P
- Status
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
How about John and his words in Bible?
John 10:2-7 and then John 21:15-17
This corresponds to Matthew. If Peters responsibility is in doubt in Matthew, well than how about here in John?
John 10:2-7 and then John 21:15-17
This corresponds to Matthew. If Peters responsibility is in doubt in Matthew, well than how about here in John?
J
JohnVIII
Guest
I say that this is not altogether accurate. “Peter” means “rocky”, not “rock”. It is like a believer is not called a “Christ”, he is called a “Christian”. A believer is a Christian and Jesus is the Christ. Likewise, Simon is Rocky and Jesus is the Rock.
Don’t get me wrong. I accept the universal authority of St Peter and that this authority continues today in St Peter’s successors who are today the Bishops of Rome. But this authority was given to St Peter by Christ when He gave “The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven” to him. To believe that Christ is the Rock, or that faith in Christ is the Rock, and that Simon was called “Rocky” simply because he was the first to confess faith in Christ does not negate a belief that St Peter and his successors have a universal supremacy of authority in the Church; I think it just puts it in a more correct context.
Z
zach_dunn
Guest
If you, too, replaced the word “rock” with the name “Jesus” the same thing happens: a different Jesus. This argument doesn’t really say anything. Jesus had essentially just said “You are the rock, this rock is the one on which I’m going to build my church”; many Protestants try to make word games out of it but it is perfectly clear that Christ is designating Peter as the foundation of His Church.
po18guy
Well-known member
Hey! Where’d you go? Uncomfortable with the answers? You should be! Please don’t dismiss them as either sarcastic or condescending. The truth was hard for many of us to accept as well.
po18guy
Well-known member
I am guessing the OP must be a Mormon, since he mentions the Disney Classic “The Great Apostasy” I say that Jesus was either speaking directly to Peter, or into a mirror. Peter is in the bible. The mirror isn’t.
P
pablope
Guest
Hi, PO…the OP is SDA.
po18guy
Well-known member
Oh! The SDA I know quite well. Before cancer sidelined me, my Chaplain at work was/is SDA. He set upon me after coming to know that I was Catholic. After I opened up to him one evening, he was “shocked” to hear a Catholic speak so fervently of the Lord. I advised him to get out more oftenHi, PO…the OP is SDA.
As to the OP, I do not question his faith or love of God. I only urge him to exercise all due diligence and openness to seeking the fulness of Christ - no matter the cost.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Peter – The Rock and the Keeper of the Keys
"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 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. 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 16:13-19)
- Peter’s understanding that Jesus was the Son of God did not come from working it out on his own. Instead, God the Father infused this revelation into Peter’s mind thus imprinting His seal of approval upon this humble fisherman. Jesus recognized that Simon had already been anointed by His Father in this way and declared, “Blessed are you.” The Father had blessed Simon with knowledge of the Son.
- Jesus gave him the name, “Kepha”, an Aramaic word that means “rock”. In the original, the passage would read, “You are kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus also announces the establishment of His Church, and clearly delineates Kepha as its leader. Although Jesus spoke Aramaic, the New Testament was written in Greek, and “Kepha” would have been translated into the Greek words for “rock” which are “petra” or “petros”. “Petra” is the feminine form of the masculine word, “petros”. Petros is more suitable for a man. Therefore, from “petros” we derive the English name, “Peter”. For us modern readers then, Jesus’ pronouncement reads, “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church.” What is it about Peter’s character that caused Jesus to compare him to something as solid as rock? Isn’t this the same Peter who Jesus called “Satan” just a few verses later? (cf. Mt 16:23) Isn’t this the same Peter who would deny the Lord three times after his arrest? (cf. Lk 22:34) Surely this unstable character is anything but solid rock upon which a Church could be built; yet, Jesus sees something deeper in Peter’s character, and His choice would be vindicated when Peter ultimately received a martyr’s crown via crucifixion.
- The Church to be built was not of human origin. Jesus did not say, “You are Peter, and upon this rock you must build a church.” He said, “I will build my church.” Inaugurated by the Father, built by the Son and led by the Holy Spirit, the Church is a human institution of divine origin.
- For this reason, “the gates of Hell will not overcome” the Church, and for over 2,000 years the Church, lead by the Apostolic Successors of Peter, has faithfully borne witness to the gospel.
