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.
Jesus is God incarnate. Mary bore Him and birthed Him, ergo she is Mary the mother of God incarnate
verse 15 - He asks them.
verse 16 - Simon answers "You are..."
verse 17 - Jesus says "Simon you are blessed. Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my father in heaven"
verse 18 - Jesus says "you are rock and on this rock, I will build My Church'
verse 19 - Jesus says "I will give you the keys of heaven...
verse 20 - Then He charged his disciples that..In Latin this is clearly in verse 15 he asks them (vos), in verse 17 he uses second person singular (es), the same in verse 18 (tu es ) and verse 19 (tibi ). But in verse 20 he uses plural third person (ut)
Going by the grammar, in verses 15 and 20 these are addressed to plural second or third persons (vos and ut respectively) while in 17, 18 and 19 this is 2nd person - tu es and tibi
15 - Who do you'all :) say I am
17 - you (singular) are blessed
18 - I say to you (sing) that you (sing) are rock
19 - I will give unto thee (sing)
20 - He commanded them (plural)
Though, good catch on dative for "commanded THEM" :)
“I’m sure they were really glad that they did not have to follow one of the most difficult parts of the law, do you know what I mean!!??” Maybe that’s why they do the ‘snipping’ before the baby boy can even focus his eyes.
Now wait just a minute here. You mean to tell me that Peter with his extra powers, first among equals, the ONE whom all of the other Disciples looked to for leadership, the ONE who has the KEYS for crying out loud, didn’t just TELL James this is how it is because I said so? He didn’t put on a tall funny looking hat, and say hey I’m speaking Ex Cathedral here. I’m starting to doubt that Peter (who the CHURCH was built on!) was any more special than the others.
It’s Ex Cathedra, not Ex Cathedral. I cannot speak for Elsie, but for myself, I am just saying what it appears that Scripture says.
If we understand God as trip part.. a trinity.. she is not the mother of the Trinity ..she is the mother of 1 part of the triune God ..the one we cll the "son of God /the "son of man"
I personally do not have a specific issue with the term "mother of God" but it is too broad a title IMHO
Funny no replies...
I knew that. I was just writing what I was feeling. I felt compelled to write it that way, to Koine a phrase.
"You go right ahead and try to prove God's inspired, preserved word to be wrong...Me, I'll stick with the scriptures..."
There is noplace I said that God's inspired, preserved word is wrong.
"IF THIS VERSE IN EPH., IS TRUE,"
Of course that verse is true. I never said it was not.
...And you continue to insist that every Greek lexicon and manuscript out there is wrong in Mat. 16:18,
I didn't say that. I made my arguments BASED on lexical research on petros/petra: Evangelical New Testament experts like Donald Carson (Research professor, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School)demonstrates that "petros" and "petra" had exactly the same referent in Koine (as opposed to Attic) Greek.
Martin Luther, who also knew a thing or two and translated the New Testament from Greek into German, makes no distinction between "petros" and "petra,": both have the same referent, both are singular (no plural "rocks"), and Petros has a male ending because Jesus gave it as a male personal name.
Every gendered language does this, Iscool. It's not that mysterious.
So there's the lexical key: Koine, not what was being written 400 years earlier (Attic).
You object "Are you saying all the lexicons are wrong?" I retort, "Are you saying all the Greek-speakers for the last couple thousand years are wrong?" It's possible that a small number of English-speaking lexicon writers in the 19th and 20's centuries did make an error here (they weren't infallible!) --- but in no other language, in no other centuries does anyone make the same error, namely, failing to see that Petros and petra are the same word, with the same referent, in masculine and feminine respectively. I go with Martin Luther and 1,000+ years of Greek Orthodox Greek-speakers on this one.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.You can't leave the verse to stand...
Yes I do let it "stand." My argument is BASED on that verse.
"You have to change the verse to: Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon these rocks I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
A complete invention on your part, something you are asserting as if it were mine. I have no reason to change "rock" into a plural. Why do you throw this into the discussion when it's something I never said?
Here's your problem, Iscool. You've got two kinds of verses from Scripture which use the word "Rock" in variant ways: the many verses which call God "the only Rock," which I have never denied, and the verse in Matthew where Jesus calls Peter (Rock) and indicates that on this Rock He will build His Church.
