Peter: The first Pope?

[michael_legna]

Originally Posted by yes2truth

Lonnienord,

You, like Symeon are rejecting what I say so I am only going to answer your last point by asking you a question?

Does Scripture say "Upon you Peter, I am going to build my church?"

No but at the same time He does not say upon Himself He will build His Church so we are left to figure out who is the rock refered to as the subject of the previous sentence.

Peter was the name given to Simon Bajona each part of which is significant. First Simon which in Aramaic means grain of sand (because Christ was going to make a rock out of a grain of sand) and then Barjona which in Aramaic means Son of the Dove (because the revelation he received, about who jesus was and is, came from the Holy Spirit). He is given a special name (Kepha in Aramaic and transliterated to Cephas in the Greek lettering but translated as Petros in Greek to match the gender of Peter which is then later translated into English as Peter, all of these names mean rock.) Much is made of the gender of the Greek words for stone and rock but they do not apply because the inclusion of “Barjona” shows Jesus was speaking to Peter in Aramaic, not in Greek. If Jesus wanted to name Peter little stone He would have used a different Aramaic word - he would have named him evna. but He did not - no there would have been no possible misunderstanding for those who spoke Aramaic as to who the rock is. There is no gender problem there – Kepha means Rock and only rock there is no possibility Jesus meant little stone.

The reason the Greek text contains Petros (allowing for some to arrive at a faulty translation of "little stone", rather than the more accurate Petra meaning rock) is because Petros is masculine and Petra is the feminine form. Since Peter was male the writer used the masculine form. The meaning as written int he New Testament account also would not have been unclear to someone who spoke Greek fluently. Peter’s new name means rock, not pebble or small stone, as some have tried to claim, thus minimizing his assignment.

As always in the Scriptures a name change is highly significant – to suppose that Simon’s name was changed to Rock and it not imply the Rock Jesus immediately refers to afterwards would be like saying that Abrahms name change to Abraham has nothing to do with his being the Father of many nations. Arguments based on that supposition make no sense.

Finally, Jesus says He will build His Church upon this rock (Peter). Some claim that Christ was referring to Himself as the Rock. But in affect that has Christ saying to Peter I give you a new name and then in the middle of the sentence Jesus changes subjects and pointing to His own chest, says but on Me I will build my Church. Not only is it bad grammar but it is a laughable scene to envision.

Also, note the location, at Caesarea Philippi where there is a large rock, which had the pagan temples to the Caesars on it. The setting was chosen to show Jesus was setting up His Church in opposition to the worldly Churches. Jesus was not building His Church on a small pebble in opposition to this massive rock outcropping. His Church, the One He established on that day would prevail even against Hell. It would continue to exist as the proper and correct Church throughout time. If you look around to find this entity.

So yes Peter is that rock and yes Jesus built His Church upon Peter.

[Don]

In Scripture God is the Rock. In the Old Testament, God the Rock is
• Creator (Deut 32:18)
• His people's strength (Deut 32:4)
• A defense and refuge (Ps 31:2-3; 94:22)
• Salvation (Deut 32:15; Ps 78: 35; 89:26)
A review of these verses shows that "God" generally means Elohim, God the Father.

In the New Testament, it becomes clear that Christ is the specific Rock of God. It is upon this Rock that Christ builds His church (Matt 16:18). As we review the rest of Scripture we may properly see that this passage refers to Jesus as the Rock, and not to Peter. For example, Jesus is the cornerstone of the church (Eph 2:20) and the Rock from whom flows the Spirit (John 4:13-14; 1 Cor 10:4).
As may be seen from a review of the Old Testament passages, God is the Rock of refuge and strength (Isa 32:2; 33:16). Job speaks in figurative terms of shaking the world by removing the Rock (Job 18:4). The Rock is the unmovable foundation (Ps 40:2). This unmovable foundation gives security to Israel, the people of God (2 Sam 22:32).

We all know that stones are but small rocks. In Scripture, however, stone and rock are frequently alternated as pictures of Jesus. While there appears to be little practical difference between the two, the picture of a Rock as refuge shows a powerful, strong picture of God, while a stone for stumbling (Isa 8:14; 26:16) shows the power of a small rock at work. God is powerful and the insignificant, in man’s eyes, is actually the power of God at work. The stone of stumbling becomes the cornerstone of God's true Temple.
Psalm 118:22
The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone.

