The Pope

[BobRyan]

Stan said

Well, somebody could say, "The Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to use two different words. Well, that's true, because "petra" is the word in Greek that is normally used for "large rock," but — I should say petra is the Greek word that means "large rock" but it's in the feminine form. In other words, the gender of this Greek word, petra, large rock, is feminine. You do not apply a feminine form of the word in order to name a male. You adopt it by giving the masculine form. In other words what Matthew was doing, guided by the Holy Spirit, is something that was rather obvious and practically necessary. That was to take the Greek from Jesus' saying and start by saying, "I will build my Church on this massive stone, this 'petra' in the feminine but then to show that Peter gets the name, "Rock" in its proper masculine form.

You wouldn't name him Josephine or Rockina or...

Once again you have entered upon a well reasoned logical argument. The problem is that the Bible is not helping you with this problem. The NT writers insist that there is ONLY ONE PETRA that is the foundation upon which the church is based.

Secondly the text IS in Greek not Aramaic. God did inspire the authors -- so when they give us the more discriminating Greek rendering for "foundation stone" in the case of PETRA - we can trust the text.

As you have rightly pointed out scripture itself is authored by God - so it is God that tells us to contrast Petros with PETRA in Matt 16.

And it is God that tells us that there is only ONE PETRA for the church --

1Cor 3
11 For no man can lay a foundation (PETRA) other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.[/b]
12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
13 each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.

RC traditions only work if you isolate one part of the Bible and "insert imagination here" to the text that you isolate.

This is a pattern that can be shown over and over in RC dotrinal teachings.

 

[BobRyan]

Again, I suggest the fact that Simon is the Rock. I should say a few things along these lines because I mentioned that I have these Protestant quotes. I have note cards that I actually put together when I was preparing a paper on the subject. I was taking a class on the Gospel of Matthew and the professor was a Protestant. He was a Lutheran and he knew what I wanted to do for my project and so I presented this paper, "Peter and the Keys" and I worked at it because I knew that he might not be open to my conclusions, that I knew what my conclusions were going to be at the end of my research. They were rather Catholic, neither Baptist nor Lutheran.

I am neither Baptist, Lutheran but I still see the flaw in the Catholic argument as the post from 1Cor 3 points out.

 

[Claudia_T]

In still another place Jesus acknowledges the same power to exist in all the church that is claimed to have been given to Peter alone: "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven."

 

[stan the man]

Albright goes on in his commentary to speak about the keys of the kingdom that Jesus entrusted to Peter. Here's what he says, "Isaiah 22, verse 15, undoubtedly lies behind this saying of Jesus. The keys are the symbol of authority and Father Roland DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is described as having the same authority."


Now let's just stop here and ask, "What is he talking about?" I think it's simple. Albright is saying that Jesus in giving to Peter not only a new name, Rock, but in entrusting to Simon the keys of the kingdom, He is borrowing a phrase from Isaiah 22. He's quoting a verse in the Old Testament that was extremely well known. This, for me, was the breakthrough. This discovery was the most important discovery of all. Let's go back to Isaiah 22 and see what Jesus was doing when He entrusted to Peter the keys of the kingdom.

In Isaiah 22 beginning back in verses 19 and 20, we have some very interesting background. This is where Jesus goes for a quotation to cite this passage.

What's happening here? Well, in verse 19 it says, "I will thrust you from your office and you will be cast down from your station and on 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."

Now the House of David is like, you know, the House of Bourbon. It's a dynastic reference. The House of David is the Davidic kingdom, the Davidic dynasty. We know this because David has been dead for hundreds of years when this is happening in Isaiah 22, "I will give you the key of the House of David. He shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. He will become a throne of honor to his father's house." Look at all of the symbols of dynastic authority that are being given to this individual. First of all, an office. Second, a robe. Third, a throne and fourth, keys, the key of the House of David, these royal keys.

