Good News: Jesus will build His Church

Intro

Where is the church that Jesus built today? Is it something defined by sometimes brutal human political structures or is it some kind of exclusive franchise or does anyone with faith in Jesus have access to him?

Purpose

To show that we do not establish doctrine on unclear passages and that faith defines the church not human politics or exclusive franchises.

Plan

We will examine Matthew 16:13-20 and various claims about it.

Who is the Rock

Matthew 16:13-20 is controversial. Was Peter called the rock on which the Church was built? It is unclear. Jesus most likely spoke in Aramaic and used the word Kepha for rock. The choice of two Greek words Petra and Petros were grammatical and do not necessarily make it clearer. In the Old Testament God is called the Rock of Israel. The rock of Daniel’s prophecy which conquered Rome was Christ. We don’t establish doctrine on unclear passages. What did Peter say? He said that another rock, Christ was the cornerstone (1 Peter 2:7-8), a rock (Petra) that makes men stumble. Peter was the first to proclaim this faith, but in his letters Peter merely introduced himself as an Apostle, not chief Apostle. To claim that Peter was the first Pope reads more into the passage than it actually says. Let’s look at a few comments from early church fathers.

reference: The Matthew 16 Controversy

Origen's View of Peter

Origen was head of the catechism school of Alexandria and the greatest scholar of Christian antiquity. His commentary on Matthew 16:13-20 is eye-opening, ‘if we too have said like Peter, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, "Thou art Peter," etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church...’ Origen repudiated an exclusive church franchise mentality with words like, ‘all bear the surname of "rock" who are the imitators of Christ...’

reference: ANTE-NICENE FATHERS, VOLUME 9, BOOK XII, 10

Augustine’s View of Peter

Augustine was bishop of Hippo (in Roman Africa) and his writings have great influence throughout the entire Christian Church. Regarding Matthew 16:13-20 he wrote, ‘Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. "Therefore," he saith, "[You are] Peter; and upon this Rock" which [you have] confessed, upon this Rock which [you have] acknowledged, saying, "[You are] the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;" that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, "will I build My Church." I will build [you] upon Myself, not Myself upon [you].’ The Church is built upon the Rock Christ not Peter.

reference: NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS, VOLUME VI, Sermon XXVI

Chrysostom’s View of Peter

John Chrysostom was a leading bishop of Constantinople famous in history for his eloquent preaching. His commentary on Matthew 16:13-20 does not support Papal primacy. Rather he commented on Jesus’ words, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;" that is, on the faith of his confession....He that has built His church upon Peter's confession...’ (1) There is no mention that Peter’s authority over all the world was to continue beyond his grave other than through those who confessed the same faith. "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ....I have preached Christ, I have delivered unto you the foundation. Take heed how you build thereon, lest haply it be in vainglory, lest haply so as to draw away the disciples unto men." (2) Peter’s answer invites us to also answer, who do we say he is?

references: (1) St. Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew (2) Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians

Tertullian’s View of Peter

Tertullian was a North African Christian writer known as the father of Latin Christianity. He taught that Peter was the rock about whom Jesus spoke in Matthew 16:13-20, but it was Peter alone and not any exclusive successors. In other words, the whole of Christian faith is built upon Peter being the first to confess Christ. What about the keys? Tertullian believed that, ‘(Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ's baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom...’ He reasoned that it was Peter’s confession which gave him and any others who showed this faith the key to the kingdom, not human politics and a succession of popes in an exclusive church. Indeed, ‘from that time forward, every number (of persons) who may have combined together into this faith is accounted "a Church,"’ 

reference: ANTE-NICENE FATHERS, VOLUME 4, Chapter XXI

Peter was Rocky not Pope 

Christ is the Rock of our Salvation. We are called Christians because we believe in Christ. We could also be called Rocks because we believe in the Rock. That is how early Church fathers saw Peter’s faith in the One who is the foundation of the Church. The Church would be built on Jesus Christ, but also constitute those who had this faith. (Matthew 16:13-20). So, Jesus nicknamed Cephas Rock (Peter) just as some of us are named Christian. There is absolutely nothing in the passage which says anything like Peter being the first of a long line of single men who would carry sole authority over the entirety of the Church. Nothing in the Bible or in early church writings support the idea of a Roman papacy as the sole Christian authority throughout the rest of Church history.

The Early Church had no Pope

When the Church began, the Apostles of Jesus Christ scattered far and wide. There was little possibility of communication between the Christians of India, Ethiopia, Turkey and Spain. It is unrealistic to claim that Peter could have had authority over all these lands in a time when such authority would have simply been a matter of practical impossibility. Yet, Matthew 16:13-20 has been used to support the papacy above all other Christian authorities. How did the early church view this passage? The early church fathers did not interpret this passage as Rome later came to. Indeed wherever the right faith is to be found, there are the keys to the kingdom. No one person has a monopoly on that faith. That is why Paul wrote that no other foundation than Jesus Christ can be laid (1 Corinthians 3:11).

Who do We say He is 

Jesus asked his disciples, Who do you say that I am? (Matthew 16:13-20) The answer to that question would go a long way to defining who they were. It defines us too. Peter answered it and he was named after the Rock of our Salvation. Are we like Peter, rock of the Rock? We sometimes forget that not everything about God is revealed to us by flesh and blood Church leaders, the Bible and tradition, but by God the Father to us personally. What a shame that this passage is overshadowed by those who wish to promote their own flesh and blood leadership. Yet, when we understand who Jesus is, when that is revealed to us from our Father in heaven, then we too are Rock of the Rock and we receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven. We need no one between us and heaven.

