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none'”(Isaiah 44:8).
Paul stated the Rock is Christ (1 Corinthians 10.4).
Given this Scriptural evidence, what are we to make of Jesus’ words to Peter? Jesus’ statement to Peter was a pun. He told Peter that he was Πέτρος (a rock) and that on this πέτρα, (i.e., Himself), He would build His Church. The phrase reads: ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ (upon this the rock). The definite article with the demonstrative pronoun denoted Christ was speaking of Himself and because Peter correctly identified Him, that He would build His “church” on the basis of this identification. Jesus told Peter that by virtue of his confession, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16.16), that he was a “chip off the old rock.”
The point of the passage is that Jesus asked His disciples who they thought He was. They answered that some said He was John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or another of the prophets. He then asked them directly, who they they He was. Peter responded that He was the Christ, the Son of the living God. Peter’s confession, that He was the Christ, the Son of God, was the required faith component of the gospel of the kingdom. To be saved under that gospel one had to recognized that Jesus was the Messiah, the King, the Son of God. Peter passed the test and Jesus declared that on the basis of his confession He would “build His church.”
What is the Church?
The next question to be resolved is what did the Lord mean by “church” in this passage? Did He mean the Church, the body of Christ, or something else?
This passage is the first of only two passages in the Gospels (both in Matthew) which use the word “church.”1 The word “church” is ἐκκλησία. It means an assembly of people. The particular sense of the word is derived from the context.
Acts 19 provides a good example to illustrate this. This passage is Luke’s account of Paul’s visit to Ephesus. Paul’s preaching had angered the silversmiths because the Ephesians were turning away from false gods, represented by idols, to Christ. This was a serious threat to the business of the silversmith. In retaliation, the silversmiths stirred the population into a riot. We read,
So then, some were shouting one thing and some another, for the assembly was in confusion and the majority did not know for what reason they had come together (Acts 19.32).
The word “assembly” is the word ἐκκλησία, the word often translated “church.” But this was no church–it was a mob. After the secretary gained control over the crowd, he declared,
But if you want anything beyond this, it shall be settled in the lawful assembly (Acts 19.39).
In this instance “assembly,” (ἐκκλησία) was a court. After this, we read,
After saying this he dismissed the assembly (Acts 19.39).
In this case, the “assembly” (ἐκκλησία) was the crowd. So, in the Acts 19 passage we note that the word ἐκκλησία was used for a “mob,” a “court,” and a “crowd.” Thus, the basic meaning of ἐκκλησία is an “assembly” and its particular meaning is determined by context.
The one other time the word ἐκκλησία is used in the Gospels is in Matthew 18. In this case, Jesus gave instructions about dealing with a sinning believer. Matthew recorded:
15 “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector (Matthew 18.15-17).
Jesus’ management principle was to solve the problem at the lowest level. But notice Jesus’ words about how the individual was to be regarded if the counsel failed. The sinning brother was to be treated as a Gentile and a tax collector. This hardly sounds like a church which included and welcomed Gentiles or one in which Jew and Gentile were equal in Christ (Galatians 3.28). It wasn’t.
If Jesus was not speaking of the Church, the body of Christ, what “church” did He mean? Jesus was speaking of the Jewish “church,” the assembly of Jews who believed the gospel of the kingdom. They believed, as Peter had stated, that He was the Christ, the Son of the living God (cf. John 11.25-27).
The Lord had not yet revealed the Church, the body of Christ, in which Jew and Gentile are equal in Christ. God kept this truth secret until He revealed it to Paul (Ephesians 3.1-10, 2.13-18).2 Luke’s record of Peter’s message at Pentecost (Acts 2), as well as his sermon in Acts 3, confirmed this. Peter addressed Jews only. He had no idea about the Church, the body of Christ. Everything that occurred on the day of Pentecost concerned Israel, not Gentiles. Even as late as Acts 11.19, we read the gospel was going to Jews only. Had the gospel been going to Gentiles, God would not have had to give Peter a special vision to lead him to go to Cornelius’ house (Acts 10). Furthermore, the believing Jews in Jerusalem would not have criticized Peter for going to Gentiles if such evangelistic efforts were already underway (Acts 11.1-3). Lastly, no other writer mentions the Church, the body of Christ. Peter, James, John, and Jude never mention it. The reason for this is that it was a revelation the risen Lord gave to Paul alone. The Twelve learned of the Church, the body of Christ, from Paul.
