The Petrine Fact, Part 5: Peter’s New Name

Jimmy Akin ^ | September 18, 2009 | Jimmy Akin

[NYer]

Continued from Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

The Calling of the Apostles Peter and Andrew (Duccio di Buoninsegna, 1308)

Edited/Expanded Friday evening; see new material in blue below.

"So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Petros)" (John 1:42).

All four Gospels tell us that Simon bar-Jona was renamed Cephas, or Petros (i.e., Peter), by Jesus himself (Matthew 16:18, Mark 3:16, Luke 6:14, John 1:42). Cephas is a Grecized transliteration of kepha, an Aramaic word for rock. (Well, technically, since I'm writing in English, "kepha" and "cephas" are both English transliterations, one from Aramaic and one from a Grecized transliteration of Aramaic, but let's not get bogged down.) Thus, Cephas in John 1:42 above points to the likely original form of the name, Kepha, as given by Jesus, who would have spoken Aramaic with his disciples.

(Incidentally, this is as good a point as any for a disclaimer to the effect that I am neither a student of language nor learned in ancient texts. In this post I'm reliant on a number of works that need to be sourced. I'll try to come back in the next few days and re-edit to credit sources. In the meantime, comments, queries and corrections are all welcome. As always, when a non-expert is synthesizing technical material, mistakes are possible. Further updates may be forthcoming on the basis of such feedback.)

Cephas is the form of Peter's name used by Paul throughout 1 Corinthians (1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:5), including the credal formula of 15:5, suggesting that this Grecized form of Kepha was used very early among Greek-speaking Christians, possibly before Petros, the name by which Peter is most often identified in the New Testament. In Galatians Paul uses both Cephas (Gal 1:18, 2:9-14) and Petros (Gal 2:7-8), apparently interchangeably. As John 1:42 indicates, Petros is the Greek equivalent of Cephas.

Peter's original name, Simon, doesn't entirely disappear. In the Gospels Jesus himself continues to use Simon most of the time (Matt 17:25, Mark 14:37, Luke 22:31, John 21:15), though not always (Luke 22:34), and others use Simon at least occasionally (Luke 24:34). But the Evangelists almost never refer to Peter simply as Simon, except very early on. He is either "Simon called Petros" or "Simon Petros" (particularly in John), or else simply Petros.

In Acts, Luke only calls him Petros, except when relating how the men from Cornelius, sent by the angel, come seeking "Simon called Petros." The angel in Peter's vision addresses him as Petros (Acts 10:1-18). The only other echo of Simon in Acts comes from James, at the Jerusalem Council, who uses the form Simeon, a more Semitic form of the name. This form is also attested in the opening of 2 Peter, where it is conjoined with Peter: "Simeon Petros, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ"; 1 Peter begins simply, "Petros, an apostle of Jesus Christ."

Paul never uses Simon, only Cephas or Petros. From this, and from the prevalence of Petros in the Gospels and Acts, it seems clear that Peter's new name was well established and widely used in the first-century church.

This bestowal of a new name is unique in the New Testament. Mark's Gospel mentions that the other two disciples of Jesus' inner circle, James and John, received the collective nickname Boanerges, "Sons of Thunder." But that lone mention is the only time this sobriquet is ever heard from; we never read, for example, that "Jesus took with him Peter and the Sons of Thunder" or any such thing. James is never called anything but James, nor John anything but John.

Likewise, the popular notion that Jesus changed Saul's name to Paul is a misconception. Like many of his peers, Paul, a Jew and a Roman citizen in a Hellenized world, had simply acquired more than one name. The shift in Acts from Saul to Paul is merely the narrator's way of transitioning literarily from the story of Saul's Pharisaical Jewish origins to his better-known identity as the great apostle to the Gentiles. Symbolic, certainly, but there is no indication of a name change; Luke simply tells us that Saul was "also called Paul" (Acts 13:9), and goes from there. There is no parallel to the significance of Peter's new name, especially as we find it expounded in Matthew 16, where it is part of a solemn commission speech.

