Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8
NOTE: This series is a work in progress. See Part 1 updates including bibliography in progress. As I add sources and update past posts I will continue to expand the bibliography.
“First Simon, who is called Peter” (Matt 10:2).
Teaching of the Twelve icon
With these words St. Matthew begins his enumeration of the Twelve, emphasizing the primacy of Simon Peter among the Twelve. A similar prominence is given to Peter in every enumeration of the Twelve, where Peter is always listed first, followed closely by the next most prominent disciples, John and James (along with Peter’s brother Andrew), with Judas Iscariot always in the last position (cf. Mark 3:16ff, Luke 6:14ff, Acts 1:13ff).
The word “first,” protos, is the same word that Jesus later uses when he says, “Whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first (or “chief”) among you must be your slave; even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matt 20:26-28). (It’s also the same word Paul uses in the passage from 1 Corinthians 15 previously discussed, in which he called himself the “chief” [protos] of sinners.)
This saying, in response to the petition of the sons of Zebedee to sit as Jesus’ right and left in positions of honor, establishes that primacy in the new order that Jesus brings is a very different thing from primacy in the world. For now, though, I am concerned with the mere fact of Peter’s primacy, without losing sight of the reversal of worldly standards that Jesus brings.
A casual perusal of the Gospels and Acts is sufficient to establish Peter’s prominence among the Twelve in early Christian memory. Peter is named far more often than all the rest of the Twelve combined (nearly 200 times). After Peter, the most prominent disciples are John and James, the sons of Zebedee, who with Peter formed an inner circle of Jesus’ closest disciples. John, the most frequently mentioned disciple after Peter, is mentioned fewer than 40 times, not even 1/7th as often as Peter.
We even encounter phrases like “Peter/Simon and those who were with him” (Mark 1:36, Luke 9:32, 8:45) and “Peter and the apostles” (Acts 5:29), subsuming other apostles under Peter, as well as “his disciples and Peter” (Mark 16:7), emphasizing Peter in particular. (St. Paul similarly makes special note of Peter in 1 Corinthians 9:5, referring to “the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas”).
Peter’s prominence is not simply a matter of literary shorthand. Both in the Gospels and in Acts Peter is often seen speaking for and taking the initiative among the Twelve, for good and for ill (e.g., Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69). Peter expresses the faith of the Twelve when he confesses Jesus as the Christ; he also expresses their ill-fated claim to be ready to die rather than fall away (e.g., “And they all said the same,” Mark 14:31). Peter’s denials, reported in all four Gospels, represent a low point of Peter’s prominence, followed by his prominence in the resurrection accounts previously discussed.
Matthew’s Gospel depicts Jewish interlocutors approaching Peter to question him about Jesus (Matt 17:24); in the same episode, Jesus associates Peter with himself by making provision for their payment of the Temple tax, without involving the rest of the Twelve. It is also in Matthew that Peter shares with Jesus the extraordinary miracle, reported in Matthew, Mark and John, of walking on water (Matt 14:22-23).
Jesus treats Peter as representative of the others. In Gethsemane, though James and John also were asleep, it is Peter that Jesus rebukes (“he came and found them sleeping, and he said to Peter, ‘Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour?'” Mark 14:37).
There is a hint of something similar in Jesus’ rebuke to Peter following Peter’s confession: “But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter, and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men” (Mark 8:33). Just as Peter’s confession articulated the faith of all, so perhaps Peter’s opposition to the foretelling of Jesus’ passion articulated the resistance of all; but it is Peter that Jesus addresses in both cases.
Much of this prominence, even in Jesus’ own interaction with Peter that the Twelve, can be ascribed at least in part to by Peter’s impulsive, headstrong personality, which makes him a natural spokesman, if an uneven one. At the same time, Jesus repeatedly offers clear indications of a unique purpose for Peter — a purpose not defined or limited by Peter’s personal strengths and weaknesses.
We have already seen in Part 2 how the resurrected Christ in John 21 solemnly instated Peter by triple commission as vice shepherd; and we have not yet come to the Petrine locus classicus, Matthew 16. But there is also the pivotal role that Jesus intends for Peter in relation to the Twelve and the apostolic ministry, most clearly attested in a saying in Luke’s Last Supper account.
Significantly, this saying takes place in the context of a familiar motif, a dispute among the disciples about “which of them was to be regarded as the greatest” (Luke 22:24ff). In this passage, the disciples’ quarrel about greatness is connected to the puzzle of which disciple would betray Jesus, and leads directly to Simon Peter’s claim to be ready to go to prison and death.
Jesus’ response here to this issue comes in three parts. First, as he did in response to the request of the sons of Zebedee mentioned above to sit at his right and his left, Jesus is careful to emphasize the reversal of worldly ideas of greatness implied by his own example: “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves.”
Then, very nearly reversing his reversal, Jesus affirms the greatness that indeed awaits the Twelve in the kingdom: “You are those who have continued with me in my trials; and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (This is rather more encouraging than what he told the sons of Zebedee about sharing in the cup and the baptism of his sufferings.)
Finally, he concludes with a warning and a promise: a warning and a promise simultaneously directed at all the Twelve and one in particular: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have ye (second person plural, i.e., “all of you”), that he might sift [ye] like wheat, but I have prayed for thee (second person singular, i.e., “you, Simon”), that thy faith may not fail; and when thou hast turned again, strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22:31-32). (This direct affirmation of the role that Peter will play makes an intriguing contrast with Jesus’ demurral to the sons of Zebedee that to sit at his right and his left belongs to those for whom it has been prepared.)
In the context of the dispute as to which was the greatest, this saying to Peter offers three different layers of meaning. First, Jesus stresses that temptation stands at the gate. The disciples are unprepared for what is coming; while they quarrel over who is the greatest, they are easy pickings for the enemy; their minds are dominated by earthly notions of greatness.
Second, in singling out Peter, Jesus may well implicate Peter in particular in the sorry dispute — in part, perhaps, because of Peter’s own awareness, and possibly to some extent his misapprehension, of his own primacy among the Twelve. (There is a note of remonstration in Jesus’ “Simon, Simon,” though it is not impossible that this alludes to Peter’s promises of faithfulness rather than the dispute about which of them was the greatest. Nevertheless, the two issues seem linked here, the bridge being who would betray Jesus.)
