Peter the Rock



Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of **** shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mat 16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.


This passage is interesting in its play on the Greek words for rock.



Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church; and the gates of **** shall not prevail against it.


Petros is masculine and means a chunk of rock. Petra is feminine and means a large mass of rock. Why did the Holy Spirit cause Matthew to use these two forms? For the one case Peter is a man and would only be named with a masculine noun. But in the second case why is the feminine petra used? A large mass of rock was always a petra in common usage. But is there another reason that, perhaps, presages the Bride of Christ? We know that the Bride of Christ in Revelations 21 and 22 is the Church that Christ created on Earth. Is it not more fitting that the Bride (Church) should be built upon a petra than a petros? Thus the feminine is used rather than the masculine.


From this we can see that the person of Peter is the foundation stone for the Church, the Bride of Christ. This would indicate that Peter had a leadership position. The first indication of we see is here;



Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


This powerful statement would seem to indicate that a great power and responsibility is to be entrusted to Peter. Let us look and see if there are any other verses that back this up.



Joh 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
Joh 21:16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
Joh 21:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep
.
Jesus has already given Peter the Keys and the power to bind and loose. Now he has commanded him to feed his lambs and sheep. In other words to be a pastor to His Church.


The other Apostles seem to have accepted Peter’s leadership without question. Let us go to the Book of Acts.



Act 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
Act 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
Act 1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
Act 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
Act 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
Act 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Act 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
Act 1:23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
Act 1:24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
Act 1:25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
Act 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.


Peter here is plainly acting as the leader of the assembly and directing the replacement of Judas. Where else did he act as leader? In Acts 2:14 it was Peter that stood up among the eleven and addressed the crowd, the first public telling of the Gospel. In Acts 4:8 it was Peter who was filled with the Holy Spirit and berated the High Priest and others questioning him.


It was Peter who, again in the Holy Spirit, challenged Ananias and Sapphira causing their instant deaths. Remember the part about binding and loosing?



Act 5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
Act 5:2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
Act 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
Act 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
Act 5:5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
Act 5:6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
Act 5:7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
Act 5:8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
Act 5:9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
Act 5:10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
Act 5:11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.




It was Peter to whom God revealed that the Gentiles are among the Clean.


Everywhere we see him in the Book of Acts Peter is acting as a leader. Yes, he was a fallible leader; Paul had to chide him at least once.


Is there any recorded evidence of Peter warning the faithful on false teachings as would befit a Pastor?



2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.


Peter warns that the teachings of Paul are not to be taken out of the context of Peter’s teachings. Paul was the great theologian of the early Church. Peter was its Pastor.


What did the early church teach on this subject? The following is taken from;


http://www.catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp (http://www.catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp)



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 metaphor that has been disputed is Jesus Christ’s calling the apostle Peter "rock": "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of **** will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

Some have tried to argue that Jesus did not mean that his Church would be built on Peter but on something else.

Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.

These critics also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church."

The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show.



Tatian the Syrian


"Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).


Tertullian


"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).


The Letter of Clement to James


"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).


The Clementine Homilies


"[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).


Origen


"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]" (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).


Cyprian of Carthage


"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of **** will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" ([I]The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

"There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are
secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another" (ibid., 66[69]:8).


Firmilian


"But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).

"[Pope] Stephen . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (ibid., 74[75]:17).


Ephraim the Syrian


"[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’" ([I]Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).


Optatus


"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).


Ambrose of Milan


"[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

"It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal" (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).


Pope Damasus I


"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of **** will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).


Jerome


"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).


Augustine


"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of **** shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. ... In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).


Council of Ephesus


"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).


Sechnall of Ireland


"Steadfast in the fear of God, and in faith immovable, upon [Patrick] as upon Peter the church is built; and he has been allotted his apostleship by God; against him the gates of **** prevail not" ([I]Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 3 [A.D. 444]).


Pope Leo I


"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles. . . . He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of **** prevail against it" (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445]).


Council of Chalcedon


"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).


We can see that the writings of the early Church support the notion of Peter holding a leadership position, and that position being handed down to his direct successors.


This was not challenged until after the Reformation when men began teaching, while ignoring the biblical and historical evidence, that Peter was not the earthly head of the Church and that binding and loosing only referred to teaching. Why do they teach this? Because it is the only way they can deny the authority of the Church and justify making themselves the Authority, an Authority that has lead to a plethora of different interpertations and denominations.



Copyright 2008 Willis A. Brown, all rights reserved.


All bible quotes from the KJV, other sources quoted as referenced.

Jesus said thou are Peter, a petros, a small stone. The words Peter spoke in Matt 16:16 confessing Jesus is the Son of the living God is the petra, the massive rock formation. Jesus affirmed this truth in Matt 16:17 and confirmed where this truth came from. My opinion, look at the truth of the statement, it compares that which is greater to that which is lesser. Since this passage is dealing with two males, the gender analogy doesn't fit.

