Peter and the rock

[The_Wizard]

In my discussions with a co-worker on Matthew 16:18 I was holding my own until he said his pastor gave him this bit of advice and he handed me a piece of paper with the following on it:
“Jesus is the rock on which the church is built
The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as his redeemed, need to keep our eyes on him. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus, not Peter.
“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,” (1 Cor. 3:11).”
So I am posting here in hopes of getting an answer to this statement.

 

[Byzman]

Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18…“You are Peter(rock), and on this rock(Peter, for it is referencing the previous noun), I will build my Church.”

Christ is the one building. This is where Protestants get it all twisted. They refuse to acknowlegde that Christ is building His Church on one person, yet they have no problem acknowledging we all(bunch of different persons) make up the Body of Christ(Church). To me, you cant have one without the other. For they deny that Jesus does build on people, for they say that he is the only Rock…yet they pretty much say a contradiction when they acknowledge He is building the Church on many different people(Body of Christ).

 

[Spencerian]

In my discussions with a co-worker on Matthew 16:18 I was holding my own until he said his pastor gave him this bit of advice and he handed me a piece of paper with the following on it:
“Jesus is the rock on which the church is built
The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as his redeemed, need to keep our eyes on him. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus, not Peter.
“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,” (1 Cor. 3:11).”
So I am posting here in hopes of getting an answer to this statement.

Hi.

Your friend is attempting a common misinterpretation tactic by using one verse of Scripture out of context.

In addition to the earlier posts where Christ is quite clear that Peter is the foundation of His Church on Earth, your friend is using a false analogy to Christ as the foundation of the Church to Peter as the prime minister of the Church (the keys of the kingdom, which has Scriptural foundation in Isaiah 22, where God notes the importance of a chief steward of the House of David, given authority by God to administer the king’s business).

Christ is the Head of the Church, the High Priest. But in His place, He appointed a chief steward with authority to lead as needed. The Church’s foundation are the Apostles, with Peter as the keystone. But a Church is nothing without its High Priest, which is Christ.

In expanding your friend’s single from St. Paul, we see in the entire book of 1 Corinthians 3 that the Apostle is reminding those he addresses in his letter that recent allegiances to some of the new priests and Apostles (of which he notes have been straying to what we’d know as “celebrity worship”) should not go to any Apostle (such as Peter), any teachers (such as Apollos) but to Christ alone. That is, Paul reminds his readers not to confuse the message with the Messenger Who Gave the Word. The use of the term “foundation” here does not diminish Christ’s declaration to Peter in the Book of Matthew in the slightest.

Peter (as the authority created by Christ) serves as a central decision maker among all Apostles in the event that questions arise about Christ’s teachings or earthly practices. Peter shows this authority in several areas in Scripture (Acts 1:15, Acts 2:14, Acts 2:38, Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12, Acts 5:3, Acts 8:14, Acts 8:14, and more). No other Apostle has the special abilities and progress seen in Peter–which greatly supports the authority of the Church through Peter’s successors, the popes–of which we can name every single one since Peter to this day.

 

[bsy]

When there is a name change in the Bible, it is usually for a purpose. It was the Lord Who named Simon “Kephas,” which means “rock.”

It makes no sense to refer to the rock in Matthew 16:18 as Himself, “You are (Kephas) Rock, and on this rock I will build my church…” . Jesus used the second person “you.” If Jesus was talking about Himself, the sentence would have been constructed differently.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,” (1 Cor. 3:11)."

Paul, who authored 1 Corinthians, also authored Ephesians.

Eph 2:20 Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

 

[Scoobyshme]

Yet another false dichotomy proposed by Protestantism. Jesus is the chief cornerstone of the Church. He grafted Peter into that and renamed him to Rock (Peter). His name before that was Simon (means “Reed” like a reed that blows whichever way the wind blows). Henceforth, Simon was called Peter. It stuck.

Grammatically, the “…and upon this rock” can only refer to Peter (Kephas/Rock). The “this” part refers to the last noun in the sentence, which was Peter.

 

[JRKH]

In my discussions with a co-worker on Matthew 16:18 I was holding my own until he said his pastor gave him this bit of advice and he handed me a piece of paper with the following on it:
“Jesus is the rock on which the church is built
The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as his redeemed, need to keep our eyes on him. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus, not Peter.
“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,” (1 Cor. 3:11).”
So I am posting here in hopes of getting an answer to this statement.

