AboutBrian Rogers Expertise LDS for over 45 years. Very knowledgable regarding LDS theology and practices, Early Christian history, Biblical inerrancy, etc. active on FAIR private list.
BYU and UoU
Expert: Brian Rogers Date: 5/17/2008 Subject: First Vision
Question QUESTION: Dear Brian,
As you know, the L.D.S. Church is founded upon the idea that Joseph Smith asked God which of the churches he should join and that God told him that he shouldn't join any of them because all their creeds were an abomination. Jesus says in Matthew 16:18, "And I say unto thee, That thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Please explain why God told Smith that His church needed to be restored when when Jesus, His Son, said that it would endure forever. Thank you.
ANSWER: Good Morning Barbara, (well, it is morning for me)
LDS thought has a different take on Matthew 16:18. We believe Christ was focusing on 'the rock' and not the Church in this statement. The key to understanding this then is who or what the rock refers to. Having said that there are differing thoughts on what or who 'the rock' is. I have two possible interpretations that I accept.
First, the rock is Christ and obviously no matter what happens, hell will never prevail against the Savior. If the rock refers to Christ and not the Church, then the Church could fall away as prophesied in the New Testament.
Secondly and this is the more popular of the two, at least from my personal experience, the rock refers back to verse 15, which you did not cite. The rock refers to the revelation process by which Peter obtained his testimony of who Christ is. Certainly the gates of hell will not prevail against any testimony confirming Christ's divinity that comes for God.
I have received such a testimony and while I may drift into apostasy, that testimony is and forever will be valid, regardless of my actions.
Thank you for answering. I have a few comments on your interpretation. In discussing what God has or has not passed down to us through His written word, we are cautioned to be careful, "...rightly dividing the word of truth (II Tim. 2:15b). In other words, we need to read and understand Scripture in light (or truth) of other Scripture, not by taking phrases or verses out of the whole. It doesn't matter what I think or what you think; what matters is what the Bible is actually saying. We cannot force interpretation. I'm sure you agree.
You believe the "key to understanding" Matthew 16:18 is found in "who or what the rock refers to," which you first interpreted to be Jesus. If that is truly the focus of this verse, then why did Jesus' make the pronouncements that "That thou are Peter,..." and "my church"? That's a lot of unnecessary information to wade through just so Jesus can refer to Himself as the rock. Clearly, He is talking about something that has to do with Himself but, also,in addition to Himself; the verse isn't merely about what the rock is or isn't. In fact, the two ideas (Peter and the church)cited by Jesus but not considered in your explanation are explained in Scripture. Upon further investigation, we find that Peter opened the door of the gospel of Jesus Christ and established "my [Christ's] church" to both the Jews (Acts 2:38-39) and the Gentiles (Acts 10:34-44). Using all of the information, the passage can be fully understood in its immediate context as well as within the context of the Bible as a whole. Christ's divinity is established by revelation, which also substantiates His authority to establish His church in His name. He uses Peter, initially, to spread the gospel and establish His church to the world, the Jews and the Gentiles. Jesus Christ, then, by His divine power and authority prophesies that once it is established, hell itself is powerless to come against it.
In understanding any Scripture or doctrine, wouldn't you agree that it is imperative to incorporate everything in the verse into the discussion? In coming to an understanding of what Jesus was saying, I would ask you to consider what He meant by the phrase "against it." The gates of hell will not prevail against "it." Against what? As you know, "it" is a pronoun, a word that takes the place of a noun. Going back a few years to our school days, we know that a pronoun and its antecedent are to be placed in close proximity so that there is no vagueness in meaning. Applying this rule to this sentence, it is clear that the gates of hell will not prevail against "it," referring back to "my church."
I am curious as to why you have "two possible interpretations that [you] accept." The understanding of this verse is a make or break doctrine with regard to whether Joseph Smith's vision was right and whether the L.D.S. Church's claim to be the "one and only true church on earth" is credible. You say that the second view is the more popular of the two, yet it is the first that needs to be accepted if the L.D.S. Church's claim is valid. If the first view is accepted, that "the rock refers to Christ and not the Church," then there's another problem. You make the statement that if the rock is Christ, whom hell will not prevail against, then "the Church could fall away as prophesied in the New Testament." This certainly fits in with the "different take" of L.D.S. thought about which you commented, but is it scriptural? Where is even one verse that states or even implies that there will be a complete apostasy? The operative word here is "complete," because, without it, there was no need for Christ's church to be restored; you know that. Yes, the Bible does, indeed, tell us that there is going to be a "falling away" (II Thess. 2:3) and that "some shall depart from the faith" (I Tim. 4:1), but when Jesus Christ says that He will establish His church and that hell itself is powerless against overcoming it, then it has to happen, regardless of how many people fall away. This fact is supported by numerous verses in both the New and Old Testaments in which God promises to preserve a remnant people for Himself. The one example of this that comes to mind is how God destroyed the entire world but saved a remnant for Himself through eight people, Noah and his family. Research "remnant" for yourself and see how God, whose word will not return void (Is. 55:11), is bound by the covenants that He has made with both Israel and the Gentiles who come into a saving relationship with Jesus.
The second explanation you give which, again, you say is the more popular is that the rock refers to the "revelation process by which Peter obtained his testimony of who Christ is." While verses 15-17 establish who Christ is and how one comes to know this fact, please give the internal scriptural association that links "the rock" with "the revelation process." What I am asking for here is not the L.D.S. interpretation for this belief unless, of course, it can be shown to be biblically verified. I am asking for the thread of thought in the verses themselves that links "the rock" to "the revelation process" and which ends in the gates of hell not prevailing against "it," the church Christ is going to establish.
I read your last sentence quite a few times, thinking that I must be reading it wrong because what it appears that you are saying is, to be honest, scary. I'll tell you what I think you are saying. If my understanding is wrong, please tell me what you are really saying. If my understanding is correct, please take some time and very carefully consider what you are saying. Okay, here's what I think you are saying: You say that you have received "such a testimony," meaning, as I understand what you have written, that you know that Christ's divinity comes from God. (To avoid misunderstanding, a testimony is a witness to the truth, so you are saying that you have a witness to this truth.) You then say, that "while you may drift into apostasy, that testimony is and forever will be valid, regardless of my actions." Here's the problem. While it is true that Christ's divinity and His revelation of that divinity will be valid forever, regardless of your actions, you are saying "that [your] testimony is and forever will be valid." Keep in mind that apostasy isn't merely backsliding; it's a willful denunciation of the truth. If you go into apostasy, which means you deny the truth, then your testimony isn't forever and isn't valid because you have denied the truth. In other words, how can you maintain a valid witness of the truth forever if you have denied the the truth of the witness? There's one other thing. It could be construed, by the wording you've used, that you believe that your testimony exists apart from you somehow. Like I said, maybe I am reading your comments wrong because, obviously, a testimony cannot exist apart from the testator. Please clarify these points.
I know that I've brought up quite a few points and, if you're anything like me, you like to take time to research and consider what you will write, so don't think that I need an immediate answer. I look forward to your response.
Barbara
Answer Barbara,
Got your email and I would be happy to discuss this with you. However, there are two issues.
One is that for the next few days, I am extremely busy, so please be patient, allowing me some time to get back to you.
Secondly, I am not sure that this forum is set up to have a running dialog. I do not know if it is kosher, but if you like, please email me at brogersclan@gmail.com.
If I don't get back to you by late next week, please email me and remind me.
