MERGED: The Rock: Peter's Confession?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lyrikal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lyrikal

Guest
Hello,

This is not a debate on whether or not Peter is a little pebble or a big rock. I am Catholic and I believe that the person of Peter and also his confession was the Rock on earth.

For those who believe that the Rock is peter’s confession alone, I will present my question to you after quoting some passages from Scripture that my question has to do with.

John 1:43-51
43 The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, “Follow me.” 44Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. 45Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” 46Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.” 47Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!” 48Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” **49Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! **You are the King of Israel!” 50Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” 51And he said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”

Matthew 14:28-33
28And Peter answered him, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.” 29He said, “Come.” So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus. 30But when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, “Lord, save me.” 31Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?” 32And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased. 33And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

(Translation is from the English Standard Version)

My question(s) is/are: If the Rock is peter’s confession alone, then why didn’t Jesus make Nathanael the Rock since he confessed that Jesus is the Son of God in the very beginning of His ministry.

Also, ALL the Apostles proclaimed Jesus to be the Son of God in Matthew 14, why didn’t Jesus make all the Apostles’ confession the Rock?

Better yet, why didn’t Jesus give Nathanael the keys to the Kingdom? Why didn’t He give the keys to ALL the Apostles when they confessed that He is the Son of God? Why did He wait for Peter’s confession in order to start handing out the keys?

Again, I DO believe that Peter’s confession is the Rock; however, I do not believe that Peter’s confession alone is the Rock. The Rock is Peter himself and also his confession. The two cannot be separated.

If confession is all it took for Jesus to start making people rocks and handing out keys, then why did He wait until Peter professed it?

I am interested in hearing anyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut in this matter.

Thank you and God bless. 🙂
 
Well, Martha also made the same confession in John 11:27. However, our Lord’s relationship with Peter was far deeper than comparing scripture verses would indicate. Jesus preached from Peter’s boat. Jesus bid only Peter to walk on water. Jesus paid the tax only for Himself and for Peter. Jesus changed only Peter’s name. Jesus told only Peter the manner of his death. Jesus took Peter (John and James) along when He raised the daughter of Jairus form the dead, and to witness the transfiguration. Peter is named 195 times in the New Testament. The next closest is the “beloved disciple” John, at only 29 times. The rest are named even less. Some are named only in the lists of the disciples, and nothing else is known of them. Peter was Christ’s choice, plain and simple. The Church was formed and developed over the next three decades based on Jesus’ choice of Peter.
 
po18guy said:
Well, Martha also made the same confession in John 11:27. However, our Lord’s relationship with Peter was far deeper than comparing scripture verses would indicate. Jesus preached from Peter’s boat. Jesus bid only Peter to walk on water. Jesus paid the tax only for Himself and for Peter. Jesus changed only Peter’s name. Jesus told only Peter the manner of his death. Jesus took Peter (John and James) along when He raised the daughter of Jairus form the dead, and to witness the transfiguration. Peter is named 195 times in the New Testament. The next closest is the “beloved disciple” John, at only 29 times. The rest are named even less. Some are named only in the lists of the disciples, and nothing else is known of them. Peter was Christ’s choice, plain and simple. The Church was formed and developed over the next three decades based on Jesus’ choice of Peter.
Click to expand...
Hi po18guy,

I’m not sure if you understood the topic at hand but it appears that you may have misunderstood what I was trying to convey.

First of all, I agree with EVERYTHING you just said. I am a Catholic and believe Peter is the Rock. My post was directed towards those who DON’T believe that Peter is the Rock. I was not trying to argue against Peter but FOR Peter.

Please re-read the post if you need to. If you don’t understand it, let me know and I will try and clarify it. It is directed towards Protestants and Orthodox brothers and sisters who do not believe Peter to be the Rock.

If I have misunderstood your motives and your intentions in your reply then I apologize sincerely.

God bless you brother. 🙂
 
Just for the record…

I believe Peter IS the Rock. My question is targeted towards those who DON’T believe that Peter is the Rock, but only believe the Rock to be his confession.

I believe the Rock is Peter **AND **his confession (and of course Christ). It is both/and not either/or.

Thank you.
 
lyrikal said:
Hi po18guy,

I’m not sure if you understood the topic at hand but it appears that you may have misunderstood what I was trying to convey.

First of all, I agree with EVERYTHING you just said. I am a Catholic and believe Peter is the Rock. My post was directed towards those who DON’T believe that Peter is the Rock. I was not trying to argue against Peter but FOR Peter.

