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.
Just like EVERY Catholic edict ever put in place!
A mass of the faithful assemble together and VOTE on what is going to go down.
Oh?
Yes.
you mean that we should look at what the numerous councils that have assembled over the years to see what was NOT passed in them.
Right?
You can say this 'til the cows goats come home; but it is STILL not found in the Bible.
Admit it and move on.
Now THIS is a darned good question!
I'm glad you asked it!
Mary is dead and unable to answer any Catholic prayers; no matter WHAT 3 kids from that place that ain't Spain claimed.
Your argument is NOT with me; but your OWN chosen religion!
Augustine and the Catechism.
My only complaint is that they didn’t use pinking shears...
Oh go ahead!
It doesn't seem to bother some of your compatriots to do so!
Like...
Then Peter began to speak:
"I now realize how true it is that GOD does NOT show favoritism, but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right."
Acts 10:34-35
"The Masses" indeed!
We Freepers are SO much more knowledgeable about MOST things than the masses.
We ARE dismissed by the powers that be (in EVERY field) because we are few in number.
Sadly; propaganda DOES work; if done correctly!
How ELSE can we explain the RAPID, almost meteoric change in the attitudes of HOMOSEXUALITY in this country in the last few decades?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message
It is too well imbedded.
The lurkers here (poor devils!) have gotten the message.
Time to move on...
And they aren't submitting their "will and intellect" to the magisterium as their Catechism commands.
You might want to take a look at CCC 552
CCC 553 is a doozie as well. It appears that Peter is the only ONE with the keys (well that ain’t in the Bible). I hope he doesn’t lose them.
Yet it could translate that way: "Thou art Rock and upon this Rock..." would be an equivalent translation.
The problem with English is that Rock is almost never used as a male given name (except for Rock Hudson I can't think of one--- and the translations were done pre-Rock Hudson!); but in languages were the word "Rock" is a given name, that's how they translate the whole verse consistently. Check it out:
FRENCH(Iscool)"If they meant the same thing, Jesus would have used the same word for both rocks..."18 Et moi, je te déclare: Tu es Pierre, et sur cette pierre j'édifierai mon Eglise...
HILIGAYANG/Filipino
18 Kag tungod sini ginatawag ko ikaw nga kon sayuron bato. Kag sa sini nga bato pagatukuron ko ang akon iglesya,
ITALIAN
18 Tu sei Pietro e su questa pietra costruirò la mia Chiesa; e tutte le potenze dell’inferno non potranno vincerla mai.
(Pietro and pietra are masc. and fem. of the same word)
RUSSIAN
18 И Я говорю тебе: ты – скала, и на этой скале Я построю вселенскую общину Моих последователей,
(скала and скале are masc. and fem. of the same word)
PORTUGUESE
18 Pois também eu te digo que tu és Pedro e sobre esta pedra edificarei a minha igreja,
(Pedro and pedra are masc. and fem. of the same word.
But He did:
GREEK
18 καγω δε σοι λεγω οτι συ ει πετρος και επι ταυτη τη πετρα οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν και πυλαι αδου ου κατισχυσουσιν αυτης
(πετρος and πετρα are masc. and fem. of the same word)
You say: "It is foolish to claim Jesus used two different words that mean the same thing in the same sentence..." ... but the fact is, Jesus DID use the same word, and it is foolish to claim he would use the same word twice, in the same sentence, to mean different things.
In 431, with the Council at Ephesus, the worship of Mary as ‘The Mother of God’ crept in as tradition. In 607 Boniface 111 was the first ‘Pope’ named. The doctrine of Purgatory wasn’t decreed until 1439. Tradition wasn’t granted equality with scripture until 1545. But in 1530 the Protestants were killing any lay pastors teaching publicly, so splitting from Rome didn’t seem to shed the devil’s errands.
The Catholic Church Fathers said that the different gender was due to the Petra being the profession by Peter, whereas the Petros was to designate the man, Peter.
To make the profession establishes a foundation so solid that no one can snatch us from God's hand (to mix two metaphors). The Holy Spirit inspired the use of the masculine and then the feminine so there would be no mistake that it is a foundational thing at issue. Then Jesus immediately gives Peter the keys to the Kingdom.
And every time someone makes that same profession and believes God raised Him from the dead as their Savior, they are added to the 'thing being constructed' during the Church Age 'pause' in the 490 years assigned for God dealing with the Jews specifically. Thus the Church, the Ekklesiaa of believers, is being constructed upon a foundation which Peter illustrated with his profession, and this did not flee from him even though he denied Jesus thrice just a few days later! Peter was added into the construction project upon professing, and since he was the first added, he was given the keys to open the Church Age at Pentecost.
Actually that is not true. Eastern dialects and Aramaic idioms would employ such usages to make a point or a pun. In this case Jesus was contrasting the smaller shakier rock of Peter with Himself - The Rock. The Apostles and anyone else at that era would have understood and enjoyed construction of that sentence.
"Petra" means "Rock."
If you're going to use it as a masculine name, it becomes "Petros." Works the same in any gendered language, as shown.
It's "You are Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my Church."
It's as if to say, "You are Slate, and upon this slate I will write my message."
Or "you are Hoss and upon this hoss I will ride to many places."
BTW whether this establishes an "exclusive" Petrine primacy here, is not the point. I’m fine with everybody ("Come o-o-o-n-n-n-, everybody!") having a part of Peter’s mission and his ministry -— each according to the gifts God has given him and the situation in which God has placed him.
It's just as we all have a part in Jesus' ministry: we're in Him and He's in us --- and I hope we can say with St. Paul "I live; yet not 'I', but Christ lives in me."
I’m just trying to establish something here about how the metaphor works. “Peter” is obviously not literally a 1,200 pound boulder; nor is the Lord manifestly slapping mortar on his back with a trowel and then layering on bricks to make a literal building with a man immured within it.
It’s a double metaphor, then. And it hinges on Petros matching petra.
This is so obvious it's getting embarrassing to keep explaining it.
You are in fact not at all embarrassed to contradict the teaching of Rome, apparently. Have you even read the posts Elsie puts up showing the teaching of the Romish Church Fathers on this issue? And I ask you, what gender would a Koine Greek writer have used in 100AD when writing about a declaration or oath?
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.