Is there really only one word for "Rock"?

[Scott_Waddell]

PhilVaz:

Yeah, good point. The Catechism (CCC) seems to accept all four interpretations here:

The literal interpretation is that Simon alone is the rock of Christ’s Church, the Church is built on Peter personally (CCC 881, 586, 552). However, the Catechism also notes that Peter is the unshakeable rock because of his faith in Christ (CCC 552); that the acknowledgement of Christ’s divine sonship is the Church’s foundation (CCC 442); on the rock of Peter’s faith Christ built His Church (CCC 424); and Christ Himself as rock and “chief cornerstone” (1 Peter 2:4ff; 1 Cor 10:4; Eph 2:20) is the foundation (CCC 756).

Phil P

Thanks for those references. Much like the heos hou saw, many of those grumpy about petrine primacy try to pile on the difficulties by squeezing exculsive interpretations into the tiniest universe.

Also note that those banging the drum for perspicuity of Scripture suddenly need an army of scholars and twenty pages explaining one word when they get to this passage.

Scott

 

[Shari]

Ric:

It is Jesus and not Peter on whom the church of God is founded. Christ himself remains our Rock, our source of security and the unshakable foundation for our lives.

Jesus is our Rock and will always be our rock, however he could not remain here to teach us and so he left Peter to be the visible Rock(foundation) while Jesus remains the Rock behind the seens so to speak.

 

[papist1]

Ric:

Hey OB,

Sorry, I don’t personaly know of any “Protestants” that believe that the Rock refers to Peter himself and not his confession.

Well, Michael card who is one of the most well known contemporary Christian, and Protestant musicians is also a Bible Scholar and believes that it refers to Peter as the Rock. So now you know of one.

 

[kaycee]

Augustine

And I tell you…‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).

"In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).

Augustine lets the reader decide what this foundational verse means?

What no universal understanding in the 5th century that this verse creates the papacy?

Did’nt Vatican I anathematise any other understanding?

“If anyone, therefore, shall say that blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole church militant; or that the same directly and immediately received from our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper juridition: let him be anathema.”

I will take up Augstine’s offer of using my “private interpretation” and go with peter’s confession as the Rock

 

[RobNY]

kaycee:



Augustine uses *all *of the interpretations of the Rock, including that of Peter as the Rock, as well as Christ, his confession, etc…

cin.org/users/jgallegos/web_aug.htm

Just as a side note, kaycee, do you accept the interpretations of the fathers (I assume that you’re protestant), or are you just using this to show ‘contradictions?’ (Do protestants accept the interpretations of the Fathers?)

God Bless kaycee,
-Rob

 

[Todd_Easton]

There are three Hebrew words that the King James Version translates as rock, namely tsuwr, cela, and keph. The Greek Septuagint translates each of these words in some places as petra and in other places as petros. So, at least from their usage in Sacred Scripture, petra and petros are interchangeable.

Another thing, in Matthew 21:42, Jesus, citing an Old Testament prophecy, refers to himself as a stone (Greek: lithos). The Hebrew Old Testament reference uses the word *eben; *the Greek Septuagint, *lithos. *With this in mind, the arguments about big rocks and little rocks seem rather pointless.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Todd Easton:

Another thing, in Matthew 21:42, Jesus, citing an Old Testament prophecy, refers to himself as a stone (Greek: lithos). The Hebrew Old Testament reference uses the word *eben; *the Greek Septuagint, *lithos. *With this in mind, the arguments about big rocks and little rocks seem rather pointless.

Isaiah 28:16 says:16therefore thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am laying in Zion for a foundation a stone (Hebrew: *eben; *Greek: lithos), a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation: `He who believes will not be in haste.’

 

[Chipper]

Todd Easton:

Isaiah 28:16 says:16therefore thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am laying in Zion for a foundation a stone (Hebrew: *eben; *Greek: lithos), a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation: `He who believes will not be in haste.’

I would like to add:

This stone versus rock issue really seems silly to me. After all if a guy picks up a bunch of stones and throws them at his neighbor, is this reallly any differenct than saying he picked up a bunch of rocks and threw em at his neighbor?

It has always been this way. Stone and rock are interchangeable, always have been.

 

[Philthy]

OrthodoxBerean:

I read an article online and this guy, Mr. Stark says that is Syraic Aramaic that there were two words for rock Kepha and Shu’a’. Pastor Stark argues that in the Syriac Aramaic, Kepha is usually used for a movable rock and Shu`a’ for a large immovable rock.

He states that Shu ‘a’ would be more approprietely used for “petra” and kepha for “petros”. Hence the translation in Aramaic could have been “You are kepha and upon this shua…”?

Is this right? Has anyone answered this article yet? What do you all think?

