Posted on 05/01/2015 2:36:22 PM PDT by NYer
There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).
Peter the Rock
Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that—aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2—in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.
Look at the scene
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.
Promises to Peter
When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).
Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.
Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).
Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me more than these?" (John 21:15), the word "these" referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.
Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.
Who is the rock?
Now take a closer look at the key verse: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). Disputes about this passage have always been related to the meaning of the term "rock." To whom, or to what, does it refer? Since Simon’s new name of Peter itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: "You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church." The play on words seems obvious, but commentators wishing to avoid what follows from this—namely the establishment of the papacy—have suggested that the word rock could not refer to Peter but must refer to his profession of faith or to Christ.
From the grammatical point of view, the phrase "this rock" must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God") is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.
As an analogy, consider this artificial sentence: "I have a car and a truck, and it is blue." Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun "it." This is all the more clear if the reference to the car is two sentences earlier, as the reference to Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the term rock.
Another alternative
The previous argument also settles the question of whether the word refers to Christ himself, since he is mentioned within the profession of faith. The fact that he is elsewhere, by a different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4-8) does not disprove that here Peter is the foundation. Christ is naturally the principal and, since he will be returning to heaven, the invisible foundation of the Church that he will establish; but Peter is named by him as the secondary and, because he and his successors will remain on earth, the visible foundation. Peter can be a foundation only because Christ is the cornerstone.
In fact, the New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:14). One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages. Rather, one must respect and harmonize the different passages, for the Church can be described as having different foundations since the word foundation can be used in different senses.
Look at the Aramaic
Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while "rock" is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?
Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas"). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."
When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.
Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of "small stone" and "large rock" in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).
Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church."
Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, "and the Rock was Christ" though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from "Rock . . . rock."
If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.
The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.
Jesus says to Simon "The Father uses you as an instrument for the truth to flow. You, I will now call rock and on you, this rock, I will build My Church"
The Rapture (1Thess4:13-18) and the Second setting foot on Earth (Rev19:11-19) are two different events. The first will snatch away millions and millions who are vital to the smooth running of the infrastructure, and the chaos THAT will cause will be bad enough. But then the forces still on Earth when it is void of 'the restrainer' (as in the collective presence of The Holy Spirit in believers, raptured out from the populations) will rail at each other and then seek to erase Israel from the planet ('get rid of those pesky 144,000 evangelizing troublemakers!').The First coming of Son of Man was to the Jewish people, and he was 'cut off', rejected by the Jews, as foretold in Isaiah and Daniel and elsewhere (Ez, Zachar, etc). The Second coming of the Son of Man will also be to the Jews, the Jewish evangelizers, the 144,000, or at least those remaining alive at His touchdown on Earth the Second time.
Jesus need not set foot on earth to call out His bride, and in fact that is perhaps why He himself alluded to the Bride and the bridesmaids and the trimmed and untrimmed lamps. He visited Saul on the road to Damascus without 'touching down' on the Earth.
Many site the days of Noah incorrectly, on purpose, trying to claim the unrighteous were taken, not Noah. But the essence of the Rapture will be the same as in the days of Noah, when God shut the Noah family up in the Ark BEFORE the rains came and the waters rose eventually drown all but those taken into the Ark.
And then they try to use the days of Lot, but there too the Angels came and directed Lot and his family out of Sodom BEFORE the targeting happened. The Lord delivered His chosen BEFORE the bad things arrived. At the end of the Trib period, the tares will first be removed and then a harvest of new saints will happen, new saints formed during the tribulation and the pouring out of the wrath on that terrible Day of The Lord.
So the Lord will come and take His Bride out BEFORE the Tribulation arrives. And this taking out will change the balance of power on Earth in a mighty way, allowing the forces of evil such as Islam to rampage unopposed, until Israel fights back (Psalm 83 war). The 'Pale Horse' BTW can be translated as the green horse ... green in any flag of note today?
