My video says it all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRPUVpeLwA
Thou art Peter Firstborn & Stone: Janus Parallelism
Moderator: Moderators
-
Alfred Persson
- Student
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 2:10 pm
- Contact:
-
RightReason
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Thou art Peter Firstborn & Stone: Janus Parallelism
Post #11[Replying to post 2 by JehovahsWitness]
Oh, gosh, I so don’t have time for this, but thought I would be remiss not to at least post a little on this topic . . .
Actually, in addition to the obvious reading of the text as marco pointed out, there are quite a few reasons to conclude Peter was the rock. See below. Also, the “Peter’s Confession� theory was something that came after the Protestant Reformation to justify those who left Christ’s Church. They left because they did not accept papal authority, even though the first Christians did. Evidence from Scripture shows Peter to have been distinguished as the leader, as well as evidence from early Church writings where Peter is described as the rock – the authoritative leader upon who Christ established His Church.
*******************************
For Catholics, this text is clear. All twelve apostles were present, yet Jesus promised to give to Peter alone the keys of the kingdom, symbolizing the authority of Christ—the authority of heaven—over the kingdom of heaven on Earth, which is the Church. Yet millions of Protestants believe that there is a distinction in meaning in the Greek text between the two “rocks� that would eliminate Peter from consideration for being the rock.
“Thou art petros and upon this petra I will build my church . . .� The first rock, petros, is claimed to refer to a small, insignificant rock: Peter. The second, petra, is claimed to mean a massive boulder: that would be either Jesus or Peter’s confession of faith. The argument concludes Jesus did not build his church upon St. Peter but either upon himself or Peter’s faith.
Below are seven reasons, among many others we could examine, why Peter is undeniably the rock:
1) Matthew, we have pretty solid evidence, was originally written in Aramaic. Both Sts. Papias and Irenaeus tell us as much in the second century. But even more importantly—and more certainly—Jesus would not have spoken his discourse of Matthew 16 in Greek. Greek was the dominant language of the Roman Empire in the first century, but most of the common Jewish folk to whom Jesus spoke would not have been fluent in it. Aramaic was their spoken language.
2)
Moreover, we have biblical evidence—John 1:42—that also points to Jesus using Aramaic in the naming of Peter: "[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, 'So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas'� (which means Peter).
The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic Kepha, which means simply “rock.� There would have been no “small rock� to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter.
Even well-respected Protestant scholars will agree on this point. Baptist scholar D. A. Carson, warites, in The Expositor's Bible Commentary:
[T]he underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ("you are kepha" and "on this kepha"), since the word was used both for a name and for a "rock." The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses.
3) In Koine Greek (the dialect of Greek used by the authors of the New Testament), petros and petra are masculine and feminine forms of words with the same root and the same definition—rock. There is no “small rock� to be found in the Greek text, either.
So why did St. Matthew use these two words in the same verse? Petra was a common word used for “rock� in Greek. It’s used fifteen times to mean “rock,� “rocks,� or “rocky� in the New Testament. Petros is an ancient Greek term that was not commonly used in Koine Greek at all. In fact, it was never used in the New Testament, except for Peter’s name after Jesus changed it from Simon to Peter.
It follows that when St. Matthew was translating, he would have used petra for “rock.� However, in so doing, he would have encountered a problem. Petra is a feminine noun. It would have been improper to call Peter Petra. This would be equivalent to calling a male “Valerie� or “Priscilla� in English. Hence, petros was used instead of petra for Peter’s name.
4) There are several words the inspired author could have used for rock or stone in Greek. Petra and lithos were the most common. They could be used interchangeably. A connotation of “large� or “small� with either of them would depend on context. The words simply meant rock or stone.
Craig S. Keener, another Protestant scholar, on page 90 of The IVP Bible Background Commentary of the New Testament, states: “In Greek (here), they (referring to petros and petra) are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period…� D. A. Carson points out the big/small distinction did exist in Greek, but is found only in ancient Greek (used from the eighth to the fourth century B.C.), and even there it is mostly confined to poetry. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek (used from the fourth century B.C. to the fifth century A.D.). Carson agrees with Keener and with Catholics that there is no distinction in definition between petros and petra.
