how do we answer the Peter the rock claims?

[mosheli]

In the last few years I have been seeing alot of postings in christian forums about the Catholic claims that Peter is the rock in Matthew 16 and he has the keys/authority etc. As far as I understand it they claim Peter went to Rome and that the bishops of Rome are his successors (apostolic succession). I have some ideas of possible answers to these claims but I want to seek advice of more knowledgeable Messianics.

I'll just give some of my attempts at an answer below.

(1) When we read the Matthew 16 verses in the original Greek here biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/16.htm we see that Peter is Petros but the rock the church is built on is Petra, so I can't see that Peter is the rock the church is built on. I assume that Yeshua/Jesus is the Petra. The rock would surely be in Jerusalem not in Rome or anywhere else.

(2) There is no evidence in the Bible that Peter was (bishop of the church) at Rome, nor is there any extra-Biblical historical evidence outside of later Roman church writings.
The only possible biblical evidence is where Peter passes on a greeting from "Babylon" (which may have been a code name for Rome), but the verses don't say he was at "Babylon" just that he was passing on a greeting from "Babylon" (1 Peter 5:13). Another bible verse says he will be brought where he does not desire (John 21:18), but again this doesn't actually say Rome. Again Jerusalem seems the more likely center/capital.

(3) Is apostolic succession biblical? The apostles were those who witnessed Yeshua/Jesus.

(4) Peter was leader of the Apostles, but James was leader of the community?

[mosheli]

I've done some further research and it seems sure that the rock the church is built on in Matthew 16 is Yeshua not Peter.

Matthew 7:24 "Everyone therefore who hears these words of mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man, who built his house on a rock.
7:25 The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it didn't fall, for it was founded on the rock.

Matthew 16:18 I also tell you that you are Peter, (Peter's name, Petros in Greek, Latin Petrus, is the word for a specific rock or stone.) and on this rock (Greek, petra, Latin petram, a rock mass or bedrock.) I will build my assembly, ....

Matthew 21:42 'The stone which the builders rejected, the same was made the head of the corner. This was from the Lord. It is marvelous in our eyes?' (Psalm 118:22-23) ....
21:44 He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but on whoever it will fall, it will scatter him as dust."

Mark 12:10 Haven't you even read this Scripture: 'The stone which the builders rejected, the same was made the head of the corner.

Luke 6:47 Everyone who comes to me, and hears my words, and does them, I will show you who he is like.
6:48 He is like a man building a house, who dug and went deep, and laid a foundation on the rock. When a flood arose, the stream broke against that house, and could not shake it, because it was founded on the rock.

Luke 20:17 But he looked at them, and said, "Then what is this that is written, 'The stone which the builders rejected, the same was made the chief cornerstone?' (Psalm 118:22)
020:018 Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but it will crush whomever it falls on to dust."

Acts 4:11 He (Jesus) is 'the stone which was regarded as worthless by you, the builders, which has become the head of the corner.' (Psalm 118:22)

Romans 9:32 ... They stumbled over the stumbling stone;
9:33 even as it is written, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and a rock of offense; and no one who believes in him will be disappointed." (Isaiah 8:14; 28:16)

1 Corinthians 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.

Ephesians 2:20 being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone; ....

1 Peter 2:4 coming to him, a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God, precious.
2:5 You also, as living stones, are built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
2:6 Because it is contained in Scripture, "Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, chosen, and precious: He who believes in him will not be disappointed." (Isaiah 28:16)
2:7 For you who believe therefore is the honor, but for those who are disobedient, "The stone which the builders rejected, has become the chief cornerstone," (Psalm 118:22)
2:8 and, "a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." (Isaiah 8:14)

(This last one also says in Zion not in Rome.)

[alon]

I combined and slightly modified your posts (not changing any meanings, just the format a little) to answer them easier and, I think better.


… Catholic claims that Peter is the rock in Matthew 16 and he has the keys/authority etc. As far as I understand it they claim Peter went to Rome and that the bishops of Rome are his successors (apostolic succession). I have some ideas of possible answers to these claims but I want to seek advice of more knowledgeable Messianics.

I'll just give some of my attempts at an answer below.

(1) When we read the Matthew 16 verses in the original Greek here biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/16.htm we see that Peter is Petros but the rock the church is built on is Petra, so I can't see that Peter is the rock the church is built on. I assume that Yeshua/Jesus is the Petra. The rock would surely be in Jerusalem not in Rome or anywhere else.

