Editing my papers

[phatcatholic]

colin...............as for your tract on the Eucharist, the only thing i would add to it are a few verses in support of what you are saying in this paragraph under the subheading "The Eucharistic Discource":
[quote]Many people think that Jesus is speaking symbolically in all of this because of verse 63, which says “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.” 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. [/quote]here are some more arguments that you can use to defend the premise that Jesus is referring to the need for supernatural faith over human wisdom (from a tract that i wrote):[list]it is often asserted here that, by saying that his words are spirit and life that he is meaning to clarify that he was only speaking symbolically. i find no merit in this claim. for one, nowhere in the bible is the word "spirit" meant to mean "symbol" and nowhere else is something said to be symbolic b/c it is spiritual. instead, what we find here is a comparison between the spirit and the flesh that is often used throughout the bible to mean one thing: human wisdom vs. supernatural faith. both Jesus and Paul use this terminology often to point out that we must go beyond the natural to comprehend the supernatural (cf. John 3:6; Mark 14:38; 1 Cor 2:14; 3:3; Rom 8:5; Gal 5:17).
[/list]you may wish to link to each one of those scripture citations (so the reader doesn't have to look them up on his own) or you can provide the verses w/in the tract.

other than that, just take out that word "from" that is in bold red, under the subheading "preparation for the eucharistic discource". i hilighted that back when i proofread ur tract a long time ago b/c it was a preposition at the end of a sentence.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Aug 12 2005, 11:57 PM']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.
[right][snapback]683781[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Which ones?

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Aug 12 2005, 11:57 PM']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. [/quote]
I thought I re-worked it all in that section... I worked out all the Greek first and then pointed out later the Aramaic. I do need to do the sub-headings and lines though. I'll fix that.

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Aug 12 2005, 11:57 PM']and i agree w/ Cure, provide one link to references of "petros" and one link to the references of "lithos."  [/quote]
That's done and when it's on the site they will link up to a separate page with the references.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Aug 13 2005, 12:16 AM']colin...............as for your tract on the Eucharist, the only thing i would add to it are a few verses in support of what you are saying in this paragraph under the subheading "The Eucharistic Discource":
here are some more arguments that you can use to defend the premise that Jesus is referring to the need for supernatural faith over human wisdom (from a tract that i wrote):[list]it is often asserted here that, by saying that his words are spirit and life that he is meaning to clarify that he was only speaking symbolically. i find no merit in this claim. for one, nowhere in the bible is the word "spirit" meant to mean "symbol" and nowhere else is something said to be symbolic b/c it is spiritual. instead, what we find here is a comparison between the spirit and the flesh that is often used throughout the bible to mean one thing: human wisdom vs. supernatural faith. both Jesus and Paul use this terminology often to point out that we must go beyond the natural to comprehend the supernatural (cf. John 3:6; Mark 14:38; 1 Cor 2:14; 3:3; Rom 8:5; Gal 5:17).

[/list]you may wish to link to each one of those scripture citations (so the reader doesn't have to look them up on his own) or you can provide the verses w/in the tract.

other than that, just take out that word "from" that is in bold red, under the subheading "preparation for the eucharistic discource". i hilighted that back when i proofread ur tract a long time ago b/c it was a preposition at the end of a sentence.

pax christi,
phatcatholic
[right][snapback]683786[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


K will do that.

[phatcatholic]

what's ur next tract gonna be about?

[goldenchild17]

My simple attempt at a case for Christianity...

[goldenchild17]

Okay final request: Where can I fit the following in to the paper to make the case, and without disrupting the rest of it?
______

I would like to examine 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.
[right][snapback]674802[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[phatcatholic]

hey, post the new tract on peter w/ all the changes and i think that will help me to see where this last section should fit in.

[goldenchild17]

With all of the changes so far. Note the final paragraph to see if it clues you in as to a good place to put it.
__________________________________________

[color=red][b]Introduction[/b][/color]

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.

[color=red][b]The Promise of the Papacy[/b][/color]

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).

[color=red][b]Son of Jonah[/b][/color]

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.

[b][color=red]Petra = Petros[/color][/b]

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).

