M
Galahad, these matters have been discussed 100 times and more, and we get weary of repeating the obvious answers.
However as one of the only courteous posters you deserve at least some response. But it will be brief.
- The number of references to peter, Jesus, abraham are hardly important surely, because that "popularity" vote would have the unintended consequence of putting Abraham ahead of Jesus! I think I am right in saying however that where several disciples are listed together, Peter is always first.
- You do not mention the obvious reference to rock which is disappointing if you intended balance. The words peter and rock are the same stem, so if you accept that the conversation was in aramaic, which was indeed the first language of the less educated of the holy land, then Jesus says in Mat 16:18 either.
Simon......thou art (Meaning I shall call you) rock, and upon this rock I will build my church, or if you like.
thou art Peter and upon this Peter I will build my church.
In order to avoid the blindingly obvious some will tell you that the conversation was in Greek (nonsense Peter is recorded as speaking Galilean, a dialect of aramaic, which history records is the working language, and indeed the "fields of blood" speech say that aramaic was the language) so they try to distinguish petra and petros to say.
Thou art rock but upon this other (large) rock , I will build my church.
Except nowhere does it say other..or but.
It would therefore actually say "thou art rock and upon this (large?) rock I will build my church
In short they are splitting ungrammatical hairs. Even Calvin and Luther both thought peter was the rock and Special.
The obvious reality is that the greek translator put petros /petra in for effect, not to change the meaning.
From the beginning to end Matthew tries to present the gospel as scripture fulfilled, and refers back to the OT, and quotes Jesus doing that, a number of times because he knew his audience would understand the biblical references.
Jesus is also built up numerous times as a davidic King, and associates himself with that kingdom, for example riding a donkey as Solomon had.
So the obvious meaning of "keys of the kingdom" TO HIS AUDIENCE OF JEWS would be a direct reference back to Hezekiah in Isaiah, where the "keys of the kingdom" are clearly represented as the symbol of an office of steward (similar to prime minister, a role with succession handed down). Keys may well mean something else to todays audience, cutting themselves off from tradition, but that is what it would have meant to the jews who were obsessive about finding meaning from OT.
So when Jesus gives the "keys of the kingdom" to peter , it is no accident, it is direct reference back to the priministerial role of Davidic times, an office with succession, and that is how the jews would have understood it. So there it is in the old testament.
Finally when it comes to succession, consider the truth of early christianity. That it was handed down. which is the meaning of paradosis, tradition. And we see in the early church, the appointing of succession of bishops, the empowerment of clergy. Do you really think Jesus would want his church to die out after one generation? The new testament came later. Paul says "stay true to the tradition which we taught you by word of mouth and letter" and later the new testament says "the pillar of truth is the church"
I reply out of courtesy.
However as one of the only courteous posters you deserve at least some response. But it will be brief.
- The number of references to peter, Jesus, abraham are hardly important surely, because that "popularity" vote would have the unintended consequence of putting Abraham ahead of Jesus! I think I am right in saying however that where several disciples are listed together, Peter is always first.
- You do not mention the obvious reference to rock which is disappointing if you intended balance. The words peter and rock are the same stem, so if you accept that the conversation was in aramaic, which was indeed the first language of the less educated of the holy land, then Jesus says in Mat 16:18 either.
Simon......thou art (Meaning I shall call you) rock, and upon this rock I will build my church, or if you like.
thou art Peter and upon this Peter I will build my church.
In order to avoid the blindingly obvious some will tell you that the conversation was in Greek (nonsense Peter is recorded as speaking Galilean, a dialect of aramaic, which history records is the working language, and indeed the "fields of blood" speech say that aramaic was the language) so they try to distinguish petra and petros to say.
Thou art rock but upon this other (large) rock , I will build my church.
Except nowhere does it say other..or but.
It would therefore actually say "thou art rock and upon this (large?) rock I will build my church
In short they are splitting ungrammatical hairs. Even Calvin and Luther both thought peter was the rock and Special.
The obvious reality is that the greek translator put petros /petra in for effect, not to change the meaning.
From the beginning to end Matthew tries to present the gospel as scripture fulfilled, and refers back to the OT, and quotes Jesus doing that, a number of times because he knew his audience would understand the biblical references.
Jesus is also built up numerous times as a davidic King, and associates himself with that kingdom, for example riding a donkey as Solomon had.
So the obvious meaning of "keys of the kingdom" TO HIS AUDIENCE OF JEWS would be a direct reference back to Hezekiah in Isaiah, where the "keys of the kingdom" are clearly represented as the symbol of an office of steward (similar to prime minister, a role with succession handed down). Keys may well mean something else to todays audience, cutting themselves off from tradition, but that is what it would have meant to the jews who were obsessive about finding meaning from OT.
So when Jesus gives the "keys of the kingdom" to peter , it is no accident, it is direct reference back to the priministerial role of Davidic times, an office with succession, and that is how the jews would have understood it. So there it is in the old testament.
Finally when it comes to succession, consider the truth of early christianity. That it was handed down. which is the meaning of paradosis, tradition. And we see in the early church, the appointing of succession of bishops, the empowerment of clergy. Do you really think Jesus would want his church to die out after one generation? The new testament came later. Paul says "stay true to the tradition which we taught you by word of mouth and letter" and later the new testament says "the pillar of truth is the church"
I reply out of courtesy.
Last edited:
If there's something that you really think we should deal with, then use the Report button (there's a Report button on every post). But please understand that there will be some error and we don't remove all error or even all heresy from the site, partly because it's an opportunity for Christians to correct it and respond with the word of God. But if there's too much of it or too much from one person then we do some housecleaning. We certainly don't want our site to be dominated by Catholic heresy or whatever heresy or error, and we don't want people to get the impression that we just tolerate all of that.
