Posted on 03/09/2006 3:22:46 PM PST by Michael Goldsberry
I found this to be of astounding importance, so I wanted to ask my Catholic friends here at FR about it.
In his new book Jerusalem Countdown John Hagee writes on page #162:
-=-=-
Jesus told Peter: "You are Peter [the Greek word here for Peter is Petros, which means a piece of rock or something as small as a pebble for a boy's slingshot], and on this rock [Jesus says pointing to Himself] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).
The Greek word for rock when Jesus was speaking of Himself is petra, which means "bedrock."
Jesus was saying to Peter, "You are a little pebble in a boy's slingshot, Petros, but I'm going to build My church on Myself, because I am the bedrock, the petra."
The idea that the Roman Catholic pope speaks as the voice of God with infallibility because he, as the pope, is an extension of Saint Peter is a terrible twisting of Scripture. Peter is a pebble; Jesus Christ is the bedrock who said, "Upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18, kjv).
Why don't you ask the Orthodox instead of the Catholics. They actually speak Greek.
Here's quotes from one of them from over 1600 years ago. St. John Chrysostom, who lived from 347 to 407 Anno Domini.
"For what purpose did He shed His blood? It was that He might win these sheep which he entrusted to Peter and his successors." (De Sacerdotio, 53)
"Peter himself the chief of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received a revelation not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed are thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and bone hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven'; this very Peter, - and when I name Peter, the great Apostles, I name that unbroken rock, that firm foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called and the first who obeyed." (Homily 3 de Poenit. 4)
Read more about him here: http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintj25.htm
If one is going to remain Protestant (as I do, at least for now), one must honestly acknowledge that we sprang from Catholic roots, that our spiritual forefathers did indeed follow the "chair of Peter" for centuries, and that you'd better have a darned good reason for staying outside of the Catholic church --one that will hold up in God's court -- because the normal presumption should be unity unless the provocation is extreme. (Discussion of those reasons is a whole 'nuther thread.)
Now if we can only get more Protestants to go Catholic, we might get better Bible literacy amongst Catholics!
And (second question) what's the significance of "this" rock? Does "this" refer to "the first-mentioned rock"?
Oh, and (third question) is there some reason why no Greek-speakers drew the distinction that you draw, which seem to require clarification by miuming and pointing this way and that?
I am ignorant of both Greek and Aramaic, so I'm not looking for answers from people as unlettered as I am. Linguists, please?
I can vouch for the validity of Rytwyng's counter argument.
It has even been endorsed by no less than D.A. Carson, the celebrated Protestant theologian.
That is quite an admission, and I have a new respect for you when you make it... It is one that honest Protestants should take - and pray that God sees and understands your heart was filled with love and that you walked in faith - rather than denying the obvious history of Christianity. As a Protestant, one would have to hope that they could throw themselves at the mercy of God and show that they THOUGHT they were truly following God's ways and were not being obstinate by refusing to join the Catholic Church.
But wouldn't it be easier to just come back???!!!
Brother in Christ
Jesus told Peter: "You are Peter [the Greek word here for Peter is Petros, which means a piece of rock or something as small as a pebble for a boy's slingshot], and on this rock [Jesus says pointing to Himself] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).Well, for starters, the bold section appears nowhere in the Bible. If you are sola scriptura, that should be a deal-breaker.
And what about John 1:42 when Jesus calls him Rock (Kephas) in Aramaic.
Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas" (which is translated Peter).
Kephas, the word that is used in Scripture to describe Simon Peter, means HUGE ROCK, not a pebble. In Greek, a pebble is called "lithos". Why would the architect build His Church upon Himself? It seems pretty obvious that Jesus built upon Peter, and that the rest recognized this, as they called SIMON Kephas, not Jesus. Jesus was not called "rock".
What a hilarious article...I especially liked the part about "and Jesus pointed to Himself and said 'you are rock"!!!! I always call myself "you" while pointing to myself and talking to someone else!
Regards
Brother in Christ
We've discussed this before. If I saw any evidence of Godliness in the Catholic Church (before my eyes, in my neighborhood, as opposed to the apparently Godly farway strangers I chat with at FR), I'd be back in a heartbeat. But... all the faith I see, all the Christian obedience I see, all the serious pursuit of God I see, is in the Evangelical realm. And when Christian faith and practice are surveyed by the likes of Barna, Catholics as a group consistently score rock-bottom (relative to other Christian confessions) on biblical worldview, Christian-informed voting, etc.
Where is the Catholic fruit? Not around here. For me to swim the Tiber right now would be to swim AWAY from godliness.
Yet, the idea of Apostolic succession and the doctrinal package that goes with it (real presence, auricular confession, etc) is a very attractive one. Who wouldn't want to come under the protection of that, if it were true? But... just to take one example: If the bishops are really the successors of the apostles, why didn't they ruthlessly hunt down the pervert priests like holy avenging angels? What would the Apostles have done in such a situation? (Hint: read Ananias and Sapphira's story -- now THAT'S sacerdotal power.)