One of the most respected and referenced Greek dictionaries among Evangelicals is Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. In a most candid statement about Matthew 16:18, Dr. Oscar Cullman, a contributing editor to this work, writes:
The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and Petros . . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . . For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of “thou art Rock� and “on this rock I will build� shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.
4) If St. Matthew wanted to distinguish “rocks� in the text, he would have most likely used lithos. As stated above, lithos could refer to a large rock, but it was more commonly used to denote a small stone. However, there is a third word St. Matthew could have used that always means small stone: psephos. It is used twice in Rev. 2:17 as “small stone� when Jesus says, “To him who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone which no one knows except him who receives it.� Here we have one Greek word that unlike lithos and petra always has a connotation of “small stone,� or “pebble.�
5) A simpler line of reasoning gets away from original languages and examines the immediate context of the passage. Notice, our Lord says to St. Peter in Matthew 16:17-19:
And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Jesus uses the second person personal seven times in just three verses. The context is clearly one of Jesus communicating a unique authority to Peter.
Further, Jesus is portrayed as the builder of the Church, not the building. He said, “I will build my church.� Jesus is “the wise man who built his house upon the rock� (Matt. 7:24) in Matthew’s Gospel. Once again, it just does not fit the context to have Jesus building the Church upon himself. He’s building it upon Peter.
6) A lot of folks miss the significance of Simon’s name change to Peter. When God revealed to certain of his people a new and radical calling in Scripture, he sometimes changed their names. In particular, we find this in the calling of the Patriarchs. Abram (“exalted father� in Hebrew) was changed to Abraham (“father of the multitudes�). Jacob (“supplanter�) to Israel (“One who prevails with God�). In fact, there is a very interesting parallel here between Abraham and St. Peter. In Isaiah 51:1-2, we read:
Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you who seek the Lord; look to the rock from which you were hewn. . . . Look to Abraham your father.
Jesus here makes St. Peter a true “father� over the household of faith, just as God made Abraham our true “father� in the Faith (cf. Romans 4:1-18; James 2:21). Hence, it is fitting that Peter’s successors are called “pope� or “papa,� as was Abraham (cf. Luke 16:24).
7) When we understand that Christ is the true “son of David� who came to restore the prophetic Kingdom of David, we understand that Christ in Matthew 16, like the King of Israel, was establishing a “prime minister� among his ministers—the apostles—in the Kingdom. Isaiah 22:15-22 gives us insight into the ministry of the “prime minister� in ancient Israel:
Thus says the Lord God of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him . . . Behold the Lord will hurl you away violently. . . . I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the House of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
In Revelation 1:18, Jesus declares, “I have the keys of Death and Hades.� He then quotes this very text from Isaiah in Revelation 3:7:
And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: “The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.�
No Christian would deny Jesus is the King who possesses the keys. Who does he give the keys to? Peter!
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/onlin ... r-the-rock
Will probably not be able to respond further, but felt it important to relay this info in case you were unaware.
Oh, gosh, I so don’t have time for this, but thought I would be remiss not to at least post a little on this topic . . .
I don't believe when Jesus said "this rock" he was refering to Peter;
Actually, in addition to the obvious reading of the text as marco pointed out, there are quite a few reasons to conclude Peter was the rock. See below. Also, the “Peter’s Confession� theory was something that came after the Protestant Reformation to justify those who left Christ’s Church. They left because they did not accept papal authority, even though the first Christians did. Evidence from Scripture shows Peter to have been distinguished as the leader, as well as evidence from early Church writings where Peter is described as the rock – the authoritative leader upon who Christ established His Church.
Well, it is clearly refuted here . . ."in normal [Greek] syntax a phrase like KAI EPI TAUTHi THi PETRAi can only refer to something outside of the speaker and his interlocutor. Therefore, if this phrase here--contrary to syntax
*******************************
For Catholics, this text is clear. All twelve apostles were present, yet Jesus promised to give to Peter alone the keys of the kingdom, symbolizing the authority of Christ—the authority of heaven—over the kingdom of heaven on Earth, which is the Church. Yet millions of Protestants believe that there is a distinction in meaning in the Greek text between the two “rocks� that would eliminate Peter from consideration for being the rock.