In fact, the closest parallels in scripture to Peter's new name are found in the Old Testament, particularly in the stories of Abraham, Sarah, and Israel, who all receive new names from God in passages with notable parallels to Matthew 16, as we will see.

Among other things, Jesus' choice of Peter's new name is in a way as paradoxical as the choice of Abraham ("father of a multitude") for a childless old man. This is very different, probably, from the nickname "Sons of Thunder," which likely reflects an assessment of the personalities or dispositions of the sons of Zebedee (possibly as seen in Luke 9:54). It is easy to feel that Kepha/Cephas/Petros is hardly illustrative of Peter's personality in the same way.

On the contrary, Peter is well known as a man of shifting extremes — impetuous, unsteady, at turns fervent and foolish, faithful and fearful, promising the greatest fidelity, then failing most spectacularly — anything but rock-like, however nuanced or glossed the notion of rockness might be. As we will see, then, "Rock" seems to be primarily indicative of Jesus' intention for the role he would give to Peter, rather than any attributes Peter possessed in himself.

Further heightening the drama of Peter's name change is the apparent novelty in contemporary usage of Aramaic Kepha and Greek Petros as a given name. In subsequent Christian usage Peter became a popular name thanks to its apostolic namesake, but when Simon bar-Jona was first called that, it was apparently unheard of. (This point isn't definitive; there is one apparent instance of Aramaic Kepha as a name in a legal document from the 5th century BC, and others might be discovered.)

Aramaic kepha is cognate to Hebrew keph, a rare word found only in Jeremiah 4:29 and Job 30:6, where it has the sense of mountain crags or rocky terrain. In both texts keph is translated petra (cognate to petros) in the Greek Old Testament translation, the Septuagint.

Aramaic kepha is more widely used than its Hebrew cognate. In fact, it can be used to translate any of the common Hebrew words for rock: sela‘ and tsûr (both usually rendered in the Greek Septuagint as petra) as well as ’eben, a stone (usually rendered lithos in Greek).

A word of explanation may be helpful here. As the above suggests, there is a broad distinction in both Hebrew and Greek between words that often mean something like solid rock, bedrock, rocky terrain, cliff wall, etc., and words that mean usually indicate a stone or piece of rock on some moveable scale: a boulder, a precious gem, a thrown rock, a shaped stone, etc. Sela‘ and tsûr in Hebrew (often used in parallel), and petra in Greek, are "rock solid" language, while Hebrew ’eben and Greek lithos are of the smaller and more mobile type.

The above I take to be fairly noncontroversial; but two other words, one Greek and one Aramaic, are sometimes controverted particularly in discussions about Peter. Greek petros and Aramaic kepha are asserted by some non-Catholics to mean more or less the same as lithos or ’eben, a moveable stone in contradistinction to petra or tsûr, solid rock. (One sometimes encounters the claim that Aramaic shua‘, cognate to Hebrew tsûr, is the rock-solid equivalent of petra.)

It is true that kepha can mean a stone, boulder or small rock, and is accordingly used in Aramaic texts to translate Hebrew ’eben in the same passages where the Greek has lithos. Aramaic also has another word, ’evna, that is cognate to Hebrew ’eben, and may often have a similar meaning. But ’evna is uncommon, leaving kepha, apparently, to pick up the slack.

However, kepha is also used in Aramaic texts to translate Hebrew sela‘ and tsûr where the latter indicate solid rock. The usual Greek translation in these cases is petra, indicating that kepha and petra can function more or less synonymously.

For example, the water-giving rock (sela‘) struck by Moses in the wilderness (Num 20:8-11), the rock (sela‘) on which the psalmist stands securely (Psalm 40:2), and the prophet's "shadow of a great rock (sela‘) in a weary land" (Isaiah 32:2) are all rendered kepha in Aramaic targums (Targum Okelos, Targum Jerusalem). Other targums attest kepha for tsûr in such texts as Deuteronomy 32:4 and Isaiah 17:10, where rock is used metaphorically for God himself (i.e., solid rock).

