PING
Jesus = petra
Peter = petros.
Not the same thing.
The church, Christ’s body, is built on HIM, even according to Peter.
Ping!
I love 'em all (my parents people were German Lutherans for 500 years), so I don't participate in these pissing contests very often.
I must say, however, that the most fervent literalists on Earth turn away from eating His flesh and drinking His blood (watch how fast they will say, "it's just symbolic). So it is with tu et Petrus. It is Peter's FAITH which is the rock, yes, not his sinful flesh, but that big "Rocky" had a real, designated role in His Church - and still does.
I guess the other question is: When was Yeshua ever in Rome?
I agree with the Protestant position: Namely, that it was just plain STUPID of Jesus to give Simon the name “Rock.” If Jesus had not done that, all the confusion could have been avoided.
Perhaps you should look again at way back to John 1:42:
Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas (which is translated Peter).The name which Jesus used was Cehpas, Aramaic for "rock." "Petros/Peter" is only a translation. The use of "Petros" in distinction to "petra" was necessitated in the translation from the Aramaic into the Greek because of the need for a masculine word for the name rather than the feminine form of "petra." What our Lord actually said in Aramaic is:
You are Cephas (rock) and upon this cephas (rock) I will build my church.There is no distinction the the Aramaic that our Lord spoke.
One slight quibble here.
“Roman Catholics interpret Matt. 16:18 to mean that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built. That interpretation then becomes the basis for the doctrine of papal succession.”
No. It doesn’t work that way. As we see here daily, the Roman denomination decides what the doctrine will be - often at the inclusion of syncretic paganism - then goes to Scripture to find something that sounds like what they claim.
In this instance, the Roman denomination decided all should bow to Rome. They then try to justify it by twisting the passage in Matthew. The Orthodox denominations didn’t agree with the arrogance of Rome. Rightly so.
That Kingdom Church (Great Assembly) was not a mystery; it was prolific in prophesy.
At the time of Christ's words in Matthew 16, the Body of Christ Church of the current dispensation was a mystery hid in God---unsearchable in Old Testament prophesy.
There is nothing in the context mandating the word "church" refer to anything that can be seen on earth today or until the return of Christ.
I would like to offer a different view. The passage in question reads: Who do you say I am? 16Simon Peter answered, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17Jesus replied, Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” Mattthew 16.
The Rock is not Peter, it is Revelation! Read it again. Now, for the first time, God is going to be revealed to man directly from heaven! This is certainly the position of Paul when he writes the the Galations: “I want you to know, brother, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.” (Gal. 1: 11)
This is really new, and this revelation is the Rock upon which the church will be built.
As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the bishops promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1,
Likewise I accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers. http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/firstvc.htm
Yet as the Dominican cardinal and Catholic theologian Yves Congar O.P. states,
Unanimous patristic consent as a reliable locus theologicus is classical in Catholic theology; it has often been declared such by the magisterium and its value in scriptural interpretation has been especially stressed. Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is rare...One example: the interpretation of Peters confession in Matthew 16:16-18. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical. Yves M.-J. Congar, O.P., p. 71
And Catholic archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick (1806-1896), while yet seeking to support Peter as the rock, stated that,
If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that by the rock should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith. Speech of archbishop Kenkick, p. 109; An inside view of the vatican council, edited by Leonard Woolsey Bacon.
Your own CCC allows the interpretation that, On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church, (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424), for some of the ancients (for what their opinion is worth) provided for this or other interpretations.
Ambrosiaster [who elsewhere upholds Peter as being the chief apostle to whom the Lord had entrusted the care of the Church, but not superior to Paul as an apostle except in time], Eph. 2:20:
Wherefore the Lord says to Peter: 'Upon this rock I shall build my Church,' that is, upon this confession of the catholic faith I shall establish the faithful in life. Ambrosiaster, Commentaries on GalatiansPhilemon, Eph. 2:20; Gerald L. Bray, p. 42
Augustine, sermon:
"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine , © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327
Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,' I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her (Mt. 16:18). John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 236A.3, p. 48.