“Thou art petros and upon this petra I will build my church . . .� The first rock, petros, is claimed to refer to a small, insignificant rock: Peter. The second, petra, is claimed to mean a massive boulder: that would be either Jesus or Peter’s confession of faith. The argument concludes Jesus did not build his church upon St. Peter but either upon himself or Peter’s faith.
Below are seven reasons, among many others we could examine, why Peter is undeniably the rock:
1) Matthew, we have pretty solid evidence, was originally written in Aramaic. Both Sts. Papias and Irenaeus tell us as much in the second century. But even more importantly—and more certainly—Jesus would not have spoken his discourse of Matthew 16 in Greek. Greek was the dominant language of the Roman Empire in the first century, but most of the common Jewish folk to whom Jesus spoke would not have been fluent in it. Aramaic was their spoken language.
2)
Moreover, we have biblical evidence—John 1:42—that also points to Jesus using Aramaic in the naming of Peter: "[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, 'So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas'� (which means Peter).
The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic Kepha, which means simply “rock.� There would have been no “small rock� to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter.
Even well-respected Protestant scholars will agree on this point. Baptist scholar D. A. Carson, warites, in The Expositor's Bible Commentary:
[T]he underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ("you are kepha" and "on this kepha"), since the word was used both for a name and for a "rock." The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses.
3) In Koine Greek (the dialect of Greek used by the authors of the New Testament), petros and petra are masculine and feminine forms of words with the same root and the same definition—rock. There is no “small rock� to be found in the Greek text, either.
So why did St. Matthew use these two words in the same verse? Petra was a common word used for “rock� in Greek. It’s used fifteen times to mean “rock,� “rocks,� or “rocky� in the New Testament. Petros is an ancient Greek term that was not commonly used in Koine Greek at all. In fact, it was never used in the New Testament, except for Peter’s name after Jesus changed it from Simon to Peter.
It follows that when St. Matthew was translating, he would have used petra for “rock.� However, in so doing, he would have encountered a problem. Petra is a feminine noun. It would have been improper to call Peter Petra. This would be equivalent to calling a male “Valerie� or “Priscilla� in English. Hence, petros was used instead of petra for Peter’s name.
4) There are several words the inspired author could have used for rock or stone in Greek. Petra and lithos were the most common. They could be used interchangeably. A connotation of “large� or “small� with either of them would depend on context. The words simply meant rock or stone.
Craig S. Keener, another Protestant scholar, on page 90 of The IVP Bible Background Commentary of the New Testament, states: “In Greek (here), they (referring to petros and petra) are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period…� D. A. Carson points out the big/small distinction did exist in Greek, but is found only in ancient Greek (used from the eighth to the fourth century B.C.), and even there it is mostly confined to poetry. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek (used from the fourth century B.C. to the fifth century A.D.). Carson agrees with Keener and with Catholics that there is no distinction in definition between petros and petra.
One of the most respected and referenced Greek dictionaries among Evangelicals is Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. In a most candid statement about Matthew 16:18, Dr. Oscar Cullman, a contributing editor to this work, writes:
The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and Petros . . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . . For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of “thou art Rock� and “on this rock I will build� shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.
4) If St. Matthew wanted to distinguish “rocks� in the text, he would have most likely used lithos. As stated above, lithos could refer to a large rock, but it was more commonly used to denote a small stone. However, there is a third word St. Matthew could have used that always means small stone: psephos. It is used twice in Rev. 2:17 as “small stone� when Jesus says, “To him who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone which no one knows except him who receives it.� Here we have one Greek word that unlike lithos and petra always has a connotation of “small stone,� or “pebble.�
5) A simpler line of reasoning gets away from original languages and examines the immediate context of the passage. Notice, our Lord says to St. Peter in Matthew 16:17-19:
And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Jesus uses the second person personal seven times in just three verses. The context is clearly one of Jesus communicating a unique authority to Peter.
