2 Peter 2:7-8 And Imputed Righteousness

       "and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard)." (2 Peter 2:7-8)

         Lot's righteousness is certainly not displayed in an experiential or observable manner. He in the Genesis narrative is not said to be a practically righteous man. If we were to go only by the witness of the Old Testament, then it would have been hard to conclude that he was actually a righteous man. Thus, the emphasis on him being "righteous" most naturally would mean a status that he has in God. John MacArthur, in the MacArthur Bible Commentary, writes in regard to 2 Peter 2:7-8:

         "There was spiritual weakness in Lot (Gen. 19:6), e.g., immorality (Gen. 19:8) and drunkenness (Gen. 19:33–35). His heart was in Sodom (Gen. 19:16), yet he did hate the sins of his culture and strongly sought ways to protect God’s angels from harm. He obeyed the Lord in not looking back at Sodom (Gen. 19). In both of the illustrations where God rendered a wholesale judgment on all living people (once on the whole earth, and once in the whole region of the plain S of the Dead Sea), Peter pointed out that God’s people were rescued (v. 5; cf. v. 9). The Gr. word for “oppressed” implies that Lot was troubled deeply and tortured (the meaning of “tormented”) with the immoral, outrageous behavior of the people living in and around Sodom and Gomorrah. Tragically, it is ordinary for believers today no longer to be shocked by the rampant sin in their society."

         The "righteous" position or standing of Lot may best be explained as being an imputed righteousness, since his character is never exemplified as righteous in Scripture. An exception would be in him reproving the mob in Genesis 19. 2 Peter 2:7-8 can be used as a supporting passage for the doctrine of imputed righteousness. He had the same righteousness as Abraham which comes by faith (Genesis 15:6).

59 Confirmed Or Historically Probable Facts In The Gospel Of John

1. Archaeology confirms the use of stone water jars in New Testament times [John 2:6].

2. Given the early Christian tendency towards asceticism, the wine miracle is an unlikely invention [2:8].

3. Archaeology confirms the proper place of Jacob's Well [4:6].

4. Josephus [Wars of the Jews 2.232] confirms there was significant hostility between Jews and Samaritans during Jesus' time [4:9].

5. "Come down" accurately describes the topography of western Galilee. [There's a significant elevation drop from Cana to Capernaum.] [4:46, 49, 51].

6. "Went up" accurately describes the ascent to Jerusalem [5:1].

7. Archaeology confirms the proper location of Bethesda [5:2]. [Excavations between 1914 and 1938 uncovered that pool and found it to be just as John described it. Since that structure did not exist after the Romans destroyed the city in A.D. 70, it's unlikely any later non-eyewitness could have described it in such vivid detail. Moreover, John says that this structure "is in Jerusalem," implying that he's writing before 70].

8. Jesus' own testimony being invalid without the Father is an unlikely Christian invention [5:31]; a later redactor would be eager to highlight Jesus' divinity and would probably make his witness self-authenticating.

9. The crowds wanting to make Jesus king reflects the well-known nationalist fervor of early first-century Israel [6:15].

10. Sudden and severe squalls are common on the Sea of Galilee [6:18].

11. Christ's command to eat his flesh and drink his blood would not be made up [6:53].

12. The rejection of Jesus by many of his disciples is also an unlikely invention [6:66].

13. The two predominant opinions of Jesus, one that Jesus was a "good man" and the other that he "deceives people," would not be the two choices John would have made up [7:12]; a later Christian writer would have probably inserted the opinion that Jesus was God.

14. The charge of Jesus being demon-possessed is an unlikely invention [7:20].

15. The use of "Samaritan" to slander Jesus befits the hostility between Jews and Samaritans [8:48].

16. Jewish believers wanting to stone Jesus is an unlikely invention [8:31, 59].

17. Archaeology confirms the existence and location of the Pool of Siloam [9:7].

18. Expulsion from the synagogue by the Pharisees was a legitimate fear of the Jews; notice that the healed man professes his faith in Jesus only after he is expelled from the synagogue by the Pharisees [9:13-39], at which point he has nothing to lose. This rings of authenticity.

19. The healed man calling Jesus a "prophet" rather than anything more lofty suggests the incident is unembellished history [9:17].

