Recognizing the office of PETER in the NT (very long)

4,192 Views | 39 Replies | Last: 9 mo ago by Catag94
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Okay…so we have at least progressed from just a nickname that morphed into his primary name to Christ gave him the name and it has significance. I'll take that as a minor win. I understand calling PETER a sort of title is a new perspective, but it is a thought experiment that I think has legitimacy for reflection and contemplation. How did the earliest Christians, those that wrote the scriptures and their contemporaries, understand the name PETER? Why are we repeatedly told that Simon is to be called Peter? I would argue it was not just a nickname, as you previously stated. It was in fact something more which is what most Christians gloss over without even realizing it. The apostles and early Christians remembered it was Christ who declared that Simon shall be called Peter.



Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I haven't changed my position at all. It is his name. It is a nickname. It is a name given by Christ. It has significance like any of the names given by God.

Is Abraham a title? Or Sarah? Or Israel?

Shrug. Just seems like a stretch.
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
All three of those name changes signified a change in their identity and purpose for God's kingdom. I would say Simon's name change places him in pretty exclusive company. These were not nicknames and neither was Peter just a nickname for Simon.

ETA: When we read Abraham and Israel we tend to have their name change and its significance front of mind because it was so important. When most people read the name Peter they tend not to attach the same type of significance.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Did it? I'm not sure that Abraham's identity and purpose changed. Or Sarah. Or Israel, even.

Christ added Peter to his name Simon. There was another Simon, disambiguated by "the Zealot". That is a title. Thaddaeus is the nickname of the apostle Jude or Judas, used presumably to avoid confusion with Judas Iscariot.

Rev 2:17 implies all who persevere have a name only He knows.

I think the title of Rock or Rocky is pretty well understood to be important. St Augustine says that it means he symbolically represents the whole church.
Quote:

Previously, of course, he was called Simon; this name of Peter was bestowed on him by the Lord, and that with the symbolic intention of his representing the Church. Because Christ, you see, is the petra or rock; Peter, or Rocky, is the Christian people.
Shrug. Just seems like motivated reasoning to make this anything more than his name, given by Christ, because of his character.
Catag94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Faithful Ag said:

Quote:

All of those OT quotes naturally support Jesus as the rock.

Which makes the fact that Jesus bestows the name/title onto Simon all the more significant. Jesus gives to Simon a name or association that up until that moment was reserved for God. He blesses Simon, gives him the Title PETER (ROCK), then adds to the blessing by giving PETER the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and the powers to bind and loose.

PETER was Simon's title. Jesus declared Simon the Rock. Jesus was trying to tell us something with all of the things he said and did for Simon. That's the point I am trying to make.


As TSJ said, all those OT scriptures support Jesus as "The Rock".

In Matthew 16, where this conversation is recorded, Jesus had just asked the disciples who they (the disciples) say that He (Jesus) is. Simon speaks up and says that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus' first response to him is "Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah, for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in Heaven".
Then he says, "And I say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church…."

We already established, throughout the Bible, that God is "The Rock".
Simon just stated that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God" or God!
Jesus lets him know that God revealed that to him.

So, on what Rock is Jesus referring that He will build His church?

On Simon, or that name now given in Peter….NO.

I dare say that it is that he is referring to:
1-The fact that He (Jesus) is The Christ!
2-That God reveals truths regarding faith to those He wills.

To me, this is far more consistent with the whole of the scriptures than the idea that Jesus is building His church on Simon, a man no doubt Jesus knows will betray him until God's perfects his faith.

Also, the OP mentions the Protestant arguments with the concept, but what about the Orthodox Catholic belief that Peter was simply the first among equals?

Also, regarding the passing of the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to bind and loose….
How do you explain John 20:23 in which Jesus pass the same onto all the disciples?

Furthermore, scripture never refers to Peter as "Head of the Church" but in several places, referrs to Jesus has "Head of the Church".

Obviously, and to your points, Simon called Peter held a very special role in the early church and was viewed with great respect. But, it is important to recognized that the OP argument starts with the premise and assumption of that Jesus is saying that Simon is the Rock, and that's a very squishy interpretation of the text. Again, I suggest that the whole of Jesus' response to Simon here, indicates the "Rock" on which He builds His church is the Father revealed fact that He is The Christ.
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.