The one place of distinction some make between stone and rock comes in the passage of Matthew (16:13-20). Here, in response to a question of Christ, Peter confesses Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. This is an acknowledgment that Jesus is the Messiah. In the Greek, Christ’s statement about building His church upon the "rock" is a word play. Peter is petros or stone, a piece or rock or detached stone, while rock is petra, meaning a rock such as a rocky ledge, a large solid rock. Thus, Christ says, Peter, you are really a small stone but upon a huge rock I will build my church. When one looks to Ephesians 2:20 we find that Christ is the chief cornerstone of the Church (having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone, )
Jesus is also spoken of as the Rock in 1 Corinthians 10:4:
( and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.)
It is interesting to note the figurative picture of the Rock following the Israelites. Looking at the entire sentence of 1 Corinthians places even more emphasis on Jesus as the Rock.

1 Corinthians 10:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.

I extracted this text from Jude Ministries discussion on "Rock" and I agree with the extraction.
Don

[michael_legna]

Originally Posted by Don

In Scripture God is the Rock.

In the New Testament, it becomes clear that Christ is the specific Rock of God.

That would be true and your conclusion (that Christ is the rock upon which His Church would be built) would be valid if an analogy was always exclusively used for one and only one person or thing.

But the Bible does not so restrict itself. For example the analogy of foundation is used for God and for Abraham and for the Apostles among others. In fact one of the references you use confuses the issue even more.

You point out that the "The Rock is the unmovable foundation (Ps 40:2)." - yet we also know that the Apostles are the foundations so are they too the rock? If we are to accept that analogies are exclusive we are forced to say yes.

My point is that I agree that God is referred to as the rock, and Christ is referred to as the rock, but no where does it say that they are exclusively the rock. Christ was more than able and allowed to designate Peter as the rock. So your conclusion is not supported.

As we review the rest of Scripture we may properly see that this passage refers to Jesus as the Rock, and not to Peter. For example, Jesus is the cornerstone of the church (Eph 2:20) and the Rock from whom flows the Spirit (John 4:13-14; 1 Cor 10:4).

First the cornerstone of a building is not the rock it is built on so that verse if anything proves that Christ is not the rock but is instead the cornerstone (not that He could not be both but the verse certainly doesn't prove that He is). The second two verses that you reference above are concerning a different issue entirely. The first John 4:13-14 I think you have referenced incorrectly as that verse refers to the well of water not a rock - perhaps you meant to imply that this was the same reference as is refered to in 1 Cor 10:4 which is a reference in turn to Ex 17:6 and Numbers 20:8 where Moses struck the rock to provide water to the Israelites in the desert. Both of those verses are regarding Christ's divinity showing He is the same rock that the Israelites recognized as God (as you correctly pointed out above) in the Old Testament. An interesting side note to those who believe in sola scriptura - we see that 1 Cor mentions that the rock followed them. We do not find this point of information, nor did the Apostles did not find this fact in scripture - but it was contained in the tradition of Israel.

The one place of distinction some make between stone and rock comes in the passage of Matthew (16:13-20). Here, in response to a question of Christ, Peter confesses Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. This is an acknowledgment that Jesus is the Messiah. In the Greek, Christ’s statement about building His church upon the "rock" is a word play. Peter is petros or stone, a piece or rock or detached stone, while rock is petra, meaning a rock such as a rocky ledge, a large solid rock. Thus, Christ says, Peter, you are really a small stone but upon a huge rock I will build my church.

Your analysis is flawed because you are assuming Christ spoke Greek. He spoke Aramaic as is evidenced by the text if you look at it carefully. He did not rename Simon to Petros. Jesus renamed Simon to "Kepha". Kepha means rock. If Christ had wanted to rename Simon to be stone He would have renamed Him "evna", but He did not. It is only when the translation to Greek occurs for the writing of the Gospel that the word Petros slips in and that happens merely to handle the issue of gender. Anyone who knows Greek will tell you that the proper translation of Kepha would be Petra (meaning rock). But Petra is a feminine form and thus is was masculinized to Petros which unfortunately losses the meaning of rock and allows some to miss the point of the word play as it appears in the original Aramaic by thinking Jesus meant stone. The word play is in Aramaic - not in Greek - because it was Aramaic not Greek that Jesus was speaking and it was an Aramaic name Simon was given not a Greek one.

