Matthew and Mark, Peter the Rock and Rocky Soil

[patrick457]

Recently, I’ve heard of a rather interesting (and new, at least to me) idea, which to sum goes like this.

In the Parable of the Sower, Jesus speaks of seed that fell on rocky ground “where it did not have much soil, and immediately it sprang up, since it had no depth of soil. And when the sun rose, it was scorched, and since it had no root, it withered away.” Later, He explains it as standing for “the ones who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy. And they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away.” (Mark 4:5-6, 16-17) Note: rocky ground.

Now as everyone who pretty much who know their Bible realizes, the Gospels (Mark being the most prime example) paint the disciples in a not-so-much flattering light, almost like the buffoons to Jesus’ straight man: in fact, one of the running themes in Mark’s Gospel is the blindness of the disciples. Matthew and Luke, by contrast, have more slightly positive portrayals of the disciples, but some vestiges of the theme still lurks in between the lines.

In Mark, Jesus tells the Apostles that “the mystery/secret of the kingdom of God” (4:11-20) is plainly revealed to them, while those outside, everything is said in parables - in effect, they are privileged by being ‘in the know’. Their overall portrayal also starts off pretty well - when Jesus calls them, they obediently follow, leaving behind everything to follow Him (1:16-20; 2:13-17; 3:13-18) - but they go downhill from there, reaching a climax at the Passion. At that point, everyone of them has pretty much abandoned Jesus: Judas handed Him over (14:10-11), Peter denied even knowing Him (14:66-72), while the rest - including a mysterious young man - ran away (14:50-51), leaving only the women to watch Jesus in His final moments and to see where He was buried, and to visit His tomb (15:40-41, 47; 16:1-2).

But even then, the women are utterly terrified by the young man inside the tomb that the Gospel proper ends with them apparently not (yet) delivering news of the Resurrection to the male disciples (16:6-7). “And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.” (16:8) So, in what seems to be a twist of irony, the women are also ‘failures’ as well.

One of the prime examples of disciple failureship in Mark is Peter. I quote three instances:

And Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. And on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” And they told him, “John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.” And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.” And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him.

And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

 

[patrick457]

Much later:

And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. And Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away, for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’ But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.” Peter said to him, “Even though they all fall away, I will not.” And Jesus said to him, “Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.” But he said emphatically, “If I must die with you, I will not deny you.” And they all said the same.

And they went to a place called Gethsemane. And he said to his disciples, “Sit here while I pray.” And he took with him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled. And he said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death. Remain here and watch.” And going a little farther, he fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”

And he came and found them sleeping, and he said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour? Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” And he came and found them sleeping, and he said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour? Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words. And again he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy, and they did not know what to answer him.

And he came the third time and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? It is enough; the hour has come. The Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.”
Which of course leads to:

And they all left him and fled. And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body. And they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked. And they led Jesus to the high priest. And all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes came together. And Peter had followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. And he was sitting with the guards and warming himself at the fire. …]

And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came, and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said, “You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus.” But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you mean.” And he went out into the gateway and the rooster crowed. And the servant girl saw him and began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.” But again he denied it. And after a little while the bystanders again said to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them, for you are a Galilean.” But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know this man of whom you speak.” And immediately the rooster crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, “Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.” And he broke down and wept.

What is interesting is how in the narrative Peter the Rock fits the type of people whom Jesus likens to seed who fell on rocky ground. “When they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy. And they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away.”

In most instances in Mark (such as the ones quoted above), Peter is always mentioned by name in connection with the Passion, and it is in these instances that we see him faltering in his discipleship. It’s as if he had a major problem with the whole prospect of Jesus suffering and dying. Pre-Easter Peter is an embodiment of those scandalized (the verb that Jesus uses and which is translated in the instances above as ‘fall away’ is actually the same verb in Greek: skandalizō!) by the message of the Cross, as Paul would put it.