You can find the article at gpcredding.org/petra.html

The premises of his opening paragraph are seriously flawed.
Only Protestants seek to confirm universal divine truth EXCLUSIVELY from the bible - Catholics do not RELY on Matt16-18 ALONE to substantiate the Papacy built on Peter. I stopped reading there…sorry.
No matter what claim he makes, all he can provide us with is a proposed interpretation which contains some degree of reasonableness, but no absolute way of knowing whether his interpretation is in fact the right one. His discussion of the issue verifies that there is more than one way to interpret the verse. The most reasonable interpretation is not necessarily the correct one. That is why it makes more sense to have a magisterium…

Phil

 

[Philthy]

kaycee:

Augustine lets the reader decide what this foundational verse means?

What? No universal understanding in the 5th century that this verse creates the papacy?

kaycee:

I don’t think the Catholic Church claims the papacy was “created” upon any verse in the manner that you suggest :nope: - that would be a type of Protestant claim. :yup: The Catholic Church will say that the Church and the papacy preceded the Bible. A verse in the bible might testify

to this truth (Peter as the Rock), but does not establish it. You’re confusing the two because of your Protestant traditions.

Did’nt Vatican I anathematise any other understanding?

“If anyone, therefore, shall say that blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole church militant; or that the same directly and immediately received from our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper juridition: let him be anathema.”
Not surprisingly, I don’t see any mention of Matt16:18 by Vatican I, so you’re simply flailing with your allegations based on erroneous logic. Here, let me help you. Vatican 1 stated that it is anathema to believe that “Peter was not appointed Prince of the Apostles…primacy of honour…true and proper jurisidiction…”. And that is all. Matt 16:18 is not even mentioned as being relevant.

kaycee:

I will take up Augstine’s offer of using my “private interpretation” and go with peter’s confession as the Rock

You would be wise to follow Augustine.

 

[YADA]

If Peter is just the “Pebble”, who (or what) recieved the keys? Did Jesus give himself the keys? Did Jesus hand the keys the the “Confession” that He was the Messiah, the Annointed of the Lord?

Jesus: “Who do you say that I AM?”

Peter: “You are the Son of the Living God, the Messiah, the Lord”

Jesus: “Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah. Man has not revealed this to you but my Father in heaven. You, Peter, are a little Pebble. And upon this Rock (pointing to Himself…or the ‘Words of Peter’s confession’ still hanging in the air…I will build My Church. I give you (again pointing to Himself or the Word Bubble) the “Keys” of Heaven and Earth. What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and what you loose on earth willl be loosed in heaven.”

Who received the keys? Why quote Isaiah?

Pax Christe

 

[Jose_Cervantes]

The Bible refers to the Church as a bride to Christ, Eph 5:23-29. It also states that “The Church”(singular) is the pillar and foundation of truth!, 1 Tim 3:15. It the Church built on the Kapha(Peter), “You are Kapha and on this Kapha I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”. Matt 16:18-19, make sure you read the whole thing. Then look at Isaiah 22:19-25, here the Lord talks about placing Elikim in a “office”, placing on him a “robe”. Placing the"keys” of the house of David, “when he opens, on one shall shut, when he shuts no one shall open”. This is the same church which put together the Apostle Creed, Nicene Creed, defined the Trinity or Tri-Unity. Protected Holy Scripture from destruction during pagan occupations in which many churches and Christians were destroyed. The Church in 382 A.D. via Pope Damasus wrote a decree listing what books should be selected for the old and new Testament Canon of 73 books. In 393 Council of Hippo it approved the listing of OT and NT canon of 73 books. And again in 397 Council of Carthage it approved the same canon of OT and NT 73 books. By what authority did the holy church have to do this? This Bible stood alone for 1200 years before KJV and they use our NT. We have over 37 Thousand Christian sects today all claim they are right! 98% of these churches haven’t done a thing in developing Christianity. they simply grab a bible and now they know more that our 2000 year old church. They require no discipline, it’s easy they say, all based on self interpretation. It reminds me of my teenage son who believes that he knows it all and dear old dad doesn’t know a thing. There can only be “ONE” always was, always will be!. Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory. For the wedding day of the Lamb has come, his bride has made herself ready. Rev 19:7.
P.S. I was a non Christian convert to the faith. I’m 29 months old .

 

[kaycee]

Philthy:

Catholic Church will say that the Church and the papacy preceded the Bible. A verse in the bible might testify to this truth (Peter as the Rock), but does not establish it. You’re confusing the two because of your Protestant traditions…

You do not have a working knowledge of what Sola Scriptura is. No one is saying there is NO knowledge until inked in Scripture. Your logic is a great argument for no bible, just Church and Tradition.

