Gentle Saints of God,
This will be the last part of our brief series on What Jesus really meant. We want to consider if in fact Jesus came to start a new religion or did He build His church What did He mean when He said “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:1 8 )
I have researched this one verse for more than 5 years and for us to even make a dent in understanding this issue we must apply all of our talents, we will of course begin with the study and application of Hermeneutics. The term hermeneutics covers both the first order art and the second order theory of understanding and interpretation of linguistic and non-linguistic expressions.
As a theory of interpretation, the hermeneutic tradition stretches all the way back to ancient Greek philosophy. In the course of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, hermeneutics emerges as a crucial branch of Biblical studies. Later on, it comes to include the study of ancient and classic cultures.
We start with the simple word “church” which to many mean a building where people go to meet. But if one takes that track the word has little meaning beyond ones limited understanding . However gentle saints, let assume that you are serious in your wanting to really, really (two reallys -serious stuff) know what Jesus meant. And that you’re a reasoned individual that thinks not only outside the box but for himself/herself. So you go to a verse any verse and read it to yourself and then say to yourself ( When ever I want an intelligent conversation I talk to myself, I’m sure your much the same way) “That’s what this verse means” ! Or as my dear Baptist friends say “It means what it says and it says what it means”!
However Saints, That’s rather like some in Government who take a narrow view and never grasp the larger picture.
The first principal in order to understand any verse is to put it into context. For example little Sammy wants a ice cream ( pecan with sprinkles) and Mum (Irish expresion for mother) say no! Because she fixing dinner and ice cream will spoil Sammy’s appetite. You see Sammy is not looking at the big picture So in the Bible we need to look at the the verses preceding the verse in question and also look at the verses following to put your verse into context. Just like Sammy’s Mum knows that after dinner little Sammy will have his pecan ice cream.
Secondly we need to look at the words and their meaning (from the original, if at all possible, as the meanings do not change with a dead language as they do with a modern living language. Again an example , which will date me. When I was in undergraduate school we had an expression “Far out” which meant something entirely different to my Da (Irish expression for father) who thought it meant at a great distance. You see saints words change their meaning over time and with different generations. And in different languages and different cultures.
If one chooses to read the Scriptures without discernment, certainly they can gain “something” but is it actually true and accurate?. One last thing what your reading if your like most your reading a translation from another translation from a copy made from another copy in the English. While if you can manage Greek and Hebrew in the original languages you can get a fuller meaning and nuance. Rather like watching a color television in High definition as opposed to reading the English translations are like watching a Black and white T.V. Does that mean the English translations aren’t any good or you can’t gain anything from them. Absolutely Not! There is a lot to gain because Translators do their very best to give the exact meaning and intent behind the whole of Scripture. It’s when you study with teachers who have devoted their lives to this one objective, what is the exact meaning? What was the intent of the human author? What were the conditions, and culture at the time? And then the ultimate question what was God trying to impart to us in this section of Scripture?
We also need to consider textual criticism which is, simply stated, textual criticism is a method used to determine what the original manuscripts of the Bible said. The original manuscripts of the Bible are either lost, hidden, or no longer in existence. What we do have is tens of thousands of copies of the original manuscripts dating from the 1st to the 15th centuries A.D. (for the New Testament) and dating from the 4th century B.C. to the 15th century A.D. (for the Old Testament). In these manuscripts, there are many minor and a few somewhat major differences. Textual criticism is the study of these manuscripts in an attempt to determine what the original reading actually was.
There are three primary methods to textual criticism. The first is the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus was a manuscript of the Bible that was compiled by a man named Erasmus in the 1500s A.D. He took the limited number of manuscripts he had access to and compiled them into what eventually became known as the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus is the textual basis behind the King James Version and New King James Version.
A second method is known as the Majority Text. The Majority Text takes all of the manuscripts that are available today, compares the differences, and chooses the most likely correct reading based on which reading occurs the most. For example, if 748 manuscripts read "he said" and 1429 manuscripts read "they said" - the Majority Text will go with "they said" as the most likely original reading. There are no major Bible translations that are based on the Majority Text.
The third method is known as the critical or eclectic method. The eclectic method involves considering external and internal evidences for determining the most likely original text.
External evidence makes us ask these questions: in how many manuscripts does the reading occur? what are the dates for these manuscripts? in what region of the world were these manuscripts found? Internal evidence prompts these questions: what could have caused these varying readings? which reading can possibly explain the origin of the other readings? The New International Version, New American Standard, New Living Translation, and most other Bible translations use the Eclectic Text.
Which method is most accurate? That is where the debate begins. When the methods are first described to someone, the person typically picks the Majority Text as the method that should be used. It is essentially the "majority rules" and the "democratic" method. However, there is a regional issue to consider here. In the first few centuries of the church, the vast majority of Christians spoke and wrote in Greek. Starting in the 4th century A.D., Latin began to become the most common language, especially in the Roman “Catholic” church. Starting with the Latin Vulgate, the New Testament began to be copied in Latin instead of Greek.