It is no surprise then that the young man’s message at the tomb specifically singles out Peter in his message, as if hinting at a rehabilitation: “But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”

In many ways, Mark seems as if he writes and structures the narrative in such a way as if he wants the audience to see through Peter’s eyes, thinking that a crucified Messiah is something that is not right: it is bizzare, even offensive. But at the same time, he also exhorts the audience to not be scandalized with this, unlike Peter.

It is often said since the days of the Fathers that Mark was Peter’s ‘interpreter’ (so Papias), and that his Gospel is virtually Peter’s. This is just a personal idea, but could this be post-Easter Peter’s reflection about those days? Was he wishing his flock to avoid the same mistakes that he did then?

 

[patrick457]

We go over to Matthew. In contrast to Mark, Matthew (and Luke) try to present a more positive portrayal of the disciples.

For instance, the Parable of the Sower. In contrast to Mark, where Jesus is somewhat annoyed by His disciples’ lack of comprehension and starts rebuking them: “Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?” (v. 13) In the Matthean parallel (13:1-23), by contrast, no rebuke is present, instead Jesus actually praises the disciples (v. 16-17): “But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.” No rebuke in the Lukan version as well (8:1-15).

In the calming of the storm in Mark’s version, the disciples tell Jesus bluntly: “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” (4:38; cf. Matthew 8:24 “Save us, Lord; we are perishing”; Luke 8:24 “Master, Master, we are perishing!”), and Jesus answers them: “Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?” (4:40; cf. Matthew 8:26 “Why are you afraid, O you of little faith?”; Luke 8:25 “Where is your faith?”)

Later, just after Jesus feeds the five thousand men and walks on water (6:30-51), Mark ends his pericope with an ominous note: “And they were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.” The Matthean parallel (14:22-33; Luke does not include the event) does not have this; instead Matthew has: “And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.””

Yet another famous example is Peter’s confession of Jesus in Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8:27-30; Matthew 16:13-19). Notably, the absence of any mention of Jesus’ acceptance of Peter’s confession in Matthew, as in Matthew (16:17-19) kind of makes Jesus’ rebuke to Him stronger. Luke meanwhile does not include any rebuke of Peter in his version (9:18-22).

The final example we’re going to note is the pericope concerning the question about who is the greatest. After foretelling once more His impending death and resurrection, Jesus et al. come to Capernaum (for the last time in Mark; 9:33-40):

And they came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house he asked them, “What were you discussing on the way?” But they kept silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest. And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.” And he took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them, “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.”

Both Matthew (18:1-4) and Luke (9:46-48) have slightly different, shorter parallels:

At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

An argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest. But Jesus, knowing the reasoning of their hearts, took a child and put him by his side and said to them, “Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. For he who is least among you all is the one who is great.”

 

[patrick457]

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/7894/tuespetrus.jpg

Now, despite all these differences in perspective, there is one thing that Matthew has in common with Mark: in spite of his general positive portrayal of the disciples, there are instances wherein Peter still speaks and acts rather problematically in his Gospel, as if embodying the seed that fell on rocky soil that withered at the scorching heat of the sun. In this respect, Matthew shares the same theme as Mark, and he then proceeds to take it a step further: he accentuates not only the bad bits where Peter does wrong, but also the good parts where he is enthusiastic in his faith.

In fact, in the pericope about Peter’s confession, Matthew’s version is somewhat more harsher and damning than Mark’s - especially since Matthew includes Jesus’ commendation of Peter:

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

In contrast to Mark, where Jesus is noted to “[turn] and [see] his disciples” (as if somewhat implicating them - yet another example of the running theme of that Gospel), here the focus is on Peter alone, which gives more strength to the rebuke. (As an aside, the word translated as ‘hindrance’ here - it is also translated as ‘stumbling block’ or ‘offense’ in other versions - is the Greek noun skandalon. There it is again; that little word!)

