Thoughts on II Peter 3:15&16

[Rose]

As I was reading through II Peter trying to gain a better understanding of the 'End Times', I came to a verse near the end that caused me to stop and meditate upon the significance of it.

Stepping back into time, I thought of Peter, who walked and talked with Jesus, the one whom Jesus called the Rock, upon whom He would build His church, the one whom He told to feed His sheep if he loved Him; also the one who agonized over denying his Lord three times. This is the man who wrote the first and second epistles of Peter, who wrote the verse that is the object of my thought.

II Peter 3:15 & 16 says ' consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation- as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.'

The significance this verse gives to the relationship that Peter had with Paul is very insightful to me. Peter’s epistle was written in the mid 60’s AD and Paul’s epistles are dated from the late 40’s to early 60’s AD, so it appears Peter had first hand knowledge of Paul’s epistles to the churches, giving credence to the veracity of Paul’s writings being God inspired, and totally accepted by Peter, the Rock, one of the disciples who walked with Jesus the Son of God.

It is also plain to see that people were already trying to twist and change Scripture, ending in their own destruction.

[joel]

Rose, as we study and contemplate the letters of what we call "The New Testament", it is evident that there is a distinction between those things written by Paul, and, those things written by those who followed after Paul; the writer of Hebrews, James, John and Peter.

As we study the Acts of the Apostles, we see that there was a definitive adjustment between Paul and the apostles in Jerusalem. These matters, to some who argue that it shows a division within the body, and, then, to some, who say that it is important to follow either in one direction or the other, are important to all of us who seek to hear accurately what the Lord is saying to His body.

Paul takes considerable time to explain that our standing with God (justification) is not a matters of our works, or efforts, to please God. It is purely a matter of the sacrificial "works" of Christ, and His faith.

The following writers, James and John and Peter, focus on matters of works that follow faith.

What may appear to be an argument between them is actually a completion of our faith.

We cannot do anything that would cause God to owe us "salvation" (Paul's view).
But, we are to demonstrate that our faith produces corresponding "works" (the view of the others).

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Rose, as we study and contemplate the letters of what we call "The New Testament", it is evident that there is a distinction between those things written by Paul, and, those things written by those who followed after Paul; the writer of Hebrews, James, John and Peter.

As we study the Acts of the Apostles, we see that there was a definitive adjustment between Paul and the apostles in Jerusalem. These matters, to some who argue that it shows a division within the body, and, then, to some, who say that it is important to follow either in one direction or the other, are important to all of us who seek to hear accurately what the Lord is saying to His body.

Paul takes considerable time to explain that our standing with God (justification) is not a matters of our works, or efforts, to please God. It is purely a matter of the sacrificial "works" of Christ, and His faith.

The following writers, James and John and Peter, focus on matters of works that follow faith.

What may appear to be an argument between them is actually a completion of our faith.

We cannot do anything that would cause God to owe us "salvation" (Paul's view).
But, we are to demonstrate that our faith produces corresponding "works" (the view of the others).

Joel

Hi Joel,

Great to see you here!

I agree that there is a distinction in style between Paul and the other Apostles, and that it helps to discern their differences in emphasis. But in that process, some have erred and taught that the later epistles are contrary to Paul and not even addressed to Christians. I first ran into this idea at a Berean Church in Seattle, which teaches that "rightly dividing the word of truth" means that we need to discern between books addressed to Gentile Christians (Paul's letters only) and those addressed to "Jewish Christians." Have you encountered this idea? What do you think of it?

The worst case scenario is the extreme error amongst some messianics who want assert we are still supposed to "keep Torah" and who actually deny Paul altogether, calling him a "false apostle."

When I read Rose's post, it makes me appreciate the integrity of the Bible. Peter walked with Jesus and he bears witness of Paul as both a Christian brother and prophet of God who wrote inspired Scripture. For me, it is a great joy to see one part of Scripture bearing witness to another part.

Richard

[joel]

Amen, Richard. And it is good to be here.

(Richard said....)
"I first ran into this idea at a Berean Church in Seattle, which teaches that "rightly dividing the word of truth" means that we need to discern between books addressed to Gentile Christians (Paul's letters only) and those addressed to "Jewish Christians." Have you encountered this idea? What do you think of it?"
---------------------------------

Yes, I am familiar with those who separate Paul's teachings as to those of the nations, and, the teachings of the others, as to those of the circumcision.

I believe that there is some validity in considering the differences in these messages.

On the other hand, it is becoming increasingly evident, that, as we approach the end of this current era, we are to identify the unity between them, in contradistinction to the differences.