20. During a winter feast, Jesus walked in Solomon's Colonnade, which was the only side of the temple area shielded from the cold winter east wind [10:22-23]; this area is mentioned several times by Josephus.

21. Fifteen stadia [less than two miles] is precisely the distance from Bethany to Jerusalem [11:18].

22. Given the later animosity between Christians and Jews, the positive depiction of Jews comforting Martha and Mary is an unlikely invention [11:19].

23. The burial wrappings of Lazarus were common for first-century Jewish burials [11:44]; it is unlikely that a fiction writer would have included this theologically irrelevant detail.

24. The precise description of the composition of the Sanhedrin [11:47]: it was composed primarily of chief priests [largely Sadducees] and Pharisees during Jesus' ministry.

25. Caiaphas was indeed the high priest that year [11:49]; we learn from Josephus that Caiaphas held the office from A.D. 18-37.

26. The obscure and tiny village of Ephraim [11:54] near Jerusalem is mentioned by Josephus.

27. Ceremonial cleansing was common in preparation for the Passover [11:55].

28. Anointing of a guest's feet with perfume or oil was sometimes performed fro special guests in the Jewish culture (12:3); Mary's wiping of Jesus' feet with her hair is an unlikely invention [in easily could have been perceived as a sexual advance].

29. Waving of palm branches was a common Jewish practice for celebrating military victories and welcoming national rulers [12:13].

30. Foot washing is first-century Palestine was necessary because of dust and open footwear; Jesus performing this menial task is an unlikely invention [it was a task not even Jewish slaves were required to do] [13:4]; Peter's insistence that he get a complete bath also fits with his impulsive personality [there's certainly no purpose for inventing this request].

31. Peter asks John to ask Jesus a question [13:24]; there's no reason to insert this detail if this is fiction; Peter could have asked Jesus himself.

32. "The Father is greater than I" is an unlikely invention [14:28], especially if John wanted to make up the deity of Christ [as the critics claim he did].

33. Use of the vine as a metaphor makes good sense in Jerusalem [15:1]; vineyards were in the vicinity of the temple, and, according to Josephus, the temple gates had a golden vine carved on them.

34. Use of the childbirth metaphor [16:21] is thoroughly Jewish; is has been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls [1QH 11:9-10].

35. The standard Jewish posture for prayers was looking "toward heaven" [17:1].

36. Jesus' admission that he has gotten his words from the Father [17:7-8] would not be included if John were inventing the idea that Christ was God.

37. No specific reference to fulfilled Scripture is given regarding the predicted betrayal by Judas; a fiction writer or later Christian redactor probably would have identified the Old Testament Scripture to which Jesus was referring [17:12].

38. The name of the high priest's servant [Malachus], who had his ear cut off, is an unlikely invention [18:10].

39. Proper identification of Caiaphas's father-in-law, Annas, who was the high priest from A.D. 6-15 [18:13]-the appearance before Annas is believable because of the family connection and the fact the former high priests maintained great influence.

40. John's claim that the high priest knew him [18:15] seems historical; invention of this claim serves no purpose and would expose John to being discredited by the Jewish authorities.

41. Anna's questions regarding Jesus' teachings and disciples make good historical sense; Annas would be concerned about potential civil unrest and the undermining of Jewish religious authority [18:19].

42. Identification of a relative of Malchus [the high priest's servant who had his ear cut off] is a detail that John would not have made up [18:26]; it has no theological significance and could only hurt John's credibility if he were trying to pass off fiction as the truth.

43. There are good historical reasons to believe Pilate's reluctance to deal with Jesus [18:28ff.]: Pilate had to walk a fine line between keeping the Jews happy and keeping Rome happy; any civil unrest could mean his job [the Jews knew of his competing concerns when they taunted him, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar," 19:12]; the Jewish philosopher Philo records the Jews successfully pressuring Pilate in a similar way to get their demands met [To Gaius 38.301-302].

44. A surface similar to the Stone Pavement has been identified near the Antonia Fortress [19:13] with markings that may indicate soldiers played games there [as in the gambling for his clothes in 19:24].