L
LDSChristian
Guest
No Peter isn’t the rock. The key word in the scripture is “it” believe it or not. “Upon this rock I will build my church.” Meaning the rock would be the foundation of the church. The Bible is very clear with who is the foundation of His church. The foundation is Jesus Christ, therefore the rock is a reference to Jesus Christ. Not Peter, not the church. Remember, the members of Christ’s church are human and can succumb to temptation but the gates of Hell cannot prevail against Christ.
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
If you read it according to how it means it reads like this:
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against Christ.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Yes, in this specific verse, Peter is the rock. Perhaps this will help:
Matthew 16:18 – Peter the Rock
Understanding the Use of Metaphor in the New Testament
Matthew 16:18-20 (NIV)
18And I tell you that you are Peter,a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I 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." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
a] Peter means rock.
Many non-Catholics object to the idea that Peter was the rock upon which Jesus promised to build the Church, and they offer various alternative interpretations of the rock as being Jesus himself, Peter’s confession of faith, and the curious hybrid Peter and his confession. To support their denial of Jesus’ establishment of Peter as the head of the Church, non-Catholics frequently cite other scripture passages in which Jesus is called the “chief cornerstone” and the apostles collectively being described as foundation stones. These arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of the use of metaphors within the pages of scripture. Author Stephen Ray, himself a former Evangelical and convert to Catholicism, addressed this problem in his book, Upon This Rock:
“In this metaphorical description, Jesus himself could not be the foundation, because in this illustration he presents himself as the builder. The following is very important. In Scripture Jesus is variously depicted as the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), the builder (Mt. 16:18), the cornerstone (Acts 4:11), and the temple itself (Rev. 21:22). We also see the apostles and/or believers as the foundation (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), the builders (1 Cor. 3:10), the stones, lithos, not petra (1 Pet. 2:5), the building (1 Cor. 3:9), and the temple (Eph. 2:21). Many illustrations are used to explain various aspects of the Church. One cannot simply substitute one descriptive figure of speech for another in any one illustration thereby mixing metaphors. It does great violence to the textual illustration itself and is a good example of roughshod “proof-texting”, wrongly “dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). The Bible does not set up a dichotomy—either Jesus or Peter; rather, it presents us with both Jesus and Peter as foundation stones. Jesus is establishing the man who will be the focal point of unity within the Church, the foundation. He who builds upon sand has a structure that crumbles (Mt. 7:24-27). Jesus builds his Church upon the rock of his choice, and, by his protection, the Church has stood the test of time. The powers of hell have failed to destroy or corrupt her” (Stephen Ray, Upon this Rock, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], 36.)
In this same book, Ray also cites Protestant George Salmon, author of The Infallibility of the Church which he wrote to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church. On the matter of metaphorical usage, Salmon wrote at length:
“It is undoubtedly the doctrine of Scripture that Christ is the only foundation [of the Church]: “other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Yet we must remember that the same metaphor may be used to illustrate different truths, and so, according to circumstances, may have different significations. The same Paul who has called Christ the only foundation, tells his Ephesian converts (2:20):—“Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” And in like manner we read (Rev. 21:14):—“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb.” How is it that there can be no other foundation but Christ, and yet that the Apostles are spoken of as foundations? Plainly, because the metaphor is used with different applications. Christ alone is that foundation, from being joined to which the whole building of the Church derives its unity and stability, and gains strength to defy all the assaults of hell. But, in the same manner as any human institution is said to be founded by those men to whom it owes its origin, so we may call those men the foundation of the Church whom God honoured by using them as His instruments in the establishment of it; who were themselves laid as the first living stones in that holy temple, and on whom the other stones of that temple were laid; for it was on their testimony that others received the truth, so that our faith rests on theirs; and (humanly speaking) it is because they believed that we believe. So, again, in like manner, we are forbidden to call anyone on earth our Father, “for one is our Father which is in heaven.” And yet, in another sense, Paul did not scruple to call himself the spiritual father of those whom he had begotten in the Gospel. You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter’s also being, in a different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some, in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone.” (George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church [London: John Murray, 1914], 338-339).
