Peter, the Rock

  • Thread starter Thread starter erikd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

erikd

Guest
The question of whether or not Peter is the Rock can be answered by analyzing the language utilized in these verses, as well as looking at how the Church viewed this subject historically. First, let’s analyze the question from a linguistic perspective, utilizing logic as well as non-Catholic commentary from language experts. If this is to be challenged, please challenge from a scholarly avenue, giving your challenge some substance as I’ve given my side here.

18 And I say to thee: That thou art (Petros) Peter; and upon this (petra) rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
St. Matthew 16:18

Here are the two definitions of the words from Strong’s dictionary, including their reference numbers:

4074 Petros {pet’-ros} apparently a primary word; TDNT - 6:100,835; n pr m 1) one of the twelve disciples of Jesus 2) a rock or a stone

4073 petra {pet’-ra} from the same as 4074; TDNT - 6:95,834; n f 1) a rock, cliff or ledge 1a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground 1b) a rock, a large stone 1c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul.

In Aramaic, the language that would have been spoken during this exchange, the word for both would have been “kephas” or “cephas” therefore saying “you are Kephas and upon this kephas I will build My Church.”

These definitions are not Catholic, they are linguistic. They can be found on Catholic and Protestant sites. Several Protestant language scholars have agreed that Peter is in fact the Rock upon which Jesus built His church. Here’s a commentary from a noted Protestant Greek scholar Marvin Vincent:

“The reference of petra to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: ‘On this rock will I build.’”
Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. 1, 91-92.

The issue of Peter being the Rock is understanding of the verses as they are spoken. Language scholars of many Christian denominations (non-Catholic) agree. Among them are R.T. France, D.A. Carson, Robert McAfee, and others. Also, a popular Bible commentary book named “Peake’s Commentary,” a Protestant commentary on the Bible agrees (check page 787 of the 1962 edition). Another Protestant commentary from the Zondervan NIV Bible states this:

“The rock on which Jesus would build His Church has been identified as 1: Jesus Himself (His work of salvation by dying for us on the cross); 2:Peter (the first great leader in the Church at Jerusalem).”

Based on this it seems that the Protestant commentators are split on whether Jesus refers to Himself as the Rock, though none of the ones I mentioned are split as to Peter being the rock.

Next, let’s find out what the early Christians believed?

Tertullian [160-240 AD] The Prescription Against Heretics
“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

Origen [185-254 AD] De Principiis (Book IV)
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head-that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]-of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Jerome, St [347-420 AD] To Pammachius Against John of Jerusalem
“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

Augustine of Hippo, St [354-430 AD] Letter 53 (A.D. 400)
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
 
Top notch! 👍

I’m wondering (playing Protestant’s Advocate) how do you know that in Aramaic, the same word “kephas” was used?
 
Top notch! 👍

I’m wondering (playing Protestant’s Advocate) how do you know that in Aramaic, the same word “kephas” was used?
Thank you for the kind words. To answer the Protestants’ advocate, the answer is in linguistics, not in Catholic / non-Catholic beliefs:

*"We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’

“What’s more,” I said, "in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).

What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

“When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock.” *

catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

This is why I love Catholic answers: The answers are right there and they’re irrefutable.

Then, there’s this commentary from a non-Catholic site:

*Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” *

New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), page 647
JPK page 14
users.stargate.net/~elcore/kephas.htm

Also, feel free to look at this site: “Aramaic/English Peshitta Interlinear Younan Translation.” Look at the top of page 3 and read from right to left.

aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/Peshittainterlinear/1_Matthew/Mattich16.pdf
 
we know “Kephas” was used because the other apostles called Peter “kephas” in other places:

John 1:42
He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).

1 Corinthians 1:12
Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.”

1 Corinthians 3:22
whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you,

1 Corinthians 9:5
Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

1 Corinthians 15:5
and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Galatians 1:18
Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.

Galatians 2:9
and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Galatians 2:11
Peter (Cephas) Opposed by Paul ] But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

Galatians 2:14
But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?
 
Top notch! 👍

I’m wondering (playing Protestant’s Advocate) how do you know that in Aramaic, the same word “kephas” was used?
Just to add a little to what the last two posters said:

Think of “Cephas” as the Greek rendering of Kepha(s), just as John is rendered “Sean” in Irish and “Juan” in Spanish.

Cephas is a transliteration of “Kepha(s)”, instead of being a translation of “rock”.
 
Just to add a little to what the last two posters said:

Think of “Cephas” as the Greek rendering of Kepha(s), just as John is rendered “Sean” in Irish and “Juan” in Spanish.

