Peter, the Rock, the Keys, and the Chair

[HarleyER]

On the first point, likewise there are a lot of Catholics that do not understand our distinctives and are pulled by emotional appeals out of our denomination. There is one thing though that converts possess often and that is an adult reasoning on why they choose the other denomination. This gives them a leg up on doing apologetics, since they often understand both sides of an argument and can explain why they think what they do.

On the second point, I am not familiar with the Steve Ray talk that you are referencing; but there are several things that should be cleared up in this paragraph. First, I have never heard anyone in Catholicism say that God changed Mary's name, so if Steve Ray said that as an emphatic, literal fact and not a metaphorical change in status, he is wrong. Second, Popes, even ones as great as Pope John Paul, make many sermons, talks, and letters during their lifetime. None of them are ex cathedra and therefore binding doctrine on the Catholic faithful unless the Pope explicitly states that intention and does it using a specific formula of stating that they are speaking from the chair of Peter. This is very rare and was never used by Pope John Paul. There was a point when he was asked to rule on women in the priesthood. Everyone thought that he would put out an ex cathedra statement; but instead he referred back to the Scriptures and stated that Jesus had chosen men as apostles and he could not change the definition of what God had done.

There is one thing though that converts possess often and that is an adult reasoning on why they choose the other denomination.

Yes, that is why Luther, Calvin and the rest of the Reformers were such great apologists.

First, I have never heard anyone in Catholicism say that God changed Mary's name

I was a baffled about this as you, so I went to a Catholic website that states the same thing. You have to go down a bit to where it starts Luke 1:28. Below is just a very small portion of the discussion.

First, according to many biblical scholars as well as Pope St. John Paul II, the angel did more than simply greet Mary. The angel actually communicated a new name or title to her. In Greek, the greeting was kaire, kekaritomene, or “hail, full of grace.”​

​

From Catholic Answers ( Where Is the Immaculate Conception in the Bible?)​

​

This might have been what Steve Ray was referring to.

 

[tz620q]

There is one thing though that converts possess often and that is an adult reasoning on why they choose the other denomination.

Yes, that is why Luther, Calvin and the rest of the Reformers were such great apologists.

First, I have never heard anyone in Catholicism say that God changed Mary's name

I was a baffled about this as you, so I went to a Catholic website that states the same thing. You have to go down a bit to where it starts Luke 1:28. Below is just a very small portion of the discussion.

First, according to many biblical scholars as well as Pope St. John Paul II, the angel did more than simply greet Mary. The angel actually communicated a new name or title to her. In Greek, the greeting was kaire, kekaritomene, or “hail, full of grace.”​

​

From Catholic Answers ( Where Is the Immaculate Conception in the Bible?)​

​

This might have been what Steve Ray was referring to.

Yes, the Lutheran use of pamphlets to sway popular opinion was probably one of the first big propaganda campaigns. The woodcuts are rude and crude and meant to appeal to a mostly illiterate population. After studying the Reformation from many sides, I came to the conclusion that we are all called, both individually and communally to reform. That was really the whole purpose of Christ coming to earth was to call us to reform. So Luther's call for reform should not have been so controversial.

 

[Dan Perez]

Several questions. First how do you know that Christ was talking to a bunch of mainly Galileans in Greek? They would have been more familiar with Aramaic, where Cephas would have been used.

Second, Ekklesia does mean called out of; but what was Christ calling them out of and for what purpose?

Finally, Steve Ray has a very good talk about the area of Caesarea Philippi and how it relates to the dialogue. Perhaps we can disucss that if you would like.

Try Matt 4:18:-20 and the book of Acts !!

Ever wonder why Peter is NEVER mentioned after the ACTS 15 ?

And where was Peter called a Pope ?

Many of people I know are RCC ?

I will like to see verses where on your claims , please ?

Would like your thoughts , as to where you your bible came from ??

Or , what verse do you claim forgive sins , show I can under stand it ?

dan p

 

[tz620q]

Try Matt 4:18:-20 and the book of Acts !!

dan p

Your reference to the calling of the Apostles shows that we are probably in agreement on what "calling out of" meant. These men were not called out of their Jewish faith; but called out of their secular lives to be emissaries of a fulfillment in that Jewish faith. That doesn't mean that all of us should be apostles in the radical way that the first apostles were; but it points to each of us having a function within the Body of Christ that we are called to fulfill.

