Office of Pope?

[po18guy]

The primary fulfillment of the sign of Jonah was in the Death and Resurrection of Christ. Matthew 12:40 shows this – Christ became sin (prefigured by Jonah’s rebellion), and is swallowed up into the deep, only to be spit up back onto the earth on the third day.

That said, I think it’s quite possible that Jesus intends both meanings, by calling Peter a son, in essence. I think the verses provided by the earlier poster did a very good job of showing that.

I hope that I can make the following clear. My thinking is: As Mary is a type of ark of the covenant, so also may Peter be a sub-type of Jonah, but standing in the shadow of the true sign, Christ. As Mary was a type of Ark, and came after, Jonah was a type of Christ, but preceded Him in time.

We know that Peter had a mother-in-law. About his parents, we know nothing at all. His father may not have been named “Jonah” at all. If the scripture is pondered so as to entertain a form of Petrine sonship of Christ, this can also lead to the consideration of Peter as a “type” of Christ, no? However, this is only in the manner of an Apostle who acts “in persona Christi”, as the Church maintains in the cases of all ordained Priests and Bishops.

Christ referred to Himself as the “sign of Jonah” but, if Peter was considered a son, then son of Jonah (bar Jonah - referring back to Christ as the sign of Jonah), would also apply, would it not? I don’t want to over-analyze this, but it clarifies the reason for Jesus placing Peter over his contemporaries.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

I hope that I can make the following clear. My thinking is: As Mary is a type of ark of the covenant, so also may Peter be a sub-type of Jonah, but standing in the shadow of the true sign, Christ. As Mary was a type of Ark, and came after, Jonah was a type of Christ, but preceded Him in time.

We know that Peter had a mother-in-law. About his parents, we know nothing at all. His father may not have been named “Jonah” at all. If the scripture is pondered so as to entertain a form of Petrine sonship of Christ, this can also lead to the consideration of Peter as a “type” of Christ, no? However, this is only in the manner of an Apostle who acts “in persona Christi”, as the Church maintains in the cases of all ordained Priests and Bishops.

Christ referred to Himself as the “sign of Jonah” but, if Peter was considered a son, then son of Jonah (bar Jonah - referring back to Christ as the sign of Jonah), would also apply, would it not? I don’t want to over-analyze this, but it clarifies the reason for Jesus placing Peter over his contemporaries.

Sure - that makes sense. I think that holds, even if Peter’s father was named Jonah. God, after all, was in complete control at all times, and can engineer prophecies around that. I just wanted to make sure that we didn’t say that Jonah is primarily a prefigurement of Peter. Certainly, if Jonah prefigures Christ, then “bar-Jonah,” as applied to Peter, might very well be a reference to a sonship in Christ. I think we agree on this 100%.

 

[po18guy]

Sure - that makes sense. I think that holds, even if Peter’s father was named Jonah. God, after all, was in complete control at all times, and can engineer prophecies around that. I just wanted to make sure that we didn’t say that Jonah is primarily a prefigurement of Peter. Certainly, if Jonah prefigures Christ, then “bar-Jonah,” as applied to Peter, might very well be a reference to a sonship in Christ. I think we agree on this 100%.

Thanks to Not Worthy, this is a revelatory way for me to view Peter and his role in salvation history. Completely consistent with Scripture and Tradition.

 

[NotWorthy]

To po18guy, and Belloc Fan, regarding the Fatherhood of Peter…

We know that Peter had a mother-in-law. About his parents, we know nothing at all. His father may not have been named “Jonah” at all. If the scripture is pondered so as to entertain a form of Petrine sonship of Christ, this can also lead to the consideration of Peter as a “type” of Christ, no? However, this is only in the manner of an Apostle who acts “in persona Christi”, as the Church maintains in the cases of all ordained Priests and Bishops.

Christ referred to Himself as the “sign of Jonah” but, if Peter was considered a son, then son of Jonah (bar Jonah - referring back to Christ as the sign of Jonah), would also apply, would it not? I don’t want to over-analyze this, but it clarifies the reason for Jesus placing Peter over his contemporaries.