Jesus is the foundation of the church. "for no other foundation can anyone lay that which is laid, which is Christ," 1Corint 3:11. Jesus said to them, Have you never read the Scriptures: He quotes from Psalms 118:22, The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone, Matt 21:15. Peter writes the same thing and from the passage it's clear he isn't writting of himself, all were prophecies concerning Christ: 1Peter 2:6-8....
V6, Therefore it is also contained in Scripture, "Behold I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect and precious, And he who believes in Him will by no means be put to shame."
V7, Therefore to you who believe, He is precious, but to those who are disobedient, "The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone,"
V8, and, "A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense."

let's look at the keys to the kingdom next time.

Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of **** shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mat 16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

I would suggest a much more likely interpretation to this passage, one that a Greek scholar would agree with:

That the rock that Jesus will build His church upon is that He is the Christ, God incarnate. It is our love of Christ and the fact that we will spend eternity with Him, loving and worshiping Him, with the same love the Father has for the Son (read John 17:25) - This is the good news of the gospel, and it is upon this and the fact that Jesus is in fact God, that the Church, in fact our very faith itself, will be built upon. Why would Christ build His church on a man - whom you yourself say is fallible? It is much more likely that He built his church on the very subject of the Bible - Christ Himself, and His deity.

The Psalms refer to God as a rock, a fortress. In fact, God is referred to as a rock often in the OT. I would suggest that Peter is the petros, stone, and God is the petra, the Rock of ages, a mighty fortress (is our God). Just my $0.02

Sorry Monty, I just reread your post, and it looks like we're saying similar things. The Greek Scholar part I was thinking of was that the Greek indicates that Christ is the antecedent of the statement "This is the rock". However, that is from my pastor, a Greek scholar, and I am doing this second hand, which is never good in an Internet discussion. Anyway, I look forward to see where this discussion goes. :)

Sorry Guys,

I have to disagree, as do many Protestant scholars. Here is what that most Protestant of sources the NIV Bible Commentary has to say;



18 Peter was an accepted name in Jesus' day (see comment on 4:18; see also Jn 1:42), and Jesus makes a pun on the name. The word "Peter" (petros, meaning "rock"; GK G4377) is masculine, and in Jesus' follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (GK G4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken "rock" to be anything or anyone other than Peter. If Jesus spoke Aramaic here, there is no distinction in "Cephas."

I don't disagree with what you are saying about Christ being the head of our Church. I just disagree with your interpretation of the verse in question. In fact, as shown by the above quote, there seems to be disagreement among the Protestant scholars that are interpreting this verse.

In Christ,

Willis

I would suggest that we use Scripture to interpret Scripture (the "analogy of Scripture"). In this way we can look at what is unclear in the light of that which is clear. Where else in the word of God, is this statement made, that Peter is the rock upon which the whole church is to be built upon? I find support for the interpretation that God is the rock, that Christ is the cornerstone.

Ps 118:22 The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief corner stone.
Ps 118:23 This is the LORD'S doing; It is marvelous in our eyes.
Isa 28:16 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed.
Zec 3:8 'Now listen, Joshua the high priest, you and your friends who are sitting in front of you--indeed they are men who are a symbol, for behold, I am going to bring in My servant the Branch.
Zec 3:9 'For behold, the stone that I have set before Joshua; on one stone are seven eyes. Behold, I will engrave an inscription on it,' declares the LORD of hosts, 'and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.
Mr 12:10 "Have you not even read this Scripture: 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone;
Mr 12:11 THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD, AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES'?"
Lu 20:17 But Jesus looked at them and said, "What then is this that is written: 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone'?
Lu 20:18 "Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust."
Ac 4:11 "He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone.
Ro 9:33 just as it is written, "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."
Eph 2:20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,
1Pe 2:4 And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God,
1Pe 2:5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
1Pe 2:6 For this is contained in Scripture: "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."
1Pe 2:7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, "THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone,"
1Pe 2:8 and, "A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.

Another question: If Peter was the leader of the church, how was it that Paul rebuked him in the book of Galatians 2:11? Clearly Paul was acting as the agent of Jesus. If Peter was the sole leader of the church, Paul would not be speaking for Jesus.

Another question: If Peter was the leader of the church, how was it that Paul rebuked him in the book of Galatians 2:11? Clearly Paul was acting as the agent of Jesus. If Peter was the sole leader of the church, Paul would not be speaking for Jesus.

Is your Pastor not fallible? I he were doing wrong would you not correct him? What is the difference?

That is a good question! I could correct my Pastor if I did so using Scripture, and he would listen to that correction. Would the Pope take correction from Scripture?

However, that issue is not the point. The point is: would God build His church upon a man? Is there a correlation anywhere else in Scripture, to support that interpretation? As stated above, there is plenty to support the idea that God built His church upon the confession of Peter (that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God), that Christ/God is the rock/cornerstone. It seems to me that if you build a church on fallible man, you are doing exactly the same as the foolish man who built his house on shifting sand (Mat 7:26).