Augustine, sermon:
For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' because Peter had said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.cxxv.html)
Augustine, sermon:
And Peter, one speaking for the rest of them, one for all, said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mt 16:15-16)...And I tell you: you are Peter; because I am the rock, you are Rocky, Peter-I mean, rock doesn't come from Rocky, but Rocky from rock, just as Christ doesn't come from Christian, but Christian from Christ; and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:17-18); not upon Peter, or Rocky, which is what you are, but upon the rock which you have confessed. I will build my Church though; I will build you, because in this answer of yours you represent the Church. John Rotelle, O.S.A. Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 270.2, p. 289
Augustine, sermon:
Peter had already said to him, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' He had already heard, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her' (Mt 16:16-18)...Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That's why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn't lived. John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, p. 95
Augustine, sermon:
...because on this rock, he said, I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not overcome it (Mt. 16:18). Now the rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). Was it Paul that was crucified for you? Hold on to these texts, love these texts, repeat them in a fraternal and peaceful manner. John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1995), Sermons, Volume III/10, Sermon 358.5, p. 193
Augustine, Psalm LXI:
Let us call to mind the Gospel: 'Upon this Rock I will build My Church.' Therefore She crieth from the ends of the earth, whom He hath willed to build upon a Rock. But in order that the Church might be builded upon the Rock, who was made the Rock? Hear Paul saying: 'But the Rock was Christ.' On Him therefore builded we have been. Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VIII, Saint Augustin, Exposition on the Book of Psalms, Psalm LXI.3, p. 249. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LXI.html)
Augustine, in Retractions,
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1:.
Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:
'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:
You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].
Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:
'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455
Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
Cyril of Alexandria:
When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.. Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.
Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):
For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'
For all bear the surname rock who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters. Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)
Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II): Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.
What nonsense!
.
Yeshua said to Shimon “you are the pebble,” and on this Rock I will increase my assembly.
.
The “Rock” or foundation the church (community) of Jesus Christ is built upon is; the revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. That is what the Father revealed to Peter and that is the foundation Jesus’ church is built on.
I have found this most helpful in understanding this passage. Applying Matthew 16 to the Church of this age, where Believers are NEITHER Jew or Gentile but ONE Spiritual Body IN CHRIST, often made me uncomfortable. The Body of Christ was a Mystery hidden in God and not revealed until Paul received the revelation. (Romans 16:25-26, Ephesians 3:1-10, Colossians 1:25-28)
Bullinger’s summary puts everything in its proper place and does not rob Israel of God’s glorious promises for both the 1st and 2nd Advents of Jesus. And once and for all, effectively ends all RC claim to this passage as having anything to do with Rome - which should be obvious even you reject Bullinger’s opinion completely.
Other clues, the keys are to the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, a temporal kingdom centered on Israel with Jesus as King. And then, there is the End Times message in verse 27, referring to the 2nd Advent and a judgment based on works. All these collectively make its application to the Body of Christ very unlikely.
For your consideration...
_________________________________
In Matthew 16:18 the reference was to a future called-out people. “On this rock I WILL BUILD.”
There could have been no reference here to the “Ecclesia in the wilderness” (Acts 7:38); nor to the Ecclesia of the Church of God in this Dispensation. Those who heard these words of the Lord’s promise could not connect them with the Secret or Mystery which was “hid in God,” and had not yet been made known to the sons of men. But they could connect them with Hosea 1:10 and 2:23. This is the promise which the Lord’s hearers would have known. Only with that promise in Hosea could they have associated this promise of the Lord in Matthew 16:18.
The revelation here made was an addition to the promise in Hosea. The Son of Man was about to be rejected. The prophecies of Him as “the stone which the builders refused” were about to be fulfilled. Nevertheless, the time was approaching when He would become God’s “sure foundation” according to Isaiah 28:16: “Thus saith Adonai Jehovah, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation,” etc. That may be either “I have laid” (RV), or “I will lay.” Both are true. Christ had been laid already then, in the
counsels of God, and He would yet be laid in their fulfillment by God.
The Lord here repeats that promise. And the whole point was, Who was this Son of Man? Some said one thing and some another, and the Lord asks: “But YE, whom do ye say that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living God. And Jesus, answering, said to him, Blessed art thou, Simon son of Jona, for flesh and blood revealed it not to thee, but my Father who is in the heavens. And I say also to thee, that thou art [called] Petros (a stone), and on this Petra (a rock) I will build my
Ecclesia, and [the] gates of Hades shall not prevail against it, and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens” (Matt 16:15-19).
In the words which follow we learn that the builders were about to reject God’s foundation; for in the very next verse we read “FROM THAT TIME forth began Jesus to show unto His disciples, how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and SUFFER” (v 21).
Thus, His sufferings are not mentioned until the announcement had been made, that, though the foundation-stone was about to be rejected, it would yet be built upon. This rejected “Son of Man” is indeed the Christ, God’s “Anointed,” and He will become “the head of the corner.”
