Posted on 04/20/2014 2:44:35 AM PDT by GonzoII
Peter is the Rock
Few texts have been the occasion for the spilling of more ink than Matthew 16:17-19:
And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
For Catholics, this text is clear. All twelve apostles were present, yet Jesus promised to give to Peter alone the keys of the kingdom, symbolizing the authority of Christ—the authority of heaven—over the kingdom of heaven on Earth, which is the Church. Yet millions of Protestants believe that there is a distinction in meaning in the Greek text between the two “rocks” that would eliminate Peter from consideration for being the rock.
“Thou art petros and upon this petra I will build my church . . .” The first rock, petros, is claimed to refer to a small, insignificant rock: Peter. The second, petra, is claimed to mean a massive boulder: that would be either Jesus or Peter’s confession of faith. The argument concludes Jesus did not build his church upon St. Peter but either upon himself or Peter’s faith.
Below are seven reasons, among many others we could examine, why Peter is undeniably the rock:
1) Matthew, we have pretty solid evidence, was originally written in Aramaic. Both Sts. Papias and Irenaeus tell us as much in the second century. But even more importantly—and more certainly—Jesus would not have spoken his discourse of Matthew 16 in Greek. Greek was the dominant language of the Roman Empire in the first century, but most of the common Jewish folk to whom Jesus spoke would not have been fluent in it. Aramaic was their spoken language.
Moreover, we have biblical evidence—John 1:42—that also points to Jesus using Aramaic specifically in the naming of Peter: “[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas’” (which means Peter).
The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic Kepha, which means simply “rock.” There would have been no “small rock” to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter.
Even well-respected Protestant scholars will agree on this point. Baptist scholar D. A. Carson, warites, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary:
[T]he 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 a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses.
2) In Koine Greek (the dialect of Greek used by the authors of the New Testament), petros and petra are masculine and feminine forms of words with the same root and the same definition—rock. There is no “small rock” to be found in the Greek text, either.
So why did St. Matthew use these two words in the same verse? Petra was a common word used for “rock” in Greek. It’s used fifteen times to mean “rock,” “rocks,” or “rocky” in the New Testament. Petros is an ancient Greek term that was not commonly used in Koine Greek at all. In fact, it was never used in the New Testament, except for Peter’s name after Jesus changed it from Simon to Peter.
It follows that when St. Matthew was translating, he would have used petra for “rock.” However, in so doing, he would have encountered a problem. Petra is a feminine noun. It would have been improper to call Peter Petra. This would be equivalent to calling a male “Valerie” or “Priscilla” in English. Hence, petros was used instead of petra for Peter’s name.
3) There are several words the inspired author could have used for rock or stone in Greek. Petra and lithos were the most common. They could be used interchangeably. A connotation of “large” or “small” with either of them would depend on context. The words simply meant rock or stone.
Craig S. Keener, another Protestant scholar, on page 90 of The IVP Bible Background Commentary of the New Testament, states: “In Greek (here), they (referring to petros and petra) are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period…” D. A. Carson points out the big/small distinction did exist in Greek, but is found only in ancient Greek (used from ca. the eighth to the fourth century B.C.), and even there it is mostly confined to poetry. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek (used from ca. the fourth century B.C. to the fifth century A.D.). Carson agrees with Keener and with Catholics that there is no distinction in definition between petros and petra.
One of the most respected and referenced Greek dictionaries among Evangelicals is Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. In a most candid statement about Matthew 16:18, Dr. Oscar Cullman, a contributing editor to this work, writes:
The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and Petros . . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . . 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. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.
4) If St. Matthew wanted to distinguish “rocks” in the text, he would have most likely used lithos. As stated above, lithos could refer to a large rock, but it was more commonly used to denote a small stone. However, there is a third word St. Matthew could have used that always means small stone: psephos. It is used twice in Rev. 2:17 as “small stone” when Jesus says, “To him who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone which no one knows except him who receives it.” Here we have one Greek word that unlike lithos and petra always has a connotation of “small stone,” or “pebble.”