[b][color=red]Koine Greek vs. Attic Greek[/color][/b]

(Preface note I: This section may be a little difficult to understand since we are dealing with the differences in ancient languages. In short, the words Petra and Petros in Scripture mean the same thing.)

(Preface note II: Special Thanks to Phatcatholic @ Phatmass for insight and references on this section)

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.

In Koine Greek the words Petra and Petros are equal in meaning. It was only in Attic Greek(the form used before Koine came into being) that the words meant something different, and even then this difference occurred mainly in poetry.

To demonstrate this we first look to the ancient poet Heracles

"panta kinesai [b]petron[/b]" ..."Leave no [b]stone[/b] unturned"

"[b]Petrous[/b] epekulindoun" "They rolled down [b]stones[/b]."

The word Petros translates as stone, a small rock; just as opponents of the Papacy believe.

Another example of the word Petros meaning a small rock or stone in Attic Greek is Euripides in his work [i]Heracles[/i] (416 B.C.)

The Greek reads:
“autou genoimên [b]petros[/b] amnêmôn kakôn.”

In English it translates as:

“Ah! Would I could become a [b]stone[/b] upon this spot, oblivious of
trouble.”

So, Catholics will agree that in the ancient Attic Greek the word Petros does translate as "stone" as many Protestants claim.

However, the Protestant claim fails in it’s next conclusion. The argument goes that since Petros has a different meaning from Petra in the Attic Greek that this must also be the case in Koine Greek(the language the Bible was written in).

To show how this assumption fails this I will consider works comparable in time to that of the gospels(particularly Matthew's). I first offer a work by Flavius Josephus the Jewish Historian, [i]Antiquities of the Jews[/i], in Greek:

“tou de basileôs akousantos para tôn angelôn tauta kai dusphorountos
phaskontos hamartein autous tôi teichei prosbalontas, deon huponomois kai mêchanêmasin helein peirasthai tên polin, kai taut' echontas paradeigma ton Gedeônos huion Abimelechon, hos epei ton en Thêbais purgon helein ebouleto biai, blêtheis hupo presbutidos [b]petrôi[/b] katepese kai andreiotatos ôn dia to duscheres tês epibolês aischrôs apethanen:”

In English:

When the king had heard this of the messengers, he took it heinously,
and said that they did wrong when they assaulted the wall, whereas
they ought, by undermining and other stratagems of war, to endeavor the
taking of rite city, especially when they had before their eyes the example
of Abimelech, the son of Gideon, who would needs take the tower in
Thebes by force, and was killed by a [b]large stone[/b] thrown at him by an old
woman; and although he was a man of great prowess, he died
ignominiously by the dangerous manner of his assault:”

By this passage we see that Petros(Petroi) means “stone” or “large stone”.

To be consistent, we will stay with Josephus to see what Petra means in the Koine Greek.

Flavius Josephus [i]War of the Jews[/i] in Greek reads:

“skopoi oun autois epi tôn purgôn kathezomenoi proemênuon, hopote
schastheiê to organon kai hê [b]petra[/b] pheroito, têi patriôi glôssêi boôntes “ho huios erchetai.” diistanto de kath' hous êiei kai prokateklinonto, kai sunebaine phulattomenôn aprakton diekpiptein tên petran.”

In English it reads:

“accordingly the watchmen that sat upon the towers gave them notice
when the engine was let go, and the [b]stone[/b] came from it, and cried out aloud, in their own country language, THE STONE COMETH 1 so those that were in its way stood off, and threw themselves down upon the ground; by which means, and by their thus guarding themselves, the stone fell down and did them no harm.”

With the example of Josephus we see that petros and petra both mean the same thing in the Koine Greek.

[b][color=red]Peter or Petrina?[/color][/b]

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. Just as it would be inaccurate in the Spanish language of today to give a female name to a man, so to would it be inaccurate to do this in the Greek language of Scripture.

[b][color=red]More Comments on the Greek[/color][/b]

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(see above section on Koine vs. Attic Greek). 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. In Koine Greek the word most commonly used for small rock, or pebble, 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.

[b][color=red]Jesus Spoke Aramaic[/color][/b]

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'" (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). 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.

[b][color=red]Peter = Rock[/color][/b]

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)

[b][color=red]The Keys of the Kingdom[/color][/b]

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.