Ever wonder why Peter is NEVER mentioned after the ACTS 15 ?

And where was Peter called a Pope ?

The emphasis in the Bible changes from book to book and in the case of Acts even within the book. Often it is not a slight to one apostle or another if they are not prominently shown in a part of a book; but likely caused by the scope of what the author of the book knew about (let's not delve into verbal plenary inspiration here).

As far as Peter being called "Pope" in the Bible, that would have been impossible because our modern English was about 1500 years down the road. You are probably aware that Pope comes from Papa, which is what the Pope is called in most Latin languages today. So the Papal figure is meant to be a spiritual father in our faith. They are all men and variously endowed by God with gifts that make some of them great and some of them less than great. We see the Pope and the papacy, along with the magisterium, as being overseers and guides that keep our beliefs firmly grounded and not changing with whatever popular secular ideology is currently in vogue. They are more protectors of the faith given, than innovators of change.

Would like your thoughts , as to where you your bible came from ??

Or , what verse do you claim forgive sins , show I can under stand it ?

For where Christians were given the ability to forgive sins, there are many verses; but the usual go to is the Great Commission in Matthew 28, where Christ gives his apostles "all power on heaven and on earth". This is defined more clearly in Matthew 18:18,
"Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

On you first point about where the BIble came from, Catholics believe the Bible is inspired by God, who worked in the minds of the authors to guide them in what to write; but we do not believe, like the Muslims, that every word is directly from God. We see the mind of God present in both the BIble and in the teachings that Christ entrusted to his apostles and told them to spread. As far as the BIble as we know it as a "book", the Catholic Church has had a strong role in guiding that development, accepting some texts and rejecting others.

 

[Dan Perez]

Your reference to the calling of the Apostles shows that we are probably in agreement on what "calling out of" meant. These men were not called out of their Jewish faith; but called out of their secular lives to be emissaries of a fulfillment in that Jewish faith. That doesn't mean that all of us should be apostles in the radical way that the first apostles were; but it points to each of us having a function within the Body of Christ that we are called to fulfill.


The emphasis in the Bible changes from book to book and in the case of Acts even within the book. Often it is not a slight to one apostle or another if they are not prominently shown in a part of a book; but likely caused by the scope of what the author of the book knew about (let's not delve into verbal plenary inspiration here).

As far as Peter being called "Pope" in the Bible, that would have been impossible because our modern English was about 1500 years down the road. You are probably aware that Pope comes from Papa, which is what the Pope is called in most Latin languages today. So the Papal figure is meant to be a spiritual father in our faith. They are all men and variously endowed by God with gifts that make some of them great and some of them less than great. We see the Pope and the papacy, along with the magisterium, as being overseers and guides that keep our beliefs firmly grounded and not changing with whatever popular secular ideology is currently in vogue. They are more protectors of the faith given, than innovators of change.

For where Christians were given the ability to forgive sins, there are many verses; but the usual go to is the Great Commission in Matthew 28, where Christ gives his apostles "all power on heaven and on earth". This is defined more clearly in Matthew 18:18,
"Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

On you first point about where the BIble came from, Catholics believe the Bible is inspired by God, who worked in the minds of the authors to guide them in what to write; but we do not believe, like the Muslims, that every word is directly from God. We see the mind of God present in both the BIble and in the teachings that Christ entrusted to his apostles and told them to spread. As far as the BIble as we know it as a "book", the Catholic Church has had a strong role in guiding that development, accepting some texts and rejecting others.

In John 20:21- 22 , Christ , breathed on them the Holy Spirit .

Verse 23 Whose so ever SINS ye Remit they are Remitted unto them and whose so ever Sins ye retain , they are RETAINED .

This POWER was only given to his disciples in verse 20 and not to anyone today !!

Your thoughts ??

dan p

 

[tz620q]

In John 20:21- 22 , Christ , breathed on them the Holy Spirit .

Verse 23 Whose so ever SINS ye Remit they are Remitted unto them and whose so ever Sins ye retain , they are RETAINED .

This POWER was only given to his disciples in verse 20 and not to anyone today !!