But thirdly, Jesus implicitly affirms a particular sort of primacy to Peter: All the Twelve are in line to be sifted, but Jesus’ prayer is for Peter in particular — not just because of what may be his special danger, but also because of the special role Jesus intends for him to play in strengthening his brethren.
This saying does not mean, of course, that Jesus does not pray also for the other apostles (cf. John 17:6-19). Nevertheless, Jesus’ prayer for the Twelve, whom he says are all in line to be sifted, comes to a head or finds a focal point in Peter. It is Peter’s faith that Jesus has prayed will not fail; it is Peter who, when all have fallen away, will turn again and strengthen his brethren.
Had Jesus wanted to affirm a completely egalitarian ideal among the Twelve, with no sort of priority or prominence of any kind, it is difficult to see why he would have expressed himself in this way. Indeed, on an egalitarian theory of apostlehood, Jesus’ words seem almost perversely bound to lead to misunderstanding. It seems, that, rather than denying any sort of primacy among the apostles, he seeks to redefine how primacy will be understood among his followers, while nevertheless definitely attaching a sort of primacy — however unlike the sort of primacy the disciples, not excluding Peter, might have been grasping at — to one apostle in particular: one who, precisely because of his preeminent position among the Twelve, requires Jesus’ individual attention in prayer on behalf of all.
Having reported Jesus’ prayer in Luke 22, Luke goes on in Acts to demonstrate its fulfillment as Peter, following Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, comes into his own in an extraordinary way. Peter’s role in Acts is so prominent that the first half of the book could almost be dubbed “Peter & Friends.” (The second half, of course, would be “The Paul Show,” a point I’ll return to later.)
In Acts 1, Peter initiates the action to select Judas’s replacement and articulates the criteria for apostleship. In Acts 2, on Pentecost, Peter speaks on behalf of the Twelve to the Jewish onlookers, proclaiming the Gospel of the church for the first time and bringing thousands to baptism on the birthday of the church.
When Peter and John are arrested in Acts 4, Peter, “filled with the Holy Spirit,” leads their defense (after which Luke tells us that “Peter and John” both spoke; Acts 4:8-19); when the apostles are arrested again a chapter later, we read, “Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men'” (Acts 5:29). When members of the company are laying the proceeds of sold property at the apostles’ feet, it is Peter who speaks for the apostles to Ananias and Sapphira, prophetically exposing the lie they tell him (“You have not lied to men, but to God”), for which their lives are forfeit (Acts 4:33-5:11).
In Acts 5 the apostles are miraculously liberated from prison by an angel; then, in Acts 12, James bar-Zebedee (another apostle of Jesus’ inner circle) is seized and put to death by the sword — but Peter, arrested immediately afterward, is again liberated by an angel. (Paul and Silas are also delivered from imprisonment, though technically there is no mention of an angel, “only” an earthquake that opens the doors and unfastens everyone’s fetters.)
Finally and most crucially — along with Peter’s role at Pentecost — it is Peter who receives the vision that opens the door for table-fellowship between Christian Jews and Gentiles; Peter who authorizes the first administrations of baptism to Gentiles (Acts 10), and who defends the acceptance of Gentiles to the “circumcision party” (Acts 11).
On Pentecost, Peter first preached the Gospel to Jews; in Acts 10-11 Peter brings to light the fullness of the Gospel message that in Christ the barrier between Jew and Gentile has been demolished, and that circumcision is no longer a prerequisite to salvation. (These are themes we will revisit in a very different light in Galatians 1-2 and also Acts 15.)
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8
SDG,
During my consulting days, I would travel to various manufacturing facilities. Onetime I met a small unionized company. Instead of talking to every union employee, I just talked to the union representative. All the Union Employees weere all on the same level, however to interface with management they had a representative. So the Union Representative is the ‘first among equals’.
What you have shown is that Peter was the ‘Union Representative’ for the Apostles. There is a big gap between Apostolic Spokesman/Representative and Apostolic Superior or Apostolic Chief.
” Matthew 16 is used as a primary proof-text for the Catholic doctrine of Papal supremacy, Protestant scholars, however, discover that before the Reformation of the sixteenth century, Matthew 16 was very rarely used to support papal claims. The simple reason for this is that most of the early and medieval Churches interpreted the “rock” as Christ or as Peter’s faith, not as Peter himself.[38]”-wikipedia St. Peter
1. Also John 1 records that Andrew,Peter’s brother, met Jesus before Peter.
2. Nathanael declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.” – John 1:49. So Nathanael recognized that Jesus was the Messiah before Peter did.
3. After the Resurrection Mary Magdalene met Jesus before Peter did.
4. In Galatians 2:9 he is listed after James and before John. So it looks like Peter was demoted.
Oneil: If “Union Representative” is how you want to try to account for the Petrine fact, be my guest. After I’m finished building my case, maybe we’ll circle back and see how your analogy stands up.
Re. points 1-3: Yes, clearly Peter’s primacy is not simply a function of having met Jesus first, or recognizing Jesus as the Messiah first, etc. So it must be something more than that. Likewise, if Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene before Peter, Peter’s priority in the confessional formula of 1 Corinthians 15, and the credal remembrance of the special appearance to Peter while the appearance to Mary Magdalene was omitted, suggests some particular significance in the special appearance to Peter. (Why not simply say “He appeared to the Twelve”? Why call out Peter in a credal formula?)
Re. point 4, Galatians 2:9 is not a list of the Twelve — and you’re being glib again. We will discuss Galatians 1-2 and Matthew 16 at some length presently.
Paul and Luke where traveling companions. Luke in 24:33-34 uses a similar tone. I don’t think it is a credal formula, but a simple restating of what Luke recorded in chapter 24. Furthermore they were having divisions in the church 1 Cor 1:10-17, where some were claiming that they follow Peter,or another Paul, or another Apollos. Thus they foolishly thought that some Apostle was greater than the other. I would argue that 1 Cor 1:10-17 is evidence that Peter should not be considered superior to Apollos or Paul.
Dear Oneil,
You wrote:
” Matthew 16 is used as a primary proof-text for the Catholic doctrine of Papal supremacy, Protestant scholars, however, discover that before the Reformation of the sixteenth century, Matthew 16 was very rarely used to support papal claims. The simple reason for this is that most of the early and medieval Churches interpreted the “rock” as Christ or as Peter’s faith, not as Peter himself.[38]”-wikipedia St. Peter
Rubbish. The reason is far simpler: there was no need to cite the passage because the matter of Petrine supremacy was hardly an issue within the Church at this time. The real issue was the conciliar movement, from which, in part, Protestantism developed. Once the conciliar movement started, the alternate interpretation of Matthew 16 was trotted out to weaken the Petrine supremacy.