Further, Jesus is portrayed as the builder of the Church, not the building. He said, “I will build my church.� Jesus is “the wise man who built his house upon the rock� (Matt. 7:24) in Matthew’s Gospel. Once again, it just does not fit the context to have Jesus building the Church upon himself. He’s building it upon Peter.
6) A lot of folks miss the significance of Simon’s name change to Peter. When God revealed to certain of his people a new and radical calling in Scripture, he sometimes changed their names. In particular, we find this in the calling of the Patriarchs. Abram (“exalted father� in Hebrew) was changed to Abraham (“father of the multitudes�). Jacob (“supplanter�) to Israel (“One who prevails with God�). In fact, there is a very interesting parallel here between Abraham and St. Peter. In Isaiah 51:1-2, we read:
Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you who seek the Lord; look to the rock from which you were hewn. . . . Look to Abraham your father.
Jesus here makes St. Peter a true “father� over the household of faith, just as God made Abraham our true “father� in the Faith (cf. Romans 4:1-18; James 2:21). Hence, it is fitting that Peter’s successors are called “pope� or “papa,� as was Abraham (cf. Luke 16:24).
7) When we understand that Christ is the true “son of David� who came to restore the prophetic Kingdom of David, we understand that Christ in Matthew 16, like the King of Israel, was establishing a “prime minister� among his ministers—the apostles—in the Kingdom. Isaiah 22:15-22 gives us insight into the ministry of the “prime minister� in ancient Israel:
Thus says the Lord God of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him . . . Behold the Lord will hurl you away violently. . . . I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the House of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
In Revelation 1:18, Jesus declares, “I have the keys of Death and Hades.� He then quotes this very text from Isaiah in Revelation 3:7:
And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: “The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.�
No Christian would deny Jesus is the King who possesses the keys. Who does he give the keys to? Peter!
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/onlin ... r-the-rock
Will probably not be able to respond further, but felt it important to relay this info in case you were unaware.
-
RightReason
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Thou art Peter Firstborn & Stone: Janus Parallelism
Post #12[Replying to post 4 by 2timothy316]
There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).
Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that—aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2—in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.
Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).
The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name, while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges.
When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).
Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.
Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).
Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me more than these?" (John 21:15), the word "these" referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.
Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.
https://www.catholic.com/tract/peter-and-the-papacy
Again, don’t have much time to re write in my own words, but thought it my duty to relay this info.
Also, keep in mind, just because Pete was appointed the leader does not mean the Pope alone is the Church – that’s not the way it works. But Christ did intend a hierarchical structure to His Church . This is evidenced in Scripture and we see that God typically chose appointed or chosen ones to be leaders and communicate to His people through them – not sure why this bothers so many. It makes sense. And God’s appointed leaders are always expected to humble themselves and serve.
Not the leader. No where does it say Peter is the one and only leader.
There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).
Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that—aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2—in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.
Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).
The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name, while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges.
When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).
Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.
Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).
Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me more than these?" (John 21:15), the word "these" referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.
Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.
https://www.catholic.com/tract/peter-and-the-papacy
Again, don’t have much time to re write in my own words, but thought it my duty to relay this info.
Also, keep in mind, just because Pete was appointed the leader does not mean the Pope alone is the Church – that’s not the way it works. But Christ did intend a hierarchical structure to His Church . This is evidenced in Scripture and we see that God typically chose appointed or chosen ones to be leaders and communicate to His people through them – not sure why this bothers so many. It makes sense. And God’s appointed leaders are always expected to humble themselves and serve.
-
Checkpoint
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4069
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:07 pm
- Has thanked: 105 times
- Been thanked: 63 times
Re: Thou art Peter Firstborn & Stone: Janus Parallelism
Post #13[Replying to post 10 by tam]
Galatians 2:2
I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.
It seems to have been a shared leadership, see Acts 15.Christ never raised Peter over the other apostles; and stated specifically that HE was their leader and teacher and master, but that they were ALL brothers; and they were all given power from on high (holy spirit); they all entered into a covenant where they would sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Indeed, Paul rebuked some for claiming to follow "Paul or Apollos or Peter". If Peter had truly been in charge, then this would have been the perfect opportunity for Paul to have clarified that the one they should be listening to was Peter.