[b][color=red]The Promise of Mt. 16:18 is Fulfilled[/color][/b]

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.

[b][color=red]Peter Takes Charge[/color][/b]

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.

[b][color=red]Interesting Notes[/color][/b]

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.

[b][color=red]Conclusion[/color][/b]

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.
________________________________________________________________________

[b]References:[/b]

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/...037&version=kjv"]http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/...037&version=kjv[/url]

10. – Crosswalk KJV interlinear bible - [url="http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBibl...rrentChapter=16"]http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBibl...rrentChapter=16[/url]

11. -- Crosswalk KJV Lexicon – “taute” [url="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/...026&version=kjv"]http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/...026&version=kjv[/url]

12. Crosswalk KJV Lexicon – “kai” [url="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/...532&version=kjv"]http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/...532&version=kjv[/url]

13. Crosswalk KJV Lexicon – “alla” [url="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/...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/...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 13, 2005 by goldenchild17

[goldenchild17]

bump

[phatcatholic]

colin..................in the sequence of events, Jesus calls him "son of Jonah" and then changes his name. so, you would want to have the information on the significance of a name change right after your explanation of what that phrase means.

in other words, put that last section right before the "Petros = Petra" section.

also, for your quotes of the different protesant bible scholars, you'll need to get rid of the line breaks (so that ur quotes extend all the way to the right like your other paragraphs) and then indent your quotes.

finally, i have some more quotes you could probaby add to this. i don't have the book w/ me, so i'll post them when i get home.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[goldenchild17]

[color=red][b]Introduction[/b][/color]

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.

[color=red][b]The Promise of the Papacy[/b][/color]

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).

[color=red][b]Son of Jonah[/b][/color]

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.

[color=red][b]Name Changing and Religious Authority[/b][/color]

In light of this I would now like to examine the importance of name-changing in Scripture, one in particular. At this time, before I present the evidence for the religious authority of Peter, I will show that human authorities of religion were a common theme of Jesus' time and all through the Old Testament. God meant for a man, or men, to be in a position of leadership over His Church. He put men in charge of His Old Testament Church, Judaism, and He did this again with Christianity using Peter.

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.


[b][color=red]Petra = Petros[/color][/b]

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).

[b][color=red]Koine Greek vs. Attic Greek[/color][/b]

(Preface note I: This section may be a little difficult to understand since we are dealing with the differences in ancient languages. In short, the words Petra and Petros in Scripture mean the same thing.)

(Preface note II: Special Thanks to Phatcatholic @ Phatmass for insight and references on this section)

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.

In Koine Greek the words Petra and Petros are equal in meaning. It was only in Attic Greek(the form used before Koine came into being) that the words meant something different, and even then this difference occurred mainly in poetry.

To demonstrate this we first look to the ancient poet Heracles

"panta kinesai [b]petron[/b]" ..."Leave no [b]stone[/b] unturned"

"[b]Petrous[/b] epekulindoun" "They rolled down [b]stones[/b]."

The word Petros translates as stone, a small rock; just as opponents of the Papacy believe.

Another example of the word Petros meaning a small rock or stone in Attic Greek is Euripides in his work [i]Heracles[/i] (416 B.C.)

The Greek reads:
“autou genoimên [b]petros[/b] amnêmôn kakôn.”

In English it translates as:

“Ah! Would I could become a [b]stone[/b] upon this spot, oblivious of trouble.”

So, Catholics will agree that in the ancient Attic Greek the word Petros does translate as "stone" as many Protestants claim.

However, the Protestant claim fails in it’s next conclusion. The argument goes that since Petros has a different meaning from Petra in the Attic Greek that this must also be the case in Koine Greek(the language the Bible was written in).