Significantly, discoveries in Qumran targums have found pre-Christian evidence for kepha referring to rocky mountain summits or crags (sela‘) in Job 39:1,28 and 1 Enoch 89:29. I am not aware of any corresponding evidence of Aramaic shua‘ (cognate of Hebrew tsûr) attested prior to medieval Aramaic texts; it may be that the word was not even available in Jesus' day.

For each of the above passages, wherever the Aramaic uses kepha for sela‘ or tsûr, the Greek Septuagint translation is petra (except where rock metaphors are lost in translation, e.g., Isa 32:2). Petra is the usual word for rock in the Septuagint, and also appears a number of times in the New Testament. The masculine form, petros, is virtually unknown in either, except as Peter's name in the New Testament.

In the Attic Greek of classical poetry, petros is sometimes used in the sense of a stone or movable rock, perhaps more or less synonymously with lithos, in contradistinction to petra. In the common Koine Greek of biblical literature, this distinction is virtually unknown. As a rule, when the Greek biblical texts want to reference a movable stone, they use lithos, not petros. This rule is not, however, quite without exception: A single Greek Old Testament book, 2 Maccabees, offers two instances of petros referring to thrown stones (2 Macc 1:16 and 4:41).

On the other hand, petra need not always mean massive rock over against lithos (or petros) in biblical Greek. In Isaiah 8:14 in the Septuagint, and again in Romans 9:33 and 1 Peter 2:8, both apparently drawing on the Septuagint, we read of "a stone (lithos) that will make men stumble and a rock (petra) that will make them fall." Lithos and petra are thus used in parallel, not opposition, referring to a stone capable of being tripped over.

Kepha is even more flexible. It can be used equivalently to lithos (a stone) or to petra in the sense of rock mass. It is sometimes argued (I don't know) that the Aramaic word ’evna (like its Hebrew cognate ’eben) has the sense of a stone, and that shua‘ has the sense of massive rock, but at any rate kepha, like the English word rock, seems to run the gamut of meaning, and no specific sense can be insisted on in advance.

As with Aramaic kepha and Greek petra/petros, the Hebrew words sela‘ and tsûr are not used in the Old Testament as Hebrew personal names (though there seems to have been a Canaanite or two named Sur; see Num 25:15 and 1 Chron 8:30). Both tsûr and sela‘ are, however, metaphorically applied to God himself so frequently, particularly in Psalms and Isaiah, that "Rock" almost becomes a sort of divine title: "the Rock," "our Rock," "my Rock," "the Rock of Israel," "the Rock of your refuge," etc. (e.g., Deut 32:4,15-18,31, 2 Sam 22:2,32,47, Psa 18:2,31,46, Isa 17:10).

Such rock language seems to have been exclusive to God; we never read that David or Moses was a rock, etc. It may be the link between rock language and God was generally considered too close to comfortably apply such language to men, whether as a name or as a metaphor.

But this rule, too, is not without exception. There is a rabbinic tradition that may well have gone back to Jesus' day, describing one man as a rock: Abraham. Based on Isaiah 51:1-2 ("look to the rock (tsûr) from which you were hewn, and to the quarry from which you were digged; Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you"), a number of Talmudic and midrashic texts, the earliest of which go back to the mid-second century, interpreted Abraham as the "rock" from which God's people were hewn.

What is the significance of Jesus renaming Simon Kepha or Cephas? In what sense is Peter a rock? It is time at last to turn to Matthew 16.

More to come.

[NYer]

Petrine ping!

[Melian]

Wonderful information.

[trisham]

Very interesting. Thanks!

[NYer]

Since you have been following the other 4 threads.

[NYer]

It is also worth noting the place where the change of name took place.

Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).

The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name, while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges. cf

[trisham]

Thanks, NYer. This combination of history and religion is quite absorbing.

[Bobsvainbabblings]

NYer thank you for the ping.

This is just the continuation of the author trying to make the subject matter, Peter, confirm to a predetermined outcome . Everything the author states is speculation.

