Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tomyris
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M. Eugene Boring (Disciples of Christ)

“16:18, Peter as Rock. Peter is the foundation rock on which Jesus builds the new community. The name ‘Peter’ means ‘stone’ or ‘rock’ (Aramaic Kepha Cepha; Greek petros)… There are no documented instances of anyone’s ever being named ‘rock’ in Aramaic or Greek prior to Simon. Thus English translations should render the word ‘stone’ or ‘rock,’ not ‘Peter,’ which gives the false impression that the word represented a common name and causes the contemporary reader to miss the word play of the passage: ‘You are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church.’ Peter is here pictured as the foundation of the church…On the basis of Isa 51:1-2 (cf. Matt 3:9), some scholars have seen Peter as here paralleled to Abraham; just as Abram stood at the beginning of the people of God, had his name changed, and was called a rock, so also Peter stands at the beginning of the new people of God and receives the Abrahamic name ‘rock’ to signify this.” (The New Interpreter’s Bible [Abingdon Press, 1995], volume 8, page 345)

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)

“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . 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 . . . 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 . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

“The word Peter petros, meaning ‘rock,’ (Gk 4377) is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter.” (Carson, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1994], volume 2, page 78, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 18)

J. Knox Chamblin (Contemporary Presbyterian)

"By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church”. As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus. " (“Matthew” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742).

Oscar Cullman (Lutheran)

“The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and petros: petra = Kepha = petros…Since Peter, the rock of the Church, is thus given by Christ Himself, the master of the house (Is. 22:22; Rev. 3:7), the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he is the human mediator of the resurrection, and he has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection…The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story…For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art Rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom He has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Cullmann, article on “Rock” (petros, petra) trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Eerdmans Publishing, 1968], volume 6, page 98, 107, 108)

(cont.)
 
Suzanne de Dietrich (Presbyterian theologian)

“The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. ‘Simon”, the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community.” (The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16 (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93, JPK page 34).

J.D. Douglas

“That the rock is Peter himself . . . is found almost as early as the other [interpretation], for Tertullian and the bishop, whether Roman or Carthaginian, against whom he thundered in De Pudicitia, assume this, though with different inferences. Its strength lies in the fact that Mt 16:19 is in the singular, and must be addressed directly to Peter . . . Many Protestant interpreters, including notably Cullmann, take the latter view.” (New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 972)

R.T. France (Anglican)

“Jesus now sums up Peter’s significance in a name, Peter . . . It describes not so much Peter’s character (he did not prove to be ‘rock-like’ in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus’ church. The feminine word for ‘rock’, ‘petra’, is necessarily changed to the masculine ‘petros’ (stone) to give a man’s name, but the word-play
is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form ‘kepha’ would occur in both places). 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. "The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied…Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus’ new community . . . which will last forever.” (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985], vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)

“The name Peter means ‘Rock’, and Jesus played on this meaning to designate Peter as the foundation of the new people of God. His leadership would involve the authority of the steward, whose keys symbolized his responsibility to regulate the affairs of the household. Peter would exercise his leadership by his authority to declare what is and is not permissible in the kingdom of heaven (to bind and to loose have this meaning in rabbinic writings)…It is sometimes suggested that because the word for ‘rock’ (petra) differs from the name Petros, the ‘rock’ referred to is not Peter himself but the confession he has just made of Jesus as Messiah. In Aramaic, however, the same term kefa would appear in both places; the change in Greek is due to the fact that petra, the normal word for rock, is feminine in gender, and therefore not suitable as a name for Simon! The echo of Peter’s name remains obvious, even in Greek; he is the rock, in the sense outlined above.” (France, New Bible Commentary with consulting editors Carson, France, Motyer, Wenham [Intervarsity Press, 1994], page 925, 926)

Frank E. Gaebelein

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 . . .“In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Frank E. Gaebelein, General Editor, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984, vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368.

Richard B. Gardner (Brethren/Mennonite)

“The key question here is whether the rock foundation of the church is Peter himself, or something to be distinguished from Peter. If the latter, Jesus could be speaking of Peter’s faith, or of the revelation Peter received. It is more likely, however, that the rock on which Jesus promises to build the church is in fact Peter himself, Peter the first disciple (cf. 4:18; 10:2), who represents the whole group of disciples from which the church will be formed. At least four considerations support this view…” (Gardner, Believers Church Bible Commentary: Matthew [Herald Press, 1991], 247)

Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)

“The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built… The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock… seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.” (Matthew 14-28 Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470, JPK pages 36-37)

(cont.)
 