Matthew 16:18 – Peter the Rock
Understanding the Use of Metaphor in the New Testament
Matthew 16:18-20 (NIV)
18And I tell you that you are Peter,a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I 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." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
a] Peter means rock.
Many non-Catholics object to the idea that Peter was the rock upon which Jesus promised to build the Church, and they offer various alternative interpretations of the rock as being Jesus himself, Peter’s confession of faith, and the curious hybrid Peter and his confession. To support their denial of Jesus’ establishment of Peter as the head of the Church, non-Catholics frequently cite other scripture passages in which Jesus is called the “chief cornerstone” and the apostles collectively being described as foundation stones. These arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of the use of metaphors within the pages of scripture. Author Stephen Ray, himself a former Evangelical and convert to Catholicism, addressed this problem in his book, Upon This Rock:
“In this metaphorical description, Jesus himself could not be the foundation, because in this illustration he presents himself as the builder. The following is very important. In Scripture Jesus is variously depicted as the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), the builder (Mt. 16:18), the cornerstone (Acts 4:11), and the temple itself (Rev. 21:22). We also see the apostles and/or believers as the foundation (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), the builders (1 Cor. 3:10), the stones, lithos, not petra (1 Pet. 2:5), the building (1 Cor. 3:9), and the temple (Eph. 2:21). Many illustrations are used to explain various aspects of the Church. One cannot simply substitute one descriptive figure of speech for another in any one illustration thereby mixing metaphors. It does great violence to the textual illustration itself and is a good example of roughshod “proof-texting”, wrongly “dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). The Bible does not set up a dichotomy—either Jesus or Peter; rather, it presents us with both Jesus and Peter as foundation stones. Jesus is establishing the man who will be the focal point of unity within the Church, the foundation. He who builds upon sand has a structure that crumbles (Mt. 7:24-27). Jesus builds his Church upon the rock of his choice, and, by his protection, the Church has stood the test of time. The powers of hell have failed to destroy or corrupt her” (Stephen Ray, Upon this Rock, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], 36.)
In this same book, Ray also cites Protestant George Salmon, author of The Infallibility of the Church which he wrote to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church. On the matter of metaphorical usage, Salmon wrote at length:
“It is undoubtedly the doctrine of Scripture that Christ is the only foundation [of the Church]: “other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Yet we must remember that the same metaphor may be used to illustrate different truths, and so, according to circumstances, may have different significations. The same Paul who has called Christ the only foundation, tells his Ephesian converts (2:20):—“Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” And in like manner we read (Rev. 21:14):—“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb.” How is it that there can be no other foundation but Christ, and yet that the Apostles are spoken of as foundations? Plainly, because the metaphor is used with different applications. Christ alone is that foundation, from being joined to which the whole building of the Church derives its unity and stability, and gains strength to defy all the assaults of hell. But, in the same manner as any human institution is said to be founded by those men to whom it owes its origin, so we may call those men the foundation of the Church whom God honoured by using them as His instruments in the establishment of it; who were themselves laid as the first living stones in that holy temple, and on whom the other stones of that temple were laid; for it was on their testimony that others received the truth, so that our faith rests on theirs; and (humanly speaking) it is because they believed that we believe. So, again, in like manner, we are forbidden to call anyone on earth our Father, “for one is our Father which is in heaven.” And yet, in another sense, Paul did not scruple to call himself the spiritual father of those whom he had begotten in the Gospel. You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter’s also being, in a different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some, in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone.” (George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church [London: John Murray, 1914], 338-339).
L
LDSChristian
Guest
Like I said, the rock isn’t Peter.
A
adrift
Guest
Look at another scripture.
Cephas is rock. This scripture tells us that Jesus named Peter Rock not rocky or little stone.
In another thread it was explained well
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter is the Rock
Here are five of the more than two dozen quotes I have from heavyweight Protestant scholars regarding the identity of “the rock” in Matthew 16:18.
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,” Albright says, “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. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)
Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter. (Ibid.)
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)
Oscar Cullman (Protestant Scholar)
“But what does Jesus mean when He says: ‘On this rock I will build my church’? The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in vew of the probably different setting of the story. For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia [church]. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich), [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1968], 6:108).
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).