Galatians 2:2
I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.
-
JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 21137
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 794 times
- Been thanked: 1127 times
- Contact:
Re: Thou art Peter Firstborn & Stone: Janus Parallelism
Post #14No it isn't there is no reference to Greek syntax in your reply.RightReason wrote:Well, it is clearly refuted here . . ."in normal [Greek] syntax a phrase like KAI EPI TAUTHi THi PETRAi can only refer to something outside of the speaker and his interlocutor. Therefore, if this phrase here--contrary to syntax
The only reference is speculation as to the original language of the text in relation with the fact that Jesus used the feminine rather than the masculine word for "rock" which is not in my opinion overly significant either way. The passage is somewht ambiguous and lends us looking to supporting texts to come to a reasonable conclusion.FYI: SYNTAX
1.the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language.
The prominience of Peter and the other Apostles is not under dispute (see Eph 2:20 below) nor whether Jesus left his work in their hands (with Peter playing a prominent role therein) but that whether Peter (rather than CHRIST) became the foundation of the Christian "church" and I am unconvinced by arguments that Jesus was NOT the foundation of the true church. I believe the ransom sacrifice of Christ and his teachings and example alone is that which the True religion is founded on. I am fully aware the Catholic religion has its own dogma.
JW
From the Catholic Jerusalem Bible:1 CORINTHIANS 3:11
For no one can lay a foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
ACTS 4:8-11
“Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, addressed them, ‘Rulers of the people, and elders! . . . it was by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, the one you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by this name and by no other that this man is able to stand up perfectly healthy, here in your presence, today. This is the stone rejected by you the builders, but which has proved to be the keystone [“cornerstone,� NAB].’�
1 PETER 2:4-8
“Set yourselves close to him [the Lord Jesus Christ] so that you too . . . may be living stones making a spiritual house. As scripture says: See how I lay in Zion a precious cornerstone that I have chosen and the man who rests his trust on it will not be disappointed. That means that for you who are believers, it is precious; but for unbelievers, the stone rejected by the builders has proved to be the keystone, a stone to stumble over, a rock to bring men down.�
EPHESIANS 2:20
“You are part of a building that has the apostles and prophets for its foundations, and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone.�
RELATED POSTS
Greek Syntax: upon this rock
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 959#882959
Further reading:
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989209#h=4
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2015889#h=13
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Mon Aug 28, 2017 11:12 pm, edited 9 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
-
RightReason
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Thou art Peter Firstborn & Stone: Janus Parallelism
Post #15[Replying to post 14 by JehovahsWitness]
First, like my post said, Jesus would not have even spoken Greek, He would have spoken Aramaic.
But even if looking at the Greek, your syntax argument is debunked. Please re read . . .
In Koine Greek (the dialect of Greek used by the authors of the New Testament), petros and petra are masculine and feminine forms of words with the same root and the same definition—rock. There is no “small rock� to be found in the Greek text, either.
So why did St. Matthew use these two words in the same verse? Petra was a common word used for “rock� in Greek. It’s used fifteen times to mean “rock,� “rocks,� or “rocky� in the New Testament. Petros is an ancient Greek term that was not commonly used in Koine Greek at all. In fact, it was never used in the New Testament, except for Peter’s name after Jesus changed it from Simon to Peter.
It follows that when St. Matthew was translating, he would have used petra for “rock.� However, in so doing, he would have encountered a problem. Petra is a feminine noun. It would have been improper to call Peter Petra. This would be equivalent to calling a male “Valerie� or “Priscilla� in English. Hence, petros was used instead of petra for Peter’s name.
4) There are several words the inspired author could have used for rock or stone in Greek. Petra and lithos were the most common. They could be used interchangeably. A connotation of “large� or “small� with either of them would depend on context. The words simply meant rock or stone.