William Hendriksen (Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary)

“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, you 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.” (New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973], page 647JPK page 14]

David Hill (Presbyterian)

“On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

Ivor H. Jones (Methodist)

“…in 16.18 Peter is the rock on which the new community could be built, as Abraham was described in rabbinic writings as the rock on which God could erect a new world to replace the old…The arguments have raged across the centuries over the phrase ‘on this rock’ : does it mean on Peter, or on Peter’s confession? But the text is clear: Peter was divinely inspired and this was the reason for his new function and the basis of his authorization. His function was to provide for Jesus Christ the beginnings of a stronghold, a people of God, to stand against all the powers of evil and death…They are God’s people, the church…as the church they represent God’s sovereign power over evil (18.18b) and rely upon a new kind of divine authorization…This authorization is given to Peter; so Peter is not only a stronghold against evil; he also is responsible for giving the community shape and direction.” (Jones, The Gospel of Matthew [London: Epworth Press, 1994], page 99)

Craig S. Keener (Protestant Evangelical)

“‘You are Peter,’ Jesus says (16:18), paralleling Peter’s ‘You are the Christ’ (16:16). He then plays on Simon’s nickname, ‘Peter,’ which is roughly the English ‘Rocky’: Peter is ‘rocky,’ and on this rock Jesus would build his church (16:18)…Protestants…have sometimes argued that Peter’s name in Greek (petros) differs from the Greek term for rock used here (petra)…But by Jesus’ day the terms were usually interchangeable, and the original Aramaic form of Peter’s nickname that Jesus probably used (kephas) means simply ‘rock.’ Further, Jesus does not say, ‘You are Peter, but on this rock I will build my church’…the copulative kai almost always means ‘and’… Jesus’ teaching is the ultimate foundation for disciples (7:24-27; cf. 1 Cor 3:11), but here Peter functions as the foundation rock as the apostles and prophets do in Ephesians 2:20-21…Jesus does not simply assign this role arbitrarily to Peter, however; Peter is the ‘rock’ because he is the one who confessed Jesus as the Christ in this context (16:15-16)…” (Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Eerdmans, 1999], page 426-427)

John Peter Lange (Protestant)

The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun… The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock”, etc.” (Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8 [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976], page 293, JPK page 19)

Thomas G. Long (Presbyterian/Reformed)

“Since, in the original Greek, Petros and petra both mean ‘rock,’ it is easy to spot this statement as a pun, a play on words: ‘Your name is “Rock,” and on this “rock” I will build my church.’ Jesus’ meaning is plain: Peter is the rock, the foundation, upon which he is going to erect his church…Jesus spoke Aramaic, however, not Greek. In Aramaic, the words for ‘Peter’ and ‘rock’ are the same (Kepha)…the most plausible interpretation of the passage is that Jesus is, indeed, pointing to Peter as the foundation stone, the principal leader, of this new people of God…there is much evidence that he also played a primary leadership role in the early Christian church…For the church, the new people of God, Peter was, indeed, the ‘rock,’ corresponding to Abraham of old, who was ‘the rock from which you were hewn’ (Isa. 51:1).” (Long, Matthew [Westminster John Knox Press, 1997], page 185, 186)

Gerhard Maier (Lutheran)

“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 (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.” (“The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate,” Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58, JPK pages 16-17)

(cont.)
 
Herman Ridderbos (Contemporary Dutch Reformed)

“It is well known that the Greek word (petra) translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man’s name, however, Simon was not called petra but petros. The word petros was not an exact synonym of petra; it literally meant ‘stone.’ Jesus therefore had to switch to the word petra when He turned from Peter’s name to what it meant for the Church. There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that He was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter. Because of the revelation that he had received and the confession that it motivated in him, Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future church.” (Ridderbos, Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew [Zondervan, 1987], page 303 as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 35-36)

Eduard Schweizer (Presbyterian/Reformed)

“The ‘rock’ is Peter himself, not his confession. Only on this interpretation does the pun make sense.” (Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew [John Knox Press, 1975], page 341)
 
Originally Posted by Karen107 View Post
The meaning of the word came into being after Protestantism began.
Click to expand...
Quote:
denomination (n.) Look up denomination at Dictionary.com
late 14c., “a naming, act of giving a name to,” from Old French denominacion “nominating, naming,” from Latin denominationem (nominative denominatio) “a calling by anything other than the proper name, metonymy,” from denominare “to name,” from de- “completely” (see de-) + nominare “to name” (see nominate). Meaning “a class” is from mid-15c. Monetary sense is 1650s; meaning “religious sect” is 1716.
Click to expand...
House_Harkonnen said:
False.
Click to expand...
meaning “religious sect” is 1716
Click to expand...
Protestant Reformation 1517 :sad_yes: Not false but a true statement.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Herman Ridderbos (Contemporary Dutch Reformed)

