Posted on 05/08/2010 7:15:00 AM PDT by GonzoII
FIRST CAME THE CHURCH THEN THE BIBLE. THE POPES AND COUNCILS PRODUCED WHAT YOU QUOTE. THAT COMMITEE FIGURED THIS OUT FOR YOU-In order for Protestants to exercise the principles of sola Scriptura they first have to accept the antecedent premise of what books constitute Scripture - in particular, the New Testament books. This is not as simple as it may seem at first, accustomed as we are to accepting without question the New Testament as we have it today. Although indeed there was, roughly speaking, a broad consensus in the early Church as to what books were scriptural, there still existed enough divergence of opinion to reasonably cast doubt on the Protestant concepts of the Bible’s self-authenticating nature, and the self-interpreting maxim of perspicuity. The following overview of the history of acceptance of biblical books (and also non-biblical ones as Scripture) will help the reader to avoid over-generalizing or over-simplifying the complicated historical process by which we obtained our present Bible.
A Visual Diagram of the History of the New Testament Canon
Explanation of Symbols:
* Book accepted (or quoted)
? Book personally disputed or mentioned as disputed
x Book rejected, unknown, or not cited
New Testament Period (c.35-90)
In this period there is little formal sense of a Canon of Scripture
********************************************************
Apostolic Fathers (90-160)
********************************************************
Summary: The New Testament is still not clearly distinguished qualitatively from other Christian writings
Gospels Generally accepted by 130
Justin Martyr’s “Gospels” contain apocryphal material
Polycarp first uses all four Gospels now in Scripture
Acts Scarcely known or quoted
Pauline Corpus Generally accepted by 130, yet quotations are rarely introduced as scriptural
Philippians, 1 Timothy: x Justin Martyr
2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon: x Polycarp, Justin Martyr
Hebrews Not considered canonical
? Clement of Rome
x Polycarp, Justin Martyr
James Not considered canonical; not even quoted
x Polycarp, Justin Martyr
1 Peter Not considered canonical
2 Peter Not considered canonical, nor cited
1, 2, 3 John Not considered canonical
x Justin Martyr
1 John ? Polycarp / 3 John x Polycarp
Jude Not considered canonical
x Polycarp, Justin Martyr
Revelation Not canonical
x Polycarp
***************************************************
Irenaeus to Origen (160-250)
***************************************************
Summary: Awareness of a Canon begins towards the end of the 2nd century
Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria first use phrase New Testament
Gospels Accepted
Acts Gradually accepted
Pauline Corpus Accepted with some exceptions:
2 Timothy: x Clement of Alexandria
Philemon: x Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
Hebrews Not canonical before the 4th century in the West.
? Origen
* First accepted by Clement of Alexandria
James Not canonical
? First mentioned by Origen
x Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
1 Peter Gradual acceptance
* First accepted by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria
2 Peter Not canonical
? First mentioned by Origen
x Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
1 John Gradual acceptance
* First accepted by Irenaeus
x Origen
2 John Not canonical
? Origen
x Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
3 John Not canonical
? Origen
x Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
Jude Gradual acceptance
* Clement of Alexandria
x Origen
Revelation Gradual acceptance
* First accepted by Clement of Alexandria
x Barococcio Canon, c.206
Epistle of Barnabas * Clement of Alexandria, Origen
Shepherd of Hermas * Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria
The Didache * Clement of Alexandria, Origen
The Apocalypse of Peter * Clement of Alexandria
The Acts of Paul * Origen
* Appears in Greek, Latin (5), Syriac, Armenian, & Arabic translations
Gospel of Hebrews * Clement of Alexandria
********************************************
Muratorian Canon (c.190)
Excludes Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter
Includes The Apocalypse of Peter, Wisdom of Solomon
********************************************
Origen to Nicaea (250-325)
********************************************
Summary: The Catholic epistles and Revelation are still being disputed
Gospels, Acts, Pauline Corpus Accepted
Hebrews * Accepted in the East
x, ? Still disputed in the West
James x, ? Still disputed in the East
x Not accepted in the West
1 Peter Fairly well accepted
2 Peter Still disputed
1 John Fairly well accepted
2, 3 John, Jude Still disputed
Revelation Disputed, especially in the East
x Dionysius
************************************************
Council of Nicaea (325)
Questions canonicity of James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude
*************************************************
From 325 to the Council of Carthage (397)
*************************************************
Summary: Athanasius first lists our present 27 New Testament books as such in 367. Disputes still persist concerning several books, almost right up until 397, when the Canon is authoritatively closed
Gospels, Acts, Pauline Corpus, 1 Peter, 1 John Accepted
Hebrews Eventually accepted in the West
James Slow acceptance
Not even quoted in the West until around 350!