On Him, the Messiah, His Ecclesia or Assembly, spoken of in the Prophets, would yet be built. “I will build” are His words. “I will call” are Jehovah’s words in Hosea: “I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people: there shall they be called the children of the living God. Isaiah also crieth CONCERNING ISRAEL, though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, A REMNANT SHALL BE SAVED” (Rom 9:25-27).
This Remnant is the Ecclesia mentioned by the Lord in Matthew 16:18.
The gates of hell will strive against it, as Romans 9:29 testifies, but the remnant shall be saved. This future Ecclesia of Israel is to be built UPON Christ, the Messiah, as the Foundation Stone.
The Church of God, as an Assembly, is also compared to a building; its members are built individually on a doctrinal foundation, but the building itself is “a holy temple IN the Lord; IN whom ye also are builded together by [the] Spirit.”
The present Church of God is composed of Jews AND Gentiles, but the Ecclesia of Matthew 16:18 taken with Hosea 2:23; Isaiah 10:22, 23 and Romans 9:27, is a “remnant” OF “the children of Israel.”
From: How To Enjoy The Bible - E W Bullinger (1916 - public domain)
http://www.markfoster.net/rn/how_to_enjoy_the_bible_bullinger.pdf#%0C%D2%A11%18%F6g%C27%25%C0%9E%F2%FDwk147
See also the section on the Kingdom of Heaven for further clarification.
http://www.markfoster.net/rn/how_to_enjoy_the_bible_bullinger.pdf#%0C%D2%A11%18%F6g%C27%25%C0%9E%F2%FDwk117
Jesus Christ promised us The Holy Spirit to lead us into all truths. Was Peter a chosen leader? Yes. But not as the head of the Christian churches. Peter was the leader of the Disciples. How can we know? Because Paul was called to be an Apostle by Jesus Christ. Was Paul under Peter's authority or oversight? No! Paul not Peter laid the written rules for churches he had started up. Peter did not take over their oversight.
The early church and The Disciples themselves were somewhat confused as too their mission given them and just how to carry it out. The beginning of the persecutions corrected their course and began the spreading of The Gospel to distant nations and people. What were they doing up till that time? Staying in Jerusalem basically in one community. The Great Commission Christ gave them was not stay in Jerusalem and be a community sharing your common goods.
Matt ch 28 v16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.---NIV
Christians and The Gospel as soon as the persecutions began started the spreading of The Gospel to all nations. Persons who came to Jerusalem heard the Gospel and those who believed like the man Phillip was taken too believed and took the Gospel to distant lands. This didn't require an organized effort by some man picked hierarchy. Rather it was believers lead by The Holy Spirit.
Was Paul a priest or a preacher? Was Peter a Priest or a preacher? Was Paul wearing robes a hat etc? Was Peter? No evidence exist of them doing such. Rather they met in homes informally. They went from place to place meeting in forums, homes, sometimes the local synagogs, in prisons, etc. The same as Jesus Christ had done and taught them. Remember what Jesus told them as to how they should allow others to address them as?
Peter. Paul, Phillip, James, John, and the rest were more like modern day Evangelist. Their witness has been recorded and handed down. The truths written in their accounts have been kept intact not by man who can corrupt but rather by The Holy Spirit bringing the needed corrections to believers. Every written Bible and account of it could be destroyed yet it survives in mans heart.
To whom is The Holy Spirit given? Some believe only those ordained to minister and lead. But GOD had other plans because like the Temple Priest and government it could be corrupted and used as a spiritual weapon of enslavement. Instead of allowing that again The Holy Spirit is to all whom receive GOD's Word, believe and receive Jesus Christ as Savior, and Christ calls His own. That is THE CHURCH. There is No THE CHURCH but that church. It has no building but it's foundation is Jesus Christ and it's Temple is our hearts in which Jesus Christ dwells.
That is why we should try with all of hearts though we will still stumble to live by GOD's Commandments and the ones Jesus added. That is more than enough to keep any person busy. That stops any Priest who before were intercessors between GOD & man from withholding your salvation or any blessings from GOD. GOD and sinners are reconciled through Jesus and The Holy Spirit is the new teacher and intercessor for us. Dwelling within us The Holy Spirit ministers to us and tells GOD our needs even before we speak.
In revelation it says men hid them selves in the rocks so if it was the same word I would say it could fit a stone or rock either one.
If we read the full story we can see that Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to the apostles, the 12 Chosen ones or to Peter.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
If the Catholic church is their successors or not is a different story which can only be showed by how well they teach the gospel of Christ and which also goes for any other Church.
Interesting. Sounds reasonable to a non-expert. It does not seem reasonable that Christ would erect a church on a fallible man(Peter denied Christ three times if I remember correctly). He would build his church on faith in him.