First off, we need to clear up this idea of the”church” just supernaturally springing up after Yeshua’s ascension. The “church,” meaning the Catholic Church did not even begin to form until the mid 4th century. There was an idea of a catholic (universal) church, but that hd been around for millennia. Constantine had a perverse form of that dream. He never believed in Yeshua, but he saw the “Yeshua movement” and the disparate churches (plural) as a vehicle by which to unify the equally disparate lands and peoples he had conquered. So he called the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. All one must do to absolutely quash the idea of a Catholic Church prior to this is study the history of that council. They all had their own ideas abut God, Yeshua, the Holy Spirit, and church order. Constantine had to step in and settle most of the disputes in an authoritarian and wholly arbitrary manner; and he worshiped not Yeshua, nor even God, but rather Sol Invictus. He worshiped the sun. So even if Peter had been in Rome (which you are correct, there is no evidence he ever was), he could not have been establishing the Catholic Church. It never existed in any form until the mid 4th cen. And even then it took a lot of time and many more ecumenical councils to form what we know as the “church” - then they split! Seems East and West still could not agree.


(2) There is no evidence in the Bible that Peter was (bishop of the church) at Rome, nor is there any extra-Biblical historical evidence outside of later Roman church writings.
The only possible biblical evidence is where Peter passes on a greeting from "Babylon" (which may have been a code name for Rome), but the verses don't say he was at "Babylon" just that he was passing on a greeting from "Babylon" (1 Peter 5:13). Another bible verse says he will be brought where he does not desire (John 21:18), but again this doesn't actually say Rome. Again Jerusalem seems the more likely center/capital.

Babylon, often referencing Rome, could mean any pagan region, culture or people. So i I agree with the above statement.


(3) Is apostolic succession biblical? The apostles were those who witnessed Yeshua/Jesus.

Yes. God is a God of order, and someone has always been in charge. Shaliachim (many shaliach tziburim) would be sent out to form, and become titular heads of the assemblies they formed. The term “shaliach tzibur” simply means “representative of the assembly.” The Greek term meaning the same is “apostolos.” In English, “apostle(s).”

This is a good place to clear up the term “church.” The church fathers translated the term differently in the LXX Old, and the several New Testament sources. In the OT it was an assembly, which is the proper way to read it. In the New, because they wanted to build a new religion they call it a “church.” This gives readers the idea of something new and different. But the only unified “church” was the Jewish sect of the Notsarim, or Nazarines- the sect most base the contemporary Messianic movement on (as much as possible).
Acts 24:5 For we have found this man a public menace and one who stirs up dissensions among all the Jews throughout the world [Lit the inhabited earth], and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.
So at least Tertulian thought at the time that Rav Shaul was head of the sect which actually had “apostolic succession”- unless the church wants to argue Paul was not an apostle (which I seriously doubt they would).

(4) Peter was leader of the Apostles, but James was leader of the community?
Not possible. The apostles were themselves representatives of the community, the sect of the Notsarim. James, brother of Yeshua was the head of this sect/community/assembly.

I've done some further research and it seems sure that the rock the church is built on in Matthew 16 is Yeshua not Peter.
Matthew 7:24-25 "Everyone therefore who hears these words of mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man, who built his house on a rock.The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it didn't fall, for it was founded on the rock.
Matthew 16:18 I also tell you that you are Peter, (Peter's name, Petros in Greek, Latin Petrus, is the word for a specific rock or stone.) and on this rock (Greek, petra, Latin petram, a rock mass or bedrock) I will build my assembly, ....
Matthew 21:42,44 'The stone which the builders rejected, the same was made the head of the corner. This was from the Lord. It is marvelous in our eyes?' (Psalm 118:22-23) …. He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but on whoever it will fall, it will scatter him as dust."
Mark 12:10 Haven't you even read this Scripture: 'The stone which the builders rejected, the same was made the head of the corner.
Luke 6:47-48 Everyone who comes to me, and hears my words, and does them, I will show you who he is like. He is like a man building a house, who dug and went deep, and laid a foundation on the rock. When a flood arose, the stream broke against that house, and could not shake it, because it was founded on the rock.
Luke 20:17-18 But he looked at them, and said, "Then what is this that is written, 'The stone which the builders rejected, the same was made the chief cornerstone?' (Psalm 118:22) Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but it will crush whomever it falls on to dust."
Acts 4:11 He (Jesus) is 'the stone which was regarded as worthless by you, the builders, which has become the head of the corner.' (Psalm 118:22)
Romans 9:32-33 ... They stumbled over the stumbling stone; even as it is written, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and a rock of offense; and no one who believes in him will be disappointed." (Isaiah 8:14; 28:16)
1 Corinthians 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.
Ephesians 2:20 being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone; ....
1 Peter 2:4 coming to him, a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God, precious.
2:5-8 You also, as living stones, are built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Because it is contained in Scripture, "Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, chosen, and precious: He who believes in him will not be disappointed." (Isaiah 28:16) For you who believe therefore is the honor, but for those who are disobedient, "The stone which the builders rejected, has become the chief cornerstone," (Psalm 118:22) and, "a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." (Isaiah 8:14)
(This last one also says in Zion not in Rome.)