2 Peter Eventually accepted
2, 3 John, Jude Eventually accepted
Revelation Eventually accepted
x Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianz
Epistle of Barnabas * Codex Sinaiticus - late 4th century
Shepherd of Hermas * Codex Sinaiticus - late 4th century
Used as a textbook for catechumens according to Athanasius
1 Clement, 2 Clement * Codex Alexandrinus - early 5th century (!)
Protestants do, of course, accept the traditional Canon of the New Testament (albeit somewhat inconsistently and with partial reluctance - Luther questioned the full canonicity of James, Revelation and other books). By doing so, they necessarily acknowledged the authority of the Catholic Church. If they had not, it is likely that Protestantism would have gone the way of all the old heresies of the first millennium of the Church Age - degenerating into insignificant, bizarre cults and disappearing into the putrid backwaters of history.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/10/excerpts-from-chapter-one-on-bible.html
It is believed by scholars that Peter had his primary ministry in Syria ...
Can you find a NON CATHOLIC historian that really believes that Babylon was a "code" for Rome?
Paul was unafraid to go to Rome so why should Peter have to lie about it?
"The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)" (Gal. 2:7-8).
It was Paul not Peter that wrote doctrinal letters to the Romans and Ephesian Church
PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This would have kept him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile church.
It is Paul that wanted to build the church at Rome. That fact proved that Peter was not the "bishop " of Rome. As Paul told us he would not build on another foundation.
"Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN’S FOUNDATION" (Rom. 15:20).
When Paul wrote to the church at Rome Peters name is no where listed
Around 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn't sit or eat with Gentiles.
66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED.vHistory shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ’s time as there were in Palestine.
Peter was an obedient apostle Of Christ and he carried out with honor the work the Lord had ordained for him to do , and that work never included being a bishop to a gentile church
First is God and He is logical. The matter in contention is whether God would found his Church on a body, or whether He founded it on the observations, deliberations and decisions of a sentient rational being - that being faith. God's Church is based on the solid faith of each and all of it's individual members, not the body of one of them that's chosen by a few of them.
" THE POPES AND COUNCILS PRODUCED WHAT YOU QUOTE."
What I quoted was God's Word that's contained in the Gospels. No pope and no council produced any of the 4 Gospels. They simply recognized the work, as I have.
"THAT COMMITEE FIGURED THIS OUT FOR YOU-"
I am made in the image and likeness of God. I need no committee of similarly endowed individuals to read and understand things for me, in my name, or on my behalf. I also note that God provided none in the beginning, or at any time since then.
"Protestants do, of course, accept the traditional Canon of the New Testament... Sola Scriptura...
I also do not subscribe to sola Scriptura. It is simply an illogical limitation on knowing and understanding reality.
I do not accept the Canon of the Gospels, because they have been annointed as such. I believe them, because I have read them and have concluded that they are a first hand account of God in person having come and taught us who He is. I do not believe that God came to teach any self annointed group of folks about Himself, or that He gave them special powers, keys, ect... The keys to the kingdom belong to each individual, not some group of self appointed specialists.
“It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”
Consider now the other New Testament citations: “Another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion’” (Rev. 14:8). “The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath” (Rev. 16:19). “[A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations’” (Rev. 17:5). “And he called out with a mighty voice, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great’” (Rev. 18:2). “[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come’” (Rev. 18:10). “So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence” (Rev. 18:21).
