If the Rock is Peter's faith

[josephback]

why does Paul call Peter “Cephas” in Galatians when fear caused him to act contrary to the decision at the Council of Jerusalem?

 

[susanlo]

There is a thread in the Sacred Scripture section about whether Peter and Cephas in Galatians 2 are the same or if there is a separate Peter and Cephas. I have heard both explanations. I think this disagreement may have happened before Acts 15 too, but I don’t think there is a clear concensus of the timeline.
Either way, I don’t know why it would matter. There is agreement that Simon’s name was changed to Peter/Petros/Cephas. But a disagreement exists as to whether Christ builds his church on Peter/Petros/Cephas - or if Christ builds his church on Christ or the confession of faith in Christ. Is Peter THE rock for the church? Or is he named after THE rock (Christ) as the first to profess this faith? That is my understanding of the 2 sides at least.

 

[Abu]

josephback#1
why does Paul call Peter “Cephas” in Galatians when fear caused him to act contrary to the decision at the Council of Jerusalem?

Please quote the reference and explain what you mean.

 

[seagal]

Peter is rock in Latin and Cephas is rock in Aramaic. It’s essentially the same name. There never was anyone named “Rock” before Jesus changed Simon’s name so it’s highly unlikely Paul was referring to someone else in Galatians.

 

[guanophore]

why does Paul call Peter “Cephas” in Galatians when fear caused him to act contrary to the decision at the Council of Jerusalem?

Our high calling in Christ does not mean we are perfect. Cephas is a “rock” whether he always acts like it, or not. It is a good demonstration that the role of the successor of Peter does not make one any less responsible for the Flock of God, even if such a person falls short as an individual.

God can write straight with crooked lines.

Either way, I don’t know why it would matter. There is agreement that Simon’s name was changed to Peter/Petros/Cephas.

This is very important, because we can count the number of times God changed someone’s name on our fingers, and it always means a profound shift in identity and mission.

But a disagreement exists as to whether Christ builds his church on Peter/Petros/Cephas - or if Christ builds his church on Christ or the confession of faith in Christ. Is Peter THE rock for the church? Or is he named after THE rock (Christ) as the first to profess this faith? That is my understanding of the 2 sides at least.

I don’t think these are “two sides” but all of one side. Of course Peter’s confession of faith is a rocky statement, but Peter’s faith is not separated somehow from his personhood. His confession does no exist apart from him! Jesus, the Rock of Ages, grafted Peter into Himself, and made him part of the foundation stones of the Church. Christ is the builder. He is the one who grafts the rocks into place.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t think these are “two sides” but all of one side. Of course Peter’s confession of faith is a rocky statement, but Peter’s faith is not separated somehow from his personhood. His confession does no exist apart from him! Jesus, the Rock of Ages, grafted Peter into Himself, and made him part of the foundation stones of the Church. Christ is the builder. He is the one who grafts the rocks into place.

I don’t see, quite frankly, how one can separate the confession of faith from Peter himself. Even though we know that he does not come to this conclusion on his own, or by his own intellect, we do know the importance of his confession of faith, and its truth, even if the conclusions we draw about what that means about St. Peter vary.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

I don’t see, quite frankly, how one can separate the confession of faith from Peter himself. Even though we know that he does not come to this conclusion on his own, or by his own intellect, we do know the importance of his confession of faith, and its truth, even if the conclusions we draw about what that means about St. Peter vary.

Jon

Yes, it is the Father who draws Him into it. I guess it just seems like people discount Peter as a person by focusing on His confession of faith, as if there were a way for the confession to hang out there by itself?

 

[benhur]

why does Paul call Peter “Cephas” in Galatians when fear caused him to act contrary to the decision at the Council of Jerusalem?

Hi jb,

Actually I have never heard if this incident happened before the council or after. For sure we know Peter already had (name removed by moderator)ut from the Lord (about Cornelius) .

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Please quote the reference and explain what you mean.

Hi Abu,

“But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed” Gal.2:11

 

[benhur]

Yes, it is the Father who draws Him into it. I guess it just seems like people discount Peter as a person by focusing on His confession of faith, as if there were a way for the confession to hang out there by itself?

Hi g,

I think when folks say it is the confession, they are not separating it from Peter, nor from the method of enlightenment for such a confession either.

We are told we “overcome by our testimony”. We are also told nothing can separate us from the love of God (which includes His illumination). For sure the early church prevailed against all hell and death in persecution. Many died with the Lord’s testimony in their mouths.

As far as Peter, we do not separate his faith but his prevailing is conditional. When illumined, and he gazes upon the Lord, he is victorious, but not otherwise (as when he walked on water but then sank , or cowered against the judaizers, or said the Lord would not suffer, the “rock” becoming a vessel for Satan, temporarily, but not for the last time).

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Of course Peter’s confession of faith is a rocky statement, but Peter’s faith is not separated somehow from his personhood. His confession does no exist apart from him! Jesus, the Rock of Ages, grafted Peter into Himself, and made him part of the foundation stones of the Church. Christ is the builder. He is the one who grafts the rocks into place.

I don’t think Protestants or Orthodox want to “separate” the confession from the person of Peter, but the fact is that a prominent view in the early and patristic Church was that Simon was renamed “Peter” because of his confession, and that anyone who confesses the true faith in a sense participates in Peter’s “rockness” as it were- they become a “Rock”. St. Athanasius was “the Rock” during the Arian crisis.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t think Protestants or Orthodox want to “separate” the confession from the person of Peter, but the fact is that a prominent view in the early and patristic Church was that Simon was renamed “Peter” because of his confession, and that anyone who confesses the true faith in a sense participates in Peter’s “rockness” as it were- they become a “Rock”. St. Athanasius was “the Rock” during the Arian crisis.