5) A simpler line of reasoning gets away from original languages and examines the immediate context of the passage. Notice our Lord says to St. Peter:
And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Seven times Jesus uses the second person personal pronoun in just three verses. It just doesn’t make sense for Jesus to address everything to Peter and then in the midst of it all say “But I will build my Church upon me.” The context is one of Jesus communicating a unique authority to Peter.
Further, Jesus is portrayed as the builder of the Church, not the building. He said, “I will build my church.” Jesus is “the wise man who built his house upon the rock” (Matt. 7:24) in Matthew’s Gospel. Once again, it just does not fit the context to have Jesus building the Church upon himself. He’s building it upon Peter.
6) A lot of folks miss the significance of Simon’s name change to Peter. When God revealed to certain of his people a new and radical calling in Scripture, he sometimes changed their names. In particular, we find this in the calling of the Patriarchs. Abram (“exalted father” in Hebrew) was changed to Abraham (“father of the multitudes”). Jacob (“supplanter”) to Israel (“One who prevails with God”). In fact, there is a very interesting parallel here between Abraham and St. Peter in Isaiah 51:1-2:
Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you who seek the Lord; look to the rock from which you were hewn. . . . Look to Abraham your father.
Jesus here makes St. Peter a true “father” over the household of faith, just as God made Abraham our true “father” in the Faith (cf. Romans 4:1-18; James 2:21). Hence, it is fitting that Peter’s successors are called “pope” or “papa,” as was Abraham (cf. Luke 16:24).
7) When we understand that Christ is the true “son of David” who came to establish the prophetic “Kingdom of David,” we understand that Christ in Matthew 16, like the King of Israel, was establishing a “prime minister” among his ministers—the apostles—in the Kingdom. Isaiah 22:15-22 gives us insight into the ministry of the “prime minister” in ancient Israel:
Thus says the Lord God of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him . . . Behold the Lord will hurl you away violently. . . . I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the House of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
In Revelation 1:18, Jesus declares, “I have the keys of Death and Hades.” He then quotes this very text from Isaiah in Revelation 3:7:
And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: “The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.”
No Christian would deny Jesus is the King who possesses the keys. Who does he give the keys to? Peter!
In my next post, I will give you proof from texts other than Matt. 16:18-19 that St. Peter was “the rock,” the foundation, “first,” or “chief” among the apostles, and shepherd of both the other shepherds and the sheep gathered by Jesus Christ and revealed to be his body, the Church. But if you want to dig deeper into what I’ve presented here, click here.
In Revelation 1:18, Jesus declares, “I have the keys"...“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! ....I will give you the keys."
He probably had an extra set cut at Walmart.
And thus the debate rages on between Roman and evangelical and Orthodox views.
It’s fallen human nature to want to possess exclusive power, to want the road to God to have to go through us. It feeds our sadly wandered pride. Yielding it back to God isn’t easy.
The gospel, the free gift of God, was never chained. The emphasis on the personnel was something that came later than the generation of the apostles.
Ultimately those who are proud of the personnel can’t be argued down in our own power. We can remonstrate but that’s it. Quite true to what we believe, God has to touch and convict. Demonstrating the Lord at work in non-Roman contexts says far more than any amount of theologizing can.
Actually, this is easily refuted in Scripture.
Here is a copy and paste on Peter that explains how just a reading of the Bible explains that, it is from a post of mine a while back and I decided to save it because it saves me typing time each time this subject comes up :)
What is important to remember in what follows, is the question: Do you read the Bible in the light of the doctrine you were taught; or; do you read the Bible and THEN decide on what your doctrine is? Too many people hear something about the Bible, ABOUT what it says, ABOUT what it means, and they never, ever critically ever read what some passage was supposed to be teaching in the first place.
Here is my copy and paste:
Each time the word ROCK is used in the Bible in reference to any providing of the people, it is used as God being the one provided. Here is the first verse in the Bible in the KJV showing just that.
(Exo 17:6 KJV) Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.
Who pointed out where the ROCK was? God did. What came out of the ROCK? Water, water to drink. Who is referred to as LIVING WATER, water that must be drunk to live eternally? Jesus.