Find me a text from the period 800 to 1300 not written by a Conciliarist or a proto-Protestant that interprets Matthew 16 as the Wikipedia article suggests. In other words, the whole quote is a form of begging the question. Only ecclesial bodies, not real churches – this is a Protestant interpretation of what they really were, had a reason to question Petrine supremacy and trotted out the, “confession of faith,” interpretation. This proves nothing.
For those who wish to read Oneils quote in context, it comes from the book: The Shape of Sola Scriptura, Keith A. Mathison, Canon Press, Moscow, Idaho, 2001, page 184. Here is a link to the exact page (type in 184 in the box). It is unclear from the text whether or not Mathison is injecting his own interpretation or those of the authors he cites in footnote one. One would have to look at many things before making such a claim as he does: provenence, reception of the manuscripts, citing past sources, etc. Also, what is this, “Churches,” thing? What other Churches? The author was talking about the Catholic Church’s use of the passage and suddenly he is talking about other medieval “churches” What other medieval churches?? This makes the whole conclusion not merely unclear, but suspicious.
Unfortunately, some Protestant authors consider all historical data of equal value and of equal ontology. This is a case where the author shifts ontological status of the meaning of church. Of course, some heretical groups (which he includes as “churches”) used the passage to refer to Peter’s confession of faith. That proves nothing about how the Catholic Church used the passage. The Church subscribed to a double-meaning interpretation (both/and), so one would find either interpretation occurring (Peter/Faith), but never the interpretation of Petrine supremacy denied.
The Chicken
That is a non-starter. “Received” and “delivered” essentially means that St. Paul transmitted the resurrection language word for word as he learned it. (Compare the Eucharistic institution account, which Paul introduces in 1 Cor 11 with the same technical terms “received” and “delivered,” and is clearly liturgically structured ritual language; compare to the Gospel accounts. The actual structure of the 1 Cor 15 resurrection formula is similarly ritually structured language.)
This seems to contradict your larger argument. Are you saying that Paul in 1 Cor 15 was foolishly reinforcing the Cephas-centricity of some Corinthians, or are you admitting that it was a credal formula and implicating it in Cephas-centricity? Your comments seem to heighten the paradox (for you) of the question: Why mention Cephas at all (especially given the Cephas-centricity problem)? Why not just say “He appeared to the Twelve” (especially if you deny the credal formula background)?
In any case, St. Paul emphasizes the fundamental importance of the truths of the credal formula in the words “I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received.” There is no call for us to be criticizing this language, if that’s what you’re doing.
Not with me, you wouldn’t. Argue, that is. Since I agree. Peter was not superior to Apollos or Paul.
Oneil,
You read and yet you don’t understand. Sts. Peter, Mary of Bethany, and Nathaniel (Bartholomew?) all recognized Christ as the Son of God, yet to none of these did He proclaim Blessed and exclaim that the Father revealed it to them.
The scene in St. Matthew’s Gospel, Chapter 16 is different. Simon has his name changed, the others did not. Simon was told that the Father revealed the information to him, the others did not (restated for emphasis.) Simon was given the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, the others were not. As an aside this alludes to a section in the Book of the Prophet Isaiah:
“And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias,
And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father.”
Isaiah 22:20-23
So, one can see that St. Peter is put into a position of a Prime Minister, just like Joseph in the Old Testament was:
“And he said to them: Can we find such another man, that is full of the spirit of God? He said therefore to Joseph: Seeing God hath shewn thee all that thou hast said, can I find one wiser and one like unto thee? Thou shalt be over my house, and at the commandment of thy mouth all the people shall obey: only in the kingly throne will I be above thee.
And again Pharao said to Joseph: Behold, I have appointed thee over the whole land of Egypt. And he took his ring from his own hand, and gave it into his hand: and he put upon him a robe of silk, and put a chain of gold about his neck. And he made him go up into his second chariot, the crier proclaiming that all should bow their knee before him, and that they should know he was made governor over the whole land of Egypt. And the king said to Joseph: I am Pharao; without thy commandment no man shall move hand or foot in all the land of Egypt. And he turned his name, and called him in the Egyptian tongue, The saviour of the world.”
-Genesis 41:38-45
Notice the parallels?
I’m reminded of two things Archbishop Sheen said about Peter: that Jesus chose Peter, who denied Him, and not John, who stood at the foot of the cross, to lead His Church, so that we, who are also “weak and sinful”, need never despair; and that we share in our Lord’s prayer at the Last Supper only when we are united with Peter.
These are wonderful posts, SDG. Thank you and keep them coming!
Reading them, though, I was struck by a question: in light of the “Petrine fact” (which I have regarded as obvious from the New Testament since long before I realized it was called that), why were the Apostles always arguing about who was the greatest? Shouldn’t they have known it was Peter? Or did his primacy mean something different, and leave open the possibility that another disciple would be “greater”?
Thanks, tomatowater!
To repost something I wrote elsewhere:
I would contend that the other disciples would generally have understood that Peter was in line to be, as it were, Jesus’ right-hand man in the coming kingdom — that Jesus intended Peter to stand in a uniquely privileged administrative relationship to Jesus himself in the kingdom. (It is perhaps worth adding that the idea of “the kingdom” many of the disciples would have had would probably have included such ideas as a renewed monarchy in Jerusalem, victory over the Romans, the restoration of the Shekinah glory to the Temple, the vindication of Israel to the nations, etc.)
I don’t see that I am obliged to maintain that Jesus’ intention for Peter’s role would necessarily have been equally understood by all the Twelve, or that it would necessarily have been considered irrevocable or incapable of question. There seems to me ample room for ongoing debate about, e.g., which of the Twelve was the worthiest; who had worked the greatest signs; who best understood the Master’s puzzling teachings; who had the most faith; who was truly the ideal or favored disciple (John might have had his hat in the ring there).
The very awareness of Peter’s election could easily have been the focus of the debate: Why him and not me? Who could be sure Jesus might not change his mind? Or whether, Peter’s uniquely privileged status notwithstanding, other high honors (perhaps even greater?) might not await certain others among the Twelve (e.g., James and John sitting at his right and his left)?