These references can’t be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city.” It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the “great city” mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.
. . . The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. (The worship of any gods other than the Roman was considered atheism.) Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital—after all, mail service from Rome was then even worse than it is today, and letters were routinely read by Roman officials. Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders. Why encourage a manhunt? We also know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities under symbolic names (cf. Rev. 11:8).
Even the thoroughly Protestant Bible Knowledge Commentary (p. 857) thinks the “Babylon = Rome” explanation for 1 Peter 5:13 quite plausible. Bible scholar Reinhard Feldmeier takes the same position (The First Letter of Peter, Baylor University Press, 2008, pp. 41-42). A. T. Robertson, in Word Pictures in the New Testament (introduction for 1st Peter) agrees:
So we can think of Rome as the place of writing and that Peter uses “Babylon” to hide his actual location from Nero.
Many other Protestant commentators could be brought forth in favor of this opinion. It’s not just a Catholic argument. It is a legitimate exegetical opinion, regardless of affiliation. See also:
Was Peter the First Bishop of Rome?, Oswald Sobrino
The Bishop of Rome is Peter’s Successor, Pope John Paul II, General Audience, 27 January 1993
Peter’s Roman Residency (Catholic Answers)
St. Peter in Rome (Radio Replies)
Was St. Peter Ever in Rome? Refuting a Persistent Protestant Prejudice, Phil Porvazni by Dave Armstrong http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/06/antidote-to-john-calvins-institutes.html
So it dropped out of the sky. And we all say eureka.
Way to change the subject. The Church never was one regarding the concept of pope claimed by Rome. They were one regarding the four Gospels though.
“The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. (The worship of any gods other than the Roman was considered atheism.) Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital—”
That is wrong. With the edict of Gallio at Corinth (Acts 18:14-14) Christianity was declared to be just another religion and in fact prospered under Caludius and Nero until the fire at Rome. That is one of the reasons for Paul’s admonition to the churches at Rome to be subject to “higher powers” so as not to disturb the peace as had the Jews under Claudius that led to their exile in 49 A.D..
LOL by who? Catholic historians that have a vested (or vestment) issue in making Peter at he Bishop of Rome?? The time line does not work out when correlated to Acts, scripture tells us that was NOT Peters ministry , there is NO HARD historical evidence ,History also informs us of the sharp debates between Ultramontanism and Gallicanism; also from the Councils of Constance, Basle, Florence, Pisa (the time of the antipopes) it becomes evident that the Roman church was undecided who held the supremacy, whether it was the pope or an ecumenical council. that he was ever bishop of Rome but the church says so it MUST BE SO ...
Sola Ecclesia Romanus
Only the Church of Rome is the Rule of Faith
Of course go by the 1st church of your own decision on your own translation 5,000.000 ways to Sunday. Enjoy!
LOL...John, look for sources outside the RC church to validate your position and then we can take them seriously
Nevertheless, there is a point which would perhaps seem inconsistent with facts were I to place the translation of it in this work, but which I do not consider to involve an impossibility. It is this. Linus and Cletus were Bishops of the city of Rome before Clement. How then, some men ask, can Clement in his letter to James say that Peter passed over to him his position as a church-teacher? The explanation of this point, as I understand, is as follows. Linus and Cletus were, no doubt, Bishops in the city of Rome before Clement, but this was in Peter's life-time; that is, they took charge of the episcopal work, while he discharged the duties of the apostolate. He is known to have done the same thing at Caesarea; for there, though be was himself on the spot, yet he had at his side Zacchaeus whom he had ordained as Bishop. Thus we may see how both things may be true; namely how they stand as predecessors of Clement in the list of Bishops, and yet how Clement after the death of Peter became his successor in the teacher's chair.--The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol 3, Ed. Philip Schaff, St. Jerome, writing in the "Preface to The Books of Recognitions of St. Clement" (Addressed to Bishop Gaudentius), p. 1136, AGES Software, Albany, OR USA Version 2.0 © 1997)
Jerome refers to Peter as "church-teacher" not pope or Bishop.. Peter was an elder (teacher)
Excellent observation
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Evangelicals and other Protestants are conceding that Peter is the rock.
