goldenchild17 Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 If anybody has some suggestions for changes let me know. Here's a new change I made in my paper for the Papacy. This section of my paper [url="http://www.geocities.com/fryc86/thepope.html"]http://www.geocities.com/fryc86/thepope.html[/url] originally read: [quote]Next, from our first passage Matthew 16:13-19, we look at this line. "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." What Jesus is doing is calling Peter the "Rock" on which the Church is going to be built. Many opponents of Catholicism like to look at the original Greek of this sentence. In the original Greek Christ calls Peter "Petros" which many people think means "little rock or pebble". They also say that Jesus calls the "rock" upon which the Church is to be built "Petra" or "large rock". Some people believe this means that Jesus is contrasting Peter and the "rock" that the Church will be built upon. There are a few major flaws to this argument. First, Petros does not mean "small rock, or pebble". The King James Version New Testament Lexicon says HERE that Petros actually means "a rock or a stone". This is supported by protestant Greek scholars, D.A. Carson and Joseph Thayer, who say that there is no reason to believe that Petros means something different than the Greek word petra(1). There is no indication that Petros refers to a small pebble or rock. Second, Greek nouns are assigned a gender; each noun is either masculine or feminine. "Petros" is a masculine word, while "Petra" is a feminine word. It would very silly for Jesus to use a feminine word in regards to Peter, a male. In fact, if Jesus was truly trying to call Peter a "small rock, or pebble" then He would undoubtedly have used the Greek word "lithos", which more accurately refers to a small rock or stone (KJV New Testament Lexicon) and is also a masculine noun. In this passage, pay special attention to the pronoun used 'taute', which means "this" or "this very". So the line would read "you are Peter(Petros=Rock), and upon taute(this very) petra I will build my Church." When this Greek pronoun is used along with the Greek word for "and", which is 'kai', the pronoun is referring to the previous noun. Basically what this means is that the passage would read like this, "you are Petros(Rock) kai upon taute petra". In english, "you are Peter(Petros=Rock) and upon this very rock I will build my Church." So, we can see that in the Greek, Peter is the same rock that the Church is to be built upon. If Jesus truly meant for the rock upon which the Church built to be something or someone other than Peter, he could've used the word "alla" for "and". By this Jesus could've avoided the connection between Peter and the "rock", but He doesn't do this. But let's take this a bit further, let's use the language that Jesus and his disciples would've spoken, Aramaic. This discourse that took place between Jesus and Peter in Matthew 16 is most likely in Aramaic. In Aramaic the word for rock is "kepha" and unlike in Greek, there is no gender assignment to Aramaic nouns. Then if we go to John 1:42, we see something very remarkable. We see that the name Jesus gives Peter is "Kephas" or "Cephas". John 1:42 says "Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "'You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas' (which is translated Peter)." (see 1 Corinthians 1:12, 1 Corinthians 3:22, 1 Corinthians 9:5, 1 Corinthians 15:5, and Galatians 2:9, 11, 14 Clearly Peter's name was "Kephas".) Kephas means "Rock" and Jesus specifically gave Peter this name Kephas "Rock". "You are Kephas and upon this kephas I will build my Church." Finally, Aramaic also has a word for "little rock, or pebble". This word is Evna. In His native language, if Jesus meant to call Peter a "small rock or pebble" then he would have called Him "evna". But He doesn't, He clearly gave Peter the name of "Kephas"[/quote] Now reads: [quote][color=blue] "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." [/color] What Jesus is doing is calling Peter the "Rock" on which the Church is going to be built. Many opponents of Catholicism like to look at the original Greek of this sentence. They say that in the original Greek Christ calls Peter "Petros" which means "little rock", and calls the "rock" upon which the Church is to be built "Petra" or "large rock". Some people believe this means that Jesus is contrasting Peter and the "rock" that the Church will be built upon. There are some major flaws to this argument. First, "Petros" does not mean "small rock, or pebble". The King James Version New Testament Lexicon says HERE that Petros actually means "a rock or a stone". This is supported by protestant Greek scholars, D.A. Carson and Joseph Thayer, who say that there is no reason to believe that Petros means something different than the Greek word petra(1). There is no indication that Petros refers to a small pebble or rock. Second, Greek nouns are assigned a gender; each noun is either masculine or feminine. "Petros" is a masculine word, while "Petra" is a feminine word. It would very silly for Jesus to use a feminine word in regards to Peter, a male. If Jesus was truly trying to call Peter a "small rock, or pebble" then He would undoubtedly have used the Greek word "lithos", which also means "small rock or pebble" but is not gender specific. We'll see this in a minute but what needs to be noticed is that nowhere in Scripture, not in even one verse, is the Greek word "Petros" used for the word rock, or pebble or anything of that line. While it does mean "rock or stone" this word is never used in Scripture to denote a rock or stone. Every single passage that uses the Greek word "Petros" is referring to Peter. The following passages from the New Testament are all the verses that use the word "Petros": Mt 4:18; Mt 8:14; Mt 10:2; Mt 14:28; Mt 14:29; Mt 15:15; Mt 16:16; Mt 16:18; Mt 16:22; Mt 16:23; Mt 17:1; Mt 17:4; Mt 17:24; Mt 17:26; Mt 18:21; Mt 19:27; Mt 26:33; Mt 26:35; Mt 26:37; Mt 26:40; Mt 26:58; Mt 26:69; Mt 26:73; Mt 26:75; Mr 3:16; Mr 5:37; Mr 8:29; Mr 8:32; Mr 8:33; Mr 9:2; Mr 9:5; Mr 10:28; Mr 11:21; Mr 13:3; Mr 14:29; Mr 14:33; Mr 14:37; Mr 14:54; Mr 14:66; Mr 14:67; Mr 14:70; Mr 14:72; Mr 16:7; Lu 5:8; Lu 6:14; Lu 8:45; Lu 8:51; Lu 9:20; Lu 9:28; Lu 9:32; Lu 9:33; Lu 12:41; Lu 18:28; Lu 22:8; Lu 22:34; Lu 22:54; Lu 22:55; Lu 22:58; Lu 22:60; Lu 22:61; Lu 22:62; Lu 24:12; Joh 1:40; Joh 1:42; Joh 1:44; Joh 6:8; Joh 6:68; Joh 13:6; Joh 13:8; Joh 13:9; Joh 13:24; Joh 13:36; Joh 13:37; Joh 18:10; Joh 18:11; Joh 18:15; Joh 18:16; Joh 18:17; Joh 18:18; Joh 18:25; Joh 18:26; Joh 18:27; Joh 20:2; Joh 20:3; Joh 20:4; Joh 20:6; Joh 21:2; Joh 21:3; Joh 21:7; Joh 21:11; Joh 21:15; Joh 21:17; Joh 21:20; Joh 21:21; Ac 1:13; Ac 1:15; Ac 2:14; Ac 2:37; Ac 2:38; Ac 3:1; Ac 3:3; Ac 3:4; Ac 3:6; Ac 3:11; Ac 3:12; Ac 4:8; Ac 4:13; Ac 4:19; Ac 5:3; Ac 5:8; Ac 5:9; Ac 5:15; Ac 5:29; Ac 8:14; Ac 8:20; Ac 9:32; Ac 9:34; Ac 9:38; Ac 9:39; Ac 9:40; Ac 10:5; Ac 10:9; Ac 10:13; Ac 10:14; Ac 10:17; Ac 10:18; Ac 10:19; Ac 10:21; Ac 10:23; Ac 10:25; Ac 10:26; Ac 10:32; Ac 10:34; Ac 10:44; Ac 10:45; Ac 10:46; Ac 11:2; Ac 11:4; Ac 11:7; Ac 11:13; Ac 12:3; Ac 12:5; Ac 12:6; Ac 12:7; Ac 12:11; Ac 12:13; Ac 12:14; Ac 12:16; Ac 12:18; Ac 15:7; Ga 1:18; Ga 2:7; Ga 2:8; Ga 2:11; Ga 2:14; 1Pe 1:1; 2Pe 1:1. Not one time is Petros ever used to denote a rock of any kind or size, it's the Greek form of Peter's name and nothing else. The non-Catholic argument says that in Greek "Petra" refers to a large rock or boulder so "Petros" must be the Greek for a small rock or pebble. This just isn't the case, as was shown in the passages above. However, there is a word in Greek for small rock or pebble. This word is "Lithos". This word is indeed used to reference a rock or small rock: Mt 3:9; Mt 4:3; Mt 4:6; Mt 7:9; Mt 21:42; Mt 21:44; Mt 24:2; Mt 27:60; Mt 27:66; Mt 28:2; Mr 5:5; Mr 9:42; Mr 12:10; Mr 13:1; Mr 13:2; Mr 15:46; Mr 16:3; Mr 16:4; Lu 3:8; Lu 4:3; Lu 4:11; Lu 11:11; Lu 17:2; Lu 19:40; Lu 19:44; Lu 20:17; Lu 20:18; Lu 21:5; Lu 21:6; Lu 22:41; Lu 24:2; Joh 8:7; Joh 8:59; Joh 10:31; Joh 11:38; Joh 11:39; Joh 11:41; Joh 20:1; Ac 4:11; Ac 17:29; Ro 9:32; Ro 9:33; 1Co 3:12; 2Co 3:7; 1Pe 2:4; 1Pe 2:5; 1Pe 2:6; 1Pe 2:7; 1Pe 2:8; Re 4:3; Re 17:4; Re 18:12; Re 18:16; Re 18:21; Re 21:11; Re 21:19. So there is no doubt that if Jesus really wanted to differentiate Peter from the rock upon which He would build His Church(Petra), then He would've used the word "Lithos". Also in this passage, pay special attention to the pronoun used 'taute', which means "this" or "this very". So the line would read "you are Peter(Petros=Rock), and upon taute(this very) petra I will build my Church." When this Greek pronoun is used along with the Greek word for "and", which is 'kai', the pronoun is referring to the previous noun. Basically what this means is that the passage would read like this, "you are Petros(Rock) kai upon taute petra". In english, "you are Peter(Petros=Rock) and upon this very rock I will build my Church." So, we can see that in the Greek, Peter is the same rock that the Church is to be built upon. If Jesus truly meant for the rock upon which the Church built to be something or someone other than Peter, he could've used the word "alla" which more closely means "but or nevertheless". By this Jesus could've avoided the connection between Peter and the "rock", but He doesn't do this. If this isn't convincing enough, then we could take this further. Consider the fact that Greek was not the common language spoken by Jesus and His followers. They, as did all the Palestinian Jews at the time, spoke Aramaic. An example of this is evidenced in Mark 15:34 [color=blue] "And at three o'clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice, 'Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?' which is translated, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'" [/color This discourse that took place between Jesus and Peter in Matthew 16 is also in the Aramaic language. In Aramaic the name Jesus gives Peter is "Kephas". "Kephas" means rock, so the passage should read "you are 'rock' and upon this 'rock' I will build my Church" No contrast here. How do we know that this is the word Jesus meant to use? John 1:42 says [color=blue] "Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, 'You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas'" (which is translated Peter)." [/color] (see also 1 Corinthians 1:12, 1 Corinthians 3:22, 1 Corinthians 9:5, 1 Corinthians 15:5, Galatians 2:9, 11, 14). Finally, Aramaic also has a word for "little rock, or pebble". This word is Evna. In His native language, if Jesus meant to call Peter a "small rock or pebble" then he would have called Him "evna". But He doesn't, He clearly gave Peter the name of "Kephas". Clearly Peter's name was "Kephas" and therefore, is the "rock" upon which Jesus meant to build the Church.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cure of Ars Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 (edited) [quote]It would very silly for Jesus to use a feminine word in regards to Peter, a male.[/quote] I would use the term taboo or bad form or something like that instead of silly. I would also think that you should just give a link for all the places "Petros” is in the bible instead of listing them. You also got some color things that are not right in the last paragraph. It is a very solid tract. I also wanted to give you props for all the work that you have been putting in on the crusade. Edited July 30, 2005 by Cure of Ars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 [quote]The King James Version New Testament Lexicon says HERE that Petros actually means "a rock or a stone". This is supported by protestant Greek scholars, D.A. Carson and Joseph Thayer, who say that there is no reason to believe that Petros means something different than the Greek word petra(1). There is no indication that Petros refers to a small pebble or rock. [/quote] since this is a bold claim to the protestant, u need to back it up w/ as many sources as possible. actually, the more comprehensive you are in backing up every assertion, the better. 1 or 2 sources never seems to do the trick. here are a few others:[list][b]Gerhard Maier, leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian, author of The End of the Historical Critical Method (1997):[/b] "In Aramaic 'Peter' and Rock are the same word; in Greek (here), they are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period. For the idea of aperson as the foundation on which something is build, cf Isaiah 51:1-2; Ephesians 2:20 (the promise is amde to Peter because Peter was the one who confessed Jesus v16). --Craig S. Keener, [i]The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament[/i], (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90. [b]John Broadus, Baptist biblical scholar:[/b] "Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed." --[i]Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew[/i], (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355. [b][note:[/b] Broadus goes on to reject the thought that, because Rabbinic commentators had used petros and petra in their writings, they somehow gave weight to the idea that Jesus distinguished the two words when speaking to Peter[b]]:[/b] "Edersh. finds the words petros and petra borrowed in the late Rabbinical language, and thinks that Jesus, while speaking Aramaic, may have borrowed those Greek words here. But this is grossly improbable, and the suggestion looks like a desperate expedient; nor has he shown that the late Rabbis themselves make the supposed distinction between the two words." --[i]Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew[/i], (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 356. [b]James B. Shelton, Associate Professor in the School of Theology and Missions, Oral Roberts University [note:[/b] this school is a veritable bastion of anti-Catholic sentiment[b]]:[/b] "Our Lord's reference to Simon as Peter (Petros) in Matthew 16:18 has suffered partisan interpretation. Some interpreters with reformational and revisionist agendas have made much of the difference in Greek between the words Peter (Petros, masculine) and 'this rock' (tautei tei petra, demonstrative + definite article + feminine form, which is the usual gender of petra). They see petra as referring to the confession of the messiahship of Jesus, or the corporate faith of Jesus' followers, rather than to the person of Peter. "When using both the masculine and feminine forms of the word, however, Matthew is not trying to distance Peter, Petros, from 'this rock,' petra. Rather, the evangelist changes the gender simply because Simon, a male, is given a masculine form of the feminine noun for his new name. "Furthermore, the whole passage contains semitic structures. In Aramaic the word for both Peter's name and the rock would be identical, Kepha' . . . kepha'. "Finally, the force of the context calls for a direct identification between Peter (Petros) and the rock (petra). The case for petrine hegemony among the apostles must be seriously considered and not summarily dismissed by sectarian eisegesis." --James B. Shelton, letter to authors, 21 October 1994, 1. [/list]even John Calvin, one of the great fathers of the Protestant Reformation, admits no distinction in meaning between the two words:[list]"I grant that in Greek Peter (Petros) and stone (petra) mean the same thing, save that the first word is Attic, the second from the common tongue." --[i]Calvin's New Testament Commentaries--The Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke[/i], vol. 2, trans. T. H. L. Parker, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 188. [/list]those should help bolster your case. [quote]Second, Greek nouns are assigned a gender; each noun is either masculine or feminine. "Petros" is a masculine word, while "Petra" is a feminine word. It would very silly for Jesus to use a feminine word in regards to Peter, a male.