Cephas is a transliteration of “Kepha(s)”, instead of being a translation of “rock”.
Hmm. that wasn’t really my question, I know Peter is Kephas

“You are Kephas, and upon this ? I will build my church”
“You are Petros, and upon this petra I will build my church”
“You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.”

The question was, how would I know “kephas” was the word used in the second occurrence. I don’t know Aramaic so I don’t know if there is another word for kephas that may have been used.

Non-Catholics might argue this as they also argue petros and petra do not mean the same thing (as we see in Karl Keating’s debate here on CA with the INC).
 
Hmm. that wasn’t really my question, I know Peter is Kephas

“You are Kephas, and upon this ? I will build my church”
“You are Petros, and upon this petra I will build my church”
“You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.”

The question was, how would I know “kephas” was the word used in the second occurrence. I don’t know Aramaic so I don’t know if there is another word for kephas that may have been used.

Non-Catholics might argue this as they also argue petros and petra do not mean the same thing (as we see in Karl Keating’s debate here on CA with the INC).
Kepha(s) was the word used because there was no other Aramaic word for Rock, in my understanding.
 
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.
 
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.
Hi, John1

Perhaps you could show me, using the OP, which part exactly you disagree with and why? I used several protestant arguments in my original OP, hoping to show that even many non-Catholics believe that Peter is the Rock that Jesus speaks of. I believe that the language originally used, the Aramaic as well as the Greek gives us a lot to work with. By saying that Jesus called Peter satan, you would be ignoring the passages where Jesus tells Peter to feed His sheep (St. John 21:15-17) as well as the whole first half of the Acts of the Apostles. Hope to hear from you.
 
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.
This argument falls apart given that:
a) Abraham was also the Rock.
b) Grammatically, the only “Rock” that “upon this Rock” can point to is the last “Rock” used. That “Rock” is … “You are Rock”.
c) Peter was referred to as Rock in the rest of Acts - “Cephas”.

In your defense, however, several Church Fathers agree that “The Rock” can refer to Simon’s confession, but only in addition to Simon being “Rock”.

But let me ask you something. If Jesus says, “I’m leaving, and in my absence, I’m placing you in charge”, how does that make us disloyal to Jesus to follow his regent?
 
i think it is obviously pointing to peter as the foundation rock. If a really great musician was speaking to a student, and said " your a really talented musician, and I would like to use this talent at my next concert", everyone would know that the musician was not refering to his own talent… The petros/petras argument has be disproven for years now ( see catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp as well as the audio show “pope fiction” #2 which is a free download in the audio library of ewtn.com.)
The greek word for pebble was lithos, not petros.
It would have been weird to call Peter by a female name “petra” so the translater just used the masculine form “petros” which was also used to mean a boulder or big rock in the greek language at that time.
The Pope fiction show I mentioned explained it better than I could…
hope this helps.
 
Petros is the Greek translation of the Aramaic word “kepha”. Jesus spoke Aramaic and did not call Simon Petros. Jesus called Simon “Kepha”, and said “On this kepha I will build my Church.” The word “kepha” in Aramaic means massive stone. The Greek word petros was translated to kepha to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.
 
One thing that is often overlooked, is that Jesus calls Peter “Simon BarJonah”. Jonah was not Peter’s father… his father was John. And John is not the Greek rendering of “Jonah”.

Why is that important? Why, just a few verses earlier in Matthew 16, Jesus calls himself the “Sign of Jonah”. And then, in Matthew 16:17, Jesus is calling Peter the “Son of Jonah”. Peter, in my opinion, is the spiritual Son of Jesus.
 
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.
 
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:

As I asked before, do you have any specific objections to the OP? In the OP many language scholars are mentioned, and there are more, who conclude that Peter is in fact the Rock that Jesus speaks of. This is very important, since getting this wrong means getting everything else wrong as well. Therefore, can you cite any specific examples in the OP where the language scholars have made a mistake? Do you have a background in linguistics? Perhaps you’d like to show us where the language scholars are getting it wrong, I’m sure they would like to know.

Jesus Christ gave us the authoritative Church (Mt. 28-18-20, Jn. 20:23, 1 Cor. 11:23-24, Lk. 10:16, Mt. 18:17-18, 1 Tim. 3:15) which will lead us to all truths. Jesus Christ is the truth, and His words shall be understood in correct context. The correct context, as shown earlier, is that Peter is the rock upon which Christ’s Church is to be built. Christ is the architect, and Peter is the rock. Remember the original Aramaic: “you are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build My Church.”
 
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.
I’m not sure why acknowledging Jesus’ Words that Peter is the Rock upon which His Church will be built means that you are not following Jesus. It seems like denying Peter as the leader of the visible Church is denying Christ’s wishes.

