Answer to those who challenge that Jesus was referring to Peter as the "Rock" on which to build His Church?

[The_Mark]

I need some serious help. I don’t know Greek or Aramaic, and now I’ve gotten into a debate with someone about Jesus referring to Peter as the rock on which to build His church.

This was a result of me saying that the Catholic Church is the original Christian church.

Here’s what this person says:

Aramaic does have masculine and feminine pronouns, and Jesus used the feminine pronoun to describe “this rock.” It was, no doubt, because this feminine demonstrative pronoun made it apparent that Jesus intended to distinguish between Peter and the rock on which his congregation was to be built that Matthew when translating into Greek used two different nouns, Petros and petra. (Incidentally, the evidence indicates that Matthew first wrote his gospel in Hebrew and then himself translated it into Greek.) We cannot imagine Matthew’s being so careless as to use two different nouns if Jesus had not intended to make any distinction. And so we have a modern literal translation of Jesus’ words as follows: “You are Peter [Petros, masculine], and on this rock-mass [petra, feminine] I will build my congregation.” So unless you’re saying that both Jesus and Matthew used their languages wrong, the catholic understanding is a misinterpretation.

This person also said that Catholics are the only ones who refuse to acknowledge the historical and linguistic evidence.

I’m in over my head. I basically said that it was their word against the Church, and that I couldn’t prove either as wrong or right.

Help?

 

[Cattitude]

Check out the footnote from the NAB on Matthew 16:18. This may help.

You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church: the Aramaic word kepa - meaning rock and transliterated into Greek as Kephas is the name by which Peter is called in the Pauline letters (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:4; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14) except in Gal 2:7-8 (“Peter”). It is translated as Petros (“Peter”) in John 1:42. The presumed original Aramaic of Jesus’ statement would have been, in English, “You are the Rock (Kepa) and upon this rock (kepa) I will build my church.” The Greek text probably means the same, for the difference in gender between the masculine noun petros, the disciple’s new name, and the feminine noun petra (rock) may be due simply to the unsuitability of using a feminine noun as the proper name of a male. Although the two words were generally used with slightly different nuances, they were also used interchangeably with the same meaning, “rock.”

So, I think the Aramaic used the same word kepa, but it ws only when translated to Greek that petras and Petros were used. And what evidence does he have that Matthew wrote in Hebrew?

I always love statement like this:

Catholics are the only ones who refuse to acknowledge the historical and linguistic evidence.

Riiiiiiiiight, because Catholics came on the scene so far after all these events actually took place, of course, *we’re *wrong about it…

Ask him when someone first came up with the whole masculine/feminine pronoun thing.

Then ask him what the ECF had to say about this passage. Whose teaching do they agree with?

 

[FCEGM]

I need some serious help. I don’t know Greek or Aramaic, and now I’ve gotten into a debate with someone about Jesus referring to Peter as the rock on which to build His church.

This was a result of me saying that the Catholic Church is the original Christian church.

Here’s what this person says:

Aramaic does have masculine and feminine pronouns, and Jesus used the feminine pronoun to describe “this rock.” It was, no doubt, because this feminine demonstrative pronoun made it apparent that Jesus intended to distinguish between Peter and the rock on which his congregation was to be built that Matthew when translating into Greek used two different nouns, Petros and petra. (Incidentally, the evidence indicates that Matthew first wrote his gospel in Hebrew and then himself translated it into Greek.) We cannot imagine Matthew’s being so careless as to use two different nouns if Jesus had not intended to make any distinction. And so we have a modern literal translation of Jesus’ words as follows: “You are Peter [Petros, masculine], and on this rock-mass [petra, feminine] I will build my congregation.” So unless you’re saying that both Jesus and Matthew used their languages wrong, the catholic understanding is a misinterpretation.

This person also said that Catholics are the only ones who refuse to acknowledge the historical and linguistic evidence.

I’m in over my head. I basically said that it was their word against the Church, and that I couldn’t prove either as wrong or right.

Help?