Sacerdotalism — the Man in the Middle

Sacerdotalism originated in the Old Testament sacrificial system where a human makes sacrifice on our behalf to God. The theory postulates that only those given the authority may consecrate the bread and wine or baptize. One place that is used to support this idea is Matthew 16:13-20. Here Peter was given authority on earth to decide heavenly matters. A strength of sacerdotalism is that the potential for heresy is lessened because trained people administer the sacraments. A weakness is that people begin to look to human leaders instead of God. Peter was told that God revealed this faith to him and no man. So we mistakenly look to a man to confess Christ on our behalf and don’t join him in confessing Christ. We allow a Pastor or Magisterium to inform us about God, but never experience him ourselves. This kind of human politics creates exclusive churches.

Exclusive Church Franchise

The controversy over Matthew 16:13-20 is largely political, a controversy over franchise. Church is God’s business, but who on earth has the franchise? Is it Rome? Is it Constantinople? Is it Madras? Is it Alexandria? Is it Jerusalem? Such questions rely on interpreting the passage in ways that perpetuate human power structures even though no such promise was made to Peter. The problem is that people are pointed to the power of men, the exact opposite of Peter’s experience. There was no promise of territorial franchises as in national churches or exclusive franchises as in only Peter’s ordained successors being allowed to have the keys. Faith and salvation are not exclusive. There is one thing in this that is exclusive. Who is Jesus is not revealed by flesh and blood human politics but exclusively by our Father in heaven. Are we of Christ or men?

Of Which Man are We

Why do we look to men? Matthew 16:13-20 tells us that Peter’s confession was revealed to him by God. Yet, some use this passage to point us to a man, a successor to Peter. This is called the Petrine doctrine. Others use the passage to point us to all bishops as having the keys of heaven. Still others point to Peter's faith not Peter or his successors and so point people to Christ. We ought to become suspicious when Jesus is interpreted not in his own right but through the lens of our traditions. If a church claims that it is of Peter, Luther, Calvin or Wesley is it not just like in 1 Corinthians 1:11-13 where Paul condemned such foolishness? Such division does not exist when Christ is revealed to us by our Father in heaven. Caesarea Philippi teaches a similar lesson.

Why Caesarea Philippi

Caesarea Philippi was a city built on a rock to honor Caesar Augustus who called himself divi filius, the son of a god. Jesus took his disciples near this sin city where they could see its structure. It was an appropriate place for Jesus to be able to say to Peter, upon this rock I will build my Church (Matthew 16:13-20) because the imagery and the contrast with brutal Roman leadership were evident. Yet in contrast to Caesar, the leaders of the church of God were not to elevate themselves above their fellows, but become servants of all. The authority of deciding church matters was given to Peter but not to him alone. Jesus later explained that the other Apostles also carried decision-making authority (Matthew 18:18). The rock we build Christian ministry on is Jesus Christ not ourselves. We look to the cross of Christ.

Binding & Loosing

What did Jesus mean when he gave Peter (Matthew 16:13-20) and the other disciples authority to bind and loose (Matthew 18:18)? The historical phrase binding and loosing referred to interpreting the Scriptures, not binding demons or changing the teachings of Jesus. It did not mean to add a Christian Talmud of do’s and don’ts to Jesus’ teachings or create spiritual dynasties that shut out others from the kingdom of heaven. Let’s look at Jesus’ own final instructions to those same disciples. In Matthew 28:20 he specifically told them to teach what he taught. So their authority to bind and loose did not exceed that. There was no authority to bind heavy and grievous burdens on the Church (Matthew 23:3-5). They could however, educate others how Jesus teachings applied in different cultural contexts and at different times. Let’s now take a closer look at the main controversy.

In Depth — Matthew 16:18 Where the Evidence Leads

Let's study Matthew 16:18 and surrounding verses with a desire to allow the evidence to lead us rather than any preconceived bias. We may be surprised to reach a different conclusion than three of the four main theories surrounding this passage.

We may conclude that the Catholic theory that this proves Peter was the first pope is wrong. We may also find that so are two of the three main Protestant theories. Let’s examine each theory and why perhaps a fourth conclusion held by some mainstream Protestant churches has merit. It tells an unexpected story.

1. The Rock-was-Christ Theory

This theory states that Jesus said to Peter that he was a small stone, but on this large rock, meaning Jesus himself, he will build his church. However, the evidence does not support this theory at all for a number of reasons.

a. Petros and Petra

The words for Peter and rock are certainly two different words in Greek. A beginning Greek student may therefore conclude that they mean two different things. Sadly, that is precisely the conclusion to be found in some popular commentaries. For instance Matthew Henry boldly claims that “Nothing can be more wrong than to suppose that Christ meant the person of Peter was the rock. Without doubt Christ himself is the Rock, the tried foundation of the church; and woe to him that attempts to lay any other! Peter's confession is this rock as to doctrine. If Jesus be not the Christ, those that own him are not of the church, but deceivers and deceived.” (Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Bible is available in the Public Domain)

If you don’t have good evidence to support your theory, resort to threats and intimidation. Label those who disagree, “deceivers and deceived” so as to scare your audience into agreeing with your less than scholarly deduction. This a similar conclusion to that made by others whose understanding of biblical Greek is more clumsy. The word for Peter (petros) is masculine and the word for rock (petra) is feminine and some have erroneously concluded that petros only ever means a small stone and petra only ever means a huge crag, but that is wrong.

As Greek poetry from the time proves, the language is flexible enough to allow both petra and petros to mean the same thing, depending on the context, and “word play does not demand the usual meaning of words, especially in metaphorical applications such as the present one. The Aramaic wordplay on the same word remains the most convincing explanation.” (Hagner, D. A. (2002). Vol. 33B: Word Biblical Commentary : Matthew 14-28. Word Biblical Commentary (470). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.)