The Rapture is depicted by Paul and Jesus as delivering from the tribulation. The Second Coming (a Jewish reference since He will be making His second arrival ON EARTH) will be bringing his saints as an army in clean linens and His vesture will be dipped in blood. The bridegroom would not come for His bride with his vesture dripping blood. But He would have the dripping of blood when coming as conquering King and Lord of Lords, to serve Judgment upon the earth.
When folks demand that we stop explaining these things, it is a sure sign to me that the 'plane is over the target'. The Rapture could happen any moment, between NOW and 2017. I suspect it is sooner rather than toward 2017, because it is the chaos following the Rapture which I believes make it so easy for an evil leader to get the world to agree to his enactments.
And we should also note that because the world will believe a great lie (regarding the snatching away no doubt, since those left behind will say 'good riddance to those pesky myth-mongers called 'Christians'), God will send them strong delusion. But those 144,000 evangelists will not be afraid of martyrdom for His namesake, because they will have been selected by the Holy Spirit and will know precisely when the Second Coming is to arrive, in 7 years split into two 3 1/2 year periods.
122 posted on 5/7/2015 12:20:08 AM by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
Nope — what Jesus Christ said is pretty clear — he renamed Simon to “rock” and said “on you, the rock, I will build My Church”
16 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.The context is very clear -- He asks Simon who He is. Simon answers and Jesus says flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red.
3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?
4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
5 And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread.
6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.
8 Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?
9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And 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.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art rock, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Then, just as when Moses struck the rock and Living Water flowed through it, you have SImon Peter as a conduit for which the Living Water, the Living Word can flow. So Jesus says "you are rock and on this rock I will build My Church"
It is true that James was the leader at the Council of Jerusalem, but he did not become the leader until Peter left and went to another place.
Trying to put the passage of Acts 12 into the passage of Acts 15 is nonsense. Even the passage in Acts 12 doesn’t remove Peter from Jerusalem.
—— You are correct, Acts 12 does not say Peter left Jerusalem, it says he went to another place, but does not say where that place is.
In looking through Acts, one finds many instances where Peter took strong actions of leadership as follows:
To the Jews. It was Paul who was ultimately chosen by Christ to the Gentiles.
—— This is also true. Peter and Paul both took strong actions of leadership.
Acts 8:9-25 – Peter and John went down to Samaria, and baptized the people with the Holy Spirit, and Peter converted Simon the Magician.
Oh he did did he? Not so much. If you think Simon Magus was converted you had better read more scripture.
-—— The last thing I have seen in scripture about this particular Simon is him saying to Peter: “Pray to the Lord for me so that nothing you have said may happen to me.” Where else is he mentioned in scripture so that I may learn more about him?
metmom: She is mother of Jesus, who is the Second person of the Trinity INCARNATED. She did not pre-exist Him to give Him His existence.
Because she did not give him His deity.
Neither did you, metmom, bestow existence on your childre. You bore them, but God created them
The mother bears a child, carries the child through 9 months and births the child. The mother does not create the child, nor bestow the soul on the child
Mary bore Jesus Christ -- who is and was 100% man and 100% God, both natures utterly intertwined, not separate. She bore this man-god. She bore her creator.
The term “Mother of God came into being to answer the Nestorius heresy ... Obviously she is not the mother of God.. but of the 2nd person in the trinity made man
we are not discussing brain surgery here,
Could we also not discuss Mary here?
It was pointed out shortly after I posted #211 that this thread is about Peter, so I stopped talking about Mary after #293. Can we all do the same?
I’m sure there will be ample opportunity to further discuss Mary on other threads.
I do so enjoy dry humor. No really, I do!
“this thread is about Peter...”
Great idea to try to get this thread back on track. Consider this:
The heresy of Nestorianism that has resurfaced within modern protestantism is actually a serious understanding of Christ’s true nature. This complete misunderstanding of the hypostatic union led to the same errors that occur today among those who think wrongly that Catholics make the Blessed Mother into a goddess.
This is ludicrous and the root of the error is a failure in understanding the correct nature of Christ Incarnate.
