『恩友之光』基督徒网络交流论坛

 找回密码
 立即注册
搜索
 
查章节:  
查经文:
楼主: dragoonl
收起左侧

彼得是小石子,为什么起这名呢?

[复制链接]
发表于 2015-2-2 04:04 | 显示全部楼层
仓里的谷 发表于 2015-2-1 01:39
老N, 下面都没有了,怎么看?

18         And I tell you : Weiss sees a contrast between Jesus and his Father, as if Jesus were saying, "Just as the Father revealed something to you and thereby honored you, so now I do the same." But the formula is common enough in places without such a contrast, and this may be an unwarranted refinement. The words simply point to what is coming.
          that you are Peter : The underlying Aramaic kepa ("Cephas" in John 1:42; 1Cor 15:5; Gal 1:18 et al.) was an accepted name in Jesus' day (see on Mt 4:18). Though B.F. Meyer (pp. 186-87) insists that Jesus gave the name Cephas to Simon at this point, Jesus merely made a pun on the name (4:18; 10:2; Mark 3:16; John 1:42). Yet Meyer is right to draw attention to the "rock" motifs on which the name Cephas is based (pp. 185-86, 194-95), motifs related to the netherworld and the temple (and so connoting images of "gates of Hades" and "church": see below.) The Greek Kephas (Eng. "Cephas") transliterates the Aramaic, and Petros ("Peter") is the closest Greek translation. P. Lampe's argument ("Das Spiel mit dem Petrusnamen att. xvi.18," NTS 25 [1979]: 227-45) that both kepa and petros originally referred to a small "stone," but not a "rock" (on which something could be built), until Christians extended the term to explain the riddle of Simon's name is baseless. True, the Greek petros commonly means "stone" in pre-Christian literature; but the Aramaic kepa, which underlies the Greek, means "(massive) rock" (cf. H. Clavier, "Pe/trov kai\ pe/tra," Neutestamentliche Studien, ed. W. Eltester [Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1957], pp. 101-3).
          and on this rock "Rock" now becomes petra (feminine), and on the basis of the distinction between petros (above) and petra (here), many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere "stone," it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the "rock," as Peter himself attests (1 Peter 2:98) (so, among others, Lenski, Gander, Walvoord). Others adopt some other distinction: e.g., "upon this rock of revealed truth  the truth you have just confessed I will build my church" (Allen). Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken "rock" to be anything or anyone other than Peter.
          1. Although it is true that petros and petra can mean "stone" and "rock" respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepa was used in both clauses ("you are kepa and on this kepa"), since the word was used both for a name and for a "rock." The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.
          2. Paronomasia of various kinds is very common in the Bible and should not be belittled (cf. Barry J. Beitzel, "Exodus 3:14 and the Divine Name: A Case of Biblical Paronomasia," Trinity Journal [1980]: 5-20; BDF, par. 488).
          3. Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been lithos ("stone" of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun and that is just the point!
          4. The objection that Peter considers Jesus the rock is insubstantial because metaphors are commonly used variously, till they become stereotyped, and sometimes even then. Here Jesus builds his church; in 1 Corinthians 3:10, Paul is "an expert builder." In 1 Corinthians 3:11, Jesus is the church's foundation; in Ephesians 2:19-20, the apostles and prophets are the foundation (cf. also Rev 21:14), and Jesus is the "cornerstone." Here Peter has the keys; in Revelation 1:18; 3:7, Jesus has the keys. In John 9:5, Jesus is "the light of the world"; in Matthew 5:14, his disciples are. None of these pairs threatens Jesus' uniqueness. They simply show how metaphors must be interpreted primarily with reference to their immediate contexts.
          5. In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation.
          None of this requires that conservative Roman Catholic views be endorsed (for examples of such views, cf. Lagrange, Sabourin). The text says nothing about Peter's successors, infallibility, or exclusive authority. These late interpretations entail insuperable exegetical and historical problems e.g., after Peter's death, his "successor" would have authority over a surviving apostle, John. What the NT does show is that Peter is the first to make this formal confession and that his prominence continues in the earliest years of the church (Acts 1-12). But he, along with John, can be sent by other apostles (Acts 8:14); and he is held accountable for his actions by the Jerusalem church (Acts 11:1-18) and rebuked by Paul (Gal 2:11-14). He is, in short, primus inter pares ("first among equals"); and on the foundation of such men (Eph 2:20), Jesus built his church. That is precisely why Jesus, toward the close of his earthly ministry spent so much time with them. The honor was not earned but stemmed from divine revelation (Mt 16:17) and Jesus' building work (v. 18).