Sure - that makes sense. I think that holds, even if Peter’s father was named Jonah. God, after all, was in complete control at all times, and can engineer prophecies around that. I just wanted to make sure that we didn’t say that Jonah is primarily a prefigurement of Peter. Certainly, if Jonah prefigures Christ, then “bar-Jonah,” as applied to Peter, might very well be a reference to a sonship in Christ. I think we agree on this 100%.

In John’s Gospel, Jesus tells us that Peter is the Son of John. I assumed that Jonah was the Jewish rendering of John, but its not. It seem that Johan is the tranliteration of John.

Hence, I’m of the opinion that “BarJonah” is a spiritual Fatherhood term for Simon.

 

[Onetime1979]

I don’t know who came up with this one, but when I heard it I thought it was interesting. When Abraham is taking Isaac (unknowingly it seems) to the mountain to sacrifice him, and Isaac asks his father Abraham where the sacrifice was, Abraham replies and says that God Himself would provide the lamb for the sacrifice (Genesis 22:8). Then when God tells Abraham not to do it, Abraham looks up and there is a ram in the thicket caught by the horns (Genesis 22:13). I’ve heard it said that it foreshadows what God would do in sending His own Son the Lamb of God as a sacrifice and that was one of the reasons they put a crown of thorns on His head and led Him to the same mountain to be crucified. I thought it was interesting that the ram was caught by the horns in a thicket, and Jesus had a crown of thorns on His head.

 

[po18guy]

To po18guy, and Belloc Fan, regarding the Fatherhood of Peter…
In John’s Gospel, Jesus tells us that Peter is the Son of John. I assumed that Jonah was the Jewish rendering of John, but its not. It seem that Johan is the tranliteration of John.

Hence, I’m of the opinion that “BarJonah” is a spiritual Fatherhood term for Simon.

In scripture, the name “Jonah” appears only in reference to the prophet, and to the sonship of Peter. However, the relationship between Jesus and Peter does appear to be one of spiritual father and son. The Temple tax is paid seemingly as a “family” or father/son offering, since none of the others is even mentioned. And, this was recorded by Matthew, the tax collector! The making of Peter into a shepherd, and the command to “follow me” in John 21 are consistent with this. Combined with Jesus’ preaching from Peter’s boat, the prediction of Peter’s crucifixion death and the numerous other references, I think you are onto something here.

Do you know of any commentary which makes this allusion?

 

[NotWorthy]

I don’t know who came up with this one, but when I heard it I thought it was interesting. When Abraham is taking Isaac (unknowingly it seems) to the mountain to sacrifice him, and Isaac asks his father Abraham where the sacrifice was, Abraham replies and says that God Himself would provide the lamb for the sacrifice (Genesis 22:8). Then when God tells Abraham not to do it, Abraham looks up and there is a ram in the thicket caught by the horns (Genesis 22:13). I’ve heard it said that it foreshadows what God would do in sending His own Son the Lamb of God as a sacrifice

… All of this is well known among Christian Theologians. God WOULD provide the Sacrifice on Mount Moriah, the site of Jesus’ Crucifixion.

…and that was one of the reasons they put a crown of thorns on His head and led Him to the same mountain to be crucified. I thought it was interesting that the ram was caught by the horns in a thicket, and Jesus had a crown of thorns on His head.

But I’ve never heard this further analogy! It is remarkable, however!

The First Ram is caught in the thorns AGAINST it’s will.

The Second Lamb of God WILLINGLY allows the thorns to pierce His Flesh!

The Willing Sacrifice became the Perfect Sacrifice!

Thanks for that post, OneTime!

 

[NotWorthy]

In scripture, the name “Jonah” appears only in reference to the prophet, and to the sonship of Peter. However, the relationship between Jesus and Peter does appear to be one of spiritual father and son. The Temple tax is paid seemingly as a “family” or father/son offering, since none of the others is even mentioned. And, this was recorded by Matthew, the tax collector! The making of Peter into a shepherd, and the command to “follow me” in John 21 are consistent with this. Combined with Jesus’ preaching from Peter’s boat, the prediction of Peter’s crucifixion death and the numerous other references, I think you are onto something here.