BIBLE COMMENTARY ON "ROCK" OF MATTHEW 16:18 D.A. Carson (Protestant Evangelical) -- "Although it is true that petros and petra can mean 'stone' and 'rock' respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover, the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ('you are kepha' and 'on this kepha'), since the word was used both for a name and for a 'rock.' The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name." (Carson, The Expositor's Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1984], volume 8, page 368, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 17-18) "The word Peter petros, meaning 'rock,' (Gk 4377) is masculine, and in Jesus' follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter." (Carson, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1994], volume 2, page 78, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 18) R.T. France (Anglican/Protestant Evangelical) -- "The name Peter means 'Rock', and Jesus played on this meaning to designate Peter as the foundation of the new people of God. His leadership would involve the authority of the steward, whose keys symbolized his responsibility to regulate the affairs of the household. Peter would exercise his leadership by his authority to declare what is and is not permissible in the kingdom of heaven (to bind and to loose have this meaning in rabbinic writings)....It is sometimes suggested that because the word for 'rock' (petra) differs from the name Petros, the 'rock' referred to is not Peter himself but the confession he has just made of Jesus as Messiah. In Aramaic, however, the same term kefa would appear in both places; the change in Greek is due to the fact that petra, the normal word for rock, is feminine in gender, and therefore not suitable as a name for Simon! The echo of Peter's name remains obvious, even in Greek; he is the rock, in the sense outlined above." (France, New Bible Commentary with consulting editors Carson, France, Motyer, Wenham [Intervarsity Press, 1994], page 925, 926) Oscar Cullmann (Lutheran) from Kittel's Greek standard Theological Dictionary of the New Testament -- "The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and petros: petra = Kepha = petros....Since Peter, the rock of the Church, is thus given by Christ Himself, the master of the house (Is. 22:22; Rev. 3:7), the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he is the human mediator of the resurrection, and he has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection...The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story...For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of 'thou art Rock' and 'on this rock I will build' shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom He has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected." (Cullmann, article on "Rock" (petros, petra) trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Eerdmans Publishing, 1968], volume 6, page 98, 107, 108) Herman Ridderbos (Protestant Evangelical) -- "It is well known that the Greek word (petra) translated 'rock' here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros ('Peter') to petra is that petra was the normal word for 'rock.' Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man's name, however, Simon was not called petra but petros. The word petros was not an exact synonym of petra; it literally meant 'stone.' Jesus therefore had to switch to the word petra when He turned from Peter's name to what it meant for the Church. There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that He was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words 'on this rock [petra]' indeed refer to Peter. Because of the revelation that he had received and the confession that it motivated in him, Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future church." (Ridderbos, Bible Student's Commentary: Matthew [Zondervan, 1987], page 303 as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 35-36) Craig Blomberg (Protestant Evangelical) -- "Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon's nickname 'Peter' (Petros=rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42 [wherein he is called Cephas]), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus' declaration, 'You are Peter,' parallels Peter's confession, 'You are the Christ,' as if to say, 'Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.' The expression 'this rock' almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following 'the Christ' in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter's name (Petros) and the word 'rock' (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification." (Blomberg, The New American Commentary: Matthew [Broadman, 1992], page 251-252, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 31-32) William F. Albright and C.S. Mann (from The Anchor Bible series) -- "Rock (Aram. Kepha). This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. On building on a rock, or from a rock, cf. Isa 51:1ff; Matt 7:24f. Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community (cf. I will build). Jesus, not quoting the OT, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose. In view of the background of vs. 19 (see below), one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. Cf. in this gospel 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence (cf. Gal 2:11ff)." (Albright/Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew [Doubleday, 1971], page 195) Craig S. Keener (Protestant Evangelical) -- "'You are Peter,' Jesus says (16:18), paralleling Peter's 'You are the Christ' (16:16). He then plays on Simon's nickname, 'Peter,' which is roughly the English 'Rocky': Peter is 'rocky,' and on this rock Jesus would build his church (16:18)....Protestants...have sometimes argued that Peter's name in Greek (petros) differs from the Greek term for rock used here (petra)....But by Jesus' day the terms were usually interchangeable, and the original Aramaic form of Peter's nickname that Jesus probably used (kephas) means simply 'rock.' Further, Jesus does not say, 'You are Peter, but on this rock I will build my church'....the copulative kai almost always means 'and'.... Jesus' teaching is the ultimate foundation for disciples (7:24-27; cf. 1 Cor 3:11), but here Peter functions as the foundation rock as the apostles and prophets do in Ephesians 2:20-21....Jesus does not simply assign this role arbitrarily to Peter, however; Peter is the 'rock' because he is the one who confessed Jesus as the Christ in this context (16:15-16)...." (Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Eerdmans, 1999], page 426-427) Francis Wright Beare (Presbyterian/Reformed) -- "The play on words -- 'Peter', this 'rock' -- requires a change in Greek from petros (properly, 'stone') to petra. In Aramaic, the two words would be identical -- Kepha the name given to Peter, transliterated into Greek as Kephas (Gal. 2:9), and kepha, 'rock'. The symbol itself is Hebraic: Abraham is the 'rock' from which Israel was hewn, and in a rabbinic midrash, God finds in him a rock on which he can base and build the world..." (Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew [Harper and Row, 1981], page 355) Eduard Schweizer (Presbyterian/Reformed) -- "The 'rock' is Peter himself, not his confession. Only on this interpretation does the pun make sense." (Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew [John Knox Press, 1975], page 341) Ivor H. Jones (Methodist) -- "...in 16.18 Peter is the rock on which the new community could be built, as Abraham was described in rabbinic writings as the rock on which God could erect a new world to replace the old....The arguments have raged across the centuries over the phrase 'on this rock' : does it mean on Peter, or on Peter's confession? But the text is clear: Peter was divinely inspired and this was the reason for his new function and the basis of his authorization. His function was to provide for Jesus Christ the beginnings of a stronghold, a people of God, to stand against all the powers of evil and death...They are God's people, the church...as the church they represent God's sovereign power over evil (18.18b) and rely upon a new kind of divine authorization...This authorization is given to Peter; so Peter is not only a stronghold against evil; he also is responsible for giving the community shape and direction." (Jones, The Gospel of Matthew [London: Epworth Press, 1994], page 99) M. Eugene Boring (Disciples of Christ) -- "16:18, Peter as Rock. Peter is the foundation rock on which Jesus builds the new community. The name 'Peter' means 'stone' or 'rock' (Aramaic Kepha Cepha; Greek petros).... There are no documented instances of anyone's ever being named 'rock' in Aramaic or Greek prior to Simon. Thus English translations should render the word 'stone' or 'rock,' not 'Peter,' which gives the false impression that the word represented a common name and causes the contemporary reader to miss the word play of the passage: 'You are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church.' Peter is here pictured as the foundation of the church....On the basis of Isa 51:1-2 (cf. Matt 3:9), some scholars have seen Peter as here paralleled to Abraham; just as Abram stood at the beginning of the people of God, had his name