True2Ourselves
Already a member? login
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
  
+
Register FAQ A-Z directory Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

True2Ourselves Forums   > Community Topics > Theology  > ARTICLE: "You Can't Get Past this Rock" by Tim Staples

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-21-2009, 07:12 AM
CatholicCrusader
 
Posts: n/a
Default ARTICLE: "You Can't Get Past this Rock" by Tim Staples

ARTICLE:
You Can't Get Past this Rock
by Tim Staples
source: link


Few texts have occasioned the spilling of more ink than Matthew 16:18–19:
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. 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.
Although all twelve apostles were present, Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the kingdom. The keys symbolize Christ’s authority over the kingdom of heaven on earth—the Church. Yet many Protestants believe the two "rocks" in the Greek text have different meanings: "Thou art Petros, and on this petra I will build my church." They believe Petros, the first "rock," refers to a small rock (Peter) and petra, the second "rock," means a massive boulder—either Jesus or Peter’s confession of faith. Thus the argument concludes that Jesus did not build his Church upon Peter but upon either himself or Peter’s faith.

This is not how Catholics understand this passage. There are ten reasons for why we believe that Peter is undeniably the rock of the Church.


We’re Not in Little Rock

1. There is good evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic. Both Papias and Irenaeus told us that in the second century. More importantly, and more certainly, Jesus would have spoken his discourse of Matthew 16 in Aramaic, not Greek. Although Greek was the dominant language of the Roman Empire in the first century, most of the Jewish people Jesus spoke to were not fluent in it. They spoke Aramaic.

There is also biblical evidence, in John 1:42, that Jesus used Aramaic in the naming of Peter:
[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter).
The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic name Kepha, which simply means "rock." There was no "small rock" to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter. Even well-respected Protestant scholars agree on this point. Baptist scholar D. A. Carson writes:
The underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; at most probably kepha was used in both clauses ("you are kepha" and "on this kepha"), since the word was used both for a name and for a "rock." The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8, Zondervan, 368)
Rocky Road

2. In Koine Greek (the dialect used by the authors of the New Testament), petros and petra are the masculine and feminine form of a word with the same root and the same definition—"rock." Therefore, there is no "small rock" in the Greek text either. So why did Matthew use two different words for "rock" in the same verse?

Petra was a common word for "rock" in Greek. It is used fifteen times to mean "rock," "rocks," or "rocky" in the New Testament. Petros is an ancient Greek term that was not commonly used in Koine Greek at all. In fact, it was never otherwise used in the New Testament except when Jesus changed Peter’s name from Simon to Peter.

It follows that when the Gospel of Matthew was translated into Greek, petra would have been used for "rock," but petra is a feminine noun. It would have been improper to call Peter " petra," and so petros, the masculine form, was used for his name.

3. There are several words the inspired author could have used for "rock" or "stone" in Greek. Petra and lithos were the most common and were used interchangeably. Any connotation of small or large depends on context. The words simply mean "rock" or "stone."

In the Septuagint, in Joshua 5:2–3, "God said to Joshua, ‘Make flint knives and circumcise the people of Israel again the second time.’ So Joshua made flint knives [out of rocks]." One cannot make a stone knife out of a boulder, but it can be done out of a small rock that is manageable by hand.

Though it can be argued that lithos is more commonly used for "small rock" or "stone," we have examples of it being used as "large stone" as well. In Matthew 28:2, it is used for the large stone that was used to seal the tomb of Christ. Christ refers to himself as a "stone" in Matthew 21:42–44. It is used as "small stone," for example, in Matthew 4:3, when the devil shows Jesus some small stones (Greek: lithoi) and tempts him to turn them into bread. In John 10:31, certain Jews pick up lithoi to stone Jesus. Perhaps most importantly, in 1 Peter 2:5, Peter himself uses lithoi to describe the people of God as "living stones . . . built into a spiritual house." He does not call the body of Christ petroi. The only word that is never used to denote "small stone" or "small rock" in the New Testament is petros.

Peter himself had an opportunity to use that word in 1 Peter 2:5, but he did not. The word petros is uniquely applied to Peter in Scripture and is never used to connote "small rock."

Carson also pointed out that the large/small distinction is found only in ancient Greek, which was used from the eighth to the fourth century B.C., and even then it was confined largely to poetry. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, used from the fourth century B.C. to the fifth century A.D. Carson agrees with Catholics that there is no distinction in definition between petros and petra.