Your thoughts ??

dan p

I don't have a lot of time to reply; but this made me think of a saying, "Christianity is only one generation away from going extinct." The saying states the truth that for 2000 years Christians have passed on the faith. I see the Holy Spirit and Christ as being an active part of that. They are still present in the Body of Christ and still actively blowing on current people to strengthen them and guide them.

If you accept that proposition, then the question becomes how does this happen? I see Pentecost as being a singular, historical event in that it occurred at a moment in time to a group of people. I don't see that Christ wanted this giving of the Holy Spirit to stop there though. Please state how you see this working of the Holy Spirit happening today.

 

[jas3]

This POWER was only given to his disciples in verse 20 and not to anyone today !!

The disciples were the first bishops, so these prerogatives (i.e. this power) were passed along with the office (bishopric/episcopate): "...and his bishoprick let another take" (Acts 1:20 KJV). Paul gives instructions to Timothy for the qualifications a man has to meet to take on the episcopate in 1 Tim. 3.

 

[Dan Perez]

The disciples were the first bishops, so these prerogatives (i.e. this power) were passed along with the office (bishopric/episcopate): "...and his bishoprick let another take" (Acts 1:20 KJV). Paul gives instructions to Timothy for the qualifications a man has to meet to take on the episcopate in 1 Tim. 3.

And Act 1:21 , therefore , it is necessary of of the MEN having gone with US during all the TIME in which the Lord Jesus came

in and went OUT among us .

And verse 22 says , ALL had to be begun from the BAPTISM of John until the day in which He was taken up from us

a witness of HIS RESURRECTION ,

This means it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone else to become on of the TWELVE , PERIOD !!

dan p

 

[jas3]

This means it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone else to become on of the TWELVE , PERIOD !!

One of the Twelve, no, but one of their successors, yes.

 

[Doug Brents]

The disciples were the first bishops, so these prerogatives (i.e. this power) were passed along with the office (bishopric/episcopate): "...and his bishoprick let another take" (Acts 1:20 KJV). Paul gives instructions to Timothy for the qualifications a man has to meet to take on the episcopate in 1 Tim. 3.

Jas, you are making the connection between offices that are not the same. The Apostles were different from Elders (Bishop/Pastor)(Eph 4:11). There were only 14 who were Apostles: the 11, plus Judas, plus Matthias, plus Paul. The qualifications to be an Apostle are given in Acts 1:21-22. The qualification given in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 are what is required to be an Elder/Bishop/Pastor. None of the catholic priesthood qualify to be an Elder because there is not a single one of them who is the husband of one wife (they are required to take a vow of chastity, with would preclude them from being a husband). And none of the catholic priesthood qualify to be an Apostle, because there is not a single one of them who was with Jesus from His baptism to His ascension. (Paul qualified for this because he spent three years in Arabia and in Damascus being taught by the Lord (Gal 1:11). For these reasons, the "priesthood" of the catholic church holds no authority or position of responsibility within the Church that is the Body of Christ.

Steve Ray's point that Peter was the ROCK upon which Jesus would build His Church completely misinterprets the passage. First off, while the conversation between Jesus and Peter may have been conducted in Aramaic, the inspired Word of God was given to the writer in Greek, and was penned by him in Greek. Thus the play on words that Jesus makes conveys the proper meaning when understood in the Greek.
Jesus says to Simon that He is giving him a new name of (petros), but then He says that upon this (petra) I will build my Church.
4074 pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway.
4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – "a mass of connected rock," which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is "a detached stone or boulder" (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a "solid or native rock, rising up through the earth" (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.

Simon Peter was not the Rock (petra) upon which the Church would be built; he was but a pebble (petros). The Rock upon which the Church would be built was Simon Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. That is the foundation of the Church.

 

[jas3]

Jas, you are making the connection between offices that are not the same. The Apostles were different from Elders (Bishop/Pastor)(Eph 4:11).

The connection is clear in Acts 1: Matthias is to take over the bishopric (ἐπισκοπή, v. 20) of Judas. But he also takes over Judas's apostleship (v. 25) and was numbered with the eleven Apostles (v. 26). Since the justification for him taking on Judas's apostleship was that Psalm 108 in the Septuagint used the word for "bishopric," we can conclude that the Apostles understood the terms to be synonymous.