It’s not unthinkable that some might even have doubted whether Jesus really intended (whether he could have intended!) to confer such honors on Peter (of all people!); but again I think that this would probably have been generally understood by most of the Twelve — though of course not as well as they would have come to understand it after the resurrection and ascension (where, from Pentecost onward, we see Peter exercising a leadership role among the Twelve that is unparalleled by any other apostle).
So I think there is ample room for debate among the Twelve which of them was “the greatest” despite a general understanding of the uniquely privileged administrative relationship that Jesus intended for Peter in the coming kingdom.
I see people did not catch my subtle hint. Let me requote what Paul says in Galatians 2:7-9:
“On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles,[a] just as Peter had been to the Jews.[b] 8For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9James, Peter[c] and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.”
-Notice that the Pillars(plural) of the Church are Three people James, Peter, and John. They, meaning more than one, agreed Paul should go to the Gentiles. So I don’t see Peter having any administrative supremacy.
So I want to see fine art of Catholic tap-dancing and sophistry get around this issue.
Historical Research according to the Chicken.
Major Premise: Catholicism is True and nothing can convince me otherwise.
Minor Premise: There were many groups, individuals, bishops, church fathers that questioned the supremacy of Peter and the Catholic Church.
Conclusion: Reject anything that does not agree with the Major Premise.
You demonstrate why I don’t like academia. The amount of intellectual fraud in the soft-sciences is astronomical.
Acts 8: 14When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them.
-Again the Apostles(plural) sent Peter and John as ambassadors to Samaria.
The Problem with Catholic hermeneutics is that they overclock the Gospels and minimize the Epistles. Believe it or not the Epistles are doctrinally more important than the Gospels. John specifically mentions in John 20:31 – But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. So the purpose of the Book of John is to build your faith. This is why I have Catholics read the Book of John, 3 times. If faith were dynamite, many Catholics would not have enough to light a match. The Epistles + Acts are the foundation of the Church and are more important for the mature believer. So prove to me that the Church saw Peter as supreme.
1In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”
5This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them. – Acts 6:1-6
The election of these 7 deacons was performed by the entire Church, upon the proposal of all the Apostles. The laying on of hands was performed by ALL of the apostles.
SDG,
You added the section in blue and this reminds me very much of the logic that the Jesuits would throw at me. It took me about 6 visits before I could see through their trash. The last two visits were just to intellectually annihilate them.
Look you quote Luke 22:31-32, now let me quote a verses before verses 28-30.
28You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
What do we learn: The apostles would sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Nobody is singled out as superior.
Oneil,
You did not understand a thing of what I said. I was not question begging. I was pointing out the question begging in the quote you gave, or rather the on\tological shift. The word used was “Churches.” My comment was limited to that. There was nothing soft in my comment. In fact, I was not speaking about the Church, but about the tendency of some Protestant historians to start from a disputable premises: that every thing they classify as a church is a church and that they can use any classification scheme they choose to make a point. I am under no obligation to accept that premise and in this case, it isn’t even logical, since the quote was, apparently, commenting on the history of the Catholic use of Matthew 16, not a re-defined Protestant notion of what should be in the Catholic Church. This is the fallacy of the appeal to an arbitrary definition. I stated nothing about my beliefs at all. I would make the same comment about any such argument, since the argument is a form of non sequitor.
Since you are working towards a doctorate in theology and theology is a soft science, then you have to get used to dealing with other academics, even if you consider them boring. I was not being a fraud. i was correcting an error in the Wikipedia article you quoted and I did it the right way, by going back to the original sources and even providing links so that everyone could see what I was doing. I fail to see how being transparent can be the grounds of being called a fraud..
The Chicken
Chicken,
The book of Revelation in chapter 2-3 writes to 7 Churches. So if the Bible use the word Church in the plural then it seems logical that we can use it in the plural. Again if we need to go into a lecture in ecclesiology I am more than willing to do that.
The problem is that the GULF between Catholics and Protestants is much larger than you probably realize. Unfortunately our materialist, emaciated, and pluralistic culture thinks its uncharitable to point out differences.
BTW, The Apostle Paul insists that he had received his apostolic rank directly from Christ and not from any man (Gal. 1: 11-12). Is this not odd? If Peter was the alleged pillar(note singular), shouldn’t Paul have received his apostolic status from him?
“11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. -Gal 1:11-12
Dear Oneil,
You wrote:
So if the Bible use the word Church in the plural then it seems logical that we can use it in the plural.
Again, this has nothing to do with the Wikepedia quote, which was referring to the Catholic Church of the Medieval period.
In any case, it is clear that Revelation was not referring to these as independent, autonomous “Churches,” with a captiial C, but as local member churches (small c) having a common theology.
The Chicken
I’m sure the Jesuits were suitably reduced to silence when you opened a can of “early popes with Greek names who condemned the Assumption whilst not referencing Matthew 16” on them. Because your arguments have been so powerful here, how could we doubt that you annihilated the Jesuits?
Astonishingly, I commented above on that very verse. Oh, the mendacity of me for ignoring the glaring fact that it does not mention Petrine primacy.
I notice you don’t comment on the next verse, or on what I said about it. Your reading comprehension this morning seems about on par for you.
In other news, when Peter went fishing with James and John after the resurrection, they ALL pulled the nets in. The inference is obvious.
Jesus not good enough for you?
Great Post, Jimmy!
Look at Catholic Answers.: They CAN’T even use the original Greek texts to defend Matt 16. So they concoct a argument that says Jesus was speaking Aramaic to Peter to support their position of Peterine supremacy.
The vast majority of Jews ,not to mention the Gentiles, who were Hellenistic could not speak Aramaic. So what your saying all those Hellenistic Jews and Gentiles who read the Book of Matthew would be unqualified in drawing the correct conclusion. Only the Catholic church has the secret knowledge to decode this mystery. That is utter sophistry and gnostic!
Great Scott! Are you saying that Craig Blomberg, F. F. Bruce, D. A. Carson, William Albright and R. T. France are all … CATHOLIC MOLES?!!
Imagine: Jesus was speaking to Peter in their native language. Whodathunkit?
Oneil, it’s rather sad that you have been reduced to throwing out nothing but arguments from silence…
“Well, such-and-such verse doesn’t single out Peter, therefore that PROVES he wasn’t anything special…”
Don’t they teach logic in that seminary of yours?