A. This went down in Aramaic, not Greek. Distinctions being drawn do not exist in Aramaic.
B. The distinctions being drawn from gender do NOT hold for the Koine Greek of the New Testament; wrong dialect, wrong century, wrong continent. A “scholar” would know that.
C. The attempt to force an interpretation of Jesus founding His assembly on Peter’s confession does not hold up through the rest of the passage.
D. Neither the word, nor the concept, of church existed then. Jesus is founding His assembly, or flock.
E. (T-Bone) Exodus, chapter 17; Numbers, chapter 20.
F. We should all thank 308shtr for the effort he put into the first post, and bringing writings of the early church to our attention.
G. The subtlety of vocabulary in the Greek of John, chapter 21 (does not “translate” into English, without a whole lot of explanation) is truly fascinating, and a far better topic for us. And it may have gone down in Greek.
H. (T-Bone) I’d really (understatement) like to hear a report of your adventures with the 405 HB. Just because my HP fits one rifle perfectly doesn’t mean it fits them all perfectly.

A. This went down in Aramaic, not Greek. Distinctions being drawn do not exist in Aramaic.
B. The distinctions being drawn from gender do NOT hold for the Koine Greek of the New Testament; wrong dialect, wrong century, wrong continent. A “scholar” would know that.
C. The attempt to force an interpretation of Jesus founding His assembly on Peter’s confession does not hold up through the rest of the passage.
D. Neither the word, nor the concept, of church existed then. Jesus is founding His assembly, or flock.
E. (T-Bone) Exodus, chapter 17; Numbers, chapter 20.
F. We should all thank 308shtr for the effort he put into the first post, and bringing writings of the early church to our attention.
G. The subtlety of vocabulary in the Greek of John, chapter 21 (does not “translate” into English, without a whole lot of explanation) is truly fascinating, and a far better topic for us. And it may have gone down in Greek.
H. (T-Bone) I’d really (understatement) like to hear a report of your adventures with the 405 HB. Just because my HP fits one rifle perfectly doesn’t mean it fits them all perfectly.

Hi Silvertip,

I guess I should tell you that I believe that the Bible is inspired and without error in the original languages, and also that it is infallible. God has given us His word and has preserved it. No other writings can make this claim. Now I appreciate the effort our brother 308shtr made, it seems to be considerable. However, the writings of early church writers, while useful, are not inspired, and are not without error. These writings are making claims that Peter said things that can't be supported in Scripture. If you want to make authoritative statements with regards to the church, it is much better to speak with the only authority given to us - Scripture and Scripture alone.

Whether the conversation that took place between Jesus and Peter was in Aramaic, Koine Greek or Swahili is not important, because the inspired text that records the event is written in Koine Greek. God, via inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gave us this account for us to examine, and conjecturing about what language was used in their conversation is a non-sequitir.

As to Exodus 17, and Numbers 20, I need more of a clue of what you thought this brings to the discussion. John 21 is a fascinating passage and the meanings of the original Greek for the work "love" there is a study in itself, however that passage has a fairly straight forward interpretation: Peter denied the Lord 3 times, and was despondent and ready to return to a career of fishing, when they met up with the resurrected Christ. Christ takes care to restore Peter 3 times (same number as denials), and tells him that even with Peter's shortcomings, that Christ had selected him to be an apostle, and to tend to His flock. In other words, even though your confidence in yourself is shot, I selected you and I want you to do the work that I trained you for. Again I can't read anything into this about making Peter the first pope.

With regards to H., have you got me confused with someone else? I can't fathom what you are referring to there, really.

Perhaps I need to re-phrase things in simpler terms.

Jesus knew He needed a senior pastor to shepherd His early Church. The passages in question show Jesus selecting Peter for that role. When Jesus gave Peter the power to "Bind and loose" He, in essence, was saying to Peter "I've got your back, don't worry about a thing." This was shown many times throughout Acts, particularly with Ananias and Sapphira. Peter didn't slay them, the Lord did in support of Peter's leadership.

T-Bone


However, the writings of early church writers, while useful, are not inspired, and are not without error. These writings are making claims that Peter said things that can't be supported in Scripture. If you want to make authoritative statements with regards to the church, it is much better to speak with the only authority given to us - Scripture and Scripture alone.



Which Scripture? In the time of the Gospels and Acts they were being lived. These books and the following letters were not written until after the fact. The Scripture of the time was what we call the Old Testament. In fact many of these Writers of the Early Church were the ones who gathered together, examined the writings, and decided which ones met the definition of being inspired. Without the God inspired actions of these men we would not have a New Testament. If these men could be inspired by God to do this, why is it such a stretch to believe that they were right in recognizing that Peter was the first leader of the Earthly Church that Jesus established? We have the example of succession in Acts. Why is it so hard to believe that this example is to be followed by the Church?


<DIR>
2Th 2:14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.


</DIR>Jesus ordained the Apostles to go out and preach, teach, baptise by the Trinitarian formula, and be an example for all. The Apostles, as shown in Acts, understood that they could ordain replacements. Why should we ignore the words of these successors when traditions (extra-Biblical teachings) were used for proper teaching by Paul?