Now, what is going on here? I'll just summarize it in rather simple terms. Hezekiah was at the time, the king over Israel. He was the son of David, hundreds of years after David had died. He was in the line of David and also he was ruler over the House of David. Now all kings in the ancient world had, as kings and queens have these days, cabinet officers, a cabinet of royal ministers. Like Margaret Thatcher was the Prime Minister, so there are other ministers under the Queen in Great Britain. Hezekiah, as King, had as his Prime Minister before Shebna who proved unworthy. So he was expelled, but when he was expelled, he left an office vacant. Not only did you have dynastic succession for the king, but you also have a dynastic office for the Prime Minister. When Shebna is expelled, there is an empty office that needs to be filled and that's why Eliakim is called to fill it.

Now, Eliakim is a minister in the cabinet, but now he is being granted the Prime Minister's position. How do we know? Because he is given what the other ministers do not have, the keys of the kingdom, the key to the House of David. That symbolized dynastic authority entrusted to the Prime Minister and dynastic succession. Why? Because it's the key of David; it's the House of David.

Let me go back and try to simplify this even further. I'll read a quote. Albright says, "In commenting upon Matthew 16 and Jesus giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Isaiah 22:15 and following undoubtedly lies behind this saying." Albright, a Protestant, non- Catholic insists that it's undoubtable that Jesus is citing Isaiah 22, "The keys are the symbol of authority and DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household of ancient Israel." In other words, the Prime Minister's office.

 

[stan the man]

Other Protestant scholars admit it too, that when Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Peter is receiving the Prime Minister's office, which means dynastic authority from the Son of David, Jesus, the King of Israel, but also an office where there will be dynastic succession. When I discovered that, it was like the blinders fell off. Within a few weeks I had gotten together with a Protestant friend, he was one of the most reputable anti-Catholic Protestant person in our area and I spent some hours with him and then in a car we drove two hours and I presented this case, and his only comment was, "That's clever." But he said, "You don't have to follow the Pope because of that." I said, "Why not?" And he said, "Well, I'm going to have to think about it." He said, "I've never heard that argument before." And I said, "It' s one of the basic arguments that Cajeton used against the Protestants in the 16th Century and Cajeton was one of the most well-known defenders of the Catholic faith and you've never heard of him before?" I said, "I had never heard of it before until I discovered it on my own and then found it in all these other people." And he said, "That's clever." Clever, perhaps. True, definitely; enlightening, illuminating, very interesting.

Albright goes on to say some other things. "It is of considerable importance," Albright says, "that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are discussed, the symbol of the keys is absent, since the saying applies in these instances to a wider circle. The role of Peter as steward of the kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority as was the case of the Old Testament chamberlain who held the keys."

Now, what he means there is that nowhere else, when other Apostles are exercising Church authority are the keys ever mentioned. In Matthew 18, the Apostles get the power to bind and loose, like Peter got in Matthew 16, but with absolutely no mention of the keys. That fits perfectly into this model because in the king's cabinet, all the ministers can bind and loose, but the Prime Minister who holds the keys can bind what they have loosed or loose what they have bound. He has, in a sense, the final say. He has, in himself, the authority of the court of final appeal and even Protestants can see this.

In fact, I found this quotation in Martin Luther from 1530, years after he had left the Church, "Why are you searching heavenward in search of my keys? Do you not understand, Jesus said, 'I gave them to Peter. They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven for I left them on earth.'" This is Jesus talking, "'Peter's mouth is my mouth, his tongue is my key case, his keys are my keys. They are an office.'" Luther even saw it, "'They are a power, a command given by God through Christ to all of Christendom for the retaining and remitting of the sins of men.'" The only thing that Luther won't admit is that there was succession after Peter died, which is exactly what the keys denote, given their Old Testament background.

 

[stan the man]

(I received permission to borrow these four paragraphs from a website)

The statement that "In Greek, the word for rock is petra, which means a large, massive stone. The word used for Simon’s new name is different; it’s Petros, which means a little stone, a pebble." This is false. As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant "small stone" and "large rock" in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant "rock."If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. This kind of argument does not work and this shows a faulty knowledge of Greek. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see the book from D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).

