Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
ZNP>”My interpretation is that Peter was concerned about losing his soulish life.”
Okay, but that is not what you said. You said Peter was concerned about getting killed.
You said “Telling the Lord He would not go to the cross was not a true interpretation of scripture but a pathetic attempt to save his life”
|
I was unable to find what it is you are referencing, but in Post 21 I said this, which is obviously referring to Peter losing his soul life:
This is what was said that prompted Peter to rebuke Jesus.
22 And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, [n]Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall never be unto thee. 23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a stumbling-block unto me: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men.
Here it is stated clearly but in vague terms that what prompted Peter is that he is minding the things of men.
24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whosoever would save his life shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it. 26 For what shall a man be profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and forfeit his life? or what shall a man give in exchange for his life?
The context of "deny himself" is Peter's rebuke of Jesus due to his "minding the things of men". Therefore I am equating these two based on the term "Then said Jesus". Likewise with "save his life" and "what shall a man be profited if he shall gain the whole world".
So in my interpretation Jesus is explaining what He means by saying that Peter was "minding the things of men"
Minding the things of men = 1. Self centered 2. Save your own life 3. Personal profit and 4. Gain the whole world. Minding the things of men is not equal to be empathetic and sympathetic to Jesus suffering.
In context self centered this would refer to Peter seeing himself as the right hand man of Jesus in this kingdom He is setting up on Earth. "Save your own life" means that when Jesus dies, Peter's position dies with it. "Personal profit" refers to Peter being concerned about the losses he'll suffer when Jesus dies. "Gain the whole world" refers to Peter seeing himself on the throne alongside of Jesus. Jesus saying He is going to go and die messes that up and prompts Peter to respond.
However, if you read 1Peter you can see references to all of the gospel accounts, and you can get into his mind much more. The entire epistle to my understanding shows a man who failed in the first crucifixion and realizes he will be given a second chance and is completely focused on how to go to deny himself, take up his cross, and and follow the Lord.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
I believe your private interpretation about Peter’s self serving motives grossly mischaracterize the more obvious and straightforward meaning of this passage. The Lord’s response was that even Peter’s love for the Lord, his soul life, must be subjected to the cross so that it does not become a hinderance to carrying out the things of God.
|
Yes, you have made this clear in your previous post. However, this interpretation equates "Peter's love for the Lord" with "Satan". This leads to a warped teaching that human love and relationships are a hinderance to carrying out the Lord's move. There is no scriptural basis for this being rebuked as "Get behind me Satan". First, Peter gets married and has kids. There is no suggestion that Peter took away from this that this was some kind of hinderance, instead he refers to families and children as "multiplied grace". Second, elders "must be the husband of one wife" and they "must raise up their families well". Once again, no suggestion that these human relationships are a hinderance and certainly no basis to say they are "Satanic".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
But for arguments sake, let’s say both your ascribing bad motives to Peter and my attributing his reaction to love are both private interpretations. I thought earlier in this thread you objected to private interpretations of scripture. Was that not you? You say Peter was motivated by self serving interests and you condemn Brother Lee for saying some scripture reflects the human concept point of view. Either it’s right for both or neither.
Drake
|
No you misread that. What I said is you cannot make a private interpretation an item of the faith.
In my interpretation I do not have anything other than what is already clearly taught in the Bible. Usurping the Lord's headship is condemned, worshipping anyone other than the Lord is condemned, etc. I have not added or created any new teaching, only drawn a connection from the Lord's explanation to His condemnation of Peter and then tied that into Peter's epistle.
You on the other hand have a bizarre teaching that human love and relationships are a hinderance to the Lord's work and even worse are "Satanic".
However, in my interpretation "gaining the whole world" is equated to "minding the things of men" and it is Satanic since the world belongs to Satan.