[/quote] you should note here that Jesus isn't using the word "in regards to Peter" or referring to him as a rock, or comparing him to one, he is NAMING him "Rock." that's his name, from now on. you see him on the street and you call him "Rock." so, that's why the masculine form has to be used, b/c that's his name, and you can't give a guy a girl's name. [quote]If Jesus was truly trying to call Peter a "small rock, or pebble" then He would undoubtedly have used the Greek word "lithos", which also means "small rock or pebble" but is not gender specific. [/quote] i think what you mean to say here is that [i][b]the author writing the Greek NT [/b][/i]would have used "lithos." Jesus was speaking Aramaic. [quote]Not one time is Petros ever used to denote a rock of any kind or size, it's the Greek form of Peter's name and nothing else.[/quote] well, petros does denote a rock. the point is that it does not denote a particular size for the rock. or, put another way, the size of a petros and the size of a petra is the same. the word still means "rock" tho, since this may be imprecise wording on ur part. [quote]Also in this passage, pay special attention to the pronoun used 'taute', which means "this" or "this very". So the line would read "you are Peter(Petros=Rock), and upon taute(this very) petra I will build my Church." When this Greek pronoun is used along with the Greek word for "and", which is 'kai', the pronoun is referring to the previous noun.[/quote] you should provide the source for this point, since you probably didn't come up w/ it on ur own. actually, all of your points will probably reguire sources.........but that's ok. the more scholars you can reference, the more the reader will know that they have a good reason to believe what you say, other than you just expecting them to take ur word for it. also, you seem to kinda be jumping around alot. the aramaic argument and the lithos argument are both made in two different places. its also hard to read b/c you don't make very many new paragraphs. so, what i would do is exhaust one point before you move on to the next one. give each point its own subheading so the reader knows what you are setting out to discuss. give each argument under a heading its own paragraph. separate paragraphs w/ blank lines. in apologetics, presentation is also very important. and i agree w/ Cure, provide one link to references of "petros" and one link to the references of "lithos." in closing, [url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/launch.php?link_id=3408&launch=http://www.youthspecialties.com/forums/message_boards/index.php?act=ST&f=32&t=13977&st=60"][b]this debate[/b][/url] i had on the subject may be of help to you. scroll half way down the page for my first post. also, i HIGHLY suggesting buying [url="http://www.allcatholicbooks.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=ACB&Product_Code=AA25x26&Category_Code="][i][b]Jesus, Peter, and the Keys[/b][/i][/url] by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess. it has every argument on this subject, as well as a wealth of [i][b]protestant sources[/b][/i] to back them up. pax christi, phatcatholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted July 31, 2005 Author Share Posted July 31, 2005 [quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jul 31 2005, 01:33 AM']well, petros does denote a rock. the point is that it does not denote a particular size for the rock. or, put another way, the size of a petros and the size of a petra is the same. the word still means "rock" tho, since this may be imprecise wording on ur part. [/quote] Thanks for the help. I'll make the changes. But I wanted to address this now. I understand that the translation, the definition of the word means rock. But I ran a lexicon search for Petros, and it is never actually used in the New Testament in reference to a rock. The words used are either Petra or Lithos. That is the point I was trying to make. So yeah, the definition of the word "Petros" means rock. But I haven't actually seen this word used in this way in Scripture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted August 5, 2005 Author Share Posted August 5, 2005 Here's an updated version of this section... Let me know how it looks and what more I should do with it. Thank ya much. I'm thinking maybe I went overboard a bit on the sources. Too much, or no? _________________________________________ "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." What Jesus is doing is calling Peter the "Rock" on which the Church is going to be built. Many opponents of Catholicism like to look at the original Greek of this sentence. They say that in the original Greek Christ calls Peter "Petros" which means "little rock", and calls the "rock" upon which the Church is to be built "Petra" or "large rock". Some people believe this means that Jesus is contrasting Peter and the "rock" that the Church will be built upon. There are some major flaws in this argument. First, "Petros" does not mean "small rock, or pebble". The King James Version New Testament Lexicon says HERE that Petros actually means "a rock or a stone". This is supported by protestant Greek scholars, D.A. Carson and Joseph Thayer, who say that there is no reason to believe that Petros means something different than the Greek word petra(1). Gerhard Maier, leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian, author of The End of the Historical Critical Method says: “In Aramaic 'Peter' and Rock are the same word; in Greek (here), they are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period. For the idea of a person as the foundation on which something is build, cf Isaiah 51:1-2; Ephesians 2:20 (the promise is made to Peter because Peter was the one who confessed Jesus v16).” (2.) John Broadus, Baptist biblical scholar affirms this: “Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.” (3.) He continues by rejecting the idea that Rabbinic commentators used petros and petra to show that Jesus made a distinction between the two in His discussion with Peter. “Edersh. finds the words petros and petra borrowed in the late Rabbinical language, and thinks that Jesus, while speaking Aramaic, may have borrowed those Greek words here. But this is grossly improbable, and the suggestion looks like a desperate expedient; nor has he shown that the late Rabbis themselves make the supposed distinction between the two words.” (4.) James B. Shelton, Associate Professor in the School of Theology and Missions, Oral Roberts University: “Our Lord's reference to Simon as Peter (Petros) in Matthew 16:18 has suffered partisan interpretation. Some interpreters with reformational and revisionist agendas have made much of the difference in Greek between the words Peter (Petros, masculine) and 'this rock' (tautei tei petra, demonstrative + definite article + feminine form, which is the usual gender of petra). They see petra as referring to the confession of the messiahship of Jesus, or the corporate faith of Jesus' followers, rather than to the person of Peter.” “When using both the masculine and feminine forms of the word, however, Matthew is not trying to distance Peter, Petros, from 'this rock,' petra. Rather, the evangelist changes the gender simply because Simon, a male, is given a masculine form of the feminine noun for his new name.” “Furthermore, the whole passage contains semitic structures. In Aramaic the word for both Peter's name and the rock would be identical, Kepha' . . . kepha'.” “Finally, the force of the context calls for a direct identification between Peter (Petros) and the rock (petra). The case for petrine hegemony among the apostles must be seriously considered and not summarily dismissed by sectarian eisegesis." (5.) Protestant New Testament scholar Dr. Oscar Cullman: “The Gospel tradition has simply preserved the fact that Jesus marked off Simon among the Twelve by giving him the name ‘rock.’ According to OT [i.e., Old Testament] models (Gen. 17:5, 15; 32:29; Isaiah 62:2; 65:15) and Rabbinic usage nicknames either refer to a particular situation as a promise or else they lay upon those who bear them a specific task . . . This name cannot be explained exclusively in terms of Peter’s character. To be sure, Jesus knows his zeal, exuberance and energy as well as his lack of courage. When he gives Simon the name Peter, he knows the many sided strength of his temperament. On the other hand, these qualities unfold only in the discharge of the task laid upon him.” (6.) Even John Calvin, one of the great fathers of the Protestant Reformation, recognizes no distinction between the meaning of Petra and that of Petros: "I grant that in Greek Peter (Petros) and stone (petra) mean the same thing, save that the first word is Attic, the second from the common tongue." (7.) The idea that the words Petra and Petros have two different meanings comes from the fact that they did have two different meanings, in the ancient Greek language. D.A. Carson tells us: “Although it is true that petros and petra can mean 'stone' and 'rock' respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry.” (8.) That the differences in meaning between petros and petra were found only in the ancient Greek language and even then largely confined to poetry is confirmed by John Broadus(from above quote). The Greek that Jesus and His followers spoke was Koine Greek which was used from 323 B.C. until the fall of the Roman Empire in 476 A.D. So it is not an accurate assessment to say that Jesus used the words Petra and Petros in two different ways because this only occurred in the earlier version of the Greek language, and even then mostly in poetry. Second, Greek nouns are assigned a gender, either masculine or feminine. This is the same as it is in some modern languages, such as Spanish. "Petros" is a masculine word, while "Petra" is a feminine word. It would be inaccurate to use a feminine word in regards to Peter, a male. Furthermore, while Petros does indeed mean “rock”, not one time is Petros ever actually used in Scripture for such a purpose. Click HERE to see the passage in which Petros is used. In Scripture the word Petros is used for Peter’s name and nothing more. The non-Catholic argument says that in Greek "Petra" refers to a large rock or boulder so "Petros" must be the Greek for a small rock or pebble. This just is not the case. As shown above, lithos is the word used by the New Testament authors for rock, or pebble. Petros is only used in Scripture in reference to Peter’s name. If the author of the Greek text, was truly trying to call Peter a "small rock, or pebble" then He would undoubtedly have used the Greek word "lithos", which also means "small rock or pebble". Click HERE for the list of New Testament passages which show that “lithos” is the word used most often in Scripture for a “rock”. So, there is no doubt that if Jesus really wanted to differentiate Peter from the rock upon which He would build His Church(Petra), then He would've used the word "Lithos". Also in this passage, pay special attention to the pronoun used 'taute', which means "this" or "this very". So the line would read "you are Peter(Petros=Rock), and upon taute(this very) petra I will build my Church." When this Greek pronoun is used along with the Greek word for "and", which is 'kai', the pronoun is referring to the previous noun. Basically what this means is that the passage would read like this, "you are Petros(Rock) kai upon taute petra". In english, "you are Peter(Petros=Rock) and upon this very rock I will build my Church." So, we can see that in the Greek, Peter is the same rock that the Church is to be built upon. If Jesus truly meant for the rock upon which the Church built to be something or someone other than Peter, he could've used the word "alla" which more closely means "but or nevertheless". By this Jesus could've avoided the connection between Peter and the "rock", but He doesn't do this. If this isn't convincing enough, then we could take this further. Consider the fact that Greek was not the common language spoken by Jesus and His followers. They, as did all the Palestinian Jews at the time, spoke Aramaic. An example of this is evidenced in Mark 15:34 "And at three o'clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice, 'Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?' which is translated, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'" [/color This discourse that took place between Jesus and Peter in Matthew 16 is also in the Aramaic language. In Aramaic the name Jesus gives Peter is "Kephas". "Kephas" means rock, so the passage should read "you are 'rock' and upon this 'rock' I will build my Church" No contrast here. How do we know that this is the word Jesus meant to use? John 1:42 says [color=blue] "Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, 'You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas'" (which is translated Peter)." (see also 1 Corinthians 1:12, 1 Corinthians 3:22, 1 Corinthians 9:5, 1 Corinthians 15:5, Galatians 2:9, 11, 14). Finally, Aramaic also has a word for "little rock, or pebble". This word is Evna. In His native language, if Jesus meant to call Peter a "small rock or pebble" then he would have called Him "evna". But He doesn't, He clearly gave Peter the name of "Kephas". I would like to summarize this section by select quotes by Gerhard Kittel's theological dictionary, analyzing the Greek text of Matthew 16:18: “The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text as well suggests a material identity between petra and Petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and Petros: petra = kepha =Petros. . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . .” (9.) Dr. Oscar Cullman’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: “The Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between p tra [petra] and P tros; P tros = p tra. . . . 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.”(10.) Protestant Greek scholar Marvin Vincent: “The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter’s confession, but to Peter himself, . . . The reference of petra to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: “On this rock will I build.” Again, Christ is the great foundation, the chief cornerstone, but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ’s church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Peter 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and in ver. 5, addresses the church as living stones.” (11.) Protestant scholar W.F. Albright: “This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. . . . Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose. In view of the background of vs. 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this Pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence” (cp. Gal 2:11 ff.).”(12.) and David Hill, a Presbyterian minister at the University of Sheffield: “It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. . . . Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g. his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (13.) ________________________________________________________________________ 2. --Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90. 3. --Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355. 4. --Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 356 5. --James B. Shelton, letter to authors, 21 October 1994, 1. 6. –Cullman, “Petros”, Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968) 7. --Calvin's New Testament Commentaries--The Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 2, trans. T. H. L. Parker, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 188. 8. –D.A. Carson, The Expositer's Bible Commentary on Matthew. volume 8 9. – Gerhard Kittel's theological dictionary, analyzing the Greek text of Matthew 16:18 10. -- Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968), 6:98, 108. 11. -- Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946 (orig. 1887)), 4 vols., vol. 1, 91-92. 12. -- W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1971), 195. 13. – David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 261. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted August 6, 2005 Author Share Posted August 6, 2005 (edited) Alright, I've made changes to the whole thing and hopefully improved it a little. Let me know what ya'll think. I think I need more sources overall, but let me know. ________________________________________________________ Why do Catholics think that Jesus gave us a man, a sinful human, to lead His Church on earth? Cannot Jesus lead from above? Cannot the Spirit guide us, each individually, into the truth? In this study I hope to show logically and systematically why we have a leader, a shepherd of the Church on earth. This study will start in Matthew 16:13-19 which is one of the foundations for Scriptural belief of Peter’s primacy. I will use this section to branch off into the other important passages that develop the Biblical case for the primacy of Peter and the Papacy. Matthew 16. Starting in verse 13, [color=blue]“When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, 'Who do people say that the Son of Man is?' They replied, 'Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.' He said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?' Simon Peter said in reply, 'You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.' Jesus said to him in reply, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'”[/color] In the first part of this passage Jesus poses a question to all of His disciples. He asks them who they think He is. It is Simon Peter that speaks up and answers for all of them [color=blue]“You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” [/color] This is one of many times that Peter is seen speaking for all of the disciples(see Matt. 19:27, Mark 10:28 and Mark 11:21). Jesus then praises Peter's answer saying that it was the Father who had revealed this to him. But even more interesting is that Jesus calls Simon 'son of Jonah.' We read in John 1:42 [color=blue]“Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas’ (which is translated Peter).”[/color] Jonah is a variation of the name “John”. But why does Jesus say this? Why does He use this variation when at other times He calls Peter the "son of John"? Well, first we look to Matthew 12:40 [color=blue]“Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.”[/color] Here Scripture is showing that Jonah was a symbol of Jesus. Jonah is a type of Jesus. Why is this significant? Jesus called Simon Peter the “Son of Jonah”. Essentially what Jesus is doing is calling Peter His son. Here Jesus shows the unique relationship between Himself and Peter, almost that of a father and son. This is important because of another connection: David and his son Solomon. David is another type, another symbol of Jesus. It was David's plan to build this temple. 1 Chronicles 28:2, [color=blue]“King David rose to his feet and said: ‘Hear me, my brethren and my people. It was my purpose to build a house of repose myself for the ark of the covenant of the LORD, the footstool for the feet of our God; and I was preparing to build it.’”[/color] But David did not finish this task. He left it to his son Solomon. 1 Chronicles 28:20, [color=blue]“Then David said to his son Solomon: 'Be firm and steadfast; go to work without fear or discouragement, for the LORD God, my God, is with you. He will not fail you or abandon you before you have completed all the work for the service of the house of the LORD.'" [/color]All throughout 1 Chronicles 28 we see David giving out every little detail about how he wanted this temple to be built. The temple was eventually finished by Solomon, built up in Jerusalem upon rock, as we see in 2 Chronicles 3:1 [color=blue]“Then Solomon began to build the house of the Lord in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, which had been pointed out to his father David, on the spot which David had selected, the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.”[/color] What does this have to do with Peter? We know that David is a type of Christ. We know that Jonah is a type of Christ(Matt. 12:40). Jesus called Simon, "son of Jonah". So, in a symbolic sense we see that Simon Peter is the son of Christ. King David got everything started in the building of the temple, collected funds and materials, gave out directions, but left the completion to his son. So to did Jesus get everything rolling for the building of the Church, but left it's completion to His spiritual son, Peter. The Church doesn't get onto its feet until the book of Acts. It wasn't until after Christ ascended that the Holy Spirit descended onto the disciples and they started their preaching and convening councils. It's also interesting to note that in Hebrew, Jonah means "Dove". There is a special connection here between Peter who is the son of the "Dove". Peter is in a spiritual sense the son of Jesus, the son of God, and also the son of the Holy Spirit. Next: Matt. 16:18 [color=blue]”And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”[/color] What Jesus is doing is calling Peter the "Rock" on which the Church is going to be built. Many opponents of Catholicism like to look at the original Greek of this sentence. They say that in the original Greek Christ calls Peter "Petros" which means "little rock", and calls the "rock" upon which the Church is to be built "Petra" or "large rock". Some people believe this means that Jesus is contrasting Peter and the "rock" that the Church will be built upon. There are some major flaws in this argument. "Petros" does not mean "small rock, or pebble". The King James Version New Testament Lexicon says HERE that Petros actually means "a rock or a stone". This is supported by protestant Greek scholars, D.A. Carson and Joseph Thayer, who say that there is no reason to believe that Petros means anything different than the Greek word petra(1). Gerhard Maier, leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian, author of The End of the Historical Critical Method says: “In Aramaic 'Peter' and Rock are the same word; in Greek (here), they are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period. For the idea of a person as the foundation on which something is build, cf Isaiah 51:1-2; Ephesians 2:20 (the promise is made to Peter because Peter was the one who confessed Jesus v16).” (2) John Broadus, Baptist biblical scholar affirms this: “Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.” (3) He continues by rejecting the idea that Rabbinic commentators used petros and petra to show that Jesus made a distinction between the two in His discussion with Peter. “Edersh. finds the words petros and petra borrowed in the late Rabbinical language, and thinks that Jesus, while speaking Aramaic, may have borrowed those Greek words here. But this is grossly improbable, and the suggestion looks like a desperate expedient; nor has he shown that the late Rabbis themselves make the supposed distinction between the two words.” (4) James B. Shelton, Associate Professor in the School of Theology and Missions, Oral Roberts University: “Our Lord's reference to Simon as Peter (Petros) in Matthew 16:18 has suffered partisan interpretation. Some interpreters with reformational and revisionist agendas have made much of the difference in Greek between the words Peter (Petros, masculine) and 'this rock' (tautei tei petra, demonstrative + definite article + feminine form, which is the usual gender of petra). They see petra as referring to the confession of the messiahship of Jesus, or the corporate faith of Jesus' followers, rather than to the person of Peter.” “When using both the masculine and feminine forms of the word, however, Matthew is not trying to distance Peter, Petros, from 'this rock,' petra. Rather, the evangelist changes the gender simply because Simon, a male, is given a masculine form of the feminine noun for his new name.” “Furthermore, the whole passage contains semitic structures. In Aramaic the word for both Peter's name and the rock would be identical, Kepha' . . . kepha'.” “Finally, the force of the context calls for a direct identification between Peter (Petros) and the rock (petra). The case for petrine hegemony among the apostles must be seriously considered and not summarily dismissed by sectarian eisegesis." (5) Protestant New Testament scholar Dr. Oscar Cullman: “The Gospel tradition has simply preserved the fact that Jesus marked off Simon among the Twelve by giving him the name ‘rock.’ According to OT [i.e., Old Testament] models (Gen. 17:5, 15; 32:29; Isaiah 62:2; 65:15) and Rabbinic usage nicknames either refer to a particular situation as a promise or else they lay upon those who bear them a specific task . . . This name cannot be explained exclusively in terms of Peter’s character. To be sure, Jesus knows his zeal, exuberance and energy as well as his lack of courage. When he gives Simon the name Peter, he knows the many sided strength of his temperament. On the other hand, these qualities unfold only in the discharge of the task laid upon him.” (6) Even John Calvin, one of the great fathers of the Protestant Reformation, recognizes no distinction between the meaning of Petra and that of Petros: "I grant that in Greek Peter (Petros) and stone (petra) mean the same thing, save that the first word is Attic, the second from the common tongue." (7) The idea that the words Petra and Petros have two different meanings comes from the way they are used in the ancient Greek language. D.A. Carson tells us: “Although it is true that petros and petra can mean 'stone' and 'rock' respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry.” (8) That the differences in meaning between petros and petra were found only in the ancient Greek language and even then largely confined to poetry is confirmed by John Broadus(from above quote). The Greek that Jesus and His followers spoke was Koine Greek which was used from 323 B.C. until the fall of the Roman Empire in 476 A.D. Greek nouns are assigned a gender, either masculine or feminine. This is the same as it is in some modern languages, such as Spanish. "Petros" is a masculine word, while "Petra" is a feminine word. It would be inaccurate to use a feminine word in regards to Peter, a male. Furthermore, while Petros does indeed mean “rock”, not one time is Petros ever actually used in Scripture for such a purpose. Click HERE to see the passages in which Petros is used. In Scripture the word Petros is used for Peter’s name and nothing more. The non-Catholic argument says that in Greek "Petra" refers to a large rock or boulder so "Petros" must be the Greek for a small rock or pebble. This just is not the case. While Petros does translate into “rock”, the word is never actually used in Scripture directly for a rock. It is only used in Scripture in reference to Peter’s name. The times where the word Petros is used in reference to a rock are largely confined to ancient Greek poetry, but it was phased out of use once Koine Greek became the common language. In Koine Greek the word most commonly used for rock, or small rock, is Lithos.(9) If the author of the Greek text, was truly trying to call Peter a "small rock, or pebble" then He would undoubtedly have used the Greek word "lithos", which also means "small rock or pebble". Click HERE for the list of New Testament passages which show that “lithos” is the word used most often in Scripture for a “rock”. There is no doubt that if Jesus really wanted to differentiate Peter from the rock upon which He would build His Church(Petra), then He would've used the word "Lithos". A couple of other things to notice in the sentence, From Crosswalk KJV interlinear bible: “kajgw; dev soi levgw o&ti su; ei\ Pevtroß, kai; ejpi; tauvth/ th'/ pevtra/ oijkodomhvsw mou th;n ejkklhsivan,”(10) There are a couple more important words to focus on here: Taute and kai. Taute(tauvth/) means “this, that, the same.”