EFL0@ns.cc.lehigh.edu (Ed Lamb) (01/30/91)
Just a little comment about Peter...
I have been informed by at least two people who understood Greek
that the meaning of "the rock" statement is a little inaccurate. It
seems that the word that Christ used to refer to Peter means "little
rock" and the second reference means "big rock." They do not refer to
the same source. The way this was explained to me is this:
When Christ said, "..You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my
church..." it seems a little unclear to the meaning of this verse.
Two other thoughts: when He said "you are Peter," peter comes from
petros, which I have been told means "little rock," while "on this
rock" comes from petra, which means a BIG rock. So if you imagine hand
motions along with this, you have:
"You are Peter (little rock -- pointing to Peter) and on this
rock (BIG rock -- Jesus points to himself) I will build my church."
With this interpretation, it seems to be a humbling statement for Peter.
Another interpretation I have heard is that the second "rock" (BIG
rock) refers to the truth that Peter had just spoken, namely "You
<Jesus> are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." This seems the
most likely scenario to me, consequently I am unsure about affirming
any one head of the church. But, I am not willing to argue with a
brother or sister about this when there are so many valid
interpretations made by men and women of God.
I'm not really sure what purpose this memo had, except that at the
time I felt I should write something. I am always happy to discuss the
Word of God, but I don't like to argue with siblings in Christ.
Ed
________________________________________________________________________
Ed Lamb .387 average
Catcher 53 home runs
Philadelphia Phillies 157 runs batted in
National League MVP 67 stolen bases
World Series MVP
________________________________________________________________________
--Hey, I can dream, can't I ??????
[This interpretation seems not to be as common as it used to be. It
seems that this distinction is peculiar to Greek. Although I haven't
seen it said directly, my suspicion is that Petros is used as the name
instead of Petra because it is the masculine form. However in
Aramaic, which is presumably the language Jesus used, both words would
have been the same. --clh]rock@eng.sun.com (Bill Petro) (02/03/91)
EFL0@ns.cc.lehigh.edu (Ed Lamb) writes: >Just a little comment about Peter... > Another interpretation I have heard is that the second "rock" (BIG >rock) refers to the truth that Peter had just spoken, namely "You ><Jesus> are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." The interpretation as I have heard it is that the petra refers to Peter's faith. It is upon this that the church was based. Having studied Greek, and with a name like mine, I should know what I'm talking about :-) To be fair, though, to take the other position for a moment - that Peter himself is referred to here - in a very real way Peter was the foundation of the early church. Even a cursory reading of Acts demonstrates that. The point though, is that Jesus was talking to Peter, and made no similar promise to any successor after him. Bill "Rock" Petro - System Software Marketing -- Bill Petro {decwrl,hplabs,ucbvax}!sun!Eng!rock "UNIX for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" Matthew 19:12
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (02/08/91)
To be fair, though, to take the other position for a moment -
that Peter himself is referred to here - in a very real way
Peter was the foundation of the early church. Even a cursory
reading of Acts demonstrates that. The point though, is that
Jesus was talking to Peter, and made no similar promise to any
successor after him.
There are actually 3 different passages related to the Papacy. Matthew
is one. The other two are:
John 21: "Feed my lambs... Feed my sheep."
Luke 22: "Simon, Simon, Behold Satan has desired to have you... But I
have prayed for you that your faith fail not: and thou being converted,
confirm thy brethren."
The verse is John is regarded as the point at which our Lord conferred
the primacy on St. Peter (after the Resurrection).
The whole point about the Catholic interpretation of these verses is
that the interpretation is traditional. Its roots go back as far as we
have Christians writing on the subject. Not in the greatest clarity, of
course, but eventually the thought becomes precise enough to be clearly
Catholic. By sometime in the 400's at the very least.
The following fragments are from St. John Chrysostom, bishop of
Constantinople, who flourished around 400. They don't deal with the
Papacy per se, but with Peter's primacy.
One of the things that I find enjoyable about the writings of the
Fathers of the Church is their language ability. Chrysostom means
"golden mouth". One can see why.
"'And in those days, Peter, rising up in the midst of the disciples,
said,' Both as being ardent, and as having had entrusted to him by
Christ the flock; as the first of the choir, he always is the first to
begin the discourse. Lo! there were a hundred and twenty; and he asks
for one out of the whole multitude. Justly; he has the first authority
in the matter, as having had all entrusted to him. For to him Christ
said, 'And thou being converted, confirm thy brethren.'"
"...the leader of the choir of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples,
the pillar of the Church, the buttress of the faith, the foundation of
the confession, the fisherman of the universe."
"Peter himself, the Chief of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the
friend of Christ... this very Peter; -- and when I name Peter, I name
that unbroken rock, that firm foundation, the great Apostle, the first
of the disciples."
Here's one that treats specifically of the See of Rome. It's from St.
Optatus of Mileve, writing against the Donatist schismatics in the 4th
century:
"...Thou canst not then deny but thou knowest that, in the city of Rome,
the episcopal chair was first conferred on Peter, wherein might sit of
all the Apostles the head, Peter, whence he was called Cephas, that in
one chair unity might be preserved by all; nor the other Apostles each
contend for a distinct chair for himself, and that whosoever should set
up another chair against the single chair might at once be a schismatic
and a sinner... Peter therefore first occupied that pre-eminent chair,
which is the first of the marks; to him succeeded Linus, to Linus
succeeded Clement..."BINDNER@auvm.auvm.edu (02/12/91)
A further comment on the primacy of Peter: Of the four Gospels, one is attributed to St. John, brother (actually cousin) of Jesus, while the other three are the synoptic Gospels, which build upon eachother. The first of the synoptic Gospels is the Gospel of Mark. From this comes Matthew and Luke, written for the Jews and Gentiles respectively. The thing many don't realize is that the Gospel of Mark was written from the teachings of St. Peter. I find it a bit odd that those who wish to take the Gospel literally without further Church teaching deny the primacy of he who taught what he heard from the Lord. Just a thought, Michael