One of the most respected and referenced Greek dictionaries among Evangelicals is Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. In a most candid and honest statement about Matthew 16:18, Oscar Cullman, a contributing editor to this work, writes:

The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and Petros . . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . . For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of "thou art Rock" and "on this rock I will build" shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected. (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 6, Eerdmans, 98–99, 108)
4. If Matthew wanted to distinguish between "rocks" in the text, he most likely would have used lithos, which could be used to refer to a large rock, although it, too (like petra), was more commonly used to denote a small stone. There is also a third word that Matthew could have used that always means "small stone" or "pebble": psephos. It is used this way twice in Revelation 2:17, when Jesus says, "To him who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone which no one knows except him who receives it."


What’s in a Name?

5. A simpler line of reasoning is found in the context of the passage. Our Lord says to Peter, "Blessed are you. . . . And so I say to you, you are Peter. . . . I will give to you the keys to the kingdom. . . . Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." Jesus uses the word you seven times in just three verses. It doesn’t follow that Jesus would address so much of this passage to Peter, and then say, "But I will build my Church upon me." The context is clearly one in which Jesus is communicating a unique authority to Peter.

In addition, Jesus is portrayed as the builder of the Church, not the building. He said, "I will build my church." Jesus is "the wise man who built his house upon the rock" (Matt. 7:24) in Matthew’s Gospel. Once again, the interpretation of Jesus building the Church upon himself does not fit the context.

6. The changing of Simon’s name to Peter is also significant and often overlooked. In Scripture, we find that when God revealed a new and radical calling to certain of his people, he sometimes changed their names. In particular, this is true in the calling of the patriarchs. Abram ("exalted father" in Hebrew) was changed to Abraham ("father of the multitudes"); Jacob ("supplanter") was changed to Israel ("one who prevails with God"). In fact, there is an interesting parallel between Abraham and Peter. Isaiah 51:1–2 says:
Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you who seek the Lord; look to the rock from which you were hewn. . . . Look to Abraham your father.
Jesus made Peter a true father over the household of faith, just as God made Abraham our true father in the faith (cf. Rom. 4:1–18; Jas. 2:21). It is fitting that Peter’s successors are called "pope" or "papa," as was Abraham (Luke 16:24).


God’s Prime Minister

7. When we understand that Christ is the true son of David who came to restore the prophetic kingdom of David, we understand that in Matthew 16, Christ, like the king of Israel, was establishing a "prime minister" among his ministers, the apostles, in the kingdom. Isaiah 22:20–22 gives insight into the ministry of the "prime minister" in ancient Israel:
In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
In Revelation 1:18, Jesus declares, "I have the keys of Death and Hades," then quotes this very text from Isaiah in Revelation 3:7:
And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: "The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens."
No Christian would deny that Jesus is the King who possesses the keys. To whom does he give the keys? To Peter!

8. If we examine the text grammatically—"You are Peter, and on this rock"—"this rock" must refer to the closest noun. To say "this rock" refers to Jesus, or to Peter’s declaration of faith, is to completely ignore the structure of the sentence.

As an analogy, consider this sentence: "I have a car and a truck, and it is blue." Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun it. This would be even clearer if the reference to the car were two sentences earlier, as Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the word rock.

If Jesus wanted to distinguish between rocks, he could have said: "You are Peter, but upon this rock I will build my Church." "This rock" would then have clearly referred to something other than Peter.


On Second Thought

9. Jesus does not speak in the third person when referring to Peter as the "rock." James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries claims:
When Christ speaks to Peter, He does so in the second person; that is, direct address. Yet, the term "this rock" is third person (indirect address indicated by the use of taute), making the differentiation between "Peter" and "this rock" complete. . . . He is speaking to Peter, about the "rock." Hence, the text differentiates between Peter and the rock in two ways: the form of the word [petros and petra] and the person of address. (Answers to Catholic Claims, Crowne Publications, p. 105)
But because "this rock" is a metaphor for Peter, it is natural to use the third person. Jesus does something similar in Matthew 21:42–44:
Have you never read in the Scriptures: "The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner?" . . . He who falls on this stone (ton lithon touton) will be broken to pieces; but when it falls on any one, it will crush him.
"This stone" refers to Jesus, just as "this rock" refers to Peter, but the third person is used in both cases because both the "rock" and the "stone" are metaphors.

10. In 1 Corinthians 3:11, Paul declared, "No other foundation can any one lay except that which has been laid, Jesus Christ." In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Jesus himself is called "the supernatural Rock." But neither of these passages means that Christ was speaking of himself as "the rock" in Matthew 16.

