Matthew's "rock"

[Miguel_Sastre]

really I don’t know how much clearer it could be!! If Jesus hadn’t changed Peter’s name to Rock then why would everyone be so familiar with the tradition?

I agree. I’m not denying Peter is the rock. If you had read the OP, you’ll notice that I prefaced with my comments with may belief that Peter is the rock.

 

[PJM]

=Miguel Sastre;6760103]Hi,

But I’m not most Evangelicals. I happen to agree that Peter (also known as Cephas) is almost certainly “this rock.” What I want to discuss, however, is what Matthew intended his readers to conclude from that fact.

1. Matthew’s omissions of passages in Mark where Peter is involved is also theologically significant.

1. The fact that Peter plays no part in Mathew’s post-Resurrection story is a conscious editorial move on Matthew’s part and should be taken into consideration when discussing Peter’s alleged “primacy.”

Eph. 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [SINGULAR] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; SINGULAR] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

**2. 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**3. Mt: 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. "

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. Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself** (Jn 21:15-17), **singularly by name, and over the universal Church,
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 is regarded by the Jews (**Acts 4:1-13) **as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.
8. Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).
   .
9. Peter’s words are the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).
10. Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22)
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 person after Christ to raise the dead** (Acts 9:40).**
15. Cornelius is told by an angel to seek Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).
16. Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).
17. 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). **
18. Peter presides over and opens the first Council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterwards accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).
19. Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).

**25. Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas).

1. 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.”
2. Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).
3. Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18),
4. Peter corrects those who misuse Paul’s writings (2 Pet 3:15-16).

‘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 directive to ‘Feed my sheep.‘ ”

What ever God does, whatever God demands, God has a reason, a purpose. We may not always understand and we may struggle about this issue or that issue, but in the end, we KNOW that God is good! He has proven His Love for us, and wants us to prove our love for Him! And that my friend is good enough for me.

Love and prayers friend, this “is the REST OF TE STORY!”**

 

[DrDave]

Miguel, if one accepts all the premises and assumptions you have set up for this discussion, then clearly, a case can be made for portraying Simon as a great big lovabe loser. (though there is no scriptural evidence that he ever held his forefinger and thumb in the shape of an L on his forehead )

Accepting this (for the sake of the discussion, not saying that I really do) I think your point identifying the remarks in Isiah re: the peg to a correlation between Eliakhim and Simon fail to make sense.

Let me explain what I mean. Yes, clearly there is a correlation between the passages about the keys, but if you try to make the argument that the comments about the peg refer to Eliakim (which is certainly a possible interpretation) it follows that Eliakim failed in his office, and eventually the office itself failed (along with the rest of the Davidic Kingdom structure).

In Mt 16 however, Matthew shows Jesus prefacing his allusion to the keys (and therefore the Prime Ministerial role of Eliakim) by clearly stating that His kingdom will not fail. You have earlier acknowleged that Matthews portrayal of the relationship of building to their foundation indicates that that the stability of the building is proportional to the stability of the foundation. Here Matthew portrays Christ as saying that the kingdom He will ‘build’ upon the foundation of ‘The Rock’ will never fail, clearly this ‘Rock’ is of even more solid stuff than the rock mentioned in Matthew 7.

To me this would suggest that Matthew’s point in ‘downplaying’ Simon’s role and/or person (if that’s what he’s doing) is to emphasise what Christ is doing at this point. Just as Genesis portrays Adam being formed from a lump of clay, here we have ‘The Rock’ being formed from the rather pliable putty of ‘the apostle formerly known as Simon’. This (in my reading of Matthew) is a miracle of the highest order, and a work of Christ. Nothing in this passages speaks of that which is intrinsic to Simon, but rather to what is formed in Peter.

Regards Doc

 

[FightingFat]

I agree. I’m not denying Peter is the rock. If you had read the OP, you’ll notice that I prefaced with my comments with may belief that Peter is the rock.

I understand that Miguel, but implicit in this name change is the mission that Jesus gave to Peter and the resultant Church.

Have you ever read F. W. Beare on this? He is arguing from the perspective that Christianity is nonsense and comes up with similar arguments that fly in the face of common sense.