Good answers so far…but I would take a slightly different (and perhaps non-confrontational) tack…

I would agree with what your friends pastor has shared…But then I would ask, if Jesus has given authority - HIS authority to “The Church” and specifically to Peter (the leader of the Apostles and chosen of God) to “Bind and Loose”…“Whatever”. If Jesus tell us to take our disagreements and issues to “The Church” and then to “Listen to The Church”. Should we not obey Him?

This is the downfall of your friends argument here…Jesus is the bedrock. There is really no dispute in this. Jesus IS the one who we need to reaming focused on.
But in staying focused on Jesus and obeying “All that (He) have commanded” we must accept that He founded a Church with Authority and that we are to Listen to That Church (Mt 18:15-18). We must also accept that Jesus gave Peter special graces and authority by giving him personally the keys to the kingdom AND the authority to bind and loose.

Yet the protestant view of tearing down the authoritative structure leaves him unable to accept and obey the commands of Christ.
Now - As the CCC points out in the section on “wounds to unity”, we can’t really charge our seperated bretheren with a sin here if they were raised in and taught that such authority does not legitimately exist. All we can do is to try to point out to them - biblically - that their interpretation/understanding is incorrect.

So - I would accept what his pastor wrote and then proceed from there utilizing the things I’ve mentioned above along with other points raised by other posters.

Peace
James

 

[The_Wizard]

I have come to the conclusion that nothing I could present would move this person’s position one micron(1/1,000,000 meter). He is right; I am wrong. He is guide by the Holy Spirit; I am guided by ah, Oh yeah the Pope.

 

[JRKH]

I have come to the conclusion that nothing I could present would move this person’s position one micron(1/1,000,000 meter). He is right; I am wrong. He is guide by the Holy Spirit; I am guided by ah, Oh yeah the Pope.

In this you are likely correct.
However, by presenting the evidence, the Truth, you serve to “plant the seeds” that may one day sprout.

Peace
James

 

[Scoobyshme]

I have come to the conclusion that nothing I could present would move this person’s position one micron(1/1,000,000 meter). He is right; I am wrong. He is guide by the Holy Spirit; I am guided by ah, Oh yeah the Pope.

All Protestants claim to be “led by the Holy Spirit” in THEIR interpretation of the Bible. Yet, none of them can agree on what it really says.

Example: Baptists claim that infant baptism is invalid. Lutherans and Presbyterians claim that it is valid (and practice it). Both read the same Bible. Both claim to be led by the same Holy Spirit. Yet, they come up with contradictory interpretations. The Truth cannot contradict itself. And the Holy Spirit is not the spirit of confusion.

 

[CSJ]

You may also want to point out the parallel with Eliakim in Isaiah 22. It points to Eliakim as a typology of Peter (and the succeeding Popes).

When Jesus said in Matthew 16:19* "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”, *virtually every theologian (Protestant & Catholic) will agree that He was quoting Isaiah 22:20-22 (In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your sash on him, and will commit your authority to his hand. And he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.)

The ancient Jews would have understood the correlation. In the ancient world, Kings would have a an acting office (known as a prime minister in our modern terms) who would govern the daily affairs in the King’s absence. Eliakim succeeded Shebna because the latter was found to be corrupt.

When Jesus gave the keys to Peter, he was installing him as the King’s prime minister in the King’s physical absence which would occur after the ascension. Just as God wished to be tangible to us in the person of Christ, He remains tangible to us not only in the Eucharist, but also in the teaching office of the Prime Minister (Papacy).

Note the additionally highlighted areas:
Authority - he would have authority that was second only to the king.
Father - Pope means “Father”

God Bless,
CSJ

 

[Pax]

In my discussions with a co-worker on Matthew 16:18 I was holding my own until he said his pastor gave him this bit of advice and he handed me a piece of paper with the following on it:
“Jesus is the rock on which the church is built
The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as his redeemed, need to keep our eyes on him. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus, not Peter.
“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,” (1 Cor. 3:11).”
So I am posting here in hopes of getting an answer to this statement.

So…Jesus is the only foundation, and Jesus is the only rock. He might want to add that there is only “one teacher” and “one judge” also. But then again, let’s see what scripture says about all this:

1. Jesus himself calls Peter the rock.
2. Rev 21:14 and Eph 2:19-20 makes reference to twelve foundations, the apostles.
3. Rom 12:6-7 references teachers, and in1Tim 2:7 Paul calls himself a teacher.
4. Matthew 19:28 Jesus tells the apostles they will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

I hope this helps.