(John 7:38 KJV) He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Each time the word ROCK is used, where God provides the ROCK, it is either a literal ROCK, like just above, where WATER came out of, water to allow the Isralites to live, it came from GOD, not a man.
When it refers to a spiritual meaning, the word ROCK is used to describe God as creator or Saviour! IT IS NEVER USED TO DESCRIBE A MAN!
(Deu 32:1 KJV) Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth.
(Deu 32:2 KJV) My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:
(Deu 32:3 KJV) Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.
(Deu 32:4 KJV) He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
Who is the ROCK? God is, He is our support, our Saviour, our Creator.NOT A MAN.
(Deu 32:18 KJV) Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.
GOD is the ROCK, the Creator, not a man.
(Deu 32:30 KJV) How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut them up?
(Deu 32:31 KJV) For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.
Who is the ROCK? It is GOD, not a man!
(1 Sam 2:2 KJV) There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.
Who is the ROCK? It is not a man, it is GOD!
(2 Sam 22:2 KJV) And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer;
(2 Sam 22:3 KJV) The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.
Who is the ROCK? It is GOD. NOT a sinful man who denied his God, but GOD Himself.
Peter is NO ONE’S shield.
Peter is NO ONE’S high tower.
Peter is NO ONE’S refuge.
and Peter is NO ONE’S Saviour! To say anything like those statements are true of a sinful man is blasphemy.
Most Catholics never read the section before or after this part:
(Mat 16:18 KJV) 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.
That is one reason some people do not find it obvious.
Here is what it says::
(Mat 16:13 KJV) 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?
(Mat 16:14 KJV) And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
(Mat 16:15 KJV) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
(Mat 16:16 KJV) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
(Mat 16:17 KJV) 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.
What was the original topic of discussion?
(Mat 16:13 KJV) 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?
Jesus asked,
That was the topic of discussion.
What was the response?
(Mat 16:14 KJV) And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
They were all over the place, it seems that there was not many who were catching on to exactly who Jesus was.
So, what was the next sentence?
(Mat 16:15 KJV) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
(Mat 16:16 KJV) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Jesus asked the disciples themselves what THEY thought, not just one disciple, but ALL of them.
Peter gave the best answer, that Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Right from there, many people ignore what was just said, and only concentrate on what comes next.
However, that is where the error lies, in ignoring what was just said.
It is like explaining to someone that people put sodas in the soda machine first, then act surprised when soda comes out of the machine when you put money into it. People forget what happened first: someone loaded the machine.
In the same respect, Jesus set the tone for the conversation: WHO IS HE?
Peter had it right: Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
That was the point of what Jesus was saying. That He was the Christ.
That was what He just said!
We all know what comes next, and it is because people ignore what was just said, that they get this part wrong:The Context of the ongoing conversation is important:
(Mat 16:17 KJV) 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.
(Mat 16:18 KJV) 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.
Jesus explains that Peter’s revelation did not come from His logic, it came from God the Father Himself. This type of instruction was done on a spiritual level, not fleshly, it was something that Peter would have never figured out for himself.
What did Jesus say next? Peter is blessed because he was BLESSED with this information.
What information?
That Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
That is the point.
What Jesus said next is the most misused verse in the entire New Testament.
(Mat 16:18 KJV) 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.
Peter and Rock. Is Peter the rock spoken of here, or is the IMPORTANT POINT THAT GOD REVEALED TO PETER the rock?
17 And [ 2532] Jesus [2424] answered [ 611] (5679) and said [ 2036] (5627) unto him [846], Blessed [ 3107] art thou [ 1488] (5748), Simon [ 4613] Barjona [ 920]: for [ 3754] flesh [ 4561] and [ 2532] blood [ 129] hath [ 601] [0] not [3756] revealed [601] (5656) it unto thee [4671], but [ 235] my [ 3450] Father [ 3962] which [ 3588] is in [ 1722] heaven [ 3772].