My take on the “rock” is similar to yours. Yeshua is the rock; but more than that FAITH in Yeshua is the rock upon which His assembly will be, and IS formed. Read in context:
Matthew 16:13-19 Now when Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah, or one of the other prophets.” He *said to them, “But who do you yourselves say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ [ha’moshiach, the Messiah], the Son of the living God.” And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter [petros, a stone], and upon this rock [petra, massive rock formation; bedrock] I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind [forbid] on earth shall have been bound in heaven [fut. pft. pass. tense], and whatever you loose [permit] on earth shall have been loosed in heaven [fut. pft. pass. tense].”
This is a key passage in the argument you are discussing; and one that is (usually intentionally) misinterpreted. The tenses in v. 19 and the different use of the terms “rock” and “bedrock,” as well as the terms “bind” and “loose” are significant. Peters name (as you said) means “rock.” But on bedrock God would build His assembly. That bedrock, I believe is Peters faith, or more accurately faith like Peters. Peter trusted what God had revealed to him- Yeshua, the man standing in front of him was Almighty God in human form, come as ha’moshiach; the long awaited Messiah, in whom Peter placed his trust. Peter was a man, and when that faith/trust would later be tested he would fail. But when his God/Messiah later reached out to him his overwhelming love, faith and trust became unshakable.

What was happening here was Pter became the first apostle to receive his s’micha, or ordination. Binding and loosing referred to his now being able to make halacha, or rulings on the minutia of how we observe Torah- God’s instructions for holy (set apart) living. As a shaliach, or representative the apostles would be sent to different regions. God Himself realized no one set of instructions could be comprehensive, usable to all men in all times and places. So He (Yeshua/God) gave us His Torah, which is immutable; it cannot be changed. This fact is important when recognizing the false beliefs of the Catholic Church when they changed commandments like the 7th day Shabbat to the 1st day, Sunday; and the calendrical method of a day being sundown to sundown to the Gregorian method of midnight to midnight (witching hour to witching hour).

Halacha are rulings made on how we keep Torah. My favorite example is someone today in a polar region where days and nights are a bit longer than in equatorial regions. It would be wholly impractical to say every 7th sundown begins the biblical Sabbath. So what might a shaliach do? He’d give the convert a clock and a calendar and have him keep Shabbat based on those, not on actual sundowns. Torah is not changed, but it is observed a bit differently at the poles and at the equator.

Those keys were his s’micha; and represented his authority to set halacha. But when a shaliach sets halacha it must be in accordance with the Word, of which he must be extremely familiar and knowledgable. And it is done prayerfully and in accordance with God’s will. He must be very attuned to hearing God when He reveals something, and full of discernment to tell this is actually from God and not his own will, or worse a word from satanic sources. Peter displayed this quality there in front of “The Gates of Hell,” a literal pagan shrine where they were. This was not just an ordination, it was a slap in the face of the enemy; a challenge to that final duel between Yeshua/God and ha’satan, the enemy of our souls.

I believe this is why Peters ordeal when Yeshua was crucified is referenced. He was a central figure in this challenge, so we are shown if you want to do anything that challenges ha’satan or his plans, expect a spiritual battle which may likely be experienced in the physical realm. Peter was in danger, had he been recognized as a coconspirator with Yeshua in challenging Roman authority/beliefs. So you may experience some kind of spiritual or physical (or both) problems when you challenge the beliefs of those who are arguing with you here. Just know Yeshua lives, and He is the absolute authority. And He still reaches out to us, saying “”follow Me, just as He did with Peter and all the rest of the disciples, soon to get their own s’micha making them apostles, ready to take on the world!

So I think you are on the right track. All you needed was a few more details, of which which I hope I have provided sufficient. If not, you know where we are.

Shalom.

[jimmie]

Peter could not have been the first Pope:

Mark 1:30 But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.