Craig S. Keener, another Protestant scholar, on page 90 of The IVP Bible Background Commentary of the New Testament, states: “In Greek (here), they (referring to petros and petra) are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period…� D. A. Carson points out the big/small distinction did exist in Greek, but is found only in ancient Greek (used from the eighth to the fourth century B.C.), and even there it is mostly confined to poetry. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek (used from the fourth century B.C. to the fifth century A.D.). Carson agrees with Keener and with Catholics that there is no distinction in definition between petros and petra.
One of the most respected and referenced Greek dictionaries among Evangelicals is Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. In a most candid statement about Matthew 16:18, Dr. Oscar Cullman, a contributing editor to this work, writes:
The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and Petros . . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . . For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of “thou art Rock� and “on this rock I will build� shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.
4) If St. Matthew wanted to distinguish “rocks� in the text, he would have most likely used lithos. As stated above, lithos could refer to a large rock, but it was more commonly used to denote a small stone. However, there is a third word St. Matthew could have used that always means small stone: psephos. It is used twice in Rev. 2:17 as “small stone� when Jesus says, “To him who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone which no one knows except him who receives it.� Here we have one Greek word that unlike lithos and petra always has a connotation of “small stone,� or “pebble.�
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/onlin ... r-the-rock
^ This commentary completely speaks to syntax and exegesis.
Admit it -- was kind of scary to see JW tracts so easily countered, huh? It is a little humorous to hear you comment about all the evidence I posted, "it is not in my opinion overly significant either way" Maybe let it sink in, huh?
Huh?No it isn't there is no reference to Greek syntax in your reply.
First, like my post said, Jesus would not have even spoken Greek, He would have spoken Aramaic.
But even if looking at the Greek, your syntax argument is debunked. Please re read . . .
In Koine Greek (the dialect of Greek used by the authors of the New Testament), petros and petra are masculine and feminine forms of words with the same root and the same definition—rock. There is no “small rock� to be found in the Greek text, either.
So why did St. Matthew use these two words in the same verse? Petra was a common word used for “rock� in Greek. It’s used fifteen times to mean “rock,� “rocks,� or “rocky� in the New Testament. Petros is an ancient Greek term that was not commonly used in Koine Greek at all. In fact, it was never used in the New Testament, except for Peter’s name after Jesus changed it from Simon to Peter.
It follows that when St. Matthew was translating, he would have used petra for “rock.� However, in so doing, he would have encountered a problem. Petra is a feminine noun. It would have been improper to call Peter Petra. This would be equivalent to calling a male “Valerie� or “Priscilla� in English. Hence, petros was used instead of petra for Peter’s name.
4) There are several words the inspired author could have used for rock or stone in Greek. Petra and lithos were the most common. They could be used interchangeably. A connotation of “large� or “small� with either of them would depend on context. The words simply meant rock or stone.
Craig S. Keener, another Protestant scholar, on page 90 of The IVP Bible Background Commentary of the New Testament, states: “In Greek (here), they (referring to petros and petra) are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period…� D. A. Carson points out the big/small distinction did exist in Greek, but is found only in ancient Greek (used from the eighth to the fourth century B.C.), and even there it is mostly confined to poetry. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek (used from the fourth century B.C. to the fifth century A.D.). Carson agrees with Keener and with Catholics that there is no distinction in definition between petros and petra.
One of the most respected and referenced Greek dictionaries among Evangelicals is Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. In a most candid statement about Matthew 16:18, Dr. Oscar Cullman, a contributing editor to this work, writes:
The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and Petros . . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . . For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of “thou art Rock� and “on this rock I will build� shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.
4) If St. Matthew wanted to distinguish “rocks� in the text, he would have most likely used lithos. As stated above, lithos could refer to a large rock, but it was more commonly used to denote a small stone. However, there is a third word St. Matthew could have used that always means small stone: psephos. It is used twice in Rev. 2:17 as “small stone� when Jesus says, “To him who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone which no one knows except him who receives it.� Here we have one Greek word that unlike lithos and petra always has a connotation of “small stone,� or “pebble.�
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/onlin ... r-the-rock
^ This commentary completely speaks to syntax and exegesis.
Admit it -- was kind of scary to see JW tracts so easily countered, huh? It is a little humorous to hear you comment about all the evidence I posted, "it is not in my opinion overly significant either way" Maybe let it sink in, huh?