Another prime example of this is the pericope about the walking on water. Matthew includes material original to his Gospel at this point (it is not found in Mark or John - Luke does not include this story in his version, as we have noted):

And Peter answered him, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.” He said, “Come.” So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, “Lord, save me.” Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?” And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

Here Matthew also presents the image of Peter the Scandalized: he enthusiastically gets out of the boat and walks toward Jesus, but is assailed by fear due to the wind, which causes him to sink. This whole event kind of seems to be almost like a foreshadowing of what will happen later!

 

[inkaneer]

So what’s your point?

 

[patrick457]

So what’s your point?

Nah, just joking. The point is, in brief: the seed that fell on petrōdes ‘rocky ground’ and withered reflects pre-Easter Petros, whose name after all means ‘rock’, in many ways. Peter is enthusiastic at first - confessing Jesus as Son of God and promising to never abandon Him at the eve of His Passion) - but “when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word” he falters: rebuking Jesus once He starts talking about death and even denying any knowledge of Him when asked. Now admittedly it is slightly hard to swallow at first (I had the same reaction upon first hearing it), but upon further thinking, I’ve thought it a rather interesting and not so fully explored territory.

 

[PJM]

From PATRICK457

Now as everyone who pretty much who know their Bible realizes, the Gospels (Mark being the most prime example) paint the disciples in a not-so-much flattering light, almost like the buffoons to Jesus’ straight man: in fact, one of the running themes in Mark’s Gospel is the blindness of the disciples. .

Put yourself in there place. Your an uneducated fisherman, a tax collector, a doctor, and have a strong Jewish faith. Your tapped by Christ to 1. Serve Him and then to serve others WITHOUT PAY. You witness unexplainable events. You don’t know if its magic or what the source is. Your Jewish religious leaders outright HATE Jesus and what He stands for. SO PATRICK how do you react? I wounder what I would do?

1. 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.”

The rock (Greek, petra) referred to here is St. Peter himself, not his faith or Jesus Christ. Christ appears here not as the foundation, but as the architect who “builds.” The Church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men (see, e.g., 1 Pet 2:5).

1. Matthew 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .”

The “power of the keys” has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (cf. Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication,
absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances, and legislative powers. In the Old Testament a steward, or prime minister is a man who is “over a house”

1. Matthew 16:19 “. . . whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

“Binding” and “loosing” were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to “forbid” and “permit” with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to “condemn” or “place under the ban” or “acquit.” Thus, St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life, by virtue of revelation and the Spirit’s leading (Jn 16:13), and to demand obedience from the Church. “Binding and loosing” represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops

1. Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the “first” (10:2). Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.
2. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).
3. Likewise, Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).
4. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32).
5. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).
6. Peter first confesses Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16).
7. Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).
8. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.
9. Jesus Christ uniquely associates Himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute-money (Mt 17:24-27).
10. Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).
11. Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).
12. Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).
13. Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)!
14. Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).
15. Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).
16. Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison - Acts 12:1-17).
17. Peter presides over and opens the first Council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterwards accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).
18. Peter is often spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments
19. Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).
20. Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the “House of Israel” (2:36) - an example of “binding and loosing.”
21. Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).
22. Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).
23. Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called “visitation of the churches”
24. Peter acts, by strong implication, as the chief bishop/shepherd of the Church (1 Pet
    5:1), since he exhorts all the other bishops, or “elders.”
25. Peter interprets prophecy (2 Pet 1:16-21).
26. Peter corrects those who misuse Paul’s writings (2 Pet 3:15-16).
27. Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, according to most scholars, as its bishop, and as the universal bishop (or, pope) of the early Church. “Babylon” (1 Pet 5:13) is regarded as code for Rome.

In conclusion, it strains credulity to think that God would present St. Peter with such prominence in the Bible, without some meaning and import for later Christian history; in particular, Church government. The papacy is the most plausible (we believe actual) fulfillment of this

Not bad for a Fisherman

God Bless,
Pat

 

[eddy714]

Put yourself in there place. Your an uneducated fisherman, a tax collector, a doctor, and have a strong Jewish faith. Your tapped by Christ to 1. Serve Him and then to serve others WITHOUT PAY. You witness unexplainable events. You don’t know if its magic or what the source is. Your Jewish religious leaders outright HATE Jesus and what He stands for. SO PATRICK how do you react? I wounder what I would do?