18 And [ 1161] I say [ 3004] (5719) also [ 2504] unto thee [ 4671], That [ 3754] thou [ 4771] art [ 1488] (5748) Peter [ 4074], and [ 2532] upon [ 1909] this [ 5026] rock [ 4073] I will build [ 3618] (5692) my [ 3450] church [ 1577]; and [ 2532] the gates [ 4439] of hell [ 86] shall [ 2729] [0] not [ 3756] prevail against [ 2729] (5692) it [ 846].
18 kagw [ 2504] de [ 1161] soi [ 4671] legw [ 3004] (5719) oti [ 3754] su [ 4771] ei [ 1488] (5748) petroj [ 4074] kai [ 2532] epi [ 1909] tauth [ 3778] th [ 3588] petra [ 4073] oikodomhsw [ 3618] (5692) mou [ 3450] thn [ 3588] ekklhsian [ 1577] kai [ 2532] pulai [ 4439] adou [ 86] ou [ 3756] katiscusousin [ 2729] (5692) authj [ 846]
Peter =
4074 petroj Petros pet’-ros
apparently a primary word; TDNT - 6:100,835; n pr m
AV - Peter 161, stone 1; 162
Peter = “a rock or a stone”
1) one of the twelve disciples of Jesus
rock =
4073 petra petra pet’-ra
from the same as 4074; TDNT - 6:95,834; n f
AV - rock 16; 16
1) a rock, cliff or ledge
1a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground
1b) a rock, a large stone
1c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul
Due to what Jesus was talking about, the ROCK had to be the truth Peter had revealed to him from God the Father, that JESUS IS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.
There is no other sensible explanation of the verse unless it is twisted to make someone believe what is not there in the text.
Because of all the previous uses of the word ROCK to describe the attributes of God as Creator, Deliverer, Saviour, to ascribe those attributes to a man, that is a total misunderstanding of Scripture.
Too many people form what they believe around their doctrine, and then interpret the Bible in the light of that doctrine.
That is wrong. Doctrine should come from what the Bible clearly says, and then base their doctrine on what it clearly says!
The Bible nowhere grants Peter any authority that is not also given to the other disciples.
Jesus is also called the ROCK or CORNER STONE in many other verses, but PETER IS NOT!
Notice what is said in this passage::
(Mat 7:24 KJV) Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
(Mat 7:25 KJV) And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
(Mat 7:26 KJV) And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
(Mat 7:27 KJV) And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
What is it that a person built their house upon and survived? A ROCK.
If a person is foolish, what does a person build their house upon? SAND. What did Jesus say that those who rejected his words built upon? SAND.
If the foolish reject Jesus and build upon SAND, then those who BELIEVE and RECEIVE what Jesus said, which of the two men is Jesus comparing them to, the SAND builder or the ROCK builder?
It is CLEAR that Jesus is referring to those who BELIEVE on HIM and trust HIM as one who builds their house UPON A ROCK.
That is JESUS own words several chapters before Peter’s declaration.
This is repeated in more detail in Luke::
(Luke 6:47 KJV) Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like:
(Luke 6:48 KJV) He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.
(Luke 6:49 KJV) But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.
Note again, the PERSON who believes on the WORD OF GOD, is likened to someone building their house UPON A ROCK.
So, what does the reference to A ROCK in ALL these cases refer to?
Is it a MAN or is it the WORD OF GOD revealed?
This is not difficult to read, but too many people have been taught to interpret the passage in Matthew in such a way to twist what is actually being said, and these alternate passages repeat the same basic message: THAT GOD is what matters, not men or a single man.
Paul wrote in Romans 9::
(Rom 9:33 KJV) As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Who is Paul speaking of when he SAYS A ROCK of offense? A Stumbling stone? It is Jesus, and refers to those who refuse to believe.
(1 Cor 10:4 KJV) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Who is the ROCK?
It plainly says the ROCK WAS JESUS, not Peter.
There is no other place where Peter is praised or given any authority, in fact Peter is rebuked for his actions by other persons.
(Gal 2:11 KJV) But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
(Gal 2:12 KJV) For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
(Gal 2:13 KJV) And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
(Gal 2:14 KJV) But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
If PETER is the ROCK of the Church, then WHO IS PAUL to REBUKE PETER?