          I will build my church : Ekklesia ("church") occurs only here and at 18:17 in the Gospels. Etymologically it springs from the verb ekkaleo ("call out from") and refers to those who are "called out"; but usage is far more important than etymology in determining meaning. In the NT ekklesia can refer to assemblies of people in a nonreligious setting (Acts 19:39); and once it refers to God's OT people, the "church" in the desert at the giving of the law (Acts 7:38; of Heb 2:12). But in Acts and in the Epistles it usually refers to Christian congregations or to all God's people redeemed by Christ. Therefore R. Bultmann ("Die Frage nach der Echtheit von Mt 16, 17-19," Theologische Blatter 20 [1941]: col. 265-79) argues that the use of ekklesia in Matthew 16:18; 18:17 cannot be authentic. It refers to a practicing group of Christians, a separate community, or a Christian synagogue in contrast to the Jewish synagogues, and is presided over by Peter.
          K.L. Schmidt (TDNT, 3:525) suggests that the Aramaic term behind ekklesia in Matthew is a late term, kenista, which could mean either "the people [of God]" or "a [separate] synagogue." In fact the strongest linguistic evidence runs in another direction. Whenever ekklesia in the LXX is translating Hebrew, the Hebrew word is qahal ("assembly," "meeting," "gathering"), with reference to various kinds of "assemblies" (cf. E. Jenni and C. Westermann, eds., Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Alten Testament, 2 vols., 3d ed. [Munchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1978-79], 2:610-19), but increasingly used to refer to God's people, the assembly of Yahweh.
          The Hebrew qahal has a broad semantic range and is not always rendered ekklesia ; sometimes in the LXX it is translated "synagogue" or "crowd." "Synagogue" customarily translates an entirely different Hebrew word (edah, "corporate congregation"), which the LXX never translates ekklesia (on these words, see DNTT, 1:291ff.). Thus ekklesia ("church") is entirely appropriate in Matthew 16:18; 18:17, where there is no emphasis on institution, organization, form of worship, or separate synagogue. Even the idea of "building" a people springs from the OT (Ruth 4:11; 2Sam 7:13-14; 1 Chronicles 17:12-13; Pss 28:5; 118:22; Jer 1:10; 24:6; 31:4; 33:7; Amos 9:11). "Jesus' announcement of his purpose to build his ekklesia suggests that the fellowship established by Jesus stands in direct continuity with the Old Testament Israel" (Ladd, NT Theology, p. 110), construed as the faithful remnant with the eyes of faith to come to terms with the new revelation. Acknowledged as Messiah, Jesus responds that he will build his ekklesia, his people, his church which is classic messianism. "It is hard to know what kind of thinking, other than confessional presupposition, justifies the tendency of some commentators to dismiss this verse as not authentic. A Messiah without a Messianic Community would have been unthinkable to any Jew" (Albright and Mann).
          Implicitly, then, the verse also embraces a claim to messiahship. The "people of Yahweh" become the people of Messiah (cf. also 13:41). If the Qumran community thinks of itself as the "people of the covenant," Jesus speaks of his followers as his people this church who come in time to see themselves as people of the new covenant established by Messiah's blood (26:28).
          Jesus' "church" is not the same as his "kingdom" (contra Hill, Matthew): the two words belong to different concepts, the one to "people" and the other to "rule" or "reign" (see on 13:28-30, 36-43). But neither must they be opposed to each other, as if both cannot occupy the same place in time (contra Walvoord). The messianic reign is calling out the messianic people. The kingdom has been inaugurated; the people are being gathered. So far as the kingdom has been inaugurated in advance of its consummation, so far also is Jesus' church an outpost in history of the final eschatological community. "The implication is inescapable that, in the establishment of the church, there was to be a manifestation of the kingdom or rule of God" (Stonehouse, Witness of Matthew, p. 235). When the kingdom is consummated, then Messiah's "assembly" shall also attain the richest blessings Messiah's reign can give. Nothing, therefore, can eliminate Messiah's church or prevent it from reaching that consummation.
[EBC]