More to the point, what makes the teachings of the descendents of the Reformation of more value that these Early Church Fathers? Particularly since there is a vast amount of differences in the teachings of different denominations. Let us take the example of a KJV only Independent Bible church Vs. a church which teaches the WOF ( Blab it and Grab it as many crudely put it). Which one is right? They both claim the correct interpretation of the Bible.

In Christ,

Willis

Hi Willis,

I guess this discussion will be fruitless unless we can agree on what is Scripture. By the way, I don't believe I said anywhere that the reformed writers were superior to anyone else, not sure where you arrived at that. Also, suggesting that I am WOF or KJV only are non-sequitirs bordering on ad hominem attack. Let's just discuss this like gentlemen if you please. I have been trying very hard to limit all my references to the canon of Scripture, the Bibles that we see in the bookstore. I tend to use the NASB, but I have used the KJV, NKJV, and sometimes NIV.

The method of interpretation I use is the one that is most recommended - the grammatical-historical method. As to why I don't accept quotes of Biblical characters from outside the Canon, they can be spurious - example: the gosple of Thomas. And since they are not inspired writings, why quote them, they have no authority? The best they can offer is opinion, and when they quote Biblical characters, is that supposed to have the same weight as the inspired writings? If we can't agree that it is best to limit our discussion to the word of God, this becomes futile speculation.

I could pull out protestant authors all day, but they are merely commentaries - opinion. The only text with authority is the word of God. Wouldn't you rather come to a place where we can agree on the source, the source to which we both must bow, the Bible?

1. To suggest that Jesus felt the need for a senior pastor...uh, that really flies in the face of God's heart entirely. Remember when Israel asked for a king? God had been their king. And while Moses or Joshua or Samuel was the one that God spoke to most personally, that person was not the leader of the nation. God was. When the king thing went bad, is it not reasonable to assume that when Jesus establishes the church, the LAST thing he wants is anything resembling a king. He is the King!
2. T-Bone's point is not to be missed. In all of scripture, God/Jesus is THE ROCK, the cornerstone, the firm foundation, the fortress. No one else is, ever. To make that claim on Peter tends to disregard the rest of scripture.

Perhaps the better question, standing back from our traditions, is to ask, is there anything in Scripture, really, that says that we should exalt any man? That answer is pretty clearly, no.

Tho' I do appreciate 308's work above, and will read it all more carefully when time permits. I wonder how much of it is looking in the rear view mirror history-making and interpretation, tho'? Jesus' words just don't have enough there to create an org chart from that you'd hang your hat on.

Very interesting discussion by 308, et al., but if Peter had a successor, who would it have been according to the scriptures and did he have the authority to appoint one. The 325AD "Council of Nicea" did not establish one and neither did the "follow on" councils until the "Roman" church claimed it in the 11th Century (the "Great Schism" was created between the West and Eastern Churches at that time). If a "Supreme Bishop" claimed to be the organizational head of the Roman (located) church it was not an issue during that century, but he claimed to be in charge of all of the churches in the "known world". When the Pope was given the title of the "Vicar of Christ" by the Roman Church he was elevated far beyond that of Bishop or "Elder". Peter did not claim that "title" in his ministry, nor did he seek to exercise such authority. All the Apostles were given special gifts at the time of "Penticost" and most pastored churches or went on missonary journeys.
Not only do Protestants sects disagree with the "legitimacy" of the Pope as the "Vicar of Christ", so does the Eastern (Greek) Orthodox and "Anglican Church". The office of the Pope portends any religious office given a pastor humbled by God's magnificence. He is afforded luxurys of a "head-of-state" and the "grandure" of a king. Are these the "emblems" of the Apostleship of Christ?
I would submit that church organization and "seniority" over city states won out over Scriptural organization of the "Church". If the church was a "spiritual body" with Christ at the "head", how did it get surplanted by men? (Could it have been by inference, decree, or by government?)
I read no where in the Bible where any of the Apostles were subservient to Peter (a married Apostle) or that he was the "sole arbitrator" of doctrines, as the current Pope decrees. Nor is there any mention of Peter naming a successor; for the "believer" were scattered by the Nero's Roman government and congregations formed in all known parts of the "empire" until "Constantine" made Christianity "legal" to practise in 323AD (est.). Thanks for your comments, and indulgence of mine.

T-Bone,

I guess this discussion will be fruitless unless we can agree on what is Scripture.

Agreed!


By the way, I don't believe I said anywhere that the reformed writers were superior to anyone else, not sure where you arrived at that. Also, suggesting that I am WOF or KJV only are non-sequitirs bordering on ad hominem attack.


Please forgive me, but I was saying no such thing. I was pointing out the great flaw in Scripture alone. It has lead not to a unified Church with Christ as its head, but rather to a fractured church, with wildly varying beliefs all in the name of Scripture Alone.


Let's just discuss this like gentlemen if you please.

I am trying to. Again, I am sorry that you felt I was attacking you with that example. Please go back and re-read what I said.


