Peter First Pope. Why??

Because Christ gave him, and him alone, the keys of the kingdom of heaven. See Isaiah 22 for the meaning of the key and the one who holds the key.

Christ also announced His intention that He would build His Church on Simon Bar-Jona, and signified this by giving him (Simon Bar-Jona) the new name Kepha (Rock).

back to you!

 

But in full context, it seems to me that Christ is declaring His Church was to be founded the faith which Peter exhibited in his statement, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." The faith expressed by Peter is the foundation of all Church doctrine, isn't it? And in another sense, Peter is not the foundation at all, Jesus is. Peter, after all, is just a man; and the best of men is but a man at best.

Could you flesh out your argument a bit in this part of it. I'll consider the "keys" part later.

Pax,
Dan S

 

Dan -

If I might intrude here, perhaps I have .02 worth that might be helpful.

Because the basis of God's dealings with mankind is covenantal, the form of the Church on earth must follow the covenantal pattern which began in Genesis.

Earthly worship is a picture of heavenly realities. (Heb 8:5) Thus, mankind was created in the image of the Tridentine God. The family on earth has but one head for each family. The head of the family is the father. The helpmeet is the mother. Together they bring forth life and rear that life in their image.

Adam was the physical and fleshly head over the human race. He gave up that position when he sinned. Jesus regained it, becoming the Last Adam and the new covenantal head over mankind.(1 Corin. 15:45).

When He left the earth, he had to leave behind a physical person to be the covenantal head over all mankind, and a physical helpmeet to help the covenant head bring forth life.

The office of the Holy Father is that covenantal head. He is assisted by the Church, which is the covenantal helpmeet. Together they bring forth and nurture life -- believers in Christ Jesus. This is a picture of the reality of the spiritual world in which Jesus Christ is the covenantal head over all mankind, the Blessed Virgin is His New Eve and helpmeet, and believers are nutured by them.

Everything in God's economia revolves around familial structures -- triads which are composed of a head, a helpmeet, and the life they bring forth from their work together. This is so from the Blessed Trinity right down to the smallest nuclear family on earth. If you look for these familial structures you will find them in all of life -- and the Church is just another familial structure.

I am sure that those who heard our Lord's pronouncement in Matthew understood exactly what Jesus was doing because the Jews were raised in covenant. The problem with most 20th century folks is that we have absolutely no concept of what covenant is...therefore we do not understand why the Church should have the structure it has.

Be happy to tear apart what I have written and answer any questions you have.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

Lots of people in the NT had faith. But Christ made this declaration, and gave this authority, only to Peter. "You are rock, and upon this rock I will build my church." Interestingly, Christ gave both Peter, and separately all the apostles as a group, the power to bind and loose. So why didn't Christ also state that He was founding His Church on all the apostles' faith?

Peter was just a man, but still you hold his writings to be the inerrant Word of God. So being just a man doesn't preclude being used for even the highest of God's purposes.

 

Hi Dan,

You wrote, "But in full context, it seems to me that Christ is declaring His Church was to be founded the faith which Peter exhibited in his statement, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.""

Matthew is writing with the entire Old Testament as his backdrop, and the full context of Matthew 16:16-19 includes all of the canonical Scriptures, not just Matthew's Gospel, because this passage alludes to three specific scenarios in the Old Testament.

In two of these scenarios, God revealed a mystery to a man. When the King asked that man for the revealed mystery, that man revealed the mystery to the King. The King then announced the fact that God had revealed that mystery to the man and thereafter appointed this man over his household as his vizier (or "prime minister").

#. King, Man, Passage
1. Pharoah, Joseph, Genesis 41:39
2. Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel, Daniel 2:47
3. Jesus, Peter, Matthew 16:13ff

I encourage you to look each of these passages up in your Bible and to compare them.

The third scenario involves Isaiah 22:20-22, wherein Isaiah prophesizies that the evil prime minister Shebnah will be replaced by Eliakim.

In the OT, the office of Prime Minister entailed its holders replacing one another by means of succession (e.g., Isaiah 22:20-22), and in the Messianic Kingdom of Jesus Christ, the successor of St. Peter (i.e., the Bishop of Rome) holds this office instituted by the King. Jesus' kingly title is "Messiah" or "anointed" because the Davidic kings were called this in the OT (See Ps 2, 89, & 132).

 

I am curious as to why you would try to understand this passage by taking out a part of it that, in fact, helps explain it. You should not consider it apart but rather consider it "a part." Context is important, after all.

 

Dear GraceSaves,
If you would look at the posts above yours and after mine, you'd see how well the argument for that part of the text has been "fleshed out," and the context was maintained well, also.

It is a well used tool for study. My purpose was to encourage discussion while keeping folks on-topic, and avoiding adhominem argument and Catholic (or Baptist) bashing. While I maintain that Jesus was directing that His Church is founded on the rock of that pure and simple faith expressed by Peter, I am edified by others opinions and exegesis. So bear with me and allow me to learn at a slower pace - I am, after all, old and decrepit.
Pax,
Dan S


Two items for the discussion:
First, could someone break down the meanings and differences in the words used for rock? Peter = petros; rock(as used re: the foundation)=petra. Same root, obviously, but what are the differences in common usage? ...and what would these words have been/meant in Aramaic (also in common usage)?

Second...and moving on to the next part of this passage...I think if Peter is designated as the first "leader" of Christ's Church, it is done in the next part of the passage - the giving of the "keys." That is my opinion, so...

...MikeS, you brought Isaiah 22 in as explanatory at this point in the passage (re: the key/keys). Could you or others expand on this, using both your interpretation of the "rock" part of the passage and maybe considering how using my interpretation of the "rock" passage might affect it?

Thanks,
Dan S

 

Hi Dan,

You asked, "could someone break down the meanings and differences in the words used for rock? ... and what would these words have been/meant in Aramaic (also in common usage)?

The well-known Protestant exegete D.A. Carson answers this question in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, p. 368:

"Although it is true that petros and petra can mean "stone" and "rock" respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the 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 Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name. . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been lithos ("stone" of almost any size)."

 

Thanks Carson,

I'm still hoping some others will chime in.
Dan S

 

So Christ was saying to Peter "You are Truth, and upon this Truth I will build my Church." ???

I don't think so!

 

I can just see him walking in the door, announcing "You'll be calling me "Truth" from now on, dear."

Images of Fred and Wilma Flintstone are now filling my head! Help!

 

My point is that your interpretation just doesn't fit the structure of the sentence. Lots of Protestant scholars also maintain that Peter is indeed the Rock, not faith or truth.

 

God changed 4 peoples names in salvation history:

Old Testament:
Abraham “father of multitude” (Abram), Sarah “princess” (Sarai), Israel “prince”(Jacob)

New Testament:
Peter “rock” (Simon)

Why the name change to "rock" if Jesus Christ did not consider Peter the "rock" in this context? God changed names at critical times in salvation history, all with meaning, not as nicknames or just for fun.

God Bless

 

Jesus Christ Himself changed Simon's name to "Rock".

[ November 12, 2003, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Kathryn ]

 

So when Christ said "you are Rock" he really meant "you are not Rock." I hope it doesn't offend you that I'm not convinced!