Do you know of any commentary which makes this allusion?

Other than this thread?

I recall hearing Tim Gray’s talk on the Gospel of Matthew. You can find it on EWTN’s website. He mentioned the “sign of Jonah” and the “Temple Tax”.

Tim has great insight, especially in connecting the Old Testament to the New. I love his talks (Exodus and the Gospels of Mark, John, and Matthew), but I simply hate his format. He has 4 bible students sit in on his talks, and he asks them questions as a teacher would ask his students. These students are not the brightest bulbs…

 

[Onetime1979]

The church I congregate at is Calvary Chapel a non-denominational Christian church. That’s one of the things I tried to make sure of when I became a believer, that there should be no division and I would be in a place where they would just be called Christian. In the beginning I never understood what a denomiantion even was. I didn’t understand why there had to even be different denominations. When people asked me what kind of Christian I was I didn’t understand what they meant at first because my reply always was “I don’t know, a regular Christian like the ones in the bible I guess”. Then as I found out what the meaning of denominations were and why they were, I was always convicted to stick to Scripture and not get into denominations because it seemed that it was dividing the church of God and His Christ. So I found (thanks to Christ) a place that just dedicates itself to solid biblical teaching and nothing else. Now though I’m starting to see from reading around in this website another part, the historical part of the church. The Roman Catholic Church might go back to the beginning, and it’s interesting to see how the church grew and expanded in these last 2000 years. When I say church I mean every church that holds Jesus Christ as Savior and teaches and believes the Gospels and the apostles’ teaching in the epistles (not talking about obvious frauds that teach other false gospels, like JW’s, mormonism, now even churches allowing gay men and women to become bishops, some churches in the prosperity teachings and “emergent church”…there’s many). Maybe the Roman Catholic Church is the church that can trace back its roots to Peter and the first apostles, but I do know that God is in complete control and He can choose men and continue to spread His good news to this day and throughout time. I posted this verse on another thread so I’ll put it here also. It’s the parable of the workers in the vineyard: Matthew 20:1-16

 

[NotWorthy]

The church I congregate at is Calvary Chapel a non-denominational Christian church. That’s one of the things I tried to make sure of when I became a believer, that there should be no division and I would be in a place where they would just be called Christian. In the beginning I never understood what a denomiantion even was. I didn’t understand why there had to even be different denominations. When people asked me what kind of Christian I was I didn’t understand what they meant at first because my reply always was “I don’t know, a regular Christian like the ones in the bible I guess”. Then as I found out what the meaning of denominations were and why they were, I was always convicted to stick to Scripture and not get into denominations because it seemed that it was dividing the church of God and His Christ. So I found (thanks to Christ) a place that just dedicates itself to solid biblical teaching and nothing else. Now though I’m starting to see from reading around in this website another part, the historical part of the church. The Roman Catholic Church might go back to the beginning, and it’s interesting to see how the church grew and expanded in these last 2000 years. When I say church I mean every church that holds Jesus Christ as Savior and teaches and believes the Gospels and the apostles’ teaching in the epistles (not talking about obvious frauds that teach other false gospels, like JW’s, mormonism, now even churches allowing gay men and women to become bishops, some churches in the prosperity teachings and “emergent church”…there’s many). Maybe the Roman Catholic Church is the church that can trace back its roots to Peter and the first apostles, but I do know that God is in complete control and He can choose men and continue to spread His good news to this day and throughout time. I posted this verse on another thread so I’ll put it here also. It’s the parable of the workers in the vineyard: Matthew 20:1-16

The Catholic Church is able to trace its roots back to St. Peter and the first Apostles. I was talking to my parish priest this weekend about a Church History class I’d like to teach at our local Church this year. He mentioned a web-site that has the lineage of every Bishop in the Catholic Church since the Apostles. For instance, in our diocese of Beaumont (Texas), this sites list all the bishops of Beaumont for the 40 or so year since we were broken off from the Houston/Galveston Diocese. Then it lists all the Houston Bishops until it gets to the Bishop from another diocese who started the Houston Diocese. This back-tracking will ultimately lead you to the Bishop that was ordained by one of the Apostles.