I have been trying very hard to limit all my references to the canon of Scripture, the Bibles that we see in the bookstore. I tend to use the NASB, but I have used the KJV, NKJV, and sometimes NIV.

The method of interpretation I use is the one that is most recommended - the grammatical-historical method. As to why I don't accept quotes of Biblical characters from outside the Canon, they can be spurious - example: the gosple of Thomas. And since they are not inspired writings, why quote them, they have no authority? The best they can offer is opinion, and when they quote Biblical characters, is that supposed to have the same weight as the inspired writings? If we can't agree that it is best to limit our discussion to the word of God, this becomes futile speculation.

I could pull out protestant authors all day, but they are merely commentaries - opinion. The only text with authority is the word of God. Wouldn't you rather come to a place where we can agree on the source, the source to which we both must bow, the Bible?


This all goes back to your first sentence above. I will ask you a thought question.

We all accept the inspiration of infallible Scripture. We have this Scripture today because God caused fallible men to meet and discuss the existing writings and reject such things as the Gospel of Thomas while preserving such writings and the four Gospels, Acts, the Epistles and Revelations. These same men at the same time established the Canon of the Old Testement.

The question is this: What spirit inspired Martin Luther to reject certain Old Testement Books and try to rip out James and Revelations?

The second part of this question is what is valid for scriptural discussion. The Protestant Canon, or the Catholic Canon?

Thank you for your well thought out responses to me. It is a pleasure to discuss with you.

JR1.

Thank you for your great analysis. I will try my best to aanswer you objections.


1. To suggest that Jesus felt the need for a senior pastor...uh, that really flies in the face of God's heart entirely. Remember when Israel asked for a king? God had been their king. And while Moses or Joshua or Samuel was the one that God spoke to most personally, that person was not the leader of the nation. God was. When the king thing went bad, is it not reasonable to assume that when Jesus establishes the church, the LAST thing he wants is anything resembling a king. He is the King!


Paul tells us in Timoty and Titus that we need the offices of episkopus, presbuteros, and diakonos. By the same logic you used above we don't need those offices because they are elevating people above the others.

Honestly, Peter was not a king. He was a pastor. A shepherd of the flock.



2. T-Bone's point is not to be missed. In all of scripture, God/Jesus is THE ROCK, the cornerstone, the firm foundation, the fortress. No one else is, ever. To make that claim on Peter tends to disregard the rest of scripture.

Perhaps the better question, standing back from our traditions, is to ask, is there anything in Scripture, really, that says that we should exalt any man? That answer is pretty clearly, no.


Where have I said that we are to exalt anyone? If Peter was exalted it was by Jesus, who singled Peter out in the fashion he did. Do you not hold your pastor in high esteem?

Also, Jesus is the Cornerstone, the Firm Foundation, the Fortress. Who are you or I to say that God cannot place the cornerstone, foundation and fortress on the figurative bedrock (petra) (bedrock is a valid translation of this word) of His choice? I am sorry if this offends you, but I really think you are twisting clear scripture because you refuse to accept that God can do this.


Tho' I do appreciate 308's work above, and will read it all more carefully when time permits. I wonder how much of it is looking in the rear view mirror history-making and interpretation, tho'? Jesus' words just don't have enough there to create an org chart from that you'd hang your hat on.


Thank you for your kind words, but I respectfully disagree with your last sentence.

In Christ,

Willis

Well, I don't want to start fighting over words, but to most non-Catholics, the pope is elevated far beyond that of a mere pastor or shepherd of the flock. I hope you could admit that. It sure looks pretty kingly...and it's that shepherd's responsibility to let the sheep know that he is, in fact, merely one of them, humble and broken, and leading with the hand of God holding his...not to be lifted up in any way.

And who am I to judge his heart, perhaps he feels that way? I pray he does.

T-Bone,



Agreed!



Please forgive me, but I was saying no such thing. I was pointing out the great flaw in Scripture alone. It has lead not to a unified Church with Christ as its head, but rather to a fractured church, with wildly varying beliefs all in the name of Scripture Alone.




I am trying to. Again, I am sorry that you felt I was attacking you with that example. Please go back and re-read what I said.



This all goes back to your first sentence above. I will ask you a thought question.

We all accept the inspiration of infallible Scripture. We have this Scripture today because God caused fallible men to meet and discuss the existing writings and reject such things as the Gospel of Thomas while preserving such writings and the four Gospels, Acts, the Epistles and Revelations. These same men at the same time established the Canon of the Old Testement.

The question is this: What spirit inspired Martin Luther to reject certain Old Testament Books and try to rip out James and Revelations?

The second part of this question is what is valid for scriptural discussion. The Protestant Canon, or the Catholic Canon?

Thank you for your well thought out responses to me. It is a pleasure to discuss with you.