(11) Kai (kai) is the Greek word for “and”(12) When this Greek pronoun, taute, is used along with the Greek word for "and", which is 'kai', the pronoun is referring to the previous noun. Basically what this means is that the passage would read like this, "you are Petros (Rock) kai (and – also means ‘indeed’) upon taute (this – also means ‘the same’) petra…". In English: “You are Peter(Rock) and(indeed) upon this very(the same) rock I will build my Church.” So, we can see that in the Greek, Peter is the same rock that the Church is to be built upon. If Jesus truly meant for the rock upon which the Church built to be something or someone other than Peter, he could've used the word “alla” which more closely means “but or nevertheless”(13). By this Jesus could've avoided the connection between Peter and the “rock”, but He doesn't do this. If this isn't convincing enough, then we could take this further. Consider the fact that Greek was not the common language spoken by Jesus and His followers. They, as did all the Palestinian Jews at the time, spoke Aramaic. An example of this is evidenced in Mark 15:34 [color=blue]"And at three o'clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice, 'Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?' which is translated, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'"[/color] And Mark 5:41 [color=blue]“He took the child by the hand and said to her, "Talitha koum," which means, "Little girl, I say to you, arise!”[/color] This discourse that took place between Jesus and Peter in Matthew 16 is also in the Aramaic language. Strong evidence for this is in the word “Bariwna'ß”. This word means “Barjona = “son of Jonah”. This is an Aramaic word.(14) This gives us good reason to believe that Jesus was indeed speaking in Aramaic during this discourse. In Aramaic the name Jesus gives Peter is "Kephas". "Kephas" simply means “stone” without reference to size(15) and there are no gender differences in Aramaic. How do we know that this is the word Jesus meant to use? John 1:42 says [color=blue]"Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, 'You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas'"[/color] (which is translated Peter)." (see also 1 Corinthians 1:12, 1 Corinthians 3:22, 1 Corinthians 9:5, 1 Corinthians 15:5, Galatians 2:9, 11, 14). He clearly gave Peter the name of "Kephas". So the passage should read “you are ‘rock’ and upon this ‘rock’ I will build my Church”. No contrast here. I would like to summarize this section by select quotes by Gerhard Kittel's theological dictionary, analyzing the Greek text of Matthew 16:18: “The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text as well suggests a material identity between petra and Petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and Petros: petra = kepha =Petros. . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . .” (16) Dr. Oscar Cullman’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: “The Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between p tra [petra] and P tros; P tros = p tra. . . . 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.”(17) Protestant Greek scholar Marvin Vincent: “The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter’s confession, but to Peter himself, . . . The reference of petra to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: “On this rock will I build.” Again, Christ is the great foundation, the chief cornerstone, but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ’s church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Peter 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and in ver. 5, addresses the church as living stones.” (18) Protestant scholar W.F. Albright: “This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. . . . Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose. In view of the background of vs. 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this Pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence” (cp. Gal 2:11 ff.).”(19) and David Hill, a Presbyterian minister at the University of Sheffield: “It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. . . . Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g. his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (20) Matt. 16:19 says [color=blue]“I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”[/color] Here is where Jesus promises to give Peter the earthly authority to guide the Church. The keys that Jesus gives Peter are very important. This part of the passage is drawn from Isaiah 22:22 [color=blue]“I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family.”[/color] These keys are a symbol of authority. The one who held these keys was the Prime Minister, so to speak, of the kingdom. This position existed all throughout the kingdom of David. It was passed on from one man to another, as is seen in Isaiah 22:19-21 [color=blue]“I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station. On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.”[/color] Jesus parallels this passage from Isaiah, He gives the keys of authority to Peter. Jesus means for this office to be passed on from one man to another just as the position in Isaiah was. This significance of the keys is shown again in Revelation 3:7. This discourse with Peter is a promise, Jesus promises to give this authority to Peter at some other time. We remember that Peter denied Jesus three times, this is recorded in John 18:15-18, 25-27, [color=blue]"Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus. Now the other disciple was known to the high priest, and he entered the courtyard of the high priest with Jesus. But Peter stood at the gate outside. So the other disciple, the acquaintance of the high priest, went out and spoke to the gatekeeper and brought Peter in. Then the maid who was the gatekeeper said to Peter, 'You are not one of this man's disciples, are you?' He said, 'I am not.' Now the slaves and the guards were standing around a charcoal fire that they had made, because it was cold, and were warming themselves. Peter was also standing there keeping warm. . . . Now Simon Peter was standing there keeping warm. And they said to him, 'You are not one of his disciples, are you?' He denied it and said, 'I am not.' One of the slaves of the high priest, a relative of the one whose ear Peter had cut off, said, 'Didn't I see you in the garden with him?' Again Peter denied it. And immediately the rooster crowed."[/color] Keep this in mind. John 21:15-17 is where the actual delegation of power takes place. [color=blue]"'When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' He said to him, 'Feed my lambs.' He then said to him a second time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' He said to him, 'Tend my sheep.' He said to him the third time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, 'Do you love me?' and he said to him, 'Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.' (Jesus) said to him, 'Feed my sheep.'"[/color] Here they are surrounding a fire, just as Peter did in the courtyard(see John 18:18). In this passage Jesus asks Peter three times the same question, "do you love me". Jesus asks Peter this question three times just as Peter denied Jesus three times. Jesus is forgiving Peter for each time he denied Jesus. After each question, "do you love me", Jesus gives Peter a task, "Feed my lambs . . . Tend my sheep . . . Feed my sheep". This is where Jesus fulfills His promise to make Peter the leader of the Church on earth. He's not giving the Church to Peter, but simply telling him to feed her, to nourish her, to tend to her while He is away. It is here that Jesus gives Peter the authority to guide the Church while He is away. Now we go to the book of Acts where the real action takes place. It is here that we see Peter take on his role and play it out to it's fullest. First, in Acts 1:15-26 Peter oversees the election of the apostle who would replace Judas(who is dead at this point from suicide), gives the first sermon after Pentecost in Acts 2:14, receives the first converts to Christianity in Acts 2:41, performs the first miracle in Acts 3:6-7, inflicts the first punishment in Acts 5:1-11 and excommunicates the first person Simon the magician in Acts 8:21. He is also the first to bring a person back to life in Acts 9:36-41. Clearly, Peter has taken on the role of leader in the early Church. But one event that I really want to talk about is in Acts 10:9-16, [color=blue]"The next day, while they were on their way and nearing the city, Peter went up to the roof terrace to pray at about noontime. He was hungry and wished to eat, and while they were making preparations he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something resembling a large sheet coming down, lowered to the ground by its four corners. In it were all the earth's four-legged animals and reptiles and the birds of the sky. A voice said to him, 'Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat.' But Peter said, 'Certainly not, sir. For never have I eaten anything profane and unclean.' The voice spoke to him again, a second time, 'What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.' This happened three times, and then the object was taken up into the sky." [/color]Here Peter receives a dream. In this dream Peter is asked to eat what is considered to be "unclean" to the Jewish faith. So, Peter says that he would not eat it as it is unclean. The vision tells him "what God has made clean, you are not to call profane". This happens three times and Peter does not know what it means. After this dream Peter meets and talks with a gentile man named Cornelius. In Acts 10:27-28 it says [color=blue]"While he conversed with him, he went in and found many people gathered together and said to them, 'You know that it is unlawful for a Jewish man to associate with, or visit, a Gentile, but God has shown me that I should not call any person profane or unclean."[/color] In this passage Peter makes known what was revealed to him in his dream. In his dream, Peter was given a revelation that know one else was given. Peter was told that we are not to call any person "unclean". He goes on in Acts 10:34-35 to proclaim aloud the revelation that was given to him, [color=blue]"Then Peter proceeded to speak and said, 'In truth, I see that God shows no partiality. Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to him."[/color] Then in verses 46-48 he enforces this by inviting all, not only the Jewish people, to be baptized, [color=blue]"Then Peter responded, 'Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?' He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."[/color] What takes place in all this is the same thing that happens with the Pope. The Holy Spirit reveals some truth to the Pope and the Pope declares it to all the Church. The last thing I want to talk about is Acts 15. In this chapter there is much disagreement over whether or not the gentile Christians are required to follow the Mosaic law just as the Jews had to. Some people said that they had to be circumcised, [color=blue]"But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, 'It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic law.'"[/color] (Acts 15:5). Others disagreed. So the leaders of the Church got together and discussed this issue, [color=blue]"The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter."[/color] (Verse 6). There was much debate among them until Peter spoke. When he spoke all fell silent and listened, [color=blue]"After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, 'My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.' The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.'"[/color](verses 7-12). Then James delivered the closing statement. But it was when Peter spoke that the people gathered there fell silent. Before he spoke, there was much debate, this ended when he spoke up. This was the first Church council, the Council of Jerusalem and it was presided over by the first Pope, St. Peter. It is evident from Scripture Jesus intended for there to be this office of the Papacy, the office of leadership in the New Covenant Church. It's also clear that Peter, from the very birth of the Church, exercised his authority to it's fullest extent. Here are a couple more things I would like to add as I finish up this discussion. Peter is always listed at the head of the apostles(Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) while Judas is listed last. I don't think that's a coincidence. The apostles are sometimes referred to as "Peter and his companions" or "Peter and the other apostles"(Luke 9:32, Mark 16:7, Acts 2:37). This shows that Peter is clearly the head of the apostles. Next, Peter's name is mentioned 191 times in Scripture. This is more than all the other apostles combined. Again, no coincidence. In short, we know that God established an earthly position of authority over His Church on earth. This was demonstrated by showing the primacy given by God to Abraham, the authority given by Him to Moses and the Pharisees. We saw the significance of the name-change of Simon, to Peter. We compared this to the name-change of Abram to Abraham(also Jacob). We saw that when God changed their names their position changed. Abraham became the father all of Judaism, and Israel became the father of the twelve tribes of Israel. Likewise, we made the connection that Peter was given by Jesus the position of authority over God’s Church of the New Covenant, the Christian Church. We examined how Peter took on His role in the book of Acts as he presided over the councils and received visions of doctrine from God. Through this it is my hope that the case for Peter’s primacy and the office of the Papacy has been made more clear and convincing. ________________________________________________________________________ 1. [Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996), 507; D.A. Carson, "Matthew," in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), vol. 8, 368.]. 2. --Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90. 3. --Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355. 4. --Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 356 5. --James B. Shelton, letter to authors, 21 October 1994, 1. 6. –Cullman, “Petros”, Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968) 7. --Calvin's New Testament Commentaries--The Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 2, trans. T. H. L. Parker, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 188. 