45. The Jews exclaiming, "We have no king but Caesar!" [19:15] would not be invented given the Jewish hatred for the Romans, especially if John had been written after A.D. 70. [This would be like New Yorkers today proclaiming "We have not king but Osama Bin Laden!"]

46. The crucifixion of Jesus [19:17-30] is attested to by non-Christian sources such as Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, and the Jewish Talmud.

47. Crucifixion victims normally carried their own crossbeams [19:17].

48. Josephus confirms that crucifixion was an execution technique employed by the Romans [Wars of the Jews 1.97; 2.305; 7.203]; moreover, a nail-spiked anklebone of a crucified man was found in Jerusalem in 1968.

49. The execution site was likely outside ancient Jerusalem, as John says [19:17]; this would ensure that the sacred Jewish city would not be profaned by the presence of a dead body [Deut. 21:23].

50. After the spear was thrust into Jesus' side, out came what appeared to be blood and water [19:34]. Today we know that a crucified person might have a watery fluid father in the sac around the heart called the pericardium. John would not have known of this medical condition, and could not have recorded this phenomenon unless he was an eyewitness or had access to eyewitness testimony.

51. Joseph of Arimathea [19:38], a member of the Sanhedrin who buries Jesus, is an unlikely invention.

52. Josephus [Antiquities 17.199] confirms that spices [19:39] were used for royal burials; this detail shows that Nicodemus was not expecting Jesus to rise from the dead, and it also demonstrates that John was not inserting later Christian faith into the text.

53. Mary Magdalene [20:1], a formerly demon-possessed woman [Luke 8:2], would not be invented as the empty tomb's first witness; in fact, women in general would not be presented as witnesses in a made-up story.

54. Mary mistaking Jesus for the gardener [20:15] is not a detail that a later writer would have made up [especially a writer seeking to exalt Jesus].

55. "Rabboni" [20:16], the Aramaic for "teacher," seems an authentic detail because it's another unlikely invention for a writer trying to exalt the risen Jesus.

56. Jesus stating that he is returning to "my God and your God" [20:17] does not fit with a later writer bent on creating the idea that Jesus was God.

57. One hundred fifty-three fish [21:11] is a theologically irrelevant detail, but perfectly consistent with the tendency of fisherman to want to record and then brag about large catches.

58. The fear of the disciples to ask Jesus who he was [21:12] is an unlikely concoction; it demonstrates natural human amazement at the risen Jesus and perhaps the fact that there was something different about the resurrection body.

59. The cryptic statement from Jesus about the fate of Peter is not clear enough to draw certain theological conclusions [21:18]; so why would John make it up? It's another unlikely invention. [1]

Frank Turek and Norman Geisler, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, p. 263-268

A Topical Scripture Cross Reference Study On Love Of God And Neighbor

• Introduction:

          -The theme of loving God and one's neighbor is woven throughout scripture, from the Old Testament to the New Testament, reaffirming its significance as the core of the Christian faith. Love serves as a fundamental principle that not only defines a believer's relationship with God but also translates into genuine interactions with others. Believers are called to reflect this divine love both in their hearts and in their actions toward fellow humans. This comprehensive command fosters both personal devotion to God and an ethical framework for living in harmony with others, thereby establishing the foundation for community, accountability, and spirituality in the life of every believer.

          -The emphasis on the command to love God and one’s neighbor arises from both the historical context of ancient Israel and the socio-religious landscape of Jesus' time. Rooted in the collective identity and communal responsibilities of the Israelites, this command serves as both a legal and ethical foundation for personal relationships among the community. In Jesus’ teachings, this command takes on a transformative significance, challenging established norms and emphasizing a love that transcends societal boundaries, aiming to redefine relationships within both ancient and contemporary contexts. Such a commandment encourages spirituality that is lived out in practical love, promoting a holistic understanding of faith that encompasses action.

• The Greatest Commandment:

          -"When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, and one of them [a scholar of the law] tested him by asking, 'Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?' He said to him, 'You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:36-40)

           *The historical context of Roman-occupied Judea, with its tensions between various ethnic and religious groups, highlights Jesus' message. By elevating love above legalistic observance, He challenges societal divisions and promotes a radical inclusivity that extends to everyone, including enemies.