 

[Nita]

In my discussions with a co-worker on Matthew 16:18 I was holding my own until he said his pastor gave him this bit of advice and he handed me a piece of paper with the following on it:
“Jesus is the rock on which the church is built
The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as his redeemed, need to keep our eyes on him. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus, not Peter.
“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,” (1 Cor. 3:11).”
So I am posting here in hopes of getting an answer to this statement.

I don’t think 1 Cor. 3:11 is speaking about the church. Rather, Paul is speaking about the foundation of the New Covenant faith – that Jesus is the foundation of the faith he preaches and Jesus is to be the foundation of each man’s personal faith.
It’s best to read the whole chapter, but even if you read only the previous verse along with verse 11 it becomes obvious.
1 Cor 3:10"According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it."
1 Cor 3:11 “For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,” Paul says “I laid a foundation”. He certainly is not saying that he is the one who established/appointed Jesus to be the foundation of the Church!
The foundation Paul laid was the doctrine he taught them – doctrine founded on Jesus as God and Savior.

On the other hand, the Ephesians 2:20 passage mentioned by Prodigal Son1 is a reference to the Church – the “citizens…of the household of God”. Revelations also speaks of the apostles being the foundation of the “city”.
Eph 2:19-20 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

Rev. 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. And of course, of the 12 apostles, only Peter was given the keys.

 

[Theodosia33]

I agree with Nita. The cornerstone (Christ) is not only the part that supports a structure it is also part of the foundation itself.

 

[kepha1]

The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as his redeemed, need to keep our eyes on him. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus, not Peter.
“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,” (1 Cor. 3:11)."

This comes from diehard reformists who have not kept up with recent Protestant scholarship. No one abused these verses like this until the so called reformers came along and it’s sad to see the flames of the reformation are still raging in some places.

What is so often neglected is that burning question Jesus asked, and who had the revealed answer.

Matthew 16
13] Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare’a Philip’pi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?”
14] And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli’jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15] He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16] Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17] And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Does Jesus make a distinction between what Peter said, and who Peter is? I don’t see it. That’s why I can accept that “Rock” means Peter’s confession of faith, (so does the Pope) but Jesus does not separate Peter’s confession from the person of Peter. The Father revealed to Peter who Jesus is. If “rock” is reduced to the one meaning of Peter’s confession, and not to both the person of Peter and his confession, then the Father’s revelation to Peter is of little significance. The Father, it seems, has a lot of nerve revealing something to an impulsive weakling like Peter. This is why verse 17 is avoided by those hostile to Peter’s primacy.

If the rock is Jesus himself, then it would read, “you are Peter, and on Me the rock I will build my church…” Jesus makes no such incoherant babbling. But that is what must be read into the passage to justify the erroneous notion that Jesus is refering only to himself.

I don’t deny that Jesus is the One doing the building, but to deny that Peter had anything to do with the building of the Church is not supported by scripture or the historical witness.

I don’t deny that Peter’s confession is the rock that Jesus is refering to, but it doesn’t stop there. If it does, then the selective “one meaning” for scripture comes in to play, and we know words of scripture are not always confined to one meaning, (as Nita nicely pointed out in the above post) unless one has an agenda.

Peter is never separated from Christ in the building of the church; it must be argued otherwise to support an earthly church with no earthly leadership. This does violence to scripture.

 

[kepha1]

quote:
But as the passions of the Reformation era have cooled, and Protestant scholars have taken a more dispassionate look at this text, they have come to agree more and more that Jesus was referring to Peter himself as the rock. Of course, they disagree with the Catholic interpretation of what this means, but many now agree that the Catholic explanation of the grammar of the text is correct.

The following quotations, all of which are from Protestant Bible scholars, are taken from the book Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy (Scott Butler et al., (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing), 1996).

William Hendriksen Member of the Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary says Peter is the Rock

Gerhard Maier Leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian says*** Peter is the Rock***

*Donald A. Carson III Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary says Peter is the Rock ***

**John Peter Lange *German Protestant scholar says Peter is the Rock ***

**John A. Broadus B*aptist author says Peter is the Rock ***

---

**J. Knox Chamblin *Presbyterian and New Testament Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary says Peter is the Rock ***

---

**Craig L. Blomberg *Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary says Peter is the Rock ***

**David Hill *Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, England says Peter is the Rock ***

---

**Suzanne de Dietrich *Presbyterian theologian says Peter is the Rock ***

Donald A. Hagner Fuller Theological Seminary says Peter is the Rock

by Harry Hoge (not avialable on line, but comments by each of the above Protestants can be found on this dead forum.