Very simply, Peter is called “Kepha” (rendered as “Kephas” in the Greek). Unlike the Greek word for rock, “Kepha” in Aramaic is neither masculine nor feminine, but neuter; and what this means is that its form does not change in a sentence. And so, when we translate Matt 16:18 into Aramaic, what it says is:

“…you are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church.”

Further, the reason Matt 16:18 does not read “petros -pertros” is because the actual word for “rock” in Greek is “petra” - a feminine noun. It would have been very strange in Koinic Greek (the Greek of the Bible) to use the mansculine form “petros” to refer to an actual rock, since rock was a feminine word. The author of Matt 16 wants to make it clear to his early Christian readers that Jesus is comparing Peter (whom they knew as “Petros”) to an actual rock (“petra”). If he did not use the normal, feminine word “petra” ("…and upon this rock …"), then the meaning of Matt 16 would have been obscured. To the early Greek speaking Christians, it would have sounded like this: “…you are Peter, and upon this Peter I will build my Church.”

See the difficulty? It would not be illustrating the meaning of the name “Peter” at all. For 1st Century Greek-speakers, “petra” was the word for rock. “Petros” (“Peter”) was merely a name derived from “petra.” Greeks at this time only used the masculine form “petros” when they were speaking in an adjectival sense and applying it to something mansculine that was “made of rock” (e.g. a rock wall). So, if the author of Matt. 16 wanted to equate Peter with an actual rock, he could only do it by using the feminine form (“petra”).

Now, the Fundamentalist Protestant “petros-petra” argument is easily refuted by the fact that Jesus Himself simply did not speak Greek, but Aramaic, and Scripture itself clearly preserves the Aramaic form of Peter’s name - the name that Jesus actually called Peter, which was (in Aramaic) “Kepha.” A Greek transliteration of this original, Aramaic name (Kephas …sometimes written “Cephas”) appears many times in Scripture: John 1:42, 1 Cor. 1:12, 1 Cor. 3:22, 1 Cor. 9:5, 1 Cor. 15:5, Gal 1:18, Gal 2:9, Gal 2:11, Gal 2:14. What simply cannot be denied is that “Kepha” in Aramaic means a big, whomping “rock.” It has no other meaning in Aramaic. In fact, there is a word for “little stone” in Aramaic, and that word is “evna.” But, Peter is never called “Evna,” or “evnas,” or anything like that. Rather, he is called “Kepha” (rendered as “Kephas” in the Greek).

There is no change. Thus, if we look at what Jesus REALLY SAID, it becomes clear that Jesus is calling Peter “rock” and then saying that he will build His Church upon this very same rock of Peter. There is simply no way for a Protestant to avoid this argument, which is why every reputable Protestant scholar in the world no longer uses the “petros-petra” argument, but admits that Peter himself is the rock of Matt 16:18. Only uneducated fundamentalists still use the old argument.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

As for his argument that only Catholics adhere to this understanding:

“The meaning is, ‘You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter, I will build my church.’ Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, ‘And I say to you, your are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church.’ Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.” William Hendriksen, Reformed Protestant theologian, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary and member of the Christian Reformed Church, writing in the New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.

Gerhard Maier, conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian: “Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which - in accordance with the words of the text - applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal and conservative theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.” The Church in the Gospel of Matthew; Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate, Peternoster Press, 1984), 58.

"In Aramaic, ‘Peter’ and Rock are the same word; in Greek (here) they are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period. For the idea of a person as the foundation on which something is built, cf. Isaiah 51:1-2; Ephesians 2:20 (the promise is made to Peter because Peter was the one who confessed Jesus, v. 16). Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer’s Grove, IL; Intravarsity Press, 1993), 90.

“Although it is true that petros and petra can mean’ stone’ and’ rock’ respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably Kepha was used in both clauses ('You are kepha and on this kepha. . .), since the words was used both for a name and for a ‘rock.’ The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name,” Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke); (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

So, to pursue a contrary understanding of Matthew 16 is to be held captive to an ideology that has no basis in the scriptural text.

Some articles for further help:

bringyou.to/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504fea3.asp

 

[Jack_245814]

Could it also have something to do with the fact that the Church is usually represented in feminine terms, like in the Song of Songs and when we call it “Holy Mother Church”?