To show how this assumption fails this I will consider works comparable in time to that of the gospels(particularly Matthew's). I first offer a work by Flavius Josephus the Jewish Historian, [i]Antiquities of the Jews[/i], in Greek:

“tou de basileôs akousantos para tôn angelôn tauta kai dusphorountos
phaskontos hamartein autous tôi teichei prosbalontas, deon huponomois kai mêchanêmasin helein peirasthai tên polin, kai taut' echontas paradeigma ton Gedeônos huion Abimelechon, hos epei ton en Thêbais purgon helein ebouleto biai, blêtheis hupo presbutidos [b]petrôi[/b] katepese kai andreiotatos ôn dia to duscheres tês epibolês aischrôs apethanen:”

In English:

When the king had heard this of the messengers, he took it heinously,
and said that they did wrong when they assaulted the wall, whereas
they ought, by undermining and other stratagems of war, to endeavor the
taking of rite city, especially when they had before their eyes the example
of Abimelech, the son of Gideon, who would needs take the tower in
Thebes by force, and was killed by a [b]large stone[/b] thrown at him by an old woman; and although he was a man of great prowess, he died
ignominiously by the dangerous manner of his assault:”

By this passage we see that Petros(Petroi) means “stone” or “large stone”.

To be consistent, we will stay with Josephus to see what Petra means in the Koine Greek.

Flavius Josephus [i]War of the Jews[/i] in Greek reads:

“skopoi oun autois epi tôn purgôn kathezomenoi proemênuon, hopote
schastheiê to organon kai hê [b]petra[/b] pheroito, têi patriôi glôssêi boôntes “ho huios erchetai.” diistanto de kath' hous êiei kai prokateklinonto, kai sunebaine phulattomenôn aprakton diekpiptein tên petran.”

In English it reads:

“accordingly the watchmen that sat upon the towers gave them notice
when the engine was let go, and the [b]stone[/b] came from it, and cried out aloud, in their own country language, the stone cometh 1 so those that were in its way stood off, and threw themselves down upon the ground; by which means, and by their thus guarding themselves, the stone fell down and did them no harm.”

With the example of Josephus we see that petros and petra both mean the same thing in the Koine Greek.

[b][color=red]Peter or Petrina?[/color][/b]

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. Just as it would be inaccurate in the Spanish language of today to give a female name to a man, so to would it be inaccurate to do this in the Greek language of Scripture.

[b][color=red]More Comments on the Greek[/color][/b]

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(see above section on Koine vs. Attic Greek). 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. In Koine Greek the word most commonly used for small rock, or pebble, 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.

[b][color=red]Jesus Spoke Aramaic[/color][/b]

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'" (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). 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.

[b][color=red]Peter = Rock[/color][/b]

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)

[b][color=red]The Keys of the Kingdom[/color][/b]

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.

[b][color=red]The Promise of Mt. 16:18 is Fulfilled[/color][/b]

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.

[b][color=red]Peter Takes Charge[/color][/b]

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.

[b][color=red]Interesting Notes[/color][/b]

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.

[b][color=red]Conclusion[/color][/b]

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.
________________________________________________________________________

[b]References:[/b]

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/...037&version=kjv"]http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/...037&version=kjv[/url]

10. – Crosswalk KJV interlinear bible - [url="http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBibl...rrentChapter=16"]http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBibl...rrentChapter=16[/url]

11. -- Crosswalk KJV Lexicon – “taute” [url="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/...026&version=kjv"]http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/...026&version=kjv[/url]

12. Crosswalk KJV Lexicon – “kai” [url="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/...532&version=kjv"]http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/...532&version=kjv[/url]

13. Crosswalk KJV Lexicon – “alla” [url="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/...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/...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.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Aug 17 2005, 11:38 PM']colin..................in the sequence of events, Jesus calls him "son of Jonah" and then changes his name. so, you would want to have the information on the significance of a name change right after your explanation of what that phrase means. 

in other words, put that last section right before the "Petros = Petra" section. [/quote]
Yeah that makes sense.

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Aug 17 2005, 11:38 PM']also, for your quotes of the different protesant bible scholars, you'll need to get rid of the line breaks (so that ur quotes extend all the way to the right like your other paragraphs) and then indent your quotes.[/quote]
Yeah I was trying to figure out the indent when i was posting it the first time. I can't make it work. What's the code for it?

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Aug 17 2005, 11:38 PM']finally, i have some more quotes you could probaby add to this. i don't have the book w/ me, so i'll post them when i get home.

pax christi,
phatcatholic
[right][snapback]688559[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That's great. I'm still on the lookout for more references for all my papers.