Aramaic was the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke. It was the common language of the place. It wasn’t Greek. Many, if not most of them, knew Greek, of course, because Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world. It was the language of culture and commerce; and most of the books of the New Testament were written in it, because they were written not just for Christians in Palestine but also for Christians in places such as Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, places where Aramaic wasn’t the spoken language. I say most of the New Testament was written in Greek, but not all. Many hold that Matthew was written in Aramaic—we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea—but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek."

We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ In Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form). And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

"When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock."

 

[Eliyahu]

(I received permission to borrow these four paragraphs from a website)

The statement that "In Greek, the word for rock is petra, which means a large, massive stone. The word used for Simon’s new name is different; it’s Petros, which means a little stone, a pebble." This is false. As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant "small stone" and "large rock" in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant "rock."If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. This kind of argument does not work and this shows a faulty knowledge of Greek. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see the book from D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).

Aramaic was the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke. It was the common language of the place. It wasn’t Greek. Many, if not most of them, knew Greek, of course, because Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world. It was the language of culture and commerce; and most of the books of the New Testament were written in it, because they were written not just for Christians in Palestine but also for Christians in places such as Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, places where Aramaic wasn’t the spoken language. I say most of the New Testament was written in Greek, but not all. Many hold that Matthew was written in Aramaic—we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea—but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek."

We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ In Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form). And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

"When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock."

You just reveal your limited knowledge of the language there.
Jesus spoke to Paul in Hebrew ( Acts 26:14)
Jesus mentioned the Law in Hebrew ( Mt 5:18)as only Hebrew has Jot and Tittle. Aramaic doesn't have Tittle and the Jod of Aramaic is a quite big character while Hebrew Jod is like [ ' ]. Jesus mentioned the Bible as consisting of Law, Prophet, Psalm which is the order of Hebrew Masoretic Texts.
Paul spoke to the Jerusalem people in Hebrew ( Acts 21:37-22:2).
Currently Hebrew Bible is handed over to us.
There are hundreds of Hebrew words in NT.
Emmanu-El, Golgotha, Getshemane, Bethesda, Bethany, Siloam, Raca, Korban, Saduccee( TSadokee), Pharisees(Paroshee), Beth-Lehem, ...
Title on the Cross was written in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, ( NO ARAMAIC!!!),
Peter's dialect was detected by the Jerusalem maid.

Eusebius witnessed Gospel Metthew was written in Hebrew, not in Aramaic, referring to Papias. Therefore Papias is the key person on this issue. Papias also mentioned Mt was written in Hebrew as Irenaeus witnessed.

Jesus was mentioning Peter as Kepha, while He mentioned the Rock of Salvation as the foundation for His Church ( Mt 16:18)
Kepha was the borrowed word, from Aramaic. Rock of Salvation was often mentioned in Ot as we notice in Deut 32:15, 28, 32:13 and in many verses of Psalm. In any case Jesus was not mentioning Peter as the foundation for the church. Why was he quickly condemned as Jesus said " Satan! Get thee behind me !" ?
Greek NT might have been translated from Hebrew NT.
IN Old Testament, Rock was translated from Tsur, not from Kepha.
Kepha and Tsur are quite different. Study Deut 32 the whole chapter which is called " Ahazinu" ( Listen to me)

Do you believe that your church is built upon Peter? Then you are strongly confessing your church is based on the corruptible human body or erraneous human being. My church is founded upon the Rock of Salvation, upon Jesus Christ as Peter confessed in Mt 16:16.

 

[Eliyahu]

Stan the Man,

At least you are very much honest because you are strongly, strongly, strongly confessing that your church is built upon the corruptible human being, not on the Eternal Rock of Salvation, Our Lord Jesus Christ.

My church and many churches of Protestants are built upon Jesus Christ as we read 1 Corinthians 3:11


1 Cor 3:10-12
10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble


When Peter was rebuked by Paul as we read Galatians 2:14, was the Foundation shaken as it encountered an Earthquake ?
How come Paul rebuke the Foundation of the Church?