I don’t know if this is a suitable explanation whatsoever . . . I have no knowledge of Greek or Aramaic, I’m just throwing it out there; hopefully somebody more knowledgeable can come along and tell me whether I’m right or wrong in this.

Edit: Heh, while I was typing this looks like someone more knowledgeable did come along. Thems some great apologetics FCEGM

 

[The_Mark]

Thanks everyone. Right now I feel so crushed that maybe I’ll reply tommorow.

I wish I knew more before I started getting into these debates…Right now I feel drained.

 

[BlestOne]

I need some serious help. I don’t know Greek or Aramaic, and now I’ve gotten into a debate with someone about Jesus referring to Peter as the rock on which to build His church.

This was a result of me saying that the Catholic Church is the original Christian church.

Here’s what this person says:

*Aramaic does have masculine and feminine pronouns, and Jesus used the feminine pronoun if Aramaic(and it was) was the language that Jesus spoke in and it doesn’t have masculine and feminine pronouns to it’s nouns than this is incorrect…this person unwittingly gave you your answer. Greek does have masculine and feminine pronouns which would be Petra and Petros, but the Aramaic is Kepha, Kepha… in other words… the language Jesus spoke says exactly that… You are rock and upon this rock I will build my church… but when translated to Greek or even Latin, it would involve these pronouns. So Jesus said it the way Catholics interpret it, but the confines of language dynamics makes it impossible to translate in Greek or Latin *to describe “this rock.” It was, no doubt, because this feminine demonstrative pronoun made it apparent that Jesus intended to distinguish between Peter and the rock on which his congregation was to be built that Matthew when translating into Greek used two different nouns, Petros and petra. (Incidentally, the evidence indicates that Matthew first wrote his gospel in Hebrew and then himself translated it into Greek.) We cannot imagine Matthew’s being so careless as to use two different nouns if Jesus had not intended to make any distinction. And so we have a modern literal translation of Jesus’ words as follows: “You are Peter [Petros, masculine], and on this rock-mass [petra, feminine] I will build my congregation.” So unless you’re saying that both Jesus and Matthew used their languages wrong, the catholic understanding is a misinterpretation.

This person also said that Catholics are the only ones who refuse to acknowledge the historical and linguistic evidence.

I’m in over my head. I basically said that it was their word against the Church, and that I couldn’t prove either as wrong or right.

Help?

Have you ever tried to speak or write in another language? The words and sentence structure make it almost impossible to say exactly the same thing in 2 different languages… sometimes it is a gender issue, sometimes it is a word issue… some languages have 3 or more words for the word love for example… whereas English has one. Or how about worship? In other languages there are more words with different meanings for worship depending on the level of worship… whether it means respect, adore or total and complete praise and adoration… get my drift???

 

[tobinatorstark]

You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church: the Aramaic word kepa - meaning rock and transliterated into Greek as Kephas is the name by which Peter is called in the Pauline letters (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:4; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14) except in Gal 2:7-8 (“Peter”). It is translated as Petros (“Peter”) in John 1:42. The presumed original Aramaic of Jesus’ statement would have been, in English, “You are the Rock (Kepa) and upon this rock (kepa) I will build my church.” The Greek text probably means the same, for the difference in gender between the masculine noun petros, the disciple’s new name, and the feminine noun petra (rock) may be due simply to the unsuitability of using a feminine noun as the proper name of a male. Although the two words were generally used with slightly different nuances, they were also used interchangeably with the same meaning, “rock.”

That is interesting. Here is what the Douay-Rheims Challoner says

Thou art Peter. &c. As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz, that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, St. John 1.42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all the fullness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Ibid. Upon this rock , & c. The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jesus which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he said in English, Thou art a rock and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon the church was built: Christ himself being both the prinicipal foundation and the founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods like the wise builder, St. Matt 7:24-25. - Ibid The gates of hell &c. That is, the powers of darkness, and the whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. For as the church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates which, that is, the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or church of Christ. By the promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ.