Regarding denominations… Yes, denominations are an abomination in my opinion. Jesus Himself said, “A House divided against itself must Fall”. We’ve seen that in many of the numerous schisms from the Catholic Church, all while the Catholic Church survives.

Regarding following Scripture… Many churches profess to do that. Yet they deny many of the Scriptural Traditions that Jesus started. Do many other churches have an altar, even though Jesus instructed the Apostles to offer up His Sacrifice? Do many churches confess their sins to a person, who has the authority to forgive their sins (in Jesus’ name), even though our Lord gave this authority to men? I could go on, but I think you get my point. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t condemn anyone simply for being non-Catholic. There are many good non-Catholic Christians in heaven, if you ask me. But I find the road to Salvation much more difficult if one doesn’t follow the Bride of Christ as they travel on their path to Christ.

 

[Onetime1979]

What are your thoughts of the verse? Do you think Jesus was refering to the Jews or to believers and followers of Christ in Matthew 20:1-16?

 

[NotWorthy]

Well, let’s see.

We know from Isaiah 5 that Jesus using the “Vineyard” to illustrate Israel. The Pharisee’s would have know this all too clearly, as well.

Since the Vineyard is Israel, that would mean the Pharisees are playing the part of the Tenants.

The Servants who are killed are the prophets that were sent to Israel to convert them. If I recall correctly, the Hebrew name for “Prophet” actually means Servant of God. I’m not 100% sure of that, but the prophets certainly fit this scenario. Many of them were killed. Jewish tradition holds that Isaiah was sawed in two.

Following this pattern, that would make Jesus the Landowners Son.

That being the case, Jesus is painting an all-too-clear picture to the Scribes and the Pharisees that they are fixing to be replaced as the leaders of Israel. The Apostles and the Church are going to be the new Tenants of the Vineyard, which will be restored into the Body of Christ.

 

[NotWorthy]

Jesus was speaking, in my opinion, on two levels.

The first and foremost is to the Jews, where the Gentiles will be the laborers who come late to the vineyard, but still get a full day’s wage.

The second level is to the Christian Convert who becomes a follower of Christ during various stages in life, even on their death beds.

What are your thoughts and how does it pertain to this thread?

 

[po18guy]

What are your thoughts of the verse? Do you think Jesus was refering to the Jews or to believers and followers of Christ in Matthew 20:1-16?

This, He said to the Jews, but it referred to those who came late to a covenantal relationship with God through His Son. The Jews were always God’s chosen and God’s favor rested on them, as we see from Genesis 17:19-21. The Gentiles did not enjoy God’s favor as the Jews had. But the Jews, through their ever returning disobedience, also incurred God’s justice, which is the opposite hand of His love and favor. And, so was caused their slavery and dispersion amongst the nations of the Gentiles.

Compare this with the story of the lost (prodigal) son (Luke 15:11>). Once the younger son returned and the celebration began, his older brother refused to join, being jealous and angry. But, his father (representing God) told him that, unlike the younger son, the elder son had always been able to enjoy all that the father had. The elder son was the Jews. It was the younger son who represented the Gentiles (but nevertheless God’s creation) who was lost and had been found - dead and now alive. The Gentiles were restored to their father, restored to life through the bread of life, our Lord Jesus.

See also Luke 13:22-30. There, Our Lord is speaking to Jews, but telling them that they will excluded from the feast - thus predicting His rejection by the Jews, and the embrace of Him by the Gentiles.