You know I was just thinking about this discussion, and it has indeed been thoughtful. So many of these denigrate into argument. You gave me plenty to think about. I'm not sure what motivated Martin Luther to do anything. It is Christ that knows the hearts of men. I am very pleased however, that we can agree on Scripture although I don't use the apocrypha. Maybe we can limit our discussion to your original post, regarding Peter and his position in the church. While the other stuff about this or that scholar is interesting, it distracts from your topic and would be a source of much debate that has been argued for years. I don't see it ending soon. :)

However Scripture and it's correct interpretation - there is a subject worth discussing! “16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2Ti 3:16-17 NAS95)

and of course... “15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. 16 But avoid worldly [and] empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness,” (2Ti 2:15-16 NAS95)

Were you able to find Scriptural support for your position about Peter being the foundation of the church?

T-Bone, in answer to this:


Were you able to find Scriptural support for your position about Peter being the foundation of the church?


I offer the words of Paul.


<DIR>

<DIR>Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Eph 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
Eph 2:22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

</DIR>

</DIR>
Interesting quote isn't it?

I also suggest you read this. I have provided a link to the original.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp


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.

But Eph 2:20 actually argues AGAINST your position! It says clearly that the church is built on ONE stone, Jesus, and all the rest of the leadership make up the foundation. How can you miss that? (And I haven't read all the rest below that yet, the Bible wins for me when it's clear....)

But Eph 2:20 actually argues AGAINST your position! It says clearly that the church is built on ONE stone, Jesus, and all the rest of the leadership make up the foundation. How can you miss that? (And I haven't read all the rest below that yet, the Bible wins for me when it's clear....)

Is Peter an Apostle? Is Jesus the corner stone placed on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets? Did not Jesus directly say that Peter is the large stone or rock, or petra on which He will build His Church? Did I miss something? Peter is the bedrock, The Apostles and Prophets are the foundation, Jesus is the Cornerstone on which the Church is built. Remember JR1, the cornerstone is the first one placed on the foundation.

Gentlemen. I may be all wet, but my understanding of the intent of Cross-Wire is that it is a place for us to share Christ, and our experiences, coming together across the spectrum of modern Christianity; not a place to continue endless arguments. It is that sharing with others from different organizations that makes this forum so special to me.
(T-Bone) The references I gave were to the rock that Moses struck that gave water for the Israelites and their flocks in the desert. Ezekiel, chapter 47 also comes to mind; especially in view of where Jesus and Peter were at the time. I apologize if I confused you with another from Saint Louis, who currently uses your name and avatar, who a few years ago was interested in developing loads for the 405 grain hollow base cast bullet in his 45/70. Never did hear how it turned out, wondered; and thought it was you.

Hi Willis,

The method of interpretation I use is the one that is most recommended - the grammatical-historical method. As to why I don't accept quotes of Biblical characters from outside the Canon, they can be spurious - example: the gosple of Thomas. And since they are not inspired writings, why quote them, they have no authority? The best they can offer is opinion, and when they quote Biblical characters, is that supposed to have the same weight as the inspired writings? If we can't agree that it is best to limit our discussion to the word of God, this becomes futile speculation.

I could pull out protestant authors all day, but they are merely commentaries - opinion. The only text with authority is the word of God. Wouldn't you rather come to a place where we can agree on the source, the source to which we both must bow, the Bible?

From Wikipedia;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical-grammatical


The aim of the historical-grammatical method is to discover the meaning of the passage as the original author would have intended and what the original hearers would have understood. The original passage is seen as having only a single meaning or sense. As Milton S. Terry said: "A fundamental principle in grammatico-historical exposition is that the words and sentences can have but one significance in one and the same connection. The moment we neglect this principle we drift out upon a sea of uncertainty and conjecture." <SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-2>[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical-grammatical#cite_note-2)</SUP>
Many practice the historical-grammatical method using a general three-fold approach to the text: 1) observation, 2) interpretation, and 3) application. <SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-3>[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical-grammatical#cite_note-3)</SUP> <SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-4>[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical-grammatical#cite_note-4)</SUP> Each step builds upon the other, and so they follow in order. The first step of observation involves an examination of words, structure, structural relationships and literary forms. After observations are formed, then the second step of interpretation involves asking interpretative questions, formulating answers to those questions, integration and summarization of the passage. After the meaning is derived through interpretation, then the third step of application involves determining both the theoretical and practical significance of the text, and appropriately applying this significance to today's modern context. There is also a heavy emphasis on personal application that extends into all aspects of the practitioner's life. Theologian Robert Traina, in his 1952 Methodical Bible Study, wrote that "the applicatory step is that for which all else exists. It represents the final purpose of Bible study." <SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-Traina_5-0>[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical-grammatical#cite_note-Traina-5)</SUP>
Technically speaking, the grammatical-historical method of interpretation is distinct from the determination of the passage's significance in light of that interpretation. Taken together, both define the term (Biblical) hermeneutics. <SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-6>[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical-grammatical#cite_note-6)</SUP>

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical-grammatical_method&action=edit&section=2)] Comparison with other methods of interpretations


[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical-grammatical_method&action=edit&section=3)] Proof-text method

In the proof-text (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-text) approach, one uses verses or short texts to support a particular topic or position. Compared with the historical-grammatical method, interpretations based on the proof-text method often neglect the context of the verse, the historical setting as well as the type of literary genre. The proof-text approach is also susceptible to heterorthodox teachings. Applications of certain texts also tend to be allegorical in nature.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-7>[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical-grammatical#cite_note-7)</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP>The above discusses the definitions of Grammatical Historical Vs. Proof Text. I would respectfully submit that you keep asking me for proof text rather than looking at the history and grammar. I keep trying to show history and with my long reply to you last evening there is a significant discussion of grammar.</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>

Dear Riley,

I am so sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your post. I will attempt to answer most of your points while pointing out that they are very off topic, and have nothing to do with the correct interpretation of the usage of "petra" in the verses in question.