That means you've got to account for Jesus (not Mrs. Don-o, but Jesus) using the word that way.
It's similar to the place where Jesus says He wants His Church to be one flock with one Shepherd (Himself) and yet in another place the Lord gives Peter His flock to shepherd (John 21:17): He commissions Peter three times to feed His lambs and sheep.
It's similar also to the places where Scripture says only God can forgive sin, and yet Jesus says to Peter, "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven."
Back to Rock. "Rock" had never been a given name before, yet Jesus calls Simon Bar Jonah "Rock" --- not just in Matthew 16:18, but much earlier, the first time He laid eyes on him, in John 1:42: He calls him "Cephas." Nobody disputes the fact that "Cephas" means "Rock."
So what is going on here? How is it that Jesus calls Peter Rock (Cephas) and Jesus commissions Peter as Shepherd, and Jesus says Peter forgives sins?
Is this a big contradiction? Is it setting up a rivalry to Christ?
Or is this not a sharing in the ministry of Christ? Is it not saying the Peter participates in the work of the Lord?
| Think for a moment in this context, that we ALL have a share in Christ's ministry--- differing in its expression and degree, depending on our exact calling and our state in life. John 14:12 What we've lacked so far is a discussion of this far broader theme, that of all of our roles in the Body of Christ being participations in the work of Christ. We are part of His shepherding work. We are part of His being "Rock." With St. Paul we can say, "I live; yet not 'I', but Christ lives in me." |
That's what the HOLY SPIRIT did when He called her.*mother of Jesus*.
So why did the Catholic church abandon it?
They went to a less precise term that does nothing but promulgate error and confusion.
Why?
Only, that's NOT what Jesus actually said. Is that the "Cronos" translation? Why put words in Jesus' mouth in order to get the meaning you're looking for? Is that being honest with God's sacred word?
I do not think some of them have any idea what the Bible says.
Kinda awkward way of saying that, don't you think? Now, if Jesus had said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock you I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it you.", wouldn't there have actually been a case for asserting Peter is whom the "church" is built upon instead of Christ?
Your example breaks down because Metmom gave birth to children that DID NOT EXIST before they were conceived in her womb. Jesus, the Son of God, preexisted His incarnation from eternity. Mary gave birth to the INCARNATE Son of God, God with us - His taking on human flesh. Calling her the "Mother" of God implies she preexisted Him just as Metmom preexisted her children. When you have to add all these disclaimers and clarifications to a term, you nullify the benefit of the adoption of the term.
All throughout the accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry told in the four gospels, Peter is the impetuous one. IF, as some would have us believe, Peter was specially selected by Jesus to be the rock on which the church is built, then why don’t we have further accounts of the other Apostles’ deferring to him in all things? Where in the various epistles to the churches is the admonition to appeal to Peter for doctrinal clarification? How could Paul have been allowed to rebuke Peter as he did if Peter is the rock of the church and given the supposed “gift” of infallibility? Where is the evidence this was in place and understood by ALL the others? If this came from the very mouth of Jesus and understood by the Apostles who were all there, why does it seem forgotten shortly after Jesus’ resurrection? It just doesn’t add up.
You make some good points. Because this article is called “Peter and the Papacy”, where/when did Peter become Pope? Who refers to him as such? The RCC bills itself as the ONE TRUE SUPER Church founded upon the SUPER APOSTLE Peter. First Peter was “over” the other Apostles and that has been modified to “first among equals” - which means what exactly? If we move on to Chapter 18 (later) we still find the Apostles are internally wrestling over who is the greatest and Jesus addresses this. IF Peter was THE ROCK the Church was founded upon, now would be the time to clarify. Jesus needed the confessions/ministry of all twelve Apostles and treats no one greater/lesser than the other. Jesus dealt fairly and equally so there would be no dissent amongst them.
Didn't you agree with Cronos that Peter and rock in Mat. 16:18 are the same word???
The verse does not say, 'thou are Peter and upon this Peter I will build my church'...And it does not say, 'thou are rock, and upon this rock I will build my church'...