Back on topic:
Nestorius’s local Bishop, Cyril Of Alexandria, wrote to Pope St. Celestine to clear it up. St. Celestine immediately condemned Nestorius’s error and so now we are back on track that it is the successor of Peter who has the final say when doctrines are disputed. This does not preclude discussion and disagreement among Bishops during the processes of sorting things out. It does mean that there is a final arbiter to be consulted, Peter and those who succeeded him in the apostolic succession.
Matthew 16:18 (There is no doubt that the koine Greek refers to Peter singular.) Peter is further set apart when Jesus takes him aside with instructions to feed the sheep: John 21- 15-17.
Tertullian ca 160 Prescription Against Heretics,32
Irenaeus “Against Heresies” 3.24
Both were men from antiquity whose writings are still extant who held that Matthew 16:18 was Jesus givng Peter a place of primacy.
One would have to prove that their writings were in error to definitively state that Peter did not have a leadership position. They would have been in a position in history to be living the precedent as it unfolded.
No, of course not...But even then, what 'house' did Peter build??? He preached for a while, was told to go preach to the Jews and that's the last we heard from Peter, while Paul (thru Jesus) built the church...The 'church' is a Gentile church...The job of building the Gentile church was given to Paul...
Just study the bible...The bible gives a completely different picture than your Catholic religion posits...
No...You are ignoring the 'fact' that Petros (Peter) is a little larger than a pebble (Lithos)...But yet far smaller than the rock (Jesus; Petra)
The bible doesn't need to be corrected...It needs to be believed...
I am mentioning this for the sake of other readers.
That must be the bible of Lucifer because it certainly is NOT in the Christian bible...
That must be the bible of Lucifer because it certainly is NOT in the Christian bible...
The last thing I have seen in scripture about this particular Simon is him saying to Peter: “Pray to the Lord for me so that nothing you have said may happen to me.” Where else is he mentioned in scripture so that I may learn more about him?
And history proves that Simon Peter Magus went to Rome and started a church...A very large church...
As I said before, check out respected Protestant Bible scholars like D. A. Carson in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]. They agree that by the time of the New Testament, there wasn't any difference in referent between petra and petros.
You're not helping your argument by repeating stuff that demonstrates ignorance of Koine Greek. There was a major shift of semantic fields between the Attic and the Koine, and between Koine and Modern Greek.
Assuming the Greek of Homer, Lucian, and Kazantzakis are interchangeable is like assuming the same of Geoffrey Chaucer and George Washington. It just makes people roll their eyes, iscool.
No, of course not...But even then, what ‘house’ did Peter build??? He preached for a while, was told to go preach to the Jews and that’s the last we heard from Peter, while Paul (thru Jesus) built the church...The ‘church’ is a Gentile church...The job of building the Gentile church was given to Paul...
Just study the bible...The bible gives a completely different picture than your Catholic religion posits...
Are you series? You’re telling me to study the Bible? Try reading the first 15 Chapters of Acts to find out about what Peter did. It doesn’t record everything Peter did, but other than Paul, we learn more about what Peter did than we learn about what any other person did in building the first Christian community. Here are some references for you to consider:
Acts 1:15-26 – The choice of Judas’ successor
Acts 2:14-41 – Peter’s speech at Pentecost
Acts 3:1-10 – Cure of a crippled beggar
Acts 3:11-26 – Peter’s speech in Solomon’s Portico.
Acts 4:5-22 – Before the Sanhedrin
Acts 5:1-11 – Ananias and Sapphira
Acts 5:15-16 – Peter’s shadow
Acts 8:9-25 – Phillip in Samaria and Simon the Magician.
Acts 9:32-43 – Peter heals Aeneas at Lydda and restores Tabitha to life at Joppa
Acts 10 – The baptism of Cornelius narrative
Acts 11:1-13 – The baptism of the Gentiles explained
Acts 12:1-19 – Peter’s escape from prison
Acts 15 – the Council of Jerusalem
Please note that this is all from Scripture and stop saying they’re my Catholic religion posits. That’s making it personal.
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.