The same metaphor can be used in different places and with different meanings. For example, in Ephesians 2:20 and Revelation 21:14, the apostles are referred to as the foundation of the Church. In Psalm 18:31 and 1 Samuel 2:2, "God alone" is our "rock." Yet in Isaiah 51:1–2, Abraham is called "rock."

God freely chooses to communicate his authority in varying degrees to members of the people of God in order to accomplish his governance and authority on the earth. God’s ministers participate in the prophetic, priestly, and kingly ministry of Christ. Jesus Christ, the rock foundation of our faith, is certainly capable of making Peter the rock and the foundation of our faith in him.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-22-2009, 01:19 AM
Called2Freedom
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: ARTICLE: "You Can't Get Past this Rock" by Tim Staples

..........
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-22-2009, 04:35 AM
Croref
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: ARTICLE: "You Can't Get Past this Rock" by Tim Staples

Quote:
Originally Posted by Called2Freedom View Post
You might be right I have not had much of a chance to study the Aramaic texts though I do have them. One thing I can't get around is the whole idea of Apostolic succession. Assuming for a moment that you are correct where is the biblical evidence that Peter had the power, or authority or ability to pass on the keys to the kingdom. Peter wrote 2 epistles and yet even he never spoke of these keys nor of any authority or ability to pass them on to the next in line. Nor did Jesus ever so much as imply that Peter had the ability. In the Book of Revelation Christ has the keys with Him so from this understanding, when Peter died Christ reclaimed the keys. They were never passed on. Thus the power to open and close ends with Peter.
Amen! It is because the Kingdom of God is NOT about keys. The Kingdom of God is about understanding the Father as it was revealed to Peter who strove to understand, pressed in and was it revealed to him at that moment that Jesus saw in him the hunger for intimacy. It was the hunger for intimacy, to know the Father in Jesus, that Jesus blessed in Peter. The hunger in Peter was the KEY to revelation truth of the Father in His Christ.. Peter's hunger would further reveal there were areas of his mind that needed additional "keys", readily supplied as needed, to unlock his understanding until Peter came into the full purpose of God for his life. As a consequence, his life becomes a spiritual lesson for us.

Does anyone in their right mind believe Peter understood all this that was spoken to him by Jesus? Is there anyone who does not believe Peter would eventually understand but that AFTER Paul was on the scene for many years? It was no instantaneous thing that happened that day when Jesus spoke those words to him and nor was it given him to use those words to set himself up as the head of the CHURCH. He would have rebuked anyone who attempted to do that to him after Jesus passed on. The testimony is there and it is clear. Those who went against this knowledge did so to promote their own agenda.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-22-2009, 08:07 AM
CatholicCrusader
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: ARTICLE: "You Can't Get Past this Rock" by Tim Staples

This is interesting Croref. In other threads you have accused me of never quoting the scriptures, which was a balatant falsehood by the way. But once again, as everyone can see here, I have quoted a mountain of scriptures to back up my position, while you have quoted noneE.

Last edited by CatholicCrusader : 04-22-2009 at 12:43 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-22-2009, 08:12 AM
CatholicCrusader
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: ARTICLE: "You Can't Get Past this Rock" by Tim Staples

Quote:
Originally Posted by Called2Freedom View Post
You might be right I have not had much of a chance to study the Aramaic texts though I do have them. One thing I can't get around is the whole idea of Apostolic succession. Assuming for a moment that you are correct where is the biblical evidence that Peter had the power, or authority or ability to pass on the keys to the kingdom. Peter wrote 2 epistles and yet even he never spoke of these keys nor of any authority or ability to pass them on to the next in line. Nor did Jesus ever so much as imply that Peter had the ability. In the Book of Revelation Christ has the keys with Him so from this understanding, when Peter died Christ reclaimed the keys. They were never passed on. Thus the power to open and close ends with Peter.
Well then let me approch this once again in a slightly different way. To repeat the verses in Matt 16 again:

"...Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, 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. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock 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 on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

Simply, the Pope is the fulfillment of the office of Prime Minister that existed in the Kindoms of David and his successors (as many things in the NT are fulfillments of their OT "types".)