Please re-read the post if you need to. If you don’t understand it, let me know and I will try and clarify it. It is directed towards Protestants and Orthodox brothers and sisters who do not believe Peter to be the Rock.

If I have misunderstood your motives and your intentions in your reply then I apologize sincerely.

God bless you brother. 🙂
Click to expand...
My bad. Well, for those who do not believe, absolutely nothing that anyone on earth can say will convince them. Look at the crowd of followers that left Jesus in John 6. They looked into His eyes, and heard His voice, yet were unconvinced. For our part, we can pray for those who do not believe and let the Holy Spirit do the heavy lifting.
 
lyrikal said:
Hello,

This is not a debate on whether or not Peter is a little pebble or a big rock. I am Catholic and I believe that the person of Peter and also his confession was the Rock on earth.

For those who believe that the Rock is peter’s confession alone, I will present my question to you after quoting some passages from Scripture that my question has to do with.

John 1:43-51
43 The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, “Follow me.” 44Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. 45Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” 46Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.” 47Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!” 48Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” **49Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! **You are the King of Israel!” 50Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” 51And he said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”

Matthew 14:28-33
28And Peter answered him, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.” 29He said, “Come.” So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus. 30But when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, “Lord, save me.” 31Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?” 32And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased. 33And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

(Translation is from the English Standard Version)

My question(s) is/are: If the Rock is peter’s confession alone, then why didn’t Jesus make Nathanael the Rock since he confessed that Jesus is the Son of God in the very beginning of His ministry.

Also, ALL the Apostles proclaimed Jesus to be the Son of God in Matthew 14, why didn’t Jesus make all the Apostles’ confession the Rock?

Better yet, why didn’t Jesus give Nathanael the keys to the Kingdom? Why didn’t He give the keys to ALL the Apostles when they confessed that He is the Son of God? Why did He wait for Peter’s confession in order to start handing out the keys?

Again, I DO believe that Peter’s confession is the Rock; however, I do not believe that Peter’s confession alone is the Rock. The Rock is Peter himself and also his confession. The two cannot be separated.

If confession is all it took for Jesus to start making people rocks and handing out keys, then why did He wait until Peter professed it?

I am interested in hearing anyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut in this matter.

Thank you and God bless. 🙂
Click to expand...
This is an excellent observation. 👍
I myself have asked this question in the past and never got an answer. 🤷
 
lyrikal said:
My question(s) is/are: If the Rock is peter’s confession alone, then why didn’t Jesus make Nathanael the Rock since he confessed that Jesus is the Son of God in the very beginning of His ministry.

Also, ALL the Apostles proclaimed Jesus to be the Son of God in Matthew 14, why didn’t Jesus make all the Apostles’ confession the Rock?

Better yet, why didn’t Jesus give Nathanael the keys to the Kingdom? Why didn’t He give the keys to ALL the Apostles when they confessed that He is the Son of God? Why did He wait for Peter’s confession in order to start handing out the keys?

Again, I DO believe that Peter’s confession is the Rock; however, I do not believe that Peter’s confession alone is the Rock. The Rock is Peter himself and also his confession. The two cannot be separated.
)
Click to expand...
that was the patristic view. clearly Peter is the rock in the passage since Jesus changed Simon’s name to “Rock”
 
lyrikal said:
Just for the record…

I believe Peter IS the Rock. My question is targeted towards those who DON’T believe that Peter is the Rock, but only believe the Rock to be his confession.

I believe the Rock is Peter **AND **his confession (and of course Christ). It is both/and not either/or.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
Its on both as you have stated. Unfortunately people in other sects take out Peter and leave only his confession ignoring one cannot be without the other.
 
lyrikal said:
If confession is all it took for Jesus to start making people rocks and handing out keys, then why did He wait until Peter professed it?
Click to expand...
Lyrikal, you made an excellent point. I would be especially interested in the opinions of our **Eastern Orthodox **brethren about this issue. Having studied Eastern Orthodoxy for several years now, I’m still not sure what do EO believe: do they believe that
  1. not only Peter is Rock but anyone who confesses that Jesus is the Son of God,
or,
  1. do they believe that only the Apostle Peter is the Rock on which the Church is established, but then the successor of the Rock has fallen into heresy, leaving the Church without a single Rock to stand on since the Great Schism of 1054?
To your examples, Lyrikal, I will add this:

Luke 4:31-41:
31
Jesus then went down to Capernaum, a town of Galilee. He taught them on the sabbath,
32
and they were astonished at his teaching because he spoke with authority.
33
In the synagogue there was a man with the spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried out in a loud voice,
34
"Ha! What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are–the Holy One of God!"
35
Jesus rebuked him and said, “Be quiet! Come out of him!” Then the demon threw the man down in front of them and came out of him without doing him any harm.
36
They were all amazed and said to one another, “What is there about his word? For with authority and power he commands the unclean spirits, and they come out.”
37
And news of him spread everywhere in the surrounding region.
38
After he left the synagogue, he entered the house of Simon. Simon’s mother-in-law was afflicted with a severe fever, and they interceded with him about her.
39
He stood over her, rebuked the fever, and it left her. She got up immediately and waited on them.
40
At sunset, all who had people sick with various diseases brought them to him. He laid his hands on each of them and cured them.
41
**And demons also came out from many, shouting, “You are the Son of God.” **But he rebuked them and did not allow them to speak because they knew that he was the Messiah.
Click to expand...
So, my question to our Eastern Orthodox and Protestant brethren is, why did Jesus just rebuke and silence those demons and unclean spirits who confessed that he was the Son of God, why didn’t he say to these demons and unclean spirits something to the effect of “Blessed are you demons and unclean spirits, and I say to you: You demons and unclean spirits are Rock, and on this Rock I shall establish my Church! And I will give you, demons and unclean spirits, the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, …”

That would be a pretty interesting scene, Jesus handing out the Keys to demons and unclean spirits, wouldn’t it? :confused: 😃
 
lyrikal said:
Hello,

This is not a debate on whether or not Peter is a little pebble or a big rock. I am Catholic and I believe that the person of Peter and also his confession was the Rock on earth.

For those who believe that the Rock is peter’s confession alone, I will present my question to you after quoting some passages from Scripture that my question has to do with.

John 1:43-51
43 The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, “Follow me.” 44Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. 45Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” 46Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.” 47Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!” 48Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” **49Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! **You are the King of Israel!” 50Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” 51And he said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”

Matthew 14:28-33
28And Peter answered him, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.” 29He said, “Come.” So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus. 30But when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, “Lord, save me.” 31Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?” 32And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased. 33And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

(Translation is from the English Standard Version)

My question(s) is/are: If the Rock is peter’s confession alone, then why didn’t Jesus make Nathanael the Rock since he confessed that Jesus is the Son of God in the very beginning of His ministry.

Also, ALL the Apostles proclaimed Jesus to be the Son of God in Matthew 14, why didn’t Jesus make all the Apostles’ confession the Rock?

Better yet, why didn’t Jesus give Nathanael the keys to the Kingdom? Why didn’t He give the keys to ALL the Apostles when they confessed that He is the Son of God? Why did He wait for Peter’s confession in order to start handing out the keys?

Again, I DO believe that Peter’s confession is the Rock; however, I do not believe that Peter’s confession alone is the Rock. **The Rock is Peter himself and also his confession. The two cannot be separated. **If confession is all it took for Jesus to start making people rocks and handing out keys, then why did He wait until Peter professed it?

I am interested in hearing anyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut in this matter.

Thank you and God bless. 🙂
Click to expand...
I agree. The confession cannot be separated from the disciple who made it. Of course, then, we must also keep in mind Christ’s admonition to the disciples regarding setting a “pecking order” amongst themselves. To the point, even if one sees St. Peter as The Rock on which the Church will be built, nothing in that implies universal jurisdiction, infallibility (ex cathedra), etc. Though certainly a primacy of honor could quite properly be inferred.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
I agree. The confession cannot be separated from the disciple who made it. Of course, then, we must also keep in mind Christ’s admonition to the disciples regarding setting a “pecking order” amongst themselves. To the point, even if one sees St. Peter as The Rock on which the Church will be built, nothing in that implies universal jurisdiction, infallibility (ex cathedra), etc. Though certainly a primacy of honor could quite properly be inferred.

Jon
Click to expand...
Blessings my brother in Christ. Unfortunately I have to disagree about universal jurisdiction. Being the only one who received the keys from God alone has a lot of implications and more than mere honor.
 
lyrikal said:
Hello,

This is not a debate on whether or not Peter is a little pebble or a big rock. I am Catholic and I believe that the person of Peter and also his confession was the Rock on earth.

