Peter, the Rock

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi LordIAmNotWorthy,
I thank you for your comment on Simon bar Jonah – that certainly is part of the connection there, but I also suspect there is more; but that for another thread.
I am amazed how often people overlook these things!

Hi NotWorthy,
Reading the passage in context, I’m not sure that Jesus was giving Peter any more authority than the other Apostles. It seems to me that Jesus was just confirming that he had given the disciples the keys to heaven, as if giving them the keys to a mystery. The “Satan” comment doesn’t necessarily disqualify him for a place of prominence but ,taken in context, I don’t believe that Jesus was actually giving Peter any more prominence than any of the other Apostles.

To the contrary, the Greek is rather explicit.
Matth 16:18 καγω δε σοι λεγω οτι συ ει πετρ-ος και επι ταυτ-η τ-η πετρ-α οικο-δομη-σω μου την εκκλησιαν και πυλαι αδου ου κατισχυσουσιν αυτης

The exact wording is: Peter(m) and upon THIS(f) the rock(F) I will build my church.
I hear often the apologetic that the reason Peter is rendered masculine is that it is improper to put a feminine sounding ending on a mans name or title. This simply does not hold up, as

Mark 3:17 shows
ονοματα] βοανηργες ο εστιν υι-οι βροντ-ης
Sons of βροντ-ης (Thunder) which is clearly feminine. Their renaming is masculine only in sonship – but feminine in the name actually attributed to them Thunder.

There are several other examples where no attempt is made to masculinize a foreign word which sounds feminine in Greek, but these do not at all affect the meaning of Matthew 16:18.

Notice the extra awkward words “upon THIS THE ROCK” in the feminine?
Rock in Greek, as in English, is a collective word.
When I say a man stood upon rock – you can’t tell if it is a single rock or a pile, for I am merely indicating the material not the quantity.
When I say “The rock” it is a definite rock, but again could be a well known pile of them if it was the only known one, or some other definite distinction.

This is a grammatical problem which shows up with certain words and which introduces an ambiguity – What is very clear in Matthew 16:18 is that the Greek is written explicitly to REMOVE the ambiguity.

As I think notworthy mentioned, Abraham is also “the rock” from which all Israel is hewn. In matthew 16:18 Jesus calls himself the builder – which means in THIS PARTICULAR ANALOGY Jesus is not the rock of interest. Not only that, but THIS the rock means a specific one already mentioned previously – eg: in Greek if one says “this the day”, they mean the VERY day presently at hand – eg:NOW.

I do see in Matthew 16:18 a rock mentioned – Peter – and then a statement which means the “Rock at hand” or “This VERY rock” I will build my church.

If you try to attribute it to Peter’s faith – I would be inclined to say you will be forced to admit it is on Peter’s faith EXCLUSIVELY that Jesus speaks.
If he had meant all the apostles, or even the Faith of abraham inclusively rather than exclusively – the extra words “THIS THE” ought not appear there.
Indeed, there is nothing to distinguish the Apostles as rocks from Abraham as rock – is he too given the keys of the kingdom? And again, as Isaiah says of ALL israel look to the rock from which you are hewn – which means they too are ALL rocks, and therefore ALL would have the keys of the kingdom – but that is absurd.

Matth 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Matth 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

This stone, LITHOS not PETROS nor PETRA, becomes the HEAD of the cornerstone – but it is not the whole cornerstone itself. Doesn’t that strike you as ODD ?

Paul states in 1 Corinthians 3:11,“For no one can lay any other foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

But tell me, who is laying this foundation? Are you saying that Jesus Christ himself can lay no foundation other than himself? If so, how are the twelve apostles foundations at all?

It is illogical to apply 1Corinthians 3:11 as a counter-proof.
No Apostle can lay himself as a foundation – but there is nothing to prevent Jesus from having done so!

Of course, Matthew 16:18 has a second dimension which you mention – that of faith – but more so OF KNOWLEDGE. For this is the only other usage of KEY – those who judged, the lawyers, had the key of knowledge – and it is this key which can allow people to enter heaven or to be hindered from it. In the passage Matthew 16:18 – it is PETER who has the knowledge, as Jesus testifies –
Flesh and blood (which all the other apostles were) has not revealed this to-you (SINGULAR σοι). Peter already has the key of knowledge, for no one enters heaven without the knowledge that Jesus is the Christ, the Lord.