• Testimonial From Leviticus:

          -"You shall not bear hatred for your brother in your heart. Though you may have to reprove your fellow man, do not incur sin because of him. Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against your fellow countrymen. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord." (Leviticus 19:17-18)

           *The injunction against hatred, revenge, and grudges emphasizes that love should govern both personal feelings and actions—underscoring the legal nature of these commands. The society was called to live out these laws practically, showing that mutual respect and care for one another were vital for maintaining community and fulfilling God’s covenant.

• Testimonial From Deuteronomy:

          -"Therefore, you shall love the LORD, your God, with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength." (Deuteronomy 6:5)

          -"Now, therefore, Israel, what does the Lord, your God, ask of you but to fear the Lord, your God, to follow in all his ways, to love and serve the Lord, your God, with your whole heart and with your whole being." (Deuteronomy 10:12)

           *The commands to love God and one's neighbor were given in a context where communal living was essential. Ancient Israel was a tribal society with strong familial relationships. Love for one’s neighbor was not merely an abstract moral principle; it was essential for social harmony and survival within these tight-knit communities.

           *In a culture that often faced external threats, maintaining unity and compassion among each other fostered deeper resilience. Love was not just a sentiment; it was a crucial societal glue.

• Testimonial From Joshua:

          -"But be very careful to observe the precept and Law of Moses, the servant of the LORD, enjoined upon you: love the LORD, your God; follow him faithfully; keep his commandments; remain loyal to him; and serve him with your whole heart and soul." (Joshua 22:5)

• Testimonial From 1 Kings:

          -"if with their whole heart and soul they turn back to you in the land of their enemies who took them captive, and pray to you toward the land you gave their ancestors, the city you have chosen, and the house I have built for your name." (1 Kings 8:48)

• Testimonial From Romans:

          -"...and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, [namely] 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:9-10)

            *In the New Testament, Jesus asserts that the fulfillment of the law rests on these two commandments. This is significant because it shifts the emphasis from merely following rituals and laws to embodying love as the essence of the law. This radical understanding implies that love is not only the highest commandment, but also the very spirit of the law.

• Testimonial From Galatians:

          -"For the whole law is fulfilled in one statement, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Galatians 5:14)

• Testimonial From James:

          -"However, if you fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing well." (James 2:8)

           *The early Christian writings in Romans, Galatians, and James echo this concern, affirming love as the law's fulfillment and a practical expression of faith. The historical context reveals the early church’s struggle against legalism and the need for a radical transformation that could only happen through the love laid out in these commandments.

• Testimonial From First John:

          -"We know that we have passed from death to life because we love our brothers. Whoever does not love remains in death." (1 John 3:14)

Who Bruises The Head Of The Serpent In Genesis 3:15?

• Introduction:

          -There are many Roman Catholic images of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, standing with her foot on the head of a serpent. These portraits exist because throughout church history, Roman Catholics have traditionally interpreted Genesis 3:15 to mean that she has enmity with the devil. They believe that since Mary was immaculately conceived, and therefore sinless, that she must be the figure who stands in direct contradiction to the snares of the devil.
          -Many Catholics reason that Mary must be the paragon of holiness, whereas Satan is the ultimate source of evil. Genesis 3:15 has oftentimes been connected with the dogma of Mary's immaculate conception, the teaching that she was born without sin. The traditional Catholic interpretation of this passage is in error and has, in fact, been rejected by Catholic scholarship.

• Consider The Words Of The New Catholic Encyclopedia In Regards To Genesis 3:15:

          -"Much confusion has resulted from the fact that the second half of this verse was inaccurately translated in the Vulgate to read, “She shall crush your head.” This translation, which has strongly affected the traditional representations of the Blessed Virgin, is today generally recognized to be a mistake for “it [or “he,” i.e., the seed of the woman] shall crush...”, and consequently can no longer be cited in favor of the Immaculate Conception." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII, page 378)

• The New American Bible Revised Edition Has This Footnote On Genesis 3:15:

          -"[3:15] They will strike…at their heel: the antecedent for “they” and “their” is the collective noun “offspring,” i.e., all the descendants of the woman. Christian tradition has seen in this passage, however, more than unending hostility between snakes and human beings. The snake was identified with the devil (Wis 2:24; Jn 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2), whose eventual defeat seemed implied in the verse. Because “the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8), the passage was understood as the first promise of a redeemer for fallen humankind, the protoevangelium. Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. A.D. 130–200), in his Against Heresies 5.21.1, followed by several other Fathers of the Church, interpreted the verse as referring to Christ, and cited Gal 3:19 and 4:4 to support the reference. Another interpretive translation is ipsa, “she,” and is reflected in Jerome’s Vulgate. “She” was thought to refer to Mary, the mother of the messiah. In Christian art Mary is sometimes depicted with her foot on the head of the serpent."