A final note: Calvary Chapel is known for having a distinctly anti-Catholic tone. Praise God that we have seen any of it in you or your posts. But, be aware that a Catholic interpretation of scripture will differ in some ways from that of Calvary Chapel, or any non-Catholic source. The reason for the difference? Private interpretation of scripture. Catholics interpret scripture under the teaching authority of the Church, while “bible alone” communities tend to privately interpret the same scriptures. Private interpretation does not always lead one astray, but the potential is there. Our world is overrun with passing spirits that seek only to divide the Body of Christ. To prevent this, Peter taught against private interpretation in 2 Peter 1:20. He specifically applied it to the writings of Paul, which were being twisted even then.

Speaking for myself, this thread has been a pleasure and pleasant surprise.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Onetime1979]

I also believe that Jesus was speaking of the Jews and then us as believers but I’m not sure though, I’m still marinating on this one. It’s really interesting to me also that a little further down in Matthew 21:33-44, Jesus gives another parable also about an Owner and tenants of the vineyard. This time though it’s clear that the Lord is speaking of and rebuking the Pharisees and the Jews. In this parable when the Owner comes back He will not be rewarding those tenants instead He will be throwing them out and bringing in new tenants (the disciples of Christ) who will work and attend to His vineyard. I guess it didn’t really pertain to this thread, I just wanted to know your thoughts about this verse. I did post it in another thread on this website in response to somebody who posted the following: Re: A question about God’s will and non-Catholic Christians

---

HOW OLD IS YOUR CHURCH?

HOW OLD IS YOUR CHURCH?
THIS IS A MOST INTERESTING QUESTION!!!
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION WILL ASTOUND MANY OF YOU!

If you are a LUTHERAN,
your religion was founded by Martin Luther,
an ex-monk of the Catholic Church,
IN THE YEAR 1517.

If you belong to the CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
your religion was founded by King Henry VIII
IN THE YEAR 1534,
because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the
right to re-marry.

If you are a PRESBYTERIAN,
your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland
IN THE YEAR 1560.

If you are a member of the CONGREGATIONALIST,
your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland
IN THE YEAR 1582.

If you are a BAPTIST,
you owe the tenets of your religion to your founder, John Smyth,
who launched this denomination in the city of Amsterdam
IN THE YEAR 1605.

If you are of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH,
you recognize Michaelis Jones as your founder, because he
originated your religion in New York
IN THE YEAR 1628.

If you are a PROTESTANT EPISCOPALIAN,
your religion was an offshoot of the Church Of England,
and your offshoot was founded by Samuel Seabury in the American Colonies
in the 17th Century.

If you are a METHODIST,
your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley
in England
IN THE YEAR 1744.

If you are a UNITARIAN,
then Theophilus Lindley is the founder of your church, in London
IN THE YEAR 1774.

If you are a MORMON (LATTER DAY SAINTS)
your modern religion was started by Joseph Smith in Palmyra, New York,
IN THE YEAR 1829.

If you worship with THE SALVATION ARMY,
your sect began with Willian Booth in the city of London
IN THE YEAR 1865.

If you are a CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST,
you recognize that your religion was begun
by Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy
IN THE YEAR 1879.

If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as
“CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE”,

or “PENTECOSTAL GOSPEL”,

Or “HOLINESS CHURCH”,

or “PILGRIM HOLINESS CHURCH”,

or “JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES”,

Or any of the MULTIPLE THOUSANDS OF STOREFRONT CHURCHES,
then your religion is one of the thousands of new sects founded by men
WITHIN THE PAST 150 YEARS!

If you are a
ROMAN CATHOLIC,
Then you know that your Church was founded
IN THE YEAR 33
BY JESUS CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD,
AND IT IS STILL THE SAME CHURCH!!!