We don’t need to invent a hasty conclusion, perhaps based upon a fear that if we follow the evidence we may be forced to agree with the Catholic Church. Following the evidence, has led me to disagree with both Matthew Henry and the Catholic Church. This does not make them bad. Nobody gets it all right.

So, what then is the truth about the two Greek words? I do agree with my Catholic brothers on one point. Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not Greek, and there the same word (kephas) would have been used for rock as Peter. That is why we see in some Bibles that Peter is also called Cephas. The fact is that in the original Greek, the two words petros (Πέτρος, Peter) and petra (πέτρα, rock) were interchangeable (Matthew, Volume 1, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, By Craig S. Keener).

Why then are there two different words? Some languages have feminine and masculine words. It’s just grammar. Jesus applied the feminine Greek word for rock (petra) to a man by using the masculine form of that word (petros). Up until that time, Peter was not a common man’s name, but Jesus used this masculine form of the word as Simon’s nickname. In the thorough and well researched New International Commentary we read, “The Greek reader would therefore see here a difference in form but not in meaning...” (The Gospel of Matthew, New International Commentary on the New Testament, by R. T. France)

b. Other Contexts

In 1 Corinthians 3:11 we are told that no other foundation exists except Jesus Christ. Yet, in Ephesians 2:20 Jesus clearly identifies all the apostles and prophets as the foundation of the Church, including himself as the cornerstone. Is this a contradiction, on the one hand to say that only Jesus is the foundation, yet on the other hand, to say that the apostles and prophets are also that foundation? No, it is a matter of understanding that these are two different contexts, with two different emphases.

The same is true of Isaiah 51:1-2, where Abraham is described as the rock from which ancient Israel was cut. That does not ignore the obvious, that God was their founder, but includes Abraham’s contribution.

2. The Rock-was-Peter’s-Faith Theory

This theory states that Jesus neither pointed to Peter, nor to himself as the rock, but to Peter’s faith, evidenced by Peter’s acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah. This theory further goes on to state that all who likewise believe are the true church and likewise have this authority spoken of in the rest of the context.

And not But

Another piece of evidence that Peter was the rock that Jesus intended, is the use of the word “and” rather than “but.” Jesus certainly did point to himself as the rock in other contexts, but that does not mean that he meant the same thing in this context. Some people conclude that Jesus either pointed to himself as the rock, or to Peter’s faith, but the evidence disagrees with that conclusion. We were not there to see Jesus’ gestures, so we must rely upon the language to help us out and the language is very clear.

If Jesus had indeed pointed to himself as the rock in this context, or even to Peter’s faith, it would have been written as, “but on this rock I will build my church.” However, it was not. The wording is, “and on this rock I will build my church.” This evidence clearly indicates that the theories of Jesus’ pointing to himself or to Peter’s faith are false. Peter was the one to make the confession that Jesus was the Christ, and it is natural to see the confessing Peter as the rock, not his faith divorced from him as a person.

Some people worry that this would eliminate Jesus as head of the church and place a man in charge, but that ought not to be a concern. Notice that Jesus said I will build my church. It will still be Jesus who does the building, and it will still be his church.

3. The Rock was Peter-as-Pope Theory

This is actually the easiest theory to eliminate from this passage, as there is absolutely nothing at all about any successors to Peter. In fact, there is no statement in the Bible at all regarding Peter and a subsequent papacy. That entire theory rests upon discussions of later church history. In fact the very formal and authority-conscious structure of the Catholic and some Protestant churches is a later historic development and not the kind of structure lived out by the early Apostles.

The biblical evidence certainly points away from Peter being a pope. In Galatians 2:11 we find Paul strongly correcting Peter, without any indication of deference to him being higher in rank than Paul. There is no New Testament record of Peter having passed on any pope-like authority to anyone, nor any evidence that Christ commanded Peter to do so. Paul wrote to the churches of Rome with authority; Peter did not. Nowhere in the entire New Testament did Peter ever refer to himself having any higher authority than the other apostles.

4. The Rock was Peter as Forerunner Theory

Peter was the first of the apostles to clearly confess that Jesus was the Christ, and as such was the pace-setter. He was given teaching authority, to declare what is permissible and what is not, not authority to change things as many subsequent Christian leaders have presumptuously done. The tense in Greek does not imply that Peter would make decisions and heaven would follow, but that decisions will have already been made in heaven, and Peter would follow.

The New International Commentary states that Peter was the steward or chief administrative officer of the kingdom of heaven, not the owner. The keys that he was given were like those to a storehouse, to provide spiritual nourishment to the household of God. Peter’s leadership in the very earliest phases of the church is quite clear, as he declared the way of the gospel being open to the gentiles and so on. However, Peter is nowhere endorsed in the Bible as one of the popes at Rome.

We do not have to run away from allowing the Bible to have its natural meaning and potentially use dishonest research because of prejudice either for or against the idea of a papacy. Matthew 16:18 neither supports the idea of Peter being the first pope, nor some of the theories invented to run away from it. As so often is the case, the truth is really somewhere in the middle. Peter had the faith to declare that Jesus is the Christ. As such, we can clearly see how he was used early on in the book of Acts at the very first stages of the building of the Church. A forerunner is a far cry from being a pope.

Outro

No other foundation of the church of God exists but Jesus Christ. The church is built upon the prophets and apostles with Jesus Christ being the cornerstone. Peter was a forerunner of faith not leader of an exclusive lineage that shuts others out of heaven. Faith is not exclusive to any one denomination of Christians. It is Jesus who will build his church, and that church consists of those who have faith in him.

Good News for Unwanted People

Intro

Bigotry defines some people as unwashed, unclean, unwanted based entirely upon physical characteristics such as race, nationality, income, religion and so on. Yet, Jesus shows that what is important is whether or not our hearts are clean.

