How can people believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic?

[SCALCO]

1. Would it be improper to use kepha, then shu’a in a sentence in order to denote two differing rocks (presumably of different size or magnitude)? In other words, if Jesus’ intent were to contrast Peter with “the rock”, how would this be done? By attaching something to kepha to distinctualize between the two? Or would the two separate words be enough?

What makes you still want to entertain this scenario?

It would be improper in Matthew 16:18 because “and on this” was used. To show a contrast, one would use “but”.

 

[Thing]

2) Do you have any further info on the claim that Petros (as of Jesus’ day) was already an Aramaic name with a meaning of “firstborn”? kaycee linked a couple of discussions on that previously, and I find the concept very intriguing.

I don’t like to be a wet blanket but;
‘You are Firstborn and on this Firstborn I will build My Church’.
seems fairly explicit too.

 

[PC_Master]

What makes you still want to entertain this scenario?

Curiosity more than anything.

I don’t like to be a wet blanket but;
‘You are Firstborn and on this Firstborn I will build My Church’.
seems fairly explicit too.

Actually, the argument raised in the discussion kaycee linked previously is that the first instance, petros, derived from an Aramaic name meaning “firstborn”, while the second, petra, was referring to a rock. Effectively, the proponent of the theory says that Christ was saying Simon had recognized the truth of who Christ was, thereby being the “firstborn” into this belief. Christ then continues explaining that it is this rock (his identity as Messiah) that will be the foundation of his church. Peter is seen, in this context, as the first convert of what will eventually be many.

I’m not saying I agree with this view, but it does present a plausible theory, and grammar. It also makes the very valid point that names (proper names) are almost always transliterated, not translated. Thus, if he had said “You are kepha”, it should have been transliterated to “You are Cephas”.

It’s not conclusive, but it’s certainly interesting.

 

[Thing]

Aimless ramblings:

Simon’s new name was foretold as Peter even before he was called as an Apostle. But it was not changed just yet.
Is it coincidence He then uses two words with the same meaning, apparently, in the same sentence.
But…
If Peter did not mean rock then how would the rest of the sentence make sense.
You are Padraig and on this rock I will build My Church.

But whom do you say that I am?

16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The most obvious meaning is that Christ meant He was going to build His Church on the rock they were both standing on in that place.
But alas, it is not there. Hell has prevailed, or else that is not the meaning.
The next most obvious meaning is that at this very moment in which He changed Simons name to Peter, and in the same short sentence, He also says, and on this Peter I will build My Church.
This is fine, because the Church would then be wherever Peter was.
If Peter means rock, it doubles the meaning. It identifies St. Peter with the ‘rock’ and also makes the ‘rock’ a divine foundation for His Church, ‘nothing will prevail against it’.
It would now make sense for Christ to say ‘…and on this rock…’

But if Peter meant something else. If it were a name with no intrinsic meaning relevent to the sentence then why would Christ say ‘rock’ at all.

…But whom do you say that I am? …

…flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Brad, and on this rock I will build My Church.

And Brad says: Ahm… what rock is that again, Lord?

…where did that come from?

 

[kaycee]

I’m not saying I agree with this view, but it does present a plausible theory, and grammar. It also makes the very valid point that names (proper names) are almost always transliterated, not translated. Thus, if he had said “You are kepha”, it should have been transliterated to “You are Cephas”.

It’s not conclusive, but it’s certainly interesting.

Another interesting issue is context.

I believe that Peter’s Faith in Christ is the Rock as the subject of the entire passage is really “Who do you say that I am?”.

The passage ends with The Lord warning them not to tell anyone who He was.

For Peter to be the rock, The Lord must change the discussions focus from “Who do you say that I am” to an ambiguous, ableit supposedly foundational discussion of Peter’s identity, then closing the discussion BACK to the original focus of Christ’s identity in warning the disciples to tell no one. The flow seems unusually awkward.

The flow makes much more sense if the focus stays on “who do you say that I AM” throughout. Certainly the confession of Peter is a much better fit.

