For the 1000th time

  • Thread starter Thread starter zach_dunn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

zach_dunn

Guest
Hi! I’m sure this has been brought up several times but I have a question. What do you say to a person that says Christ is the rock of Matthew 16:18. They site these verses:

1 Corinthians 10:4 “4 And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)”

Romans 9:33 “33 As it is written: Behold I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and a rock of scandal; and whosoever believeth in him shall not be confounded.”

I’ll just list the rest for space’s sake:

Habukkuk 1:12
Isaiah 26:4
Psalm 144:1
Psalm 94:22
Psalm 62:2
Isaiah 44:8
2 Samuel 22:32

Then they go into saying Christ is the foundation of the Church with this verse:

1 Corinthians 3:11

Then they add Peter was inspired by Satan:

Matthew 16:23

PLUS, Peter was apparently “in the wrong and stood condemned,” and “[Peter] was not being straight forward about the truth of the Gospel!” Paul says all of this in Galatians 2:11

So what do I say, I know that we (Catholics) believe that Jesus is the “invisible” foundation of the Church, I just don’t know what to say. Thanks!!

Pax,
Zach
 
first, and perhaps most importantly, you need to provide a more precise description of the papacy; specifically, popes are men, and they are fallible, and some have been terrible sinners. Thus, Paul’s rebuke of Peter does not vitiate the concept of the Papacy, or the exercise of infallibility in qualified instances.

Second, you might want to ask this person whether or not they subscribe to the doctrine of the trinity; if they do, ask them to find the passage of Scripture that defines it*.

Third, go to the Gospel of St. John 1:42, where the evangelist gives a translation for Cephas.

Fourth, go back to Matthew 16, insert the meaning that this person wishes to give “rock” (or whatever other term) back into the context, and see if the result makes sense. <He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever** you** loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”>

all of these "you"s are singular. Jesus is referring to Peter. To claim that the rock in this passage makes very little sense. Peter is blessed. Peter received the truth about Jesus from God the Father. Peter will receive the keys. Peter can bind and loose. But Peter, which means “rock”, isn’t the rock, the foundation of the church? We’re supposed to read this as “You are the rock, and upon Me I will build my My church”. I bold “and” because it is a coordinating conjunction, which indicates that the two clauses that it joins are related in concept, operation, function, etc. To arrive at the meaning supposed by your friend, we would expect to find a concessive conjunction, like but, however, though, etc., to indicate distinction between the clauses: “You are the rock, but upon this rock i shall build my church…”.

Finally, ask your friend how the very first Christians interpreted this passage. You kind quotes from the Early Fathers at the Catholic Answers library that demonstrate the Catholic interpretation from the very earliest times. Even Orthodox Catholics, who reject the RC definition of the papacy, acknowledge that this passage refers to Peter.

As for the Romans passage, this is obviously a quote form the OT. Jesus knew the OT. It seems odd that Jesus would give Simon another name meaning “rock”, that God the Father would give Peter a special revelation withheld from the other Apostles, and that Jesus would grant him the keys to bind and lose, but all this time Peter was really a scandal.

Hope this helps.

*depending on the translation your friend uses, he might refer you to the Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7-8. This is a very late addition rejected by all scholars. You may not need this step either, but it would also allow to explore why Protestants feel confident that the Canon is correct, that the text of the Bible as we have it today is actually what was written, etc.
 
zach_dunn said:
Hi! I’m sure this has been brought up several times but I have a question. What do you say to a person that says Christ is the rock of Matthew 16:18. They site these verses:

1 Corinthians 10:4 “4 And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)”

Romans 9:33 “33 As it is written: Behold I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and a rock of scandal; and whosoever believeth in him shall not be confounded.”

I’ll just list the rest for space’s sake:

Habukkuk 1:12
Isaiah 26:4
Psalm 144:1
Psalm 94:22
Psalm 62:2
Isaiah 44:8
2 Samuel 22:32

Then they go into saying Christ is the foundation of the Church with this verse:

1 Corinthians 3:11

Then they add Peter was inspired by Satan:

Matthew 16:23

PLUS, Peter was apparently “in the wrong and stood condemned,” and “[Peter] was not being straight forward about the truth of the Gospel!” Paul says all of this in Galatians 2:11

So what do I say, I know that we (Catholics) believe that Jesus is the “invisible” foundation of the Church, I just don’t know what to say. Thanks!!
Click to expand...
I’d cite 2 Peter 3:16 in which he talks about the type of people who distort scripture to their own destrucion.
“uneducated and unbalanced people distort, in the same way as they distort the rest of scripture -to their own destruction.”
 
