Posted on 03/12/2014 3:48:31 PM PDT by NYer
In an earlier blog post, I made the point that the role of St. Peter and his successors is made remarkably clear in Matthew 16:18-19 and its immediate context:
And I tell you, you are Peter (Gr.petrosrock), and on this rock (Gr.petrarock) I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Jesus here promises infallible authority to Peter that would empower him to speak in the place of Christ, or as his vicar on earth. Catholics believe just what the text says. When St. Peter (and his successors) binds something on earth, it is bound in heaven. Thats infallible authority with the power of heaven to back it up!
Among the comments responding to my post, there was one I get fairly regularly when the topic of Matt. 16:18-19 as it relates to the Papacy comes up. The commenter said:
… from this one verse, Matt. 16:18, which is read and interpreted out of context, the Catholic church claims that Peter is the rock on which Christ’s church is to be built.
My first thought in response to an objection like this is always, “How many times does God have to tell you something before you will believe and obey it? After all, Jesus only gave us the proper form for baptism one time in Matthew 28:19, and yet all Christians believe it to be the proper form nonetheless.
Nevertheless, I do think this is a valid question that deserves an answer: Is Matthew 16 the only text that demonstrates the truth of the papacy in Scripture?
The answer is a resounding no!
Below is a list of biblical texts all related to the primacy of St. Peter and the Papacy. Word count limitations prevent me from quoting all of them; you’ll have to do some homework and look up some of these texts yourself. But when you do, youll notice there is not a single rock to be found among them.
And this is anything but an exhaustive list. There are many more biblical texts we could take a look at. Consider this my top 10 list:
[A]s my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you (Gr.humas, pluralyou all), that he might sift you (Gr.plural again) like wheat, but I have prayed for you (Gr.sou, singularPeter alone) that your faith (Gr.singular again) may not fail; and when you (Gr.singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren.
In the context of committing his kingdom authority to the apostles to govern the church (the Israel of Godsee Gal. 6:16), Jesus especially prays for Peter so that he may be the source of strength and unity for the rest of the apostles. If the apostles want to be protected from the devils attempts to divide and destroy them and the church, they must be in communion with Peter. And notice, Jesus says specifically to Peter, that, literally from the Greek text, “the faith of you [Peter] will not fail.” This is precisely what the Catholic Church has been teaching for 2,000 years!
And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, and one shepherd (emphasis added).
Who is this prophetic shepherd? The answer seems simple. And on one level it is. Jesus declared himself to be the good shepherd (Gr.poimeinshepherd or pastor) in John 10:14. Jesus is the shepherd. Yet, if we dig deeper into the text we discover another meaning as well. In the context of prophesying about this one flock and one shepherd, Jesus says he must gather other sheep referring to the gentiles. Who does our Lord use as the shepherd to bring this prophecy to pass? The answer is found in our next two texts.
The apostles and elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will. And all the assembly kept silence (Vs. 6-12, emphasis added)
The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. And I am the foremost (Gr.protos) of sinners.
Moreover, Christ is referred to as prototokos, or first-begotten in Col. 1:15. Here St. Paul teaches us about Christs eternal generation, which has been accomplished outside of time. He is; therefore, the creator and the one who has preeminence over all things, according to the text. Colossians 1:15-18 reads: ”[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born (Gr.prototokos) of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth He is before all things He is the head of the body, the church that in everything he might be pre-eminent (Gr.proteuon, a verb with the same root as protos and prototokos).” In a notably direct and overt manner, by referring to St. Peter as the first apostle, St. Matthew presents the first Bishop of Rome just as we see him represented in the rest of the New Testament; he is revealed to be “chief” of the apostles, or to have a primacy of authority over all the apostles and, by extension, over the entire church.
Ping!
So those bible verses are just “pablum”??
The bible is clear that Peter was granted the authority of Jesus. What proof do we have that Jesus or Peter granted the same authority to any of future Bishops of Rome? One would think such a thing would have been recorded as it would be central to the Catholics claims of Papal infallibility. Yet here we have an article claiming historical and scriptural proof all of which neglect mention of any such event.