Why is the Catholic church unable to produce this on her own? Why does she need to go to "heretics" to get knowledge of her own sacred book?
The author of this article is using a old Protestant apologetic attack against the Papacy. In fact most Big anti Catholics dont even use it anymore. It has sort of gone the way of the old attack that Catholics worship statutes. However the Church fathers were pretty clear that Peter was the Rock. There is a current new interesting realm of attack by a couple of anti catholics that try to take St Augustine out of context and to say that Jesus was the rock. However looking at St Augustine it was clear that in his overall view he saw Peter as the Rock. I mention that because the Church fathers look at scripture in the historical four senses. Also Augustine would talk about the different sense of the word depending on whom he was debating.
The more important part of passage is the part dealing with the "binding and loosing" This is a direct reference to the office of the Royal Stweard and almost same words that can be found in the old testamnet. The royal Stweard often ruled in the place of the KIng. Much like a Prime Minister rules in the name of the Queen of England. When taking it as a whole its pretty clear that Peter is beinbg main the leader. Of further interest is that the Office of Royal Steward was a Dynastic affice with succession.
One method of Hermeneutical understanding of Matthew 16:18
is to do a word study of all the scriptures which were then known
as the Holy Word of G-d when Y'shua spoke these words.
This will allow one to understand all of the Holy Word of G-d
was inspired by YHvH; the whole counsel of G-d.
The only conclusion that one can come to unless you are
predisposed to believe in man's tradition over the Holy Word of G-d
is that Y'shua was speaking of himself as the "rock"
e.g.
b'shem Y'shuaGenesis 49:24 But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed
[Or archers will attack...will shoot...will remain...will stay] supple,
because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob,
because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel,Deuteronomy 32:3 I will proclaim the name of the LORD. Oh, praise the greatness of our God!
Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are
just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.Deuteronomy 32:15 ..... He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Saviour.
Deuteronomy 32:30 How could one man chase a thousand, or two put ten
thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, unless
the LORD had given them up?Deuteronomy 32:31 For their rock is not like our Rock, as even our enemies concede
Deuteronomy 32:32 Their vine comes from the vine of Sodom and from the fields of Gomorrah.
Their grapes are filled with poison, and their clusters with bitterness.1 Samuel 2:2 "There is no-one holy [Or no Holy One] like the LORD;
there is no-one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.2 Samuel 22:2 He said: "The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer;
2 Samuel 22:3 my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the
horn [Horn here symbolises strength.] of my salvation.
He is my stronghold, my refuge and my saviour — from violent men you save me.2 Samuel 22:32 For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?
2 Samuel 22:47 "The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God, the Rock, my Saviour!
2 Samuel 23:3 The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me:
'When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God,Psalm 18:31 For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?
Psalm 18:46 The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God my Saviour!
Psalm 19:14 May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.Psalm 42:9 I say to God my Rock, "Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?"
Psalm 78:35 They remembered that God was their Rock, that God Most High was their Redeemer.
Psalm 89:26 He will call out to me, `You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Saviour.'
Psalm 92:15 ..... "YHvH is upright; he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in him."
Psalm 95:1 Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation.
Psalm 144:1 Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.
Habakkuk 1:12 O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy
One, we will not die. O LORD, you have appointed them to
execute judgment; O Rock, you have ordained them to punish.
It is happening. To be honest as a former evanglical I often though that the common protestant evanglical knowledge of the bible was a bit overstated.
That kind of re-naming by God always means something really significant: like Abraham, like Sarah, like Israel.
Plus note the fact that Jesus said, "Thou art Kepha, and upon this rock..." (Not "Thou art Kepha, but upon the rock of myself or some other rock ...)
Of course name changes also signify something big is going on. For example the name chane to Abraham. When a man is being called a word normally reserved to God what does not mean. Also I dont people were called Rock before Peter
Matthew's Gospel was originally written in Aramaic, the language of our Lord. It was later translated into Koine Greek.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus' blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha," not "evna." Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.
Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the "small rock," he would have used "lithos" which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).
Matt. 16:18-19 - in addition, to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter's leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter - you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom).
Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith.
Matt. 16:17 - to further rebut the notion that Jesus was calling Peter a small pebble, Simon in Aramaic means "grain of sand." If Simon's name meant "grain of sand," it would be pointless for Jesus to change his name from "grain of sand" to "pebble."
Matt. 16:13 - also, from a geographical perspective, Jesus renames Simon to rock in Caesarea Philippi near a massive rock formation on which Herod built a temple to Caesar. Jesus chose this setting to further emphasize that Peter was indeed the rock on which the Church would be built.
Wow! Thank you!
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.