A question about Peter being the rock

[Trento]

Many fathers identified the petra of Matthew to be Christ or the confession itself. They did not ignore “Tradition” to believe and teach thus, nor did they “just come up with the idea.”

The fact remains that the early fathers all had different opinions: some for Peter, some for Christ, and some for the confession.

If you know your Christian History you know that Jerome translated the entire Bible into Latin From Greek. We trust that he did it correctly otherwise we are all in trouble. Here he writes to Pope Damasus and says–

As I follow no leader save Christ,** so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!"
**Jerome,To Pope Damasus,Epistle 15(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,VI:18

Now tell me he interpreted incorrectly.

 

[Erich]

From Peter the Rock:

…After the initial flash of insight into Matthew 16:17–19, I did further study on it and noticed several structural features of the passage that required Peter to be the rock. Basically, Jesus’ speech to Peter consists of three statements. The first of the three statements is a clear blessing on Peter. Jesus says, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!” The third is also a blessing: “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” But if the first and third statements are blessings then the middle statement—“And I tell you, you are Peter”— taken in its immediate context, must be a blessing as well. Jesus thus is not contrasting and belittling Peter as a small, insignificant stone with the second statement. It, like the ones before and after it, is a blessing that builds him up.

I noticed that the structure of the three statements required Peter to be the rock. Each statement consisted of two parts: first a basic declaration and then a longer explanation which unpacked the meaning of the declaration. (The explanations also had two parts, an assertion followed by a contrast, but this need not detain us since it does not affect the fact that Peter is the rock.) Jesus’ first statement, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!” is explained by “for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” This is a reason why Simon is blessed. The third statement, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” is explained by Jesus’ remarks on binding and loosing. The power to bind and loose is part of what it means to have the keys to the kingdom. That being the case, the second statement, “And I tell you, you are Peter” is explained by “and on this rock I will build my Church.”

No two ways about it. Peter is the rock.

 

[Randy_Carson]

And many Protestant scholars believe that Christ or the confession is the petra…just like the early church fathers.

Sorry, Atemi. The tide has turned on this issue, and you are stranded on a sand bar.

I’ll condense my previous post for you since you merely skimmed it…

“It would be pointless to list all the commentaries holding this view.”

Raymond E. Brown​

“It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the ‘rock’ here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed.”

RT France​

“Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter”

DA Carson​

“one must dismiss as confessional interpretation * any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession of Peter”*

William F. Albright​

 

[Atemi]

“It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the ‘rock’ here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed.”

RT France​

I wonder how this scholar explains all the supposed Roman Catholic fathers who held that exact view.

Overreaction to Roman Catholicism?

Plainly, no.

“Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter”

DA Carson​

I wonder how this scholar explains all the supposed Roman Catholic fathers who held that exact view.

Overreaction to Roman Catholicism?

Plainly, no.

“one must dismiss as confessional interpretation * any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession of Peter”*

William F. Albright​

I wonder how this scholar explains all the supposed Roman Catholic fathers who held that exact view.

Overreaction to Roman Catholicism?

Plainly, no.

…

To make the claim that any other interpretation but Peter as the petra is an overreaction to Roman Catholicism forgets all the intelligent and repected Catholics who held those exact positions.

Are we to suppose the men like St. Augustine were closet Protestants?

Plainly, no.

…

 

[Atemi]

If you know your Christian History you know that Jerome translated the entire Bible into Latin From Greek. We trust that he did it correctly otherwise we are all in trouble. Here he writes to Pope Damasus and says–

As I follow no leader save Christ,** so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!"
**Jerome,To Pope Damasus,Epistle 15(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,VI:18

Now tell me he interpreted incorrectly.

This only highlights my point.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I wonder how this scholar explains all the supposed Roman Catholic fathers who held that exact view.

Overreaction to Roman Catholicism?

Plainly, no.

Sorry, Atemi. The verdict is already in on this one…the jury finds in favor of the defendant. Case dismissed. Court adjouorned.

If you’ll excuse us, there’s a group of photographers and reporters waiting for us outside…

Oh, you might want to take in an article by Steve Ray on the Unanimous Consent of the Early Church Fathers…you can find it at www.catholicconvert.com

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Atemi]

Sorry, Atemi. The verdict is already in on this one…the jury finds in favor of the defendant. Case dismissed. Court adjouorned.

If you’ll excuse us, there’s a group of photographers and reporters waiting for us outside…

Of course the verdict is already in. It has been in for over a millenia.