OFF-TOPIC CONTENT DELETED
Then you should delete your off topic comment towards me as well
Oneil: The previous discussion, including my responses to you, has been at least generally in the area of discussing Peter and the papacy. I deleted your latest post because it had nothing to do with Peter or the papacy and tried to reintroduce the Assumption, etc.
Regarding unanswered questions: I have answered many of your questions, and am presently in the middle of a prolonged response to one of your questions. I am sorry that I have not yet answered all your questions. When I am finished writing about Peter, I will see about circling back and addressing some of your other unanswered questions.
In the meantime, you have some rebutted semi-on-topic arguments above that you might or might not care to try to defend. For example, how can it be that even Catholics cannot defend Peter as the rock on the basis of the Greek, and so are driven by popish need to resort to specious arguments about Aramaic, when the consensus of Evangelical and Protestant Biblical scholarship, including Anabaptist scholars, is that both the Greek and the Aramaic support Peter as the rock?
TimJ,
They clearly don’t teach Catholic logic or sophistry. Again Catholics must prove that Peter was Supreme, not merely the spokesman for the Apostles.
Even if I were so magnanimous to give you ‘the Peter was the rock’, it is pure conjecture that is nowhere supported in the text that this proves Peter Supreme or even Pope.
Actually Catholics must show their evidence, which has been done. Some will look at the evidence and agree, some will look at the evidence and disagree, and some will not accept any evidence contrary to what they wish to be true. What some of us post here is not intended to convince those who will to not be convinced, but to show to members of the first two groups the errors of the arguments of the third.
Just as review( taken and updated from one of my previous posts)
I have outlined 11 major points why I don’t think Peter is supreme. As a review.
1. The Bible predicts that Christ would be the rock in Isaiah 8:14, Isaiah 28:16 and Psalm 118:22. These prophecies are confirmed in 1 Corinthians 10:4. Tell me why Christ would build his church upon a weak, cowardly and sinful man. There is no prophecy that Peter was that rock. There are prophecies of John the Baptist, but NONE of Peter. Peter realized that Christ was the Rock by revelation from the Holy Spirit, confirmed by Peter’s confession.
2. Paul wrote 12-13 books, while Peter only 2 books in the NT.
3. The Epistle 1 Peter was written in 62 AD, so after 30 years of Ministry, Peter only refers to himself as Apostle and Elder. See: 1 Peter 1:1, 5:1-3.
4. Peter was married
5. The extensive internal evidence that Peter was not in Rome because he would not eat with Gentiles(51AD)
6. The Eastern Orthodox, who are as old as the Catholics, not recognizing Peter’s supremacy.
7. Paul rebuking Peter.
8. James as head of the Jerusalem church. The first church in existence( see Acts).
9. Binding and loosing conferred on Peter in Matt16 and the rest of the Apostles in Matt 18
10. Church fathers have been heavily interpolated( modified). I gave two examples of Ignatius and Cyprian.
11. Galatians 2 mentioning James, Peter, John as the PILLARS(plural) of the church.
Let us see what Augustine has to say.
“In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.” – The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1.
Oneil,
Actually history bears witness to Peter being supreme. The fact of the matter remains that the Catholic Church has been making this claim since the Church Fathers. The early councils show this as well as no Ecumenical council was “binding” unless the Bishop of Rome signed off on the documents.
Due to the fact that the Roman See was the dominant See, has heavily influenced the course of Western Civilization (is plain to see – no pun intended) and continues to make this claim to speak infallibly for Christ’s Church; the burden rests on you to disprove it.
I will accept only Scripture as something that would make me reconsider this claim being authentic. Most of the above 11 examples you cite are superficial and need go no farther than example 2 before I fell off my chair.
2. Paul wrote 12-13 books, while Peter only 2 books in the NT. Please explain your logic in including that as a point of dispute? Think it through and put it into concise sentences.
Dude, we already went over this one, quite thoroughly. Remember? In response to your false claim that “Augustine recanted the Petrine Supremacy,” I discussed this quotation at length — including the bit that you continue to omit with ellipses.
We are not going to just repeat stuff over and over with no new insight. My patience with your tactics is wearing thin.
oneil,
Why refer to Augustine? He taught all kinds of errors like Purgatory, The Real Presense, Infant Baptismal Regeneration. Not to mention he believed a man could forfeit their salvation. So, who’s to say? Maybe Augustine was wrong on what you think he was right about. Or vice versa.
BTW, I am no scholar, but I must say, all of your so called “arguments” sound as if you just learned them. At the very least you might want to work on being a little more fluid and natural.
Oneil, I’ve been reading this entire thread, and while I appreciate that you have finally and explicitly listed why you do not believe in the Petrine Supremacy, I don’t think your points make sense.
1. So in Matthew 16, Jesus is talking about himself in both the third and first person? It is a very odd sentence if the rock he refers to is himself. And why have the first clause, about changing Simon’s name to Peter, if it has nothing to do with the second clause about the rock? The two clauses are united by “and” which indicates the two are related in some way — what is the relation, if not that Peter is the rock? In fact, if Peter is not the rock, why bother changing his name at all, let alone to something that means “rock”? What is the significance of changing Simon’s name to Cephas or Petros?
2. So what?
3. Maybe Peter was humble.
4. So what?
5. My instinct here is to also say “so what?”, because I do not see the significance of his residency; as I understand it, Jesus selected Peter to lead the Church but did not specify he had to be in a certain area. But perhaps, if there is something I am missing here, SDG or others could enlighten me (or you, Oneil, could explain why you think this is an important fact).
6. I don’t have the time to research this to see how accurate this claim is, but assuming it is true I am not sure why you think it is a point in your favor given that you disagree with the Eastern Orthodox faith on many other matters.
7. I admit I do not know much about this, but I will state that just because Peter had primacy does not mean he had to be perfect (and this ties in with something Bill912 pointed out above, how maybe there was a reason Jesus chose an imperfect man).
8. There is a difference between a church with a little c and Church with a big C, as the Chicken with a big C pointed out.
9-11. As for the last three points I am not qualified to discuss this, so I leave it in SDG’s capable hands (and he has already addressed some of them).
Dear Pat,
You wrote:
He [Augustine] taught all kinds of errors like Purgatory, The Real Presense, Infant Baptismal Regeneration.
I can’t tell. Are you being serious?