 

[kaycee]

Thus, if he had said “You are kepha”, it should have been transliterated to “You are Cephas”.

It’s not conclusive, but it’s certainly interesting.

Another note of interest is the parallel passages.

If the Lord was announcing His Vicar on earth and successor for the entire Christian millitant church, His oblique reference in Matt 16 seems to be His only reference to such an idea.

Mark 8:27 Then Jesus and his disciples went to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked his disciples, **“Who do people say that I am?” **28 They said, “John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and still others, one of the prophets.” 29 He asked them, **“But who do you say that I am?” **Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.” 30 Then he warned them not to tell anyone about him.

**Luke 9:18 **Once when Jesus was praying by himself, and his disciples were nearby, he asked them, **“Who do the crowds say that I am?” **19 They answered, “John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others that one of the prophets of long ago has risen.” 20 Then he said to them, **“But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered, “The Christ of God.” 21 But he forcefully commanded them not to tell this to anyone, **

The lack of mention in regards to Peter’s identity, does not support the notion that Peter is the Rock. This passage is entirely about the Identity of Christ, lending support to the idea that Christ is the Rock of Matt 16 or at the very least Peter’s confession. The complete lack of this passage in John is also odd if Peter is the rock and this doctrine must be believed by the faithful for salvation?

 

[Gofer]

Your Protestant bullishness makes me snigger, and shake my head. We have the most excellent testimony of ronyodish, whose (local) church is far older than yours, and you still persist, like a baby lecturing its parent…

 

[MIZER]

Another interesting issue is context.

I believe that Peter’s Faith in Christ is the Rock as the subject of the entire passage is really “Who do you say that I am?”.

The passage ends with The Lord warning them not to tell anyone who He was.

For Peter to be the rock, The Lord must change the discussions focus from “Who do you say that I am” to an ambiguous, ableit supposedly foundational discussion of Peter’s identity, then closing the discussion BACK to the original focus of Christ’s identity in warning the disciples to tell no one. The flow seems unusually awkward.

The flow makes much more sense if the focus stays on “who do you say that I AM” throughout. Certainly the confession of Peter is a much better fit.

Kaycee,

Why must it be either/or. Why must Peter’s confession be seperated from Peter, the man. Doesn’t it make the most sense that the rock would be the man who made this confession of faith and his successors, down through the ages? Otherwise, the foundation is flimsy as it is any man’s faith and any man’s faith can fail at any given time (even Peter’s faith failed on the night before Christ died). On the other hand the foundation would be “any man” and there is no continuity there as any man is not necessarily unified in faith with any other man.

Allowing the two to remain as one, we have continuity, we have succession which results in perpetuity and we have the concept of an ideal confession of faith which, by the promise of Christ, the gates of hell will not prevail against. It is the only perfect solution to the question. The rock of foundation is a man who holds an office (implies successsion), in posession of certain gifts, whose confession proclaims a certain faith. PERFECT!!!

 

[MIZER]

Kaycee writes,

If the Lord was announcing His Vicar on earth and successor for the entire Christian millitant church, His oblique reference in Matt 16 seems to be His only reference to such an idea.

“Oblique”? WHAT are you talking about? Honestly, I do not see any ambiguity in anything Jesus ever said. It is the non-catholic world which insists on reading obliqueness or ambiguity into the Sacred text. There is nothing confusing or difficult to grasp in the words “you are rock and on this rock I will build…” nor in the phrase, “I will GIVE YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” YOU, the word means a person, not a confession of faith and not “Me”, or “Myself” or “I”.

Have you not read the NT? How about “feed my lambs, tend my sheep”? How about “Those who hear you hear me”? How about, “the household of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”? How about “whose sins you forgive they are forgiven them, whose sins you retain, they are retained.” How about, “let another take his office?” How about, “follow thier teachings, becuase they sit on the chair of Moses.”? How about the entire sense of the Old Testement where God continuously gifts HIS chosen people, HIS children, an earthly, human leader to protect, guide and nurture them on their journey? Oblique?..right.