None of the catholic priesthood qualify to be an Elder because there is not a single one of them who is the husband of one wife (they are required to take a vow of chastity, with would preclude them from being a husband).

This is a misreading of the text. Paul is saying that a man must be a husband of at most one wife; he can't be a polygamist or divorced and remarried. This is why Paul writes elsewhere that it is better not to marry. It would be contradictory for a position of church authority to require a man to live in a way that Paul says is less than the ideal.

Jesus says to Simon that He is giving him a new name of (petros), but then He says that upon this (petra) I will build my Church.
4074 pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway.
4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – "a mass of connected rock," which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is "a detached stone or boulder" (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a "solid or native rock, rising up through the earth" (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.

Yes, I'm familiar with this argument, but people never have any evidence for it other than to point at a Protestant lexicon which itself just asserts that there's a difference without substantiating that claim.
Do you know any languages that use grammatical gender?

 

[Doug Brents]

The connection is clear in Acts 1: Matthias is to take over the bishopric (ἐπισκοπή, v. 20) of Judas. But he also takes over Judas's apostleship (v. 25) and was numbered with the eleven Apostles (v. 26). Since the justification for him taking on Judas's apostleship was that Psalm 108 in the Septuagint used the word for "bishopric," we can conclude that the Apostles understood the terms to be synonymous.

The term in Psalm 109:8 is פְּ֝קֻדָּת֗וֹ (pə·qud·dā·ṯōw) which means office, position of authority. It is not "bishopric". The apostles were the ministers of all the churches, but they had control of none. The elders were confined to one church, and they controlled affairs in that one. The duty of apostles was to found churches and spread the Gospel. Once a church was established, all responsibility was handed over to the local elders, and from that day the apostles exercised no control whatsoever in its affairs.

This is a misreading of the text. Paul is saying that a man must be a husband of at most one wife; he can't be a polygamist or divorced and remarried. This is why Paul writes elsewhere that it is better not to marry. It would be contradictory for a position of church authority to require a man to live in a way that Paul says is less than the ideal.

Are we now adding words to the text to make it mean what we want it to mean? "At most" is not in the text in either Timothy or Titus. I agree that it means that they must not have more than one wife. But it also says that he must be in control of his children. One cannot have legitimate children unless one is married. Thus, he must be married and also have believing children, both.
1 Tim 3:2-7 - "An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, skillful in teaching, 3 not overindulging in wine, not a bully, but gentle, not contentious, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil."
Titus 1:6-9 - "if any man is beyond reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of indecent behavior or rebellion. 7 For the overseer must be beyond reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not overindulging in wine, not a bully, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, self-controlled, righteous, holy, disciplined, 9 holding firmly the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it."
An elder must have a demonstrated ability to control his household, and to manage his family. If he doesn't have a family of his own (wife and children), then he cannot have demonstrated the ability to control that family.

Yes, I'm familiar with this argument, but people never have any evidence for it other than to point at a Protestant lexicon which itself just asserts that there's a difference without substantiating that claim.
Do you know any languages that use grammatical gender?

Below is a list of over 80 languages that use gender to differentiate nouns.
Afro-Asiatic

• Afar, Agaw, Akkadian, Amharic, Ancient Egyptian, Arabic, Aramaic, Beja, Coptic, Hebrew, Maltese, Oromo, Saho, Somali, South Arabian, Tamazight (Berber), Tuareg