Conclusion
Peter had nothing whatsoever to do with the Church, the body of Christ. Peter was an apostle of Israel, not of the Church. His ministry was to Jews, not Gentiles (Galatians 2.7-9). His destiny, as declared by the Lord, was to occupy a throne with the other eleven apostles and rule the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19.28). Peter had nothing to do with Gentiles, nor with the Church, the body of Christ.
Christendom has been confused and has gotten almost everything exactly wrong about this subject for nearly 2,000 years. The Lord did not make Peter the head of the Church, the body of Christ. Peter was an apostle of Israel and spokesman of the Jewish assembly. Peter never had a ministry to Gentiles. None of the Twelve have a ministry to Gentiles. Their evangelistic efforts were confined to Jews (Acts 2-3; Galatians 2.7-9). The ascended, glorified Lord commissioned Paul to be “the apostle of the Gentiles” (Romans 11.13) and revealed to Paul the Church, in which Jew and Gentile were equal in Christ (Galatians 3.27-28). Peter knew nothing of this until he learned it from Paul. Paul laid the foundation of the Church and is the founder of Christianity according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 3.10-11).3
The Scriptures reveal Christ is the Rock. Jesus declared on the basis of Peter’s confession that He was the Messiah, the Son of God, that He would build a Jewish assembly upon this truth. This is exactly what He did under the gospel of the kingdom. That gospel continued until Acts 15.11, when it was supplanted by Paul’s gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20.24; 1 Corinthians 15.1-4). The gospel of the kingdom will return after the Lord removes His Church and be operational in the final seven years of the Tribulation (Matthew 24.14). That gospel will serve as the basis for salvation during the Tribulation. The focus of the gospel of the kingdom is upon Christ’s identity; the focus of Paul’s gospel is upon Christ’s work.4
1 The word ἐκκλησία only occurs two times in the gospels (Matthew 16.18, 18.17).
2 See the author’s studies, The Church (the Body of Christ), and Paul’s “Mystery” for more on this subject.
3 See the author’s studies, Paul: Chief of Sinners? and Why Paul? for more on this subject.
4 See the author’s studies, The Gospel and The Gospel of the Kingdom for more on this subject.
©2015 Don Samdahl. Anyone is free to reproduce this material and distribute it, but it may not be sold.
Hi Don,
Thank you for this great new article. It is thorough, complete and to the point. And yet, wasn’t the Catholic church built around the idea that Peter was the rock? If so, does it remain in practice merely because of tradition and denomination?
Thank you for your great work; you are changing lives for the better.
Regards….Jack
Meridian, ID
Jack,
Thanks so much. The confusion began with the abandonment of Paul’s doctrines in the churches he had established and ministered to in Asia. They turned from his teachings to the teachings of Judaism and the Law. This is why we find the Pope, Anglicans, etc. emulating the dress of the High Priest and others in Christendom taking doctrines of Israel and applying them to the Church. Paul wrote Galatians to address this matter. Before he died Paul stated that all had abandoned him in Asia (1 Timothy 1.2-11; 2 Timothy 1.13-15). This set the pattern for what we find now.
HI Don,
When I read this from this fine article of yours
“The focus of the gospel of the kingdom is upon Christ’s identity; the focus of Paul’s gospel is upon Christ’s work.” I remember John 14:11, Jesus said:
“Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.” (NKJV)
Doesn’t the Lord Jesus, in a sense, summarize the requirements for salvation under each of the two gospels, the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of the grace of God in one sentence? What do you think? Thank you and God bless.
Kim,
The works Jesus spoke of here were the miracles He performed to proved He was the Christ–his identity.
Yes. I understand the “works” here were the miracles He performed, in the context of the verse. However, to me, Christ’s most important work was what He did on the cross for us, i.e. died for our sins according the Scriptures and rose from the dead… (1 Cor 15:3-4). That’s what I had in mind when I wrote the previous comment; of course I now have the entire canon of Scriptures to reflect on “His Works”.