Purpose

I would like to bust the bigotry of classism, racism, nationalism, religious superiority and such like.

Plan

We will look at Jesus’ confrontation with the Pharisees over cleanliness rituals and with a gentile woman over racial issues.

1. Confrontation with the Pharisees

Defiled by the Words

What makes us clean or unclean? Old Testament laws defined clean and unclean foods or practices. The Pharisees’ hand washing ritual was a man-made rule but showed serious devotion to those laws. Jesus' disciples were criticized for ignoring the ritual (Matthew 15:10-28). Jesus was blunt and provocative. He stated that these highly respected religious leaders were not of God and that the disciples should ignore them. Was Jesus concerned with spiritual cleanness? Was the real purpose of Old Testament cleanliness laws to teach us about being spiritually clean in our hearts? Fastidiously following the Old Testament food laws does not guarantee a clean heart. Can religious rituals distract us from important matters of the heart? Faith is not outward religious mumbo jumbo, a show. Cleaning up unclean hearts is God’s focus. Are we letting God wash our hearts clean? What about political correctness?

Necessary Offense

Some people have the philosophy that we should by all means avoid offense. If we naively swallow the line of politically correct speech we may find difficulty with passages such as Matthew 15:10-28. Yet, Jesus was often faced with a dilemma, avoid offense and stand for nothing or cause offense and teach a valuable lesson. He often criticized the Pharisees publicly. Jesus was no obsequious sycophant. At times tough words are required in order to bring out the best in people. The shock value of offensive language is used sometimes throughout the Holy Scriptures to wake people up and bring them to repentance. One of the weaknesses of the King James Bible is that it watered down some of that language due to English cultural prejudice towards polite speech. Tough love occasionally requires speaking in a blunt, offensive manner. When is being blunt right?

When Blunt is Right

Some cultures have a reputation for being tactless and blunt while others seem to be more diplomatic and polite. To the well-mannered among us Jesus’ behavior in Matthew 15:10-28 could seem inappropriate. Yet Jesus was without sin, so is it is behavior that we need to examine? What can we learn from Jesus' bluntness in his encounter with the Canaanite woman? Grace towards others includes tact and is therefore in many cases a good response. However, is tact the appropriate course in every situation? In professions like the theater, choreography, firefighting and the military there is little time for polite diplomacy. Commands must be given sharply and followed quickly. When someone is about to drive over a cliff, is saying "Pardon me" really appropriate? Positive confrontation can be used for good and what Jesus did was always good. Let’s look at his confrontation with a gentile woman.

2. Confrontation with a Gentile Woman

Faith not Race

Was Jesus a bigot? He rejected a Gentile woman asked for healing, saying that it was not right to give the children’s food to dogs (Matthew 15:10-28)? Rather than take offense, the woman boldly challenged Jesus. Her faith was bigger than racial sensitivities. Jesus was elated to see her great faith and healed her daughter. Could such a glowing compliment coming on the heels of such an awful insult be the core of this lesson? Was Jesus really a racial bigot or testing her faith? Dare we judge Christ by human political correctness? A good teacher will sometimes challenge students with an offensive view to bring out the best in them. How could Jesus, who created all of humanity, be racially bigoted? Does not the story really show that regardless of race, bold faith is what counts with Jesus? Do we find faith in other churches?

Rude & Bigoted Jesus?

The story of Jesus and the Gentile woman in Matthew 15:10-28 is one of the most shocking. Jesus appeared to be rude and bigoted. It was an animated encounter. The woman cried for mercy and the disciples, like a bunch of school bullies encouraged Jesus to just get rid of her. It is reminiscent of some churches today, who turn away from communion those of a different church or shun family members who have left their order. Why was Jesus so uncharacteristically blunt? Unlike harshly exclusive churches Jesus relented when he saw faith. Faith is what matters, not the race or church or order that a person belongs to. Abraham was the father of the faithful. Faith transcends breed, and Jesus’ drama emphasized that point. When will we get over our religious bigotry and recognize the faith of others? Does Jesus confront us to test our faith?

Confrontation Jesus-Style

We don’t like confrontation. Yet occasionally it is necessary. Some avoid it by gossiping or pretending that everything is okay. Others confront in negative and divisive ways by the extremes of bullying or cowardice. In Matthew 15:10-28 Jesus confronted a Gentile woman in a positive way. What can we learn from this in regard to confrontation Jesus-style? First, we notice that Jesus gave the woman no reply. The time for confrontation was not until she became insistent. Second, he became increasingly specific with the woman. First, he replied mildly about his ministry excluding Gentiles. Then he became very blunt, reminding the woman of her ancestry. The Canaanites once engaged in child-sacrifice and ritual prostitution. This disgusting history is perhaps why Israelites called them dogs. The confrontation revealed the woman’s faith for the disciples to see and Jesus intervened as she requested. Did her faith make her acceptable?

Unclean made Clean by Faith

In the Old Testament period unclean eating and unclean people were equally forbidden. Some have tried to link the lists of unclean foods with in-edibility, but that is reading into the Bible more than it says. The whole of the laws of clean and unclean are summarized by Peter’s remarkable revelation that we should no longer call any person unclean (Acts 10:28). And so in Matthew 15:10-28 Jesus began leading his disciples into this new understanding by confronting a Gentile woman from a region with a particularly heinous history, Canaan. Every nation has a history of crimes against humanity. Americans bow their heads in shame over slavery and native Americans. Australians bow their heads in shame over the Tasmanian aborigine. Germans bow their heads in shame about the holocaust. Jesus’ confrontation was a practicum, an object lesson in understanding that faith makes anyone clean, no matter what their historical background. Her faith overcame her national shame.