The revelation that may be impending is the understanding of what the nation of Israel is called to accomplish, and what the body of Christ is called, in the celestial realm, to accomplish.

Is one the bride (Israel) on the earth, and, the other (those called out of the nations, in the dispensation of Paul), the body of Christ?

In one realm, that which applies to the earth, the relationship between the man and woman, the bridegroom and the bride, may apply specifically to Israel, as a nation.

In the other realm, that which applies to the heavenlies, the relationship between the man and woman is dissolved. There is no distinction between male and female in the heavenly realms. Consequently, the body of Christ is comprised of the members, and the head.

These are matters which are of great importance, and, your input, as the administrator of this site, are so vital to help us in our joint quest of truth.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Amen, Richard. And it is good to be here.

(Richard said....)
"I first ran into this idea at a Berean Church in Seattle, which teaches that "rightly dividing the word of truth" means that we need to discern between books addressed to Gentile Christians (Paul's letters only) and those addressed to "Jewish Christians." Have you encountered this idea? What do you think of it?"
---------------------------------

Yes, I am familiar with those who separate Paul's teachings as to those of the nations, and, the teachings of the others, as to those of the circumcision.

I believe that there is some validity in considering the differences in these messages.

It would be good to explore that more. I know that one primary point they stress is that God revealed the idea of the "Body of Christ" only through Paul. But I would have to do a little research before commenting more, since I don't know where they try to go with that idea. I mention it because I notice it relates to your comments below.

On the other hand, it is becoming increasingly evident, that, as we approach the end of this current era, we are to identify the unity between them, in contradistinction to the differences.

One interesting point here. As far as I know, folks who divide between Paul and the "Hebrew epistles" group the book of Hebrews with the latter, for obvious reasons. And this is one point that the structure of the Bible Wheel impacts, since we have a large-scale symmetry only when we consider Hebrews a "Pauline Epistle." Here is the pic of the symmetry. Its from page 98 of the Bible Wheel book, which I still need to translate into html and post. If there are 14 Pauline epistles, then their is a common divider across all three cycles between Spokes 14 and 15.

The revelation that may be impending is the understanding of what the nation of Israel is called to accomplish, and what the body of Christ is called, in the celestial realm, to accomplish.

Is one the bride (Israel) on the earth, and, the other (those called out of the nations, in the dispensation of Paul), the body of Christ?

Well ... I've never thought of that possibility. I've always thought that the Church was both the Body and the Bride of Christ, and that those were just two different metaphors. But if we press them to be literal descriptions, then I guess we would have a bit of a conundrum! Its definitely worth pursuing ... the truth needs to be clarified.

In one realm, that which applies to the earth, the relationship between the man and woman, the bridegroom and the bride, may apply specifically to Israel, as a nation.

In the other realm, that which applies to the heavenlies, the relationship between the man and woman is dissolved. There is no distinction between male and female in the heavenly realms. Consequently, the body of Christ is comprised of the members, and the head.

Well, one immediate challenge to that view is the fact that the marriage of the lamb takes place in heaven:

Revelation 19:1 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God: ... 6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. 7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

These are matters which are of great importance, and, your input, as the administrator of this site, are so vital to help us in our joint quest of truth.

Joel

Yes Joel, you are absolutely correct, these are very important, and intriguing questions that touch up many different aspects of our biblical understanding. I'm glad you brought them up! I can see you are going to be a great asset to our community.

Richard

[Stephen]

Hi Joel and Richard!

This is a really interesting thread. You raise postulations that show a great deal of insight and breadth of understanding. I am very impressed, and grateful for the sharing.

Joel, like you I see a distinction between the Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ, and along similar lines as you. My understanding is that we, the Spirit-filled believers, form the Body of Christ; and that Israel is the Bride of Christ. When I say Israel I don't mean the nation state of Israel. I mean the 12 tribes of Israel, and the nations they have become today, which includes America (in fact, is mainly America). I follow your thoughts, as you have expressed them, and am intrigued by your reasoning.

Richard has added further to our understanding through the Bible Wheel. It offers graphic evidence to Joel's postulations. I find Richard's cutout of the Bible Wheel compelling. I agree with the Pauline nature of Hebrews being verified through the Bible Wheel. What is even more fascinating is that the Bible Wheel divides the Pauline epistles from the following epistles along the Post-Exilic axis. This is a tremendous insight!