-
RightReason
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Thou art Peter Firstborn & Stone: Janus Parallelism
Post #16[Replying to post 14 by JehovahsWitness]
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.
https://www.catholic.com/tract/peter-and-the-papacy
Jesus is portrayed as the builder of the Church, not the building. He said, "I will build my church." Jesus is "the wise man who built his house upon the rock" (Matt. 7:24) in Matthew’s Gospel. Once again, the interpretation of Jesus building the Church upon himself does not fit the context.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print ... -this-rock
**************************“You are part of a building that has the apostles and prophets for its foundations, and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone.�
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.
https://www.catholic.com/tract/peter-and-the-papacy
Jesus is portrayed as the builder of the Church, not the building. He said, "I will build my church." Jesus is "the wise man who built his house upon the rock" (Matt. 7:24) in Matthew’s Gospel. Once again, the interpretation of Jesus building the Church upon himself does not fit the context.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print ... -this-rock
-
tam
- Savant
- Posts: 6443
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
- Has thanked: 353 times
- Been thanked: 324 times
- Contact:
Re: Thou art Peter Firstborn & Stone: Janus Parallelism
Post #17[Replying to post 7 by marco]
Peace to you Marco!
I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.
Peace again,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
Peace to you Marco!
He did say He would not leave them as orphans. But this is how He finished that statement:It is inconceivable that his followers would be leaderless, for he "would not leave them orphans."
I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.
Peace again,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
Re: Thou art Peter Firstborn & Stone: Janus Parallelism
Post #18Peace to you, Tam. You offer this sentence as though it dismisses any suggestion that Jesus left Peter as the leader of his flock. The Church that rose from Christ's teaching DOES claim that Christ will be with her all days, even to the end of the world. And he will be there guiding Peter and his successors. Some would say the oldest interpretations are closest to what was intended.tam wrote:
He did say He would not leave them as orphans. But this is how He finished that statement:
I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.
Your own view that Christ is there for those who want him, to guide and advise them, is a perfectly valid way of seeing things too. But it reduces everything to a private level, when in fact Christ spoke to multitudes.
-
2timothy316
- Under Probation
- Posts: 4195
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
- Has thanked: 177 times
- Been thanked: 459 times
Re: Thou art Peter Firstborn & Stone: Janus Parallelism
Post #19Then I guess we are reading two different threads because I see many others addressing the 'mystery' and demystifying it.marco wrote:
I see absolutely nothing wrong with taking Christ's words in the way we would naturally interpret them, otherwise: Thou art Peter and .... makes little relevant sense. You have not addressed this mystery.
They are not looking to themselves or using their own interpretation they are looking back into the Bible for the answer. On the other hand we have those that pull out a few words and make a dogma out of it.
Also, this 'natural interpretation' as you call it only works if the rest of the Bible is ignored. It ends up in truth being unnatural when words are taken out of context.
-
RightReason
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Thou art Peter Firstborn & Stone: Janus Parallelism
Post #20[Replying to 2timothy316]
If this were true, one would see from Scripture that the first Christians understood Christ’s words to be an establishment of His Church with those He appointed to be in charge.They are not looking to themselves or using their own interpretation they are looking back into the Bible for the answer.
Yes, any interpretation other than the truth can be accused of this. And keep in mind all beliefs are dogma. Your dogmas simply differ from mine.On the other hand we have those that pull out a few words and make a dogma out of it.
I couldn’t agree with you more. Based on the context, the syntax, proper analysis of exegesis, and everything else the Bible has to say gives us true meaning and understanding. Ignoring parts, failing to understand the actual words spoken, their parallels with other words spoken in Scripture, the language used, the audience spoken to, the reaction and understanding of the audience who heard the actual words, etc. all help come to the proper conclusion. With this methodology, it is difficult to come to a conclusion other than Christ built His Church upon Peter (not Peter’s confession) and handed Peter the keys to the kingdom.Also, this 'natural interpretation' as you call it only works if the rest of the Bible is ignored. It ends up in truth being unnatural when words are taken out of context.