Mark 8:27 Then Jesus and his disciples went to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” 28 They said, “John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and still others, one of the prophets.” 29 He asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.” 30 Then he warned them not to tell anyone about him.

Luke 9:18 Once when Jesus was praying by himself, and his disciples were nearby, he asked them, “Who do the crowds say that I am?” 19 They answered, “John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others that one of the prophets of long ago has risen.” 20 Then he said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered, “The Christ of God.” 21 But he forcefully commanded them not to tell this to anyone,

Kaycee,

I’m not really getting you’re point. Why does it matter that Jesus tells them to keep his true identity quiet? How does this negate the fact that the Christ said to Peter, “you are (the) rock.” ???

Jesus is not the foundation of His own church! He is the cornerstone of the foundation. If we follow your logic we must assume that Jesus was intentionally ambiguous. He was not.

He knew He was not going to be here as a human being to be the foundation of the church militant until the end of the age. So, he created a foundation. Don’t forget, Jesus is God, in fact he is the Word of God, the very vehicle of creation. If God says, “you are rock,” then you are. It’s that simple. If God says, “this is my body,” then by God, this (bread) IS HIS body. That’s a period at the end of that sentence. It means, period. YIKES!

 

[joe370]

For example, CRAIG L. BLOMBERG

( CONTEMPORARY 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].

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ,** the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter (Kepha) and on this rock **(Kepha) **I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven. Matthew 16

Good question, but it is obviously specifically tailored to the non-catholic’s!**

 

[po18guy]

Another interesting issue is context.

I believe that Peter’s Faith in Christ is the Rock as the subject of the entire passage is really “Who do you say that I am?”.

The passage ends with The Lord warning them not to tell anyone who He was.

For Peter to be the rock, The Lord must change the discussions focus from “Who do you say that I am” to an ambiguous, ableit supposedly foundational discussion of Peter’s identity, then closing the discussion BACK to the original focus of Christ’s identity in warning the disciples to tell no one. The flow seems unusually awkward.

The flow makes much more sense if the focus stays on “who do you say that I AM” throughout. Certainly the confession of Peter is a much better fit.

Consider that Kepha’s role suddenly and drastically changed right there. Why? Kepha’s Divine Revelation was made known to all, so that all would know Christ’s true identity. Since you and I know that scripture is crystal clear, how can you be confused over an “ambiguous” statement of Christ? This is the very moment, the exact Genesis of Christ’s church! Matthew 16:18 is the first appearance of the word “church” in scripture. It changed forever after. Your views which reject church authority I fear lead to such confusion. Was Kepha obedient, to the point of martyrdom? Was Paul? Were all of the Twelve, except John obedient unto Martyrdom? Was John obedient unto death? Yes!

Why would Kepha ask and then answer Christ’s call to walk on the water? Every human knew that was insane! Kepha could swim, so why did the waters frighten him? Demons lived in the waters (remember the possessed herd of swine?) Did it prove Kepha’s faith? Yes. But even more so, it proved his obedience. “Come” was our Savior’s wonderful word to Kepha.

We are a church of obedience, whereas others are individualistic, expressing near-total freedom of beliefs, having no one leader, no one interpretation, no one catechism. See how you have difficulty understanding Catholicism?

We do not come across as meek and humble of heart as often as Christ desires, but Christ is our Perfect Example. He was obedient unto death. We try to emulate that. When we fail, Christ stands ready to welcome us back. But, that’s another area of obedience for another thread.

Christ’s peace.

 

[po18guy]

Your Protestant bullishness makes me snigger, and shake my head. We have the most excellent testimony of ronyodish, whose (local) church is far older than yours, and you still persist, like a baby lecturing its parent…

Easy, there! They are the products of near total religious freedom and need time to learn the concept of obedience. They are unaccustomed to church authority, and do not accept it. Some do not believe that Christ gave such power to men. No wonder that they are confused about the Catholic church.

If you’re old enough, it’s like Eddie Haskell coming to grips with obedience to the school principal! They are in the same building, but have many vastly different concepts of what should be.