But, as Peter announced this bit of knowledge before all his peers – they too knew it; and yet Jesus says he will give the keys to peter singular here for binding and loosing. He excludes the others from some aspect of this gift. They are either not given all the knowledge Peter has – or not all the authority – in my thinking.

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi NotWorthy,

Reading the passage in context, I’m not sure that Jesus was giving Peter any more authority than the other Apostles. It seems to me that Jesus was just confirming that he had given the disciples the keys to heaven, as if giving them the keys to a mystery. The “Satan” comment doesn’t necessarily disqualify him for a place of prominence but ,taken in context, I don’t believe that Jesus was actually giving Peter any more prominence than any of the other Apostles.

When Jesus said “on This Peter I will build my Church”, I believe Jesus was reffering to Peter’s statement that Jesus was “the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” Remember the Ethiopian eunich that Philip baptized. After reading the book of Isaiah, he needed Philip to tell him about the goood news about Jesus, then after believing with his heart that Jesus was the Christ, he was baptized!****But don’t you see? He knew that he needed this baptism. And it wasn’t until this baptism that the Holy Spirit was through with the scene and wisked Phillip away.

Regarding “This Rock”, it is simply a breaking of the grammatical rules that you are implementing. Read Huiou Theou’s comments.
John1;5714772:

Paul states in 1 Corinthians 3:11,“For no one can lay any other foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

And what is that foundation that Jesus, in His very own words used, “Upon this Rock I will build My Church”. Why do people let their beliefs affect the way they interpret Scripture?

I use term “Catholic Christian” , to bring attention to the fact that you have pointed out. It should be a redundant phrase, but you would be suprised at how many times I have asked people, “Are you Christian?”, only to get answered, “No, I’m Catholic.” I believe there is only one true religion and that is Christainity, and it’s made up of Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutheran’s, and and any other group that accepts the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Yes, I am completely aware of how many of people mistakenly make that differential.

But, as a Catholic, I believe that the one true religion is the Foundation that Christ built - The Catholic Church. All our Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutheran’s are a part of this Catholic Church but they are lacking in some of the nutrients that the vine provides.

For you to make this statement implies (at least in my mind) that you don’t fully appreciate what goes on at Mass. I’m sorry, and I don’t mean to offend, but all these faiths have bastardized in some way the 1500 years Teaching of the Church. Christ prayed for us to be One (in John 15), and the only way that unity will be proven True is if all the sheep return to the flock.

And this dis-unity all begins with the authority of:
a) the pope
and
b) the Church.

 

[St_Aloysius_1]

It seems clear from many other verses that your interpretation of Corinthians is a minority opinion. Repeating the same line from Paul doesn’t overshadow the many references to Peter as Cephas throughout Acts, including those references from Paul, himself.

If Christ designated his first chosen Apostle to lead His Church on earth after His Ascension, who are we to dispute Christ? And if different Christians in different cities followed different Apostles, so what? They were all teaching the same story of Jesus. Without a written record of what Jesus said and did, the oral tradition of the Apostles (and their disciples) was the only way of spreading the Word. To hear the Word, you had to be with an Apostle. It’s that simple. Later, communication was made with epistles as well, but again, these were from individual Apostles. And again, so what? They are the teachers annoiting by Christ to do His work and build His Church. They were His instruments, not some kind of replacement for Jesus. It does no disservice to Christ to acknowledge the man on whom Jesus chose to build His earthly Church.

 

[evidence]

There are many other passages that refer to Peter’s office as the head of the apostles:

Mt 16:18-upon this rock (Peter) I will Build my church - If the rock is Peter’s confession then He would not have been called “the rock” by all the other apostles.
Mt 16:19- give you keys of the kingdom:bind and loose - This refers to Is 22:15-25 which decribes the Master of the palace being replaced with someone more worthy, and given special honor and authority as head of a family. This foreshadows Peter as head of the Church replacing the Pharisees as sitting in the chair of Moses (Mt 23:1-2)
Lk 22:32- Peter’s faith will strengthen his brethren
Jn 21:17- Christ makes Peter the chief sheperd
Mk 16:7 - angel announces Resurrection to Peter
Lk 24:34- risen Jesus first appeared to Peter
Acts 1:13-26 - headed meeting to elect Mattias(apostolic succession)
Acts 2:14 - led Apostles on Pentecost
Acts 2:41 - first converts
Acts 3:6-7 - first miracle after pentecost
Acts 5:1-11 - punishes Ananias & Saphira
Acts 8:21 - excommunicates heretic
Acts 10:44-46 - receives revelation about admitting gentiles in church
Acts 15:7 -led first council in Jerusalem
Acts 15:19 - first dogmatic decision
Gal 1:18 - Paul first goes to see Peter before preaching(permission?)
Peter’s name always heads list of Apostles: Mt 10:1-4: Mk 3:16-19: Lk 6:14-l6 Acts 1:13
“Peter and his companions”- Lk 9:32; Mk l6:7
Spoke for apostles - Mt 18:21, Mk 8:29, Lk 8:45, 12:41, Jn 6:69
Peter’s name occurs 195 times, more than all the rest put together

Gal 2:11-14 - Paul opposing Peter is the exception to the rule…He was correcting Peter because Peter was not following his own rules that he had declared as leader.(Acts 15:7-10)

The early church fathers also believed that Peter had more authority: Go to Catholic.com into the Library and click on the “fathers know best” tracts for many quotes proving this fact. Also check the thread: “are these proofs of the early existence of the papacy?” for examples of early papal acts.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=376082

 

[John1]

Hi Evidence,

You make some really good points, however some I think are a bit of a stretch, i.e. nowhere in John 21:17 does it say that Jesus made Peter the “Chief Shepard”. In fact, after telling Peter how he would die, Peter tries to lay the burden off on John, the Disciple whom Jesus loved. In Acts 9:15, Jesus refers to Saul/Paul as his chosen instrument, but what does that really prove. Again it doesn’t really say that Peter led the other Apostles in Acts 2:14, He’s just the one doing the talking. In Acts 15:19 it was James, not Peter who made the judgement.

It’s interesting in Job 1:6 that the angels came to present themselves before God, then it mentions that Satan came with them. God doesn’t address the other angels, only Satan. It also seems interesting that Jesus would refer to Peter as “Satan”.

 

[Pons]

Hi Evidence,

You make some really good points, however some I think are a bit of a stretch, i.e. nowhere in John 21:17 does it say that Jesus made Peter the “Chief Shepard”.

“Do you love me more than these?” ----> “Feed (if I’m not mistaken it’s literally rule over) my sheep more than these”.

In fact, after telling Peter how he would die, Peter tries to lay the burden off on John, the Disciple whom Jesus loved.

Wut? All Peter says is “What about him?”

In Acts 9:15, Jesus refers to Saul/Paul as his chosen instrument, but what does that really prove.

All the Apostles are his instruments. Peter is the one to rule over the sheep.

Again it doesn’t really say that Peter led the other Apostles in Acts 2:14, He’s just the one doing the talking.

In the Eastern Church Peter is called “coryphaeus” of the Apostles, meaning headperson and spokesperson. He does the talking because he’s the coryphaeus.

In Acts 15:19 it was James, not Peter who made the judgement.

Peter ended the debating, “all fell silent” and listened to Paul and Barnabas. James formulated the technical stuff and cites the OT prophets and Peter.

It’s interesting in Job 1:6 that the angels came to present themselves before God, then it mentions that Satan came with them. God doesn’t address the other angels, only Satan. It also seems interesting that Jesus would refer to Peter as “Satan”.

Why are you reading too much into a sharp rebuke?

 

[erikd]

Hi Evidence,

You make some really good points, however some I think are a bit of a stretch, i.e. nowhere in John 21:17 does it say that Jesus made Peter the “Chief Shepard”. In fact, after telling Peter how he would die, Peter tries to lay the burden off on John, the Disciple whom Jesus loved. In Acts 9:15, Jesus refers to Saul/Paul as his chosen instrument, but what does that really prove. Again it doesn’t really say that Peter led the other Apostles in Acts 2:14, He’s just the one doing the talking. In Acts 15:19 it was James, not Peter who made the judgement.

It’s interesting in Job 1:6 that the angels came to present themselves before God, then it mentions that Satan came with them. God doesn’t address the other angels, only Satan. It also seems interesting that Jesus would refer to Peter as “Satan”.