“It is well known that the Greek word (petra) translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man’s name, however, Simon was not called petra but petros. The word petros was not an exact synonym of petra; it literally meant ‘stone.’ Jesus therefore had to switch to the word petra when He turned from Peter’s name to what it meant for the Church. There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that He was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter. Because of the revelation that he had received and the confession that it motivated in him, Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future church.” (Ridderbos, Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew [Zondervan, 1987], page 303 as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 35-36)

Eduard Schweizer (Presbyterian/Reformed)

“The ‘rock’ is Peter himself, not his confession. Only on this interpretation does the pun make sense.” (Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew [John Knox Press, 1975], page 341)
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting all this Randy, but I think I am convinced by some anonymous guy on a forum over all those scholars. 😃
 
adrift said:
What you write is true. I would like those who dispute this passage as being Peter the head of the Church explain the name change.
Click to expand...
Well actually, I made a mistake. It was Peter who called the other disciples living stones… That should tell you that Peter had some leadership to him.

Peters original name was Simon… Jesus changed it to Peter meaning Rock, because Simon was the Rock on which Jesus Church would be built. Is that what you mean?
 
Reading through this thread has been informative and comical. Just wanted to share.
 
howirenic said:
Randy, I don’t really like what you did there.

I made a humorous and lighthearted remark about the situation (knowing how quickly these conversations can devolve on internet forums), and you went ahead and posted your quotes anyway, as if my difficulty with them was the real reason for my silence.

We Orthodox do not refute Peter’s primacy, as you know. Please do not represent us as being in denial of that. As for whether or not the modern Papacy is of the Church that Christ founded… again, I’m staying out of that one.
Click to expand...
But my point was not about primacy. It went directly to the issue of whether or not Peter is the ROCK - a point that is usually denied by most Orthodox.

The consensus among Catholic, Protestant and even a couple of Orthodox scholars is that Peter himself is the rock in Matthew 16:18-19.

As you know, that actually has huge implications for those who are not Catholic.

If you have concerns about the “modern” papacy, simply search for my quotes from Cardinal Newman and Fr. Adrian Fortescue. They explain the development of doctrine and why the ancient papacy looked different from the papacy today.

With those pieces in place, no one should have any real qualms about the Catholic view.
 
RedFox0456 said:
Reading through this thread has been informative and comical. Just wanted to share.
Click to expand...
Well I’m glad sweetie you’re enjoying this. It’s one of those topics that never go away… I for one am sleepy… Night all!

Oh sorry for the living stone mistake… My bad…Eh I’m not perfect and either was Peter but Jesus made Peter Pope of this crazy lot anyway… 🙂 There’s hope for me yet!
 
Karen107 said:
Well actually, I made a mistake. It was Peter who called the other disciples living stones… That should tell you that Peter had some leadership to him.

Peters original name was Simon… Jesus changed it to Peter meaning Rock, because Simon was the Rock on which Jesus Church would be built. Is that what you mean?
Click to expand...
Jesus changed Peter’s name. When that occurred in scripture it did so for important reasons. As I have already mentioned only four people had their name changed by God. This change is always overlooked. The emphasis is on “upon this rock” which is explained away to avoid the obvious which is Jesus made Peter the head of His Church. I would like someone who does not believe that Peter is the head of Jesus Church to give an explanation as to why Peter’s name was changed.
 
adrift said:
It is offensive to us isn’t that all a good Christian should know?
Click to expand...
My goal is truth, not to not offend anybody.

I find the RC reluctance to call themselves a denomination simply posturing and equivocation.
 
Karen107 said:
Well actually, I made a mistake. It was Peter who called the other disciples living stones… That should tell you that Peter had some leadership to him.

Peters original name was Simon… Jesus changed it to Peter meaning Rock, because Simon was the Rock on which Jesus Church would be built. Is that what you mean?
Click to expand...
Paul referred to him as Cephas, the transliterated form of the Hebrew word, kepha.

kepha = petros = Peter

All of them mean “rock”.
 
Tomyris said:
Well, that is what a lot of Protestants believe, but since it probably is of no interest to anyone around here, I will just let this little thread die a lonely,miserable death. Sigh.
Click to expand...
Peter’s leadership and primacy bleeds throughout the New Testament.

Supremacy is a whole different story 😉
 
adrift said:
What I ask and have NEVER been given an answer is the name change. A name change was of great importance in Scripture only Abraham, Sarah. Jacob and Peter had their name changed. This event is ignored. Why did Jesus change Peter’s name especially to the meaning of rock?
Click to expand...
Because he was the princeps of the apostles whose ministry was passed down to all the bishops of the church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top