• Exegetical Problems For The Roman Catholic Interpretation Of Genesis 3:15:

          -What does it mean to have enmity? It means to be hostile, filled with hatred, or to stand in a position of opposition to someone or something else. Not only would the devil possess enmity towards the "seed of the woman" spoken of in Genesis 3:15, but he also hates all of God's people (Romans 16:20; James 4:4). So, if we accept the Genesis text as being a reference to Mary, and the mere existence of enmity proves that Mary is sinless, then would this not mean that all Christians are free from sin in the same sense, as well?

• Who Bruises The Head Of The Serpent?:

          -It is the Lord Jesus Christ who crushes the head of the serpent. It is He who stands in direct opposition to Satan. It is Jesus Christ who is infinitely more powerful than Satan himself. Christ was born of a woman. He is the savior of those who believe on Him, whereas Satan is the father of all lies. Both figures are opposed to each other in every way, but it is Christ who has overcome him. This is the meaning of the woman's seed crushing the head of the serpent. Giving Mary or anybody else a position of sinlessness injures the uniqueness of Christ in relation to mankind.

Could Solar Eclipses Be Evidence For God?

Solar eclipses are a spectacular sight to behold. But they have also contributed significantly to scientific discovery. The sun’s corona, the star’s outer atmosphere, becomes observable only during a solar eclipse. This has allowed scientists to conduct experiments during solar eclipses, and this has enabled researchers to use spectroscopes to discern the spectra of stars.

In 1919, a solar eclipse led to the confirmation of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity that he had proposed three years earlier. If Einstein's theory was right, starlight should bend as it passes the sun. Researchers, one group led by Arthur Eddington and Edwin Cottingham on Principle Island off the West African coast and another group in Brazil led by Andrew Cromellin and Charles Davidson, set out to determine the changes in the position of stars in the sky near the sun relative to their position before and after the eclipse. Their data ultimately confirmed Einstein’s theory of general relativity. These results have been borne out by subsequent experiments conducted during solar eclipses.

Examining ancient records of solar eclipses at known places and times has also enabled scientists to elucidate the Earth’s past rotation rate. This has even allowed historians to translate ancient calendar systems into a modern calendar system.

It is clear, then, that solar eclipses have played an important part in the scientific endeavour. Is it merely an uncanny fortuitous state of affairs that the one planet in our solar system on which there are observers also happens to be the one planet with perfect solar eclipses that appear to provide optimal conditions for scientific discovery?

In their book The Privileged Planet, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and philosopher Jay W. Richards elaborate on this and many other uncanny coincidences that suggest that there is significant overlap between the conditions necessary for habitability and those that are conducive to measurability.

While this striking phenomenon does not by any means clinch the design hypothesis, it certainly adds to a growing cumulative body of data that suggests that our Universe was designed for intelligent life.

https://www.premierchristianity.com/Blog/Could-solar-eclipses-be-evidence-for-God

Luke 22:32 Does Not Support Papal Supremacy

• Introduction:

          -The Roman Catholic Church interprets Luke 22:32, in which Christ prayed that the Apostle Peter's faith failed not and for him to strengthen the faith of the other disciples, to be a promise that he would be preserved from error in doctrinal matters. In other words, the Church of Rome uses this Bible verse to support its dogma of papal infallibility.

• A Refutation Of Papal Argument From Luke 22:32:

          -It is true that Satan wishes to destroy the church of God. It is also true Jesus prayed that the Apostle Peter would not cease to remain faithful and to be a source of strength for the other disciples. However, this was only done because Christ knew that Peter was going to deny him three times (v. 33-34). Consequently, the Lord wanted him to be restored and forgiven for his miserable failure to stand up for the truth of the gospel (v. 31-32). Now this, of course, would be a very encouraging message for the other apostles to learn. 