Shame and Grace

Shame is a terrible burden. Are we so ashamed of our past that we find it difficult to pray? In Matthew 15:10-28 a Gentile woman asked Jesus to heal her daughter. We are not told of her personal sins, only that she was from a culture known for ritual prostitution and sacrifice of newborn children. Our culture is similar, with our shameless immorality and killing of inconvenient unborn children. When we are ashamed of personal sins or the sins of our people we may find it difficult to pray and ask God for any blessings. We may feel undeserving and we would be right. None of us is deserving. However, God’s grace covers shame. He blesses us though we don’t deserve it and this story is one of many examples where God graciously intervened when someone boldly requested his help. God welcomes all who come in faith.

Welcome Mat or Trespass Sign

What kind of sign is outside our church building? What kind of reputation do we have in the community? Do we seem to have a welcome mat or a no trespassing sign? The discussion between exclusivity and inclusiveness in the Church is two thousand years old and the conversation is not over yet. Part of that discussion is the events of Matthew 15:10-28. The Old Testament was very exclusive. Males had to be circumcised. Everyone had to meet strict requirement of ritual cleansing. Even marriages with foreigners were forbidden. Israel’s relationship with its neighbors was best described as a one-way street with no compromises. In the New Testament, we find a change. The requirements are simple: repentance towards God, faith in Jesus Christ and willingness to follow where the Holy Spirit leads. All people everywhere are being invited in. What if God says no?

When Jesus says No

When Jesus says no are we reluctant to appeal? Remember the importunate Gentile woman in Matthew 15:10-28? Did you think I was going to say the importunate widow? That’s another example of being persistent with God. Could it be that God will sometimes test our faith in ways that make us think he is unfair, racist, bigoted, rude, arrogant or uncaring? Yet, in the end his mercy is just. Faith means not giving up. Jacob wrestled all night with God’s messenger. It seems that God wants us to learn to be unrelenting. Indeed, he that endures to the end shall be saved (Matthew 10:22, Matthew 24:13). Just as a wise parent will encourage a placid child to fight for themselves, is God trying to bring out the best in us by helping us to learn persistence even in the face of insults?

Unable to be Insulted

Don’t you just love to be around people who are unfazed when they are insulted! Some people just shrug their shoulders, others even agree with the insults with a so-what attitude especially if a fault that is common to all is part of the affront. There are many similar fascinating approaches that defuse potentially angry encounters. In Matthew 15:10-28 Jesus insulted a Gentile woman by saying that it's just not right to take bread out of the children's mouths and toss it to the dogs. Many people would hurl back another insult and some might even want to start a useless fist fight over such taunting words. What did the woman do? Rather than be insulted she turned the insult to her favor, by insisting that even the dogs get to eat the crumbs from the table. Let’s imagine a time when our culture has few Christians left.

The Year 3020

It is the year 3020. Asia and Africa are wealthy Christian continents. After a thousand years of poverty and trouble, Europe and America are returning to Christianity. Historians tell us what happened to the once great Christian powers of Europe and America. They became decadent and worshipped the gods of Money, Power and Sex instead of the true God. They were Democratic Oligarchies making parents work long hours with low pay and with little time off. Families were sacrificed for the wealthy elite. Reminiscent of other ancient societies like the Canaanites they were sexually promiscuous and killed their unwanted children. Christianity waned, marriages failed and children suffered most. They became possessed by the demons of violence. In the year 3020 many from Europe and America are returning to Christianity and praying to Jesus to heal their children (Matthew 15:10-28). Is this our future? Are we filled with national pride and arrogance or do we come to Jesus with nothing?

She Came to Jesus with Nothing

The woman of Canaan in Matthew 15:10-28 came to Jesus with nothing. European and American Christians come to Jesus with pride and arrogance. We believe that our heritage makes us superior. Canaanite history by contrast was reprehensible and despised. We quickly forget our own shame. The Napituca, Mystic and Jamestown Massacres are only a few of the many shameful acts of American history. The Spanish Inquisition, Polish pogroms and Nazi atrocities are only a few of the many shameful acts of European history. The disciples were from a people with a long history of knowledge of God but they had little faith. The Canaanite woman came to Jesus with nothing, but her faith was strong. Perhaps like Paul we ought to count our own pasts as dung (Philippians 3:7-8) and come to Jesus with nothing to brag about. Are we proud of our church traditions?

Tradition Does not Guarantee Faith

The woman of Canaan in Matthew 15:10-28 came to Jesus with nothing but was praised for her great faith. The Pharisees came to Jesus with a great tradition in the Holy Scriptures but were criticized for their almost total lack of faith. Modern Christianity is based upon Scripture, tradition and reason. Of those three, Scripture is the most reliable. Our traditions often mirror those of the Pharisees and our literature reflects the Jewish Talmud. We are proud of our traditions, whether they are ancient or modern. We speak highly of our Church fathers and bind rules upon our denominations that neither Jesus nor the Apostles demanded of the Church. We ask if we have fulfilled all the requirements that were established by mere men, but do not ask if we have great faith. Yet it is faith that saves.

Outro

Bigotry defines some people as unwashed, unclean, unwanted based entirely upon physical characteristics such as race, nationality, income, religious tradition and so on. Yet, Jesus shows that what is important is whether or not our hearts are clean. Will we allow him to make our hearts clean?

Good News in our Fears

Intro

Is not human life like a boat ride on uncertain waters? Even if we believe we have the faith to step out, are we really as tough as we think?

Purpose

I hope that we can all learn to step out on faith, but by looking at Jesus.

Plan

We will look at the story of Peter walking on water in Matthew 14:22-33 and see what that could mean for us today.