I could just as easily speculate Simone was as common a name as Bob is today and Christ changed Simone's name so that Peter and others would know who Christ was addressing. I became Robert and other names at times to save confusion.

Instead of a positive denominator, as the author suggests, it could easily had been that Simone was dumb as a box of rocks. 

The point I am trying to make is that there is nothing Christ said to make you believe the author's reason for the renaming Peter any more than mine.

The author finishes with this. "What is the significance of Jesus renaming Simon Kepha or Cephas? In what sense is Peter a rock? It is time at last to turn to Matthew 16."

Matthew 16 is what all the speculation is about. To use one verse to make Peter the head of the Church instead of Jesus.

NYer, I have posted this in previous threads about who Peter says is the rock and/or cornerstone of the Church in Acts 4:7-12  ;

Acts 4:7-12 (New King James Version)

⁷ And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, “By what power or by what name have you done this?”
⁸ Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: ⁹ If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, ¹⁰ let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. ¹¹ This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’^{[a] 12} Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

There is no doubt by the Holy Spirit or Peter that Jesus is the cornerstone of Christ's Church. 

As I stated before, one only has to read from EX 19 and continue through  Leviticus to see God is not shy when it comes to telling His people what He wants. Why wasn't Christ just as clear if He wanted Peter to be His head priest for the New Testament as He was about Aaron being His priest in the Old Testament?

You have not answered that question in previous threads. Would you please answer it now? Thanks, BVB

 

Acts 4:7-12 (New King James Version)

⁷ And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, “By what power or by what name have you done this?”
⁸ Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: ⁹ If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, ¹⁰ let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. ¹¹ This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’^{[a] 12} Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

There is no doubt by the Holy Spirit or Peter that Jesus is the cornerstone of Christ's Church. 

As I stated before, one only has to read from EX 19 and continue through  Leviticus to see God is not shy when it comes to telling His people what He wants. Why wasn't Christ just as clear if He wanted Peter to be His head priest for the New Testament as He was about Aaron being His priest in the Old Testament?

You have not answered that question in previous threads. Would you please answer it now? Thanks, BVB

As I stated before, one only has to read from EX 19 and continue through  Leviticus to see God is not shy when it comes to telling His people what He wants. Why wasn't Christ just as clear if He wanted Peter to be His head priest for the New Testament as He was about Aaron being His priest in the Old Testament?

[Bobsvainbabblings]

NYer thank you for the ping.

This is just the continuation of the author trying to make the subject matter, Peter, confirm to a predetermined outcome . Everything the author states is speculation.

I could just as easily speculate Simone was as common a name as Bob is today and Christ changed Simone's name so that Peter and others would know who Christ was addressing. I became Robert and other names at times to save confusion.

Instead of a positive denominator, as the author suggests, it could easily had been that Simone was dumb as a box of rocks. 

The point I am trying to make is that there is nothing Christ said to make you believe the author's reason for the renaming Peter any more than mine.

The author finishes with this. "What is the significance of Jesus renaming Simon Kepha or Cephas? In what sense is Peter a rock? It is time at last to turn to Matthew 16."

Matthew 16 is what all the speculation is about. To use one verse to make Peter the head of the Church instead of Jesus.

NYer, I have posted this in previous threads about who Peter says is the rock and/or cornerstone of the Church in Acts 4:7-12  ;

Acts 4:7-12 (New King James Version)

⁷ And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, “By what power or by what name have you done this?”
⁸ Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: ⁹ If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, ¹⁰ let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. ¹¹ This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’^{[a] 12} Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

There is no doubt by the Holy Spirit or Peter that Jesus is the cornerstone of Christ's Church. 

As I stated before, one only has to read from EX 19 and continue through  Leviticus to see God is not shy when it comes to telling His people what He wants. Why wasn't Christ just as clear if He wanted Peter to be His head priest for the New Testament as He was about Aaron being His priest in the Old Testament?