Yes, we can all be grafted into Christ along with Peter. Peter was given gifts and responsibilities that were not given to anyone else, and when Jesus told the Apostles that Satan wanted to sift them, but that He had prayed for “you” (Peter) it is in the singular. Therefore, anyone that wants to benefit from Jesus’ prayer needs to get in with Peter.

Peter and his successors is the visible sign of unity in the Church founded by Christ. You are right that we all are joined into his rockness when we confess the true faith.

 

[Abu]

Benhur #9
“But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed” Gal.2:11

Yes – when Jewish converts arrived in the city, St Peter stopped eating with the Gentile converts as that meant defilement according to Jewish laws and he didn’t want to shock them as they might not have grown out of their old ideas. That was hardly “fear”, but perhaps an understandable concern.

This admonishment was because St Paul understood St Peter as Christ’s chosen head of His Church as recognised at the Council of Jerusalem, when “all held their peace” after St Peter had spoken.

 

[twf]

I don’t think Protestants or Orthodox want to “separate” the confession from the person of Peter, but the fact is that a prominent view in the early and patristic Church was that Simon was renamed “Peter” because of his confession, and that anyone who confesses the true faith in a sense participates in Peter’s “rockness” as it were- they become a “Rock”. St. Athanasius was “the Rock” during the Arian crisis.

Yes, and Catholics would agree with this. Our faith is deep and full of mystery. I have found that more often than not there isn’t a single right answer. You will find testimony among the Fathers that St Peter IS the rock. You will find testimony among the Fathers that his confession of faith is the rock. You will find testimony that Christ Himself is the rock. All of these are true and not in contradiction. St Peter is the rock as the chief apostle, providing a sure foundation by his unique authority and leadership… But of course without his confession of faith he cannot perform this role. Jesus is the Rock, but St Peter participates in His ministry and becomes the Rock for us. In various senses others, such as St Athanasius, participate in Christ the rock as well.

 

[Abu]

Vatican Council II gave the answer as to who is the Rock.

In Ecumenical Council Vatican II, the *Dogmatic Constitution on the Church *(Lumen Gentium)
vatican.va/archive/hist_c…entium_en.html
ON THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH AND IN PARTICULAR ON THE EPISCOPATE
CHAPTER III
**22.Extract].
"The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) It is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28)."

 

[susanlo]

This is very important, because we can count the number of times God changed someone’s name on our fingers, and it always means a profound shift in identity and mission.

I don’t think these are “two sides” but all of one side. Of course Peter’s confession of faith is a rocky statement, but Peter’s faith is not separated somehow from his personhood. His confession does no exist apart from him! Jesus, the Rock of Ages, grafted Peter into Himself, and made him part of the foundation stones of the Church. Christ is the builder. He is the one who grafts the rocks into place.

I think the difference comes in as to whether the church was built on Peter himself or if Peter was the first of many to be built on Christ. Peter was the first to make this confession of faith in Jesus (Matthew 16 and Mark 8). Peter was the first to share the gospel message in Acts 2. Peter was the first of the living stones built on Christ that he describes in 1 Peter 2:4-8.
But if Peter himself was part of the foundation of apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:19-22), what powers does that give him over other apostles? How did he exercise those powers over the other apostles? Is he distinguished simply because he was the first living stone? Or was Peter himself declared to be the head of the church and vicar of Christ?

 

[Bookcat]

Peter is the rock yes. His faith too is yes involved.

Pope Benedict XVI w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060607.html

 

[Bookcat]

Peter is the rock on which Christ built his Church and yes Peters confession of Faith…

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God’. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Christ, the “living Stone”, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.” This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

also read Pope Benedict XVI

zenit.org/article-32983?l=english

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/angelus/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20100629_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/angelus/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20080629_en.html

 

[benhur]

Yes – when Jewish converts arrived in the city, St Peter stopped eating with the Gentile converts as that meant defilement according to Jewish laws and he didn’t want to shock them as they might not have grown out of their old ideas. That was hardly “fear”, but perhaps an understandable concern.

This admonishment was because St Paul understood St Peter as Christ’s chosen head of His Church as recognised at the Council of Jerusalem, when “all held their peace” after St Peter had spoken.

Hi Abu.

Yes and ??

You are only half way of explaining what became known as the “pope in Rome”.

Blessings

 

[guanophore]

I think the difference comes in as to whether the church was built on Peter himself or if Peter was the first of many to be built on Christ. Peter was the first to make this confession of faith in Jesus (Matthew 16 and Mark 8). Peter was the first to share the gospel message in Acts 2. Peter was the first of the living stones built on Christ that he describes in 1 Peter 2:4-8.

I think this is a false dichotomy. Peter is not separated from His faith, as indicated by Christ renaming him. Jesus made him into a rock. I don’t even know that he was first, as I think perhaps Jesus’ mother was first, then perhaps the Baptist. But I do agree that all those who make this confession of faith become part of the living stones.

But if Peter himself was part of the foundation of apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:19-22), what powers does that give him over other apostles? How did he exercise those powers over the other apostles? Is he distinguished simply because he was the first living stone? Or was Peter himself declared to be the head of the church and vicar of Christ?

The Petrine gifts and responsibilities are not necessarily part of his identity as part of the foundation of the Church, as Peter was given things that others were not, just as was Paul. Peter’s role was given to him before the Church was actually born.

I do not see that Peter ever “exercised powers over the other Apostles”. I think Peter was clear that Jesus wanted servant leaders, and humility, and he filled his role with these fruits of the Spirit. As a result, God moved through him to persuade others to follow his lead.

He is distinguished by the specific role that Jesus gave him.

Peter is not the “head of the Church”, Jesus is. The role of vicar is related to the keys…

Peter is the visible sign of unity in the church founded by Christ.