8. –D.A. Carson, The Expositer's Bible Commentary on Matthew. volume 8 9. Crosswalk KJV lexicon – “lithos” [url="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3037&version=kjv"]http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/...037&version=kjv[/url] 10. – Crosswalk KJV interlinear bible - [url="http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBible/bible.cgi?word=Matthew+16%3A18§ion=0&version=kjv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=mt&NavGo=16&NavCurrentChapter=16"]http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBibl...rrentChapter=16[/url] 11. -- Crosswalk KJV Lexicon – “taute” [url="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5026&version=kjv"]http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/...026&version=kjv[/url] 12. Crosswalk KJV Lexicon – “kai” [url="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2532&version=kjv"]http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/...532&version=kjv[/url] 13. Crosswalk KJV Lexicon – “alla” [url="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=235&version=kjv"]http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/...235&version=kjv[/url] 14. Crosswalk KJV Lexicon – “bariwna'ß” [url="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=920&version=kjv"]http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/...920&version=kjv[/url] 15. Crosswalk KJV Lexicon – “kephas” 16. Gerhard Kittel, (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol 6, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968, p.108) 17. -- Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968), 6:98, 108. 18. -- Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946 (orig. 1887)), 4 vols., vol. 1, 91-92. 19. -- W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1971), 195. 20. – David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 261. Edited August 6, 2005 by goldenchild17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted August 6, 2005 Author Share Posted August 6, 2005 I also have this little bit to add, but I can't decide on the best place in the paper to put it. Read it and let me know, maybe read the last paragraph of the whole paper(post above this one) and see if that gives a clue for the best place to add this section. Much thanks again. ________________________________________________________ I would like to start by examining a bit the importance of name-changing in Scripture and by presenting the fact that God meant for a man, or men, to be in a position of leadership over His Church. There are a number of examples in Scripture of name-changing by God. There’s Jacob, who’s name was changed to Israel(via an angel). He became the father of the twelve tribes of Israel. Then, we have the prime Old Testament example: Abraham. Genesis 17:1-5 [color=blue]“When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said: ‘I am God the Almighty. Walk in my presence and be blameless. Between you and me I will establish my covenant, and I will multiply you exceedingly.’ When Abram prostrated himself, God continued to speak to him: ‘My covenant with you is this: you are to become the father of a host of nations. No longer shall you be called Abram; your name shall be Abraham, for I am making you the father of a host of nations.’”[/color] This covenant is one of the major events in the unfolding of Christianity. God here tells Abram that He would establish His covenant with Abram. He then goes and tells Abram that no longer would be called Abram, but Abraham. Abraham means literally "father of a multitude" or "chief of multitude". This is a definite upgrade from Abram which means "exalted father." God made His covenant with Abraham, the “father of a multitude” and gave him a proper name to match. Abraham became the father in faith to the Jewish people. [color=blue]“. . . Look to the rock from which you were hewn, to the pit from which you were quarried; Look to Abraham, your father, and to Sarah, who gave you birth; When he was but one I called him, I blessed him and made him many.”[/color] (Psalms 51:1-2) When God set up His covenant with Abram and gave Abram his new name(Abraham) he made Abraham the earthly leader of the Jewish people, the [color=blue]“rock from which they were hewn.” [/color] When Abraham passed away he passed on his position of leadership. We know this because we know that Moses eventually became an authority figure as well. It was he that God chose to lead His people out of Egypt and into the Promised Land. God always set in place men, sinful men, to guide His people. In the New Testament this authority fell into the hands of the scribes and the Pharisees. [color=blue]“Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.’”[/color] (Matt. 23:1-2). Here Jesus affirms their position of leadership by telling the people to listen to whatever they teach, because they sit “on the chair of Moses”( this verse also confirms that Moses also had a position of authority). He tells them not to practice as the scribes and Pharisees did, because their conduct was evil. However, this does not negate the fact that they had an ordained position of authority(the chair of Moses) and that, because of this, the people were required to listen and obey their teaching. Now, in light of the fact that name-changing by God always takes on an important meaning and also of the fact that leadership of religion in the Old Testament(Abraham and Moses etc.) and New Testament(scribes and Pharisees), we can now go to John 1:42: [color=blue]“Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas’ (which is translated Peter)”[/color]. Here Jesus explicitly changes Peter’s name from Simon, to Peter(Rock). The importance of this change is fulfilled in Matt. 16 where Jesus promises to build His Church upon the “Rock”, Peter. We discovered above that it was a common theme for God to put a man in a position of leadership over His Church. So it is a reasonable conclusion to see that Jesus changed the name of Simon to Kephas(Peter) so that He might one day be able to build His Church upon the “Rock”(Kephas – Peter). Finally, just as the position of authority in the Old Testament was to last as long as the Old Covenant did(the seat of Moses), so to is the position of authority in the New Covenant(the seat of Peter, the Papacy) to last as long as the New Covenat does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cure of Ars Posted August 6, 2005 Share Posted August 6, 2005 (edited) I like the argument with Jonah. I knew that Jonah was in reference to Jesus but I had not thought about it within the context of David and Solomon. You could use Luke 22:29-30 to give more support to this interpretation. If you use this in an online debates make sure you break it down into small parts because most people will not read the entire thing if you give it all at once. Just my two cents. Edited August 6, 2005 by Cure of Ars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted August 7, 2005 Author Share Posted August 7, 2005 Thanks Cure. While I'm waiting for help with that last section(where I should put it) I will post some more papers to open them up for editing suggestions. ____________ Psalms 127:3-5 [color=blue] “Children too are a gift from the LORD, the fruit of the womb, a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children born in one's youth. Blessed are they whose quivers are full. They will never be shamed contending with foes at the gate.” [/color] The issue of abortion is one that has plagued our world for many years now. The Roman Catholic Church has always stood completely against this heinous practice. Many people, even those who condemn abortion, believe that the Bible is silent on this issue. I would like to approach this and examine whether or not abortion is addressed in Scripture. Some promoters of abortion believe that conception is not the beginning of the life of a human being. What is conception? The Bible views it as the start of something. Conception and birth are paired together multiple times. Examples: Genesis 4:1 [color=blue] “The man had relations with his wife Eve, and she [b]conceived and bore[/b] Cain, saying, ‘I have produced a man with the help of the LORD.’" [/color] Genesis 29:32 [color=blue] “Leah [b]conceived and bore[/b] a son, and she named him Reuben; for she said, "It means, 'The LORD saw my misery; now my husband will love me.'" [/color] Genesis 38:3-4 [color=blue] “She [b]conceived and bore[/b] a son, whom she named Er. Again she conceived and bore a son, whom she named Onan.” [/color] Those are just three passages that speak about this action of conceiving and bearing. There are many more passages just like it, but what do they signify? The first thing we see is that conceiving is considered the first action, the beginning of the process of making a human being. This is reinforced by Hosea 9:11 which says [color=blue] “The glory of Ephraim flies away like a bird: [b]no birth, no carrying in the womb, no conception[/b]. Were they to bear children, I would slay the darlings of their womb.” [/color] No birth, no carrying in the womb, no conception. This is kind of a backwards way of looking at it, but we see that conception is the first thing that occurs in the biological creation of people. The second thing we notice in the passages that speak about conceiving and bearing is that it is spoken about as one action. Both conceiving and bearing a child seem to be as one. So, it seems to me that the people who make a distinction between killing a baby inside the womb and killing the baby outside of the womb are mistaken. They believe that conception is not really of the same process as birth. To them, it is okay to kill a human being inside the mother because the baby is not yet a human being. Yet in the Scriptures we see that Eve “conceived” Cain, Leah and the other woman “conceived” sons. They didn’t conceive the potential of a son. No they conceived the real thing, the real flesh, blood and soul of their sons. It is interesting that in Scripture, the same Hebrew words are used to describe both the children still in the womb and humans that are born into the world. One example is the word “geber”. This word means “man, strong man, “warrior”, yet in Job 3:3 this same word is used to describe a “man-child” who was just conceived. Another word is “yeled” which means “child, son, boy, offspring, youth”. However, in Genesis 21:22-25(we’ll discuss this passage in a bit) this word is used to describe a child inside the womb. Finally, “brephos” is a Greek word that refers to a “an unborn child, embryo, a foetus, a new-born child, an infant, a babe”. This word is very explicit. It shows us that in the Greek an unborn child, an embryo, a fetus are the exact same as a new-born child, an infant, a baby! This shows us that the people believed the unborn child and the born child are the same. They used the same exact words to describe both types of children. There was no distinction among them. Why do we now try to separate the two? So we see that conception is viewed in Scripture as the beginning of life. Conception and birth are considered as one action. Cain was born. Cain was also conceived. You and I were born, you and I were also conceived, not a bundle of cells that would one day turn into a human. This is what we will explore now. Genesis 1:27 says that God created man in His image, [color=blue] “God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.” [/color] Genesis 3 relates the story of how Adam and Eve sinned. This sin has been passed down from person to person throughout all of time, Romans 5:12 [color=blue] “Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned.” [/color] We are all made in the image and likeness of God, and we have all inherited Adam’s sin. But when does this occur? At birth? Sometime later? Or could it be that it happens at conception? I propose the latter option. We know that Seth, Adam’s son, was begotten in the image and likeness of God, Genesis 5:1-3 [color=blue] “This is the record of the descendants of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God; he created them male and female. When they were created, he blessed them and named them ‘man.’ Adam was one hundred and thirty years old when he [b]begot[/b] a son in his likeness, after his image; and he named him Seth.” [/color] God only directly created one person out of nothing. That was Adam. He took a rib from Adam and made Eve. Yet He forms each and every one of us at conception. It is at conception that we have received our DNA, or the genetic make-up which determines who we are(not who we will become). Nothing new is created in us from nothing after conception. Conception is the beginning of our growth. It is logical to assume that this is when we received the image and likeness of God as well. Otherwise, when would we receive it? Regarding our sinful nature Scripture tells us that we receive it at conception, and that we are sinners while still inside the womb. Psalms 51:7 [color=blue] “True, I was born guilty, a sinner, even as my mother conceived me.” [/color] Psalms 58:4 [color=blue] “The wicked have been corrupt since birth; liars from the womb, they have gone astray.” [/color] If we are just a bundle of cells, then how are we “sinful” or “corrupt”? How can a non-person have a moral nature? This is very strong evidence that the fetus is indeed a human person, just like the rest of us and deserves the same protection from the law which prohibits murder. If we have received the image and likeness of God from our parents, when did this occur? Logically it began when we began, that is to say, when we were conceived. After all, Scripture tells us that the soul of a man is what keeps him alive. Without the soul, the flesh cannot live. At the creation of man, God breathed life into the physical body, Genesis 2:7 [color=blue] “the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being.” [/color] This breath of life is the soul. Without it the physical body cannot live and grow, James 2:26 [color=blue] “For just as a body without a spirit is dead . . . ” [/color] and Job 34:14-15 [color=blue] “If he were to take back his spirit to himself, withdraw to himself his breath, All flesh would perish together, and man would return to the dust.” [/color] We know that the fetus is alive and growing and that it has a separate DNA chain than it’s mother. This much is obvious regardless of whether or not you believe that it is a human being. But, yet, James and Job here tells us that the body cannot live if it does not have a soul. What does this tell us? It means that if the fetus is alive, then he/she must also have a soul! God makes man in His image and likeness. He gives us our spiritual nature right from the very beginning. How much more human can we get? Both our moral nature and our sinful nature are there present along with our physical nature. This constitutes our whole being. The fetus growing inside the womb of the mother is a growing human person! Although God created only one man(Adam) out of absolutely nothing, He is nevertheless deeply involved in the making of each and every one of us. When a woman conceives a child it is God’s will. Genesis 21:1-2 [color=blue] “The LORD took note of Sarah as he had said he would; he did for her as he had promised. Sarah became pregnant and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time that God had stated.” [/color] Genesis 29:31 [color=blue] “When the LORD saw that Leah was unloved, he made her fruitful, while Rachel remained barren.” [/color] Genesis 30:22-24 [color=blue] “Then God remembered Rachel; he heard her prayer and made her fruitful. She conceived and bore a son, and she said, ‘God has removed my disgrace.’ So she named him Joseph, meaning, ‘May the LORD add another son to this one for me!’” [/color] Job 31:15 [color=blue] “Did not he who made me in the womb make him? Did not the same One fashion us before our birth?” [/color] Psalms 139:13-16 [color=blue] “You formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother's womb. I praise you, so wonderfully you made me; wonderful are your works! My very self you knew; my bones were not hidden from you, When I was being made in secret, fashioned as in the depths of the earth. Your eyes foresaw my actions; in your book all are written down; my days were shaped, before one came to be.” [/color] Jeremiah 1:4-5 [color=blue] “The word of the LORD came to me thus: Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you.” [/color] These are a few of several passages which speak of how God is personally involved in the conception of children. The part in the Genesis 30 passage which is bolded is important. Rachel acknowledges that it is the Lord that has given her a child. We must also realize that when a pregnancy occurs, it is because God wills it. Why would we go against God’s will and destroy the child He has given? Galatians 1:15 [color=blue] “But when (God), who from my mother's womb had set me apart and called me through his grace . . .” [/color] This passage in Galatians, as well as the passages cited above from Psalms and Jeremiah, shows us how important God views the unborn child to be. Our time in the womb is a crucial step in our development. God has set us apart, from the womb, and it is then that God has given us our mission in life. While in the womb, we are not simply a collection of cells. No! We are God’s children set apart for the mission to which He has called us. Look at the passages in Psalms and Jeremiah again. See how the authors spoke of themselves in the womb with personal pronouns: “Did not he who made [b]me[/b] in the womb . . .” “You formed [b]my[/b] inmost being; you knit [b]me[/b] in [b]my[/b] mother's womb . . .”. They saw themselves in the womb as themselves! They did not see themselves as inanimate cells. They realized that it was really them inside the womb, the same person that they are as adults. In Scripture, conception and child-birth are considered a great blessing and honor. It is not a curse, or a problem that needs to be fixed. Children are a blessing from God. Genesis 1:22 [color=blue] “and God blessed them, saying, ‘Be fertile, multiply, and fill the water of the seas; and let the birds multiply on the earth.’" [/color] Genesis 49:25-26 [color=blue] “The God of your father, who helps you, God Almighty, who blesses you, With the blessings of the heavens above, the blessings of the abyss that crouches below, [b]The blessings of breasts and womb[/b], the blessings of fresh grain and blossoms, The blessings of the everlasting mountains, the delights of the eternal hills.” [/color] Deuteronomy 7:14 “[b]You will be blessed above all peoples; no man or woman among you shall be childless nor shall your livestock be barren.[/b]” Psalms 127:3-5 [color=blue] “Children too are a gift from the LORD, the fruit of the womb, a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children born in one's youth. Blessed are they whose quivers are full. They will never be shamed contending with foes at the gate.” [/color] God [b]blesses[/b] man with children. Yet, we destroy these blessings, millions of them. What does God think about the way we treat His gifts to us? How can we be such ungrateful people? Conversely, see how Scripture views the death of the unborn as a horrible curse. Hosea 9:9, 11-12, 14 [color=blue] “They have sunk to the depths of corruption, as in the days of Gibeah; He shall remember their iniquity and punish their sins . . . The glory of Ephraim flies away like a bird: no birth, no carrying in the womb, no conception. Were they to bear children, I would slay the darlings of their womb. Even though they bring up their children, I will make them childless, till not one is left. Woe to them when I turn away from them! . . . Give them, O LORD! give them what? Give them an unfruitful womb, and dry breasts!” [/color] Infertility was considered a curse. How much more cursed are the people who purposely kill the children that God has given to them? In closing I would like to take a look at Exodus 21:22-25 and then at some tough situations that many people believe would justify an abortion. Exodus 21:22-25 [color=blue] “When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, [b]so that she suffers a miscarriage[/b], but [b]no further[/b] injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as the woman's husband demands of him, and he shall pay in the presence of the judges. But if injury ensues, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” [/color] This translation does indeed seem to show a problem for the pro-life stance. The bolded parts are what I’d like to focus on. The passage seems to say that if the woman suffers a miscarriage (baby dies) but nothing more happens then the penalty would not be as serious. But if the mother dies then “life for life, eye for eye . . .”. However, this seems to be a bad translation of the passage. In the bolded part above it says that the woman suffers a miscarriage. The Hebrew word for “miscarriage” was “shakol”. This word, “shakol” is used only two chapters later in Exodus 23:26 [color=blue] “no woman in your land will be barren or miscarry; and I will give you a full span of life.” [/color] (sidenote: see the context of this verse. It is part of a blessing for worshipping God alone. Child conception is not a curse). The word “shakol”, Hebrew for “miscarriage” is used only two chapters later. Yet it is not used in Exodus 21:22. Instead, the word used here is “Yatsa’”. “Yatsa’ ” means “to go out, come out, exit, go forth”. With the word “shakol” used in the Hebrew language at the time to mean “miscarriage” it is highly unlikely that this passage is referring to the baby’s death. If it were, then the much more explicit “shakol” would’ve been used. Since the word “Yatsa’ ” is used in this passage, and since “Yatsa’ ” simply means “to go out . . .” it is quite possible that the passage is really speaking about a premature birth. If this is so, then the passage would make much more sense. If the baby does not die, then there is no need to enforce the law that requires “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life” because there is no death. The second part to address is the word “further”. The passage says “but no [b]further[/b] injury”. On the other hand, when you look up this passage in the original Hebrew language, it contains no word for further. See, there are three words in the Hebrew used for “further”. These words are “yowther”, “yacaph”, and “puwq”. Not one of them is used in Exodus 21:22-25. Making these observations it seems as if the passage would read more accurately as [color=blue] “When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, [b]so that she gives birth prematurely[/b], but [b]no[/b] injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as the woman's husband demands of him, and he shall pay in the presence of the judges. But if injury ensues, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” [/color] This makes much more sense. If someone hurts a woman and she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury(to the mother or the child), then there is only a fine. But if injury occurs(to the mother or the child) then the law is carried out that the oppressor must give “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life”. In this understanding we see that the passage is in no way speaking of the infant’s life as less important than that of the mother’s, and how fitting this is in context with the rest of Scripture. What about cases in which the child has a physical or mental handicap of some sort? Wouldn’t it be a merciful act to abort them, so they do not have to suffer the pain and humiliation of going through life? And besides it would be too hard on the economy to support them, so aborting them is the right decision… or is it? Exodus 4:11 [color=blue] “The LORD said to him, "Who gives one man speech and makes another deaf and dumb? Or who gives sight to one and makes another blind? Is it not I, the LORD?” [/color] As we saw earlier in this study, God is actively involved in our biological development. God makes those who are deaf and blind and dumb. Are they any less human because of this? Do they not still made in the image and likeness of God at conception? Are they not conceived with a sinful nature? Of course they are, and since this is so, they have a moral nature which gives them their personhood just like you and me. The Mosaic covenant directed that the handicapped be protected, and not slandered. Leviticus 19:14 [color=blue] “You shall not curse the deaf, or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but you shall fear your God. I am the LORD.” [/color] And those who do not do so are cursed, Ezekiel 34:2,4 [color=blue] “Thus says the Lord GOD: Woe to the shepherds of Israel . . . You did not strengthen the weak nor heal the sick nor bind up the injured. You did not bring back the strayed nor seek the lost, but you lorded it over them harshly and brutally.” [/color] Take our Lord Jesus Christ as a great example of how we should treat the handicapped. He took great pains to heal these people. In fact a great part of the gospels contains such stories of his miraculous healings. Matthew 11:4-5 [color=blue] “Jesus said to them in reply, ‘Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind regain their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the good news proclaimed to them’.” [/color] Various examples of Jesus healing the handicapped are found in John 5:1-9, Mark 2:1-12, John 9:1-7. These are just three of the many accounts of Jesus healing a handicapped person. Why does He do this? Matthew 14:14 [color=blue] “When he disembarked and saw the vast crowd, his heart was moved with pity for them, and he cured their sick.” [/color] It is because He is moved to do so. His heart was moved with pity for them. How exactly opposite this is to today’s culture in which such children are brutally destroyed because people do not want to take care of them. Christ came with these people in mind. He was anointed to help these children of His. Luke 4:16-21 [color=blue] “He came to Nazareth, where he had grown up, and went according to his custom into the synagogue on the sabbath day. He stood up to read and was handed a scroll of the prophet Isaiah. He unrolled the scroll and found the passage where it was written: ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord.’ Rolling up the scroll, he handed it back to the attendant and sat down, and the eyes of all in the synagogue looked intently at him. He said to them, ‘Today this scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing.’” [/color] Does a handicapped body part make us less of a person? Of course not. 1 Corinthians 12:21-25 [color=blue] “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I do not need you’, nor again the head to the feet, ‘I do not need you.’ Indeed, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are all the more necessary, and those parts of the body that we consider less honorable we surround with greater honor, and our less presentable parts are treated with greater propriety, whereas our more presentable parts do not need this. But God has so constructed the body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another.” [/color] Those parts of the body which may be less presentable because of a handicap are given all the more honor. These parts that seem useless are all the more necessary to us. Why then do we destroy whole persons because of these defective body parts? I could continue in giving example after example, but the point is made that Christ came to take care of the handicapped. He did not see these children as a burden, but as a blessing. We must see this too. Instead of destroying them in the most horrific ways when we think they are too much trouble, we must care for them, just as Christ did, and still does. How about the poor? Don’t families who are too poor to raise children have a right to abort a child who would just be another hungry mouth to feed? No. Even this is no exception. Again, there are ample amounts of Scripture to answer this. Matthew 25:31-46 gives us the strongest language in describing our relationship with the poor. This passage speaks of how we are to be judged based on how we treat the poor: do we feed them or give them drink? If we treat them well we will be saved, if not we are damned. For [color=blue] “what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.” [/color] (Matt. 25:45). What will happen to people who advocate killing babies of poor families? Could we not instead encourage the poor family to have their child, and then provide them with enough food and water to survive? Could we not do this and have God look favorable upon us at the judgment? This seems to be a far better option. There are many other aspects that we could look at that would further strengthen the Biblical support that abortion is wrong. Maybe one day I will go into this further. I hope that one will read this with an open mind towards life and know that the commandment, [color=blue] "You shall not kill.” [/color] (Exodus 20:13) refers to all living human beings, whether outside the womb, or inside. The infants inside their mother’s are people with a soul and with a moral and sinful nature just like you and me. Amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted August 7, 2005 Author Share Posted August 7, 2005 And then this one... __________________ [b][color=red]Biblical Support for Christ in the Eucharist[/color][/b] The Roman Catholic Church believes that Jesus Christ is present body, blood, soul and divinity in what appear to be bread and wine. This is called the Holy Eucharist. This page will examine a little deeper the Biblical support for such a teaching. [color=red][b]Signs of Christ in the Old Testament [/b][/color] The first thing that we want to do is go back to the Old Testament. The Old Testament gives a few different examples that lead us into understanding the doctrine of the Eucharist. First, in the very beginning of Scripture we see the tree of life, Genesis 2:9 [color=blue]“Out of the ground the LORD God made various trees grow that were delightful to look at and good for food, with the tree of life in the middle”[/color] Adam and Eve were allowed to eat of the fruit of the tree of life. However, when they disobeyed God, this privilege was taken from them and they were separated from the tree of life, Genesis 3:24 [color=blue]“When he expelled the man, he settled him east of the garden of Eden; and he stationed the cherubim and the fiery revolving sword, to guard the way to the tree of life.”