 

[Robbinson]

Many reputed protestant scholars acknowledge the more natural reading the Peter is the rock, then try to say the passage was added to scripture (which is, frankly, absurd). Others acknowledge Peter had the authority, but not his successors.

Peter is indeed the Rock. Even if the passage referred to Peter’s confession of faith (which is a very un-natural reading of the text), he was in the very same verse given the “keys to the kingdom” - an authority not given to any other apostle.

Interestingly, with the benefit of hindsight, we can now see that in fact, it is the institution of the Papacy (succesor to Peter) which has alone in fact maintained the Deposit of Faith - continuing the fullilment of Christ’s prophecy/promise that His Church would withstand until the end. If you look at the Protestant Church - since the Church of England and without the guidance of the Vicar of Christ, it has splintered into over 30,000 denominations varying on interpretation of scripture and key issues of doctrine.

We are all Catholic - whehter we acknowledge it or not, some more in rebellion than others. But Christ awaits us all with open arms, as the Father awaited the return of the prodigal son who was “dead” but “lived” again. Lets all pray for each other.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

And so we have a modern literal translation of Jesus’ words as follows: “You are Peter [Petros, masculine], and on this rock-mass [petra, feminine] I will build my congregation.”

“My congregation”? Where in the world did he come up with that one?

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

 

[Sinke]

I need some serious help. I don’t know Greek or Aramaic, and now I’ve gotten into a debate with someone about Jesus referring to Peter as the rock on which to build His church.

This was a result of me saying that the Catholic Church is the original Christian church.

Here’s what this person says:

Aramaic does have masculine and feminine pronouns, and Jesus used the feminine pronoun to describe “this rock.” It was, no doubt, because this feminine demonstrative pronoun made it apparent that Jesus intended to distinguish between Peter and the rock on which his congregation was to be built that Matthew when translating into Greek used two different nouns, Petros and petra. (Incidentally, the evidence indicates that Matthew first wrote his gospel in Hebrew and then himself translated it into Greek.) We cannot imagine Matthew’s being so careless as to use two different nouns if Jesus had not intended to make any distinction. And so we have a modern literal translation of Jesus’ words as follows: “You are Peter [Petros, masculine], and on this rock-mass [petra, feminine] I will build my congregation.” So unless you’re saying that both Jesus and Matthew used their languages wrong, the catholic understanding is a misinterpretation.

This person also said that Catholics are the only ones who refuse to acknowledge the historical and linguistic evidence.

I’m in over my head. I basically said that it was their word against the Church, and that I couldn’t prove either as wrong or right.

Help?

Your co-debater ignores the fact that word “petra” (rock) can’t be a name given to a male, because it is feminine word in origin. The word “petros” is actually petr-os, the last two letters being the masculine form of that -a in “Petra”.

So let’s say, for the sake of clearity, that Jesus and Matthew are not wrong, but neither are Catholics. There is no other way to translate that Bible passage, since the word had to be translated in a way suitable for naming a man.

Oh, and if you wish to leave the discussion in an impressive way, ask where in the Bible can we read about dispute over Moses Body of Michael and demon ( Judas Apostle’s Epistle 1:9 ). Since this story is part of oral Tradition, non-existent in Protestant theology, they will be quite puzzled. After a while, they will be happy you went home.

 

[mark_a]

Here’s what this person says:

Aramaic does have masculine and feminine pronouns, and Jesus used the feminine pronoun to describe “this rock.” It was, no doubt, because this feminine demonstrative pronoun made it apparent that Jesus intended to distinguish between Peter and the rock on which his congregation was to be built that Matthew when translating into Greek used two different nouns, Petros and petra. (Incidentally, the evidence indicates that Matthew first wrote his gospel in Hebrew and then himself translated it into Greek.) We cannot imagine Matthew’s being so careless as to use two different nouns if Jesus had not intended to make any distinction. And so we have a modern literal translation of Jesus’ words as follows: “You are Peter [Petros, masculine], and on this rock-mass [petra, feminine] I will build my congregation.” So unless you’re saying that both Jesus and Matthew used their languages wrong, the catholic understanding is a misinterpretation.

Ask this person how he interprets the part about Peter getting the keys to the kingdom.