Not surprisingly, I don’t see any mention of Matt16:18 by Vatican I, so you’re simply flailing with your allegations based on erroneous logic. Here, let me help you. Vatican 1 stated that it is anathema to believe that “Peter was not appointed Prince of the Apostles.primacy of honour.true and proper jurisidiction…”. And that is all. Matt 16:18 is not even mentioned as being relevant.

You are incorrect. Math 16:18 is directly referenced.

Vatican I, Pastor aeternus, April 24 1870

We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord. For it was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said, “thou shalt be called Cephas,” **that the Lord after the confession made by him, saying “Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” addressed these solemn words: “Blessed art thou, Simon BarJona, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but my father who is in heaven. 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. And i will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever thous shalt bin on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsover thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” ** …At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separtely or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her minister. If anyone, therefore, shall say that blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole church militant; or that the same directly and immediately received from our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper juridition: let him be anathema

My contention is that the early church did not understand Math 16:18 as it does today, yet Vat I claims **as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church. **

The RCC’s appeal to the ‘universal consent of the fathers’ to support its exegesis of Matthew 16 is fallacious. Such a consensus does not exist. The interpretation of Matthew 16:18 by the major fathers of the patristic age from the East and West demonstrates the overwhelming majority view of the Church historically is not that of the Roman CC today. The fact is, apart from the popes themselves—beginning in the late fourth century—and those with interests in promoting the papacy, the Roman interpretation of Matthew 16:18–19 has historically been universally rejected by the Church in both East and West. And what is true in the exegetical history is true also in historical practice. It is clear from the history of the Church, in the attitudes and actions of the general Councils and with individual fathers in their dealings with the bishops of Rome, that in the patristic age, the Church never operated on the basis of a universal Roman primacy or in the belief in papal infallibility.

Yves Congar a Roman Catholic historian comments on the Eastern Church’s ecclesiology and of the patristic understanding of the rock of Matthwe 16:

Many of the Eastern Fathers who are rightly acknowledged to be the greatest and most representative and are, moreover, so considered by the universal Church, do not offer us any more evidence of the primacy. Their writings show that they recognized the primacy of the Apostle Peter, that they regarded the See of Rome as the prima sedes playing a major part in the Catholic communion—we are recalling, for example, the writings of St. John Chrysostom and of St. Basil who addressed himself to Rome in the midst of the difficulties of the schism of Antioch—but they provide us with no theological statement on the universal primacy of Rome by divine right. (Yves Congar, After Nine Hundred Years (New York: Fordham University, 1959), pp. 61-62).

 

[Philthy]

kaycee:

You do not have a working knowledge of what Sola Scriptura is. No one is saying there is NO knowledge until inked in Scripture.

It seems the concept of Sola Scriptura has evolved with time. There is a range of understandings of it, form the most literal to highly developed. It would probably be useful for you to articulate briefly what you mean by it.

kaycee:

Your logic is a great argument for no bible, just Church and Tradition.

You mean like in the beginning of the Church? Im not sure how that fits into this discussion - I guess I offended you. sorry…

kaycee:

You are incorrect. Math 16:18 is directly referenced.

You are correct - my apologies. It does not alter my point however: is vatican1 discussing the institution of the papacy or simply Peters primacy? I havent read it, but your Vat 1 quotes to date simply deal with Petrine primacy, not with the papacy per se.

kaycee:

My contention is that the early church did not understand Math 16:18 as it does today, yet Vat I claims **as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church. **

---

Again, Im stupid but it seems to me you are exchanging the Primacy of Peter (dealt with in the Vat 1 quote) with the understanding of the Papacy. They are different. Related, but different. I think the primacy of Peter is what has been understood by the Church, not necessarily the Papacy and all of its full implications.

kaycee:

The RCC’s appeal to the ‘universal consent of the fathers’ to support its exegesis of Matthew 16 is fallacious. Such a consensus does not exist. The interpretation of Matthew 16:18 by the major fathers of the patristic age from the East and West demonstrates the overwhelming majority view of the Church historically is not that of the Roman CC today. The fact is, apart from the popes themselves—beginning in the late fourth century—and those with interests in promoting the papacy, the Roman interpretation of Matthew 16:18–19 has historically been universally rejected by the Church in both East and West. And what is true in the exegetical history is true also in historical practice. It is clear from the history of the Church, in the attitudes and actions of the general Councils and with individual fathers in their dealings with the bishops of Rome, that in the patristic age, the Church never operated on the basis of a universal Roman primacy or in the belief in papal infallibility.

