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.

Why is it so critical to either yourself or to Catholics to declare that Mary is the mother of GOD?

For me, it is not about what the Catholic Church says nor is it about Mary. You are absolutely correct that Mary did not pre-exist God. Nor did she give Him His divinity.

It is about Jesus and what He did for us as described in Philippians 2:6-8:

“Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.”

He humbled Himself, becoming obedient to death. He also humbled Himself by being obedient to Mary. Even though she was highly favored, she was still a human being, and for God to be obedient to a creature, or to call her mother, had to be demeaning to Him. Although there were times He had to remind Mary of His divinity, He was obedient to her as part of His redemptive actions to bring us to Salvation.

A secondary reason is that Scripture so clearly reveals that this child that Mary brought forth is God. A woman becomes a mother in the very act of giving birth to a child, and is a mother to all that the child is. It is in this way that Mary can be called the mother of God. Not that she gave this holy child his divinity; but that she gave birth to this divine child.

That's one of the things I like about Peter. In some ways he's a kind of a big lunk: ardent, impulsive, quite a lion after Pentecost, and yet a mouse, intimidated by a mere serving-girl in the courtyard at the time of Jesus' trial. Blustering ("I don't even @$@# KNOW the man!"), often not knowing what to do but feeling he has to do something ("I'm going fishing!"), disarmingly open about his limitations ("Some of those Scriptures by Brother Paul are kinda hard to understand sometimes") --- and one of the very first things he said to Jesus was, "Lord, depart from me, for I am a sinful man."

He understood everything and nothing. He knew Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. But he didn't see why He should have to suffer. Jesus called him "Rock," called him "Satan" (Adversary), and called him three times to be the chief shepherd of the sheep after Jesus would ascend into heaven.

There's so much there for all of us to relate to.

Here's a picture of a guy fishing on the Sea of Galilee. I think Peter looked like that.

>>If you are speaking in terms of Sola Scriptura, then no, it cannot be shown where the Holy Spirit ever inspired anyone to write that Mary was the “mother of God.”<<

You don't say!!!! Not there at all ey?

>>In the same way, it cannot be shown where the Holy Spirit ever inspired anyone to write that “Jesus is God.” But we believe that Jesus is God.<<

Jesus Himself says He is God.

Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

When I said "I can't help it," I meant I can't improve on what Jesus said, so I just have to repeat it. He said "Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven." That's what we have to work with here.

"Why did Jesus give Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven?"

To indicate that he would have authority in the Kingdom of God to open and shut the door.

What are these keys exactly?"

A reference to the foreshadowing found in Isaiah. You might want to re-read the Isaiah 22 reference.

"I will clothe him with your robe,
gird him with your sash,
confer on him your authority.
He shall be a father
to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
and to the house of Judah.
I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder;
what he opens, no one will shut,
what he shuts, no one will open."

"Are they gold?"

No. They are not a physical set of keys.

"Are there more than one set?

They are not a physical set of keys. There are no doubt different kinds and degrees of authority.

"Is Peter the only person Jesus gave these keys to?"

If you're talking about different kinds and degrees of authority, God has appointed a number of people to positions of service and authority. As you no doubt know, Paul said it is God who makes these special appointments:

1 Cor. 12:28-29
And God has appointed in the church,
first apostles,
second prophets,... (etc. etc.)

I know you know this, because I quoted it to you just six hours ago. Perhaps you'll benefit from re-reading it:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3285355/posts?page=175#175.

So there are different kind of leadership. With respect to the "Power of the Keys," though, in Matthew 16:19, Jesus is specifically addressing Peter. That was given to Peter and to his successors. Various kinds of specialization, localization and delegation have emerged over the centuries, which is inevitable when the number of believers and local churches gets larger and larger.

For instance, St. Athanasius (his feast day is today) said in his letter Ad Afros, that there were 318 bishops at the Council of Nicaea in 325 that would be just 275 years after the Council of Jerusalem. The successor of Peter--- Pope Sylvester himself --- did not personally attend; instead, he sent two legates.

So you could say the "Power of the Keys" has a larger, ecclesial implication. It does not signify only a solo, lone-ranger sovereignty.

Oh good grief. Are you saying Jesus was only obedient to Mary? Did He tell Joseph were to get off? Was He not "obedient" to other adults??

The catholic desire to read into the text something that's not there has lead to this false teaching.

If anything, Mary is obedient to Jesus and will be obedient to Jesus.

The catholic has it completely backwards.

A secondary reason is that Scripture so clearly reveals that this child that Mary brought forth is God.

Using catholic "logic", then Mary is the mother of the Holy Spirit.

Again, none of what the catholic purports the scriptures to say are true regarding this.

>>The verses you cite show Mary is the mother of Jesus. They reveal the second person of the trinity who is Jesus.

Now, you show where, using the Bible, we are to told to pray to Mary, bow down to her, rely upon her intervention for our salvation.<<

I am not concerned with showing those other things about Mary.

That the catholic cannot point to the Scriptures for their false teachings on Mary is telling. It should be your first hint that catholic teaching is becoming cultish, if not already there.

.
>> “To indicate that he would have authority in the Kingdom of God to open and shut the door.” <<

.
That authority belongs only to Yeshua.

The ‘keys’ were given to the apostles, and to a lesser extent their disciples. Those keys are the gifts of the Holy Spirit, to heal, to discern spirits, and to pass the Holy Spirit on to others. That is the portion of the kingdom that was made available to mortal men.

Most of that kingdom is reserved for those that receive new bodies at the day of trumpets. Then “We shall know as we are known.”

Isaiah 22 is completely about Yeshua.

No apostle was ever a Father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, in fact Jerusalem didn’t survive the apostolic age. Isaiah 22 is a prophecy of the millennial reign of Yeshua.
.

So you disagree with the protestant scholars?

On what point? That Matthew was written in Aramaic?

Unless they have solid proof of that, yes.

Where are the manuscripts to show it?

On Peter being the Rock? Yes, because PAUL says that the Rock (petra) is CHRIST. Even Peter says as much.

In Matthew Jesus gives Peter the name of Petros - pebble.

What was said in Matthew doesn't invalidate Paul and Peter.

Besides, I really don't give a rip what *scholars* have to say. Human education is no substitute for the enlightening of the Holy Spirit.

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.