Simply tell them that Christ knew His Grammer. Grammer rules would indicate that Peter is the Rock.

Also, being God, Christ knew Peter’s human faults, and yet He still selected him. Who are we to challenge the choice Christ made?
 
zach_dunn said:
Hi! I’m sure this has been brought up several times but I have a question. What do you say to a person that says Christ is the rock of Matthew 16:18. They site these verses:

1 Corinthians 10:4 “4 And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)”

Romans 9:33 “33 As it is written: Behold I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and a rock of scandal; and whosoever believeth in him shall not be confounded.”

I’ll just list the rest for space’s sake:

Habukkuk 1:12
Isaiah 26:4
Psalm 144:1
Psalm 94:22
Psalm 62:2
Isaiah 44:8
2 Samuel 22:32

Then they go into saying Christ is the foundation of the Church with this verse:

1 Corinthians 3:11
Click to expand...
Christ is the foundation of Christianity and the Church. Christ knew that he wouldn’t be here forever, so he knew that he had to leave the teachings in Peter’s capable hands. There were many people that witnessed this and none of them disputed what Jesus meant.

The additional scripture that you provided is out of context.
Then they add Peter was inspired by Satan:
Click to expand...
Matthew 16:23
Click to expand...
Nope, Jesus tells Peter to get behind him, he then turns to Satan and says “Satan: thou art a stumbling-block unto me: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men”. . Jesus was defending his friend from evil.
PLUS, Peter was apparently “in the wrong and stood condemned,” and “[Peter] was not being straight forward about the truth of the Gospel!” Paul says all of this in Galatians 2:11
Click to expand...
The exact quote reads, “11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned”. When taken out of context it seems as though Paul is condemning Peter. However, if you read the entire story you realize that he simply thought Peter was out of line because of his encounters with the Jewish people.
 
zach_dunn said:
Hi! I’m sure this has been brought up several times but I have a question. What do you say to a person that says Christ is the rock of Matthew 16:18.
Click to expand...
You might say, “Gee, that’s not what most Protestant scholars think!”

PROTESTANT SCHOLARS ON PETER THE ROCK

“You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter)." (John 1:42)

“Jesus replied, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 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. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:17-19)

W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann
“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence…The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

Albert Barnes (Nineteenth-Century Presbyterian)
“The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion” Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].

John Broadus (Nineteenth-Century Calvinistic Baptist)
“As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession” Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].

Craig L. Blomberg (Baptist)
“The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification” New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].

**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)

(cont.)
**
 
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” “Matthew” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].

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)
Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)
“The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] 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” (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).
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)
“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…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)

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.’ . . . 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” Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].

+++

Of course, Jesus did not speak Greek but Aramaic. Therefore, the words that Jesus actually spoke would be more accurately translated, “You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my church.” The confusion over the masculine and feminine forms of the Greek petros and petra would not occur in Aramaic. We can see the use of the Greek form of Simon’s new name, Cephas, in several verses. Even Paul, the favorite Apostles of Protestants, called Peter “Cephas” in several of his letters which indicates that even Paul understood that Peter was the rock upon which the Church was founded. If not, he would have referred to Peter as “Simon” instead.

For the Protestant Reformers to rationalize breaking away from what was universally acknowledged in their culture as the Christian Church, it was necessary for them to deny the Catholic Church’s authority. To explain their new ecclesiology, they were forced to portray Rome as a kind of “anti-Church” that was unjustly claiming the prerogatives of Christ’s true (but invisible) Church.

Their chief target was, of course, the pope. To justify breaking away from the successor of Peter, they had to undercut the Petrine office itself. They were forced to deny the plain reading of Matthew 16:18—that Jesus made Peter the rock on which he would build his Church.
 
Thank you for all of the great replies! They’ve helped a lot.
Dogface_Soldier said:
*depending on the translation your friend uses, he might refer you to the Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7-8. This is a very late addition rejected by all scholars. You may not need this step either, but it would also allow to explore why Protestants feel confident that the Canon is correct, that the text of the Bible as we have it today is actually what was written, etc.
Click to expand...
Hi Dawg! (sorry, I couldn’t resist!) 🙂

I just stumbled upon this verse a little while ago and thought it was amazingly clear until now. Could you give me a little more imformation on this? I just want to know when it was aded and such. Thanks!