The early church fathers all had differing opinions on what the petra was: some said it was Christ, some the confession, and some said it was Peter. Every one of them, except for a couple, never ascribed anything from the verse in question to any papacy or the bishopric in Rome.

We don’t need a thread in 2007 to know this verdict.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Of course the verdict is already in. It has been in for over a millenia.

The early church fathers all had differing opinions on what the petra was: some said it was Christ, some the confession, and some said it was Peter. Every one of them, except for a couple, never ascribed anything from the verse in question to any papacy or the bishopric in Rome.

We don’t need a thread in 2007 to know this verdict.

This is wishful thinking on the part of those who refuse to submit to the authority of the Church that Christ has built.

But let’s talk about these renegades, these dissident Fathers and the matter of “Unanimous Consent”, shall we?

The Council Fathers at Trent (1554-63) affirmed the ancient custom that the proper understanding of Scripture was that which was held by the Fathers of the Church to bring order out of the enveloping chaos. Opposition to the Church’s teaching is exemplified by William Webster (The Church of Rome at the Bar of History [Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1995]) who misrepresents the Council Fathers by redefining and misapplying “unanimous consent”. First in redefining, he implies that unanimous consent means each Father must have held the same fully developed traditions and taught them clearly in the same terms as used later in the Church Councils. This is a false understanding of the phrase and even in American law unanimous consent “does not always mean that every one present voted for the proposition, but it may, and generally does, mean, when a [verbal] vote is taken, that no one voted in the negative” (Black’s Law Dictionary). Second he misapplies the term, not to the interpretation of Scripture, as the Council Fathers intended, but to tradition. His assertions are not true, but using a skewed definition and application of “unanimous consent”, he uses selective patristic passages as proof-texts for his analysis of the Fathers.

As an example, individual Fathers may explain “the Rock” in Matthew 16 as Jesus, Peter, Peter’s confession or Peter’s faith. Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to the “Rock” of Matthew 16 as Peter in one place (CCC 552) and his faith (CCC 424) in another. Matthew 16 can be applied in many ways to refute false teachings and to instruct the faithful without emphasizing the literal, historical interpretation of Peter as the Rock upon which the Church has been built his Church. Webster and others emphasize various patristic applications of a biblical passage as “proof” of non-unanimous consent.

Discussing certain variations in the interpretations of the Fathers, Pope Leo XIII (The Study of Holy Scripture, from the encyclical Providentissimus Deus, Nov., 1893) writes, “Because the defense of Holy Scripture must be carried on vigorously, all the opinions which the individual Fathers or the recent interpreters have set forth in explaining it need not be maintained equally. For they, in interpreting passages where physical matters are concerned have made judgments according to the opinions of the age, and thus not always according to truth, so that they have made statements which today are not approved. Therefore, we must carefully discern what they hand down which really pertains to faith or is intimately connected with it, and what they hand down with unanimous consent; for ‘in those matters which are not under the obligation of faith, the saints were free to have different opinions, just as we are,’ according to the opinion of St. Thomas.”

From “Unanimous Consent of the Fathers” by Stephen Ray

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[TheApologist]

No one knows this. This is only assumed, so it may not be wise to adopt others’ personal assumptions.

It IS known, however, that Matthew was written in Aramaic. This is known from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea…and from Matthew’s account of the passion in which Jesus cries “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” This is Aramaic. Why would the writers of Matthew write in Aramaic? Two options: 1) It was highly important to show that Jesus spoke in Aramaic or 2) Matthew was originally written in Aramaic and one phrase remains as it was

In Aramaic, the only acceptable words to put in Matthew 16:18 for rock is kepha. “You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my church.” How could this mean that “You’re faith is like a rock and on this rock I will build my church” ?
I see one explanation: Jesus called Simon…Peter, renaming him. He said that on Peter He would build His Church. I really see no way to miscomprehend it.

Yes. Scripture is clear that the foundation of the church, what it is built upon, is all the Apostles and the Prophets with Christ as the Rock that holds it all in place…

Show me in this passage where it says that “all the apostles and the prophets with Christ” is the Rock. Nowhere in the passage does it say they are the Rock. Peter is the Rock.

Nowhere is the word “petra” ever used in association with Peter.

And yet in the NT Peter is referred to as Cephas several times. Cephas=rock=petros(they wouldn’t refer to Peter as a girl rock- petra). Cephas=Aramaic rock

 

[apophasis]

Ok, so you’re saying that Jesus

1. praises and blesses Peter for recognizing that Jesus is the Son of God, then

I don’t see where Jesus praises Peter. He says “blessed are you Simon Barjona…”

1. says that he (Jesus) will build a church with **himself **as the cornerstone, but still

Where does Jesus say anything about He being the corner stone in Matt. 16?