John1:

Your first point, on St. John 21:17, keep in mind that Jesus and Peter are the only two shepherds in the Gospels. Jesus being the chief Shepherd and Peter being given the position of shepherd from Jesus. They are the only two, just as they were the only two to walk on water. This is very significant when taken into context of St. Matthew 16:17-19 and St. John 21:15-17.

Your second point is that Peter tries to put the burden on the beloved desciple, though that couldn’t be further from the truth. St. John Chrysostom claims that Peter asked this question out of love and concern as he did not want John, the beloved desciple, to face the same fate as Jesus and Peter (since now Peter knew that he would be martyred). If your point was true, there would have to be Scriptural evidence of this and I don’t see any. Perhaps you could point it out.

St. Paul was chosen as the “chosen vessel” because he had a very special ministry. This does not, as you point out correctly, make him a chief Apostle, since he referred to Peter as a pillar of the Church (Ga. 2:9).

Your reference to Acts 15:19 falls short as it does not point out 15:7 where Peter speaks and tells of the judgement of the council. St. James was reiterating the words of council, first spoken by St. Peter.

Your last comment is the scariest one since you seem to be referring to St. Peter as satan. Satan fills the hearts of men as he did with Peter, as he does with you and me. That is part of what makes us human. It is through the grace of God that we can fight this but if it was not in us than there would be nothing to fight. Yes, St. Peter was a man like you and I. He was, however, chosen by Jesus to be His representative here on earth as demonstrated by many of the verses you are challenging. Hope this clears it up.

 

[evidence]

Hi Evidence,

You make some really good points, however some I think are a bit of a stretch, i.e. nowhere in John 21:17 does it say that Jesus made Peter the “Chief Shepard”. In fact, after telling Peter how he would die, Peter tries to lay the burden off on John, the Disciple whom Jesus loved. In Acts 9:15, Jesus refers to Saul/Paul as his chosen instrument, but what does that really prove. Again it doesn’t really say that Peter led the other Apostles in Acts 2:14, He’s just the one doing the talking. In Acts 15:19 it was James, not Peter who made the judgement.

It’s interesting in Job 1:6 that the angels came to present themselves before God, then it mentions that Satan came with them. God doesn’t address the other angels, only Satan. It also seems interesting that Jesus would refer to Peter as “Satan”.

I think that anyone reading Jn 21 without a pretext can see that Jesus is singling out Peter as a sheperd of all that follow Jesus. Listen to the free download of Pope Fiction #1 which can be found @ ewtn.com in their audio library for a thorough explanation.

At the council of Jerusalem in In Acts 15 we read -

"7.Peter stood up and said to them, `My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers. 8 And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; 9 and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. 10 Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? 11 On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.’

as you can see, the decision was already made by Peter, James just repeated the verdict.

As far a Job goes, I dont see how that passage relates to our topic at all. Are you suggesting that God only speaks to Satan when all the host of angels is gathered before Him? Where is the connection with Peter?

Peace in Christ,

 

[NotWorthy]

Matthew, when listing all the Apostles lists them how?

The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon called Peter, and his brother Andrew; James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John;

Now, we know that Peter wasn’t the first Apostle chosen, as Phillip was already called when (in John’s Gospel) Jesus first met Peter.
Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who heard John and followed Jesus. 41 He first found his own brother Simon and told him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated Anointed). 42 Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).

So, if Peter wasn’t the first (chronological) Apostle, then Matthew seems to indicate that Peter is the first (Proto) Apostle.

 

[John1]

Hello Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

You all make some reallygood points and perhaps I’m not seeing things as clearly as you. However I cannot reconcile, by the text of the Holy Bible, any assertion that Jesus was somehow referring to Peter as the foundation of His Church without really grasping at straws, and contradicting what some other parts of the Holy Bible clearly state. Someone said early “Who are we to disput Christ?”, and I couldn’t agree more! In fact, who are we to dispute anything written by any of the Apostles? The Apostles never wrote down that Peter had any more authority than they themselves had. Jesus Christ is the Chief Shepard, He is the Foundation, and he is the Head of the Church. All the references given about Jesus comes directly from the Holy Bible. Jesus directly refers to Peter as “Satan”. Who are we to dispute Christ? Pauls says that no one can lay any other foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus. Who are we to dispute the Apostle Paul? Even Peter himself in 1 Peter 2:4 refers to Jesus as the living Stone, and in 1 Peter 5:4 Peter refers to Jesus as the “Chief Shepard”! Who are we to dispute what the Apostle Peter says?