Paul clearly rebuked Peter in this passage because PETER was WRONG and at FAULT!
The ROCK of the Church CANNOT HAVE ANY FAULT, or else there is NO FOUNDATION to stand upon but error!!
Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, not Peter, also. While the book of Acts clearly tells Peter to witness to a Gentile first, Peter is NOWHERE granted any position or title that PETER is the Apostle to the Gentiles, but PAUL clearly IS named as SUCH!
(Rom 15:15 KJV) Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God,
(Rom 15:16 KJV) That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
The Book of Galatians is the clearest refutation to many false doctrines concerning this::
(Gal 2:1 KJV) Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
(Gal 2:2 KJV) And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
Now, read the next passage carefully:: WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY??
(Gal 2:7 KJV) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
(Gal 2:8 KJV) (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
THE GOSPEL OF THE UNCIRCUMCISION WAS GIVEN TO PAUL, NOT PETER.
PETER WAS TO BE THE APOSTLE TO THE JEWS.
(Eph 3:1 KJV) For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
WHO WAS? PAUL was, not Peter.
(Eph 3:8 KJV) Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
WHO WAS?? Paul was!!
(1 Tim 2:7 KJV) Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
WHO IS A TEACHER OF THE GENTILES?
Paul is! NOT Peter, every time Peter is mentioned as to WHAT PEOPLE Peter is to be associated with it is the JEWS, WITH ONLY ONE EXCEPTION, and that is Acts chapter 10.
Only ONCE, while PAUL is repeatedly and openly called or referred to as the Apostle of the Gentiles.
In fact, there might even be more references to PAUL witnessing to Jews then there are references to PETER witnessing to Gentiles! And this from the man who is KNOWN as THE APOSTLE OF THE GENTILES!
(Acts 9:19 KJV) And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.
(Acts 9:20 KJV) And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.
(Acts 9:21 KJV) But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests?
(Acts 9:22 KJV) But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.
Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. 3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. 4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. 5 And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister.
Acts 14:1 And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed. 2 But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren.
Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Acts 17:(Acts 17:10 KJV) And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
(Acts 18:4 KJV) And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
(Acts 18:5 KJV) And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.
(Acts 20:21 KJV) Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
(2 Tim 1:11 KJV) Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
(2 Tim 4:17 KJV) Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.
Strengthened who? PETER?? NO!
Paul!
The doctrines of Peter being the ROCK are clearly not supported by Scripture.
That cannot be denied by anyone who knows how to read for themselves.
(Acts 17:10 KJV) And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
(Acts 17:11 KJV) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
(Acts 17:12 KJV) Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
Neither did Jesus rename Peter, he clearly called Peter a stone. To believe otherwise means you believe Jesus changed the subject of His being the Messiah. Jesus entire passage was n the Church, His founding of it being the Messiah, and the fact that HIS church would have no end.
It had NOTHING to do with a sinful man being any sort of a foundation. The only foundation for the Church was Jesus Christ Himself.
Luke 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like:
48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.
Jesus clearly says HE is the rock that the man built his house upon, not Peter.
What did Paul say about building upon a MAN’S foundational work?
(Rom 15:20 KJV) Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation:
Paul said he would NOT go anywhere another man had alreayd preached. Since we KNOW Peter was in Rome after Paul, and they may have met there, Peter surely would have known this verse and this course of action and would NOT have built upon Paul’s work in Rome.
(1 Cor 3:10 KJV) According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Paul makes it clear: The FOUNDATION of the Church is JESUS CHRIST, not Peter.
(Eph 2:20 KJV) And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
In that last passage, ALL the Apostles are called foundations, NOT JUST PETER, and it is CLEAR:: Jesus Christ is the Chief Cornerstone, NOT PETER, and ALL the Apostles are given the same rank and status, and PETER is NOT NAMED ONCE.