While this information may be true ( I don’t agree that we as Christians should be lumped together with mormons or JW’s or these other false churches though) it doesn’t mean that God cannot save people and bring them to His Son Jesus Christ. Because like the workers in the vineyard, the Owner (God) of the vineyard kept going out at different times and bringing workers in to work in His vineyard and at the end of the day rewarding them all the same wages. I believe it is signifigant that the Owner came out multiple times during the day even up to the 11th hour when the day was just about over. He wasn’t sending out His foreman or workers to bring in more workers. He Himself was bringing them in and making an agreement personally with them to work His vineyard and about the end of the day wages. Even though God has been working through those in the Catholic Church I believe He has continued to go out and bring others who are not part of the Catholic Church but who are still in Christ and obedient to Him, even way after the founding of the Catholic Church. In the end when Christ returns, any servant of Christ found waiting for their Master when He returns will be rewarded the same. That’s kind of where I was going with it. If anything I believe the Holy Spirit is convicting me in the way I’ve thought about Catholics. Because I used to think that I had to bring my family members out of the Catholic church. Now after I’ve been in the Scriptures more trying to understand God’s will more than ever when it comes to the various churches, I’m starting to see that it is the Lord’s will for us to just serve Him no matter where He may have us. As long as it isn’t in any church that preaches a false gospel. If that’s the case then I believe we have to do everything to expose those false gospels.

 

[Onetime1979]

This, He said to the Jews, but it referred to those who came late to a covenantal relationship with God through His Son. The Jews were always God’s chosen and God’s favor rested on them, as we see from Genesis 17:19-21. The Gentiles did not enjoy God’s favor as the Jews had. But the Jews, through their ever returning disobedience, also incurred God’s justice, which is the opposite hand of His love and favor. And, so was caused their slavery and dispersion amongst the nations of the Gentiles.

Compare this with the story of the lost (prodigal) son (Luke 15:11>). Once the younger son returned and the celebration began, his older brother refused to join, being jealous and angry. But, his father (representing God) told him that, unlike the younger son, the elder son had always been able to enjoy all that the father had. The elder son was the Jews. It was the younger son who represented the Gentiles (but nevertheless God’s creation) who was lost and had been found - dead and now alive. The Gentiles were restored to their father, restored to life through the bread of life, our Lord Jesus.

See also Luke 13:22-30. There, Our Lord is speaking to Jews, but telling them that they will excluded from the feast - thus predicting His rejection by the Jews, and the embrace of Him by the Gentiles.

A final note: Calvary Chapel is known for having a distinctly anti-Catholic tone. Praise God that we have seen any of it in you or your posts. But, be aware that a Catholic interpretation of scripture will differ in some ways from that of Calvary Chapel, or any non-Catholic source. The reason for the difference? Private interpretation of scripture. Catholics interpret scripture under the teaching authority of the Church, while “bible alone” communities tend to privately interpret the same scriptures. Private interpretation does not always lead one astray, but the potential is there. Our world is overrun with passing spirits that seek only to divide the Body of Christ. To prevent this, Peter taught against private interpretation in 2 Peter 1:20. He specifically applied it to the writings of Paul, which were being twisted even then.

Speaking for myself, this thread has been a pleasure and pleasant surprise.

Christ’s peace.

While I have heard some pastors of Calvary Chapel speaking of Catholic doctrines that they don’t agree with I haven’t heard them really attacking the Church. I still may disagree with some of the things in the Catholic church myself, but I feel that those who truly know the Lord are in the Catholic Church and in all the Churches that belong to Christ. I don’t agree 100% either with everything that Calvary Chapel teaches, but it’s on difficult to understand revelations like the book of Revelations. I have heard many many different points of view regarding the book of Revelation, but one I do is admit that I don’t have to understand everything in the bible. I’ll just do what the Lord commanded us in the Gospels and through His apostles and I’m sure in the end when He returns we’ll finally know everything including the Revelation that the Lord gave to John.

 

[NotWorthy]

I also believe that Jesus was speaking of the Jews and then us as believers but I’m not sure though, I’m still marinating on this one. It’s really interesting to me also that a little further down in Matthew 21:33-44, Jesus gives another parable also about an Owner and tenants of the vineyard. This time though it’s clear that the Lord is speaking of and rebuking the Pharisees and the Jews. In this parable when the Owner comes back He will not be rewarding those tenants instead He will be throwing them out and bringing in new tenants (the disciples of Christ) who will work and attend to His vineyard. I guess it didn’t really pertain to this thread, I just wanted to know your thoughts about this verse.