Christ’s peace.

 

[joe370]

Another note of interest is the parallel passages.

If the Lord was announcing His Vicar on earth and successor for the entire Christian millitant church, His oblique reference in Matt 16 seems to be His only reference to such an idea.

Mark 8:27 Then Jesus and his disciples went to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked his disciples, **“Who do people say that I am?” **28 They said, “John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and still others, one of the prophets.” 29 He asked them, **“But who do you say that I am?” **Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.” 30 Then he warned them not to tell anyone about him.

**Luke 9:18 **Once when Jesus was praying by himself, and his disciples were nearby, he asked them, **“Who do the crowds say that I am?” **19 They answered, “John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others that one of the prophets of long ago has risen.” 20 Then he said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered, “The Christ of God.” 21 But he forcefully commanded them not to tell this to anyone,

The lack of mention in regards to Peter’s identity, does not support the notion that Peter is the Rock. This passage is entirely about the Identity of Christ, lending support to the idea that Christ is the Rock of Matt 16 or at the very least Peter’s confession. The complete lack of this passage in John is also odd if Peter is the rock and this doctrine must be believed by the faithful for salvation?

Kaycee,

Why must it be either/or. Why must Peter’s confession be seperated from Peter, the man. Doesn’t it make the most sense that the rock would be the man who made this confession of faith and his successors, down through the ages? Otherwise, the foundation is flimsy as it is any man’s faith and any man’s faith can fail at any given time (even Peter’s faith failed on the night before Christ died). On the other hand the foundation would be “any man” and there is no continuity there as any man is not necessarily unified in faith with any other man.

Allowing the two to remain as one, we have continuity, we have succession which results in perpetuity and we have the concept of an ideal confession of faith which, by the promise of Christ, the gates of hell will not prevail against. It is the only perfect solution to the question. The rock of foundation is a man who holds an office (implies successsion), in posession of certain gifts, whose confession proclaims a certain faith. PERFECT!!!

Jesus said, “Then he warned them not to tell anyone about him, because his time had not come yet.” This is irrelevant to the premise.

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. Ephesians 2:19-22

And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: 13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates. 14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.Rev. 21:12-14

For many reasons, Matthew 16:18: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” must be interpreted to mean that, in one sense, Peter is the rock on which the Church is built, but the point to be made here is that there is not simply one metaphor in Scripture for the Church’s foundation. There are five!

In 1 Corinthians 3, Christ is the foundation of the local Church. In 1 Peter 2, Christ is the cornerstone of the Church. In Ephesians 2, Christ is the cornerstone with the apostles and New Testament prophets as the foundation. In Revelation 21, the foundation is all Twelve of the Apostles. And in Matthew 16, the rock, Jesus will build His church on, is Peter. Every one of these assertions is true, but each in a different sense. One must read each passage in its own context, discern its meaning, and then harmonize it with the other five passages. One cannot take one’s pet passage and stuff its meaning into the other four as most protestants do. For anti-Catholics to take 1 Corinthians 3, or any passage and stuff its meaning into Matthew 16 is as wrong as if Catholics were to take Matthew 16 and stuff its meaning into the other four. Contextual integrity is of paramount importance when it comes to interpreting the bible or anything for that matter.

How can people believe Peter is the rock, Jesus’ church is built on, and the gates of hell would never prevail against that church, which is also the Body of Christ with Him as the head over all of it, the Church of the Living God and Pillar and Foundation of Truth—but still not be Catholic? awesome question:thumbsup:

 

[ronyodish]

Rony> Could you read those and address the claims there for us, briefly? Specifically, was petros a borrowed Hebrew and/or Aramaic name prior to Christ’s day, with a possible meaning of “firstborn”? What specifically is the difference between Kepha and Shu’a/Shu’wa/whatever?