This topic must be pretty popular around here, or someone just wants to keep the pot stirred up and stink up the joint maybe?
I do think though, that thou doth protest too much!
So I want to play this time and I’ll go with Christ Jesus as our Rock for eternity, and forever and ever, amen.
wow ... for some reason I can’t get Al Charlatan out my head now ... hmmm.... must of been somethin he said.
Respectfully disagree with this interpretation. I submit the following from http://carm.org/is-peter-the-rock for consideration and clarification. There are problems with the Roman Catholic position.
First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18 we see something that is not obvious in the English. "...you are Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church..." In Greek nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word "petros" is masculine; "petra" is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine "petros" but the feminine "petra." Let me illustrate by using the words "actor" and "actress:" "You are the actor and with this actress I will make my movie."
Do see that the gender influences how a sentence is understood? Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter, but upon something else. What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to? The feminine "petra" occurs four times in the Greek New Testament: Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."
Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away." 1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ." 1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."
We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular; "petras" in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8).
Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn't we?
In addition, Greek dictionaries and lexicons give us further insight into the two Greek words under discussion: 1.Petros: A.Petros, "πέτρος, a stone, distinguished from πέτρα (Source: Liddell, H., 1996. A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.)
B.Petros, Πέτρος, Peter, meaning stone. The masc. of the fem. pétra (4073), a massive rock or cliff. (Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, electronic ed., G4074, Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000, c1992, c1993). C.Petros, Πέτρος, a noun akin to 4073, used as a proper name; a stone or a boulder, Peter, one of the twelve apostles: Peter(150), Peters(5). (Robert L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition, H8674,
Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998, 1981). 2.Petra: A.Petra, πέτρα , Ion. and Ep. πέτρη, , a rock, a ledge or shelf of rock, Od. 2. a rock, i.e. a rocky peak or ridge...Properly, πέτρα is a fixed rock, πέτρος a stone." (Source: Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.)
B.Petra, πέτρα , (4073) denotes a mass of rock, as distinct from petros, a detached stone or boulder, or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved." Source: Vine, W., & Bruce, F. (1981; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). Vine's Expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words (2:302). Old Tappan NJ: Revell) C.Petra, πέτρα, ας, ἡ (1) literally, living rock, bedrock (MT 7.24), in contrast to πέτρος (isolated stone); (Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg and Neva F. Miller, vol. 4, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Baker's Greek New Testament library, 311, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2000). D.Petra, πέτρα, noun feminine; ≡ bedrock, (James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament), electronic ed., GGK4376 (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).
3.Petros & PetrosA.πέτρα petra; a prim. word; a (large mass of) rock: rock(10), rocks(3), rocky(2). Πέτρος Petros, a noun akin to 4073, used as a proper name; a stone or a boulder, Peter, one of the twelve apostles: Peter(150), Peters(5). (Robert L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition, H8674, Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998, 1981). B. "On this rock (ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ).
The word is feminine, and means a rock, as distinguished from a stone or a fragment of rock (πέτρος, above)." (Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, 1:91, Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2002). C. Petros, "πέτρος, a stone, distinguished from πέτρα. Petra, πέτρα , Ion. and Ep. πέτρη, , a rock, a ledge or shelf of rock, Od. 2. a rock, i.e. a rocky peak or ridge...Properly, πέτρα is a fixed rock, πέτρος a stone." (Source: Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.)
A stone is movable, unstable and this is exactly what we see with Peter, who doubted when he walked on water, who denied Jesus, and who was rebuked by Paul at Antioch. Matt. 14:29-30, "And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But seeing the wind, he became afraid, and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, "Lord, save me!"
Luke 22:57-58, "But he denied it, saying, "Woman, I do not know Him." 58 And a little later, another saw him and said, "You are one of them too!" But Peter said, "Man, I am not!"
Gal. 2:11,14 "But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned...14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable and unstable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built. Rather, it would be built upon Jesus and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," (Matt. 16:16). This is consistent with scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference of God, but never of a man. Deut. 32:4, "The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice."