回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2015-2-2 04:10 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 nandeht 于 2015-2-2 04:28 编辑
仓里的谷 发表于 2015-2-1 01:39
老N, 下面都没有了,怎么看?

16:18. The next two verses have constituted some of the most difficult and certainly some of the “most controversial of all of Scripture.”9 Two extremes need to be avoided. On the one hand, Roman Catholicism has read into these verses an elaborate doctrine of Papal succession and infallibility based on a supposed investiture of Peter with exclusive authority and status. Protestants have responded by downplaying Peter’s importance and pivotal role by these texts. Peter is either viewed as the “typical disciple” or merely a representative of all the other disciples.10 However, it is difficult to ignore the intensely personal focus of verses 18–19. After Peter makes his evaluative affirmation concerning Jesus, Jesus in turn addresses Peter personally (note singular pronouns, σοι [soi] and σὺ εἰ̂ [su ei], cf. v. 16), making a play upon his name (“you are Peter”=πέτρος, petros). Peter’s name in Greek is probably derived from the Aramaic כיפא (kēypha), meaning a “rock” or “crag.”11 Since Jesus probably originally responded to Peter in Aramaic,12 the wordplay suggested in verse 17 becomes readily apparent: “you are kēypha and upon this kēypha I will build my church.” In Greek the wordplay is not as apparent since the feminine noun πέτρα (petra) must become masculine (petros) when referring to a man’s name. Hence the argument that the rock upon which Jesus builds his church could not be Peter because the genders fail to match cannot be grammatically sustained. There does not appear to be good reason to see the “rock” (petra) upon which Jesus builds his church as anything other than Peter (petros).13 But as Kingsbury has pointed out, Peter should be seen as “first among equals, and his ‘primacy’ … is ‘salvation-historical’ in character.”14 This means that Jesus’ words are intended to assign to Peter a pivotal role in the new phase of redemptive history involving the church (cf. Acts 1–12), not to give him special status with respect to some ecclesiastical office. In this respect France’s words are particularly cogent:

It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim (which of course has no foundation in the text), that what is said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that ‘rock’ here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. The wordplay and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as v. 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus.15

So Jesus promises Peter that he will have a foundational role when he (i.e., Jesus) builds (οἰκοδομήσω, oikodomēsō) his “church” (ἐκκλησία, ekklēsia). The imagery of “building” the “church” upon a foundational “rock” comes from the background of perceiving God’s people as a “temple” or “house of God.”16 This is the first use of the term church (cf. 18:17), and many would dispute that Jesus actually used the term, claiming that its usage in Matthew was a later insertion. However, there is no need to read into the term ekklēsia elaborate church structures and organizational patterns typical of a later period. The term ekklēsia is found throughout the LXX (translating the Hebrew קהל, qāhāl), and means nothing more than an “assembly or community” of people, gathering for a particular purpose. It is not at all surprising that Jesus intends to establish a fellowship of believers who assemble in his name; after all, “a messiah without a messianic Community would be unthinkable to any Jew …”17

9See J.A. Burgess, “A History of the Exegesis of Matthew 16:17–19 from 1781 to 1965,” (Ann Arbor, MI: Edwards Brothers Inc., 1976), for an overview of some of the difficulties.

10See the balanced treatment of J.D. Kingsbury, “The Figure of Peter in Matthew’s Gospel as a Theological Problem,” JBL 98 (1979), 67–83.

