A question about Peter being the rock

[apophasis]

It seems to me that you are assuming that the word “this” from verse 17 (for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven) is referring to the same subject as the word “this” in verse 18 (and on this rock I will build my church). Yet the two are in separate sentences. In verse 18 (And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.) in the first clause of the sentence there is only one subject designated by the word “you” and the name “Peter”. In the following clause the word “this” must refer to that subject. It cannot refer to something in the previous sentence.

Why not? It’s in the same context.

To use it that way purposefully would be completely misleading.

How so? The context is about WHO Jesus is. Peter responds with a divine revelation and in return Jesus states, “and upon THIS rock I will build My church.” I really see nothing misleading about it.

I understand why it would confuse people. Why doesn’t Jesus just say “you” again so that it would read “And I tell you that you are Peter, and upon you I will build my church.” I think a good explanation would be that Jesus was trying to distinguish between the “man” Peter, who would continue to sin and make serious mistakes, and his “authority” as Peter. To show that though he was just a man, and a sinner, he would go on to fulfill a role that is much greater than he is.

You’re reading an awful lot into the word “this.” If Peter at that time was given by Christ an authority unique to the other Apostles, then can you show me where this is clearly demonstrated in the N.T.? Where it is demonstrated that all the other Apostles took their direction directly from Peter? Can you show me anywhere in Scripture where Peter speaks about appointing a “successor” for the purpose of carrying on this alleged “authority” over the church Christ is building?

 

[TheApologist]

** To use it that way purposefully would be completely misleading.**

How so? The context is about WHO Jesus is. Peter responds with a divine revelation and in return Jesus states, “and upon THIS rock I will build My church.” I really see nothing misleading about it.

…The question is how do YOU know it’s context?

 

[apophasis]

I like to see where this happens.

Gal. 2:11-21

 

[TheApologist]

I’d like to hear your explanation of how this proves that Peter isn’t a good leader, or why this proves that Paul would be a better leader, or whatever it is you are trying to say.

 

[apophasis]

** To use it that way purposefully would be completely misleading.**

How so? The context is about WHO Jesus is. Peter responds with a divine revelation and in return Jesus states, “and upon THIS rock I will build My church.” I really see nothing misleading about it.

…The question is how do YOU know it’s context?

I read it.

 

[TheApologist]

I read it.

You mean you read it and interpreted it in YOUR way. How do you know that YOUR way is the true way?

 

[Atemi]

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

I don’t doubt Peter lived up to his new name, but I do doubt that others can arbitrarily claim they are living up to Peter’s new name.

Peter alone was renamed Rock. That was never to pass on to others, 2000 years later, claiming they have taken Peter’s place.

The same goes for Abraham, Israel, Paul, etc.

Their names were their names. God didn’t give any of them transferable names. Others have to get their own names from God, if He ever so decided to do so.

 

[LilyM]

I don’t doubt Peter lived up to his new name, but I do doubt that others can arbitrarily claim they are living up to Peter’s new name.

Peter alone was renamed Rock. That was never to pass on to others, 2000 years later, claiming they have taken Peter’s place.

The same goes for Abraham, Israel, Paul, etc.

Their names were their names. God didn’t give any of them transferable names. Others have to get their own names from God, if He ever so decided to do so.

You’re ignoring the forest in favour of the individual trees. Of course it’s nothing to do with Peter’s actual nickname being transferred - in fact none of our Popes since him has dared to take the name Peter, out of respect for the uniqueness of it.

It’s about THE CHURCH founded upon Peter being the institution against which the gates of Hell will never prevail. And the authority he had in shaping and guiding that church being transferred to those who succeeded him in office. If THE CHURCH is the same Church (which the Catholic Church indeed is) then how is it possible that Peter’s successors as leader of that Church are less under the protection of the Holy Spirit than he was?

 

[Church_Militant]

I don’t doubt Peter lived up to his new name, but I do doubt that others

can arbitrarily claim they are living up to Peter’s new name.

Peter alone was renamed Rock. That was never to pass on to others, 2000 years later, claiming they have taken Peter’s place.

The same goes for Abraham, Israel, Paul, etc.

Their names were their names. God didn’t give any of them transferable names. Others have to get their own names from God, if He ever so decided to do so.That’s funny, I haven’t seen one pope since the very first one whose name was Peter or Kepha.

The office passed to Linus and so on down to Benedict XVI.

Most have been good men of God, but a few have been jerks. The beauty of it is that God protected His church from doctrinal error by letting them get so wrapped up in their misbehavior that that they didn’t mess doctrines up.

I don’t know why you would even want to make this kind of statement Atemi. Sounds like you’re confused (again).

 

[Atemi]

I don’t know why you would even want to make this kind of statement Atemi. Sounds like you’re confused (again).

If Peter himself was the petra of Matt 16, that makes no statement at all about any papacy or the bishop of Rome. That is the point.

The early fathers knew this almost (truly) unanimously.

 

[Cranch]

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.

It’s actually Petrus with a capital P in the Vulgate, indicating a person’s proper name (in this case necessarily masculine). This in no way precludes him then being referred to as a rock (petram), a feminine word.

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?”

This is a quote from David, poetically singing praise to God in the Old Testament. Jesus, who came later and is God, must certainly have the right to call whomever he wishes a rock. A better passage to accompany this part of your post is probably 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 :For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea. And all in Moses were baptized, in the cloud, and in the sea: And did all eat the same spiritual food, And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and** the rock **was Christ.)

In the Vulgate: petra autem erat Christus. Christ is called the rock (feminine) as was Peter. If Christ had been named “rock” as well, as Peter was, then we would need “Petrus” here as well because Christ was male. Would you then deny Christ was the rock based on the opposite gender of words?