PC Master,

I’m not that familiar with Hebrew. As far as Aramaic, I’ve never heard or read of an Aramaic petros prior to Christ’s day; and by saying this, I’m not saying that it is a fact that such a word never existed, rather, I’m saying I’ve never personally come across one. This is especially true for a petros that means “firstborn” which sounds rather strange to me, because we have a standard word for firstborn: bukhra. Bukhra shows up in the Old and New Testament of the Aramaic Peshitta.

However, since the time of Christ, there is a Patros (ܦܛܪܘܤ) that shows up in a very few Peshitta NT verses, notably in Acts 1:13, but this is recognized not as an Aramaic word, but as an Aramaic transliteration of Simon’s Greek name Petros. In other words, Simon’s identity in Greek as Petros is transliterated as Patros in Aramaic. Two verses later, in Acts 1:15, the common Aramaic name of Shim’on Kepa (ܫܡܥܘܢ ܟܐܦܐ) shows up. So, in our Peshitta (and in our Aramaic Church, heritage and culture in general), we have kept both Simon’s Aramaic name of Kepa meaning Rock, as well as, an Aramaic transliteration of the Greek name Petros as Patros.

With kepa and sho’a, they’re pretty much synonymous as I stated earlier by citing in Matthew and Mark the example of the rock structure where Jesus was buried, though kepa tends to be more general and can refer to any rocky or stony material. I forgot to also mention that kepa is a feminine term (though when used as a proper noun, it is genderless), whereas sho’a is masculine.

Yes, I am aware that the Peshitta only uses kepha in Matthew 16:18, but my personal belief is that the Peshitta is a translation from Greek, and so can possibly be off from the original spoken Aramaic.

Unlike some of my Assyrian brethren, I personally don’t take the position of Peshitta Primacy, or even Aramaic Primacy, for most of the NT Scriptures, though I do think that Matthew was written in Aramaic to the Jews, as there is ancient testimony for this. Having said that, the original spoken dialogues (as you have mentioned) between Christ and the Apostles in the day to day common life of the region was indeed done in Aramaic.

Furthermore, as Catholics, we also rely on Holy Tradition, and not just on Holy Scripture alone. As Chaldean Catholics, we believe that our Catholic Church of the East, which flourished in Mesopotamia among the Aramaic people, represented a continuation with the early Israelite converts to Christianity. We have received the Holy Tradition of Christ and the Apostles in our Aramaic tongue, and have passed down this Tradition and language through out the generations to this day.

So, whether the Holy Scriptures were originally written in Aramaic or Greek is ultimately immaterial, because by Holy Tradition our Aramaic people received the Good News and Teachings of Jesus Christ in Aramaic (just as the Greeks received it in Greek), and we continue to celebrate this Tradition in the Liturgy and in the communal life. We read Scripture in Aramaic because that’s our traditional particular heritage (and Greeks, and Latins traditionally read it in their respective languages as well), and even if say it was 100% certain that all of the Scriptures were originally written in Greek, then we’d still read them in Aramaic, because we are an Aramaic people and always have been and always will be. Aramaic is the official language of our particular Church, which is in full communion with the Holy See of Rome.

If, hypothetically, Jesus said kepha and then shu’a in Matthew 16:18, can the sentence still make grammatic sense?

If hypothetically Jesus said: “Kepa, w’al hadhe sho’a”, then as it is, it would be grammatically problematic for this reason:

hadhe is feminine, but sho’a is masculine, so hadhe would need to be changed to the masculine hana (ܗܢܐ)

So, if hypothetically Jesus said: “Kepa, w’al hana sho’a”, then it would be an awkward way to talk; however, there is a real example in the Peshitta that might perhaps be similar to this hypothetical. The example is not between a kepa and a sho’a, but between a kepa (ܟܐܦܐ) and an awna (ܐܒܢܐ) :

First, In Rom. 9:33, we have the normal showing of a kepa and a kepa in a sentence. we have a stumbling kepa, and a kepa of offence. Both of them are referring to Christ.