For those who believe that the Rock is peter’s confession alone, I will present my question to you after quoting some passages from Scripture that my question has to do with.

John 1:43-51
43 The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, “Follow me.” 44Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. 45Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” 46Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.” 47Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!” 48Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” **49Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! **You are the King of Israel!” 50Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” 51And he said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”

Matthew 14:28-33
28And Peter answered him, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.” 29He said, “Come.” So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus. 30But when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, “Lord, save me.” 31Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?” 32And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased. 33And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

(Translation is from the English Standard Version)

My question(s) is/are: If the Rock is peter’s confession alone, then why didn’t Jesus make Nathanael the Rock since he confessed that Jesus is the Son of God in the very beginning of His ministry.

Also, ALL the Apostles proclaimed Jesus to be the Son of God in Matthew 14, why didn’t Jesus make all the Apostles’ confession the Rock?

Better yet, why didn’t Jesus give Nathanael the keys to the Kingdom? Why didn’t He give the keys to ALL the Apostles when they confessed that He is the Son of God? Why did He wait for Peter’s confession in order to start handing out the keys?

Again, I DO believe that Peter’s confession is the Rock; however, I do not believe that Peter’s confession alone is the Rock. The Rock is Peter himself and also his confession. The two cannot be separated.

If confession is all it took for Jesus to start making people rocks and handing out keys, then why did He wait until Peter professed it?

I am interested in hearing anyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut in this matter.

Thank you and God bless. 🙂
Click to expand...
Likewise,does not receiving a change of name have some importance? Likewise,how many Jewish men were called Cephas or named Cephas? And who alone recveived the keys? Many opponents will state all the other Apostles had the power to bind and loose,hence they too received keys. They did? Even if they all received keys,why did Jesus single-out Peter alone then?
 
Nicea325 said:
Blessings my brother in Christ. Unfortunately I have to disagree about universal jurisdiction. Being the only one who received the keys from God alone has a lot of implications and more than mere honor.
Click to expand...
Hello my friend Nicea,
Hope you are well.

Ok, let’s say it is more than just a primacy of honor. Why was this not recognized in the early Church? Why is it that the Council of Nicea determines it necessary to identify the jurisdictions of the various sees, including the see in Rome? I’ve read some of the links provided in similar threads and still can’t wrap my head around this one glaring flaw, as I see it, in the claim of universal jurisdiction (notice, here, I’m speaking about Tradition, and not scripture alone).
And there seems to me no way to inferr infallibility (ex cathedra) in Peter’s reception of the Keys (even if one interprets this as Peter’s alone, and not the whole Church), and again, nothing in the Tradition of the early Church to imply such.

You’re one of the guys I trust here, so I know you won’t be offended by the sharp nature of my post.

Jon
 
15 ‘But you,’ he said, ‘who do you say I am?’
16 Then Simon Peter spoke up and said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’
17 Jesus replied, ‘Simon son of Jonah, you are a blessed man! Because it was no human agency that revealed this to you but my Father in heaven.
18 So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’

What is the Rock? And whats the importance of it?
 
It looks like nobody disagrees so far with Lyrikal’s conclusion that the Rock is more than just a confession, the Rock is also a person, and the person happens to be Simon, son of Jonah, whose name Jesus changed to Rock = Cephas = Peter.

John the Baptist is not the Rock, Nathanael is not the Rock, all the other apostles are not the Rock, and the demons and unclean spirits are not the Rock, even though they also confessed that Jesus is the Son of God, and in fact they confessed this even before Peter did in Matthew 16:16.

The next question is, does this mean that Jesus built his Church on the person of Peter, not only his confession? And does Peter stand totally apart, in a sense, from John the Baptist, Nathanael, the other apostles, as well as the demons and unclean spirits who also confessed that Jesus is Son of God?

In my opinion Peter stands apart, being this singular Rock on whom alone Jesus built his Church, and to whom alone he gave the Keys (according to Mt.16:18-19, quoted below), and thus Peter plays a singular role that he doesn’t share with either John the Baptist, Nathanael, the other apostles, the demons and unclean spirits, nor with anyone else who also happened to confess that Jesus is Son of God.

Next question would be, does Peter have a valid successor today who plays that singular role that Peter played among the 12 Apostles? And doesn’t that successor happen to be Pope Benedict the 16th? 😃

Matthew 16: 16-19:
16
Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
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.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top