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)
Here are five of the more than two dozen quotes I have from heavyweight Protestant scholars regarding the identity of “the rock” in Matthew 16:18.
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,” Albright says, “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. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)
Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter. (Ibid.)
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)
Oscar Cullman (Protestant Scholar)
“But what does Jesus mean when He says: ‘On this rock I will build my church’? The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in vew of the probably different setting of the story. For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia [church]. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich), [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1968], 6:108).
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).
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)
P
patricius79
Guest
that is a false dillemma fallacy since in this passage Peter says who Jesus is, and then Jesus says that Peter is the foundation of the Church.
this was the unanimous intepretation of the Trinitarian fahters in East and West
it is also confirmed by the best protestant scholars like DA Carson
*“The word Peter petros, meaning ‘rock,’ (Gk 4377) is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter.” (Carson, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1994], volume 2, page 78, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 18)*St. Peter, the Rock, the Keys, and the Primacy of Rome in the Early Church
J
JohnVIII
Guest
I think both interpretations should be tolerated. No harm done either way. I remain convinced that “Rocky” is better. So was St Augustine on his deathbed retractions! Several other teachers of the Church (though not all) as well.
Merry Christmas! Happy birthday to the Rock!
S
Salvatore123
Guest
First, as an orthodox Catholic of the Latin Rite, I believe St. Peter was chosen as the first prince of the Catholic Church by Christ.
Second, we hear many times that Christ GAVE Simon the name “Peter”. Yet, if one looks at the Gospel of Matthew, Simon is called “Peter” seven times before we even reach the relevant passage of Matthew 16:18. So that has always presented me with a bit of a problem of naming. Just look at the first use: Matthew 4:18: “And Jesus walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea (for they were fishers).” I am NOT saying that Christ did not name Simon “Peter”; I am simply saying that Matthew refers to Simon as “Peter” or “Simon Peter” 7 times before Christ calls Simon by that name.
Third, having studied logic in undergraduate and graduate school, we were practically “brainwashed” into accepting the validity of “Occam’s Razor” (which does NOT mean the simplest explanation is the most likely) for the most part: one should accept the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions (all else being equal).
Conclusion: consider the relevant passage:
Matthew 16:13-18: “And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? 14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 Jesus saith to them: 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.”
For ME, I always placed myself amongst the disciples and envisioned the following scenario occurring with me being present as a witness
Note that although Christ and the Centurion were having a one-on-one conversation, Christ turned to those surrounding him and explained how great the faith was of the Centurion.
I see the same sort of “turning” to the other disciples after talking to Simon about Christ’s identity.
In sum, he refers to Simon as “Peter”, directly speaking to Simon, and then turns to the other disciples surrounding them and tells them that He (Christ) will build his church upon Peter, knowing full well that the disciples would understand what he meant, considering that Peter is synonymous with rock.
This seems pretty simple to me.
*Note: The reason why I “adopted” the above scenario for myself is that I have found the different interpretations of Petros/Petras Kepha/Cephas, masculine/feminine are so tortured that people get stuck in the mire and soon have so many assumptions to make that one loses sight of just a simple conversation where Christ talks to a group, asks all them a couple of questions, ONE person answers correctly, Christ singles that person out as the one with the correct answer, and then, after identifying Simon as the one with the correct answer, turns again to the other disciples and finishes his explanation.
Second, we hear many times that Christ GAVE Simon the name “Peter”. Yet, if one looks at the Gospel of Matthew, Simon is called “Peter” seven times before we even reach the relevant passage of Matthew 16:18. So that has always presented me with a bit of a problem of naming. Just look at the first use: Matthew 4:18: “And Jesus walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea (for they were fishers).” I am NOT saying that Christ did not name Simon “Peter”; I am simply saying that Matthew refers to Simon as “Peter” or “Simon Peter” 7 times before Christ calls Simon by that name.
Third, having studied logic in undergraduate and graduate school, we were practically “brainwashed” into accepting the validity of “Occam’s Razor” (which does NOT mean the simplest explanation is the most likely) for the most part: one should accept the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions (all else being equal).
Conclusion: consider the relevant passage:
Matthew 16:13-18: “And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? 14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 Jesus saith to them: 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.”