Was it because Peter didn't carry his chair? Does the Foundation need a chair all the time? ( RC always excuse that POpes can make errors unless they anounce the bulls from Ex-Cathera)
Isn't that a whorish human theory?

My Church is built upon the Rock of Salvation, Jesus Christ, unshakable, without mistakes.

Roman Catholic or Pro - RC's are very much honest as they confess that their church is built upon human theory, human tradition, upon the corruptible human beings and human systems like Papacy.
This is why many Popes died of STD's, comitted criminals killing innocent Christian believers and they praised Adolf Hitler or Mussolini.

 

[Melanie]

Stan the Man,
This is why many Popes died of STD's, comitted criminals killing innocent Christian believers and they praised Adolf Hitler or Mussolini.

How sad that you evidently believe this........

 

[tragic_pizza]

Has anybody mentioned the scant historical evidence that Peter was ever actually Bishop of Rome? In fact, he may only have been there long enough to write an epistle or two and be martyred... if that long.

I'd think that a much better argument for Roman ecclesiastical supremacy would be Paul...

 

[Bro. Curtis]

'cept that Paul's writings make it clear he wasn't.

 

[Claudia_T]

2Thes:2:4: Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

well I dont think it is mere conjecture when the Popes name always adds up to 666 in Roman Numerals VICARIUS FELI DEI which means "Vicar of Christ" --Christ lives through him, vicariously. The Pope claims to be in the position to speak for Christ and to even change His Word. He speak blasphemies just by his "name" which is outlined in Revelation 13. His name not only must add to 666, but he also must speak blasphemies against God ... Blasphemy means putting yourself in the place of God.


"The Pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret, even divine laws....The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth with most ample power of binding and loosing the sheep."-From the Prompta Bibliotheca published in 1900 in Rome by the press of the propaganda.

"The pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ."-Decretal de Translat, Episcop. Cap.


"Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast. for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. Revelation 13:18.

When the pope is crowned he is given the official title of Vicarius Filii Dei, which means Vicar of the Son of God.


Roman Numerals

V=5
l=1
C=100
A=0
R=0
l=1
U=5
S=0​

F=0
l=1
L=50
l=1
l=1​

D=500​

E=0
I=1

112
+
53
+
501=666​

Latin, of course, is the official language of the Papacy, and therefore we would expect to find the Roman numerals adding up his number. It is surprising why so few in this enlightened generation are unaware of the Bible prediction. One of the most amazing facts is that you can do this in the Latin, in the Hebrew, or in the Greek. It will all add up to the same-666.

 

[stan the man]

Catholic Quotes

Let me give some quotes about Peter being the Rock. (First couple are Catholic sources and the rest are non-Catholic sources.

St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622), a leader of the Catholic Reformation, draws out the implications of this passage for the papacy:
Our Lord then, who is comparing his Church to a building, when he says that he will build it on St. Peter, shows that St. Peter will be its foundation-stone . . . When he makes St. Peter its foundation, he makes him head and superior of this family.

By these words Our Lord shows the perpetuity and immovableness of this foundation. The stone on which one raises the building is the first, the others rest on it. Other stones may be removed without overthrowing the edifice, but he who takes away the foundation, knocks down the house. If then the gates of hell can in no wise prevail against the Church, they can
in no wise prevail against its foundation and head, which they cannot take away and overturn without entirely overturning the whole edifice . . .

The supreme charge which St. Peter had . . . as chief and governor, is not beside the authority of his Master, but is only a participation in this, so that he is not the foundation of this hierarchy besides Our Lord but rather in Our Lord: as we call him most holy Father in Our Lord, outside whom he would be nothing . . St. Peter is foundation, not founder, of the whole Church; foundation but founded on another foundation, which is Our Lord . . . in fine, administrator and not lord, and in no way the foundation of our faith, hope and charity, nor of the efficacy of the Sacraments . . . So, although he is the Good Shepherd, he gives us shepherds (Ephesians 4:11) under himself, between whom and his Majesty there is so great a
difference that he declares himself to be the only shepherd (John 10:11; Ezekiel 34:23).