However, in the eastern Christian world, Greek continued to be the dominant language of the church for over 1000 more years. As a result, the vast majority of Greek manuscripts are from the eastern / Byzantine region. These Byzantine manuscripts are all very similar to each other. They likely all originated in the same few Greek manuscripts. While being very similar to each other, the Byzantine manuscripts have numerous differences with the manuscripts found in the western and central regions of the church. So, it essentially boils down to this: if you started with three manuscripts, one was copied 100 times, another was copied 200 times, and the third was copied 5000 times, which group is going to have the majority rule? The third group, of course. However, the third group is no more likely to have the original reading than the first or second group. It only has more copies. The critical / eclectic method of textual criticism gives equal "weight" to the manuscripts from different regions, despite the manuscripts from the East having the overwhelming majority.
How does the critical / eclectic method work in practice? If you compare John 5:1-9 in the King James Version (Textus Receptus) and the New International Version (Critical Text), you will notice that verse 4 is missing from the NIV. In the KJV, John 5:4 reads, "For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had." Why is this verse missing from the NIV (and the other Bible translations which use the Critical Text)? The eclectic method works as follows ( 1) The text of John 5:4 does not occur in most of the oldest manuscripts. (2) The text of John 5:4 occurs in all of the Byzantine manuscripts, but not many of the non-eastern manuscripts. (3) It is more likely that a scribe would add an explanation than it is that a scribe would remove an explanation. John 5:4 makes it more clear why the crippled man wanted to get into the pool. Why would a scribe remove this verse? That does not make sense. It does make sense for that the tradition of why the crippled man wanted to get into the pool would be added. As a result of these concepts, the Critical / Eclectic Text does not include John 5:4.
No matter what method of textual criticism you believe is correct, this is an issue that should be discussed with grace, respect, and kindness. Christians can and do disagree on this issue. We can debate the methods, but we should not attack the motivations and character of those with whom we disagree on this issue. We all have the same goal—to determine the most likely original wording of the Bible. Some simply have different methods to achieve that goal. Wow! Quite a rabbit trail! But to continue:
Now lets look at the word “Church” and see if we can get an accurate picture of what it means. ekklēsia in the Greek means to us “church” a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly. Stephen speaking to Jewish leaders said this: Reading in the Greek) ουτος εστιν ο γενομενος εν τη εκκλησια εν τη ερημω μετα του αγγελου του λαλουντος αυτω εν τω ορει σινα και των πατερων ημων ος εδεξατο λογια ζωντα δουναι ημιν and translated from the Greek into English:
“Moses brought our people together in the desert, and the angel spoke to him on Mount Sinai. There he was given these life-giving words to pass on to us.”(Acts 7:38) or better to see this from the KJV version "This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us" . Now if you want to think of the “church” as a building or as merely as New testament phenomenon then you have a problem. Stephen, speaking before Jews, uses the term ‘church’ to describe the people of Israel in the wilderness. How strange!
Well, strange if you believe that Israel and the Church are separate entities. And are they? So is this what Jesus when He said “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” But what is the church?
The Greek word usually translated “Church” is exxlesia ekklesia a “gathering” - a word that occurs in only one gospel -Matthew’s ! While it is used for a mob in Acts 1 9:32,41
19:32 Then others were calling out something different, for the assembly ekklesia [our word for church] was confused, and the majority did not know for what reason they had come together.
And having said these things, he dismissed the assembly.
(Acts 19:41) The gatherings that Paul our apostle addresses are those nonhierarchical bodies we have already described. He does not write to a leader of the community, but to an gathering of believers in which there are no “priests”. These gatherings meet in houses not church buildings as we think of today. The word for house [Greek isοἰκία,Eng- oikoi] which is defined this way : a house
1a) an inhabited edifice, a dwelling
1b) the inmates of a house, the family
1c) property, wealth, goods
please note the second definition as we will refer to this again.
This is such a standard thing that our apostle Paul could talk of believers in general as “house gatherers (oikeioi) of the faith” So then, as we have opportunity, let us work what is good toward all, but especially toward those who are of the household of faith.(Galatians 6:10) Those groups were not led by “apostles” That word means someone sent off (apo-stello) an emissary from one community to another. Paul equates being an apostle with being an ambassador (presbeutes, 2 Cor. 5:20, Eph. 6:20). So, Saints, Peter and Paul, as apostles, are simply emissaries to the gathering in Antioch while in stark contrast James (whose real name was Jacob) the Lords brother who was not an apostle but was one of the “pillars” of the Jerusalem gathering. “and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace which was given to me, they gave me and Barnabas their right hands of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised;...” (Galatians 2:9)
Note as well that the “church” that Jesus speaks of, is not an institution it is in fact a Family that He is building, not an organization despite what you may have been told or learned in Sunday School or the organization that you my belong to. Some will try to convince you that Simon Peter is the “rock” that Jesus was talking about and that the “church” was built on him. But consider, these And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. (Ephesians 1:22-23) and that Jesus prayed That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. (John 17:21) And that For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: Colossians 2:9-10)
You Saints, are complete in Christ and He in God is bringing you back to God’s purpose to be part of His Family!
So there you have it Gentle Saints, Jesus meant that you were to be part of God’s Family!!! But what about Peter?
For some of you this will be enough and you can put your head down on your pew and take a wee nap, for others of you you’ll want to come back to find out next time “What about Peter?