Very interesting discussion by 308, et al., but if Peter had a successor, who would it have been according to the scriptures and did he have the authority to appoint one. The 325AD "Council of Nicea" did not establish one and neither did the "follow on" councils until the "Roman" church claimed it in the 11th Century (the "Great Schism" was created between the West and Eastern Churches at that time).

If you go back and read the quotes of the Early Church Fathers I provided you will see that the primacy of Peter was understood and accepted by the early Church and Her Bishops. There was no need for any definitive council statements. Nicea did not need to establish such a position because the Bishops understood that Jesus had already done that in ordaining Peter.



If a "Supreme Bishop" claimed to be the organizational head of the Roman (located) church it was not an issue during that century, but he claimed to be in charge of all of the churches in the "known world". When the Pope was given the title of the "Vicar of Christ" by the Roman Church he was elevated far beyond that of Bishop or "Elder". Peter did not claim that "title" in his ministry, nor did he seek to exercise such authority. All the Apostles were given special gifts at the time of "Penticost" and most pastored churches or went on missonary journeys.


Peter did clearly exercise authority in Acts. History shows that Peter was indeed the Bishop of Rome when he was executed.

Not only do Protestants sects disagree with the "legitimacy" of the Pope as the "Vicar of Christ", so does the Eastern (Greek) Orthodox and "Anglican Church". The office of the Pope portends any religious office given a pastor humbled by God's magnificence. He is afforded luxurys of a "head-of-state" and the "grandure" of a king. Are these the "emblems" of the Apostleship of Christ?

Please, the Anglican Church was created out of the selfish will of the British King. It is not Catholic and does not have Apostolic succession. It is a poor example for this discussion.

The Orthodox recognize the validity of the Apostolic succession in the Roman branch of the Churchg as well as the validity of our Sacraments. The Roman branch of the Church does the same for the Orthodox.

Read your history. The creation of the Vatican City state was necessary to prevent the interference in church affairs by the government. That could be a whole different discussion.

As far as the grandure of a king is concerned. The Popes do not ask for the position. They are selected by secret ballot in the same fashion as Judas successor was selected in Acts.




I would submit that church organization and "seniority" over city states won out over Scriptural organization of the "Church". If the church was a "spiritual body" with Christ at the "head", how did it get surplanted by men? (Could it have been by inference, decree, or by government?)
I read no where in the Bible where any of the Apostles were subservient to Peter (a married Apostle) or that he was the "sole arbitrator" of doctrines, as the current Pope decrees.


No Pope claims to be the sole arbitrator of doctrine. You really should study up more on what the Pope's real powers are.


Nor is there any mention of Peter naming a successor; for the "believer" were scattered by the Nero's Roman government and congregations formed in all known parts of the "empire" until "Constantine" made Christianity "legal" to practise in 323AD (est.).


Someone has taught you falsely, there is much in recorded history to refute this fable.


Thanks for your comments, and indulgence of mine.



You are quite welcome!

More comments of the Grammatical-Historical method.

Doesn't this method really say that clear Scripture really isn't? That we need to know what the author intended and what the hearers would have understood? Isn't this saying that Scripture Alone really isn't?

308shtr,

Wow there has been a lot of discussion. I would have replied last night, but we had a rather long elder's meeting.

Well, here goes... In Ephesians 2:19-20, Paul is referring to something that was a mystery to the Jews, the church. It had not existed prior to that, and there was no mention of it in the Old Testament. He was describing what had never before existed, an organization of people held together by a belief, a common confession if you will. Why do I say 'common confession'?

“that if you confess with your mouth Jesus [as] Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;” (Ro 10:9 NAS95)

This is what makes a body of believers "ekklesia", which used to refer to an assembly, but now church. It is not a set of works, or a fee paid, or birthright (as the Jews believed), it was this common confession.

“By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.” (1Ti 3:16 NAS95)

Where Jesus says "Hades will not prevail against it", Hades referred to His imminent death on the cross, and 'it' referrs to the church. The Jews had hoped to stomp out the church, but Jesus is saying that even His death will not cause the church to cease. This assembly of believers of common confession (like the one made by Peter) will continue.