I had never contemplated the idea that Paul's epistles serve a different function to those it precedes. The Bible Wheel appears to support this position. I say that because the Post-Exilic letters that follow are part of a schema that runs through all three levels of the Wheel. If there's any single aspect that rubber-stamps the veracity of the Bible Wheel, then this is surely it.

Now, if we are to make a distinction between the Pauline epistles / Post-Exilic epistles along the lines of Body of Christ / Bride of Christ, we have a very interesting thematic shift that ties in with the subject of who Israel is today. It follows that if Paul is writing to the church, the Body of Christ, then James and Peter must be writing to Israel, a nation which is yet to come out of exile! Two distinct entities, related though not the same.

Richard, as you know from another thread, I oppose replacement theology, which says that the church is Israel. This aspect of distinguishing between the Pauline and the Post-Exilic epistles along the lines of the intended audience is evidence that I wished to introduce at some later stage. This thread, and the sharing between Joel and yourself, has preempted that discussion.

I believe the Post-Exilic epistles are intended chiefly for the Bride, i.e Israel. That's not to say that they are not intended for the church, too. Of course, all the epistles are intended for all believers to learn from! What I am saying, though, is that they have a more fundamental purpose. That purpose is to address biblical Israel once she has finished the exile begun under Tilgath-Pilneser III, whose reign began in 745 BC. Israel was to serve her 'seven times' punishment first, as prescribed in Leviticus 26, specifically verses 27 and 28 (note the change in voice and severity in these two verses). This punishment was to last seven (times), being 7 x 360 = 2520. More on this some other time.

It so happens that America dates from 1776, exactly 2520 years from when Tilgath-Pilneser III acceded to the throne of Assyria, founding the neo-Assyrian Empire. It also just happens that 1 Peter begins with the words 'Petros apostolou' which sum to 1776. It also just happens that much of the imagery in 1 Peter is taken from scriptures relating specifically to Israel, its origins as the people of God, its exile, and its reformation in the fullness of time. It also just happens that 'Petros apostolou' means 'stone set apart', or 'commissioned stone'. It also just happens that there is a stone set apart over the pyramid on the Great Seal. It also just happens that Peter quotes Psalm 118:22,23; a stone that has become both a corner-stone and a head-stone ... in other words, an apex or zenith.

I could go on and on from 1 Peter, and probably will do so at another time. The point I would like to make is this. The Bible Wheel distinguishes between Pauline epistles and Post-Exilic epistles. It is possible that it does so along the lines of dividing epistles specifically intended for the church, and epistles addressing the post-exilic Israel - a yet future event at the time of their writing. Moreover, the Bible Wheel informs us that there are groups of Books intended to be understood in the context of post-exilic. I have quoted 1 Peter, but the Bible Wheel tells us that on spoke 16 there are supplementary Books in Nehemiah and Zechariah. And when these supplementary Books are examined, they only reaffirm through their symbolism that (chiefly) America is post-exilic Israel, the ten-tribed Northern Kingdom, the sinful nation that God cast off, calling her Lo-Ammi, Not-My-People, the daughter of a harlot; the nation to whom God also said that, in the fullness time, He would call My People once more, the nation that would accept the call to take the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to the ends of the Earth.

The Bible Wheel actually supports the belief that 1 Peter may have been written specifically to America! In this respect, it is an epistle of a thoroughly prophetic nature, a miracle in its own right when understood in this light. Small wonder, for the Lord Jesus Christ himself prophesied very specifically of America over 17 centuries before the nation ever came into existence!

Stephen

PS: 1 Peter opens 'Petros apostolos Ihsou Xristou', summing to 37 x 112 (YHWH Elohim). The two nominals, 'Petros' and 'Ihsou', sum to 1443 = 37 x 39; and the two titles, 'apostolos' and 'Xristou', sum to 2701 = 37 x 73. Also, as stated, 'Petros apostolos' sums to 1776; and 'Ihsou Xristou' sums to 2368 = 37 x 64. There is deep numerical integration in the opening words of Peter, the 'stone set apart of Jesus Christ'.

PSS: Richard, the term 'apostolos' has very interesting roots. The prefix 'apo' means 'to separate one thing from another; to make a distinction'. These resonate precisely with the meaning of 'badeel', as in 'haAben haBadeel' in the hands of Zerubbabel, found in Zechariah 4. There is some dense post-exilic stuff in that chapter that finds its outlet in 1 Peter, and its prophecy for America. The second root is 'stello', meaning 'to place, to prepare'.

[Kdana]

As I was reading through II Peter trying to gain a better understanding of the 'End Times', I came to a verse near the end that caused me to stop and meditate upon the significance of it.