1. 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.”

The rock (Greek, petra) referred to here is St. Peter himself, not his faith or Jesus Christ. Christ appears here not as the foundation, but as the architect who “builds.” The Church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men (see, e.g., 1 Pet 2:5).

1. Matthew 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .”

The “power of the keys” has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (cf. Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication,
absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances, and legislative powers. In the Old Testament a steward, or prime minister is a man who is “over a house”

1. Matthew 16:19 “. . . whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

“Binding” and “loosing” were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to “forbid” and “permit” with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to “condemn” or “place under the ban” or “acquit.” Thus, St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life, by virtue of revelation and the Spirit’s leading (Jn 16:13), and to demand obedience from the Church. “Binding and loosing” represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops

1. Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the “first” (10:2). Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.
2. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).
3. Likewise, Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).
4. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32).
5. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).
6. Peter first confesses Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16).
7. Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).
8. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.
9. Jesus Christ uniquely associates Himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute-money (Mt 17:24-27).
10. Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).
11. Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).
12. Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).
13. Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)!
14. Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).
15. Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).
16. Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison - Acts 12:1-17).
17. Peter presides over and opens the first Council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterwards accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).
18. Peter is often spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments
19. Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).
20. Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the “House of Israel” (2:36) - an example of “binding and loosing.”
21. Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).
22. Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).
23. Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called “visitation of the churches”
24. Peter acts, by strong implication, as the chief bishop/shepherd of the Church (1 Pet
    5:1), since he exhorts all the other bishops, or “elders.”
25. Peter interprets prophecy (2 Pet 1:16-21).
26. Peter corrects those who misuse Paul’s writings (2 Pet 3:15-16).
27. Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, according to most scholars, as its bishop, and as the universal bishop (or, pope) of the early Church. “Babylon” (1 Pet 5:13) is regarded as code for Rome.

In conclusion, it strains credulity to think that God would present St. Peter with such prominence in the Bible, without some meaning and import for later Christian history; in particular, Church government. The papacy is the most plausible (we believe actual) fulfillment of this

Not bad for a Fisherman

God Bless,
Pat

This is great info I have been in discussions with a fellow protestant brethren about St Peter, and this is some great info that I can present to him .

Hope you don’t mind me borrowing this so I can show it to him .

God Bless and thanks for this detailed explanation.

 

[inkaneer]

The difference in the pre- Pentecost Peter versus the post Pentecost Peter is almost a 180degree difference. But even before Pentecost we see Peter exercising his authority. After the ascencion the eleven Apostles returned to the upper room to pray for what would become a period of nine days and institute the very first novena in the Church. Peter is the one who stands and declares that they must find a replacement to fill the office of bishop that Judas vacated by his death. Peter’s words in Acts are very meaningful, more so than what is normally thought. For Peter institutes the Apostoloic Succession or that line of succession of bishops from the Apostles. Matthias is elected to the office of bishop. He is the very first personp ordained to the episcopcy by the Church.

 

[PJM]

=eddy714;8077219]This is great info I have been in discussions with a fellow protestant brethren about St Peter, and this is some great info that I can present to him .

Hope you don’t mind me borrowing this so I can show it to him .

God Bless and thanks for this detailed explanation.

Have at it.

Send me a PM and I have additional infor I can share with you including the entire “50” list

God Bless,
Pat

 

[patrick457]

The difference in the pre- Pentecost Peter versus the post Pentecost Peter is almost a 180degree difference. But even before Pentecost we see Peter exercising his authority. After the ascencion the eleven Apostles returned to the upper room to pray for what would become a period of nine days and institute the very first novena in the Church. Peter is the one who stands and declares that they must find a replacement to fill the office of bishop that Judas vacated by his death. Peter’s words in Acts are very meaningful, more so than what is normally thought. For Peter institutes the Apostoloic Succession or that line of succession of bishops from the Apostles. Matthias is elected to the office of bishop. He is the very first personp ordained to the episcopcy by the Church.

