Does Deut. 32:4 disprove that Peter is the rock?

  • Thread starter Thread starter q54332
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

q54332

Guest
I was watching an anti-catholic video for fun pretty much and the man in the video pointed to Deuteronomy 32:4 to prove that Jesus is the rock not Peter in Matthew 16:18, what would you say in response. He also pointed to 1 Peter 2:7-8

“The Rock, his work is perfect;
for all his ways are justice.
A God of faithfulness and without iniquity,
just and right is he.’’
 
Last edited:
It’s clear from Matthew that Jesus is referring to Peter. But that doesn’t mean that Jesus is not also a type of rock. He is the type of rock in the OT that was struck, and water came out.
 
Last edited:
Maybe true but I like hearing arguments against us and then trying to debunk them for fun.
 
In the RSV it says “The Rock, his work is perfect;
for all his ways are justice.
A God of faithfulness and without iniquity,
just and right is he.
 
If your process for debunking is coming to an internet forum to pass off the apologetics, I think your time would be better spent getting deeper into Catholoc reading first before seeking out anti-Catholic work.
 
Oh Im just doing it mentally not written or typed, Im no where near as good enough to do real apologetics. Im mainly testing the knowledge I do have
 
Last edited:
I just want to warn you. If you dont have a firm standing to answer the questions raised in these sources, then it can prove difficult for your faith. It’s not uncommon for someone to read anti-Catholic material out of curiosity, and then be disturbed when they can’t answer the claims put forth.
 
I try to be careful of that, but I have a firm understanding of the early church and history to feel safe in my beliefs, plus I love this forum for that, so when I don’t know how to respond or I just need to learn something I’ll go here. Im smart enough to know that just because I cant answer the question it doesnt mean someone else can’t.
 
Maybe fun, but still a complete waste of time.

You can argue against intellect, but not against ego.

Anti-Catholicism, in fact all “solas” are driven in large part by the ego.
 
I watched the video, and unfortunately I don’t even see much to argue against. He doesn’t even assert a different interpretation of Matthew 16:18. The other passages he mentioned don’t override Matthew 16:18. Being a “rock” is just a metaphor. Jesus is a rock, the corner stone, that the builders rejected, as in the Jewish people that were building their relationship with God and their rituals of worship rejected the most important piece that supports the whole building, the corner stone, the key to salvation.

Peter is the rock in the sense that Jesus built his Church of those that accepted Him on Peter, giving him the authority to guide His flock, and make sure His words are understood. Jesus gives Simon the name Peter, which means “rock”, so there is no denying that he is the rock in some sense. Without the authority on earth that Jesus established, the truth would be lost to an infinite number of interpretations, which is what has happened with Protestants.

The Church is not our master, it is our guide. In the video he misunderstands and gives the wrong meaning to things. There aren’t “2 rocks”, as in 2 masters. It is like asking why does Jesus say, “I am the light of the world” in John 8:12, but also say, “You are the light of the world” in Matthew 5:14? Words can be used in different contexts. There is not just one rock or one light. Even though we don’t have the same role as Jesus as God, Master, Key to Salvation, we still have similar responsibilities given that He came here to show us how to live. Jesus is the rock on which our faith and salvation rely, but Peter is also the rock as in the unchanging doctrine, and solid guide for our understanding of scripture.
 
Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance,
you who seek the Lord;
look to the rock from which you were hewn,
and to the quarry from which you were digged.
Look to Abraham your father
and to Sarah who bore you;
for when he was but one I called him,
and I blessed him and made him many. (Isaiah 51:1-2)
Click to expand...
In the parallelism in the above passage, Abraham is likened to a rock.

In Luke 22:32, Jesus, who is a “rock” by nature, by grace makes Peter to share in his “rock-ness” when he prays that Peter’s faith may not fail, that Peter might in turn strength his brethren.
 
Last edited:
q54332 said:
I was watching an anti-catholic video for fun pretty much and the man in the video pointed to Deuteronomy 32:4 to prove that Jesus is the rock not Peter in Matthew 16:18, what would you say in response. He also pointed to 1 Peter 2:7-8
Click to expand...
Very convenient of him to leave out the first part of 1 Peter 2:4-7.

Here is the entire passage:
4 Come to him, a living stone, though rejected by mortals yet chosen and precious in God’s sight, and 5 like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in scripture:
“See, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious;
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
7 To you then who believe, he is precious; but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the very head of the corner,” and
“A stone that makes them stumble,
and a rock that makes them fall.”
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
Click to expand...
So, every member of the Church is “a living stone” that is to be built into a “spiritual house” with Jesus Christ as the living stone that is “a cornerstone chosen and precious.”

So nothing precludes Peter being the rock or stone upon whose faith (“you then who believe”) the Church of living stones would be built, with Jesus Christ as the corner stone.

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,… (Matt 16:18)
 
Last edited:
q54332:

Does Deut. 32:4 disprove that Peter is the rock?​

Click to expand...
No.
DEUTERONOMY 32:3-5 3 For I will proclaim the name of the Lord.
Ascribe greatness to our God! 4 “The Rock, his work is perfect;
for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity,
just and right is he. 5 They have dealt corruptly with him,
they are no longer his children because of their blemish;
they are a perverse and crooked generation.
Click to expand...
I am assuming the guy thinks because Jesus is in a sense “rock” that must mean (in his mind), that Simon cannot be Petros, or “Rock” or “Cephas”.

Some Bible Christians will attempt to make the same argument using the idea of the Rock in the Wilderness that Moses struck for water, quoting 1st Corinthians 10.
1st CORINTHIANS 10:4 For they drank from the supernatural Rock (petros) which followed them, and the Rock (petra) was Christ.
Click to expand...
Don’t buy it.

Simon Peter’s ministry in IN Jesus.

So we would EXPECT this.

The same with Peter holding the “Keys”. Jesus is the key holder behind St. Peter there too.

Here is the salient verses in St. Matthew’s Gospel with parenthetical mine.
MATTHEW 16:18 18 And I tell you, you are Peter (English), and on this rock (English) I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
Click to expand...
Now let’s look at it with a Greek transliteration parenthetical.
MATTHEW 16:18a 18 And I tell you, you are Petros (Greek), and on this Petra (Greek) I will build my church . . . .
Click to expand...
Now let’s look at it with a Hebrew transliteration parenthetical.
MATTHEW 16:18a 18 And I tell you, you are Cephas (or Kepha - Hebrew), and on this Cephas (or Kepha - Hebrew), I will build my church . . . .
Click to expand...
Now think about in many of St. Paul’s letters and St. John’s Gospel.

Here is on example with Jesus prophesying Simon’s name change . . . .
JOHN 1:42 42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter).
Click to expand...
Incidentally. Notice it is you “SHALL BE”. . . . not “you ARE NOW” called Cephas.

OK. Let’s go on. Think about this for a moment . . . .
NOT JOHN 1:42 42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, So you are Simon the son of John? I and I ALONE shall be called Cephas (which means Peter).
Click to expand...
GALATIANS 1:18-19 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.
Click to expand...
(Don’t be confused by the “brother” thing either. We know BOTH Apostle James dad. “Brother” in Hebrew has a WIDE meaning.)
NOT GALATIANS 1:18 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem
to visit Cephas who we know is really Jesus because some Bible preacher insists on not using common sense when putting up Youtube videos, even though Jesus already ascended into Heaven,
and remained with him fifteen days.
Click to expand...
Simon is re-named Peter or Cephas.

I can think of many more reasons the “preacher’s” position is untenable and if you want, let me know and I’ll put up more.

God bless.

Cathoholic
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top