 

[NotWorthy]

Hello Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

You all make some reallygood points and perhaps I’m not seeing things as clearly as you. However I cannot reconcile, by the text of the Holy Bible, any assertion that Jesus was somehow referring to Peter as the foundation of His Church without really grasping at straws, and contradicting what some other parts of the Holy Bible clearly state. Someone said early “Who are we to disput Christ?”, and I couldn’t agree more! In fact, who are we to dispute anything written by any of the Apostles? The Apostles never wrote down that Peter had any more authority than they themselves had. Jesus Christ is the Chief Shepard, He is the Foundation, and he is the Head of the Church. All the references given about Jesus comes directly from the Holy Bible. Jesus directly refers to Peter as “Satan”. Who are we to dispute Christ? Pauls says that no one can lay any other foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus. Who are we to dispute the Apostle Paul? Even Peter himself in 1 Peter 2:4 refers to Jesus as the living Stone, and in 1 Peter 5:4 Peter refers to Jesus as the “Chief Shepard”! Who are we to dispute what the Apostle Peter says?

I think you are assuming the one foundation excludes the other.

When Jesus, the True Foundation, says that He will build His Church on Peter, it seems that you are the one that is disputing the Word of God.

And Jesus’ words to Peter, “Get behind me Satan…” are a rebuke simply because Peter was thinking of worldly things, rather than other worldly.

Also, look at the Church Fathers. Several Church Fathers claim that Peter’s confession was the Rock, but never to the exclusion of Peter himself being the Rock.

 

[John1]

Hi NotWorhty,

Who knows, you may be right. Maybe we’re both wrong. I think it’s good to discuss things like this. The discussion is starting to go in circles so I think I’ll unsubscribe from this thread, but it’s been a good discussion.

Blessings,
John1

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi NotWorhty,

Who knows, you may be right. Maybe we’re both wrong. I think it’s good to discuss things like this. The discussion is starting to go in circles so I think I’ll unsubscribe from this thread, but it’s been a good discussion.

Blessings,
John1

Better yet, why don’t you look at some of the Church Fathers. You know, the Catholic Church is called a “democracy of the Dead”. We let people speak for the Church nearly 2000 years later.

 

[erikd]

Hi NotWorhty,

Who knows, you may be right. Maybe we’re both wrong. I think it’s good to discuss things like this. The discussion is starting to go in circles so I think I’ll unsubscribe from this thread, but it’s been a good discussion.

Blessings,
John1

Hi, John 1.

If you’re still subscribed, might I suggest, as NotWorthy had said, the writings of the Church Fathers. Some of the most clear writings of the Church Fathers on this issue can be found right here on this website, I’ll link you directly to them:

catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

If you wanted to investigate this further, might I suggest

newadvent.org

This site has plenty of entire Church Father writings as well as the Catholic Encyclopedia. You can never have enough research on this matter, and it’ll all lead you right back to the truth of the Holy Scriptures.

 

[NotWorthy]

Steve Ray’s “Upon This Rock” is a wonderful book that explores the Church’s thoughts on the Bible, bringing to light the Father’s who taught that Peter was the Rock and the Father’s that (at times) denied it.

It’s funny… in several incidences a Church Father in the book would bring a dilemma they are having in their region that they can’t resolve locally. They send a delegation to Rome to help resolve the matter, for they profess that “Rome is the head of the Church”. But when the Pope rules against the Church Father that earlier praised the Pope and his role, then that same Church Father will deny the very authority of the Pope that they originally appealed to.

I guess even holy and devout men can act rather childish at times!

 

[Randy_Carson]

I believe that the “rock” that Jesus was talking about was Peter’s confession of faith that Peter spoke in reply to Jesus’ question, “Who do you say I am?” That’s the only way it makes sense with old and new testament scripture stating that Jesus is the “Rock”. Also, in 1 Corinthians 1, I think Paul makes it absolutely clear that no one should say that they follow him, Apollos, or Peter, but only Jesus Christ. The fact that Jesus refers to Peter as “Satan” just a few verses after the “Rock” verse should also make things a bit clearer.