Lastly lets look at the verse Matt 16:19 where it says "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (emphasis mine to point out that the AND shows the connection between who the rock is that the Church is built on and who is being given the keys - since the AND connects to two)

So if we accept your interpretation we have Christ giving Simon a new name, then changing subjects to proclaim Himself as rock and then immediately change subjects back to Cephas to give him the keys to the kingdom (as it makes no sense for Jesus to give Himself those keys) even though the "and" indicates that the building upon AND the giving of keys are related to the same entity. The whole scenario you propose is one straight out a keystone cop movie with everyone going every which way all disorganized. It just doesn't work.

[yes2truth]

Michael_legna,

You haven't got a clue have you? Sand, stones, rocks, pebbles, Greek, Aramaic - all academic nonesense. I tell you what, 'it's all Greek to me'.

This story is about Peter's faith nothing more and nothing less. The Lord is not a respecter of persons - period. When a man bowed before Peter he told him to get up and told him not to, as he was only a man.

No Michael, this is the story of a momentous event, Peter is the first human being to acknowledge mankind's Saviour. Yes, Jesus is the chief corner stone but Faith in Jesus is the metaphorical rock upon which the church will be built. The Church is people, people who should have Faith, those called by the Father.

Jesus said "When I return will I find Faith on the earth?" This is all He asks of us Faith in action!

This is the simplicity that is Christ.

[Don]

I do not think the pun is a Greek pun, I think it is a Hebrew pun using Greek loan words. This is as taught by David Bivin of Jerusalem Perspective (so one can see I am not making it up). I believe Jesus spoke Hebrew. This is not to deny He could also speak other languages also, could quote from the Septuagint when he found it useful, etc.

Unfortunately, one can only see the start of the article for free on the web. His basic point is that one cannot find ANY Greek usage for Petros as a person's name before Peter in the NT, BUT we can find evidence that Jews used petra as a loan word meaning foundation stone and we can find a rabbi who father was named Peter. That is, we cannot find any Greeks calling anyone Peter before Jesus called Simon Peter.

P.S. Thayer's Dict. says Simon means "hearkening" as in "Listen," so there are other puns going on in some verses with Simon. Faucett says Simon is from shaama, "hear"; as the birth of Reuben ("see a son") her firstborn convinced Leah that God saw her, so that of Simeon that God heard her.

Also, we see a basic problem with interpreting analogies in your explanation, as Jesus is the rock, the foundation stone, AND the corner stone; in each specific analogy. If one tries to carry a term from one analogy to another, one gets goo-gah, which is a technical term for "it does not follow". It is not that the Bible has a contradiction, it is simply that each analogy stands on its own and illuminates some truth. Jesus is using words describing natural things to describe spiritual things, but as we all know, one can push an analogy too far. To say that as Jesus is the cornerstone he CANNOT be the foundation stone (or vice versa) is simply bad exegesis. The Bible says he is both, I accept that in each specific analogy and would never think to carry over a term from one analogy to another.

I do agree that on the interpretation of this one verse the whole edifice of the RCC rises or falls, so I do not expect you to agree with me.
Don

[lonnienord]

Originally Posted by Don

I do agree that on the interpretation of this one verse the whole edifice of the RCC rises or falls, so I do not expect you to agree with me.
Don

i don't think the interpretation of this one verse is the whole "edifice" of RCC it is pretty basic but it isn't what led me to the RCC John 6 did.

all for JESUS!!(it is so very amazing that he gives us HIS flesh to eat!!)
lonnie

[Don]

Lonnie,

If Jesus is NOT referring to Peter, then Peter is "Apostle to the Jews" and "fellow elder" (as other verses of the Bible say) but has no claim beyond that, such as the first pope, as RCC says, and all that implies.
Don

[michael_legna]

Originally Posted by Don

Lonnie,

If Jesus is NOT referring to Peter, then Peter is "Apostle to the Jews" and "fellow elder" (as other verses of the Bible say) but has no claim beyond that, such as the first pope, as RCC says, and all that implies.
Don

You are basing your conclusion on a few verses in isolation. If we read all of scripture cohesively we see that Peter has much more to recommend him than Matt 16. He is mentioned first among the Apostles every time they are listed. Paul recognizes him with James and John as pillars. Jesus tells Peter to feed his sheep. There are dozens of these examples.