changed, and was called a rock, so also Peter stands at the beginning of the new people of God and receives the Abrahamic name 'rock' to signify this." (The New Interpreter's Bible [Abingdon Press, 1995], volume 8, page 345) Thomas G. Long (Presbyterian/Reformed) -- "Since, in the original Greek, Petros and petra both mean 'rock,' it is easy to spot this statement as a pun, a play on words: 'Your name is "Rock," and on this "rock" I will build my church.' Jesus' meaning is plain: Peter is the rock, the foundation, upon which he is going to erect his church...Jesus spoke Aramaic, however, not Greek. In Aramaic, the words for 'Peter' and 'rock' are the same (Kepha)...the most plausible interpretation of the passage is that Jesus is, indeed, pointing to Peter as the foundation stone, the principal leader, of this new people of God...there is much evidence that he also played a primary leadership role in the early Christian church....For the church, the new people of God, Peter was, indeed, the 'rock,' corresponding to Abraham of old, who was 'the rock from which you were hewn' (Isa. 51:1)." (Long, Matthew [Westminster John Knox Press, 1997], page 185, 186) Richard B. Gardner (Brethren/Mennonite) -- "The key question here is whether the rock foundation of the church is Peter himself, or something to be distinguished from Peter. If the latter, Jesus could be speaking of Peter's faith, or of the revelation Peter received. It is more likely, however, that the rock on which Jesus promises to build the church is in fact Peter himself, Peter the first disciple (cf. 4:18; 10:2), who represents the whole group of disciples from which the church will be formed. At least four considerations support this view...." (Gardner, Believers Church Bible Commentary: Matthew [Herald Press, 1991], 247)
CONCLUSION ON "ROCK" OF MATTHEW 16:18
(A) Peter is the Rock, the foundation stone of Jesus' Church, the Church would be built on Peter personally;
(B) Peter's name means Rock (petros or petra in Greek, Kepha or Cephas in Aramaic);
(C) The slight distinction in meaning for the Greek words for Rock (petros, petra) was largely confined to poetry before the time of Jesus and therefore has no special importance;
(D) The Greek words for Rock (petros, petra) by Jesus' day were interchangeable in meaning;
(E) The underlying Aramaic Kepha-kepha of Jesus' words makes the Rock-rock identification certain;
(F) The Greek word petra, being a feminine noun, could not be used for a man's name, so Petros was used;
(G) Only because of past "Protestant bias" was the Peter is Rock identification denied;
(H) The pun or play on words makes sense only if Peter is the Rock;
(I) Jesus says "and on this rock" not "but on this rock" -- the referent is therefore Peter personally;
(J) Verse 19 and the immediate context (singular "you") shows Peter is the Rock of verse 18;
(K) Peter's revelation and confession of Jesus as the Christ parallels Jesus' declaration and identification of Peter as the Rock;
(L) Peter is paralleled to Abraham who also had his name changed, was a Father to God's people, and was called the Rock (Isaiah 51:1-2; cf. Gen 17:5ff).
About | Apologetics | Philosophy | Spirituality | Books | Audio | Links
Matt 7:24-25,
`Therefore, every one who doth hear of me these words, and doth do them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house upon the rock; and the rain did descend, and the streams came, and the winds blew, and they beat on that house, and it fell not, for it had been founded on the rock.
I have no use for anything anyone says that contradicts the words of God Himself.
...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327.
Although Catholic tradition, beginning in the late second and early third centuries, regards Peter as the first Bishop of Rome and, therefore, as the first pope, there is no evidence that Peter was involved in the initial establishment of the Christian community in Rome (indeed, what evidence there is would seem to point in the opposite direction) or that he served as Rome's first bishop.--Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes, HarperSanFrancisco, 1997, p.25
Because it was not until the late second or early third century that Catholic tradition came to regard Peter as the first Bishop or Rome, it was Linus, not Peter, who was considered in the earliest succession lists to be the first pope.--Richard P. McBrien, Op. cit., p.33)
The apostles did not understand that Peter was to be pope.."Mark:9 33And he came to Capernaum: and being in the house he asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way? 34But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest.