If they meant the same thing, Jesus would have used the same word for both rocks...It is foolish to claim Jesus used two different words that mean the same thing in the same sentence...
I didn't say that. I made my arguments BASED on lexical research on petros/petra: Evangelical New Testament experts like Donald Carson (Research professor, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School)demonstrates that "petros" and "petra" had exactly the same referent in Koine (as opposed to Attic) Greek.
Doesn't sound like an expert to me...There are many, many scholars who claim otherwise...
Lexical research??? You found a Greek lexicon that showed both words to be the same??? Which lexicon is that??? Or did your expert find a way to prove all of the lexicons wrong...
I go with Martin Luther and 1,000+ years of Greek Orthodox Greek-speakers on this one.
I don't think you do...You are pulling up stuff that I nor any one I know ever heard of...
Martin Luther definitely translated from Petros and Petra, realized they were two different words with two different meanings...The Old Orthodox knew they were not the same and consistantly make the statement that the 'rock' was Peter's testimony...
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
You can't leave the verse to stand...
Yes I do let it "stand." My argument is BASED on that verse.
You can't isolate a scripture and ignore other scripture that sheds a bright light on it...
The bible says the church was built on the foundation of the apostles and you isolate Mat. 16:18 to prove that the church was built on the foundation of 1 apostle, Peter...They don't match...
Interestingly, it is Paul who is called the Master builder...None of the other apostles were called the Master builder...
That's because it was Paul who built the Gentile church while Peter and the rest were over in Iraq preaching to Jews...
The 12 apostles started out building the church...It was not on the apostles themselves, much less on Peter as an individual, that Christ built His church, but on the apostles as His uniquely appointed, endowed, and inspired teachers of the gospel.
But those apostles only went so far...The Gentile church with the gospel of the grace of God, was commissioned to Paul...He became the Master Builder...You want to know about the church, ask Paul...
A complete invention on your part, something you are asserting as if it were mine. I have no reason to change "rock" into a plural. Why do you throw this into the discussion when it's something I never said?
You said the church was built on Peter...You claim that 'rock' the church was built on is Peter...The bible says 'no way'...The church was built upon many apostles...If that 2nd rock in Mat. refers to an apostle, it has to refer to all the apostles...Since all the apostle built the church...Many rocks...
The point is, that 2nd rock doesn't refer to Peter...
Here's your problem, Iscool. You've got two kinds of verses from Scripture which use the word "Rock" in variant ways: the many verses which call God "the only Rock," which I have never denied, and the verse in Matthew where Jesus calls Peter (Rock) and indicates that on this Rock He will build His Church.
But Jesus didn't build his church on Peter...Jesus built his church on 12 apostles...The bible tells us that...Therefore that 'rock' can not possibly be Peter...
It's similar to the place where Jesus says He wants His Church to be one flock with one Shepherd (Himself) and yet in another place the Lord gives Peter His flock to shepherd (John 21:17): He commissions Peter three times to feed His lambs and sheep.
I pointed out to you with the relevant scripture in another post that Jesus was looking for a different kind of love than Peter understood and had to repeat it 3 times before giving up...That shows Peter was not special, in that sense...
Scripture shows ALL the apostles and overseers were commissioned to feed the flock...No special gift to Peter...
It's similar also to the places where Scripture says only God can forgive sin, and yet Jesus says to Peter, "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven."
Well that ought to be a pretty good clue that it is not what it appears to be...That statement applies to far more people than just Peter...But when no one can show this event ever took place in the scriptures, one ought to reconsider how he/she looks at the verse...
Back to Rock. "Rock" had never been a given name before, yet Jesus calls Simon Bar Jonah "Rock" --- not just in Matthew 16:18, but much earlier, the first time He laid eyes on him, in John 1:42: He calls him "Cephas." Nobody disputes the fact that "Cephas" means "Rock."
The dispute is over what size of rock it refers to...Petros is larger than lithos but far smaller than Petra...
Over and over and over again...
Hail Mary; Mother of GOD...
Any of our FR Catholics who do NOT agree with this are self evidence of being POORLY CATECHIZED!
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.