11See the study of J.A. Fitzmyer, “Aramaic Kepha and Peter’s Name in the New Testament,” in To Advance to Gospel: New Testament Studies (New York: Crossroad, 1981), p. 115.

12It should not be construed that Jesus did not know Greek or use it on occasion; see S.E. Porter, “Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?” TynBul 44 (1993), 195–235.

13For an able defense that the “rock” was Peter’s confession see C.C. Caragounis, Peter and the Rock (BZNW 58; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989).

14Kingsbury, “The Figure of Peter,” p. 71.

15France, Matthew p. 254; see also Carson, Matthew, p. 368; Blomberg, Matthew, p. 252.

16Davies and Allison, Matthew 2:628–629.

LXXSeptuagint

17W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann, Matthew, Anchor Bible, vol. 26 (New York: Doubleday, 1971), p. 196.

Chouinard, L. (1997). Matthew. The College Press NIV commentary (Mt 16:18). Joplin, Mo.: College Press.


回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2015-2-2 04:19 | 显示全部楼层
仓里的谷 发表于 2015-2-1 01:39
老N, 下面都没有了,怎么看?

A Foundational Revelation (16:17–18) Peter did not receive his revelation from man, literally “flesh and blood” (compare Gal 1:16), a common expression for “mortals” or “humans” (as in 1 Cor 15:50; Eph 6:12; Heb 2:14; 1 Enoch 15:4; Mek. Pisḥa 1.120). Peter’s understanding of Jesus’ identity came by divine revelation (Mt 16:17; 11:25), undoubtedly including God’s revelation through Jesus’ miraculous acts (14:33; compare 15:22). This revelation of Jesus’ identity was foundational for God’s purposes in history.

Jesus then plays on Simon’s nickname, Peter, which would be roughly the English “Rocky”: Peter is rocky, and on this rock Jesus will build his church (16:18). Scholars have debated precisely what Jesus means by rock. Protestants, following Augustine and Luther, have sometimes contended that the rock in this passage is only Jesus himself (references in Cullmann 1953:162 n. 13). But by Jesus’ day the Greek terms petros (Peter) and petra (rock) were interchangeable, and the original Aramaic form of Peter’s nickname that Jesus probably used (kēphas) means simply “rock” (Cullmann 1953:18–19; Ladd 1974b:110; Carson 1984:368; France 1985:254; Blomberg 1992:252).

Further, Jesus does not say, “You are Peter, but on this rock I will build my church”; he says, And on this rock I will build my church. Jesus’ teaching is the ultimate foundation for our lives (7:24–27; compare 1 Cor 3:11), but here Peter functions as the foundation rock like the apostles and prophets in Ephesians 2:20–21. Jesus does not simply assign this role to Peter arbitrarily, however; Peter is the “rock” because in this context he is the one who confesses Jesus as the Christ (Mt 16:15–16; Cullmann 1953:162; Ladd 1974b:110; C. Brown 1978:386). Others who share his proclamation also share his authority in building the church (18:18 with 16:19).

Mek. Mekilta

Keener, C. S. (1997). Vol. 1: Matthew. The IVP New Testament commentary series (Mt 16:17). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.
[IVP NT C]




回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2015-2-2 04:28 | 显示全部楼层
仓里的谷 发表于 2015-2-1 01:39
老N, 下面都没有了,怎么看?