Stepping back into time, I thought of Peter, who walked and talked with Jesus, the one whom Jesus called the Rock, upon whom He would build His church, the one whom He told to feed His sheep if he loved Him; also the one who agonized over denying his Lord three times. This is the man who wrote the first and second epistles of Peter, who wrote the verse that is the object of my thought.

II Peter 3:15 & 16 says ' consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation- as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.'

The significance this verse gives to the relationship that Peter had with Paul is very insightful to me. Peter’s epistle was written in the mid 60’s AD and Paul’s epistles are dated from the late 40’s to early 60’s AD, so it appears Peter had first hand knowledge of Paul’s epistles to the churches, giving credence to the veracity of Paul’s writings being God inspired, and totally accepted by Peter, the Rock, one of the disciples who walked with Jesus the Son of God.

It is also plain to see that people were already trying to twist and change Scripture, ending in their own destruction.

Rose,
Do you believe the following verses suggest that Jesus called Peter the Rock and is building his church upon him (Peter)? I believe Jesus said he was building his church upon the fact that He was the Christ, the Son of the living God>
Kdana


Mat 16:13 ¶ When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?


Mat 16:14 And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.


Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?


Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.


Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.


Mat 16:18 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.


Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


Mat 16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Rose,
Do you believe the following verses suggest that Jesus called Peter the Rock and is building his church upon him (Peter)? I believe Jesus said he was building his church upon the fact that He was the Christ, the Son of the living God>
Kdana

Hi Kdana,

Since this is my first post to you, let me say "Welcome to our forum!"



I thought I'd jump in here while we're waiting for Rose to find time to answer.

Your question makes me think of this verse:

Ephesians 2:19-22 19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Paul said that the church is built on the foundation of the "the foundation of the apostles and prophets" with "Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone."

Was Peter an Apostle? Yes.

Was Peter a Prophet? Yes. He wrote Holy Scripture.

Did Jesus say that he would build His Church upon Peter? Yes, that is the most literal and natural reading of the passage. The word play between Petros and petra is inescapable, and there is no indication in the text that Peter's confession should be taken as the antecedent of "this rock." If that were Christ's true intent, then we must ask why He made it seem otherwise.

Do all these answers cohere? Yes.

Do these interpretations of Matthew 16 and Ephesians 2 cohere? Yes.

The interpretation you offer does not flow naturally from the text. It appears to have been invented by Protestants to counter the claims of the Catholics. I don't think we should let a squabble between Christians determine how we interpret the Bible. We must look to the Bible for the truth. We must be careful not to twist it to fit our own agendas. We must never let our prejudices color what we read. I sincerely doubt that anyone ever would have invented that novel interpretation of Matt 16:18 if not for the battle with the Catholics. We must always be on guard against letting such things influence our interpretation of Scripture.

Of course, I don't think Matt 16:18 justifies the Catholic claims in any way at all. By their fruit ye shall know them. I need no contrived biblical argument to recognize the errors in the Catholic church.

Richard

[Rose]

I would also like to say.... welcome to the forum, Kdana

In response to your question about Peter being the rock upon which Christ would build His church?

That wasn't the object of my post, which was to draw attention to the fact that Peter had intimate knowledge of Paul's teaching having read and approved of his letters.
But as to your question; I read Richards post in reply to yours and he pretty much sums up the way I feel so I will just leave it at that.

Thanks for your participation

Rose

[Stephen]

Hi Kdana!

I agree with your perspective, and don't believe Jesus said he would literally build his church on Peter. However, it is true to say that Peter was a leader of the early church.

Richard takes a hyper-literalist view of the verses in question, which I think is a mistake. And here's why.

Jesus wasn't, in my view, talking literally of a man named Peter on whom he would build his church. If he was, indeed, referring to the person of Peter, that reference ought to be understood as the words Peter confessed: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God". That confession is what Jesus was most likely referring to if you want to link it to Peter, but certainly not the man himself. After all, just a few verses on and Jesus calls Peter satan! Are we then also to take this literally?!!! Certainly not. Jesus is rebuking Peter for his confession, not for his person, just as he is praising Peter for his confession a few verses earlier. Therefore the only sensible answer is that Jesus wasn't referring directly to the man Peter. You can't have your cake and eat it.

To summarise, the rock upon which Jesus said he would build his church is the confession that he is the Christ, the Son of the living God. That was Peter's confession. It is a confession every Christian shares. It is the rock of our faith. Peter is certainly not that rock!

Stephen