Oneil,
Some of the points you make in your eleven point recap are interesting and worthy of a rebuttal. Some don’t, at least in my opinion. I realize they might just be summaries of a more extensive argument, so correct me if I make a mistake, but I will try to separate the interesting from the non-interesting in the list (again, just my opinion):
1. The Bible predicts that Christ would be the rock in Isaiah 8:14, Isaiah 28:16 and Psalm 118:22. These prophecies are confirmed in 1 Corinthians 10:4.
Worthy of discussion. I don’t know if SDG has already addressed this
2. Paul wrote 12-13 books, while Peter only 2 books in the NT.
Not worthy. Christ wrote how many books (without intermediaries)? Where does it say in the job description that pope has to be loquacious? There are theologians, today, who write more books than the Pope.
3. The Epistle 1 Peter was written in 62 AD, so after 30 years of Ministry, Peter only refers to himself as Apostle and Elder. See: 1 Peter 1:1, 5:1-3.
Not really worthy. The Pope of today refers to himself as, “The Servant of the Servants of God,” not as, “His high-faluting Popeness.” St. Peter’s epistle was pastoral, not legal.
4. Peter was married
Maybe worthy. His wife is never mentioned by name. For all we know, he could have been a widower at the time he became Pope. Also, Is there a reason you think a pope can’t be married? That was a later addition and a discipline. A Pope is a bishop and a bishop could be married (see 1 Timothy)
5. The extensive internal evidence that Peter was not in Rome because he would not eat with Gentiles(51AD)
His eating not eating with Gentiles is one piece of evidence, not extensive evidence that Peter was not in Rome. I missed your extended discussion of this point, so I am not sure how this related to the Papacy.
6. The Eastern Orthodox, who are as old as the Catholics, not recognizing Peter’s supremacy.
What is important for me, he, is first of all, an agreed upon definition of supremacy. This point is worthy of discussion.
7. Paul rebuking Peter.
Not worthy. If rebuking Peter had not been significant in itself, Paul would not have reported it. He reported it because it was so unexpected that someone would rebuke Peter.
8. James as head of the Jerusalem church. The first church in existence( see Acts).
Worthy of discussion. What is the first organ in the body that is formed? Is it the most important?
9. Binding and loosing conferred on Peter in Matt16 and the rest of the Apostles in Matt 18
Worthy of discussion. SDG has already addressed this.
10. Church fathers have been heavily interpolated( modified). I gave two examples of Ignatius and Cyprian.
Worthy of discussion. Goes to historical texts and how to treat them. Not all interpolations are equal.
11. Galatians 2 mentioning James, Peter, John as the PILLARS(plural) of the church.
Not worthy. The exact quote:
and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised;[my emphasis]
This may simply have been St. Paul, who had never been to Jerusalem, getting the lay of the land as far as the pecking order is concerned. Had he ever met any of these people prior to this? Of one were to show up at the Vatican, today, one might form the conclusion that the Pope, the head of the Congregation of Christian Doctrine, and the head of the congregation of r the Liturgy, might be the guys in charge, the pillars, because of the respect accorded to them. Figuring out which one is actually in charge might be something one would find out, later. In any event, St. Paul narrowed the field from twelve to three, which indicates that even he could see some winnowing going on.
Sorry for so short a response. 1, 4, 5, 6, 8,and 10 look to be the most interesting to reply to. Some have been replied to. I will have to look over the huge threads and see which one have. If any have been missed, i or someone else should respond.
The Chicken
italics off test
Would somebody turn off the italics?
The Chicken
Pat & Beadgirl,
I have a treasure trove of arguments that I can unleash. I have only released some of them.
In my search for authentic Christianity, I would often go to the Pastor or Priest and say I need to speak with your best man regarding the Bible and your interpretation of it. This is the quickest way to separate the wheat from the chaff. Clearly, I would never go to someone who basically admits they have ‘no clue’.
There are basically two types of people, those that will go into the ring and fight it out and the rest who are too complacent and just rather sit idle on sidelines. Beadgirl, you are not equipped for battle, so stay on the sidelines.
Re: “sift [ye]”.
I’m always happy when a writer remember the old ye-thou distinction so important to the classic English versions of the Bible. But remember there was also a ye-you distinction, like the thou-thee, he-him, they-them, and she-her distinctions. “Ye” is nominative, while “you” is accusative.
I am collecting an ever-growing pile of refuted arguments you have made. I can well believe you have a “trove” of unused ones, but based on what we’ve seen so far I am dubious whether we will see any “treasure.” Why don’t you try one good argument?
I will not have you bullying people. This is no Christian way to talk, and don’t give me your usual jeremiads about political correctness and sissification. Courtesy is not sissification, and boorishness is not virility.
Even if you were Jesus and Beadgirl were no more equipped for battle with you than the Samaritan woman at the well, it would not be reason for dismissive sneering. And in fact (a) you are not Jesus, and (b) Beadgirl makes good points, and deserves your respect, not your dismissive sneers.
SDG, you are a better and more patient man than I.
These posts are excellent. Thanks.
“…boorishness is not virility. ”
Can I get that on a t-shirt?
“There are basically two types of people, those that will go into the ring and fight it out and the rest who are too complacent and just rather sit idle on sidelines.”
Love of neighbor, and striving to be charitable, is a noble and worthwhile FIGHT. Intellectual arguments are often greatly damaged by the condescending attitudes and disrespectful behavior of those who make them, and the arguer would do well to be mindful of that. Peace out.
I’m sure the Jesuits were suitably reduced to silence when you opened a can of “early popes with Greek names who condemned the Assumption whilst not referencing Matthew 16” on them.
Oh, the mendacity of me for ignoring the glaring fact that it does not mention Petrine primacy.
Great Scott! Are you saying that Craig Blomberg, F. F. Bruce, D. A. Carson, William Albright and R. T. France are all … CATHOLIC MOLES?!!
SDG, you crack me up!
Tell me why Christ would build his church upon a weak, cowardly and sinful man.
Because, frankly, that’s all He has to work with. Seriously though, it is similar to the point in the OT when God commanded only a weak army of Israelites to go into battle – to show that the Church survives because of God, not because of a strong human leader. In other words, this is God’s doing, not man’s.
… and bone stupidity is not a sign of humility!
Tell me why Christ would build his church upon a weak, cowardly and sinful man.
For that matter, why would God enter the world as a helpless babe in a manger? Why woould He have picked any of those loser fisherman, tax collectors, etc. as apostles to begin with – not to mention a former murderer of His own followers? As if anyone would have been worthy of being His vicar.