[phatcatholic]

the code to indent a paragraph in a post:

[code][list]paragraph[/list][/code]

[goldenchild17]

hehe okay. I found some more sources from Protestant scholars which is nice. I included them. But it would be nice if I could get sources on more than just a few points I am making... I can't seem to find them.

P.S. It won't let me edit that post w/my paper. It says "you do not have permission to edit this post" Whatever, I'm logged in so I don't know what the deal is. I'll have to repost it below.

[goldenchild17]

[color=red][b]Introduction[/b][/color]

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.

[color=red][b]The Promise of the Papacy[/b][/color]

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).

[color=red][b]Son of Jonah[/b][/color]

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.

[color=red][b]Name Changing and Religious Authority[/b][/color]

In light of this I would now like to examine the importance of name-changing in Scripture, one in particular. At this time, before I present the evidence for the religious authority of Peter, I will show that human authorities of religion were a common theme of Jesus' time and all through the Old Testament. God meant for a man, or men, to be in a position of leadership over His Church. He put men in charge of His Old Testament Church, Judaism, and He did this again with Christianity using Peter.

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.


[b][color=red]Petra = Petros[/color][/b]

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:
[list]“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)
[/list]
John Broadus, Baptist biblical scholar affirms this:
[list]“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)
[/list]
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.
[list]“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)
[/list]
James B. Shelton, Associate Professor in the School of Theology and Missions, Oral Roberts University:
[list]“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."
[/list] (5)

Protestant New Testament scholar Dr. Oscar Cullman:
[list]“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)
[/list]
Even John Calvin, one of the great fathers of the Protestant Reformation, recognizes no distinction between the meaning of Petra and that of Petros:
[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." (7)
[/list]
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:
[list]“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)
[/list]
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).

[b][color=red]Koine Greek vs. Attic Greek[/color][/b]

(Preface note I: This section may be a little difficult to understand since we are dealing with the differences in ancient languages. In short, the words Petra and Petros in Scripture mean the same thing.)

(Preface note II: Special Thanks to Phatcatholic @ Phatmass for insight and references on this section)

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.

In Koine Greek the words Petra and Petros are equal in meaning. It was only in Attic Greek(the form used before Koine came into being) that the words meant something different, and even then this difference occurred mainly in poetry.

To demonstrate this we first look to the ancient poet Heracles
[list]"panta kinesai [b]petron[/b]" ..."Leave no [b]stone[/b] unturned"
[/list][list]"[b]Petrous[/b] epekulindoun" "They rolled down [b]stones[/b]."
[/list]
The word Petros translates as stone, a small rock; just as opponents of the Papacy believe.

Another example of the word Petros meaning a small rock or stone in Attic Greek is Euripides in his work [i]Heracles[/i] (416 B.C.)

The Greek reads: [list]“autou genoimên [b]petros[/b] amnêmôn kakôn.”
[/list]
In English it translates as:
[list]“Ah! Would I could become a [b]stone[/b] upon this spot, oblivious of trouble.”
[/list]
So, Catholics will agree that in the ancient Attic Greek the word Petros does translate as "stone" as many Protestants claim.

However, the Protestant claim fails in it’s next conclusion. The argument goes that since Petros has a different meaning from Petra in the Attic Greek that this must also be the case in Koine Greek(the language the Bible was written in).

To show how this assumption fails this I will consider works comparable in time to that of the gospels(particularly Matthew's). I first offer a work by Flavius Josephus the Jewish Historian, [i]Antiquities of the Jews[/i], in Greek:
[list]“tou de basileôs akousantos para tôn angelôn tauta kai dusphorountos phaskontos hamartein autous tôi teichei prosbalontas, deon huponomois kai mêchanêmasin helein peirasthai tên polin, kai taut' echontas paradeigma ton Gedeônos huion Abimelechon, hos epei ton en Thêbais purgon helein ebouleto biai, blêtheis hupo presbutidos [b]petrôi[/b] katepese kai andreiotatos ôn dia to duscheres tês epibolês aischrôs apethanen:”
[/list]
In English:
[list]"When the king had heard this of the messengers, he took it heinously, and said that they did wrong when they assaulted the wall, whereas they ought, by undermining and other stratagems of war, to endeavor the taking of rite city, especially when they had before their eyes the example of Abimelech, the son of Gideon, who would needs take the tower in Thebes by force, and was killed by a [b]large stone[/b] thrown at him by an old woman; and although he was a man of great prowess, he died ignominiously by the dangerous manner of his assault:”
[/list]
By this passage we see that Petros(Petroi) means “stone” or “large stone”.