"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call My servant Eliakim the son of Helcias, and I will clothe him with thy Robe, and I will strengthen him with thy Sash, and will give thy Power (authority) into his hand; and he shall be as a FATHER (the word 'Pope' means 'Father') to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And I will lay the Key of the House of David (the symbol of primacy) upon his shoulder; and he shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a peg in a Sure Place(the Papal Office), and he shall be for a Throne of glory to the house of his Father. And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his Fathers house, diverse kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music." (Isaiah 22:20-24)

In the Davidic Kingdoms, there was the office of Prime Minister (who actually wore a key on his robe as a symbol of office). This position is what is referred to in the above text and in other historical documents. So now let's fast-forward to the New Testament: JESUS is the King, the "son of David", in the line of David. These Jewish men, steeped in there Jewish culture, knew EXACTLY what it meant when Jesus gave Peter the keys. Peter was to be the Prime Minister of Christ's Kingdom, the "Keeper of the Keys".

So this is what the Pope is: Prime Minister of the King's Kingdom. Also, the Pope has a pastoral role, which is established in John 21: 15-17, when Christ told Peter: "feed my lambs.. ..feed my sheep.. ..tend my sheep."

This is the Pope: Prime Minister of Christs Kingdom, and Pastor of the flock. With that in mind, I see the Papacy is ALL THROUGH the scriptures. Now, throw into that mix the fact there is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) ; sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28 ) . On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and, as I said, Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48 ) .

So, as Cyprian of Carthage said in 251 A.D. (almost a hundred years before Constatine):

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" - The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Last edited by CatholicCrusader : 04-22-2009 at 12:44 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-22-2009, 09:15 AM
Croref
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: ARTICLE: "You Can't Get Past this Rock" by Tim Staples

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
This interesting Croref. In other threads you have accused me of never quoting the scriptures, which was a balatant lie by the way. But once again, as everyone can see here, I have quoted a mountain of scriptures to back up my position, while you have quoted NONE.

*****************

Last edited by administrator : 04-22-2009 at 11:03 AM. Reason: unnecessary post
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-22-2009, 02:14 PM
Called2Freedom
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: ARTICLE: "You Can't Get Past this Rock" by Tim Staples

..........
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-22-2009, 02:25 PM
CatholicCrusader
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: ARTICLE: "You Can't Get Past this Rock" by Tim Staples

There is a good article by Dr. Scott Hahn located here:
Dr Scott Hahn on the Papacy | Catholic-Pages.com

It is rather long, but I highly recommend it if you have the time. It is too long to post here, but this is a brief excerpt:

Quote:
.........One of the greatest Protestant Biblical scholars of the century supports this -- W. F. Albright, in his Anchor Bible Commentary on Matthew. I opened it up. I was surprised to see, "Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter." In other words, Professor Albright is admitting as a Protestant that there is a bias in Protestant anti- Catholic interpreters who try to make Jesus' reference to the rock point only to Peter's faith or confession. "To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter," Albright says, "among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre- eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles." We will see."

Albright goes on in his commentary to speak about the keys of the kingdom that Jesus entrusted to Peter. Here's what he says, "Isaiah 22, verse 15, undoubtedly lies behind this saying of Jesus. The keys are the symbol of authority and Father Roland DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is described as having the same authority."

Now let's just stop here and ask, "What is he talking about?" I think it's simple. Albright is saying that Jesus in giving to Peter not only a new name, Rock, but in entrusting to Simon the keys of the kingdom, He is borrowing a phrase from Isaiah 22. He's quoting a verse in the Old Testament that was extremely well known. This, for me, was the breakthrough. This discovery was the most important discovery of all. Let's go back to Isaiah 22 and see what Jesus was doing when He entrusted to Peter the keys of the kingdom.

By the way, I do not find hardly any Catholic defenders of the faith these days with awareness of this particular point. This was the point above all points for me. It was the point that the defenders of the Catholic faith in the 16th and 17th Centuries were very aware of, but for some reason amnesia has set in upon many defenders and interpreters not aware of how crucial this particular passage is. In Isaiah 22 beginning back in verses 19 and 20, we have some very interesting background. This is where Jesus goes for a quotation to cite this passage.

What's happening here? Well, in verse 19 it says, "I will thrust you from your office and you will be cast down from your station and on that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe and will bind your girdle on him and will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah; and I will place on his shoulder the key of the House of David."

Now the House of David is like, you know, the House of Bourbon. It's a dynastic reference. The House of David is the Davidic kingdom, the Davidic dynasty. We know this because David has been dead for hundreds of years when this is happening in Isaiah 22, "I will give you the key of the House of David. He shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. He will become a throne of honor to his father's house." Look at all of the symbols of dynastic authority that are being given to this individual. First of all, an office. Second, a robe. Third, a throne and fourth, keys, the key of the House of David, these royal keys.