ܐܝܟ ܕܟܬܝܒ ܕܗܐ ܤܐܡ ܐܢܐ ܒܨܗܝܘܢ ܟܐܦܐ ܕܬܘܩܠܬܐ ܘܟܐܦܐ ܕܡܟܫܘܠܐ ܘܡܢ ܕܒܗ ܢܗܝܡܢ ܠܐ ܢܒܗܬ​

But in 1 Pet. 2:8, we have the same passage being referenced, except we have a stumbling kepa, and an awna of trouble. Despite the difference here in the usage of terms, both are still referring to Christ. There is no contrast here, as if one is about Christ, and the other is not:

ܟܐܦܐ ܗܘ ܕܬܘܩܠܬܐ ܘܐܒܢܐ ܕܟܫܠܐ ܘܡܬܬܩܠܝܢ ܒܗ ܒܕܠܐ ܡܬܛܦܝܤܝܢ ܠܡܠܬܐ ܕܠܗܕܐ ܤܝܡܝܢ​

So, even if hypothetically speaking, Jesus uses a kepa and a sho’a in Matt. 16:18, it still doesn’t tell us that there is a contrast in the verse, or that we are talking about two different things. We would still need a “but” for a contrast: “Kepa, bram ‘al hana sho’a”.

How would it be translated into Greek?

I’m not sure how it would be translated into Greek, since I’m not that familiar with Greek.

I will make some further comments on the two links provided by kaycee tomorrow (God willing).

God bless,

Rony

 

[joe370]

Who is the Rock of Matthew 16:18?

Is it the Lord Jesus? Is it St. Peter? Is it Peter’s faith? Or yet someone or something else?
The Biblical Passage in Question
From Several Protestant Translations

“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” (New International Version).

(A footnote in the New International Version to the word “Peter” says “Peter means rock”.)

“And I say also vnto thee, That thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke I will build my Church: and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it” (1611 King James Version).

(The original edition of the King James Version has a marginal cross-reference at Matthew 16:18 to John 1:42.)

“And I tell you, you are Peter [Greek, Petros — a large piece of rock], and on this rock [Greek, petra — a huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades (the powers of the infernal region) shall not overpower it [or be strong to its detriment or hold out against it]” (Amplified Bible).

(A footnote in the Amplified Bible to the word “Peter” says “The rock on which the church is built is traditionally interpreted as either Peter’s inspired confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, or it may be Peter himself (see Eph. 2:20)”; emphasis has been added here to the concluding phrase of the footnote, but the passages in the quotation bracketed here are actually bracketed in the Amplified Bible.)
The Position of Some Protestants

Some Protestants, especially those of a more anti-Catholic bent, try to make hay out of the distinction between the Greek words petros and petra in the original written version of Matthew 16:18. Petros, they say, means “stone” or “piece of rock” or, even merely “pebble”; petra, on the other hand, they say means “large rock” or “boulder”. So, they conclude, the two words cannot refer to the same person or thing. Moreover, they say (quite correctly) that petros is masculine and petra is feminine; so, they conclude, the male Peter could not have been the referent of the feminine term. And, therefore, Simon could not have been the Rock.
The Predominant Catholic Position
As Explained and Defended by Numerous Protestant Biblical Scholars

The following quotations regarding the meaning of Matthew 16:18 come from the book Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess. (This book is referred to below as JPK.) To all of the Protestant biblical scholars quoted below, a traditional Catholic interpretation of this scripture — that Simon is the rock — is quite acceptable. Some of them explain clearly why — in their professional opinion — the anti-Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is mistaken.
Twelve Quotations from Ten Protestant Biblical Scholars

William Hendriksen
member of the 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 647
JPK page 14

Gerhard Maier
leading 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 (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

Donald A. Carson III
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
(two quotations from different works)

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 word 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.

The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368
JPK pages 17-18

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.

Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78
JPK page 18

John Peter Lange
German Protestant scholar

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

John A. Broadus
Baptist author
(two quotations from the same work)

Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.

But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho”. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha”… Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.”

Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
(Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356
JPK page 20

J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor
Reformed Theological Seminary

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”
Evangelical Commentary on the Bible
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742
JPK page 30

Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament
Denver Seminary

Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter”, parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ”, as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 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.