(The Catholic Controversy, tr. Henry B. Mackey, Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1989 [orig. 1596], 242-243,245-247)

The Catholic scholar Stanley Jaki writes:
In the Old Testament only God is called rock . . . Even if Peter's faith is taken for the rock, this still leaves one with much to consider about the fact that apart from the faith of Peter only God is called rock in the written word of God . . .

Simon was now Rock, the rock foundation of his Master's church . . . The name obviously had a far deeper meaning than boanerges (sons of thunder), the name Jesus gave to James and John (Mk 3:17). While Yahweh thundered, he was never called thunder or thunderer. Only pagan gods could be thunderers (Jupiter was one of them), sources of fright; and never, like a rock, sources of safety . . . The name kepha could not help but evoke in pious Jews, as all the Twelve were, a sentiment of awe and reverence.

Obviously, a name of such connotation could not be the vehicle of that disapproval which lurks behind Jesus' calling James and John boanerges (see the parallel passage (Lk 9:54), where James and John want to call down fire upon the inhospitable Samaritans). This name, not at all praiseworthy, was for a passing moment, whereas kepha was a name to last for the sake of everlasting praise.

(And on This Rock, Front Royal, VA: Christendom College Press, 39, 77-78)

 

[tragic_pizza]

(lots of 666 stuff)

I don't think the term "Vicar of Christ" is as repugnant as has been asserted, niether do I think that the writer of Revelation was speaking about a theological entity when he wrote of the Beast.

I don;t think it's a good idea to put all of our eggs in either basket.

And Curtis, you're right about Paul never claiming to the Bishop's position; niether, in his epistles, did Peter, as far as I know. My point is that if a theology wants to ride upon Apostolic Succesion, there is more historical evidence for Paul being there than Peter.

 

[webdog]

I don't think the term "Vicar of Christ" is as repugnant as has been asserted, niether do I think that the writer of Revelation was speaking about a theological entity when he wrote of the Beast.

A "reformer" who fights for the sole sovereignty of God sees nothing wrong with a human being called the "Vicar (substitute) of Christ"?

 

[stan the man]

Non Catholic Quotes

Many prominent Protestant scholars and exegetes have agreed that Peter is the Rock in Matthew 16:18. And here are there quotes.

Jesus now sums up Peter's significance in a name, Peter . . . It describes not so much Peter's character (he did not prove to be 'rock-like' in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus' church. The feminine word for 'rock', 'petra', is necessarily changed to the masculine 'petros' (stone) to give a man's name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form 'kepha' would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the 'rock' here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus' declaration about Peter as v.16 was Peter's declaration about Jesus . . . It is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied . . . Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus' new community . . . which will last forever.

(R.T. France (Anglican); in Morris, Leon, Gen. ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)

In view of the background of verse 19 . . . one must dismiss as confessional interpretation [i.e., biased by denominational views] any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession of Peter . . . The general sense of the passage is indisputable . . . Peter is the rock on which the new community will be built, and in that community, Peter's authority to 'bind' or 'release' will be a carrying out of decisions made in heaven. His teaching and disciplinary activities will be similarly guided by the Spirit to carry out Heaven's will.

(William F. Albright [Methodist] and C.S. Mann, Anchor Bible, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971, vol. 26, 195, 197-198)

One of the greatest reformed Biblical scholars of this century, Herman Liderboss, a European scholar, in his Matthew commentary says, "The slight difference between these two words, petra and petros, has no special importance. The most likely explanation for the change from petros, Peter, masculine, to petra is that petra was the normal word for rock, because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man's name; however, Simon was not called Petra but Petros. There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that He was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words "on this rock," petra, indeed, refer to Peter. Because of the revelation he had received and the confession it had motivated in him, Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future Church."