          -Luke 22:32 is speaking of the time when the Apostle Peter repents of his errors. This text is about Peter's faults, not about receiving praise, rewards, or being promoted to a position of supremacy. This passage of Scripture is about the unfathomable love, kindness, and mercy of Jesus Christ. Therefore, Roman Catholic apologists are altogether missing the point of Luke 22:32 when they cite it as a papal proof-text. They turn the meaning of this passage on its head.
          -To make an argument for the authority of the Roman Catholic Church on the basis of Luke 22:32 is unwarranted, for the context contains elements that are injurious to modern-day claims of Peter being appointed by the Lord Jesus Christ as its first pope. Most notably, the disciples had a dispute among themselves as to who would be regarded as the greatest (Luke 22:24-27). In fact, Christ said that all twelve apostles were going to be seated on twelve thrones (Luke 22:29-30). There is nothing in the context of Luke 22 even hinting that the Apostle Peter would be singled out for the reason of being a recipient of special honor. All church leaders have been called to "strengthen the brethren." One does not need to be bestowed some gift of infallibility in order to fulfill that duty.

John 21:15-17 Does Not Support Papal Supremacy

• Introduction:

          -The Roman Catholic Church interprets the words of Jesus Christ ("feed my sheep") which were directed specifically to the Apostle Peter  to mean that he was given an exclusive position of primacy in caring for the household of God, which is the church. The Papacy maintains that Christ conferred to Peter a distinctive, greater position of episcopal authority which he allegedly passed on to the Roman bishops of future generations. The text of John 21:15-17 has been used by Roman Catholic apologists to support the idea that the pope has been appointed by Christ to serve in the office of "Chief Shepherd."

• A Refutation Of Papal Argument From John 21:15-17:

          -All bishops have been commissioned by the apostles to care for the church of God (Acts 20:28). The Apostle Peter was not the only one who was obligated to nourish the "flock." Thus, the text of John 21:15-17 does not guarantee a unique position of supremacy to Peter.
          -The Apostle Peter forbade people from becoming lords over God's heritage (1 Peter 5:1-5). In fact, Christ identified Himself as being the "Chief Shepherd" (John 10:10-16). The Apostle Peter himself called Christ the "Shepherd and Bishop of our souls" (1 Peter 2:25). There is only one Chief Shepherd over the household of God. Scripture never records Christ reserving this title for Peter or him being addressed by that title. Thus, this title cannot rightfully be applied to anybody who claims to be a representative of Jesus Christ here on earth or descendant of the Apostle Peter.
          -This passage is not about inheriting a position of special primacy. John 21:15-17 simply records a threefold confession of faith articulated by Peter for the three times that he denied knowing Jesus Christ (Matthew 26:33-34). This passage shows us an utter failure on Peter's part. It therefore makes no sense to view this text as one that exalts him in any fashion. If this text is about Peter being promoted to a higher position by Christ, then how come we do not see anywhere the usual reaction of a person getting exalted by a superior (rejoicing and excitement)?

          -Although we know from the Book of Acts that the Apostle Peter played a significant role in preaching the gospel, we have no biblical evidence suggesting that he was given a position of supremacy over the church. To call the pope the "Good Shepherd" is outright blasphemy against our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, for the occupation of such a title by a mere man robs Him of the honor that only He deserves.

The Early Church Fathers On The Meaning Of "Upon This Rock" (Matthew 16:18)

• Defining The Issues:

          -The Roman Catholic Church treats Matthew 16:18-19 as though it decisively proves the truthfulness of its claims to being given the fullness of divine truth. It is claimed that Jesus Christ made Peter the Church of Rome's foundation and any spiritual gifts bestowed on him were passed on to succeeding popes of future generations. Thus, we see the reason that adherents fight so vigorously to protect their understanding of the meaning of the "rock" as found in Matthew 16:18-19. However, the church fathers were far from unanimous on accepting the "rock" metaphor found in that passage as being the Apostle Peter himself. Following are excerpts from various church fathers, which were originally taken from this article.