You have not answered that question in previous threads. Would you please answer it now? Thanks, BVB

 

Acts 4:7-12 (New King James Version)

⁷ And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, “By what power or by what name have you done this?”
⁸ Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: ⁹ If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, ¹⁰ let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. ¹¹ This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’^{[a] 12} Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

There is no doubt by the Holy Spirit or Peter that Jesus is the cornerstone of Christ's Church. 

As I stated before, one only has to read from EX 19 and continue through  Leviticus to see God is not shy when it comes to telling His people what He wants. Why wasn't Christ just as clear if He wanted Peter to be His head priest for the New Testament as He was about Aaron being His priest in the Old Testament?

You have not answered that question in previous threads. Would you please answer it now? Thanks, BVB

As I stated before, one only has to read from EX 19 and continue through  Leviticus to see God is not shy when it comes to telling His people what He wants. Why wasn't Christ just as clear if He wanted Peter to be His head priest for the New Testament as He was about Aaron being His priest in the Old Testament?

[letterman]

“Why wasn’t Christ just as clear if He wanted Peter to be His head priest for the New Testament as He was about Aaron being His priest in the Old Testament?”

Peter was not “high priest.” Jesus was high priest. He was also Son of David and King of Israel, and Peter was his chief steward. Jesus made that clear when he gave Peter, and only Peter, the keys of the kingdom, cf. Isaiah 22:22.

[Bobsvainbabblings]

letterman, thank you for the response. Out of courtesy to NYer, whom I have asked this question numerous times in response to their posting of this series, I want to give them a chance to answer before I answer you.

Thanks for your understanding, BVB

[NYer]

Bob, apologies for not responding sooner. I am only in the forum for short periods of time. Since I maintain one of the Catholic Ping Lists, there is a lot of freepmail and posts to scour during those limited exposures.

Why wasn't Christ just as clear if He wanted Peter to be His head priest for the New Testament as He was about Aaron being His priest in the Old Testament?

Perhaps there is some confusion regarding 'head priest' and the primacy of Peter. In fact, Christ did not choose Peter. Let's take a look at Matthew 16.

Matthew
Chapter 16

13

⁸ When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi ⁹ he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"

14

They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, ¹⁰ others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15

He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

16

¹¹ Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

17

Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood ¹² has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

18

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, ¹³ and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

The Father has revealed this to Jesus and He honors His Father's selection.

Reading through the next lines of this gospel, we see Christ handing the "keys to the kingdom" to Peter. The office of the pope was prefigured in Isaiah 22:15-24 in the office of the steward over the royal household of King Hezekiah. To him was entrusted the key of the royal household to open and shut and upon him. Essentially, the entire household would now depend on his decisions.

Jesus promised to make Peter the pope in Matthew 16:18-19. In promising Peter the keys of the kingdom, He is entrusting His household to Peter's guidance, to bind and loosen and upon whm He would build His Church.

[Bobsvainbabblings]

NYer wrote....Bob, apologies for not responding sooner. I am only in the forum for short periods of time. Since I maintain one of the Catholic Ping Lists, there is a lot of freepmail and posts to scour during those limited exposures.

Why wasn't Christ just as clear if He wanted Peter to be His head priest for the New Testament as He was about Aaron being His priest in the Old Testament?

Perhaps there is some confusion regarding 'head priest' and the primacy of Peter. In fact, Christ did not choose Peter. Let's take a look at Matthew 16.

 

Matthew
Chapter 16

13

⁸ When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi ⁹ he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"

14

They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, ¹⁰ others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15

He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

16

¹¹ Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

17

Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood ¹² has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

18

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, ¹³ and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

The Father has revealed this to Jesus and He honors His Father's selection. ????? You believe this why?

I use to think Adam and Eve must have been an easy mark for Satan to have tricked them so easily. I now feel sorry for them having this lesson on what a deceiver he is.

The Jews were waiting for a Messiah to save them. Peter states that he believes Jesus is the Messiah/Savior. Jesus assures Peter his answer is correct because His infallible Father reveled it to Peter.