You are mostly right in the parable of the Owner of the Tenants.

The Vineyard is Israel. This would be obvious to the Pharisees and Scribes who would be familiar with Isaiah 5. Notice the same kind of terms used for the preparation of the vineyard.

1 *** Let me now sing of my friend, my friend’s song concerning his vineyard. My friend had a vineyard on a fertile hillside; 2 ****** He spaded it, cleared it of stones, and planted the choicest vines; Within it he built a watchtower, and hewed out a wine press. Then he looked for the crop of grapes, but what it yielded was wild grapes.****** 3 ****** Now, inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge between me and my vineyard:****** 4 ****** What more was there to do for my vineyard that I had not done? Why, when I looked for the crop of grapes, did it bring forth wild grapes?****** 5 ****** Now, I will let you know what I mean to do to my vineyard: Take away its hedge, give it to grazing, break through its wall, let it be trampled!****** 6 ****** Yes, I will make it a ruin: it shall not be pruned or hoed, but overgrown with thorns and briers; I will command the clouds not to send rain upon it.****** 7 *** The vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are his cherished plant; He looked for judgment, but see, bloodshed! for justice, but hark, the outcry!

Now, it should be noted, that I’ve heard a commentator say that the Vineyard is also the Temple. At first I thought the commentator was stretching it, but he went on to note that Jesus is giving this parable in front of the Treasury of the Temple. What is the treasury outer walls decorated with? A huge picture of a vine. The leaves were the size of men!! So, this imagery would certainly be imposed on the Pharisees and Scribes, in addition to the imagery from Isaiah 5.The Tenants of the Vineyard would, of course, be the Pharisees and Scribes, in addition to all the leaders of Israel. The Servants would be the prophets of God, who Israel routinely punished and killed. If I recall correctly (and I’m not sure) “prophet” means “Servant”. So the meaning would, again, be clear to the Pharisees and Scribes.

The Son of the Landowner would most certainly be Jesus.

Hence, the new Tenants would be the New Covenant Church and Her leaders, beginning with the Apostles and continuing with the Bishops and priests that followed after.

One final note on the vineyard also representing the Temple. The “stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone” is a reference to a scene in Ezra where the leaders of Israel mourned the foundation laid for the 2nd Temple, because it wasn’t going to compare to the Temple that Solomon built. Jesus would be the New Temple.

So, again, the story may have multiple meanings. This parable, as do many others of Jesus’ parables, has layers. (They are like ogres! )

 

[Onetime1979]

Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa on Matthew 16: ne.edgecastcdn.net/0007BA/c2000/c2185.mp3

 

[po18guy]

Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa on Matthew 16: ne.edgecastcdn.net/0007BA/c2000/c2185.mp3

Noted anti-Catholic Church Smith, of course. I see that he is guilty of private interpretation of scripture (prohibited in 2 Peter 1:20), twisting it to justify his practice of faith. He chooses not to deny himself, but to deny the original meaning of scripture, the original form of the Church, in his attempt to follow Christ. Mr. Smith lacks a sense of gratitude, in that, if there were no Simon Peter (and his successors), there would be no bible!

I recently heard a Prebyterian minister claim that Jesus’ disciples left him in John 6:66 because they knew the crucifixion was coming! What? That is so warped as to almost defy description.

Ah, but it was Peter, wasn’t it, who said that Paul’s words, as well as the other scriptures, were distorted by the ignorant and unstable, to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). Now, if your faith community is formed via private interpretation of scripture, you must degrade Peter as leader. But, in doing so, you go directly against Christ.

 

[StevieD]

Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa on Matthew 16: ne.edgecastcdn.net/0007BA/c2000/c2185.mp3

William Hendriksen
Member of the Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary:
"The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view. (New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.)

More and more Protestant scriptural experts are admitting that quoting the Greek translation (where the change of gender is grammatically required) of a conversation held in Aramaic distorts the meaning of what was said.