Faith & Fear

While the disciples crossed Lake Galilee by boat, Jesus surprised them by walking on water (Matthew 14:22-33). It was a bad crossing. Jesus came walking towards them on the water. Their first reaction was sheer terror. Peter wanted to walk on the water too. However, after a few steps of faith, fear took over. Is faith often mixed with fear? Peter got distracted by circumstances, the wind and the waves. He did the right thing, immediately requesting Jesus' help. Do we also call upon the Lord, or just shrink back and do nothing? The original language shows Jesus suggesting that Peter had a divided mind. Where Jesus is present, fear is needless. Like Peter, do should we step out on faith and ask Jesus for help? Is He not ready to step in and save us out of life's difficulties? One of life’s difficulties can be church politics.

Church Politics

Church politics can be troublesome. Can we become so wrapped up in fear of various church decisions that we lose sight of Jesus? It doesn’t matter what the denomination or the particular vocabulary used, we are still dealing with human beings. The origin of the word politics is in words for city and citizen. As long as we have two people in a church are we not going to have politics? In Matthew 14:22-33 Peter took his eyes off Jesus and looked at the troubles around him. Just like Peter, can we too look at the waves and winds of church politics and become afraid? Are we afraid of the homosexual agenda, the feminist agenda, the liberal agenda or the fundamentalist agenda? Do not these things come and go, but Jesus remains? Ought not we keep our eyes on Jesus? Are these winds of human politics a faith test?

Faith Litmus Test

Do we will sink or walk on water in matters of faith? A litmus test is the answer to the question, “Where are we looking?” Are we watching the world news and getting upset and anxious or are we watching Jesus? Are not most of us watching the drama around us and not Jesus? In Matthew 14:22-33 did not Peter have the same problem? Were his eyes on Jesus or on the water and a fear of sinking? His lack of faith caused him to become a weight instead of a water-walker. As the disciples battled the waves it was the darkest part of the night. Does not Jesus sometimes intervene in our lives when events are darkest? Do we struggle with walking on the water of faith while daily events threaten to drown us? What is Jesus doing in the world? Is he real to us or like a ghost?

It’s a Ghost

As Jesus approached the disciples’ boat in the dark of night by walking on the water, they cried out, “It’s a ghost!” (Matthew 14:22-33) They were terrified. How often do we object in fear as Jesus approaches? Do we find comfort in the law, but as Jesus approaches do we fear his grace? Grace can be a fearful thing. Do we find comfort in our Talmuds, Disciplines and Canon Laws but as Jesus comes near, do we fear his teachings which often contradict our human rules? Have we in fear buried Jesus’ teachings under our traditions or fads? Fear is one thing that can keep us out of heaven (Revelation 21:7-9). Jesus tells us not to fear his presence. Let us then also take action. Should we too take steps in faith to walk where Jesus walked?

Walking Where Jesus Walked

When the disciples heard Jesus confirm that it was him walking on the water, Peter requested of him, “Urge me to come to you.” Peter asked to walk where Jesus walked. Jesus invited him at his request (Matthew 14:22-33). Did Jesus condemn the disciples who stayed in the boat, or chide Peter for presumptuousness? No. Is it then wrong to claim that we are being disobedient or presumptuous if we do or don’t all walk on water in faith? Perhaps so. Is then being called to join Jesus on a particular task sometimes optional? Perhaps some tasks are by mutual agreement? Is it sometimes a dialog between the one being called and Jesus, the one doing the calling? Does this indicate the nature of Jesus’ leadership? Is it not a bossy, authoritarian leadership that forces faith, but one that gently nurtures it? What of human leadership?

Criticism of Leadership

Is not a great weakness of democracy that it encourages criticism of leadership and thus sows the seeds of its own destruction? When such criticism enters the Church can it also sow destruction? Is it not a given that Church leaders will be faulty and make mistakes? Is it also not a given that there will be corruption? Ought it also be a given that Jesus expects us to show grace towards our Church leaders for the sake of the kingdom of heaven? If the story of Jesus walking on the water (Matthew 14:22-33) could be viewed as a metaphor for Church leadership, do we find only one in twelve with the faith to walk on water, and even that one who falters in faith? Ought we pray for Church leadership and show them the grace that Jesus shows? Will he save them too from sinking?

Saved from Sinking

When our businesses are about to go under who is there for us? When our marriages are about sink into oblivion who is there to lift us up? When we are about to sink into sin who is there to rescue us from temptation? When our personal finances are about to sink into the toilet who can we turn to? Peter’s faith as he tried to walk on water was weak. Is it not folly to have faith in human beings? Is not our responsibility towards our leaders to love them and pray for them, not look to them for salvation? There is no salvation in human leadership. Jesus alone is Savior. Is lesson of Jesus walking on the water that in order for us to be saved from sinking we too need to look to Jesus (Matthew 14:22-33)? Ought walk calmly on rough waters?

Walking Calmly on Rough Waters

Have we ever tried to picture Jesus walking on the water (Matthew 14:22-33)? What did it look like? The sea was rough and yet there is nothing that seems to indicate that his steps followed the motion of the waves. It would have been like trying to walk on a bucking bronco, yet his steps seem to have been sure and steady. Do the waves serve to indicate the hysteria of the disciples, and Jesus’ steps the calmness of his spirit? Life bounces us around from time to time. It can appear as if we can find no sure footing. As we learn to trust Jesus in the storms of life, do we learn not to hold back? In the midst of hysteria and fear, do we calmly move forward when walking on rough waters? Is that a trust issue?