Jesus being the Messiah/Savior is the bases and/or foundation on which God is allowed to institute the New Testament and Christ's heavenly Church. How anyone, who has a fundamental understanding of Jesus' role in God's plan for our salvation, can interpret that passage to mean Jesus is stating that Peter is the rock or foundation of Christ's Church is beyond my comprehension. I think it would have also been for Peter's when he spoke after Pentecost in Acts 4:7-12;

Acts 4:7-12 (New King James Version)

⁷ And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, “By what power or by what name have you done this?”
⁸ Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: ⁹ If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, ¹⁰ let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. ¹¹ This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’^{[a] 12} Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” .

Jesus told us; "Seek yee first the Kingdom of God." That Kingdom is in heaven as is the New Testament Church. God has no need for an earthly emissary as there was with the Old Testament because there is no longer a need for a priest to make sacrifices to God for the people's sins. The One Perfect Lamb has already been sacrificed and It's Blood has been spread on the mercy seat in heaven. 

Jesus told us He would be our priest in heaven. He promised He would not leave us alone but send the same Spirit which He was anointed with to guide us. The passage form Acts proves He kept that promise. Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit which imparts God's validation on what he said.

Christ is the stone which Peter tells the Jewish leaders they have rejected. I have no doubt Peter would tell the 'church' leaders today the same thing. 

Reading through the next lines of this gospel, we see Christ handing the "keys to the kingdom" to Peter. The office of the pope was prefigured in Isaiah 22:15-24 in the office of the steward over the royal household of King Hezekiah. To him was entrusted the key of the royal household to open and shut and upon him. Essentially, the entire household would now depend on his decisions.

 Jesus promised to make Peter the pope in Matthew 16:18-19. In promising Peter the keys of the kingdom, He is entrusting His household to Peter's guidance, to bind and loosen and upon whm He would build His Church.

Isaiah 22:15-24 is another scripture completely out of context. In that setting God is rebuking one king and giving that king's keys to another as punishment. Do you honestly think God gave those keys to Peter as a punishment to Jesus?

I don't have the web address to Catholic apologetics/ talking points / Peter as Pope, so I looked in Nave's for "keys". I found the one you both referenced but I found one I think is more applicable. Rev:3 7-8:

 

Revelation 3:7-8 (New King James Version)

The Faithful Church

 
⁷ “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write,
‘These things says He who is holy, He who is true, “He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens”:^{[a] 8} “I know your works. See, I have set before you an open door, and no one can shut it;^[b] for you have a little strength, have kept My word, and have not denied My name.

Hmm! Looks to me that Jesus still has control over the keys you claim was given to Peter to control. 

Letterman, I have answered your  Isaiah 22:15-24 reference in my answer to NYer.

You state; "Peter was not “high priest.” Jesus was high priest. He was also Son of David and King of Israel, and Peter was his chief steward. Jesus made that clear when he gave Peter, and only Peter, the keys of the kingdom, cf. Isaiah 22:22 

You need to put things in proper time frame. Jesus is high priest. He is also Son of David and King of Israel and will be those things for all time.

If Peter and only Peter was given those keys. What do you have to do to have Peter open the door to heaven for you?

The true Keys to heaven are defined in the next sentence. The power to bind and loose which is given to all believers, not just Peter. Time after time Jesus tells us we have to forgive our brothers their trespasses against us before His Father can forgive our trespasses against Him. When we do not forgive a trespass when asked, that sin is bound on earth as well as heaven. When that happens our sins against God are bound as well and cannot be loosed/forgiven.

The power to bind and loose given to Peter was no different. He could only forgive his human brothers sins they committed against him. There was no power given to any human to forgive sins against God for God. Only God the Father can forgive the sins committed against Him. Fortunately for us, He has through the finished work of His Son.

Thank you both for your responses. BVB

 

 

 

NYer wrote....Bob, apologies for not responding sooner. I am only in the forum for short periods of time. Since I maintain one of the Catholic Ping Lists, there is a lot of freepmail and posts to scour during those limited exposures.