Indeed, this is what I’m trying to point out.

 

[patrick457]

Indeed, this is what I’m trying to point out.

As an addendum to this, yes, Peter does recuperate post-Easter (cf. John 21) and begins to live more fully to his name ‘Rock’, as you cite. But the point is here the pre-Easter Peter, that is, Simon Peter before and during the events of Holy Week.

 

[patrick457]

Put yourself in there place. Your an uneducated fisherman, a tax collector, a doctor, and have a strong Jewish faith. Your tapped by Christ to 1. Serve Him and then to serve others WITHOUT PAY. You witness unexplainable events. You don’t know if its magic or what the source is. Your Jewish religious leaders outright HATE Jesus and what He stands for. SO PATRICK how do you react? I wounder what I would do?

Let’s see here. The dilemma for Peter, apparently, was the prospect of the Messiah suffering a shameful end. A few moments earlier, he lavished such titles upon Jesus as ‘the Anointed’ and ‘Son of the living God’ (and gets wonderfully praised for it), but immediately after that Jesus does something inexplicable: “From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.”

Of course, if your teacher, whom you just confessed as Messiah earlier, suddenly starts talking about death and seems to make no attempt to escape it how would you react? You’ve left your former life just to follow this guy and witness what He is wherever He goes, just to see Him be murdered? You’ve devoted all your time and energy on this, just to see the authorities view your group as something of a threat to the peace (as all popular Messiah movements were considered back in those days)? I personally don’t know if I have root enough to endure such tribulation and persecution, but I’m praying for that grace.

BTW, very good list. Indeed, God is the only builder who can manage building His church upon such a foundation as Simon bar-Jonah.

 

[patrick457]

Since I’ve talked about skandalizō and skandalon, just for easier reference:

“And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: the ones who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy. And they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away (skandalizontai).”

“As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away (skandalizetai).”

• Mark 4:17; Matthew 13:20-21

From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance (skandalon) to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

• Matthew 16:21-23

And Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away (skandalisthēsesthe) , for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’ But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.” Peter said to him, “Even though they all fall away (skandalisthēsontai), I will not.” And Jesus said to him, “Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.”

Then Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away because of me this night. For it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.” Peter answered him, “Though they all fall away (skandalisthēsontai) because of you, I will never fall away (skandalisthēsomai).” Jesus said to him, “Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.”

• Mark 14:27-29; Matthew 26:31-34

 

[PJM]

=patrick457;8084645]Let’s see here. The dilemma for Peter, apparently, was the prospect of the Messiah suffering a shameful end. A few moments earlier, he lavished such titles upon Jesus as ‘the Anointed’ and ‘Son of the living God’ (and gets wonderfully praised for it), but immediately after that Jesus does something inexplicable: “From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.”

Of course, if your teacher, whom you just confessed as Messiah earlier, suddenly starts talking about death and seems to make no attempt to escape it how would you react? You’ve left your former life just to follow this guy and witness what He is wherever He goes, just to see Him be murdered? You’ve devoted all your time and energy on this, just to see the authorities view your group as something of a threat to the peace (as all popular Messiah movements were considered back in those days)? I personally don’t know if I have root enough to endure such tribulation and persecution, but I’m praying for that grace.

BTW, very good list. Indeed, God is the only builder who can manage building His church upon such a foundation as Simon bar-Jonah.

Hi Patrick, I certainly agree with your final conclusion. But not so much on the other info.

Why wouldn’t FEAR of a similar death be a pre-Easter motivation? Remember Peter did FIGHT for Christ until jesus told him to “Put up your sword.” And Peter DID follow Christ; although at a distance. Peter thrice denial seems motivated our fear; not unbelief.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[patrick457]

Hi Patrick, I certainly agree with your final conclusion. But not so much on the other info.