• Basil of Seleucia:

          -"You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever." (Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297)

• Cyril of Alexandria:

          -"When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immovable faith of the disciple.” (Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2)

• Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew:

          -“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11)

• Augustine of Hippo:

          -"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer." (John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327)

• Bede:

          -"You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name." (Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156.)

• Eusebius:

          -"Yet you will not in any way err from the scope of the truth if you suppose that the 'world' is actually the Church of God, and that its 'foundation' is in the first place, that unspeakably solid rock on which it is founded, as Scripture says: 'Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it' and elsewhere: 'The rock, moreover, was Christ. For as the Apostle indicates with these words: 'No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus." (Commentary on the Psalms, M.P.G., Vol. 23, Col. 173,176)

• Cassiodorus:

          -"It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord." (Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455)

Christ's Power And Human Weakness

        "but He said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.' I will rather boast more gladly of my weaknesses, in order that the power of Christ may dwell with me." (2 Corinthians 12:9)

         God's divine grace manifests itself and covers us more abundantly during our struggles and trials. His strength compliments our inherent weakness. His sufficiency fulfills what is lacking in us. The power of Christ sustains us in the midst of our dilemmas.

        In the surrounding context of 2 Corinthians 12:9, the Apostle Paul was telling the church at Corinth how God did not accept his petition to remove his distress. Rather, He sustained him as he grieved about Satan irritating him after he had received personal revelation that he was not allowed to communicate to other men (v. 7).

        Thus, we see that the Lord allows us to undergo times of trouble for the sake of refining our character. We can build up our spiritual strength for times of infirmity through the persistent resistance of temptation and continued obedience to God.

        We need to trust in God. We must rely on His grace. We may not feel like God is working at all in bad circumstances, but His grace is sufficient for us. We can confidently proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord because He is faithful and trustworthy. He is with us, even during times of hardship (v. 10).

Isaiah 22:20-22 And Papal Supremacy

• Introduction:

          -Roman Catholics argue in defense of Papal authority by noting the similarity of language structure in Matthew 16:19 and Isaiah 22:20-22. First of all, both of these passages make reference to a "key." Secondly, the text of Isaiah has a prime minister figure. Thirdly, there is similar wording of the actions of "opening and shutting" and "binding and loosing" found in both Isaiah 22:20-22 and Matthew 16:19. Catholics thus argue that this scenario prefigures Jesus Christ giving the Apostle Peter supremacy over His entire church. The logic of this alleged typology is based on a comparison of Peter to Eliakim, who was given the key to the house of David (Isaiah 20:22).

• Answering The Roman Catholic Typological Argument:

          1.) The Bible mentions a number of different sets of "keys" (Judges 3:25; Luke 11:52; Revelation 1:18; etc.). In fact, there is nothing in the context of Isaiah 22 demanding that it be paralleled with Matthew 16.
          2.) The context of this passage is about a male figure named Shebna (Isaiah 22:15). His position of authority was being revoked from him as a result of his pride. Shebna's position, which was only secondary to King Hezekiah, was being given to Eliakim. However, the Apostle Peter never replaced anybody.
          3.) If Isaiah 22:20-22 was a prophecy about the Apostle Peter being appointed as the first pope, then how would Roman Catholics explain Isaiah 22:25? The Apostle Peter was never removed or cut down. The interpretation of this prophetic passage from the Book of Isaiah is not applicable to the Roman Catholic Church because it would only prophecy the fall of the Papacy. This is inconsistent with the claims of modern-day Roman Catholic dogma, for it teaches the infallible preservation of Roman tradition.
          4.) The name of "Eliakim" literally means "God will raise up." It is a typology of Jesus Christ, not the Apostle Peter. Jesus is the one who will inherit the glorious, everlasting throne of David (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Isaiah 22:23; Isaiah 9:6-7). He possesses the key of David (Revelation 3:7), which pertains to the promises of King David's throne. It is about the establishment and fulfillment of his kingdom. The phrase "house of David" is used within the context of his ancestral lineage. While the singular key of the household of David is pertinent to Israel (Isaiah 22:21-22), the plural keys of the kingdom of heaven are pertinent to the work of the church (Matthew 16:13-20).