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

Would that be because the argument will ultimately lead to a conclusion you don’t want to admit? :yup:

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.

Me either…especially since this was written decades later. Just because Paul used similar phraseology, it doesn’t follow that he was speaking on the EXACT same subject in the EXACT same way. Mixing metaphors is always a bad practice.

But this should be an easy concept to understand…after all, don’t non-Catholics readily argue that Paul and James were not REALLY speaking of the same type of faith even though they both used the same words and quoted the same OT passages?

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?

You’re in denial, and you fail to understand that Jesus said, “Kepha” or “Cephas” and not “Petros”.

When even heavyweight Protestant scholars admit and state quite openly that it is ONLY overreaction to the Catholic Church has led anyone to the belief that Peter was NOT the rock, it’s time to pack it in.

If you want to continue raising objections to Catholicism, that’s fine, but you’re not going to get much of a hearing from Catholics - or knowledgeable Protestants - on this subject.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

If Peter himself was the petra of Matt 16, that makes no statement at all about any papacy or the bishop of Rome. That is the point.

The early fathers knew this almost (truly) unanimously.

That’s an argument by assertion. Please provide quotes with sources.

Or is this another instance when you don’t have time to teach us our own history?

Here are a few ECF’s that you apparently overlooked when putting together your “unanimous” survey:

Clement of Alexandria

“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (*Modesty *21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Origen

“*f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (*Commentary on Matthew *13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . 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 that also which Peter was *, 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]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

“The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly” (*Catechetical Lectures *2:19 [A.D. 350]).

“[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]” (ibid., 6:14).

“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]” (ibid., 17:27).

(cont.)*

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ephraim the Syrian

“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (*Homilies *4:1 [A.D. 351]).

Ambrose of Milan

“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (*The Faith *4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Pope Damasus I

“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome

“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (*Against Jovinian *1:26 [A.D. 393]).

“Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord” (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).

Pope Innocent I

“In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged” (*Letters *29:1 [A.D. 408]).

Augustine

“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (*Sermons *295:2 [A.D. 411]).

“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies” (*Commentary on Psalm 108 *1 [A.D. 415]).

“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (*Commentary on John *56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Sean_Boyle]

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.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 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.

The Catholic Church is Christ’s present on earth. Your not seeing the fullness of the Truth. Paul obedience to the calling of Christ resulted in him seeking Christ’s presents on earth, the Catholic Church. See the Truth is simple to understand when your not trying to look past it.

Where does this passage say that Paul preached in Aradia or Damacus as an apostle? It doesn’t! In fact, scripture clearly states that he didn’t preach as an apostle until after his visit to Peter in Jerusalem. Before his journey to Jerusalem, he could have preached as a missionary, only. In Gal., Paul is presenting a defense to the Galatians that he teaches truth. He is trying to undo the effects of the “Judaizers” that were adding to his teachings at the time. According to Acts ch 16. this jouney to Galatia took place after he was instructed by Peter in Jerusalem.

See context is everything…

If Paul was preaching faith alone. Why didn’t he say that? answer: He couldn’t preach faith alone. It is not the gospel of Christ.

I’ve done my part to inform. You can lead a horse to water, but you’ll have to take the drink, youself.

 

[apophasis]

You mean you read it and interpreted it in YOUR way. How do you know that YOUR way is the true way?

If you want to read it for yourself it’s right there in Matt. 16:13. This is the context in which the whole subsequent conversation takes place. “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” Then in verse fifteen He asks, “But who do you (pl.) say that I am?” It’s all about who Jesus is, not who Peter is, or, is to be.

Whenever you read something the brain must interpret. What I don’t do is read something INTO the text in order to form my interpretation.

The Roman notion that these passages in Matthew establish the supremacy of Peter is based only on assertion, not Scriptural interpretation. Can you show me anywhere in the N.T. where Peter makes this claim for himself? I see where “Popes” have made this claim for themselves, but can you show me where Peter himself ever acknowledged it? Can you show me where any of the other Apostles acknowledged, or submitted to, his alleged “supremacy?” I demonstrated in a previous post that Paul never did. Can you show me where the others did?

 

[davidv]

The Roman notion that these passages in Matthew establish the supremacy of Peter is based only on assertion, not Scriptural interpretation. Can you show me anywhere in the N.T. where Peter makes this claim for himself?

Why would he “claim it for himself”? He was chosen. All subsequent Popes were chosen. They did not appoint themselves.

 

[apophasis]

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.

Can you show me in Scripture where this phrase “keys to the kingdom” is defined?

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.

This is true. But then SCRIPTURE always demonstrates what that change is. We se it SCRIPTURALLY with Abraham and Jacob. Now I do see a change in Peter after the Lord personally ministers to him, but nothing at all in respect to assigning him “supremacy” or His “vicar” on earth These are human assertions, not Scriptural revelations.

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

I did. I read it in Matt. 16:13, 15.

 

[apophasis]

Why would he “claim it for himself”? He was chosen. All subsequent Popes were chosen. They did not appoint themselves.

They do acknowledge their appointment, right? They do personally accept it, right? Then they dress up and stand on the balcony and wave to the people. My question is where in Scripture does Peter acknowledge before the other Apostles his “supremacy?” Where in Scripture do the other Apostles acknowledge it?

 

[mikeledes]

They do acknowledge their appointment, right? They do personally accept it, right? Then they dress up and stand on the balcony and wave to the people. My question is where in Scripture does Peter acknowledge before the other Apostles his “supremacy?” Where in Scripture do the other Apostles acknowledge it?

Do we have to find explicit acknowledgement of his supremacy by the other apostles? I think the words of Jesus are enough.

God Bless,
Michael