As to Peter being JUST the Apostle to the Jews - well that entirely ignores the fact that Peter was the first one sent to the gentiles and the first to bring the Holy Spirit to a group of them.

The claim to being the first pope is certainly based on Matt 16 but not by itself. We have both presented our interpretation of Matt 16 and I have answered yours and expect you will answer mine (as I would prefer rather than simply ignoring the points I made and making some of your own) at some point, so that discuss can occur elsewhere.

[michael_legna]

Originally Posted by Don

I do not think the pun is a Greek pun, I think it is a Hebrew pun using Greek loan words.

Of course it cannot be a Greek pun - you make Chirst out to be stupid if He is to give Simon an Aramaic name so He can make a Greek pun.

This is as taught by David Bivin of Jerusalem Perspective (so one can see I am not making it up).

I never thought you made up this idea but there is no evidence of the idea prior to the 1500's so it is clear that someone did.

I believe Jesus spoke Hebrew. This is not to deny He could also speak other languages also, could quote from the Septuagint when he found it useful, etc.

Jesus is God so He could speak any language He wanted but those around Him could not. But to claim he spoke Hebrew is to be ignorant of history. The language of Hebrew was dead and practically forgotten in His lifetime. That is why the Septuigant was translated - because the average Jew could speak Aramaic and those who could read and write also spoke Greek but could not speak Hebrew. Only the priests had any ability to speak the language.

...we can find evidence that Jews used petra as a loan word meaning foundation stone

Unfortunately this is sloppy exegesis because Jesus never used the word Petros. Let me point this out one more time. Jesus changed Simon's name to Kepha (it was then translated - later by someone else - to Petros).

P.S. Thayer's Dict. says Simon means "hearkening" as in "Listen," so there are other puns going on in some verses with Simon. Faucett says Simon is from shaama, "hear"; as the birth of Reuben ("see a son") her firstborn convinced Leah that God saw her, so that of Simeon that God heard her.

Again bad research!! True Simon means those things in Hebrew, but Simon BarJona is Aramaic - we know this because barJonah is Aramaic not Hebrew! So it only makes sense to translate the terms from Aramaic to English not from Hebrew.

Also, we see a basic problem with interpreting analogies in your explanation, as Jesus is the rock, the foundation stone, AND the corner stone; in each specific analogy. If one tries to carry a term from one analogy to another, one gets goo-gah, which is a technical term for "it does not follow".

This is not the problem with my explanation it is the very problem I pointed out in your approach. You are the one that wants to claim Jesus is the rock in matt 16 based on the fact that He is the rock in other verses. It is your approach that is all goo-gah. Without this goo-gah you rely on there is no reason to accept your twisting of the grammar and force these wierd changes of subject midstream.

[Don]

Michael,

You have yet to admit your mixing of metaphors, an elementary error.

There was a town of Petra, anyone who wants to look WHY it is named such can easily tell from the pics at this website http://www.biblepicturegallery.com/Pictures/Petra.htm

(For those that do not look, it is a massive mountain of rock that has been carved into parts of a city. If you saw Indy Jones 3, you saw parts of Petra.)

Regarding Petros (Peter in English), here is some info from Randall Buth, of Jerusalem Perspective.
Don
================

re: Greek word petra in Jewish culture and Hebrew.

a midrashic connection (see below) between rock and avraham is recorded
in several rabbinic Hebrew sources. This makes its way into the Aramaic
targumim, as well, being discussed at least at Num 23.9 in the palestinian
targum tradition (Fragment Targum, Neofiti, and Pseudo-Jonathan, all 3):
"[MT 'for from the head of the rocks (tsurim) I see him'] I see these
people
going on in the merit [zexut] of their righteous fathers who are like the
mountains, [Aramaic: turayya] Avraham, YitsHaq and Yaacov ..."
Likewise at Is 51.1 "look to the rock [tsur] from which you were hewn"
rabbinic commentators explained this as Avraham. (see Ibn Ezra, Rada"q.)
Where is this coming from?