The Church is built on Christ , He is the corner stone..THAT is why the confession of Peter is said to be the rock
Mat 16:"13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
From Peter:
1 Pet 2; 4To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
Peter knew that ROCK WAS CHRIST
First of all Happy Mother’s day to You! May God bless you and Guide! That said. Any body can have a view but personally to me thats putting more into it. Anyway this might Help:
Protestant Exegesis Profoundly Affected Historically By Polemical Overreactions to Catholic Positions (Example of Matthew 16:18: Peter as the “Rock”)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/07/protestant-exegesis-profoundly-affected.html
D. A. Carson: Eminent Protestant Exegete
[ source ]
Matthew 16:18 (RSV) And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
This curious phenomenon was one of the central themes of my book, The Catholic Verses (2004). I wrote in its Introduction:
No one comes to the Bible as a completely impartial and objective “observer” or reader. We all approach it, whether consciously or unconsciously, with some sort of preexisting theology, or at least a disposition towards a certain viewpoint. It is impossible not to do this. It is part of the very nature of the thinking process. . . .
I shall contend throughout this book that - far too often - Protestants do not take all of Scripture into account, and that they are guilty of eisegesis (reading into Scripture one’s own presuppositions), or seriously erroneous exegesis, at least as often as Catholics are, if not more frequently. . . .
I hasten to add - and emphasize to the greatest degree - that these tendencies of bias and subjectivism and subconscious influence of denominational traditions do not necessarily entail a deliberate attempt to ignore or to twist Scripture. Every serious student of the Bible comes to the biblical text with a theological framework, in order to interpret it and make sense of it in its entirety. This is proper and right, and no one should have any objection to it. . . .
. . . without questioning (at all) the sincerity or integrity of Protestants, I shall now proceed to offer a critique of common Protestant attempts to ignore, explain away, rationalize, wish away, over-polemicize, minimize, de-emphasize, evade clear consequences of, or special plead with regard to “the Catholic Verses”: 95 biblical passages.
In Chapter Four, on the papacy, I commented specifically on historic Protestant exegesis of Matthew 16:18-19:
Many Protestants are uncomfortable with Matthew 16:18-19, first because of its extraordinary implications for St. Peter’s preeminence as the supreme earthly head of the Church, or Pope; which he was appointed by our Lord Jesus himself. The Church, according to Jesus (and in the Catholic view), is built upon Peter. In the figure and leadership of Peter in the Bible, the Catholic Church sees a primitive (later highly developed) model for Church government and papal headship.
(pp. 55-56)
Historically, the standard polemical response of Protestants to the phraseology of rock was to contend that it referred only to Peter’s faith, not Peter himself. In that way, the institutional element of the charge from the Lord to St. Peter is avoided. If faith is the exclusive key to the meaning, then Peter can be viewed as merely a representative of a general principle, rather than unique in the sense of institutional, concrete leadership and jurisdiction.
(p. 56)
Somewhat surprisingly, the consensus among Protestant commentators today (including such eminent scholars such as R. T. France, D. A. Carson, William Hendriksen, Gerhard Maier, and Craig L. Blomberg), is that rock indeed refers to Peter himself, not his faith. They try to evade any further “Catholic” implication, though, by denying the notion of papal succession — that Peter as rock applies to Peter alone.
(pp. 57-58)
Here we are concerned with St. Peter as the proclaimed leader of the Church. The finer points and particulars of such an office require another discussion entirely. Scarcely any biblical passages contain a fully developed doctrine. That is as true of the papacy and ecclesiology as it is of any Christian theological construct.
(p. 58)
Situations like this usually arise when the Catholic exegetical argument is (quite arguably) superior to any Protestant alternative, and when (as in the present instance) the basic Catholic contention has become the consensus position of prominent biblical commentators across the board:
Though in the past some authorities have considered that the term rock refers to Jesus himself or to Peter’s faith, the consensus of the great majority of scholars today is that the most obvious and traditional understanding should be construed, namely, that rock refers to the person of Peter.
(Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1985 edition, “Peter,” Micropedia, vol. 9, 330-333. D. W. O’Connor, the author of the article, is himself Protestant and author of Peter in Rome: The Literary, Liturgical and Archaeological Evidence [1969] )
Catholics have been contending all along that Peter himself was the “rock”: not his confession of faith; nor Jesus Himself. Now it is widely accepted that this is indeed what the passage teaches. But for centuries, many (most?) Protestant commentators denied this, and it looks they did so primarily due to mere polemical reaction against the Catholic claim and Catholic dogmatic beliefs about the papacy, in part built upon this passage.
