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.
And what does it mean? Petros = Kepha = Cephas = Rock.
It doesn’t mean gravel, or a little stone, or rubble, or a lump, or a pebble.
So on Paul's authority --- eight times --- we have the explanatory information that the name given to Peter was Cephas (in Aramaic). What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’
Naw...The bible says Petros, not Kepha...
Peter was named a smaller rock...Petra referring to Jesus is 'bedrock'...While wanting to give the Aramaic speaking people a name they could understand, there was no distinction in the Aramaic do differentiate between the big rock and little rock, Jesus had no choice but to call Peter Kepha...
Fortunately for everyone, the rest of the scriptures made it clear that Peter is not the bedrock that the church was built upon...
Why??? I not only have the scriptures but as well the testimonies of numerous biblical scholars who disagree with the position that your religion takes...
There are problems with the Roman Catholic position. First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18, we see something that is not obvious in the English. " . . . you are Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church . . . " In Greek nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine, and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word "petros" is masculine; "petra" is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine "petros" but the feminine "petra." Let me illustrate by using the words "actor" and "actress:" "You are the actor; and with this actress, I will make my movie." Do see that the gender influences how a sentence is understood? Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter but upon something else. What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?
The feminine "petra" occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:
Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."
Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."
1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."
We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular; "petras" in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8). Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn't we?
In addition, Greek dictionaries and lexicons give us further insight into the two Greek words under discussion:
Petros: Petros, "πέτρος, a stone, distinguished from πέτρα (Source: Liddell, H., 1996. A lexicon: Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.)
The whole weight of the rest of Scripture tells us that Jesus/God is the Rock.
The Catholic church took ONE verse of somewhat ambiguous interpretation, and builds a whole doctrine out of it that directly contradicts the rest of that whole weight of Scripture that tells us otherwise.
That smacks of agenda and should give any serious student of God’s word at least a pause to consider if the Catholic claims are legitimate.
That smacks of agenda and should give any serious student of God’s word at least a pause to consider if the Catholic claims are legitimate.
The Catholic claims of course are not legitimate...They torture and even destroy the scriptures,, destroy the very words of God in an attempt to destroy the faith of the children of God worldwide...
First, Happy Mother's Day!
Second, pause and reflect a moment. You and I (and you'uns and we-nus) both know that God/Jesus is consistently identified as the Rock of salvation. Very often called "the only Rock". This is perfectly obvious.
This only underlines the significance of the fact that there are two human persons also called (by implication, or outright, "the Rock." These two are Abraham and Peter: both men who had their names changed by God.
Abraham: Isaiah 25:1-2"Look to the rock
from which you were hewn
And to the quarry
from which you were dug.
Look to Abraham
your father
And to Sarah
who gave birth to you in pain."
Peter: Matthew 16"Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, And the gated of hell shall not prevail against it."
In view of the fact that God is called our "only Rock," the question must arise, why is the Holy Spirit (and Christ) calling somebody else the Rock?
The best explanation for Peter, I believe, in Peter's case, is that he (and we!) are called to have some participation in the mission and ministry of Christ.
I don';t have time to elaborate this right now, because I'm just about to go out he door for the day. But keep in mind that we already have a sharing in the Humanity of Christ, as we are members of His Body; likewise we are called to participate in the Divine Nature:
2 Peter 1:4you may come to share in the divine nature, after escaping from the corruption that is in the world because of evil desire.
There you have it: participation in the mission, ministry, and nature of God, our only Rock.
Not jus Peter. Us.
How? By whom? To what extent? With what result?
More on this later. I'm out the door!
If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn’t we?
I was reflecting on the words of Peter at church today. The first reading was from Acts 10, when Peter visited Cornelius, where he said: ““In truth, I see that God shows no partiality. Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to him.”
I got to thinking about other things Peter said:
Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. (Mat 16:16)
Thou art the Christ. (Mark 8:26)
The Christ of God. (Luke 9:20)
Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. (John 6:68-69)
Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake. (John 13:37)
Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee; Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee; Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. (John 21:15-17)
Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)
Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk? The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus ...And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.” Acts 3:12-16
Then it occurred to me that if Peter was a FReeper he’d probably post a comment something like: “Stop arguing about me, you knuckleheads, and focus on Jesus.”
BB, you know better than that — the Pope’s role ex-Cathedra does not preclude discussion in council. The Bishops discuss and only if hopeless divided does the plea go to God to give the bishop of rome the decision. Very, very strict conditions.
So, fine, “Mother of God incarnate”
Metmom note that the Holy Spirit (through her cousin elizabeth) prompts Elizabeth to say "Mother of My Lord"
In the Bible she is called "Mother of Jesus" -- who is God Incarnate, hence the term Theotokos or Bearer of God is apt -- you can be more precise with Theoensarkonotokos
you know the reason why the term Theotokos is used if you reference Nestorius.
As I said above, the locative declension of petros is petra in Koine Greek (note: Koine Greek) as is petrus and petram in Latin
Oh, it is very simple what the Bible says, or rather what Jesus Christ said - “you are rock and on this rock I will build My Church”
No, that was an OPINION, which is related from the Roman Catholic indoctrination. To aver is a legal term, and it is easily defeated when a bag of wind comes into a thread touting themselves as THE authority.
It is usually the same windbags that stand in the rain with fingers in their ears, singing "lalalalalaaaa" because the truth hurts.
I have been kibitzing this thread, and it seems there are lots of Roman cultists touting their party line, and ignoring the plain reading of Scripture.
it boils down to faith. If your faith and trust is in an institution, and that institution leads you to believe lots of hocus=pocus (I was reading a "Catholic caucus" thread the other day where they were bragging about successful house sales after burying a statue of st. joseph head down in the yard. Miraculously the house is sold the next day! "Thanks be to st anthony!".)
The Roman Catholic cultists I have been reading herein are so concerned with insulting the mary of their cult, while giving her goddess status. What a bunch of hooey!
Scripture is clear. No matter how the Roman cultists try to rely on their traditions, they lose by missing the indwelling of the Holy Spirit! They focus on a woman and leave Jesus on the cross... They bow to a statue of their mary, and deny idolatry. They ask some dead person to do them a favor and burn candles to assuage their guilt...
Galatians 3: ...18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.
21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
23 Before the coming of this faith,[j] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Yup, mother of Jesus.
The “church” had no business changing it.
*The mother of my Lord* is NOT the same as “mother of God.”
It’s easy enough to look up the Greek and see that the word for *lord* is not the same word for *God*.
Catholics want so bad for their church to be built on Peter and want so bad for Mary to have goddess status that they’ll go to any absurd lengths in twisting Scripture and rationalizing it away to justify going against the clear teaching of Scripture otherwise.
This is true about just about any Catholic distinctive but probably the least subtle in the issues of Peter and Mary but the real presence argument is right there, too.
You can parse the words. You can repeat the words. You can read the words. You can trace different language origins. But the meaning escapes you. You can’t see the forest for the single tree. Nowhere in the Bible do you see a Disciple of Jesus preaching the Churchs foundation is Peter. Many Disciples went about starting new churchs but nowhere do they preach this. Paul addressed many issues in his letters but never this. Why? Because none of them understood it to mean what your Church teaches. It is incongruous with the rest of the Bible. As are prayers to Mary or any elevation of man to God-like state (speaking with infallibility or titles like “Vicar of Christ”).
I find it so very odd that they do not seem to think Jesus is enough. Why is that?
Beats me.
I for one am grateful that someone more capable is handling my salvation. I know for sure that if I had any part to play in it, that I would fail miserably.
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.