Most impressive linguistically is the Hebrew midrashic tradition with its
use of GREEK loanwords, not an infrequent occurrence in mishnaic Hebrew
and talmudic Aramaic.

Yalqut shimoni records the following Hebrew parables and midrash at
Num 23.9:

"to what does he [i.e. Balaam--RB] resemble?
[cf. Matthew's introductions to some parables]
to a man who came to cut down the tree.
Someone who is not an
expert cuts off the branches, each and every one, and gets tired.
and the clever man uncovers the roots and cuts. thus that same
wicked man [ie=bil`am--RB] said 'what? will I curse every
tribe? hey, I am going to their roots and cutting.' He got tired
and found them difficult. That is why (the scripture) is recorded:
"and from the head of rocks". These are the fathers. "and from
the hills I will gaze". These are the mothers. ... Another
interpretation. "and from the head of rocks I see him" I see
those who preceded the creation of the world. (consider--)
A parable of a king who was looking to build.
He would dig and go down
and was looking to lay a QEMELIOS ("foundation", Greek
loanword in Hebrew, written in Hebrew characters, of course) and
was only finding watery swanp. Likewise in many places, he could only
go on and dig in another place. (finally) He was finding down below
a PETRA ("bedrock" Greek loanword in Hebrew, feminine singular.)
He said, 'here I will build'.
So he laid the QEMELIOS and built.
So it is with the Holy One, blessed be He,
He was looking to create the world and was sitting and looking at
the generation of Enosh and the generation of the flood.
He said, 'How can I create the world, with these wicked people
arising and angering me?'
When he looked ahead and saw Avraham who was to arise
he said, 'hey, I've found a PETRA (feminine noun) to build on and
to found the world.' Thus he called Avraham "tsur" as it is said,
"Look to the rock [tsur] from which you were hewn"(Is 51.1)
and Israel he called rocks [tsurim](Num 23.9).

In Babata Greek documents of DSS you will find a Nabatean Arab city
mentioned several times, named Petra (PETRA and PETRAIOS "Petran").

You will also find the following Jewish names of interest:

Tosephta Demai 1.9 (tannaitic, pre-200): "and the market of Petros".

Bereshit Rabba 94 (also quoted in the later anthology Yalqut shimoni):
"Rabbi bar Qappara (a student of Yehuda ha-nasi, collector of the
mishna.
bar Qappara is called a tanna,) and Rabbi Yose ben Petros
(also mentioned in talmud yerushalmi) said to each other . . ."
[This Petros would be mid-2nd century, perhaps born in the generation after

the BarKosiba/BarKochba revolt--RB]

The above should open up a bit of the ancient Jewish midrashic world and
it relevance to NT studies. At a minimum it helps appreciate a potnetially
richer cultural background to the petros/petra saying in Matthew.
(By the way, it may be that in the Greek diaspora, where 'Petros' was a
word "stone" and not a name and Shimon was as common among Jews as
John in English, Shim`on Peter preferred 'Kefa' [Aramaic: stone].)

Why is this impressive linguistically? Because of all places for the
rabbinic
Hebrew to attest the loanword PETRA, it is in a very similar cultural
context to our story in Matthew 16. As is always the case, there are four
logical options.
1. Matthew/Jesus build on oral midrashic traditions. (a variant of #3)
2. Rabbinic midrashic sources borrow from Christian sources.
3. Both Matthew/Jesus and rabbinic midrashic schools use
cultural/linguistic material about petra/petros that was common to both.

4. Each independently created the petros/petra material.

While certainty is impossible, the name PETROS already attested for
Jews in early (tannaitic, 2nd century) rabbinic sources at a time of
church/synagoue hostilities suggests that number 2 is less probable and 1,

3 or 4 more probable.
(Though of more drastic measure, we don't find many crusader kids named
SalaH ad-din, nor 7-8th century Christians named AHmed.)
David Bivin has written on petra/petros in www.JerusalemPerspective.com.

And of course, the above has relevance for "king" parables, and general
wisdom about building houses and foundations.

Randall Buth
Jerusalem