(Gal 2:7 KJV) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
(Gal 2:8 KJV) (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
(Gal 2:9 KJV) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
And Again, Paul clearly states PAUL is the Apostle to the Uncircumcision, and also noteworthy, in Gal 2:9, Look again what PAUL said::
(Gal 2:9 KJV) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Paul called 3 men, 3 Apostles the pillars of the Church, 3 men, not just Peter!!
Like I said before: Doctrine needs to be based on the Bible and what it says. People who read the Bible and interpret the Bible in light of their doctrine are in error. The Bible should tell you what your doctrine is, instead of your doctrine telling you what the Bible clearly says.
There are just too many ways to Biblically defeat the doctrine of Peter’s supremacy in the Church. He WAS an Apostle, and that is greater than I ever will be, but as far as the FOUNDER or LEADER ALONE of the Church, someone who is considered the foundation of the Christian Church in Europe or something, that is just not Biblical.
You also just showed you do not know your Bible when you said this:
Christ did NOT state to refer to or consult Scripture for disputes and correction. He said to go to the Church as It is the final authority in Christianity.
Well, just what was Jesus doing here in this collection of verses then, if not using SCRIPTURE as the final authority on faith and morals?
(Mat 12:3 KJV) But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
(Mat 12:5 KJV) Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
(Mat 19:4 KJV) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
(Mat 21:16 KJV) And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
(Mat 21:42 KJV) Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
(Mat 22:31 KJV) But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
(Mark 2:25 KJV) And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
(Mark 12:10 KJV) And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
(Mark 12:26 KJV) And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
(Luke 4:16 KJV) And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
(Luke 6:3 KJV) And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungered, and they which were with him;
Jesus used Scriptue to defeat Satan, not the teachings of the Synagogue, nor the teachings of a future Church that we are disputing about:
(Mat 4:4 KJV) But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
(Mat 4:7 KJV) Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
(Mat 4:10 KJV) Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Paul’s statement of the Church being the pillar and ground of the truth in 1 Timothy 3:15 is NOT the subject of what you claimed, either:
(1 Tim 3:15 KJV) But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
IT IS GOD that is the Pillar and ground of truth, and it is the SPIRITUAL Church that it is referring to, not any physical building, nor a any sinful man’s creation of a denomination.
Don’t be too hard on folks in that theological position.
Demonstrating the positive power of God independently of the control of any human says more than negative criticisms can. Some get so wrapped up in the theology that they forget that the theology has to have something to be about.
The blue print of a building is important. The actual building is even more important.
And, we are all “living stones.”
Peter was the first one in earthly chronology in the earthly church. The name is fitting for that reason. Peter is “the rock” — no. Peter is “a rock” — yes yes yes a thousand times yes.
The author writes as if the only disagreement with purported Petrine Supremacy comes from so-called Protestant quarters, but even a cursory review with an unbiased eye demonstrates that not just Protestants but Eastern Orthodox and even Augustine, Origen and Chrysostom agree, that “the rock” was not the man, Peter, himself, it was his profession of faith, upon which the Church was to be built.
I believe the fallen nature of humans is just this: we are a dichotomy between flesh and spirit. The two are in constant struggle, and this is typified by our denominational differences. The animal nature of us is a pack instinct, since humans are tribal in origin. We have an “us vs. them” mentality, but we were also made in God’s image. This is what Satan hates the most, and uses our animal nature against the spiritual one, attempting to destroy us this way.
The many-faceted character of Jesus is something I find pretty amazing. Look at the way atheist-historians are trying to redefine Him, as someone just like the rest of us. Granted he was 100% human, but as the Son of God his spiritual nature is all-encompassing of what humans should ultimately be.
Elegant words. One can hear the note of melancholy in them. That’s why it’s more important than ever to note:
This was and never will be about power. It’s about Faith and the assent to the Truth. It’s the fallen human nature that portends that this is an issue pertaining to human supremacy.
The personnel as you call them are integral in the salvation of the world. Keeping the gospels free and unchained from the monstrosities of error. To lead souls to Christ and preserve them from the heresies of the world. To lead us to all Truth just as Christ promised through the Holy Spirit.
