What Is the Rock the Church is Built upon?

What Is the Rock the Church is Built upon?

Picture

Scripture in Focus:  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(Matthew 16:18).  
 

There are two traditional answers to the question of who or what was the rock Christ referred to in Matthew 16:18.  Some Christians believe that Jesus was speaking to Peter, and so Peter is the rock the church would be built upon.  Other Christians believe that because the Greek word for the “rock” the Church would be built upon is petra – a “large rock” or “foundation” – and Peter’s name was petros, meaning a small rock or pebble in Greek – Christ could hardly have been speaking of Peter and must have been speaking of himself when he said “on this rock ….” (see Ephesians 2:20, etc.).

But there is another possibility which perhaps fits the context of this verse better than either of these two options, and which may be closer to the true meaning of Jesus’ words.  When we look at the context of Christ’s saying, we find it was part of a larger conversation he was having with Peter:

… Jesus … asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”  “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”  Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”   Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, 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 on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”  Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah (Matthew 16:13-20).

The conversation begins and ends with the concept of Christ’s identity – Jesus first asks his disciples who people thought he was, and who they thought he was, then, after discussing the answers they gave, he closes the discussion by telling his disciples not to tell people who he was. When we keep this clear context of the conversation in mind, we see the subject of the whole exchange was “Who is Jesus?”

The crux of the conversation occurs when Peter volunteers “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16), and it is then that Jesus confirms this assessment with an exclamation that can be summarized as “exactly!”  Jesus then told Peter that this was the “rock” or “foundation” – we might say “foundational truth” – on which his Church would be built:  the fact that he was the promised Messiah, the one through whom salvation would come.

Jesus also continued with another thought about binding and loosing, probably meaning that his Church would have the power to interpret the laws of the Bible in a manner similar to the “binding’ and “loosing” power the rabbis of that age exercised to permit or forbid things (to interpret the Scriptures rather than to make new laws or annul old ones). But the fact that the focus of this statement was not entirely Peter is clear in the fact that later, addressing all the disciples, Jesus repeated the same words, “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:18).

Whatever the exact nature of the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” and the “binding and loosing” was, Jesus returned to the subject of their discussion and closed the conversation by stressing that although he was indeed the Messiah – a fact that would form the basis of his Church – the disciples were not to reveal that truth until the time was right.   


What Does ‘The Kingdom of Heaven is Taken by Force’ Mean?

What Does ‘The Kingdom of Heaven is Taken by Force’ Mean?

Scripture in Focus:   Matthew 11:12 

“From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force” (Matthew 11:12 ESV).


This is a difficult scripture for many people to understand.  How, we might ask, could the very Kingdom of God himself be “taken” by force?  However, there are at least two possible meanings to Jesus’ words that seem to reflect what he may have meant.

Certainly the inhabitants of God’s growing Kingdom – including Jesus himself – have suffered violence at the hands of those opposed to them throughout the ages.  But if that is the meaning of the first half of the verse, does the second half of the scripture signify that the human enemies of the Kingdom would “take” it by force in the way an enemy army might “take” a castle or city it besieged? Jesus promised his followers that the very “gates of hell” would not prevail against the Church that he would build (Matthew 16:18).  Because the Church and Kingdom are intertwined in the post-New Testament era, it seems unlikely that the Kingdom of God could be overthrown by human aggression, but not the Church.

Another possibility is that Jesus meant something quite different.  The NIV and Holman versions both give a variant translation for the first half of the verse – that rather than being “subject to violence” the Kingdom of Heaven has been “forcefully advancing,” and the ESV gives the similar variant “has been coming violently.”  There are grammatical reasons why this might be correct.  The sentence can be understood as being in either “middle” or “passive” voice – both possibilities could be correct – we must choose which makes the most sense.  If we view Jesus’ statement as being in the “middle voice” (as “forcefully advancing”), the second half of the scripture “…and the violent take it by force” would then mean that those striving to enter the Kingdom are doing so.  

The New Testament commonly uses words such as “struggle,” “fight,” “wrestle” and other terms of this type to signify the Christian calling and life, and so it need not be surprising that Jesus would say the “violent take it by force” in the sense of “the energetic take the Kingdom by vigorous action.”  In that sense, the expression is not a lot different from what we see in Paul’s epistle to Timothy: “Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called …” (1Timothy 6:12a NIV).