Kim,
We must be careful to keep a passage’s context in mind. It is far too easy to “read into” a passage from later revelation. This is the reason why such confusion reigns in Christendom. Paul has been read into the Gospels and the Gospels into Paul.
I live near Mexico in deep south Texas. Catholic churches are everywhere. The ‘Virgin of Guadalupe’ is part of their worship in many congregations. Candles take up large swaths of isle space in stores. Lots of superstition. When you count the number of Catholic churches with ‘Peter’ as part of their name compared to the number of Catholic churches with Paul’s name incorporated you quickly understand where the emphasis is. ….The Pope just wrapped up his visit to America. Can anyone recall a reference to Christ’s death and resurrection? Was it all about how man, through his efforts, can build a better world? I rest my case.
BEAUTIFUL!!!! It seems that as I read these articles, then formulate a question, I find it in the comments section….these comments and replies are just as informative as the articles. Thanks to our Father for the comments here, as much as the articles themselves. I’ve learned more in a week on this site about truth than in my whole life’s search. I guess Messiah decided my heart was ready… because it is just bursting out of me in Spirit. I’d say a woohoo, is in right order. So woohoo….lol.
I second the “woo hoo” . Glory to God!
Amen! I’ve gotten much enlightenment from the Q & A in the comments as well.
Agree.
It would be nice to have a section just for questions and conversation. I think it would bring a communion, and also a gathering; especially for us who have no building to attend.
Thank you for this article and especially about the comments re Matt 18 & 20. If the Lord was referring to “the church which is His body then surely what Paul talks about in Ephesians ch3 would no longer be a “mystery”.
Would it be true to suggest that the Churches of Revelation ch’s 2 & 3 would be a part of the “my Church” that the Lord is referring to when He says “upon this rock I will build my church?”
Ian,
The “churches” of Revelation 2-3 were Jewish assemblies, not Pauline, body of Christ, churches. Revelation concerns Israel and the nations, not the Church. The Church is absent in Revelation for it has been removed in the Rapture. Revelation is the story of the Day of the Lord, a day of vengeance and judgment. The Church has no wrath or judgment (1 Thessalonians 1.10, 5.9).
Wait … now I’m confused. Up to this point I was positively surprised with the teachings I read here so far, but how are the assemblies in Revelation all Jewish? First of all, wouldn’t the assemblies be mixed? And if not, where were these supposed Pauline assemblies? And how would no one have noticed this before? I thought the traditional churches (Catholic & Orthodox) were referring back to these first assemblies… The sentence “The Church is absent in Revelation” seems really confusing to me.
Greetings from Germany!
Carokpf,
The language is all Jewish. The main point of the letters of Peter, James, John, and Jude is to emphasize enduring to the end. Jesus told those who had believed the gospel of the kingdom they must endure to the end to be saved (Matthew 10.22, 24.13). They thought the Tribulation and the Lord’s return would occur in their lifetime. To endure to the end meant to remain faithful to Christ and not take the mark of the Beast and worship him or his image. Thus, Jesus told the Jewish congregations in Revelation 2-3 to “overcome,” that is, to endure. The Church, the body of Christ, has been removed for it does not go into the Tribulation (Romans 5.9; 1 Thessalonians 1.10, 5.9).
Ok, but how do you know they are Jewish congregations? Don’t you think the early Church would have noticed that? After all, they lived alongside them?
Doesn’t Romans 5:9 clearly refer to torment in Hell?
And 1 Thess 1:10 to the final judgement?
And the second Thess verse also to either one of those?
So, the Church does not have to fear taking the Mark of the Beast?
And, kind of unrelated, but a general question while studying your site – Do you think that Jewish believers should still obey the Torah? Not in order to be saved, but because sin is transgression of the Law, and because the Law was appointed for them forever? And in general, how do we define sin, if not as transgression of the Law, even for Gentiles? The law was never only for Jews, but all mankind was supposed to obey.
You might have some articles on this which I haven’t gotten to yet, so I’m sorry in advance.