This is not just my opinion, but that of several prominent Protestant exegetes, past and present, as I will now demonstrate. These eminent Bible scholars maintain that the passage is very clear, and was only interpreted otherwise out of polemical reaction to the Catholic exegesis. If this can occur (rather strikingly) with regard to Matthew 16:18, who knows how prevalent the same tendency has been elsewhere in Protestant exegesis, wherever issues arise that are key to the Protestant-Catholic dispute?
Ironically, while Catholics are routinely accused of eisegesis, it looks like Protestants have committed quite a bit of it themselves, in their rush to distance themselves from Catholic exegetical viewpoints. To “prove” that a passage has no “Catholic” implications whatsoever, many Protestant commentators have been quite willing to special plead and engage in outright eisegesis. I provided dozens of examples of this in The Catholic Verses. Here I need only cite Protestants chastising fellow Protestant commentators, to prove my point that it occurred:
Another interpretation is, that the word rock refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other would have been sought for.
(Presbyterian Albert Barnes, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, Philadelphia: 1832; see larger excerpt)
* * * * *
The application of the promise to St. Peter has been elaborately impugned by Dr. Wordsworth. His zeal to appropriate the rock to Christ has somewhat overshot itself. In arguing that the term can apply to none but God, he will find it difficult surely to deny all reference to a rock in the name Peter. To me, it is equally difficult, nay, impossible, to deny all reference, in “upon this rock,” to the preceding word Peter. Let us keep to the plain straightforward sense of Scripture, however that sense may have been misused by Rome.
(Anglican Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers, four volumes, London: Rivingtons, 1868; reprinted by Baker Publishing Group, 1983, Vol. 1, p. 319; see larger excerpt)
* * * * *
As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. No other explanation would probably at the present day be attempted, but for the fact that the obvious meaning has been abused by Papists to the support of their theory. But we must not allow the abuse of a truth to turn us away from its use; nor must the convenience of religious controversy determine our interpretation of Scripture teaching.
(p. 355)
The Protestant reluctance to admit that the rock means Peter really plays into the hands of the Romish controversialists. It favors the impression that conceding that point would be conceding all that the Romanist claims . . . Now to take Peter as the rock is certainly the most natural and obvious meaning. And to make this the life or death issue is to give the Romanist a serious polemical advantage. In general, it is a great principle of Biblical interpretation to take the most obvious meaning of any phrase, unless it would thus yield a sense hopelessly in conflict with the unambiguous teaching of other passages.
(p. 357)
(Baptist John Albert Broadus, Commentary on Matthew, 1886; reprinted by Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Classics, 1990; see larger excerpt)
* * * * *
In view of the background of verse 19 . . . one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession of Peter.
(Methodist William F. Albright, and C.S. Mann, Anchor Bible, Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1971, Vol. 26, 195, 197-198)
* * * * *
Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.
(Presbyterian David Hill, “The Gospel of Matthew,” in Ronald E. Clements and Matthew Black, editors, The New Century Bible Commentary: London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972, 261)
* * * * *
On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . .
(Baptist D. A. Carson; in Frank E. Gaebelein, general editor, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1984, vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke [Matthew: D. A. Carson], 368)
R. T. France [ source ]
It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the ‘rock’ here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as v.16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus . . . It is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied . . . Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus’ new community . . . which will last forever.
(Anglican R. T. France; in Leon Morris, general editor, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, Vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)
* * * * *
The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock (e.g., most recently Caragounis) seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.
(Presbyterian Donald A. Hagner, “Matthew 14-28,” in David A. Hubbard and others, editors, World Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b; Dallas: Word Books, 1995, 470)
See also the excellent, copiously documented article by fellow Catholic apologist Nicholas Hardesty: Protestant Scholars on Mt 16:16-19.
by Dave Armstrong
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.