Trust Issues

We have all been deceived by dishonest business advertising and disappointed by politics. Yet, why do we still seek gurus who claim they can save us? Does our naivety feed politics and business? Are they not selling snake oil? Even the ancient Psalmist wrote not to trust human leaders because they are just weak men who cannot save (Psalm 146:3). Do we come to Jesus with inbuilt distrust? Yet, there he is walking on the water. The boat that the disciples used may have been 8 meters (26 feet) long and 2 meters (6 feet) wide. It’s clearance above the waterline may have only been about a meter (3 feet). It was easily swamped in a storm. We trust no man, including ourselves. Does Jesus asks us to trust him in an open boat with no life jackets (Matthew 14:22-33)? Will we in troubled western churches still trust him?

Western Christianity in Rough Waters

Greece and Rome which were once pagan republics, later became Christian as Emperor Constantine adopted it as his religion and gave Christianity official status. Western countries in America and Europe seem to be heading in the opposite direction. European Christians who first settled American shores to establish religious freedom and governments supportive of Christian principles have found public faith abandoned to popular sentiment in modern Greek and Roman style democracies. European Christians face similar dilemmas. The Christian cross still graces the flags of many European flags, but can faith still be found on the once Christian continent? As Christians in the west face increasingly hostile waters (Matthew 14:22-33) how will we respond? Will we panic and lose heart as the anti-Christian storm rages around us or step out in faith, looking to Jesus who calmly walks on water by our side? Is there calm in the nave?

Calm in the Nave

A traditional architectural term for the place where the main body of believers sits in a church building is the nave. It is a nautical term, meaning the ship. A ship is also one of the most ancient symbols of the church. It comes from stories such as that found in Matthew 14:22-33. The Church is often tossed about by winds and storms just as the disciples were. Biblical symbolism for the nations includes a sea. And just as that boat containing the first disciples of Christianity was buffeted by the sea, so too is the Church buffeted by the world. A Church without Jesus’ presence is bound to sink into the darkness of history. However, when we invite Jesus into the boat he can command that the waters and wind be calm. Should we invite him into our churches? In all honesty, is that not the most important thing?

Christian Honesty

In the battle between liberal and conservative Christianity is not something missing? Does it really matter whether we are traditional or progressive, as long as we are in line with the teachings of Jesus? Are liberalism and conservatism more important than honesty with the facts no matter where they lead us? Is any one of us really capable of complete honesty? Do not cultural biases prejudice our thinking? Must we not all include a little honest self-doubt, a little humility with our conclusions? Can any human conclusions really be dogma? Do we not rush to judgment just a little too quickly? Must not our ideas at best be tentative until further facts come to light? In this stormy sea of controversy should we not look to Jesus, so that we can all walk on water and not sink into the abyss of our own faulty opinions (Matthew 14:22-33)? Does not humility require faith?

Little and Great Faith

Have we ever noticed how a story of the great faith of a Gentile woman (Matthew 15:10-28) was placed immediately after a story of Peter’s little faith (Matthew 14:22-33)? The inspired contrast is even more poignant when we understand that Peter was a Jew with lifelong living under the teachings of the Old Testament. He was also in the midst of personal training under the Son of God. Yet, here was a persistent Gentile woman who had not grown up in the “right” church and probably did not keep the law of God? Did Jesus describe her faith as great and Peter’s as little? Was there something important missing from the disciples, even though they had the Old Testament and the blessing of personal training with Jesus? Does faith then transcend law and even knowledge of the Bible?

Outro

Is not human life like a boat ride on uncertain waters? Even if we believe we have the faith to step out, must we not in the end look to Jesus?

Good News of Miraculous Provision

Intro

What are churches with meager finances and numbers to do? Is there an answer in the Gospels?

Goal

I want us to understand the invisible dimension of church finances, Jesus.

Plan

We will examine the miracle of feeding the 5,000 and see how it applies to the life of the small church.

You Give Them Something to Eat

Church potluck meals can be traced to Jesus feeding a large crowd that had gathered on the north shore of the sea of Galilee. Towards evening, the disciples suggested that Jesus dismiss them so that they could go to nearby communities to purchase food (Matthew 14:16). Jesus' answer puzzled them. Despite Bible history of food miracles they did not expect one here. Jesus looked up towards heaven and blessed the meal and 5 loaves of bread and two fish fed thousands. 12 baskets of food were left over. Like the provision of Manna, this too a physical miracle of bread, and foreshadowed the Lord's Supper, the miracle of salvation. Is Jesus inviting us to feed others? Should we too "give them something to eat" from what little we have and rely upon God to provide the rest in abundance?

The “God Helps Those...” Lie

“God helps those who help themselves” is a motto from ancient Greece and not the Bible. It contradicts the Bible. In Matthew 14:16 the disciples told Jesus virtually the same thing: let the crowd go and take care of their own food needs. Jesus simply instructed the disciples, "You feed them." That may be a shock to fiscally conservative Christians who do not believe in a welfare system. The conservative fiction is that people are poor because they are too lazy to help themselves. Yet, honest analysis of the causes of poverty also include other reasons including the poor being the victims of crime, overpopulation, inefficient distribution, corruption, bad education, environmental degradation, political oppression, colonialism, disease and war. The miracle of feeding the five thousand men and their families is a radical contradiction of the politics of selfish conservatism.

The Bread of Eternal Life

Today’s food industry is willing to make a buck but not nourish the people. Many sell junk that produces diabetes and heart disease without care for the consequences. We are among the world’s wealthy nations and have access to all the best produce in the world, but many food merchants are more interested in promoting what makes a quick buck than what makes us healthy. Jesus refused food from the devil, but said that those who give to the poor are giving to him. In Matthew 14:13-21 Jesus showed compassion on a crowd which included about five thousand men by providing them miraculous food. It reminds us of the Israelites being fed in the wilderness and God’s providence in our wildernesses. Communion reminds us of the one who provides our daily bread and the bread of eternal life, Jesus.