CK
Carokpf,
The language used in Revelation 2-3 is completely alien from the language used about the Church. It is the language of endure to the end to be saved (cf. Matthew 10.22, 24.13). The Church is not in Revelation; it is gone. Wrath is the Day of the Lord, not Hell. Hell is not God’s wrath; it is judicial, penal punishment. The apostles all thought the Tribulation was about to occur. Thus, Romans 5.9, etc. The primary reason Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians was to confirm to them they were not in the Tribulation. Jewish believers are members of the Church, the body of Christ, and members of the Church are not under the Law. See Paul and the Law.
The early churches in Asia minor had abandoned Pauline doctrine all together. Interestingly, the Lord uses that region in Revelation as warning of what to do and not to do in the end to be saved.
For many years I pondered this passage of scripture that appears for all practical purposes to be Jesus endorsing Peter as the foundation of the Church. THIS could not be further from the truth. As I was thinking on it one day, my spiritual eyes were opened and it became very clear to me what Jesus meant with his words. His question to the disciples was, “who am I” to which there were several responses: some say, Elias… some say John the Baptist…etc.. But Jesus then directed his question to Peter specifically and said, “but whom say you that I am” to which Peter answered very simply, “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God” Then Jesus says to Peter, ” Blessed art though, Simon Barjonas, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this to you, but my father in heaven and I say unto you, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” The rock that the church is built on is not the little rock of Peter, it’s not even the Rock of ages, Jesus himself… But that divine revelation that comes only from God the Father to his children so that they may know a thing. Personal revelation is something that the gates of hell certainly can not prevail against, as it comes directly from the Father to his children.
Elaine,
Peter’s confession was the “faith” portion of the gospel of the kingdom. To be saved under that gospel, one had to believe Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God. Peter did this. And Jesus’ response was that it was on this confession that He would build his “church,” that is the Jewish assembly or “true Israel.” As I point out in the article, what we call the Church, the body of Christ, was unknown. It would not come into existence until Paul. Jesus ministered to only Jews and came to present himself to the Jewish people as their Messiah (Romans 15.8).
Don,
I have heard 1 Corinthians 3:10-11 used that the identity of Jesus Christ is the foundation and can be built upon by either preaching him according to prophecy or according to mystery, and depending upon how one teaches Christ one will get rewarded or lose rewards. Or does it mean that believing the Gospel of the Grace of God 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is the foundation for today and depending upon how someone lives there life they either gain rewards or suffer loss. What is your take?
Kyle,
See my article, Paul: Chief of Sinners?
Doctrine,
I assume by now you have read Heiser’s explanation of ‘on this rock’. What do you think about it…..(in the area of Bashan north of Caesarea Phillipe is found Mt Hermon. Heiser explains that Hermon is the rock.) two cities at the foot of Mt. Hermon (or the area itself) are/is known as the ‘gates of hell’. Jesus Christ was sticking his finger in the eye of the evil one and to make it even more direct Christ took disciples up onto the mountain and that’s where the Transfiguration took place. Days later Christ was crucified by members of the unseen realm and humans not knowing at the time they had played into Gods hands…… I Cor. 2:8
Joe,
I don’t disagree with Heiser that Bashan had significance regarding the angelic conflict. I recently read, The Giant Cities of Bashaan by J. L. Porter. Porter was a missionary who explored the area in the late 19th c. He said some of the cities has 15′ thick walls and massive doors. But Heiser does not understand Jesus was not talking about the Church, the body of Christ. The “Rock” is Christ is Scripture. Jesus was saying that the testimony of Peter, that Jesus was the Christ, on this testimony He would build His faithful remnant of Jews. These would go into the kingdom and the “gates of hell” would not prevail. This had nothing to do with the Church, the body of Christ, since it was yet hidden.
Hello :) in reading Reversing Hermone… on this “the rock” issue, I agree with Don. It is Peter’s testimony in reference, (although the geographical position is interesting) however:
1. In our own dispensation we are told ;
Rom. 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
2. In the time of Revelation it says ;
Rev. 12:11And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
So ones testimony is important in both groups that are “in Christ”.
thank you.