Why wouldn’t FEAR of a similar death be a pre-Easter motivation? Remember Peter did FIGHT for Christ until jesus told him to “Put up your sword.” And Peter DID follow Christ; although at a distance. Peter thrice denial seems motivated our fear; not unbelief.

God Bless,
Pat

Which is where we return to what I’ve said: Peter is portrayed as being ‘scandalized’ by the Cross, to the point of attacking the arrest party out of mistaken enthusiasm and zeal: he has still not grasped that all of this must happen, even after they’ve gone through this a number of times (“But let the Scriptures be fulfilled”). This is after all the same Peter that rebuked Jesus after the latter starts speaking openly about His coming death. When Peter gets enthusiastic in other instances he often does the right thing: this is notably one of those where he takes the wrong course of action.

“And Peter DID follow Christ; although at a distance.” This is one of those instances where the Gospels make good use of subtle foreshadowing. They note that Peter does follow the arrest party (thus trying to make good on his promise to never abandon Jesus), but adds that little comment: “at a distance,” as if to hint at what would happen next. It also makes Peter’s following seem as being more tentative than confident.

Especially in Mark’s case, “at a distance” (apo makrothen), used both here in Peter’s case as well as with the women who watched Jesus die 15:40), is a rather ambiguous, double-sided phrase. It could have a somewhat positive interpretation, but in the light of Psalm 38:11 (“My friends and companions stand aloof from my plague, and my nearest kin stand far off;” the same phrase, apo makrothen, is used here in the Septuagint) it also has a negative side to it.

“Peter thrice denial seems motivated our fear; not unbelief.” Actually this is where we are driven back to the parable of the sower: “these are the ones sown on rocky ground: the ones who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy. And they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they are scandalized.” Those exemplified by the seed that fell into rocky ground are not so much unbelieving (they were ‘on fire’ at the first, after all!) but are weak in their faith. And this is exactly how Peter and the disciples were: their faith then was not too deep enough to be ready for tribulation and so they quickly fall away. I wouldn’t say that they suffered from unbelief, rather that they are afflicted with half-baked faith that gets defeated by - as you said - fear of tribulation.

 

[PJM]

=patrick457;8099454]Which is where we return to what I’ve said: Peter is portrayed as being ‘scandalized’ by the Cross, to the point of attacking the arrest party out of mistaken enthusiasm and zeal: he has still not grasped that all of this must happen, even after they’ve gone through this a number of times (“But let the Scriptures be fulfilled”). This is after all the same Peter that rebuked Jesus after the latter starts speaking openly about His coming death. When Peter gets enthusiastic in other instances he often does the right thing: this is notably one of those where he takes the wrong course of action.

“And Peter DID follow Christ; although at a distance.” This is one of those instances where the Gospels make good use of subtle foreshadowing. They note that Peter does follow the arrest party (thus trying to make good on his promise to never abandon Jesus), but adds that little comment: “at a distance,” as if to hint at what would happen next. It also makes Peter’s following seem as being more tentative than confident.

Especially in Mark’s case, “at a distance” (apo makrothen), used both here in Peter’s case as well as with the women who watched Jesus die 15:40), is a rather ambiguous, double-sided phrase. It could have a somewhat positive interpretation, but in the light of Psalm 38:11 (“My friends and companions stand aloof from my plague, and my nearest kin stand far off;” the same phrase, apo makrothen, is used here in the Septuagint) it also has a negative side to it.

“Peter thrice denial seems motivated our fear; not unbelief.” Actually this is where we are driven back to the parable of the sower: “these are the ones sown on rocky ground: the ones who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy. And they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they are scandalized.” Those exemplified by the seed that fell into rocky ground are not so much unbelieving (they were ‘on fire’ at the first, after all!) but are weak in their faith. And this is exactly how Peter and the disciples were: their faith then was not too deep enough to be ready for tribulation and so they quickly fall away. I wouldn’t say that they suffered from unbelief, rather that they are afflicted with half-baked faith that gets defeated by - as you said - fear of tribulation.

Good Post. THANKS,

Would Peter have known with any certainty about the Cross before Christ was found “guilty of being too holy?”