Here again, I feel we have switched topics. Was Vatican 1 concerning itself with Petrine primacy or “universal Roman primacy/papal infallibility” when it claimed the “universal consent of the fathers”? I haven’t read it so I don’t know. Nothing you have posted to date suggests it was anything more than the Petrine primacy.

kaycee:

Yves Congar a Roman Catholic historian comments on the Eastern Church’s ecclesiology and of the patristic understanding of the rock of Matthwe 16:

Many of the Eastern Fathers who are rightly acknowledged to be the greatest and most representative and are, moreover, so considered by the universal Church, do not offer us any more evidence of the primacy. Their writings show that they recognized the primacy of the Apostle Peter, that they regarded the See of Rome as the prima sedes playing a major part in the Catholic communion—we are recalling, for example, the writings of St. John Chrysostom and of St. Basil who addressed himself to Rome in the midst of the difficulties of the schism of Antioch—but they provide us with no theological statement on the universal primacy of Rome by divine right. (Yves Congar, After Nine Hundred Years (New York: Fordham University, 1959), pp. 61-62).

Very good. The absence of such a “theological statement”, however, does not constitute proof of your contention. It would be far more compelling if you could supply a theological statement by the fathers condemning such a concept. I realize why that may be impractical - or even impossible, however.

Phil

 

[Pax]

OrthodoxBerean:

I read an article online and this guy, Mr. Stark says that is Syraic Aramaic that there were two words for rock Kepha and Shu’a’. Pastor Stark argues that in the Syriac Aramaic, Kepha is usually used for a movable rock and Shu`a’ for a large immovable rock.

He states that Shu ‘a’ would be more approprietely used for “petra” and kepha for “petros”. Hence the translation in Aramaic could have been “You are kepha and upon this shua…”?

Is this right? Has anyone answered this article yet? What do you all think?

You can find the article at gpcredding.org/petra.html

I read a debate on this subject in the past but cannot remember the source. The debate did little if anything to weaken the Catholic position. Here is my take on things for whatever it’s worth.

1. The plain reading of the biblical text in no way suggests or supports anything but the Catholic position.
2. The geographical setting of the exchange between Jesus and Peter is the greatest determinant as to what is meant by Jesus.

Let me address point number two by borrowing material from Steve Ray on Peter. Steve Ray points out that “Jesus chose Caesarea Philippi as the backdrop for the Petrine appointment. Here Herod had built a temple to Caesar Augustus atop the massive rock, a center of pagan worship and a source of the Jordan River. At the rock base was a gaping cavern referred to by the pagans as the “gates of hell”. Standing before the “temple” built to the “divine Caesar”, Jesus revealed God’s plan to build his new “temple”, the Church, to the true God with Peter as the solid rock.”

This geographical location is extremely significant for purposes of understanding what Jesus is saying to and about Peter. Jesus, as cornerstone and architect, is establishing his church on Peter the rock. He does this right in front of a huge rock formation, an extremely important site of pagan worship, at Caesarea Philippi. Jesus is not building his church on a rock fragment or a small pebble. This idea simply doesn’t fit the context and setting of the event.

The petra vs. petros argument is nothing more than a linguistic contrivance. The argument presented over the Greek terms by protestants has been refuted time after time as has been the case in this thread. Those that cling to the position, however, have attempted to bolster their position by introducing a new debate over the Hebrew words kepha and shua. This is nothing more than an extension of a failed argument with another linguistic debate that attempts to obscure the obvious.

The entire proposition becomes an overstated case of linguistic sophistry having little to do with hermenuetics and sound exegesis.

 

[ftbond]

There are a BUNCH of words in Aramaic for “rock”…

check out freetowne.com/pppk

read the “assertion” called something like “there is only one word for rock in Aramaic”…

it’s got a lot of info… good stuff…

 

[aussie_stockman]

I’m a “Protestant” (per se), but really, I don’t “protest” much of anything concerning Peter, Petros, Kepha (etc)… I think it’s possible that Simon might well have been “this rock” that Jesus was referring to in Matt 16:18. But, like the Orthodox guys, I just don’t think he was the ONLY rock, because Eph 2:20 says that the church was built on ALL the apostles. So, at that particular incidence (Matt 16:18), Jesus may indeed have said “I’ll build my church on you”, but he could well have said that to each of the apostles… (ie, "Simon, I’m going to build my church on you… And, also on you, Matthew, and you Luke, and you James, etc)

BUT - if you would, consider this scenario:

Simon - a big, burly guy - comes staggering in, single-handedly carrying a 300-pound chunk of granite. He drops the thing with a thud, looks at Jesus and says “here it is - just what you wanted - and you’re the boss”. And Jesus says “and you are Rock, and upon this rock, I’m going to carve my name”.

Which rock is Jesus going to carve his name on?

I’d really be interested to hear your comments…