Indo-European

• Breton (Brythonic), Cornish (Brythonic), Corsican, French, Friulan, Hindi, Irish (Goidelic),
• Italian - there is a trace of the neuter in some nouns and personal pronouns. E.g.: singular l'uovo, il dito; plural le uova, le dita ('the egg(s)', 'the finger(s)'), although singulars of the type dito and uovo and their agreements coincide in form with masculine grammatical gender and the plurals conform to feminine grammatical morphology.
• Kashmiri
• Kurdish (only Northern dialect and only in singular nouns and pronouns, not in plural and not in adjectives or verbs; Central or Southern dialects have lost grammatical gender altogether)
• Ladin, Latvian
• Lithuanian - there is a neuter gender for all declinable parts of speech (most adjectives, pronouns, numerals, participles), except for nouns, but it has a very limited set of forms.
• Manx (Goidelic)
• Mirandese - neuter exists in demonstratives “esto”, “esso” and “aqueilho”, and on indefinite pronouns (ex. alguien, someone; naide, no one; nada, nothing).
• Occitan, Pashto
• Portuguese - there is a trace of the neuter in the demonstratives (isto/isso/aquilo) and some indefinite pronouns.
• Punjabi (see also Punjabi dialects), Romani, Sardinian, Scottish Gaelic (Goidelic), Sicilian, Sindhi
• Spanish - there is a neuter of sorts, though generally expressed only with the definite article lo, used with adjectives denoting abstract categories: lo bueno, or when referring to an unknown object eso.
• Urdu, Venetian, Welsh (Brythonic), Zazaki

Indo-European

Proto-Indo-European originally had two genders (animate and inanimate), and later the animate split into masculine and feminine, and the inanimate became neuter.

• Albanian, Asturian, Belarusian *, Bulgarian *, Czech *, Dutch, Faroese, Gaulish, German, Greek, Gujarati, Icelandic, Kashubian, Konkani, Latin, Limburgish, Low German, Luxembourgish, Macedonian, Marathi, Norwegian, Old English, Old Irish, Old Persian, Old Prussian, Pennsylvania German, Polish *, Romanian, Russian *, Sanskrit, Serbo-Croatian *, Slovak *, Slovene *, Sorbian, Swedish, Ukrainian *, Yiddish

 

[jas3]

The term in Psalm 109:8 is פְּ֝קֻדָּת֗וֹ (pə·qud·dā·ṯōw) which means office, position of authority. It is not "bishopric".

The reference in Acts 1:20 is specifically to the Septuagint version of Psalm 108 (109): "...καὶ τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ λάβοι ἕτερος"
Unless you're going to say that the Apostles got it wrong, arguing from the Masoretic Text is a non-starter.

Are we now adding words to the text to make it mean what we want it to mean? "At most" is not in the text in either Timothy or Titus.

If you're going to insist on an unnaturally stiff reading of this passage, you make Paul contradict himself when he says that it is better not to be married so you can concern yourself with pleasing the Lord instead of pleasing your spouse.

Below is a list of over 80 languages that use gender to differentiate nouns.

Great. Do you know any of them?

 

[Doug Brents]

The reference in Acts 1:20 is specifically to the Septuagint version of Psalm 108 (109): "...καὶ τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ λάβοι ἕτερος"
Unless you're going to say that the Apostles got it wrong, arguing from the Masoretic Text is a non-starter.

Really? That is interesting. I do not see any reference to the language in which "it is written". Focusing on the translation, whether Greek, English, or whatever, rather than the original text in which the Word of God was given automatically results in errors of understanding. Any translation introduces errors in understanding and changes in the connotative meaning of the words used. It is ALWAYS best to go back to the original language in which the revelation of God's Word was given to find the best, most accurate meaning of any passage.

If you're going to insist on an unnaturally stiff reading of this passage, you make Paul contradict himself when he says that it is better not to be married so you can concern yourself with pleasing the Lord instead of pleasing your spouse.

There is no contradiction at all. It is better for a person to focus all their effort and concern with pleasing God rather than pleasing their spouse. But the person who does so is not qualified to lead the Church. They are a good person, they have their priorities right, they do good work for the Kingdom, but they do not have the experience or track record necessary to lead the Body of Christ. Those passages are very clear that if a man has not demonstrated his ability to lead his family, then he does not have the skills, training, experience, and knowledge to lead and protect the Church.

Great. Do you know any of them?

I do speak some French. But the key is not in the gender, although that is important. The key is that these are two different words. It is the same difference between to, too, and two. They may sound similar, but they have completely different meanings. While petra and petros both refer to rocks, petros refers to a small piece of rock, a chip off of the "mother load" if you will, a piece of stone that can be picked up and moved. But petra refers to the mountain, the immovable bedrock upon which you can rely. I live near Stone Mountain, GA. Stone Mountain is petra, the pieces that were chipped off to make the picture on the face of it are petros. Simon Peter is petros. Jesus, and the confession of His deity and Lordship, is petra.