 

[WFS5801]

So - I would accept what his pastor wrote and then proceed from there utilizing the things I’ve mentioned above along with other points raised by other posters.

No, I can’t agree with that. He specifically quoted St. Matthew 16:18 and incorrectly stated that it did not refer to Peter. But this verse definitely refers to Peter as the Rock. I think it should be noted that “Peter” had never been a name in the language before.

Here’s an answer on the subject from Radio Replies:

1. Christ said, “Upon this rock,” meaning Himself – not Peter.

That is erroneous. In Jn. I., 42, we find Christ saying to Peter, “Thou art Simon…thou shalt be called Cephas, Which is interpreted Peter.” Christ had a special purpose in thus changing his name to Cephas or rock, a purpose manifested later on as recorded by Matt. XVI., 18, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” Let us put it this way. Supposing that your name were Brown, and I said to you, “They call you Brown, but I am going to call you Stone. And upon this stone I shall build up a special society I have in mind to establish,” would you believe that I was alluding to you, or to myself? Now Peter’s name was Simon, and Christ changed it to Peter, or in the original Aramaic language, Kepha, which was the word for rock or stone, and which was never used as a proper name in that language. Thus He said, “Thou art Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church.” In modern English it would sound thus, “Thou art Mr. Stone, and upon this stone I will build my Church.” The word could not possibly refer to Christ in this text.

radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-1.php?t=42

 

[JRKH]

No, I can’t agree with that. He specifically quoted St. Matthew 16:18 and incorrectly stated that it did not refer to Peter. But this verse definitely refers to Peter as the Rock. I think it should be noted that “Peter” had never been a name in the language before.

I must have missed this. I was responding to the things that the OP said were in the note given him by by his friend that came from the friends pastor.
Nothing posted in the OP talks about Simon Peter at all. It simply tries to shift the emphasis back to Christ. In other words it is an attempt to sidetrack the whole issue of what exactly is said in and around Mt 16:18.

Because of this, the OP can easily agree to the specific things listed in the pastor’s note without denying anything that is said in Mt 16:18.
If you read the OP carefully, you will see that the notes contents do not address Mt 16:18 at all. It merely brings up the idea that about Jesus being the Rock and the foundation. But as others have shown, particulalry Nita and Kepha1, there are other references to Rock, foundations, and cornerstones, that need tend to throw a monkeywrench into the neat little box that the protestant pastor, in his note, wishes to build around Jesus being the only rock.
And this is something that I see with some protestants. They get certain conclusions in their heads supported by certain verses but really don’t have a comprehensive understanding based on ALL of the texts.

Peace
James

 

[Nita]

In my discussions with a co-worker on Matthew 16:18 I was holding my own until he said his pastor gave him this bit of advice and he handed me a piece of paper with the following on it:
"Jesus is the rock on which the church is built
…

Verse 18 is incomplete on its own - in regards to the visible authority Jesus is establishing for His Church. IMO, both verses must be given together.
Mt.16:18 - 19 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 1) First, Jesus is establishing a church - “my church”.

1. Next, I would point out that this Church is one that will have authority, an authority that is exercised by someone present on earth.- “whatever you bind on earth…loose on earth”.

IMO, it’s really important to note that Jesus is establishing an office – a person here on earth – to determine what should be bound and loosed in His Church. He does not say “I will bind/loose”, but “you will bind/loose”
He will not be the one exercising the power of the keys in the Church here on earth.
“I give you the keys…”

1. Altho there will be earthly heads of His Church, it is Jesus who will be overseeing it, in control. Through those on the chair of Peter, it will be Jesus’ in charge of what is built. “I will build My Church”. He will ensure what it teaches is His truth; it will be His Spirit and grace working in the hearts of men to lead them to faith in Him and the truths proclaimed by His Church; it will be the graces merited by Him that will save its members; etc.

 

[Lampo]

I heard this question again on Catholic Answers Live. I think Patrick Madrid was the guest who answered it this way:

Jesus didn’t speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic. The precise meaning is lost when translating from Aramaic to Greek. Even more so from Greek to English! Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter, which is Kepha in Aramaic. What does kepha mean? It means rock! What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

So one might logically ask, “Why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this *petra *I will build my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?”

Because Jesus had no choice. Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.

You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word *petra *is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock. That’s an imperfect rendering of the Aramaic; you lose part of the play on words. In English, where we have ‘Peter’ and ‘rock,’ you lose all of it. But that’s the best you can do in Greek.