Way Beyond our Numbers

Churches are often built on a wing and a prayer figuratively speaking. In church after church, the weekly offering falls short of the stated needs. Yet, we operate in hope and faith that God will supply. The story of feeding the five thousand men and an unknown quantity of women and children in Matthew 14:17 is one of the few miracles mentioned in all four gospels. Jesus’ challenge to us as it was to them is simple: You give them something to eat. And so we participate in the divine challenge. We are not completely sure, but also because we believe. As we pray over the weekly offering what thoughts go through our minds? Twelve fed perhaps ten or fifteen thousand. Jesus can multiply our efforts to feed many with the bread of life way beyond our numbers.

Preaching in a Spiritual Desert

Preaching is a lonely business. No preacher is capable of feeding spiritual food to the people. The human spirit is a desert. How do we provide nourishment for others when no human has the spiritual resources? The answer according to Matthew 14:19 is to just go ahead and start feeding the needy and God will supply. Church life is full of lonely places. Every sermon is from an inadequate human being, yet our wonderful God supplies his people. There is nothing in any preacher that can provide spiritual nourishment for the people of God. Yet, in the desert places of human inability, there are needs to be met. We can only look to God to provide. Thank God that he allows us to assist in feeding his people despite the fact that we are preaching in a spiritual desert.

Why Join an Imperfect Church

I imagine some fellow Christian friends wonder why I joined the church I now serve. They may point out this or that sin or weakness and they would be correct, but so what! As I read Matthew 14:13-21 I am reminded that no human being is capable of feeding the people. It is self-righteous to believe that one church is better or worse than another. As long as a church believes in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I believe that the rest is irrelevant trivia. It is not the church that saves us. Jesus saves! It is idolatry to imagine that our doctrines or polity are best. No church has the perfect doctrines. Far from it! Most churches are probably about 80% wrong in doctrine, but 100% correct if they have faith in Jesus and not their own institutions.

(Song: I Went to Church and Found Imperfect People There)

Why Bless our Food

Some Christians believe that it is wrong to eat without blessing food. I can't find anything in the Bible stating that. What does blessing food mean? Jesus set the example by blessing meals often. An example is in Matthew 14:19 where he blessed the food before feeding over five thousand. The original word describing what he did has made its way into English at a funeral's eulogy. It is similar in meaning. The Greek broken down literally means a good word (eu+logos). And so a eulogy is a good word about the deceased just as a blessing on a meal is a good word. We give thanks and praise for the food and we ask God to bless us as we eat and digest it. The person asking the blessing on the meal simply says a good word.

When We Burn Out

What do we do when we are burned out and in need of rest and there is an emergency? That was what Jesus faced in Matthew 14:13-21. He had taken his disciples away from the crowds to rest and rejuvenate. Yet, he had compassion on them and told his disciples to feed the throng. Sometimes one of the most rejuvenating things of all is to do good to others — a soup kitchen, a charity drive, a work project for the poor — there is recovery in giving to others. Greed makes us sick, but generosity makes us healthy. One of the greatest secrets of the universe was revealed by Jesus when he said, We are far happier giving than getting (Acts 20:35). When we burn out, one of the best ways to heal is to help others.

Miracles & Science

In Matthew 14:13-21 Jesus performed two types of miracle, healing and feeding. In a world that likes to reduce things to scientifically measurable explanations, the miraculous may sometimes seem implausible. Yet all one has to do is speak with long time medical professionals and find out that a large number of them believe in and have witnessed miracles. Science contains an a priori pre-supposition or assumption that only natural phenomena exist. However, that must therefore also presume the possibility of natural phenomena not yet discovered by science. Of course, that also assumes the possibility that scientists may someday be capable of eventually discovering everything and are not limited in some ways. The Bible seems to indicate that human beings are limited — a little lower than the angels — and thus perhaps incapable of scientific discovery of spiritual things.

When There’s Nothing Left to Give

What do we do when there is nothing left to give? What do we do when our marriages are worn out and there is no energy left to give? What do we do when our bank accounts are depleted and there is no money left to give? What do we do when we are tired from overwork and we cannot go on another step? What do we do when we have given our all to our children and they make just one too many mistakes? What do we do when we need time to mourn the loss of dear ones and yet hungry mouths cry for food? In Matthew 14:13-21 Jesus needed time to mourn his cousin John who was murdered by a tyrant. Yet, people needed to be healed and fed. His answer was compassion. What is ours?

The Miracle of Christian Leadership

Christian leaders are just like everyone else on the planet, ordinary. Yet, there is a difference and it has nothing to do with the person. It has everything to do with the one who sent the person, Jesus. In Matthew 14:13-21 is the story of Jesus feeding the five thousand men and an unnumbered crowd of women and children. Yet, there is another miracle going on as well, the miracle of Christian leadership. Church leaders stand before an enormous task, the number who need to be fed and then they hear the word of Jesus which says, "You feed them." The human task is just to pass out the loaves and fishes. It is Jesus who gives a blessing on the food we serve and Jesus who performs the miracle in using our meager efforts to feed the multitudes.

The Miracle of Sharing

An alternative explanation of the feeding of the five thousand families in Matthew 14:13-21 is that the real miracle was one of generosity. The traditional interpretation is that the fish and loaves of bread miraculously multiplied. However, that is not specifically stated in the story and an honest person must leave the exact nature of the miracle in the realm of the unknown. We must be honest enough to accept it as a real possibility that the crowds were so overcome by Jesus’ generosity that they also began to share the food that they had brought along. If the disciples found some food among them, then maybe others in the crowd also had some as well. Perhaps there is a lesson in that one of the greatest miracles of all is transforming selfish hearts through the miracle of sharing.

Outro

Our finances and numbers may be small, but we are in the miracle business. We do not look to the physical alone, but also to our Lord’s Providence.