 

[jas3]

Really? That is interesting. I do not see any reference to the language in which "it is written".

It's a well-known historical fact that the Septuagint was the version in common use at this time. Add to that that the wording is exactly the same between Acts 1:20 and Psalms, and we can only conclude that Peter was referencing the Septuagint version of these psalms.

Focusing on the translation, whether Greek, English, or whatever, rather than the original text in which the Word of God was given automatically results in errors of understanding. Any translation introduces errors in understanding and changes in the connotative meaning of the words used. It is ALWAYS best to go back to the original language in which the revelation of God's Word was given to find the best, most accurate meaning of any passage.

You seem to be implying here that the Apostles were in error regarding what is written in Psalms, since they specifically used the word for "episcopate" or "bishopric" instead of a more general term for "office." I assume that that's not your intention, but your argument is effectively that there is a better understanding of Psalm 108 (109) to be had by referencing our own version of it than what the Apostles were using.
Regardless of what issues may arise in translation, the version used in the divinely inspired New Testament says "bishopric."

There is no contradiction at all. It is better for a person to focus all their effort and concern with pleasing God rather than pleasing their spouse. But the person who does so is not qualified to lead the Church.

If living in a more godly way in itself disqualifies a man from ordained ministry, then yes, that is a contradiction. And it should be a pretty good indicator that yours is not the correct interpretation that the Church has never understood this passage to place a requirement of marriage and childrearing on a man before he can be a bishop or a priest or a deacon. If you read early commentaries on these verses (catenabible.com is a good resource for finding these) you'll see they all read it as a prohibition of polygamy, not as a positive requirement of marriage.

I do speak some French. But the key is not in the gender, although that is important. The key is that these are two different words.

If you speak some French, then you should know that names match the gender of the person. A man is named Pierre, a woman is named Pierrine. Similarly, in Greek, a man would be named Πέτρος, not Πέτρα. And in Latin, a man is named Lucius, not Lucia, even though both come from the feminine lux. The gender of a name has no bearing on the gender of the original word.

 

[Doug Brents]

It's a well-known historical fact that the Septuagint was the version in common use at this time. Add to that that the wording is exactly the same between Acts 1:20 and Psalms, and we can only conclude that Peter was referencing the Septuagint version of these psalms.

You seem to be implying here that the Apostles were in error regarding what is written in Psalms, since they specifically used the word for "episcopate" or "bishopric" instead of a more general term for "office." I assume that that's not your intention, but your argument is effectively that there is a better understanding of Psalm 108 (109) to be had by referencing our own version of it than what the Apostles were using.
Regardless of what issues may arise in translation, the version used in the divinely inspired New Testament says "bishopric."

No, I am not implying that the Apostles got anything wrong. I am stating that the catholic church's position on the authority of the Apostles is completely off. Most of the Apostles were not "Elders" of the Church". Peter may have been an Elder, but that would disqualify him from being a catholic priest (if the catholic church had existed at the time, which it didn't), let alone the pope, because he was married.

If living in a more godly way in itself disqualifies a man from ordained ministry, then yes, that is a contradiction.

Being unmarried and "living in a more godly way" does not disqualify a man from ministry. But it does disqualify him from being an Elder or a Deacon.

And it should be a pretty good indicator that yours is not the correct interpretation that the Church has never understood this passage to place a requirement of marriage and childrearing on a man before he can be a bishop or a priest or a deacon. If you read early commentaries on these verses (catenabible.com is a good resource for finding these) you'll see they all read it as a prohibition of polygamy, not as a positive requirement of marriage.

If you are referring to the catholic church, then I find that argument (and those commentaries) completely irrelevant. There are just too many unbiblical teachings and traditions in the catholic church. There is no congregation of the Church (the Body of Christ) that accepts, allows, or endorses unmarried Elders or deacons.

If you speak some French, then you should know that names match the gender of the person. A man is named Pierre, a woman is named Pierrine. Similarly, in Greek, a man would be named Πέτρος, not Πέτρα. And in Latin, a man is named Lucius, not Lucia, even though both come from the feminine lux. The gender of a name has no bearing on the gender of the original word.

