About Peter being The Rock

  • Thread starter Thread starter john_ennis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

john_ennis

Guest
Protestants explain away ancient Catholic teaching that Christ made Peter the rock on which He would build His Church in Matt. 16:18. They do this by making the Petra/Petros distinction, asserting that in ancient Greek these two words were distinctly different.

I’d like to address this factually: Can anyone shed light on the accuracy of this linguistic assertion? (I know it’s all overshadowed by the fact that Christ didn’t speak in Greek–that’s a different point.)

Thanks.
John
 
john ennis:
Protestants explain away ancient Catholic teaching that Christ made Peter the rock on which He would build His Church in Matt. 16:18. They do this by making the Petra/Petros distinction, asserting that in ancient Greek these two words were distinctly different.

I’d like to address this factually: Can anyone shed light on the accuracy of this linguistic assertion? (I know it’s all overshadowed by the fact that Christ didn’t speak in Greek–that’s a different point.)

Thanks.
John
Click to expand...
I think I checked on this about 5 years ago and found the following.

The New Testament Greek is clear…Jesus in effect was saying, “You are Petros the stone which comes from rock outcroppings and upon this rock outcropping I will build my Church.” The relevance is not so much a gender change as a meaning change. I also read that whereas Jesus would have SPOKEN in Aramaic, Matthew’s gospel probably would NOT have been WRITTEN in Aramaic because it would have been too much work, insofar as Matthew has Jesus quoting and paraphrasing massively from the Septuagint, a Greek work.

However, the Protestant analysis does not answer why Jesus would have engaged in this little ceremony of naming Petros after petra, does it?

I.e., the POINT of it all is that THE ROOT IS THE SAME. He told the head of the Apostles, Simon, that henceforth he, Simon would be PETRos, of the PETRa.

Why?

Simple: He’s the first Pope.

In other words, the Protestant “distinction” is non-critical. It’s not a “distinctrion” because it doesn’t answer why Jesus even bothered calling Simon a “PETRos,” does it?
 
john ennis:
I’d like to address this factually: Can anyone shed light on the accuracy of this linguistic assertion? (I know it’s all overshadowed by the fact that Christ didn’t speak in Greek–that’s a different point.)

Thanks.
John
Click to expand...
Actually, that’s the point. Christ said “You are Kepha and on this kepha I will build my church.”

Here’s a good essay from CA.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
In other words, the Protestant “distinction” is non-critical. It’s not a “distinctrion” because it doesn’t answer why Jesus even bothered calling Simon a “PETRos,” does it?
Click to expand...
You’ve got something. Listen to Protestant analysis about Jesus naming Peter, and it will always be about what He DIDN’T mean, not why He named him so.

Also, how does the early Church think of Peter with regard to the purpose of his name, and his role as it relates to his name?

peace.
John
 
40.png
BibleReader:
I think I checked on this about 5 years ago and found the following.

Jesus in effect was saying, “You are Petros the stone which comes from rock outcroppings and upon this rock outcropping I will build my Church.”
Click to expand...
But this gender thing–this straw which Protestants cling to in order to take away Peter’s role–I’ve heard recently that there’s NO such usage in first century Greek. I mean, it’s not true to say Petros means smaller stone, as opposed to Petra.
This, apparently, is the elephant in the living room, when a Protestant says Peter’s name is different from the Petra on which the Church is built.
Peace.
John
 
john ennis:
But this gender thing–this straw which Protestants cling to in order to take away Peter’s role–I’ve heard recently that there’s NO such usage in first century Greek. I mean, it’s not true to say Petros means smaller stone, as opposed to Petra.
This, apparently, is the elephant in the living room, when a Protestant says Peter’s name is different from the Petra on which the Church is built.
Peace.
John
Click to expand...
Hopefully the following will post. If it does, click in “rock.”

24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. Matthew 7:24-25.
 
John Ennis wrote,"Protestants explain away ancient Catholic teaching that Christ made Peter the rock on which He would build His Church in Matt. 16:18. They do this by making the Petra/Petros distinction, asserting that in ancient Greek these two words were distinctly different. "
John Ennis, you say Protestants explain away the role of Peter in Jesus new church by linguistics. (Petra / Petros etc.)

Maybe the Protestants I have heard speak to this issue are a bit more basic. What I have heard over and over is found in Matt16:v13 -17. Protestants talk about the “confession” of Peter as the Rock on which Jesus will build His Church. They say Peter IS NOT the Rock. They say the “confession” of Peter is the Rock.

This very common in the Southern and Southwestern United States. As for the words kephas, petra and petros , they are not too important. Kephas was Aramaic for “rock”. In Greek , at that time there were not two different words to distinguish between a pebble and a rock. There was a problem in translation. Jesus called Simon Bar Jonah a rock in Aramaic : Kephas.
 
what I find frustrating is that they don’t really offer a logical alternative meaning.
Even if it were true Jesus used the word “pebble” (which we know He didn’t)
Jesus STILL said He would build His Church on it!
And if Jesus wanted to build His Church on a measly “pebble” - who would tell Him He couldn’t?
 
The word in the Gospel of Matthew should have remained as being Keipha. That is the word that was originally in the Gospel, not petra or petros.

The Greek word at the time was Lithos, not petra or petros. Those words were added in a later manuscript.

A good reading source is “Upon This Rock” by Steve Ray

Maggie
 
Another point to make is that God did not change names lightly. The new name (Abraham, Sarah, Jacob) always told something of the person’s new nature or function.

Jesus, being God, couldn’t have made Simon’s name change lighty either, which is what alternate interpretations imply.
 
Tresmontant’s translation reads:

“You are Keipha the rock
and on this rock I will build my assembly
and the gates of the abode of the dead
will not be strong enough
to seize and master it”

This translation has been done backwards from the Greek into the Hebrew, then into the French, and then back into the English.

Now if I am reading this translation correctly, Jesus is referring to Peter as the rock upon whom he will build his assembly (church). The sentence structure seems to indicate that he is addressing the other Apostles when he makes the statement. If this is the case then the other argument falls apart. Peter’s confession has nothing to do with the statement being made by Jesus.

MaggieOH
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top