Peter and the Papacy

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’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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And history proves that Simon Peter Magus went to Rome and started a church...A very large church...

We weren’t talking history. CynicalBear told me that If I thought Simon Magus was converted I had better read more scripture. Do you know where else he is mentioned in Scripture?

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.

This statement clearly proves a number of things...

You don't understand the Trinity...
This teaching makes a goddess out of Mary...
This teaching makes a demi-god out of Jesus...
This teaching is false doctrine...
This teaching makes a liar out of the God of the scriptures...
Any one teaching this is not qualified to discuss the scriptures...And that's just the short list...

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.

So what??? That doesn't mean there's any truth to it...

The Bible doesn't need to be corrected, but your grammar and lexicon need to be corrected.

I'm not too worried about grammar...Nitpickers usually have issues of their own...

Lexicon??? Which Lexicon do you think is the right one??? How many Lexicons disagree with Petros and Petra???

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.

I'm not the least bit concerned about Koine Greek or your philosophers...I read the bible...

The Koine Greek issue has been settled for years...You can reinvent the wheel if you want to but the scriptures and Lexicons are clear that Peter is Petros and Jesus is Petra...

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.

Correcting error in teaching who Jesus is is best done by proper teaching from Scripture, which would have solved the whole problem, instead of opening the door into more and more serious error by presuming to correct the work of the Holy Spirit.

Naming Mary "mother of God" does NOTHING to address anything about Jesus.

One big reason that it fails is that unless it is explained to someone, there is no reason for anyone to equate the term *mother of God* with Jesus. It is not self-evidence that saying *mother of God* automatically clears up error about the nature of Jesus.

However popular the petros/petra argument is with polemicists (who copy it from each others' websites), actual New Testament experts like Donald Carson (Research professor, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) don't buy the petros/petra distinction. So I'll go with the Reformed Evangelical guy on this one.

The clincher for me is that historically, people who had thorough vernacular AND scholarly knowledge of Greek --- AND a major gripe against Papal claims--- STILL never used this inane petra/petros argument in centuries of no-holds-bared polemics.

I mean, wouldn't it have occurred to the Greek Orthodox over the period of, say, the last 1000 years, that that would be a nifty way to minimize the impact of that awful "Thou Art Peter and Upon This Rock" Scripture?

But they didn't.

Yet I'm expected to accept that some English-speaking Brit or American of the mid-19th or 20th century (which is when this argument originated) knew more than ALL the Greek-speakers of the past millennium?

Really, that's asking a lot.

God said "You are Rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church," and I think He knew what He was talking about.

Look, what's the point of this? He said both things. We understand that He is the Rock, and He also calls Simon bar-Jonah "Rock" and calls us the "living stones" with which He builds His church, and if you go to your concordance you will find a lot of different Rock and Stone items applied to different people, in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, which you can look up as well as I can.

Peter gets called Petros, Kephas and Cephas. The term "Rock" is not applied to God exclusively, because HE Himself applies the metaphor to others. Are we going to have to fight about every word in the Concordance?

Surely not. It's sufficient to know that God is our Rock and our Salvation, and that Peter is also "Rock" because God says so, and we are building stones as well because God says so (though some of us could just as well be called "Sandy" and some of us Claude --- "Clod," get it?)

That's the way these words work, Fred Flintstone!

First of all it was Philip’s preaching and who baptised Simon the Magician not Peter. And Peter clearly recognized that Simon the Magician had NOT been converted but only wanted the power.

You are correct. Philip baptized Simon in the name of Jesus. Simon was not included when Peter and John placed their hands on the people and they received the Holy Spirit. So when Simon saw what happened, he offered the apostles money. Peter rebuked Simon and encouraged him to repent and pray to the Lord. Then Simon asked Peter to pray to the Lord for him. But Scripture is silent on whether Simon actually received the Holy Spirit; so we do not know enough from Scripture for me to say that Peter converted Simon the Magician. I retract that statement.

The early church fathers knew Peter wasn't the 'rock' that Jesus built his church on...They mostly agree that it was Peter's confession that was the rock (Petra)...I believe THAT rock was Jesus himself...

All the Greek lexicons have Petros in them at Mat. 16:18...All the manuscripts have Petros...The Orthodox religion knows it is Petros and Petra there...

You and your 'higher education' critics can chase all the rabbits you want...You go right ahead and try to prove God's inspired, preserved word to be wrong...Me, I'll stick with the scriptures...

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

IF THIS VERSE IN EPH.,
IS TRUE,

And you continue to insist that every Greek lexicon and manuscript out there is wrong in Mat. 16:18,

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

You can't leave the verse to stand...You have to change the verse to:

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon these rocks I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And good luck with that...

Rn, metmom -- both of you are mothers. I have a lot of respect for mothers, but you did not "create" your children, you "bore" them, you carried them for 9 months and birthed them, but you did not give them their soles. Mother <> creator

Mary too "bore" God -- Jesus Christ. She birthed Jesus Christ -- GOD. She did not create Him or imbibe him no more than our mothers created us or gave us our souls.

Rn Obviously she is not the mother of God.. but of the 2nd person in the trinity made man -- the 2nd person in the Trinity IS God. Jesus Christ IS/WAS/WILL BE God. He is 100% God and 100% man -- all 7 of us on this particular sub-discussion believe that, I hope.

I believe life starts at conception, the soul is at conception. Jesus was 100% man and 100% God from the very beginning -- there was never a time when He was just a man.

verse 15 - He asks them.
verse 16 - Simon answers "You are..."
verse 17 - Jesus says "Simon you are blessed. Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my father in heaven"
verse 18 - Jesus says "you are rock and on this rock, I will build My Church'
verse 19 - Jesus says "I will give you the keys of heaven...
verse 20 - Then He charged his disciples that..

In Latin this is clearly in verse 15 he asks them (vos), in verse 17 he uses second person singular (es), the same in verse 18 (tu es ) and verse 19 (tibi ). But in verse 20 he uses plural third person (ut)

Going by the grammar, in verses 15 and 20 these are addressed to plural second or third persons (vos and ut respectively) while in 17, 18 and 19 this is 2nd person - tu es and tibi

15 - Who do you'all :) say I am
17 - you (singular) are blessed
18 - I say to you (sing) that you (sing) are rock
19 - I will give unto thee (sing)
20 - He commanded them (plural)

Though, good catch on dative for "commanded THEM" :)

Stonehouse brings out a very good point. 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.

This is a clear case of primus inter pares, which is not the "supremacy" of Peter over the others, rather as the first among equals, the elder brother that other bishops would refer to

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.