Ver. 18.—And I say also (I also say) unto thee. As thou hast said unto me, “Thou art the Christ,” so I say unto thee, etc. Thou art Peter (Πέτρος, Petrus), and upon this rock (πέτρᾳ, petra) I will build my Church. In classical Greek, the distinction between πέτρα and πέτρος is well known—the former meaning “a rock,” the latter “a piece of rock,” or “a stone.” But probably no such distinction is intended here, as there would be none in Aramaic. There is plainly a paronomasia here in the Geeek; and, if our Lord spoke in Aramaic, the same play of words was exhibited in Kephas or kepha. When Jesus first called Peter to be a disciple, he imposed upon him the name Cephas, which the evangelist explains to be Peter (John 1:42). The name was bestowed in anticipation of Peter’s great confession: “Thou shalt be called.” This preannouncement was here fulfilled and confirmed. Upon this passage chiefly the claims of the Roman Church, which for fifteen centuries have been the subject of acrimonious controversy, are founded. It is hence assumed that the Christian Church is founded upon Peter and his successors, and that these successors are the Bishops of Rome. The latter assertion may be left to the decision of history, which fails to prove that Peter was ever at Rome, or that he transmitted his supposed supremacy to the episcopate of that city. We have in this place to deal with the former assertion. Who or what is the rock on which Christ says that he will hereafter build his Church? French Romanists consider it a providential coincidence that they can translate the passage, “Je te dis que, Tu es Pierre; et sur cette Pierre je bâtirai,” etc.; but persons outside the papal communion are not satisfied to hang their faith on a play of words. The early Fathers are by no means at one in their explanations of the paragraph. Living before Rome had laid claim to the tremendous privileges which it afterwards affected, they did not regard the statement in the light of later controversies; and even those who held Peter to be the rock would have indignantly repelled the assumptions which have been built on that interpretation. The apostolic Fathers seem to have mentioned the passage in none of their writings; and they could scarcely have failed to refer to it had they been aware of the tremendous issues dependent thereon. It was embodied in no Catholic Creed, and never made an article of the Christian faith. We may remark also that of the evangelists St. Matthew alone records the promise to Peter; Mark and Luke give his confession, which was the one point which Christ desired to elicit, and omit that which is considered to concern his privileges. This looks as though, in their view, the chief aim of the passage was not Peter, but Christ; not Peter’s pre-eminence, but Christ’s nature and office. At the same time, to deny all allusion to Peter in the “rock” is quite contrary to the genius of the language and to New Testament usage, and would not have been so pressed in modern times except for polemical purposes. Three views have been held on the interpretation of this passage. (1) That Christ himself is the Rock on which the Church should be built. (2) That Peter’s confession of Jesus Christ as Son of God, or God incarnate, is the Rock. (3) That St. Peter is the rock. (1) The first explanation is supported by passages wherein Christ speaks of himself in the third person, e.g. “Destroy this temple;” “If any man eat of this bread;” “Whose falleth on this stone,” etc. In the same sense are cited the words of Isaiah (28:16), “Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation.” Almighty God is continually called “a Rock” in the Old Testament (see 2 Sam. 22:32; Ps. 18:31; 57:2, 6, 7, etc.), so that it might be deemed natural and intelligible for Christ to call himself “this Rock,” in accordance with the words of St. Paul (1 Cor. 3:11), “Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid (κεῖται), which is Jesus Christ.” But then the reference to Peter becomes unmeaning: “Thou art Peter, and upon myself I will build my Church.” It is true that some few eminent authorities have taken this view. Thus St. Augustine writes, “It was not said to him, “Thou art a rock (petra),’ but, ‘Thou art Peter,’ and the Rock was Christ” (‘Retract.,’ i. 21). And commentators have imagined that Christ pointed to himself as he spoke. In such surmises there is an inherent improbability, and they do not explain the commencement of the address. In saying, “Thou art Peter,” Christ, if he made any gesture at all, would have touched or turned to that apostle. Immediately after this to have directed attention to himself would have been most unnatural and contradictory. We may safely surrender the interpretation which regards Christ himself as the Rock. (2) The explanation which finds the rock in Peter’s great confession has been widely adopted by commentators ancient and modern. Thus St. Chrysostom, “Upon this rock, that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby he signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd.” To the same purport might be quoted Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory Nyss., Cyril, and others. It is remarkable that in the Collect from the Gregorian Sacramentary and in the Roman Missal on the Vigil of St. Peter and St. Paul are found the words, “Grant that thou wouldst not suffer us, whom thou hast established on the rock of the apostolic confession (quos in apostolicæ confessionis petra solidasti) to be shaken by any commotions.” Bishop Wordsworth, as many exegetes virtually do, combines the two interpretations, and we cite his exposition as a specimen of the view thus held: “What he says is this, ‘I myself, now confessed by thee to be both God and Man, am the Rock of the Church. This is the foundation on which it is built.’ And because St. Peter had confessed him as such, he says to St. Peter, ‘Thou hast confessed me, and I will now confess thee; thou hast owned me, I will now own thee. Thou art Peter,’ i.e. thou art a lively stone, hewn out of and built upon me, the living Rock. Thou art a genuine Petros of me, the Divine Petra. And whosoever would be a lively stone, a Peter, must imitate thee in this thy true confession of me, the living Rock; for upon this Rock, that is, on myself, believed and confessed to be both God and Man, I will build my Church.” As the opinion that Christ means himself by “this rock” is untenable, so we consider that Peter’s confession is equally debarred from being the foundation intended. Who does not see that the Church is to be built, not on confessions or dogmas, but on men—men inspired by God to teach the great truth? A confession implies a confessor; it was the person who made the confession that is meant, not the mere statement itself, however momentous and true. Thus elsewhere the Church is said to have been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20), “Ye,” says St. Peter (1 Pet. 2:5), “as living stones are built up a spiritual house.” “James and Cephas who were reputed to be pillars” (Gal. 2:9). In Revelation (21:14) the foundation-stones of the heavenly temple are “the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” Hence we gather that the rock is a person. (3) So we come to the explanation of the difficulty which naturally is deduced from the language if considered without regard to prejudice or the pernicious use to which it has been put. Looking at the matter in a straightforward way, we come to the conclusion that Christ is wishing to reward Peter for his outspoken profession of faith; and his commendation is couched in a form which was usual in Oriental addresses, and intelligible to his hearers. ‘Thou hast said to me, ‘Thou art the Son of God;’ I say to thee, ‘Thou art Peter,’ a rock-man, ‘and on thee,’ as a rock, ‘I will build my Church.’ ” As he was the first to acknowledge Christ’s nature and office, so he was rewarded by being appointed as the apostle who should inaugurate the Christian Church and lay its first foundation. His name and his work were to coincide. This promise was fulfilled in Peter’s acts. He it was who took the lead on the Day of Pentecost, when at his preaching, to the hundred and twenty disciples there were added three thousand souls (Acts 2:41); he it was who admitted the Gentiles to the Christian community (Acts 10); he it was who in those early days stood forth prominently as a master-builder, and was the first to open the kingdom of heaven to Jews and Gentiles. It is objected that, if Peter was a builder, he could not be the rock on which the building was raised. The expression, of course, is metaphorical. Christ builds the Church by employing Peter as the foundation of the spiritual house; Peter’s zeal and activity and stable faith are indeed the living rock which forms the material element, so to speak, of this erection; he, as labouring in the holy cause beyond all others, at any rate in the early days of the gospel, is regarded as that solid basis on which the Church was raised. Christ, in one sense, builds on Peter; Peter builds on Christ. The Church, in so far as it was visible, had Peter for its rocky foundation; in so far as it was spiritual, it was founded on Christ. The distinction thus accorded in the future to Peter was personal and carried with it none of the consequences which human ambition or mistaken pursuit of unity have elicited therefrom. There was no promise of present supremacy; there was no promise of the privilege being handed down to successors. The other apostles had no conception of any superiority being now conferred on Peter. It was not long after this that there was a strife among them who should be the greatest; James and John claimed the highest places in the heavenly kingdom; Paul resisted Peter to the face “because he stood condemned” (Gal. 2:11); the president of the first council was James, the Bishop of Jerusalem. It is plain that neither Peter himself nor his fellow-apostles understood or acknowledged his supremacy; and that he transmitted, or was intended to transmit, such authority to successors, is a figment unknown to primitive Christianity, and which was gradually erected, to serve ambitious designs, on forged decretals and spurious writings. This is not the place for polemics, and these few apologetic hints are introduced merely with the view of showing that no one need be afraid of the obvious and straightforward interpretation of Christ’s words, or suppose that papal claims are necessarily supported thereby. I will build my Church (μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν). My Church, not thine. Plainly, therefore, the Church was not yet builded. Christ speaks of it as a house, temple, or palace, perhaps at the moment gazing on some castle founded securely on a rock, safe from flood and storm and hostile attack. We know how commonly he took his illustrations from objects and scenes around him; and the rocky base of the great castle of Cæsarea Philippi may well have supplied the material for the metaphor here introduced. The word translated “church” (ἐκκλησία), is found here for the first time in the New Testament. It is derived from a verb meaning “to call out,” and in classical Greek denotes the regular legislative assembly of a people. In the Septuagint it represents the Hebrew kahal, the congregation united into one society and forming one polity (see Trench, ‘Synonyms’). The name kehila in modern times is applied to every Jewish community which has its own synagogue and ministers. From the use of the metaphor of a house, and the word employed to designate the Church, we see that it was not to be a mere loose collection of items, but an organized whole, united, officered, and permanent. Hence the word Ecclesia has been that which designated the Christian society, and has been handed down and recognized in all ages and in all countries. It may be regarded as the personal part of that kingdom of heaven which was to embrace the whole world, when “the kingdom of the world is become the kingdom of our Lord, and of his Christ” (Rev. 11:15; see Introduction, § x).
The Pulpit Commentary: St. Matthew Vol. II. 2004 (H. D. M. Spence-Jones, Ed.) (134). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.