The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22
(Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252
JPK pages 31-32

David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield, England

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”
The New Century Bible Commentary
(London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261
JPK page 34

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

Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary

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

 

[joe370]

Postscript

To Forestall Some Stereotypical Objections

1. “Wait a minute,” someone might object. “These Protestant scholars don’t believe what Catholics do about the pope! How dare you quote them like this!”

Well, I’m quite sure they don’t believe as Catholics do about the pope: that is one of the reasons, I suppose, that they are Protestants. I’m also sure that I did not say they believe as Catholics do about the pope. Nor did I imply that they do. This webpage is about one specific item: Who is the Rock of Matthew 16:18? And it is perfectly legitimate for Messrs. Butler, Dahlgren & Hess — and for me — to quote Protestant biblical scholars who give their professional opinion about that verse.

1. “Hold your horses,” someone might object. “This verse doesn’t say anything about the pope! You are just a Catholic fundamentalist: you read about Peter in the Bible and think it automatically applies to the pope. Somebody has even given that knee-jerk attitude a name: The Peter Syndrome.”

Indeed, this verse does not necessarily say anything about the pope. But I didn’t say, nor did I imply, that it does. This webpage is about one specific item: Who is the Rock of Matthew 16:18? It does not attempt, or even purport, to answer any other question. It doesn’t even attempt or purport to ask any other question. So, throwing around high-sounding terms like “The Peter Syndrome” — if it even exists — would be a misdiagnosis here. Not to say a knee-jerk attitude.

1. “But there are only ten,” someone might object. “The Protestant biblical scholars you quoted here don’t speak for all Protestants. Not even for all Protestant biblical scholars.”

Of course they don’t. I didn’t say that they do. Nor did I imply that they do. Allow me to note, however, that it is Maier, a conservative evangelical Lutheran, who did say that “a broad consensus has emerged” about this among both liberals and conservatives, Catholics and Protestants.

1. “But, but, but,” someone might object. “But not even all Catholics have said that the Rock must be Simon. Some Catholics — even some saints — have said it is, or may be, Simon’s faith.”

True. So what? Where have I said otherwise? And, again, so what? Unless the Church has spoken authoritatively and definitively on a matter, Catholics are free to hold differing opinions, even when interpreting the Sacred Scriptures. And one interpretation need not necessarily exclude all others. But that attitude is worlds away from the anti-Catholic position that Simon certainly was not — that Simon could not have been — the Rock, based on quibbles about the meaning and gender of Greek words. And that is the position rebutted here. By Protestant biblical scholars.

The credit for research into the sources quoted here belongs to the authors of Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess, © 1996 by the authors, ISBN # 1-882972-54-6. The book may be ordered on the Web: compare prices at Best Book Buys or AddALL.

As would be expected, Jesus, Peter & the Keys has been attacked by Protestant polemicists. In defense of JPK, see, for instance, James White vs. Jesus, Peter, and the Keys and A Response to James White’s Comments on Jesus, Peter and the Keys.

Original material © 2001 ELC

For other quotations from Jesus, Peter & the Keys, see The Primacy of the Roman Church.

ELCore.Net >

 

[pneuma07]

Hi all !

  IMHO the debate, apart from some regrettable harshness which appears over, is going  along fruitful directions, particularly considering the linguistic contributions.


As for the OP,  I am not surprised  that  there exist scholars

and non-scholars accepting the Petros=petra equation, and not becoming ipso facto catholic. I could agree with the reasonable motivations offered by Edwin.

So i accept without problems the statement:

"You do not need to become (be) catholic if you adhere to the equationpetros=petra. "

I’d like to propose the somehow symmetric statement to your attentions:

“You do not need to exclude any other classical interpretation of the pericope other than the mere petros=petra equation to become catholic”.