God Bless.

Pat

 

[inkaneer]

Which is where we return to what I’ve said: Peter is portrayed as being ‘scandalized’ by the Cross, to the point of attacking the arrest party out of mistaken enthusiasm and zeal: he has still not grasped that all of this must happen, even after they’ve gone through this a number of times (“But let the Scriptures be fulfilled”). This is after all the same Peter that rebuked Jesus after the latter starts speaking openly about His coming death. When Peter gets enthusiastic in other instances he often does the right thing: this is notably one of those where he takes the wrong course of action.

“And Peter DID follow Christ; although at a distance.” This is one of those instances where the Gospels make good use of subtle foreshadowing. They note that Peter does follow the arrest party (thus trying to make good on his promise to never abandon Jesus), but adds that little comment: “at a distance,” as if to hint at what would happen next. It also makes Peter’s following seem as being more tentative than confident.

Especially in Mark’s case, “at a distance” (apo makrothen), used both here in Peter’s case as well as with the women who watched Jesus die 15:40), is a rather ambiguous, double-sided phrase. It could have a somewhat positive interpretation, but in the light of Psalm 38:11 (“My friends and companions stand aloof from my plague, and my nearest kin stand far off;” the same phrase, apo makrothen, is used here in the Septuagint) it also has a negative side to it.

“Peter thrice denial seems motivated our fear; not unbelief.” Actually this is where we are driven back to the parable of the sower: “these are the ones sown on rocky ground: the ones who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy. And they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they are scandalized.” Those exemplified by the seed that fell into rocky ground are not so much unbelieving (they were ‘on fire’ at the first, after all!) but are weak in their faith. And this is exactly how Peter and the disciples were: their faith then was not too deep enough to be ready for tribulation and so they quickly fall away. I wouldn’t say that they suffered from unbelief, rather that they are afflicted with half-baked faith that gets defeated by - as you said - fear of tribulation.

Interestingly this parable was the subject of the gospel reading this past Sunday. In the gospel reading Jesus, intrerprets the parable of the sower. To say that this somehow applies to Peter by trying to draw some connection between Petros and “rocky ground” is tenuous at best. The Gospel says that the seed that fell on rocky ground withered away. Peter didn’t wither away. He went through a period of trial but withered away? Hardly.

 

[Mintaka]

Actually, Jesus says (after the “devil has asked to sift you like wheat” comment, that He has prayed to the Father that Simon/Peter not fail/cease/die. (Which was a real prayer-need on Our Lord’s part, given that Judas was going to kill himself over his betrayal, and Peter also was going to betray Him.)

So yeah, I think that the idea that the Parable of the Sower was not just a prophecy and teaching for us Christians down the ages, but also for the apostles and disciples about what was about to happen to them under stress, is not particularly farfetched. Jesus could pack a lot of meaning into His Word, being God and all.

 

[inkaneer]

Actually, Jesus says (after the “devil has asked to sift you like wheat” comment, that He has prayed to the Father that Simon/Peter not fail/cease/die. (Which was a real prayer-need on Our Lord’s part, given that Judas was going to kill himself over his betrayal, and Peter also was going to betray Him.)

So yeah, I think that the idea that the Parable of the Sower was not just a prophecy and teaching for us Christians down the ages, but also for the apostles and disciples about what was about to happen to them under stress, is not particularly farfetched. Jesus could pack a lot of meaning into His Word, being God and all.

In the passage you cite [about the devil asking to sift as wheat] there is something interesting that gets lost in the translation into English. It has to do with the second person pronoun “you” which in English is the same word in both the singular as well as the plural. But in other languages, including Greek, that is not the case. It really affects one’s understanding of the passage. The first pronoun that is used and is translated as “you” [the devil has asked to sift you like wheat…] is a second person plural pronoun. It refers to all the Apostles not just Peter. The second pronoun translated as “you” [Ihave prayed for you…] is a second person singular pronoun meaning Jesus only prayed for Peter.