回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2015-2-2 04:29 | 显示全部楼层
仓里的谷 发表于 2015-2-1 01:39
老N, 下面都没有了,怎么看?

好了,轮到看你下面有没有了。
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2015-2-4 17:40 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 仓里的谷 于 2015-2-4 17:48 编辑
nandeht 发表于 2015-2-2 03:55
这段经文是新约圣经注解的一个暴风中心。若要平静地、毫无偏见地看这段经文,常常会相当困难,因为它是罗 ...

这篇解释认为"教会是从彼得第一个人开始的", 由"教会第一人"推出"彼得是教会的磐石".

从哪些经文可以证明"彼得是基督教会的第一人"? 或者那里的经文可以支持这种"观点".
马太福音16章他说"耶稣是永生神的儿子", 只是代表那门徒说出来的, 并不能作为"信耶稣第一人"的证据.
彼得并不是第一个信耶稣的人, 也不是第一个跟随耶稣的门徒. 约翰福音第1章, 施洗约翰和拿但业都清楚承认耶稣是"神的儿子", 他们说的时间也早于彼得说那句话的时候.
而且根据太16章紧接的"权柄"经文, "彼得"也掌控着"天国的钥匙", 这种解释与天主教的说法本质上没有两样.

以"彼得是教会第一人"做为"教会根基磐石"理由并不成立.


回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2015-2-4 17:55 | 显示全部楼层
nandeht 发表于 2015-2-2 04:04
18         And I tell you : Weiss sees a contrast between Jesus and his Father, as if Jesus were s ...

没看懂, 作者到底要解释成什么?
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2015-2-4 18:00 | 显示全部楼层
nandeht 发表于 2015-2-2 04:10
16:18. The next two verses have constituted some of the most difficult and certainly some of the  ...

呵呵!
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2015-2-4 18:03 | 显示全部楼层
nandeht 发表于 2015-2-2 04:19
A Foundational Revelation (16:17–18) Peter did not receive his revelation from man, literally “f ...

彼得是基督徒的"代表", 是一种常用的解释.

回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2015-2-4 18:16 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 仓里的谷 于 2015-2-4 18:19 编辑
nandeht 发表于 2015-2-2 04:28
Ver. 18.—And I say also (I also say) unto thee. As thou hast said unto me, “Thou art the Christ, ...

三种观点在前面文章中已经介绍过.

总结各种观点, 我个人认为"磐石指着基督,或指着所信的真理", 会更容易理解和接受, 但是在文法上有些问题.


回复

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

本版积分规则

QQ|小黑屋|手机版|恩友之光 ( 桂ICP备2023005629号-1 )

GMT+8, 2025-6-17 16:52

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

© 2001-2023 Discuz! Team.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表