As repeated in the present thread “kai” is overwhelmingly copulative ( being essentially the greek for “and, also”) . We could find in some other contexts some translations with “but”.
Yet, the rule is that if you mean “and” you write “kai”, if you mean “but”, you write “dè” ( for a mild adversative) or “allà” for a stronger adversative. ( I’ll stand corrected if guys with deeper knowledge of ancient greek will find substantial errors in what above ).

Now, with the copulative ( which is kept in any modern or ancient translation i am aware of), you have a strong connection between Peter and the rock.
That is, even if you do not go straight to the equation, the connection does work.

Going back to History, that helps to understand how, when a Church Father focuses about the rock being understood as Peter’s confession, or about it being understood as Christ Himself, that does not mean automatically refuting the equation.

And that does in no way mean that the Church Father is rejecting petrine primacy.
The “petra as Christ Himself” reading is linked to Augustine.
Did that lead Augustine to deny Peter’s primacy ?
John Chrisostome explains the “petra- Peter’s confession/faith” identification. Did that lead Chrisostome to deny Peter’s primacy ?
Or did the "Peter as type of the Church (of believers) " further reading lead to deny his primacy ?

That is why the list of the Fathers writing here or there about
possible readings is quite moot, IMHO, in debating Peter’s primacy.
Such a list is somehow misleading, since those readings were not perceived as exclusive, and were not perceived as implying a change of paradigm about the petrine principle. Indeed, We do not see 2, 3 or more groups of fathers, each of them against the others.
Where are the formidable battles such a division would raise ?
The III, IV and V centuries saw nothing of what the XVI would see about that.

The comparison between those historic periods is so striking, that one can but infer that there were no group of forerunners of the XVI century reformers within the ancient Church Fathers.

 

[MIZER]

The comparison between those historic periods is so striking, that one can but infer that there were no group of forerunners of the XVI century reformers within the ancient Church Fathers.

BINGO!!!

 

[joe370]

That is why the list of the Fathers writing here or there about
possible readings is quite moot, IMHO, in debating Peter’s primacy.
Such a list is somehow misleading, since those readings were not perceived as exclusive, and were not perceived as implying a change of paradigm about the petrine principle. Indeed, We do not see 2, 3 or more groups of fathers, each of them against the others.
Where are the formidable battles such a division would raise ?
The III, IV and V centuries saw nothing of what the XVI would see about that.

The comparison between those historic periods is so striking, that one can but infer that there were no group of forerunners of the XVI century reformers within the ancient Church Fathers.

Exactly , accurate context is the key.

 

[PC_Master]

I agree – this thread is providing some very useful information. I particularly like rony’s style of posting full quotes in Aramaic demonstrating such use. I only wish I could actually read Aramaic.

I don’t have time to reply to everything I’d like to, but I would like to address at least a couple of things:

In regards to “The Peter Syndrome” – I’ve heard James White use this term (he perhaps invented it – I don’t know for sure). The problem with White (let’s please not get into a huge debate about White here) is that he’s a bit too extreme about it. That said, the principle does have a valid point – some people do get all excited any time they see an ECF saying something nice about Peter, and thus call it evidence for Petrine primacy, even though such is not reasonable.

In regards to the topic of this thread – even if one does accept that both petros and petra in the Greek of Matthew 16:18 are speaking of the same thing, one need not necessarily accept Roman Catholic theology on the subject.

rony> If kepha is feminine, I take it Aramaic doesn’t have the same requirements as Greek in regards to names taking the same gender as their owners – is this a correct assessment?

I’d love to continue further, and I do hope rony will continue to post more information on what the spoken Aramaic might have been, but my time for the rest of the week will be very limited, so I probably won’t post much on this, nor will I have time to read a lot.

If someone wants to get into the discussion of why I (and/or others) reject the papacy in general even in spite of Matthew 16:18 referring to Peter if that were conceded (which seems to be the direction some are pushing in), I would ask that you please start a new thread and link to it from here. To put a discussion like that in this thread would be rather off-topic, not to mention it’d make this thread much longer to read. The exegesis of Matthew 16:18 was itself off-topic, but not quite enough to warrant a new topic in my opinion.