That is true in part. But Jesus was making a larger point. If He had been saying that Simon Peter was THE ROCK, then He would have said, "You are Petros, and on this Petros, I will build my Church." But that is not what He said. He said on this "petra" I will build my Church. The rock upon which Jesus built the Church was not the sinful, easily moved, easily distracted Simpon Peter. He built it upon Himself, the immovable, indestructable, immortal ROCK!

 

[jas3]

Most of the Apostles were not "Elders" of the Church". Peter may have been an Elder, but that would disqualify him from being a catholic priest (if the catholic church had existed at the time, which it didn't), let alone the pope, because he was married.

We know that at least Judas was, since he had both a bishopric and an apostleship which Matthias took over (and I can't see how Judas would be unique among the Twelve in having either of these). That alone falsifies the argument on the basis of Eph. 4:11 that "apostle" (in the general sense) and "bishop" are fundamentally different offices.

Being unmarried and "living in a more godly way" does not disqualify a man from ministry. But it does disqualify him from being an Elder or a Deacon.

I think we probably have very different ideas of what ministry entails in this context. Maybe a more productive way to approach the question would be this: can you point to any first-millennium Christian writer who records a requirement for bishops, priests, or deacons to be married and have children as the proper interpretation of 1 Tim. 3?

If you are referring to the catholic church, then I find that argument (and those commentaries) completely irrelevant. There are just too many unbiblical teachings and traditions in the catholic church. There is no congregation of the Church (the Body of Christ) that accepts, allows, or endorses unmarried Elders or deacons.

Take whatever date you think the Catholic Church started and work backwards from there. In the early Christian commentaries, do you find anyone who holds your interpretation? Do you find any canons or other records that require clergy to be married with kids?

That is true in part. But Jesus was making a larger point. If He had been saying that Simon Peter was THE ROCK, then He would have said, "You are Petros, and on this Petros, I will build my Church."

No, because the word for "rock" in Greek is feminine. You're completely missing the point about how names and nouns work in gendered languages (I thought you would know this from French). Let's take Latin as a less controversial example. The word for "rock" in Latin is petra, cognate to the Greek πέτρα. Unlike Greek, there is no attested use of a masculine word for "rock" that uses the "petr-" prefix; "rock" is always "petra" and "Peter" is always "Petrus."

So, in Latin, Matthew 16:18 is rendered:

"...et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam."

Peter's name: Petrus, masculine
Rock: petram, accusative singular feminine

The same principle applies in Greek and in every other gendered language of which I'm aware.

 

[Doug Brents]

We know that at least Judas was, since he had both a bishopric and an apostleship which Matthias took over (and I can't see how Judas would be unique among the Twelve in having either of these). That alone falsifies the argument on the basis of Eph. 4:11 that "apostle" (in the general sense) and "bishop" are fundamentally different offices.

Not at all. There were some Apostles who were also Elders (James for instance), but many of them were not ever credited with the title Elder.

I think we probably have very different ideas of what ministry entails in this context. Maybe a more productive way to approach the question would be this: can you point to any first-millennium Christian writer who records a requirement for bishops, priests, or deacons to be married and have children as the proper interpretation of 1 Tim. 3?

There is no requirement for "priests" of the Church to be married, because every person (men and women) who is born again is a Priest to God in the Church. There is not a separate "clergy" class that is superior or set apart from the rest of the Body of Christ (Matt 28:3-12, 1 Pet 2:9). Everyone in the Church is called to go, teach, make disciples, and convert the lost to Christ (Matt 28:19-20).

Both 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 record God's qualifications for the Elders who have authority to direct His Church. Both of them list being married (not single) to one wife (not polygamist), and having children over whom he is in control. It is clear that the requirement is not just that he not be a polygamist, because he must also have children that are under control.

Take whatever date you think the Catholic Church started and work backwards from there. In the early Christian commentaries, do you find anyone who holds your interpretation? Do you find any canons or other records that require clergy to be married with kids?

Yes, Paul and God.

No, because the word for "rock" in Greek is feminine.

Wrong. There are two words for rock in Greek, petra and petros. They have completely different meanings, like pebble, bolder, cliff, peak, and escarpment. All of them are rock, but very different structures of rock. Jesus called Peter a pebble. But the Church is built on the ROCK, the cornerstone of the foundation (which is Christ).