To be consistent, we will stay with Josephus to see what Petra means in the Koine Greek.

Flavius Josephus [i]War of the Jews[/i] in Greek reads:
[list]“skopoi oun autois epi tôn purgôn kathezomenoi proemênuon, hopote schastheiê to organon kai hê [b]petra[/b] pheroito, têi patriôi glôssêi boôntes “ho huios erchetai.” diistanto de kath' hous êiei kai prokateklinonto, kai sunebaine phulattomenôn aprakton diekpiptein tên petran.”
[/list]
In English it reads:
[list]“accordingly the watchmen that sat upon the towers gave them notice when the engine was let go, and the [b]stone[/b] came from it, and cried out aloud, in their own country language, the stone cometh 1 so those that were in its way stood off, and threw themselves down upon the ground; by which means, and by their thus guarding themselves, the stone fell down and did them no harm.”
[/list]
With the example of Josephus we see that petros and petra both mean the same thing in the Koine Greek.

[b][color=red]Peter or Petrina?[/color][/b]

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. Just as it would be inaccurate in the Spanish language of today to give a female name to a man, so to would it be inaccurate to do this in the Greek language of Scripture.

[b][color=red]More Comments on the Greek[/color][/b]

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(see above section on Koine vs. Attic Greek). 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. In Koine Greek the word most commonly used for small rock, or pebble, 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.

[b][color=red]Jesus Spoke Aramaic[/color][/b]

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'" (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). 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.

[b][color=red]Peter = Rock[/color][/b]

I would like to summarize this section by select quotes by Gerhard Kittel's theological dictionary, analyzing the Greek text of Matthew 16:18:
[list]“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)
[/list]
Dr. Oscar Cullman’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament:
[list]“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)
[/list]
Protestant Greek scholar Marvin Vincent:
[list]“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)
[/list]
Protestant scholar W.F. Albright:
[list]“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)
[/list]
David Hill, a Presbyterian minister at the University of Sheffield:
[list]“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)
[/list]
William Hendriksen
Member of the Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary:
[list]"The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view."(21)
[/list]
Gerhard Maier
Leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian:
[list]"Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which – in accordance with the words of the text – applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis." (22)
[/list]
John Peter Lange
German Protestant scholar:
[list]"The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun. . . . The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock,” etc." (23)
[/list]
Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary:
[list]"Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter,” parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ,” as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification." (24)
[/list]
J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary:
[list]"By the words "this rock" Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church.” As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus." (25)
[/list]
Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian:
[list]"The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon,” the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community." (26)
[/list]
Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary:
[list]"The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built. . . . The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy." (27)
[/list]
[b][color=red]The Keys of the Kingdom[/color][/b]

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.

[b][color=red]The Promise of Mt. 16:18 is Fulfilled[/color][/b]

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.

[b][color=red]Peter Takes Charge[/color][/b]

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.

[b][color=red]Interesting Notes[/color][/b]

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.

[b][color=red]Conclusion[/color][/b]

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.
________________________________________________________________________

[b]References:[/b]

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/...037&version=kjv"]http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/...037&version=kjv[/url]

10. – Crosswalk KJV interlinear bible - [url="http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBibl...rrentChapter=16"]http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBibl...rrentChapter=16[/url]

11. -- Crosswalk KJV Lexicon – “taute” [url="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/...026&version=kjv"]http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/...026&version=kjv[/url]

12. Crosswalk KJV Lexicon – “kai” [url="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/...532&version=kjv"]http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/...532&version=kjv[/url]

13. Crosswalk KJV Lexicon – “alla” [url="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/...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/...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.

21. William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.)

22. Gerhard Maier (“The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate,” Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context, (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), 58.)

23. John Peter Lange (Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 293.)

24. J. Knox Chamblin (“Matthew,” Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), 742.)

25. Craig L. Blomberg (The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 251-252.)

26. Suzanne de Deitrich (The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), 93.)

27. Donald A. Hagner (“Matthew 14-28,” Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 470.)