Heiser sees everything through the lens of regaining Eden. Adam and Eve failed in the kingdom, pre-flood people failed, post flood (Tower) people failed, the elohim who shepherded the 70 nations after Nimrod failed, God’s one nation failed and finally and very cryptically the indecipherable hints through the OT came to fruition with Jesus Christ…but the evil principalities and powers were unable to put the pieces of the puzzle together and they though the Crucifixion was the final blow….but it was God’s plan all along as we’ve come to know…looking back with 20-20 hindsight. (1 cor 2:8)…if they had known they would not have killed the savior (my paraphrase)…now here’s the deal with eschatology. Heiser believes the same thing about cryptic messages, hints, clues etc mirror/relate to the Second Coming just as the cryptic clues of Jesus Christ’s (God’s) solution for our salvation was. In other words, someday we’ll look back and easily see the actual way things work out as it relates to The Second Coming, end of the age etc. Just like Peter didn’t know of Christ’s approaching death in Luke 18 we as believers today don’t know anything about the end times…but someday we will. Actually in a past reply here at Doctrine.org I’ve asked the question, “Why doesn’t the devil just read the bible and do something else than what’s written and there-by avoid his demise if possible?….if the OT was cryptic to keep evil from knowing God’s plan about our salvation why not cryptic about end times to keep the evil ones off balance?……I’m just saying….
Thanks. I’m convinced not only that God had deliberately written cryptically, but that Satan the angelic host cannot see certain portions of Scripture. For example, I think Revelation and other portions of Scripture are veiled, scrambled, encrypted.
Did the Jewish Church you mentioned above according to Matt 16: 18 become part of the ‘BODY of Christ” after all?
Calvs,
No. Israel and the Church remain separate entities throughout eternity. Both are gathered in Christ (Ephesians 1.9-10).
Separate entities throughout eternity? What does that literally mean? Please explain. I love this wonderful site. None like it..James
James,
The question I responded to was whether the Jewish church, i.e., believing Israel, would become part of the Church, the body of Christ. Israel and the Church remain separate, distinct entities forever. Israel inherits earthly blessing; the Church inherits heavenly blessing. Members of the Church are told that they are co-heirs with Christ and will rule angels. Israel is never told that. It is promised an earthly kingdom and that it will be the head of the nations.
How does that work? Aren’t the Gentile believers grafted into the olive tree to become *one* tree? Are we supposed to distance ourselves from our Jewish brothers, have seperate assemblies etc.? That doesn’t really seem “neither Jew nor Greek” to me :/ It would mean that God has two ‘people’, wouldn’t it? I thought that there would simply be a new heaven and new earth, i.e. New Jerusalem coming down from heaven to earth where all believers will live in eternity? Where do you get the idea of two seperate places? And what would be its purpose? Would God be with the Church, or with Israel? This is really confusing.
Greetings and thanks for your reply in advance!
Carokpf,
Please see the article, The Olive Tree.
So what about the following verse, verse 19? Where he says to Peter that he is given the keys of the heavens (Also, how does that fit your idea of Israel on New Earth and Church in heaven, if Israel/Peter is given the keys to heaven, not Paul?) and that he will have the power to bind and loose, i.e. “to forbid by an indisputable authority and to permit by an indisputable authority”? Sounds more like the Church to me.
Greetings, Caro
Carokpf,
The only kingdom the Jews knew about was earthly. No Jew ever thought about going to heaven. Their destiny was earth. The phrase “kingdom of heaven” is a genitive of source, not location. It’s source is heaven but it will be on earth. The Church, the body of Christ, is completely different. It’s destiny is heaven, not earth. Two distinct destinies for Israel and the Church.
How, then, do you define Peters binding and loosing? And why is he talking *not* about Peter as the rock, but then in the next sentence he directly talks to Peter, giving him the keys?
Thanks,
CK
Carokpf,
Peter exercised his binding and loosing at the Council of Jerusalem when he told the Jews they had to be saved by Paul’s gospel. Peter ended the gospel of the kingdom.