We are all Children of God, but brothers of Christ. Peter seems to be the Spiritual Child of Jesus in a way that a king leaves the kingdom to his son when He leaves.
 
Hi Erikd and NotWorthy,

First, I do not have any specific disagreement with the original post. I’m not arguing that Cephas or Kephas, doesn’t mean “Rock” in Aramaic. If you read the passage in context, and I’m not saying that you don’t, then possibly there is another way to understand what Jesus was saying. When Jesus came to the disciples he asked them, as a group, “Who do the people say I am?”. After they replied with several different answers, Jesus asked the group again, “Who do you say I am?”. Peter speaks first, not that the others couldn’t have given the same answer, and says “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Then Jesus says “You are blessed Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this Peter I will build my church, (speaking of Peter’s confession of faith) and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” This view seems to make a lot more sense to me personally, because it is backed up by other parts of the Bible, and no where in Paul’s or John’s letters is there anything alluding to the supremacy of Peter. Only seven verses later Jesus rebukes Peter and calls him Satan, and says that he is a stumbling block to Him. A belief and faith in Jesus is what the Church is built on, Jesus is the foundation, not Peter. However, if you believe that Jesus was giving the keys to heaven to Peter alone, and endowing Peter alone with the power to bind and loose things on earth and heaven, then I can understand how one could read the passage and believe that Jesus was reffering to Peter as “the Rock” that His Church would be built on. In no way am I trying to argue with you about your belief on this matter, and I’m not trying to prove that you or anyone else is wrong. I’m only sharing my point of view, so please don’t be offended or think that I’m trying attack your faith. I belong to the Catholiic Church, even though I do question some of the teachings. Like Paul says, we see but a poor reflection in a mirror, but when Perfection comes, then we will see perfectly. I find that to be a very profound statement.
 
Hi Erikd and NotWorthy,

First, I do not have any specific disagreement with the original post. I’m not arguing that Cephas or Kephas, doesn’t mean “Rock” in Aramaic. If you read the passage in context, and I’m not saying that you don’t, then possibly there is another way to understand what Jesus was saying. When Jesus came to the disciples he asked them, as a group, “Who do the people say I am?”. After they replied with several different answers, Jesus asked the group again, “Who do you say I am?”. Peter speaks first, not that the others couldn’t have given the same answer, and says “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Then Jesus says “You are blessed Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this Peter I will build my church, (speaking of Peter’s confession of faith) and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” This view seems to make a lot more sense to me personally, because it is backed up by other parts of the Bible, and no where in Paul’s or John’s letters is there anything alluding to the supremacy of Peter. Only seven verses later Jesus rebukes Peter and calls him Satan, and says that he is a stumbling block to Him. A belief and faith in Jesus is what the Church is built on, Jesus is the foundation, not Peter. However, if you believe that Jesus was giving the keys to heaven to Peter alone, and endowing Peter alone with the power to bind and loose things on earth and heaven, then I can understand how one could read the passage and believe that Jesus was reffering to Peter as “the Rock” that His Church would be built on. In no way am I trying to argue with you about your belief on this matter, and I’m not trying to prove that you or anyone else is wrong. I’m only sharing my point of view, so please don’t be offended or think that I’m trying attack your faith. I belong to the Catholiic Church, even though I do question some of the teachings. Like Paul says, we see but a poor reflection in a mirror, but when Perfection comes, then we will see perfectly. I find that to be a very profound statement.
I see your point but I am confused by the assumptions that you make.

I don’t think I’ve shown offense at your remarks or that you attacked my faith.

Peter alone is not the only one who can bind and loose, as Jesus gives this authority to the Apostles as a whole in Matthew 18.

Why do you think the “Satan” comment disqualifies Peter’s prominence? Jesus certainly knew Peter would say it and still gave him the authority.

How can Jesus mean “only” Peter’s confession. Grammatically, it doesn’t fit at all. Jesus would have said, “Your are Rock, and on the Rock of your Confession I will build My Church…”.

The Apostles are the foundation for the Church, with Jesus as the cornerstone. Does this take away from Jesus as the head of the Church? Why do people think that?

On a personal note, what does “Catholic Christian” mean? To me, its a redundant phrase. Are there any Catholics who aren’t Christians?
 
Hi NotWorthy,

Sorry, I guess that did sound a little presumptuous, but I just to make sure that that I wasn’t being offensive to you or Erikd. I haven’t read anything that would lead me to believe that you felt attacked. I was just trying to let you and Erikd know where I was coming from.

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!

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.”

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.****
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top