John1-

This is not the conclusion of Protestant scholars who today are almost unanimous that Peter - not his confession and not Jesus - is the rock. Take a look…

Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter is the Rock

---

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)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Paul seems to make it clear in 1 Corinthians that the early Christians were falling into the error of picking which Apostle they would follow, when in reality they should say that they were following Jesus. This seems to imply that faith in Jesus, not following any specific Apostle was the true foundation of the Church. As far as Peter being the spiritual child of Jesus, I agree, as we Christians are all the spiritual children of the Light. Jesus is the light, Jesus is the Rock, not any of the Apostles, though they show the way to the Light.

John1-

Yeah, Paul was making this point. However, there is no dichotomy between following Christ and following the steward of His royal household to whom He had given the keys (cf. Is. 22).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Reading the passage in context, I’m not sure that Jesus was giving Peter any more authority than the other Apostles. It seems to me that Jesus was just confirming that he had given the disciples the keys to heaven, as if giving them the keys to a mystery. The “Satan” comment doesn’t necessarily disqualify him for a place of prominence but ,taken in context, I don’t believe that Jesus was actually giving Peter any more prominence than any of the other Apostles.

Protestant Scholars on the Keys of the Kingdom

W.F. Albright

“In commenting upon Matthew 16 and Jesus giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Isaiah 22:15 and following undoubtedly lies behind this saying. The keys are the symbol of authority and DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household of ancient Israel.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

“It is of considerable importance, that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are discussed, the symbol of the keys is absent, since the saying applies in these instances to a wider circle. The role of Peter as steward of the kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority as was the case of the Old Testament chamberlain who held the keys.” (ibid.)

Gerhardt Meier

“Nowadays, a broad consensus has emerged which, in accordance with the words of the text applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal and conservative theologians agree…Matthew 16:18 ought not to be interpreted as a local church. The church in Matthew 16:18 is the universal entity, namely the people of God. There is an increasing consensus now that this verse concerning the power of the keys is talking about the authority to teach and to discipline, including even to absolve sins.” The End of the Historical Critical Method, pp. 58-60].

The Interpreter’s Bible

“The keys of the kingdom would be permitted to the chief steward in the royal household and with them goes plenary authority, unlimited power, total. Post- apostolic Christianity is now beginning to ascribe to the Apostles the prerogatives of Jesus.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hello Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

You all make some reallygood points and perhaps I’m not seeing things as clearly as you. However I cannot reconcile, by the text of the Holy Bible, any assertion that Jesus was somehow referring to Peter as the foundation of His Church without really grasping at straws, and contradicting what some other parts of the Holy Bible clearly state. Someone said early “Who are we to disput Christ?”, and I couldn’t agree more! In fact, who are we to dispute anything written by any of the Apostles? The Apostles never wrote down that Peter had any more authority than they themselves had. Jesus Christ is the Chief Shepard, He is the Foundation, and he is the Head of the Church. All the references given about Jesus comes directly from the Holy Bible. Jesus directly refers to Peter as “Satan”. Who are we to dispute Christ? Pauls says that no one can lay any other foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus. Who are we to dispute the Apostle Paul? Even Peter himself in 1 Peter 2:4 refers to Jesus as the living Stone, and in 1 Peter 5:4 Peter refers to Jesus as the “Chief Shepard”! Who are we to dispute what the Apostle Peter says?

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 illustrative 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).

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Randy carson!


Though the comparison of metaphors can be useful when it is the same author using the same imagery. The differences show the image which is separate from the message, and also showing which ideas and members are grouped together.

In the passage cited, 1Peter2:5 –
KJV
1Pete 2:3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
1Pete 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone( λιθον ), disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,

And again in 1Pete 2:6 the chief cornerstone is not petra nor petros but lithos.

Petra carries the idea of flint, slate, a bedrock – and not a decorative rock.
I find it terribly interesting that in the NT the authors uniformly so far, point out the saying of scripture regarding the “chief cornerstone” as lithos – and not petra nor petros.

Again in the passage you mention, the living stones are only such because 1ete 2:3 they have tasted that the Lord is gracious --2:4 and thereby come to him
– at which point they are lively “Lithos” – not petra nor petros.

The correlation between this house and the temple is tied DIRECTLY to the royal priesthood; and it is in this context that Peter once mentions that the chief (but not other) cornerstone (lithos) is also a rock of offense (Petros). But Peter does not make of the common christian a foundational Petros; He leaves the choice of the type of rock as the Lord himself said it was.