So, understood this way, the two halves of Jesus’ statement recorded in Matthew 11:12 fit together and make good sense. It is perhaps more likely then, that rather than the Kingdom of God being susceptible to suffering violent overthrow (something which hardly applied “From the days of John the Baptist” till the ministry of Jesus), the Kingdom was indeed “forcefully advancing” at that time.  And those who were willing to forcefully act on the knowledge they had were “taking” or entering it. 

What Do Jesus’ Words “My Kingdom Is Not of This World” Mean?

What Do Jesus’ Words “My Kingdom Is Not of This World” Mean?

Picture

Scripture in Focus: John 18:36

“Jesus said, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.” (John 18:36).

The difficulty of this verse is that it appears to contradict other scriptures of the New Testament that show the Kingdom of God to be something that would be established in this world. Adding to the apparent confusion, Jesus said in the second half of John 18:36 that his kingdom was not “in,” but “from” another place.

The answer to the seeming difficulty is that both aspects of the Kingdom of God are true. On the one hand, the Kingdom of God is certainly in heaven. This seems obvious in the expression “the Kingdom of Heaven,” though that is actually not a proof.  Matthew, writing to a predominantly Jewish audience, used “Kingdom of Heaven” because many Jews used that expression in order to avoid unnecessary use of the name of God – just as in English people sometimes say “Good heavens” which is just an indirect way of using God’s name. All the other Gospel writers use “Kingdom of God.” But apart from this detail it is obvious that God rules as King in heaven and in that sense, the “Kingdom of God” is the “Kingdom of Heaven” (see Matthew 5:34, Daniel 4:37, etc.).

On the other hand, a great many scriptures  clearly show the kingdom of heaven will be established on earth – something Christ said we should pray for (Matthew 6:10) and a truth at the core of his teaching, as we see in the Gospels: “…Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near” (Matthew 3:2). The situation is not unlike that of earlier centuries when the colonial powers were located in their own countries, but took over distant lands. It was equally true to say that the “kingdom of France” and the “kingdom of England” were in their respective areas, but also that these kingdoms were “coming near” the areas they annexed, and that the rule of those kingdoms was finally established in the new lands.

With this background and a little extra information, we can now understand the meaning of Jesus’ words in John 18.36.   The Greek word used in John (basileia) and translated “kingdom” can mean not only the physical actual kingdom, but also the “rule” or “authority” of the king. In that sense, it is like the colonial analogy we used. French Canada, called “New France,” was not France, but part of the kingdom of France in the sense it was under the rule of the king of France.  Sometimes people say that Christ did not speak Greek, but rather would have said these words in Aramaic or possibly Hebrew.  Even if that is true, the Aramaic (malkuta) and Hebrew (malkuth) words have exactly the same double meaning.

So, the words “My kingdom is not of this world”  spoken by Jesus can just as properly be translated “My authority is not of this world … my authority is from another place.” Jesus’ words do not refer then to being the ruler of the kingdom in heaven, but to his having authority from the kingdom in heaven.

When we understand the double meaning of “kingdom,” we can see how John 18:36 does not contradict the many scriptures regarding the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth, but simply refers to the origin of Christ’s authority as that kingdom’s King.


What Does ‘Do Not Judge’ Really Mean?

What Does ‘Do Not Judge’ Really Mean?

 

Scripture in Focus: Matthew 7:1-2

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you” (Matthew 7:1-2)

Many Christians think these words of Christ mean that we should never judge anyone under any circumstances. But is that what Jesus’ words mean in this case?

The larger context in which these verses occur is that of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), and  the statement “do not judge” takes on different meaning when we look at that larger context.  Jesus’ very next words, were, in fact:

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? … You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:3-5).

Here, Jesus shows not that it is wrong to admit there is a problem in someone else’s life, but that we should be careful to not be hypocritical if we do judge the other person. In a similar manner, Jesus then continued to say: “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs …” (Matthew 7:6), and it is clear that we must judge whether individuals are acting as “dogs” or “pigs” in order to follow this command.