The only time the gospel has been chained is when it is held hostage by those who seek what the want from it for their own sake. They look at the gospels not unlike Narcissus looking at his own reflection. Seeing only what they want to see. And in attempting to derive communion with God through text they deny the actual communion that can be had with the entirety of the Mystical Body of Christ around them. Denying the supernatural Faith. Denying the presence of Jesus Christ: Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity in the Holy Eucharist. Denying the sacraments that bring us God’s grace.
Whole swaths of the Body of Christ amputated by such people because it interfered with their own private understanding of things. A failure to assent to Faith and belief for the supremacy of private rationalization.
I don’t deny that God works outside of “non-Roman” contexts. But I have to wonder about the mind that feels compelled to delineate the works of God in such a fashion. It’s not pride. It’s gratitude. A deep sense of gratitude to God for leaving with us a Church to help us find our way to Him in this world. It is the Church that is the salve for our fallen human nature. As a function of reason we have questions which is the Church’s responsibility to answer through those “personnel”. Given the imprimatur of infallibility by the Holy Spirit on the most important issues of Faith and Morals.
We all can’t have the perfect faith of the evangelical. Although one has to wonder if it truly is faith because the evangelical proclaims his or her faith with such certitude as to make it seem that they are speaking of some immutable law of physics. If that’s the case, then how can they call it Faith?
People are but channels for the Holy Spirit’s continual direction.
If someone fails to be a good channel, then someone else is placed in position.
However, those who wrote the bible were specially appointed.
Meeting Jesus has a distinct effect. Unlike laws of physics, people do have a range of choice of how they react to Jesus, but ultimately the Shepherd successfully herds to heaven those willing to believe, by means of one way or the other. The sheep can mill about, but can’t bolt again from the fold.
As for melancholy, it’s sadness that people can’t hear the Lord better. Much grief follows as a result.
Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure." - Book of Daniel
Yeshua Messiah is the Rock, not Peter my friend.
Why would a sinless Son of God, who lived, died and was resurrected by the power of a sinless God, establish a perfect kingdom and build it upon a man who denied the Christ, was a sinner, and was called out for his ethnic bigotry?
So your faith is informed by your own private interpretation. I’m glad you were able to work your way through all of that to the conclusion you reached. A lot of mental energy went into that exercise.
Christ left us a Church. Not a book. If the Bible was as clearly understood as you claim then there wouldn’t be different interpretations, by definition. Since there are QED it is not as clear as you make it out to be. We’re supposed to live our Faith, not read about it.
Peter is the rock and Paul is the roll.
Oh I don’t know, maybe that’s the way God works? With that line of reasoning you’d have to ask why would God, a perfect being waste his time with imperfect creatures composed of the material world and then go on to take this imperfect human form and sacrifice himself?
Create them, banish them from paradise, bring them redemption and salvation just don’t let them have any part of it? Okay...
I read this earlier and it angered/frustrated me and I backed away trying to formulate a response
Thankfully, spritual maturity prevented me from looking stupid.
God bless you all ... HE is risen and THAT is MY rock.
Happy Resurrection Day
Actually, this is easily refuted in Scripture.
Isa 51:1 Give ear to me, you that follow that which is just, and you that seek the Lord: look unto the rock whence you are hewn, and to the hole of the pit from which you are dug out. Isa 51:2 Look unto Abraham your father, and to Sara that bore you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and multiplied him.
In this case Abraham is clearly the Rock
You obviously missed the point of my question. Paul tells us plainly that Jesus was the chief corner stone, with the apostles and prophets laying a foundation.
Peter himself in 1 Peter 2 lays out the meaning of the foundation of the church.
My point was that Peter was a sinner. Before and AFTER the church was established. The perfect kingdom could not be built on an imperfect foundation. Jesus clearly taught that in his parables.
God loves us a wishes that none would perish. But he knows man is imperfect, so he sent a perfect sacrifice for our sins. He didn’t establish His kingdom on imperfect man.
"Why, in America, they haven't spoken it in YEARS ! "
(Rex Harrison in My Fair Lady)
Why would a sinless God Send His Son to the very people that would crucify him and call them His "Chosen" people?
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.