Now, what is going on here? I'll just summarize it in rather simple terms. Hezekiah was at the time, the king over Israel. He was the son of David, hundreds of years after David had died. He was in the line of David and also he was ruler over the House of David. Now all kings in the ancient world had, as kings and queens have these days, cabinet officers, a cabinet of royal ministers. Like Margaret Thatcher is the Prime Minister, so there are other ministers under the Queen in Great Britain. Hezekiah, as King, had as his Prime Minister before Shebna who proved unworthy. So he was expelled, but when he was expelled, he left an office vacant. Not only did you have dynastic succession for the king, but you also have a dynastic office for the Prime Minister. When Shebna is expelled, there is an empty office that needs to be filled and that's why Eliakim is called to fill it.

Now, Eliakim is a minister in the cabinet, but now he is being granted the Prime Minister's position. How do we know? Because he is given what the other ministers do not have, the keys of the kingdom, the key to the House of David. That symbolized dynastic authority entrusted to the Prime Minister and dynastic succession. Why? Because it's the key of David; it's the House of David.

Let me go back and try to simplify this even further. I'll read the quote. Albright says, "In commenting upon Matthew 16 and Jesus giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Isaiah 22:15 and following undoubtedly lies behind this saying." Albright, a Protestant, non- Catholic insists that it's undoubtable that Jesus is citing Isaiah 22, "The keys are the symbol of authority and DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household of ancient Israel." In other words, the Prime Minister's office.

Other Protestant scholars admit it too, that when Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Peter is receiving the Prime Minister's office, which means dynastic authority from the Son of David, Jesus, the King of Israel, but also an office where there will be dynastic succession. When I discovered that, it was like the blinders fell off. Within a few weeks I had gotten together with the leading Protestant theologians in the world, one of the most reputable anti- Catholic Protestant theologians and spent ten hours with him and then in a Mercedes we drove two hours and I presented this case, and his only comment was, "That's clever." But he said, "You don't have to follow the Pope because of that." I said, "Why not?" And he said, "Well, I'm going to have to think about it." He said, "I've never heard that argument before." And I said, "It' s one of the basic arguments that Cajeton used against the Protestants in the 16th Century and Cajeton was one of the most well-known defenders of the Catholic faith and you've never heard of him before?" I said, "I had never heard of it before until I discovered it on my own and then found it in all these other people." And he said, "That's clever." Clever, perhaps. True, definitely; enlightening, illuminating, very interesting.

He goes on to say some other things. "It is of considerable importance," Albright says, "that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are discussed, the symbol of the keys is absent, since the saying applies in these instances to a wider circle. The role of Peter as steward of the kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority as was the case of the Old Testament chamberlain who held the keys."

Now, what he means there is that nowhere else, when other Apostles are exercising Church authority are the keys ever mentioned. In Matthew 18, the Apostles get the power to bind and loose, like Peter got in Matthew 16, but with absolutely no mention of the keys. That fits perfectly into this model because in the king's cabinet, all the ministers can bind and loose, but the Prime Minister who holds the keys can bind what they have loosed or loose what they have bound. He has, in a sense, the final say. He has, in himself, the authority of the court of final appeal and even Protestants can see this.............
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-22-2009, 02:47 PM
Called2Freedom
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: ARTICLE: "You Can't Get Past this Rock" by Tim Staples

..........
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-22-2009, 03:01 PM
CatholicCrusader
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: ARTICLE: "You Can't Get Past this Rock" by Tim Staples

Well, I appreciate the fact that you took time read it. I assume that you know Dr. Hahn is a former Prebyterian pastor and teacher at a Presbyterian seminary. He actually came to Catholicism later in life and is now Professor of Scripture & Theology at Franciscan University in Steubenville. So his journey is, at the very least, interesting.

I posted a video of him here:
Testimony: Dr. Scott Hahn

Last edited by CatholicCrusader : 04-22-2009 at 03:05 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Interview Questions For The Author Of "Adult Survivor Of Child Abuse" DanielSlack Health 1 10-22-2010 08:55 PM
"Eye for Eye" or "Resist not Evil"-what do christians believe antonio General Discussions 38 05-07-2009 06:54 PM
Urbi Et Orbi ("to the City and to the World") 2009 CatholicCrusader General Discussions 3 04-18-2009 02:40 PM
Financial Miracle for Two "Little Guys" in Oklahoma City DonKeesee General Discussions 2 03-03-2009 12:29 PM
"Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, . ." Croref Theology 9 02-05-2009 10:18 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:33 PM.


true2ourselves
 
 
 

Flashcoms

You need to upgrade your Flash Player.

Version 8 or higher is required.

download from http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29