So Jesus does not seem to be saying that judging others is a problem so much as overly harsh (Matthew 7:2) or hypocritical judging (Matthew 7:3-5). This understanding is further supported by the things Jesus continued to say a little later in his sermon: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them” (Matthew 7:15-16). We cannot watch for false prophets without making a judgment of their character and nature based on their actions and deeds – as Christ said, “by their fruit you will recognize them,” a statement reiterated in verse 20, and one which clearly shows  there are times when the Christian needs to judge an  individual’s behavior.

Given these facts it is clear that Jesus’ words “Do not judge” must be understood in the light of what he continued to say in his sermon – not that we cannot asses and form opinions regarding the spiritual behavior of other people, but that we must be very careful not to judge them unjustly, overly harshly or hypocritically.    The Gospel of John shows Christ also commanded his disciples “Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly” (John 7:24).

Christians can and must judge in certain circumstances, as the apostle Paul stated: “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?” (1 Corinthians 6:2).   But Christ warns us that we must always be careful to judge righteously.

Did Jesus Address His Mother Harshly?

Did Jesus Address His Mother Harshly?

PictureFilling the wine jars with water. From an ancient mosaic.

Scripture in Focus: John 2:3-4 

In the story of the wedding at Cana when Jesus performed the miracle of turning water into wine, readers sometimes think that he addressed his mother somewhat harshly or even disrespectfully.  Look at the exchange:

“When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, ‘They have no more wine.’  ‘Woman, why do you involve me?’ Jesus replied. ‘My hour has not yet come’” (John 2:3-4).  Jesus’ words sound perhaps even harsher in the KJV:  “Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee?” But there is no harshness or disrespect here at all.  Actually, “woman” was a standard form of address in the ancient world –  just as Jesus often addresses males as “Man” (Luke 5:20, etc.) – and the expression carries no lack of respect any more than saying “lady” or “ma’am” would for us today.

Remember that we don’t know the actual words Jesus used in this circumstance.  He probably spoke to His mother in Aramaic which was the commonly used language in Palestine at that time, but in the Greek in which the  New Testament was written, the word “woman” guné  (from which we get our word “gynecologist”) is in the ‘vocative’ case which was reserved for addressing others, even in the most formal speech.  Jesus used the same form of address when speaking to other women (Matt. 15:28, etc.).  At his crucifixion,  when he lovingly delivered his mother into the care of his disciple John as his last act of kindness before his death,  this was the form of the word he used in saying to her “Woman, behold your son!” (John 19:26).

Another detail of the wedding story which might sound harsh to our ears is the fact that Jesus said: “…why do you involve me?” (John 2:4), or as the KJV has it:  “…what have I to do with thee?”  But in the original Greek, the expression  is literally “What [is that] to me and to you?” – in other words he includes his mother with himself in saying, in effect, “Is this our responsibility?” or perhaps even “Does this situation need to involve us?”

But the story itself shows us that there was no tension between Jesus and his mother. Immediately after he answered her, note that “His mother said to the servants, ‘Do whatever he tells you,’” showing that she had not been rebuffed and that Jesus was about to help as she had requested –  as, of course, he did.

Although the turning of water into wine is usually said to be Jesus’ first miracle, we do not know that to be the case. The New Testament does not say it was his first, it is just his first recorded miraculous deed.  The fact that Mary turned to Jesus and asked him to help in the situation suggests that he may have already quietly done deeds of healing and help before this point. In saying his time was not yet come (John 2:3-4), Jesus may have meant not the performance of good deeds, but that the time for public display of such deeds – as in a wedding before many guests – was not necessarily yet.

What Does “An Eye For An Eye” Really Mean?

What Does “An Eye For An Eye” Really Mean?

Picture


The principle of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is one of the most well-known laws in the Bible, but do we really understand it as we should?  


Known legally as the lex talionis or the “law of retaliation,”  and discussed by Jesus himself in his teaching, most people see the law of “an eye for an eye” as an ultimately fair but cruel principle of revenge and restitution.  But is that really what this law is all about? 

You can find the surprising answer to this question, and what Christ meant in his comment on the law, in our article uploaded today: “ ‘An Eye For An Eye’: A Law of Revenge or Restraint?”  Don’t miss it – it might just change your understanding of  something you always took for granted!