You're completely missing the point about how names and nouns work in gendered languages (I thought you would know this from French). Let's take Latin as a less controversial example. The word for "rock" in Latin is petra, cognate to the Greek πέτρα. Unlike Greek, there is no attested use of a masculine word for "rock" that uses the "petr-" prefix; "rock" is always "petra" and "Peter" is always "Petrus."

So, in Latin, Matthew 16:18 is rendered:

"...et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam."

Peter's name: Petrus, masculine
Rock: petram, accusative singular feminine

The same principle applies in Greek and in every other gendered language of which I'm aware.

Peter (the English name we use) comes from the Greek "petros" as that became part of his proper name. But petra and petros were always Greek words that both mean rock. Jesus did not change the gender of the word to masculine in order to match Simon Peter's gender. He used the form that means a small rock because that is all that Simon was; a small rock in the Church. Jesus was and is and will always be the ROCK upon which the Church is built.

Did Peter die to save us? Is Peter God? Are we supposed to worship Peter? Is he the foundation of the Church?
No?
Then he CANNOT be the Rock upon which the Church is built. Peter is a man, a human man and nothing more. He is not the foundation upon which the Church is built. That is Jesus Christ; the only man who is also God.

 

[jas3]

Not at all. There were some Apostles who were also Elders (James for instance), but many of them were not ever credited with the title Elder.

So you're making an argument from silence that those who weren't called elders or bishops didn't hold that office?

Yes, Paul and God.

Come on, this is not a serious response to my question.

Wrong. There are two words for rock in Greek, petra and petros.

There are more than that if you're including references to any kind of rock. I'm talking specifically about "rock" in the general sense, as opposed to a particular kind of rock like a "pebble" or a "stone." "Rock" in this sense is always πέτρα.

But the Church is built on the ROCK, the cornerstone of the foundation (which is Christ).

Ironically "cornerstone" is a different word, it's not πέτρα.

Peter (the English name we use) comes from the Greek "petros" as that became part of his proper name. But petra and petros were always Greek words that both mean rock. Jesus did not change the gender of the word to masculine in order to match Simon Peter's gender.

Did you not read the part of my response where I explain how that's not the case? Again, you say you know French, so I'm surprised you don't seem to understand how names work in gendered languages. Peter could not have been named Petra because that's a woman's name.

 

[Doug Brents]

So you're making an argument from silence that those who weren't called elders or bishops didn't hold that office?

Yes. The office of Elder is very different from the office of Apostle. The Apostle is not the head of a single local congregation. He does not involve himself with the daily operation of that congregation. His mandate is to spread the Gospel, establish new congregations of the Church, and insure proper doctrine is being taught within the Church as a whole. Elders (always two or more in each congregation) are responsible for a single congregation. They are given the responsibility for leading, teaching, managing, and disciplining their local flock. They can, and should, consult with Elders of other congregations, but each congregation is autonomous of every other. The Apostles were only around for the first 60 or so years of the Church. After John's death, there is no evidence that there have been any additional Apostles commissioned by God. But Paul told Timothy to establish Elders in each congregation.

There are more than that if you're including references to any kind of rock. I'm talking specifically about "rock" in the general sense, as opposed to a particular kind of rock like a "pebble" or a "stone." "Rock" in this sense is always πέτρα.

When Scripture speaks of God or Jesus (who are always masculine) being the rock, it always uses the feminine petra. But when speaking of Simon (who is also masculine) it switches to the masculine petros. Why? Because petros is different from petra, not just in gender but in meaning.

Ironically "cornerstone" is a different word, it's not πέτρα.

And well it should be, because it has a different denotation.

Did you not read the part of my response where I explain how that's not the case? Again, you say you know French, so I'm surprised you don't seem to understand how names work in gendered languages. Peter could not have been named Petra because that's a woman's name.

If petra and petros had the same meaning, then you would have a case. But they don't. While they both mean "rock" in the general sense, petros means a rock that has been broken off from the whole, a piece of rock, a smaller part. Petra on the other hand is the source rock, it is the whole rock. If they had the same meaning, then we would not be having this discussion. Further, as I said, Peter is not the foundation of the Church. He is a proven sinner, an unstable leader, and not even close to the most important leader in the early Church.