For ME, I always placed myself amongst the disciples and envisioned the following scenario occurring with me being present as a witness
- Christ is alone with his disciples, walking amongst them and then addresses ALL OF THEM by asking who do men think he is.
- The Gospel states that “they said”, meaning, that as several answers were given, it is logical to assume that more than one disciple answered, based on the plural pronoun “they”.
- The Gospel again states that Christ again addresses all of the disciples present (“Jesus saith to them”), but this time, shifts the focus of the question from what other people are saying or thinking to what are the disciples saying or thinking.
- Only one disciple answers this time: Simon. Giving the correct answer, Jesus answers Simon directly and tells Simon that he did not learn Christ’s identity from other men or on his own - he learned it from God.
- As a result of Simon’s correct identification of Christ, Christ looks to Simon and tells him, “I say to thee: That thou art Peter”. And, finishing his sentence, Christ then addresses the remaining disciples: “and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” One could almost picture Christ putting his hand on Simon’s shoulder when he said, “I say to thee: That thou art Peter”, before turning and addressing the other disciples.
Note that although Christ and the Centurion were having a one-on-one conversation, Christ turned to those surrounding him and explained how great the faith was of the Centurion.
I see the same sort of “turning” to the other disciples after talking to Simon about Christ’s identity.
In sum, he refers to Simon as “Peter”, directly speaking to Simon, and then turns to the other disciples surrounding them and tells them that He (Christ) will build his church upon Peter, knowing full well that the disciples would understand what he meant, considering that Peter is synonymous with rock.
This seems pretty simple to me.
*Note: The reason why I “adopted” the above scenario for myself is that I have found the different interpretations of Petros/Petras Kepha/Cephas, masculine/feminine are so tortured that people get stuck in the mire and soon have so many assumptions to make that one loses sight of just a simple conversation where Christ talks to a group, asks all them a couple of questions, ONE person answers correctly, Christ singles that person out as the one with the correct answer, and then, after identifying Simon as the one with the correct answer, turns again to the other disciples and finishes his explanation.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
I enjoy this simplifying scenario; I use a similar scenario-based style to explain why Mary and his brothers tried to lay hold of him in the Gospel of Mark because he was “out of his mind.” It makes more sense that the Catholics are correct that Jesus’ “brothers” were merely relatives, because there would seem to be a contradiction in Mary knowing much about the supernatural nature of Christ and his mission, to merely dismiss him as crazy. It would also seem necessary that his uterine siblings (curiously absent from his Temple dedication) would know something of his supernatural nature as well. It always made more sense to me to picture it my head: That Jesus’ other relatives thought he was nuts and were going to try and get a hold of him, with troubled Mary (worrying as Mom’s do) tagging along to try and prevent any kind of altercation between Jesus and his extended family.
This more broad, scenario-based style of theological explanation often does far more to explain theological truths in a way people can actually appreciate on a core level. As you said, most people argue minutia, and although it is easy to get caught up in minutia, I have found that it rarely truly affects the heart. I would argue that this explains the popularity of many of Scott Hahn’s works designed more for lay-people (Hail Holy Queen, etc), because he uses broader theological analogies with a smattering of technical Greek to illustrate his point, rather than vise versa. It speaks to people at the level of the heart, focusing on their own mother, in the case of his book on Mary, to understand Catholic devotion.
There are other more specific examples of Jesus addressing Peter and the other apostles separately within the same context however, that fit your theory quite well. Jesus saying that Satan would attempt to sift you" (plural) like wheat, but Jesus saying I will pray for “you” (singular) to Peter so that his faith would not fail.
J
JohnVIII
Guest
The Church was built upon St Peter! That is why St Peter got the Keys! But this still does not mean that St Peter is not “Rocky” instead of “Rock”. Was St Peter speaking of himself when he said, “The Stone which the builders rejected, this became the very Cornerstone”. (1st Peter 2:7)? Did the Jews reject Peter or Jesus? If Peter, than even Jesus should be subject to Peter! Does anyone go this far with this train of thought?
I still say that St Peter was called “Rocky” simply because he was the first Christian. If the scripture said nothing more than this Peter would only be the 1st of equals. But it is because Peter was given the Keys of the Kingdom that he becomes the head of the Church (after Christ); and St Clement after St Peter.
- Status