Why wasn't Christ just as clear if He wanted Peter to be His head priest for the New Testament as He was about Aaron being His priest in the Old Testament?

Perhaps there is some confusion regarding 'head priest' and the primacy of Peter. In fact, Christ did not choose Peter. Let's take a look at Matthew 16.

 

Matthew
Chapter 16

13

⁸ When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi ⁹ he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"

14

They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, ¹⁰ others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15

He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

16

¹¹ Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

17

Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood ¹² has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

18

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, ¹³ and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

The Father has revealed this to Jesus and He honors His Father's selection. ????? You believe this why?

I use to think Adam and Eve must have been an easy mark for Satan to have tricked them so easily. I now feel sorry for them having this lesson on what a deceiver he is.

The Jews were waiting for a Messiah to save them. Peter states that he believes Jesus is the Messiah/Savior. Jesus assures Peter his answer is correct because His infallible Father reveled it to Peter.

Jesus being the Messiah/Savior is the bases and/or foundation on which God is allowed to institute the New Testament and Christ's heavenly Church. How anyone, who has a fundamental understanding of Jesus' role in God's plan for our salvation, can interpret that passage to mean Jesus is stating that Peter is the rock or foundation of Christ's Church is beyond my comprehension. I think it would have also been for Peter's when he spoke after Pentecost in Acts 4:7-12;

Acts 4:7-12 (New King James Version)

⁷ And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, “By what power or by what name have you done this?”
⁸ Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: ⁹ If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, ¹⁰ let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. ¹¹ This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’^{[a] 12} Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” .

Jesus told us; "Seek yee first the Kingdom of God." That Kingdom is in heaven as is the New Testament Church. God has no need for an earthly emissary as there was with the Old Testament because there is no longer a need for a priest to make sacrifices to God for the people's sins. The One Perfect Lamb has already been sacrificed and It's Blood has been spread on the mercy seat in heaven. 

Jesus told us He would be our priest in heaven. He promised He would not leave us alone but send the same Spirit which He was anointed with to guide us. The passage form Acts proves He kept that promise. Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit which imparts God's validation on what he said.

Christ is the stone which Peter tells the Jewish leaders they have rejected. I have no doubt Peter would tell the 'church' leaders today the same thing. 

Reading through the next lines of this gospel, we see Christ handing the "keys to the kingdom" to Peter. The office of the pope was prefigured in Isaiah 22:15-24 in the office of the steward over the royal household of King Hezekiah. To him was entrusted the key of the royal household to open and shut and upon him. Essentially, the entire household would now depend on his decisions.

 Jesus promised to make Peter the pope in Matthew 16:18-19. In promising Peter the keys of the kingdom, He is entrusting His household to Peter's guidance, to bind and loosen and upon whm He would build His Church.

Isaiah 22:15-24 is another scripture completely out of context. In that setting God is rebuking one king and giving that king's keys to another as punishment. Do you honestly think God gave those keys to Peter as a punishment to Jesus?

I don't have the web address to Catholic apologetics/ talking points / Peter as Pope, so I looked in Nave's for "keys". I found the one you both referenced but I found one I think is more applicable. Rev:3 7-8:

 

Revelation 3:7-8 (New King James Version)

The Faithful Church

 
⁷ “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write,
‘These things says He who is holy, He who is true, “He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens”:^{[a] 8} “I know your works. See, I have set before you an open door, and no one can shut it;^[b] for you have a little strength, have kept My word, and have not denied My name.

Hmm! Looks to me that Jesus still has control over the keys you claim was given to Peter to control. 

Letterman, I have answered your  Isaiah 22:15-24 reference in my answer to NYer.

You state; "Peter was not “high priest.” Jesus was high priest. He was also Son of David and King of Israel, and Peter was his chief steward. Jesus made that clear when he gave Peter, and only Peter, the keys of the kingdom, cf. Isaiah 22:22 

You need to put things in proper time frame. Jesus is high priest. He is also Son of David and King of Israel and will be those things for all time.

If Peter and only Peter was given those keys. What do you have to do to have Peter open the door to heaven for you?