1. gives Peter the keys to heaven and the authority to bind and loose things in heaven and on earth.

Actually He gives the authority to “bind and loose” to all the Apostles (Matt. 18:18). Can you show me in Scripture where the phrase “keys to the kingdom” is defined?

The logic of your position is earth-shattering.

Thank you.

I refer you to the article linked above on CA. In addition to explaining the translation issue regarding the name of Peter, it also points out that the structure of the narrative clearly indicates that Christ is blessing Peter and giving him authority to lead the Church on earth. Your interpretation ignores the context in which the two lines you quoted appear.

Where in the “context” does Jesus actually give Peter sole authority to lead the Church?

I also reiterate what someone else pointed out: the cornerstone is not the same as the foundation.

I agree. In Eph. 2:20-21 it’s the Apostles (pl.) and N.T. prophets that are the foundation and Jesus Himself the corner stone.

Furthermore, the cornerstone is the first piece of the structure to be put in place – much as Peter was.

Can you show me where Peter is called a “corner stone?”

 

[Atemi]

No one knows this. This is only assumed, so it may not be wise to adopt others’ personal assumptions.

It IS known, however, that Matthew was written in Aramaic. This is known from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea.

When I said “know,” I meant KNOW.

There are many references to Matthew first writing his Gospel in either Hebrew or Aramaic, and I also believe this, but none of those references were there when Matthew wrote. All we do have is what we have today and second hand news.

Even the officially approved, doctrinally correct Latin Vulgate translates 2 different words in Matthew 16: petrus and petram.

Just like the Greek, and it is officially approved by the RCC.

To seek some other “proofs” elsewhere than what we all have in front of us is novel, but unnecessary, IMO.

But I have no real desire to argue over original languages.

Yes. Scripture is clear that the foundation of the church, what it is built upon, is all the Apostles and the Prophets with Christ as the Rock that holds it all in place…

Show me in this passage where it says that “all the apostles and the prophets with Christ” is the Rock. Nowhere in the passage does it say they are the Rock. Peter is the Rock.

I think you tied together two separate concepts in what I said above. I said the church was built upon all the Apostles and Prophets along with Christ Himself as the Rock.

The Scripture I was referring to was:

Eph 2:20 “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.”

There is no mention here that the church is built upon Peter, but on ALL the Apostles and Prophets.

I don’t think it is wise to remove the rest of the Apostles and Prophets from this teaching.

**Nowhere is the word “petra” ever used in association with Peter. **

And yet in the NT Peter is referred to as Cephas several times. Cephas=rock=petros(they wouldn’t refer to Peter as a girl rock- petra). Cephas=Aramaic rock

They referred to the only real Man (Jesus Christ) as a “girl rock” (petra), so there is no reason why they would not call someone much less a “girl rock” if that was what Peter was.

But Peter is not the petra…Jesus Christ is. He is our Rock.

2Sa 22:32 (Catholic NJB) “For who is God but Yahweh, who is a rock but our God?”

You are our Rock Lord and we praise you for it!

Who is a rock but our God?

 

[Bishopite]

Of course the verdict is already in. It has been in for over a millenia.

The early church fathers all had differing opinions on what the petra was: some said it was Christ, some the confession, and some said it was Peter. Every one of them, except for a couple, never ascribed anything from the verse in question to any papacy or the bishopric in Rome.

We don’t need a thread in 2007 to know this verdict.

Ah…but did the ECF’s give primacy to the Church in Rome? They sure did which gives evidence of the papacy.
Because their language isn’t as explicit and developed on the papacy as it is today doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. If we applied the same test to the Trinity; what was the nature of God’s relationship to the Son, the Son to the Holy Spirit, the Spirit to the Son and Father before the council of Nicea in 325 defined it (*homoosius which means of the same substance) *we could draw a number of false conclusions about the “nature” of the three persons/one God as did the Arians and others and conclude falsely as do the JW’s and Mormons that the Trinity wasn’t taught by the ECF’s either. And the verdict has been in for 2000 years, that’s why the papacy has never gone away.

 

[apophasis]

Yes so simple. Jesus said “you are kepha and upon this kepha I will build My Church.” Did you know kepha means Rock? The “this” is Peter the Rock.

I don’t think so. Jesus was responding to what Peter replied via divine revelation, not Peter himself. The whole context is about WHO Jesus is. It’s not about Peter. It never is.

 

[Atemi]

Ah…but did the ECF’s give primacy to the Church in Rome? They sure did which gives evidence of the papacy.