I just really don’t see how this is an argument against Petrine Supremacy at all.
Oneil,
Please unleash the treasure trove regarding this one point:
2. Paul wrote 12-13 books, while Peter only 2 books in the NT. Please explain your logic in including that as a point of dispute? How would this make me reconsider Peter being the Pope?
I have a hunch those Jesuit’s you “intellectually annihilated” were basically shell-shocked at the time – I imagine your victory took place in person.
There is a big difference in being silent in defeat and being charitably silent. I am not saying they were right and you were wrong on the topics discussed (or vice versa).
Only that if one is too forceful in defense of their position or vulgar about it (whatever the case was in this war of Oneil the Viking Heretic versus the Lousy Jesuits) people tend to be silent and opt not to discuss matters further. Here in cyberspace there is no yelling only CAPITAL LETTERS and it is apparent we all have way too much time on our hands, so discussions can go on way past the point of reasonability.
Also, the only way for you to definitively intellectually annihilate someone in a debate is to give them a blunt trauma to the head. I am afraid to ask if you bench pressed these poor lousy Jesuits after their blunt trauma or if you impaled them with your Viking helmet.
But please answer how you think (reason) that Paul writing more letters than Peter is a proof that Peter was not the head of the Church militant.
As of his last post, Oneil is no longer welcome to comment on this blog.
“There are basically two types of people, those that will go into the ring and fight it out and the rest who are too complacent and just rather sit idle on sidelines. Beadgirl, you are not equipped for battle, so stay on the sidelines.”
What, I get no points for not being “complacent” or “sit[ting] idle”?
Seriously, Oneil, I debated for a while with myself how to respond, and I think it is perhaps best for my sanity and my temper that you will not deign to debate me. So thank you, and back to lurkdom I go.
Well Oneil,
I can now say goodbye, for awhile anyway for I am sure you will come back under a different fake name; to try to get upstream in your little Viking boat to pillage and destroy logical discussions.
Admit it though SDG, and others, when you have to deal with heresy (especially in-your- face outlandish heresy) it brings out some good fruit, this post being one of them.
“Courtesy is not sissification, and and boorishness is not virility.”
Well said, SDG. As John Wayne said in “McLintock”: “To be a gentleman, you first have to be a Man.”
…if one is too forceful in defense of their position or vulgar about it (whatever the case was in this war of Oneil the Viking Heretic versus the Lousy Jesuits) people tend to be silent and opt not to discuss matters further.
Lucien Syme,
This is an astute observation on your part.
After having seen Oneil in action on this blog, I lean to the view that the Jesuits despaired of having a constructive dialogue with him, and decided to break off conversation.
Indeed, which is precisely why I didn’t mind putting up with Oneil for as long as I did. The “age of the world part 1” combox became a long, erratic tour through anti-Catholic loopy-land which I always thought was worthwhile, as the demolition of even shoddy arguments tends to highlight points of truth worth reviewing and emphasizing from time to time.
I don’t regret any of my interaction with Oneil. (I started to write more about this, but I don’t think it’s fair to Oneil to say things about his actions here that he can’t respond to; as opposed to saying things about arguments he made, which is fair game. So I forbear.)
It is a little annoying to think that in Oneil’s self-narrative his interaction on this blog will probably become yet another in a long and illustrious history of unvarying intellectual conquests against the forces of Catholic ignorance and deception, who can neither withstand the implacable light of his Truth nor tolerate the courageous frankness of his Honesty.
But not very annoying. 🙂 The day will come when all our narratives are rightly told.
Incidentally, I will be looking to continue the Petrine fact series in the days ahead.
I would like to know how Anti-Catholics respond to what I wrote above, as the poster who shall not be named didn’t respond to my post:
Sts. Peter, Mary of Bethany, and Nathaniel (Bartholomew?) all recognized Christ as the Son of God, yet to none of these did He proclaim Blessed and exclaim that the Father revealed it to them.
The scene in St. Matthew’s Gospel, Chapter 16 is different. Simon has his name changed, the others did not. Simon was told that the Father revealed the information to him, the others did not (restated for emphasis.) Simon was given the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, the others were not. As an aside this alludes to a section in the Book of the Prophet Isaiah:
“And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias,
And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father.”
Isaiah 22:20-23
So, one can see that St. Peter is put into a position of a Prime Minister, just like Joseph in the Old Testament was:
“And he said to them: Can we find such another man, that is full of the spirit of God? He said therefore to Joseph: Seeing God hath shewn thee all that thou hast said, can I find one wiser and one like unto thee? Thou shalt be over my house, and at the commandment of thy mouth all the people shall obey: only in the kingly throne will I be above thee.
And again Pharao said to Joseph: Behold, I have appointed thee over the whole land of Egypt. And he took his ring from his own hand, and gave it into his hand: and he put upon him a robe of silk, and put a chain of gold about his neck. And he made him go up into his second chariot, the crier proclaiming that all should bow their knee before him, and that they should know he was made governor over the whole land of Egypt. And the king said to Joseph: I am Pharao; without thy commandment no man shall move hand or foot in all the land of Egypt. And he turned his name, and called him in the Egyptian tongue, The saviour of the world.”
-Genesis 41:38-45
Sorry to see Oneil go. I suppose we should all keep in mind that we need to guard against Triumphalism.
The Chicken
I was going to spew some nastiness at Oneil after his comment to Beadgirl, but I saw that he was banned. Sin averted!
Maybe.
If you’re out there Oneil, work on your reading and writing. Like, a lot. You’ll be better for it.
Anyway. I’m just happy that these Peter posts are gonna keep coming. Awesome.
Just to be clear, I didn’t caps lock “fight” in my comment to yell. I guess I should have italicized it. Hmm.
Oneil was like a grain of sand in an oyster. He irritated SDG into producing pearls. The comboxes were very quiet through most of August. It is amazing how one person can bring forth so many posts. We need a name for that phenomenon. How about. “nacrering,” the combox?
The Chicken
Oh wow, I see that by asking my seemingly innocent question, I was really sticking my foot into a pond roiling with angry alligators.
Anyhow. Thank you for the patient response, SDG. I love visiting the blog, but I can’t possibly keep up with all the comments (especially when they get, uh, “spirited” like these ones did).
My conclusion at this point is this. I certainly don’t see the disputes among the Apostles as lending any support to Peter being the greatest. They certainly could have– if, for instance, the inspired author had written something like “who was the greatest, after Peter.” But he didn’t, and so taken in isolation I would regard the “Apostles arguing” passages as weighing against Petrine supremacy.