The true Keys to heaven are defined in the next sentence. The power to bind and loose which is given to all believers, not just Peter. Time after time Jesus tells us we have to forgive our brothers their trespasses against us before His Father can forgive our trespasses against Him. When we do not forgive a trespass when asked, that sin is bound on earth as well as heaven. When that happens our sins against God are bound as well and cannot be loosed/forgiven.

The power to bind and loose given to Peter was no different. He could only forgive his human brothers sins they committed against him. There was no power given to any human to forgive sins against God for God. Only God the Father can forgive the sins committed against Him. Fortunately for us, He has through the finished work of His Son.

Thank you both for your responses. BVB

 

 

Acts 4:7-12 (New King James Version)

⁷ And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, “By what power or by what name have you done this?”
⁸ Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: ⁹ If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, ¹⁰ let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. ¹¹ This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’^{[a] 12} Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” .

Jesus told us; "Seek yee first the Kingdom of God." That Kingdom is in heaven as is the New Testament Church. God has no need for an earthly emissary as there was with the Old Testament because there is no longer a need for a priest to make sacrifices to God for the people's sins. The One Perfect Lamb has already been sacrificed and It's Blood has been spread on the mercy seat in heaven. 

Jesus told us He would be our priest in heaven. He promised He would not leave us alone but send the same Spirit which He was anointed with to guide us. The passage form Acts proves He kept that promise. Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit which imparts God's validation on what he said.

Christ is the stone which Peter tells the Jewish leaders they have rejected. I have no doubt Peter would tell the 'church' leaders today the same thing. 

Acts 4:7-12 (New King James Version)

⁷ And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, “By what power or by what name have you done this?”
⁸ Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: ⁹ If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, ¹⁰ let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. ¹¹ This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’^{[a] 12} Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” .

Jesus told us; "Seek yee first the Kingdom of God." That Kingdom is in heaven as is the New Testament Church. God has no need for an earthly emissary as there was with the Old Testament because there is no longer a need for a priest to make sacrifices to God for the people's sins. The One Perfect Lamb has already been sacrificed and It's Blood has been spread on the mercy seat in heaven. 

Jesus told us He would be our priest in heaven. He promised He would not leave us alone but send the same Spirit which He was anointed with to guide us. The passage form Acts proves He kept that promise. Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit which imparts God's validation on what he said.

Christ is the stone which Peter tells the Jewish leaders they have rejected. I have no doubt Peter would tell the 'church' leaders today the same thing. 

[letterman]

Bob,

“You need to put things in proper time frame. Jesus is high priest. He is also Son of David and King of Israel and will be those things for all time.”

I gladly accept this apt correction.

“If Peter and only Peter was given those keys. What do you have to do to have Peter open the door to heaven for you?”

Wrong question. The keys of the kingdom are not primarily keys of access, but keys of administrative authority, as per Isa 22:22. Many Evangelical and other Protestant commentators now recognize this.

“The true Keys to heaven are defined in the next sentence. The power to bind and loose which is given to all believers, not just Peter. Time after time Jesus tells us we have to forgive our brothers their trespasses against us before His Father can forgive our trespasses against Him. ... The power to bind and loose given to Peter was no different. He could only forgive his human brothers sins they committed against him.”

First, nothing in Matt 16:19 indicates that the power of the keys is exhausted by the power of binding and loosing, any more than 16:17 indicates that Peter’s blessedness is exhausted by the Father’s revelation of Jesus’ identity, or than 16:18 indicates that Peter’s status as Petros is exhausted by Jesus building the church on the petra.

Second, Matt 18:18 does not support your claim that the power to bind and loose is given to all believers. The disciples present appear to be the group of the Twelve, no more.

Third, the power of binding and loosing does not refer primarily to forgiving or retaining sins. The terms binding and loosing are rabbinic terms denoting authority to forbid or permit.

Fourth, John 20:23, which does have to do with authority to forgive sins, does not indicate any limitation of that authority to sins committed against members of the Twelve (who, once again, are the recipients of this authority).