Actually, not at all.

The primacy of the church at Rome did develop as it took its place in the empire, but this is no evidence at all for the papacy we see today.

If that was evidence, then how did 4 Patriarchs out of 5 around 1050 AD miss it?

Because their language isn’t as explicit and developed on the papacy as it is today doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. If we applied the same test to the Trinity; what was the nature of God’s relationship to the Son, the Son to the Holy Spirit, the Spirit to the Son and Father before the council of Nicea in 325 defined it (*homoosius which means of the same substance) *we could draw a number of false conclusions about the “nature” of the three persons/one God as did the Arians and others and conclude falsely as do the JW’s and Mormons that the Trinity wasn’t taught by the ECF’s either.

 

[Bishopite]

I don’t think so. Jesus was responding to what Peter replied via divine revelation, not Peter himself. The whole context is about WHO Jesus is. It’s not about Peter. It never is.

The whole context is about who Jesus is, He IS the king who hands the keys to his majordomo who is going to shepherd the flock while the king is temporarily away. It is about Jesus handing Peter the “keys to the kingdom” after changing his name to Rock. And if we know anything about Scripture it is when God changes someones name i.e., Abram to Abraham, or Simon to Peter (Rock) it IS a big deal and something major is happening there.

And you never answered this question in that last thread…
How do “YOU” know the context??

 

[TheApologist]

But I have no real desire to argue over original languages.

Obviously you do, because you told the other guy that “it is not good to assume that Jesus spoke Aramaic” Why would there be the phrase “Eli, eli…” in Aramaic in Matthew if that’s not what they spoke?

Who is a rock but our God?

Obviously Peter is…

“You are Kepha”

I’m guessing Jesus meant it when he renamed Simon…Rock.

EDIT:
Also, this is in the OT…Simon was named the Rock in the NT. There was no Christ-made Church in the OT, so there wouldn’t be another rock.

…

How about John 21:16? “Be the shepherd of my sheep.”

 

[Atemi]

Obviously you do, because you told the other guy that “it is not good to assume that Jesus spoke Aramaic” Why would there be the phrase “Eli, eli…” in Aramaic in Matthew if that’s not what they spoke?

Ahhh. First of all, I didn’t say what you quoted me as saying, but I will just take it that you were posting on the fly.

I didn’t mean to say that Jesus did not speak Aramaic, I was only addressing what I thought was a roundabout reference to Matthew being originally Aramaic.

Looking back at it, I shouldn’t have phrased my reponse as I did.

No, it’s true, I have no interest in wrestling over this language or that.

Who is a rock but our God?

Obviously Peter is…

“You are Kepha”

I’m guessing Jesus meant it when he renamed Simon…Rock.

And Sylvester Stallone as well?

No.

The Scripture says “who is a rock but our God?” not “who is named rock but our God?”

The Scripture is not talking about names, but who is the rock of God’s people but God alone.

It is a rhetorical question posed by the Holy Spirit with only one answer.

…

 

[apophasis]

Oh really?! Your opinion is simply not true.

Paul had to go to Peter and the apostles to learn the faith and to be accepted as an apostle.

Actually, you’re in gross error. Paul did not consult any of the other Apostles who were Apostles prior to him.Gal 1:1 "Paul, an apostle (not {sent} from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead),He then states that when he was commissioned directly by Christ he consulted none of those who were Apostles prior to himGal 1:15-17 "But when God, who had set me apart {even} from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus."You see Sean, if Peter was appointed head of the Church by Christ, then Christ would not have appointed and commissioned Paul apart from Peter’s alleged authority.

If Paul was acting on his own authority, he would have just started preaching without seeking the acceptance into the Catholic Church from the apostles first.

But he did start preaching without seeking their acceptance. That’s the whole argument Paul is making to the Galatian church proving the authority of his gospel of justification by faith alone. He didn’t go up to Jerusalem until three years AFTER he began to preach the gospel Christ gave him to take to the Gentiles. His preaching authority and Apostleship came directly from Christ - not through the agency of any man - not even Peter.

Thankfully, Paul choose to do God’s will and became part of the Catholic Church.

Thankfully Paul didn’t consult anyone but obediently obeyed the calling of Christ and became the champion of the doctrine of justification through faith in Christ alone. He even had to set Peter straight.

 

[TheApologist]

No Stallone is not because CHRIST did not so name him.

Tell me, why would Christ name Simon, Rock, if he wasn’t to live up to his name?

 

[TheApologist]

He even had to set Peter straight.

I like to see where this happens.