2 Sam. 22:2-3, "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge." Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God." Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none." Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed." It should be obvious from the Word of God that the rock Jesus was referring to was not Peter, but himself.
The Aramaic Kepha In contrast to this, in paragraph #2 at the beginning of this article, the Roman Catholic Church says that the rock cannot refer to Jesus, "but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for 'Peter' and 'rock'." The problem is that the text is not in Aramaic, but Greek. Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof of the Roman Catholic position.
We have to ask ourselves why the Roman Catholic Church would resort to using something that we don't have: the aramaic text. Is it because their argument is not supported by the Greek and so they must infer something from a text we don't possess? Furthermore, in John 1:42 it says, "He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas," (which is translated Peter)." The word "Peter" here is petros, not petra. It is used to elucidate the Aramaic kephas which is not a name in Aramaic. "Except in Jn. 1:42, where it is used to elucidate Aramaic kēphás, Pétros is used in the NT only as a name for Simon Peter....The translation supports the view that Kēphás is not a proper name, since one does not usually translate proper names.
"1 Jesus is the rock on which the church is built The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as his redeemed, need to keep our eyes on him. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built.
The Church is built upon Jesus, not Peter. "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11).
If we look at the Greek difference between Peter and rock we’ll find that the Greek for Peter is in the masculine and rock is in the feminine.
This is also reinforced by the use of the feminine form of “this” in v18 which is referring to the petra (feminine). If Matthew meant to point to Peter he would have used the masculine version of “this” as opposed to the feminine
1 Peter 3:8 Peter while speaking of Jesus says that he is “A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense”; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.” The word petra is also in the feminine. It is my understanding in Greek that both genders in Matthew would have to match for them to refer to each other.
If this is what Christ had meant he could have said and upon “you”, specifically referring to Peter, I will build my church.
Based on this, the “rock” that Jesus was referring to was the faith Peter had that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
It was not establishing a papacy or an earthly kingdom.
Submitted Respectfully
Wow, that was a lot of taggin’ you did for him. Very Christian of you :)
"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11).
Historically, the keys to the kingdom were given only to the one person who carried the authority of the person in charge of the kingdom, and ho acted in his stead. That, along with the name change, as well as “ what you declare bound on earth is bound in heaven, loosed on earth is loosed in heaven”. Makes the picture fairly clear. To work out otherwise take verbal gymnastics that probably weren’t intended by the writer.
Correct. Same verse when read in context associates the work of God the Father in Peter and the work of God the Father being the object of the rock upon which the Church is built and to whom those keys are given to bind or loose.
I have been astonished at the contortions some people get into to claim that the “rock” on which Christ built the Church is “Peter’s confession,” or this, or that, but not Simon.
It seems to me that if Jesus did NOT want us to believe that the “rock” on which he wanted to build His Church was not Simon, it was incredibly STUPID to rename Simon “ROCK.”
And then there’s all that stuff about the keys to the kingdom, and binding and loosing—all of it addressed to Peter.
As for Matt. 16, it helps to remember that Christ is not speaking metaphorically about geology, but is comparing Simon to a very specific stone -- the "Even haShetiya" upon which the Temple of Jerusalem was built, and upon which the Ark of the Covenant rested. That is how important a position Simon would hold when Christ built His New Temple of the New Covenant.
Let’s see: Jesus says “You [Simon] are Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my Church.”
Why, yes! It’s SO CLEAR!!! By “Rock,” Jesus means himself! He meant absolutely NOTHING by giving Simon a new name, and then in the SAME SENTENCE using that name again.
If Jesus meant to say what you claim, Jesus was an idiot. He could not have expressed himself more poorly. He could not have done a better job of obscuring his intention.
What I’m really saying, of course, is that your “interpretation” of this verse flies in the face of the words themselves. It is preposterous.
No, the verses are not the problem.
In the Greek, the word rock (petra) is not capitalized indicating this was not a new name for Peter in this context.
First off it is NOT SO CLEAR because we are talking about a different language in a different culture in a different age.I'm not going to bother to explain about Aramaic idioms because you seemed to have made your mind up and it would probably be above your pay grade. Have a nice day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.