One of the top Evangelical, non-Catholic scholars in America, Professor Donald Carson of the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Dr. Carson says:

On the basis of the distinction between 'petros' . . . and 'petra' . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere 'stone,' it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the 'rock' . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . 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 . . .

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). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . .

In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .

(D.A. Carson (Baptist); in Gaebelein, Frank E., Gen. ed., Expositor's Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984, vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368}

Now Dr. Carson is no Catholic Apologist. He would try to set up arguments against the Catholic faith, I'm sure; but he's sincere and, I think, also respectable as a scholar in insisting upon the obvious evidence in the conclusions.

This has led an Evangelical Protestant German scholar, Gerhardt Meier, who wrote a famous book that conservative Protestants frequently refer to, "The End of the Historical Critical Method". In his article, "The Church and the Gospel of Matthew," Gerhardt Meier says on pages 58 through 60, "Nowadays, a broad consensus has emerged which, in accordance with the words of the text applies the promise to Peter as a person." This is a Protestant speaking now. "On this point liberal and conservative theologians agree," and he names several Protestant theologians from the liberal to the conservative side. "Matthew 16:18 ought not to be interpreted as a local church. The church in Matthew 16:18 is the universal entity, namely the people of God. There is an increasing consensus now that this verse concerning the power of the keys is talking about the authority to teach and to discipline, including even to absolve sins." Professor Gerhardt Meier is a Protestant with no interest in supporting the Catholic claim but, as an honest scholar, admits that Peter is the one that Jesus is giving His power to. "Peter is the rock and the keys signify, not only disciplinary power to teach, but even to absolve sins. With all due respect to the Protestant Reformers, we must admit that the promise in Matthew 16-18 is directed to Peter and not to a Peter-like faith. As Evangelical theologians, especially, we ought to look at ourselves dispassionately and acknowledge that we often tend unjustifiably toward an individualistic conception of faith. To recognize the authenticity of Matthew 16:17 and following demands that we develop a Biblically based ecclesiology or doctrine of the church."

Gerhardt Meier is showing, as an honest scholar, that the church which Jesus speaks of is a universal church, not just a local congregation, another favorite ploy of anti-Catholic apologists. He says, "No, the church He's talking about is the one, holy, Catholic Church, the universal church and the rock on which it will be built is Peter, not Peter's confession and the keys that Jesus gives to Peter are keys not only to teach but even to absolve sins." He's not saying, "We all should become Catholics, but what we should honestly do is to grant the Catholics the point. Because if we are honest in interpreting the Bible, we have to admit these conclusions."

 

[tragic_pizza]

A "reformer" who fights for the sole sovereignty of God sees nothing wrong with a human being called the "Vicar (substitute) of Christ"?

Oh, I see plenty wrong with it, I just don't see it as an indication that the Pope thinks he's God.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I don't think the term "Vicar of Christ" is as repugnant as has been asserted, niether do I think that the writer of Revelation was speaking about a theological entity when he wrote of the Beast.

I don;t think it's a good idea to put all of our eggs in either basket.

And Curtis, you're right about Paul never claiming to the Bishop's position; niether, in his epistles, did Peter, as far as I know. My point is that if a theology wants to ride upon Apostolic Succesion, there is more historical evidence for Paul being there than Peter.

And I would agree 100 % with your statement.

Peter never claimed authority, and Paul went out of his way too avoid any kind of veneration.

 

[Claudia_T]

I don't think the term "Vicar of Christ" is as repugnant as has been asserted, niether do I think that the writer of Revelation was speaking about a theological entity when he wrote of the Beast.

well you have to read and study ALL the prophesies concerning the Beast and find out who he is... he must have several characteristics and the entire timeline of the prophesies of Daniel and Revelation all end up with Rome.

then the 666 with his name fits right in there....

 

[tragic_pizza]

Rome was seen as the seat of political power, Claudia, not theological authority.
Had it been a theological point, Revelation would surely have used Jerusalem, or perhaps Delphi, as its prototype, don't you think?