[/color] Man could no longer eat from the fruit of the tree of life. Man could no longer live forever, man would eventually die. Now let’s jump ahead a little ways. Regarding the Passover, Exodus 12:5-8 says [color=blue]“The lamb must be a year-old male and without blemish. You may take it from either the sheep or the goats. You shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, and then, with the whole assembly of Israel present, it shall be slaughtered during the evening twilight. They shall take some of its blood and apply it to the two doorposts and the lintel of every house in which they partake of the lamb. That same night they shall eat its roasted flesh with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.”[/color] At Passover, the Israelites in Egypt had to take a lamb, a lamb without blemish. This lamb had to be killed. This lamb’s blood must be applied to the doorposts. This lamb had to be eaten. Every single one of these things had to take place if the Israelites wanted the angel of death to pass over their houses, thereby saving all the firstborn sons from death. Later, we find the Israelites out of Egypt and in the desert. They are angry with Moses because they have no food to eat. The Lord then said that He would give them what they needed, Exodus 16:12 [color=blue]“‘I have heard the grumbling of the Israelites. Tell them: In the evening twilight you shall eat flesh, and in the morning you shall have your fill of bread, so that you may know that I, the LORD, am your God.’” The Israelites called this bread “manna” and lived on it, as well as the meat, for forty years(Exodus 16:35)."[/color] Also, in Genesis 14:18 it says [color=blue]“Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine, and being a priest of God Most High . . .”[/color]. The bread and wine used by Melchizedek prefigures, symbolizes, the bread and wine that Christ will later use at the Last Supper to institute the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Christ Himself is [color=blue]“. . . high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”[/color] (Hebrews 6:20). Remember all of this as they will connect once we get to the New Testament. [color=red][b]Jesus is Our Paschal Lamb[/b][/color] In 1 Corinthians 5:7 it says “[color=blue]Clear out the old yeast, so that you may become a fresh batch of dough, inasmuch as you are unleavened. For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed.”[/color] Jesus Christ is our Paschal Lamb who has been sacrificed for us. Constantly Jesus is referred to as the “Lamb of God” or as a “Lamb”(see John 1:29, John 1:36, 1 Peter 1:19). Jesus, the Lamb of God, was without blemish, 1 Peter 1:19 [color=blue]“but with the precious blood of Christ as of a spotless unblemished lamb.”[/color] just as the lamb of the Old Testament Passover. Jesus, the Lamb of God, had to be killed and was, brutally on the Cross. And finally Jesus, the Lamb of God, has to be eaten or else we cannot have eternal life, John 6:53 [color=blue]“Jesus said to them, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.’”[/color] All of these have to happen to Jesus, our Lamb of God, if we want to live forever. This is just as it was with the paschal lamb at the time of the Passover. And interestingly enough, the sacrifice and eating of the Paschal Lamb of God took place at the exact same time as the Passover feast, Luke 22:7-8 [color=blue]“When the day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread arrived, the day for sacrificing the Passover lamb, he sent out Peter and John, instructing them, ‘Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover.’”[/color] This is our first serious encounter with the Biblical context for the doctrine of the Eucharist. Christ is our unblemished Paschal Lamb. Christ had to be killed in order for us to be saved. Christ’s Blood had to be shed. Christ’s Flesh and Blood has to be EATEN. All of this has to take place if we want to have eternal life. When Christ, our Paschal Lamb, was sacrificed upon the cross, we were again given access to the Tree of Life. This Tree of Life was Christ, upon the Cross. We are directed to eat from it, just as Adam and Eve ate from their tree of life. [color=red][b]Preparation for the Eucharistic Discourse[/b][/color] In John 6 we see that Jesus first performs two miracles. John 6: 11-13 says [color=blue]“Then Jesus took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed them to those who were reclining, and also as much of the fish as they wanted. When they had had their fill, he said to his disciples, ‘Gather the fragments left over, so that nothing will be wasted.’ So they collected them, and filled twelve wicker baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves that had been more than they could eat.”[/color] Here Jesus takes a little bit of fish and a little bread, and multiplies this into enough food to feed thousands of people! And there were twelve baskets full left over! Here Christ is giving us a preview of sorts, of what is to come, when He takes just a little bread and changes it into His Body and Blood for all His followers to eat [color=red][b]from[/b][/color]. There will be plenty left over. Enough for all believers of all time to partake of it. An important thing to note is the format that Jesus uses. He “took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed” the bread. This is the same format that He uses at the Last Supper. This miracle foreshadows the greatest miracle of Christ, in which He gives us to eat His own flesh and blood that was sacrificed for our sins. The second miracle that Jesus performs occurs in John 6:19 [color=blue]“When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the boat, and they began to be afraid.”[/color] He shows that even though He is indeed fully human just as we are, He is not bound by the limitations of the flesh. Through the miracles of the multiplication of the fish and bread, and of the calming of the storm Jesus is trying to build up the faith of His followers. Because He knew that what He was about to teach His disciples would be very difficult for them to accept. What was He going to say that would be so hard to believe? Hadn’t Christ done so much already, so many miracles and impossible things? Surely nothing would shock His disciples now. Right? [color=red][b]The Eucharistic Discourse[/b][/color] Now we go to John 6:32. This event takes place during the Passover(see John 6:4). This is important considering He is the Paschal Lamb who is to be sacrificed for all. The Scripture says [color=blue]“So Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.”[/color] What is the true bread from heaven? Verse 33 answers this question, [color=blue]“For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”[/color]Who is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world? Jesus Christ, our Tree of Life, our Paschal Lamb, Himself! His audience of course, is intrigued by such bread, bread that would give them eternal life, so they ask for it, [color=blue]“So they said to him, ‘Sir, give us this bread always.’”[/color](John 6:34). Jesus tells them, [color=blue]“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.”[/color](John 6:35). Jesus is claiming to be the bread of life. Christ is calling His followers to come to Him and believe. He is calling them to a greater faith than they could possibly imagine. His audience is starting to get the picture and are a little disturbed, [color=blue]“The Jews murmured about him because he said, ‘I am the bread that came down from heaven,’”[/color](John 6:41). Here is Jesus’ first opportunity to tell His audience that He wasn’t speaking literally when He said that He was “the bread of life”. This is His chance to correct them. What does He do? John 6:43, [color=blue]“Jesus answered and said to them, "Stop murmuring among yourselves.”[/color] He tells them to stop it. No correction, he tells them to be quiet. Very interesting if He indeed meant something other than what they understood. Now, it needs to be said that Jesus does mean this in a symbolic way. He is telling them that by coming to Him and believing in Him, they are eating and drinking from the Bread of Life, which He is. With these words Jesus is building up to something even greater. In verse 48 He reaffirms His earlier statements saying clearly [color=blue]“I am the bread of life.”[/color] Next He even insists that He is better than the manna that the Israelites received in the desert, [color=blue]“Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.”[/color](verses 49-50). We are all called to come to Jesus and believe in Him and so eat and drink of the Bread of Life. But the Jews are really struggling with this one. So, then Christ says [color=blue]“I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”[/color](John 6:51). Jesus takes it a step further this time. He again says that he is the living bread from heaven. But this time He tells them that they must EAT THIS BREAD. He tells them that this bread is HIS FLESH. The word used for ‘eat’ in Greek is ‘Phago’, which literally means, “to eat, or consume a meal”.([url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5315&version=kjv"]check definition here[/url]) How insane this must have sounded! Imagine a guy walking around telling us that we need to eat him if we want to go to heaven! Yet, Jesus is not just some guy. He is our God. Check out the response of His audience, in verse 52, [color=blue]“The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?’”[/color] Their response is nothing out of the ordinary. Who wouldn’t react strongly to such a statement? Their reaction gives Jesus a second chance to clarify to them what He means by all of this. What does He do? In verses 53-58 He responds with this, [color=blue]“Jesus said to them, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.’”[/color] Christ takes things one step further and uses yet a stronger word for ‘eat’. This word is ‘trogo’, which means to “to gnaw, crunch, chew”([url="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5176&version=kjv"]check definition here[/url]). This word, ‘trogo’ is never used symbolically outside of this verse. The only other places that this word occurs is in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18. Both of these verses refer to a literal eating and drinking. It is also important to see that Jesus is now referring to the bread as His ‘flesh’, not just his body, but his “flesh”. The Greek word used in these instances is ‘sarx’ which refers literally to the skin and muscle covering of a body([url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4561&version=kjv"]check definition here[/url]). Then He says that His flesh is meat ‘indeed’ and that His blood is drink ‘indeed’. The greek word used for ‘indeed’ is ‘alethos’ which means ‘truly, of a truth, in reality, most certainly’([url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=230&version=kjv"]check definition here[/url]). Jesus really meant for them to know that His body and blood were to truly become bread and wine which they were to eat. This is absolutely amazing. The Jewish audience of Jesus here must have been shell-shocked. What could they possibly think about such an idea? John 6:60 says [color=blue]“Then many of his disciples who were listening said, ‘This saying is hard; who can accept it?’”[/color] They are obviously having a very difficult time with this one. Jesus asks them, “[color=blue]Does this shock you?”[/color](verse 61). He says in verses 62-63, [color=blue]“What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?”[/color] Here he equates this teaching with His ascension. Something we must ask ourselves is this, is the ascension something that is literal or just symbolic? Clearly it is not symbolic, it really happened. And so to, did Christ really tell us that His flesh is the bread from heaven and that we must eat from it if we want a part in His heavenly kingdom. Many people think that Jesus is speaking symbolically in all of this because of verse 63, which says [color=blue]“It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”[/color] But to this I ask one question, was Jesus’ flesh of no avail? Of course not! It was His very flesh that redeemed us from our sins and made it possible for us to enter through the gates of heaven. Jesus is once again telling his followers that they really need to accept a supernatural faith in order to believe what He is telling them. No ordinary faith, which can be understood through natural means, can bring one to accept what He is now telling them. This is the last straw for some of Jesus’ disciples, [color=blue]“As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.”[/color](John 6:66). This is the ONLY place in Scripture that disciples are recorded leaving Jesus because of one of His teachings. Surely they must have made some sort of terrible mistake in their understanding of what Jesus was trying to tell them. Right? Well, it sure didn’t seem this way to Jesus, as verse 67 says, [color=blue]“Jesus then said to the Twelve, ‘Do you also want to leave?’”[/color]. Instead of trying to convince His disciples to stay, instead of trying to convince them that they are wrong in what they are taking away from this lesson, He asks His apostles if they also wish to leave. From Peter he finally receives the type of supernatural faith that he was looking for, [color=blue]“Simon Peter answered him, ‘Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.’"[/color](verses 68-69). [color=red][b]Why Didn't He Correct Them?[/b][/color] Jesus is given three opportunities to clear the air about His teaching here. Three times, and each time He instead reaffirms what they had thought. If Jesus really meant something other than what they understood then He should’ve, and would’ve, corrected them. Take John 8:31-34 as an example, [color=blue]“Jesus then said to those Jews who believed in him, ‘If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.’ They answered him, ‘We are descendants of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How can you say, ‘'You will become free?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin.’”[/color] In this passage the Jews believed that Jesus was speaking about a literal enslavement. Jesus corrects them telling them that He is speaking about enslavement to sin. Another good example is John 4:32:34 [color=blue]“But he said to them, ‘I have food to eat of which you do not know.’ So the disciples said to one another, ‘Could someone have brought him something to eat?’ Jesus said to them, ‘My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to finish his work.’”[/color] Here the disciples thought Jesus was speaking of real, physical food. Jesus corrects them saying that it is not physical food that He is talking about, but to do the will of His Father. I could share multiple examples of such misunderstandings being cleared up by Jesus. But the point is made that it is not characteristic of Jesus to let His audience go away confused about His teachings. What kind of teacher would He be if He just let his disciples leave Him because of a simple misunderstanding? Not a very good one, to say the least. Despite all of this, many people still believe that Jesus is only speaking figuratively when He tells us that we are to eat His flesh if we want to inherit eternal life. Besides the obvious contradiction to this, shown in all the above, there is another serious problem to deal with. In Hebrew, which is very closely related to Aramaic the language of Jesus, “eating the flesh” and “drinking the blood” already has a direct figurative meaning. Check out some of these passages and see what I’m talking about. Psalms 27:2, [color=blue]“When evildoers come at me to devour my flesh, These my enemies and foes themselves stumble and fall.”[/color] Isaiah 9:18-20, [color=blue]“At the wrath of the LORD of hosts the land quakes, and the people are like fuel for fire; No man spares his brother, each devours the flesh of his neighbor. Though they hack on the right, they are hungry; though they eat on the left, they are not filled. Manasseh devours Ephraim, and Ephraim Manasseh; together they turn on Judah. For all this, his wrath is not turned back, his hand is still outstretched!”[/color] Isaiah 49:26, [color=blue]“will make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with the juice of the grape. All mankind shall know that I, the LORD, am your savior, your redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.”[/color] [color=blue]Micah 3:3, “They eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from them, and break their bones. They chop them in pieces like flesh in a kettle, and like meat in a caldron.”[/color] 2 Samuel 23:15-17, [color=blue]“Now David had a strong craving and said, ‘Oh, that someone would give me a drink of water from the cistern that is by the gate of Bethlehem!’ So the Three warriors broke through the Philistine camp and drew water from the cistern that is by the gate of Bethlehem. But when they brought it to David he refused to drink it, and instead poured it out to the LORD, saying: ‘The LORD forbid that I do this! Can I drink the blood of these men who went at the risk of their lives?’ So he refused to drink it.”[/color] Revelation 17:6 [color=blue]“I saw that the woman was drunk on the blood of the holy ones and on the blood of the witnesses to Jesus. When I saw her I was greatly amazed.”[/color] Revelation 17:16 [color=blue]“The ten horns that you saw and the beast will hate the harlot; they will leave her desolate and naked; they will eat her flesh and consume her with fire.”[/color] In each and every one of these passages we see this idea of “eating the flesh” and “drinking the blood”. In every passage it’s used figuratively, because in the context of each passage never is someone’s flesh actually being eaten or the blood actually being drunk. We see from these passages that this figurative language “eat the flesh and drink the blood” actually means to persecute, assault and destroy the person. Now, in light of this meaning, we go back to Jesus speaking about us eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood. If Jesus is really and truly speaking figuratively, then what He is really saying is “persecute me, assault me, and destroy me, and I will give you eternal life . . . Amen, amen I say to you whosoever persecutes, assaults, and destroys me will live forever”. Is it just me or does this sound a little crazy? If Jesus were truly speaking figuratively, than I think we all would have a little thinking to do about whether or not we should be following this guy. Truly anyone can see that this is ridiculous. So, I think it should be obvious that Jesus could not have been speaking figuratively. [color=red][b]Jesus: The High Priest at the Last Supper[/b][/color] Okay, now let’s read the accounts recording when Christ turned the bread and wine into His Body and Blood. Matthew 26:26-28 [color=blue]“While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, ‘Take and eat; this is my body.’ Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.”[/color] Mark 14:22-24 [color=blue]“While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, ‘Take it; this is my body.’ Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many.’”[/color] Luke 22:19-20 [color=blue]“Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.’ And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.”[/color] These are the three gospel accounts of this monumental occasion. What does He say in each of them? “This(referring to the bread) is my body. Take it and eat.” And “This(referring to the wine) is my blood. Take it and drink from it.” All He is doing is repeating exactly what He said He was going to do in John 6. He promised, in John 6, that He would give His Flesh and Blood for us to eat and drink and that we must eat it(and drink it). An interesting note is that Jesus never calls the bread "bread", or the wine "wine". He says "This" without specifying what it is, until he refers to it as His body and blood. He never calls it bread or wine, He calls it His body and blood. Jesus Christ is the High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek(Hebrews 6:20). In the time of Melchizedek, there were no animal sacrifices. The practice of animal sacrifice was not instituted until the followers of Moses built the golden calf. It was then that God ordered them to sacrifice the very animals that they had been worshipping(Exodus 20). But before this, the ideal sacrifice was bread and wine. The name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness.” Melchizedek was the king of Salem. Psalm 76:2 tells us that Salem would later become Jerusalem, or the City of Peace. Jesus is the true King of righteousness and is the true High Priest who restored the covenant of grace with His people. This covenant of Grace took the place of the law which had been in effect since the time when Moses’ followers had disobeyed God and worshipped a golden calf. Christ is the perfect, blameless High Priest who restored the priesthood to the way that it was before the institution of the law. (Hebrews 17:18-28). So, just as Melchizedek offered bread and wine as a pure and holy sacrifice, also Jesus offers Himself, the Paschal Lamb, the Living Manna, the Tree of Life through the pure and holy offering of bread and wine. The next thing we should note is that Jesus says His Body and Blood in the Eucharist is the same Body and Blood that was sacrificed on the Cross!(Matt. 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20). Opponents of this teaching of the Eucharist run into a bit of a problem here. Some say that Jesus is only speaking symbolically when He says that the bread and wine are His body and blood. However, here Jesus is saying that this bread and wine(the appearance of them anyways) are the same as the Flesh and Blood that was sacrificed for us on the Cross! If one wants to say that the bread and wine are only symbolically His Body and Blood, then that’s fine but they would also have to admit that the Body and Blood that was sacrificed for us was only symbolic, that Jesus’ sacrifice for us on the Cross was only symbolic. And frankly, to me that sounds like it’s pushing the limits of heresy. These accounts of the Last Supper take on a special meaning when we see that this is the very last testimony of Jesus Christ. This is the culmination of His gospel, and is certainly no time for confusing symbolic speech. This event of the Last Supper is the very last time that Christ was able to be with His disciples. He knew this, and He had something bigger in mind than just eating the Passover meal with them. With the Passover meal setting the scene, Christ is fulfilling His promise to them, the promise that He made in John 6. Christ is our Paschal Sacrifice who had to die for us, and whom we have to eat from in order to have eternal life. His whole ministry up until this moment pointed to this very event. God came to earth, in the person of Jesus Christ, in order to be our Sacrifice. He died so that we could have eternal life, and so that we could partake of His most precious body and blood in order to receive this salvation. [color=red][b]Other New Testament References[/b][/color] There is yet another witness to the institution of the Eucharist. St. Paul. St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 10:16 [color=blue]“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”[/color]. He’s telling us that when we receive the cup and break the bread, that we are really and truly participating in the Body and Blood of Christ. And in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 Paul relates the important events of the Last Supper, [color=blue]“For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’”[/color] Paul comments on this, saying, [color=blue]“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.”[/color](1 Corinthians 11:26-28) He says that we will “have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.” During Paul’s time this meant that a person is guilty of murder. Amazingly strong language if this bread and wine is only that, bread and wine. How can one “answer for the body and blood” (i.e. murder) if the body and blood AREN’T THERE? Can one murder a symbolic representation of someone? Could I be convicted of murder if I went out and destroyed a statue of an important person? No. I may be required to pay for the damage done to the statue. But if the Body and Blood are not present then one cannot “murder” them. If Jesus truly meant for the bread and wine to be a symbolic representation of the Body and Blood then St. Paul’s words would be incredibly insensible. After the Resurrection of our Lord, we find two of his disciples walking together on the road to Emmaus. Luke 24:13-14 “[color=blue]Now that very day two of them were going to a village seven miles from Jerusalem called Emmaus, and they were conversing about all the things that had occurred.”[/color] Then Jesus appeared to them, although they did not know that it was Him, [color=blue]“And it happened that while they were conversing and debating, Jesus himself drew near and walked with them, but their eyes were prevented from recognizing him.”[/color](verses 15-16) He walked along with them and talked with them about the events of the Crucifixion(verse 17). They were surprised that He did not know(verse 18-19). Then they tell Him all about what had happened(verses 20-27). Through this whole discussion they never discover that they are talking to the Lord Himself. As they approached Emmaus, they invited Him to stay for dinner(verses 28-29). Christ does so, and at the table He took bread, blessed the bread, broke the bread and gave it to them, just as He did at the Last Supper. At this point, their eyes are opened. They now know who is there with them. Jesus then disappeared, but they knew that it was Him with whom they had eaten. In verse 35 they tell the others what had occurred, [color=blue]“Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread.”[/color] They knew Jesus in the breaking of the bread. It was Jesus there with them, in person and in the bread. But it was only made known to them at the blessing and breaking of the bread. This is a significant testimony, showing us that they truly knew Jesus and saw him in the bread. [color=red][b]"Do You Also Wish to Go Away?"[/b][/color] From Genesis to Paul we see Christ in the Eucharist. From the paschal lamb of the Passover to the paschal lamb of our own Passover, we see Christ in the Eucharist. From the manna in the desert to the Bread of Life we see Christ in the Eucharist. The Scripture gives us signs of Christ in the Old Testament and then Christ shows us how He is the fulfillment of these signs. Christ said believing in this teaching of the Eucharist would be a very difficult one for his disciples to accept and that some would not be able to accept it(John 6:64). Which category are we going to fall in, those who didn’t believe because this teaching was too difficult for them to comprehend? Or will we follow Peter and know that Jesus has the words to eternal life, and know that whatever He teaches, no matter how difficult to grasp, is the teaching of a wise and loving Teacher? [color=blue]“Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."[/color] John 6:68-69 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted August 7, 2005 Share Posted August 7, 2005 i'll try to get to these as soon as i can, bro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted August 7, 2005 Author Share Posted August 7, 2005 Whenever you get a chance is fine. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't forgotten. I'd like to get started on my next papers and I don't want to do that until these are updated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 hey, just lettin u know i haven't forgotten about ya. i'll try to get to this today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted August 10, 2005 Author Share Posted August 10, 2005 thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted August 13, 2005 Share Posted August 13, 2005 [quote name='goldenchild17' date='Aug 6 2005, 01:05 AM']Alright, I've made changes to the whole thing and hopefully improved it a little. Let me know what ya'll think. I think I need more sources overall, but let me know.[/quote] well, you added more sources, which is good, but you didn't make the other changes that i suggested. so, pretty much what i advised about your earlier version applies to this new one as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now