Where did he tell the Jews they had to be saved by Paul’s Gospel? The whole issue was that some of the Jews commanded that it was necessary for the Gentile believers to keep the whole Torah in order to be saved. Peter is making clear to them that this is a step backwards, since they know that even the Jews cannot be saved through the Torah. So since their belief in the Messiah is what saves them, the same should go for the Gentiles. Therefore, since Gentiles are also saved by belief same as the Jews, he tells them the shouldn’t pressure them with Torah observance, but instead they choose a small amount of commands to stick to for these baby believers. Peter is telling the Jews how ridiculous it is to think that the Gentiles should be saved by Torah observance since that has never saved anyone. It’s the belief that cleanses their hearts.
Carokpf,
Read Acts 15.11 again. Peter told the Jews that they had to be saved like Paul’s gentiles, by Paul’s gospel. None of the Jewish leaders understood Paul’s gospel. This showed there were two different gospels. Paul would not have to explain his gospel if they were saved the same way. The idea of salvation by faith alone was unknown before Paul. It was always faith and works. Jesus taught this throughout His earthy ministry.
Paul says in Ephesians 2:19-20 (NIV), “19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.”
Is God’s “household” the “one body” of Christ, the Church? Ephesians 2:15-16, “15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.”
Jesus revealed the mystery to Paul to establish the Church, with Jesus as the “chief cornerstone” but is there some continuity with the “foundation of the apostles…” and Peter as one of the rocks in that foundation?
Phil,
The “household of God” represents all believers. That household was built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. The Church was a secret the risen Lord revealed to Paul and it is part of this household. The Church and this household form “a holy temple in the Lord,” “a dwelling of the God by the Spirit.”
Peace be to you. Looks as if I am a bit late to the party on this one but noticed an April 2023 exchange so I’ll chime in. I have a comment and 2 question. I agree that Peter was never the rock Jesus spoke of in Mat 16:18. Jesus changed Simon’s name to Petros, which means rock as in a pebble Strong’s 4074 (John 1:42). The rock (Petra Strong’s 4073) Jesus testified to build his assembly on in Mat 16:18 is a bedrock, or the side of a mountain which points to himself. Now the 2 questions:
1. You teach that Peter’s ministry was to the Jews. Curios what you make of Acts 15:7 where Peter actually claims that he is the chosen apostle by God to reach the gentiles. “And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.” KJV
2. You teach that there are 2 gospels, Paul’s gospel of grace to gentiles and Peter’s to the Jews.
What do you make of Paul claiming there is only one gospel for everyone (one people of God), “power of God for salvation to everyone, first to the Jew and then to the gentile” Rom 1:16? Hebrews 4:2 seems to agree, “ For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.” KJV “Them” here of course referring to the Israelites in the desert.
In Christ
Amir,
1. God used Peter to go to Cornelius, a Gentile, to present salvation. But it is clear from reading Acts 10-11 that no Gentile outreach had taken place. Furthermore, it is clear Peter had no further Gentile ministry. His letters were written to Jews, not members of the Church, the body of Christ (1 Peter 1.1; 2 Peter 3.1). The records of Paul’s salvation state explicitly that he was the apostle of the Gentiles (Acts 9, 22, 26; cf. Romans 11.13). God used the experience of Gentile salvation for Peter for a larger purpose, so he might support Paul at the Council of Jerusalem. Now, this leads to 2.
2. The controversy of the Council of Jerusalem was that Paul’s Gentiles could not be saved by faith alone but had to practice circumcision and keep the Law. Paul said no. They argued. Finally, Peter remembered that about 14 years before, Gentiles had been saved by faith alone from his preaching. Now, it is clear that what the leaders in Jerusalem proclaimed was a different gospel from what Paul proclaimed. Had they preached the same gospel, there would have been no argument, no need for a council. Paul wrote he had to explain his gospel to them (Galatians 2.1-2). This would have been unnecessary if they proclaimed the same gospel. The Jewish leaders proclaimed the gospel of the kingdom. Its focus was Christ’s identity, who He was. Paul proclaimed the gospel of God’s grace. Its focus was not on Christ’s identity, but on Christ’s work—He died for our sins and rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15.1-4). At the end of the Council, Peter declared that from then on, everyone, Jew and Gentile, had to be saved by Paul’s gospel. That ended the gospel of the kingdom. There was now only one gospel. God did not send Peter to see Cornelius until after Paul was saved. My article, The Great Hinge, may shed more light on this.