As to the conclusions drawn by the commentator you are quoting, first, I object to the word preeminence - that term is reserved for another, Jesus Christ. He is God incarnate, and we as Christians will be like Him. “For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined [to become] conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;” (Ro 8:29 NAS95) Firstborn of many children reserves the place of preeminence to Christ and no other man. Christ is the head of the church (Eph 5.23), and no other mediator is required between man and God (1 Tim 2:5).

Second, Peter is listed first for a couple of reasons: He was one of the first called; He was a natural leader (when he was going to return to a career of fishing, the others were going to follow) and he did often speak for the others (sometimes to put his foot in his mouth) but it was because of his exuberant faith and natural leadership. He was also friends with Christ along John and James, they witnessed the transfiguration. John was called "the disciple whom Jesus loved", shouldn't he have a special leadership role according to this logic? By the way, Jesus first appeared to Mary first not Peter whom she went and told, then Peter and John ran to the tomb. Peter was indeed the first pastor, and as the church grew, other pastors were ordained, and in turn others were ordained by them. As to a chain of ordination, you may be making a big deal about something that is just believers called to be pastors, shepherding other believers - some of which are called to be pastors, and so on. I see nothing in the Bible that makes this 'chain of succession' anything else.

As to the Aramaic, again I see no relevance as a translation issue. God has not preserved the conversation in Aramaic, but in Koine Greek.

It should be clear from the Scripture that 'common confession' of believers is what builds a church. That is why we have pastors and evangelists, and missionaries, and the witnessing of lay believers, that are taking the word of God to every part of the planet. As they hear, some are convicted and believe, they profess their belief and they are added to the church.

I would be more verbose, but I have to go to work. I hope this helps.

You have other replies since the one I am addressing here that I would like to address, but I'll have to come back to it later - duty calls :D

I, too, have to go to work. Talk to y'all later!

Willis

Gentlemen. I may be all wet, but my understanding of the intent of Cross-Wire is that it is a place for us to share Christ, and our experiences, coming together across the spectrum of modern Christianity; not a place to continue endless arguments. It is that sharing with others from different organizations that makes this forum so special to me.
(T-Bone) The references I gave were to the rock that Moses struck that gave water for the Israelites and their flocks in the desert. Ezekiel, chapter 47 also comes to mind; especially in view of where Jesus and Peter were at the time. I apologize if I confused you with another from Saint Louis, who currently uses your name and avatar, who a few years ago was interested in developing loads for the 405 grain hollow base cast bullet in his 45/70. Never did hear how it turned out, wondered; and thought it was you.

Golly, that might have been me!! I signed on a long time ago, but recently renewed my interest in this site. Now I'll have to go looking at my really old posts. :confused:

OK, just some thoughts before I'm late...

The grammatical-historic method simply refers to looking at the grammar of a sentence, the parts of speech, the conjugation of verbs, use of metaphors, hyperbole, etc. At one level it is much like reading any modern book. We know that 'hand of God' doesn't mean that God the Father, who is spirit, has hands. If I am not mistaken, grammatical also refers to the exegesis of the original language texts.

The historical part would not be church history but the history and culture of the peoples referred to in a particular passage. A brief example, 'Christ will rise on the third day', so if Christ is crucified on Friday, then Sat-Sun-Mon?? No, in Jewish culture it was common to refer to the current day as the first day (like a 3 day period, first of which is today), so Fri-Sat-Sun. Of course we all know He rose on the third day. Another would be knowing who the Pharisees and Sadducee's were and their relationship to each other and to the people of Israel, has great benefit to understanding the gospels.

Another aspect would be reading in context. This is what prevents 'proof-texting' which you referred to in your previous post. A verse can have no other meaning than what is has in context. When I examine a verse I always read at the least the entire paragraph that it is contained in, but a knowledge of the context of the whole book and certainly the chapter and it's general and specific context is valuable. You know the 'old saw' about proof-texting: There was once a pastor who quoted the following verses... “he went away and hanged himself.” and "Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do the same."

The final part would be the analogy of Scripture (Analogia Scriptura). What is referred to here is looking for parallel ideas from other places in the Bible that support your analysis. Now that doesn't mean you come up with an idea and look for verses to support that idea (isogesis)!! What I am referring to is studying the verse/passage and discovering what it means (exegesis) and then checking your work with what other places in the Bible say on the same subject. That's why there is such tremendous benefit in reading the entire Bible through. You just get such a wonderful whole-istic panorama of the body of Scripture.

If you want the long version, here is a link that I can heartily recommend. http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-157.HTM

P.S. Wow, am I ever an idiot! I forgot the most important aspect of understanding Scripture. Without it you have no hope whatsoever of understanding Scripture the way Christ would have us understand it. You must be a genuine believer. You must have been convicted of your sin, mourned over it, realized you have no hope of salvation in your own power, fallen to your knees and asked Christ for forgiveness, and realized that because of His atoning work on the cross, and His glorious resurrection, that his work covers your sin forever. As you profess Him as Lord and Master, you give your life to Him and the reward is His companionship and love for eternity. By the way, that is also the confession of faith in Christ the Lord that is the rock upon which the church is built. Sorry, had to get one last plug in.

Bill