But they don’t exist in isolation, of course. SDG is currently giving a tour de force of the overwhelming New Testament evidence in support of Peter having been given some official special status by Jesus. The question, then, is of course how we should make sense of the Apostles’ arguments in light of the remainder of these passages. If I understand SDG’s explanation above, the most persuasive part in it (to me) is its suggestion that maybe the Apostles were second-guessing Jesus– sure, some of the things He had said suggested that he might want Peter to be in charge, but was that really a good idea? Who was really the greatest Apostle, anyway? Who should the Rabbi pick (or have picked)?
As we have all seen around here recently, conversations like this can quickly take on a life of their own, even after everyone has mostly forgotten the considerations that got them started. If Jesus had interrupted the conversation after it had morphed from “did He/should He have picked Peter?” to “who is the greatest among us?” it would make a lot of sense that the Gospel would just record the latter as the subject of the argument.
As a point of comparison to the Apostles’ argument about who is the greatest:
We believe that the Holy Spirit guides the selection of our Popes.
However, that does not stop many people from second-guessing that selection. Indeed, many were disappointed with the selection of our current Holy Father; and they offered suggestions as to who should have been elected.
Although I don’t personally know of any bishops (the spiritual descendents of the Apostles) who publically argue that there should be another Pope, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that in private meetings among themselves they might do so.
So, I would not be surprised to learn that there might have been some Apostles who might have thought that Peter wasn’t the best choice.
I hope you don’t think you had anything to do with it! 🙂 The pond was already in full roil; your foot made no difference at all.
Heh. And now with Oneil gone it’s gotten so quiet I could almost regret bouncing him. Like the Chicken said, at least there was a lot of discussion while he was here.
BTW, Part 4 is nearly finished — look for it tomorrow.
Oneil appears to be another name for someone with whom I have been having an email conversation. While our conversation gets a bit heated sometimes, it is far and away more courteous and reasonable than similar discussions I have had with atheists. I have yet to have a debate with an atheist that doesn’t just leave me weary and disgusted.
Similarly with his posts here. He’s gotten a little, um, carried away, but even at his worst never even came close to being as full of spit and vinegar as the Myersites of last summer.
Not that I think much of his arguments. I believe he’s being fed a load of manure by someone somewhere, not the least of which is the once-saved-always-saved heresy which, in my experience, tends to rot the faith and humility of Evangelicals. To be fair, though, he seems to think I’m being fed a load of manure too. 8]
I suppose in the massive postings in the Age of the World Part I thread, Oneil might have discussed this, but I thought I would bring it up so that people could jump in.
There are two times where the process of building the Church is described in Matthew [all bolding below is mine]. The first is the infamous Matthew 16:18:
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. [RSV]
The original Greek reads:
16:18 κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς
Petros and petra are transliterations into the Greek of the Aramaic, kepha, using the masculine and feminine forms for the gender of the person (Peter) and the rock (rock is feminine in Greek), respectively. Kepha is feminine in aramaic, so using this form to describe Peter would have been somewhat insulting, thus, the gender change in the transliteration.
Now, the stone on which a structure is built is called the cornerstone. So, in a sense, in this passage, St. Peter is being called the foundation or cornerstone upon which Christ will build hisChurch.
By the way, when St. Peter is referred to as Cephas, such as in Jhn 1:42
He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).
In Greek is:
1:42 καὶ ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐμβλέψας δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν Σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωνᾶ σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος
St. John specifically tells the audience that Kephas and Petros are the same word. The pronunciation should be with a slightly hard C sound, not the soft C as is sometimes heard. In aramaic, the pronunciation is, K’iAP,eA
Now, there is another time in Matthew when the notion of a cornerstone is mentioned: Matt 21: 42
Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the scriptures: ‘The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? [RSV]
The builders were the Scribes and Pharisees.
The original Greek reads:
21:42 λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς Οὐδέποτε ἀνέγνωτε ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς Λίθον ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες οὗτος ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας παρὰ κυρίου ἐγένετο αὕτη καὶ ἔστιν θαυμαστὴ ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν
This, too, is a transliteration of Psalm 118: 22
The stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner. [RSV]
אֶבֶן מָאֲסוּ הַבֹּונִים הָיְתָה לְרֹאשׁ פִּנָּֽה׃
The word for stone in Hebrew is ‘eben, which is translated in the LXX as lithos:
117:22 λίθον ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες οὗτος ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας
Obviously, this passage in Matthew is a direct copy from the LXX. Did Jesus speak this in aramaic? I do not know (does anyone, here?) Now, knowing this passage from the Old Testament, which is a direct reference to Jesus as the cornerstone, Jesus obviously accepted the term, lithos, to describe himself as the cornerstone. Why did he not make such a reference in Matthew 16: 18? Why is there no reference of the use of the Aramaic term in Jesus’s quote from Psalm 118 in Matthew 21: 42?
In Matthew 21: 42, the stone was rejected by the builders, and yet it became the cornerstone in spite of the builders. This was the work of the Lord. So, the Church is built on Christ, but the word, cornerstone, is a somewhat misleading translation of what it actually says in the original Greek. It says, literally, the head of the corner. So, in this version, Jesus is referred to as the head of the Church.
In Matthew 16: 18, in contrast, Jesus did not use lithos, but Kephas and he said he would build his Church on it. Now things get a little interesting. If, in Psalm 118, the cornerstone placement is the work of the Lord, then Jesus, who is Lord, must have done it. Can he both build his Church and be the cornerstone of the Church at the same time?
He is my hypothesis: there are two stones being referred to because there are two parts of the Church. Just as St. Paul talks about Jesus being the head and we being the body, and Jesus as said he would go to prepare a place for us, it would seem that this analogy can be carried over to the Church. Jesus is the head of the body; Jesus is the headstone of the Church. We are the body of Christ on this earth; Peter is the rock upon which that part of Christ’s body or Church will be built. Just as the gates of Hell did not prevail against the head, so it will not prevail against the body.
Thus, Jesus can be the rock on which the Church is built and so can Peter.
The Chicken
Interesting, Chicken. That neatly addresses Oneil’s point that Isaiah and Psalms had prophecies calling Christ the rock, while still allowing the plain meaning of what Jesus says in Matthew 16.