Pax,
Zach
 
zach_dunn said:
Then they go into saying Christ is the foundation of the Church with this verse: 1 Corinthians 3:11
Click to expand...
1 Corinthians 3:11 “For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

Scripture also states:
Ephesians 2:19-22 “Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”
PLUS, Peter was apparently “in the wrong and stood condemned,” and “[Peter] was not being straight forward about the truth of the Gospel!” Paul says all of this in Galatians 2:11 Pax,
Zach
Click to expand...
I do not believe that it was Peter the Apostle that Paul was referring to in this verse. I wrote a short Scripture study on this subject:

members.cox.net/studyhisword/PeterVindicated.pdf

Pax,
SHW
 
Wow! Thanks a lot SHW! That was a very interesting, enlightening, and an in-depth study of this verse!! I really enjoyed it! If you have any more like it please PM them to me or something because I really enjoyed that one!

Thanks a lot!

Pax,
Zach
 
Chaldean_Rite said:
I have one too:
members.cox.net/humurabi/AreYouSaved.pdf

members.cox.net/humurabi/Catholic_Apologia.pdf

good stuff. I liked your article on the Blessed Virgin, Queen of Hearts, as the Ark of the New Covenant.
Click to expand...
Those were both very good articles, I’ll definitely refer back to them when I get into tight spots :).

BTW, the Bible study link in your signature is amazing. I completely fell in love, now I’ve just gotta save up enough money to get the whole thing!! 😃

Pax,
Zach
 
zach_dunn said:
Those were both very good articles, I’ll definitely refer back to them when I get into tight spots :).

BTW, the Bible study link in your signature is amazing. I completely fell in love, now I’ve just gotta save up enough money to get the whole thing!! 😃

Pax,
Zach
Click to expand...
Praise God. I wrote the the longer paper about 8 yrs ago and still refer to it today. It was in response to my cousin convert into protestantism and I found myself falling into the same convos with him over and over again, same false dichtomies, and ill-posed questions, with my same responses. So i enshrined my thought process. The are you saved one is just cute, nice little response.

I’ve been going to the bible study for about 5 yeras, and if you would email the webmaster, who is Naji, I’m sure you could explain to him your situation. He actually was on the IT side of CA a while back, being a father of 7, with the desire to preach the good news full time, you can see the reasons why everything is not completely free. Not to mention, the software and recording devices are pretty pricey, along with the webspace, etc. But definetly email him. I’m sure he’d be willing to work something out. Or if you are in the san diego area, just come!
 
zach_dunn said:
Wow! Thanks a lot SHW! That was a very interesting, enlightening, and an in-depth study of this verse!! I really enjoyed it! If you have any more like it please PM them to me or something because I really enjoyed that one!

Thanks a lot!

Pax,
Zach
Click to expand...
Thank you for the kind comments. I have other studies on my website and I will be adding more. I will also be editing the ones that are already posted if/when I learn more about the subjects, so that I can improve them.
Call No Man Father*** is another topic on the website.

http://members.cox.net/studyhisword

SHW
 
Chaldean_Rite said:
nice website.
I have one too:
members.cox.net/humurabi/AreYouSaved.pdf

members.cox.net/humurabi/Catholic_Apologia.pdf

good stuff. I liked your article on the Blessed Virgin, Queen of Hearts, as the Ark of the New Covenant.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Much appreciated. I liked your two articles, too. I joined this forum so that I can dialog with other like-minded Catholics. I have no close friends who are this interested in our Catholic faith. 😦 They are more interested in watching TV or accumulating more things.

SHW
 
Scripture uses three different “rock” metaphors. God is the “rock” of our salvation (Ps 62:2). Abraham is the “rock” from which the Jewish people were hewn (Isaiah 51:1). Peter is the “rock” on which the Church is built (Matt 16:18). To argue that “Peter can’t be the rock because God is the rock” makes no more sense than to argue “God can’t be the rock because Abraham is the rock.” They are different metaphors. Peter’s being the “rock” on which the Church is built does not detract from God being the “rock” of our salvation.
 
SHW said:
I have no close friends who are this interested in our Catholic faith.
Click to expand...
I know what the feeling is like. You have lots of friends in Heaven thou that would love to talk about it with you one day! God willing!
 
SHW said:
I have no close friends who are this interested in our Catholic faith.
Click to expand...
I can relate a lot, I’m in highschool. All the people my age care about is girls and other, more immoral things…

But yeah, I don’t get to really talk about any of this stuff to anyone but you guys.
 
zach_dunn said:
I can relate a lot, I’m in highschool. All the people my age care about is girls and other, more immoral things…

But yeah, I don’t get to really talk about any of this stuff to anyone but you guys.
Click to expand...
Hi zach, 🙂

Technology makes it possible for us to connect with like-minded persons all over the world. Praise God!

Pax,
SHW
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top