Peter the Rock

[Augustine3]

In the midst of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants regarding the interpretation Matthew 16:18, I’m wondering how do Protestants interpret the name change from Simon to Peter?

We all know the significant name changes of Abram and Jacob and along with their name change came a significant change to their identity and role…

 

[Della]

Some seem to think that the word “rock” here means “pebble” not “rock” because it is the feminine not masculine usage of the word–at least that’s how it was taught to me when I was in the Assemblies of God. IOW, since only God can be called the rock of our faith, as they see it, Peter cannot be the rock on which Christ built his Church but only one among many to whom Christ gave the power to spread the Gospel. They interpret this verse to mean that Jesus built his Church–the invisible “church” of all believers, as they call it, on faith and not on Peter at all. This last interpretation is a real stretch, defying the words as plainly written, but they support it by saying that since Jesus never intended there to be a papacy, this is what he must have meant.

 

[Slowride]

In the midst of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants regarding the interpretation Matthew 16:18, I’m wondering how do Protestants interpret the name change from Simon to Peter?

We all know the significant name changes of Abram and Jacob and along with their name change came a significant change to their identity and role…

Ha! Funny you should ask. When I was attending Liberty University (Jerry Falwell’s school) to become a pastor, the skipped right over these types of topics to push their own agenda.

This is one reason why I left while only a few classes left to complete my BS. I was making straight A’s, and when we got to the book of Revelation, I began to disagree and received my only grade under an A, a D- . lol It was the best paper I ever wrote, but since it challenged their theology, they squashed my grade! LOL

 

[Slowride]

Some seem to think that the word “rock” here means “pebble” not “rock” because it is the feminine not masculine usage of the word–at least that’s how it was taught to me when I was in the Assemblies of God. IOW, since only God can be called the rock of our faith, as they see it, Peter cannot be the rock on which Christ built his Church but only one among many to whom Christ gave the power to spread the Gospel. They interpret this verse to mean that Jesus built his Church–the invisible “church” of all believers, as they call it, on faith and not on Peter at all. This last interpretation is a real stretch, defying the words as plainly written, but they support it by saying that since Jesus never intended there to be a papacy, this is what he must have meant.

Yes, they do teach what they believe is the correct interpretaion of the word. But never have I heard them speak of the name change with any substance.

 

[Slowride]

I am tired of theology. Great queston though. It is one where Catholics should be able to answer to defend the faith.

 

[SaintPatrick333]

Ha! Funny you should ask. When I was attending Liberty University (Jerry Falwell’s school) to become a pastor, the skipped right over these types of topics to push their own agenda.

This is one reason why I left while only a few classes left to complete my BS. I was making straight A’s, and when we got to the book of Revelation, I began to disagree and received my only grade under an A, a D- . lol It was the best paper I ever wrote, but since it challenged their theology, they squashed my grade! LOL

you disrupted the prottie pride parade. Props to you!

 

[fredystairs]

Some seem to think that the word “rock” here means “pebble” not “rock” because it is the feminine not masculine usage of the word–at least that’s how it was taught to me when I was in the Assemblies of God. IOW, since only God can be called the rock of our faith, as they see it, Peter cannot be the rock on which Christ built his Church but only one among many to whom Christ gave the power to spread the Gospel. They interpret this verse to mean that Jesus built his Church–the invisible “church” of all believers, as they call it, on faith and not on Peter at all. This last interpretation is a real stretch, defying the words as plainly written, but they support it by saying that since Jesus never intended there to be a papacy, this is what he must have meant.

Part of the problem with using “pebble” in the Greek is that Jesus did not speak Greek – he spoke Aramaic. In Aramaic, the word is “Cephas” which is sometimes used in the New Testament. There is no abiguity in the original language, only in the translation. The “Rock” that Jesus built his Church upon is Peter.
There is a great tract that explains this more thoroughly

catholic.com/tracts/peter-the-rock

there is also a video that explains this passage gramattically:

catholic.com/video/is-peter-the-rock-in-matthew-1618

 

[Della]

Part of the problem with using “pebble” in the Greek is that Jesus did not speak Greek – he spoke Aramaic. In Aramaic, the word is “Cephas” which is sometimes used in the New Testament. There is no abiguity in the original language, only in the translation. The “Rock” that Jesus built his Church upon is Peter.
There is a great tract that explains this more thoroughly

catholic.com/tracts/peter-the-rock

there is also a video that explains this passage gramattically:

catholic.com/video/is-peter-the-rock-in-matthew-1618

Trust me, I’m with you on this. I was simply relaying what I was told when I was a member of the Assemblies of God many years ago.

 

[fredystairs]

Trust me, I’m with you on this. I was simply relaying what I was told when I was a member of the Assemblies of God many years ago.

I understand.

 

[JonNC]

you disrupted the prottie pride parade. Props to you!

What is a prottie pride parade?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

In the midst of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants regarding the interpretation Matthew 16:18, I’m wondering how do Protestants interpret the name change from Simon to Peter?

We all know the significant name changes of Abram and Jacob and along with their name change came a significant change to their identity and role…

From the Lutheran Confessions, the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope.

However, as to the declaration: Upon this rock I will build My Church, certainly the Church has not been built upon the authority of man, but upon the ministry of the confession which Peter made, in which he proclaims that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He accordingly addresses him as a minister: Upon this rock, i.e., upon this ministry. [Therefore he addresses him as a minister of this office in which this confession and doctrine is to be in operation and says: Upon this rock, i.e., this preaching and ministry.]

26] Furthermore, the ministry of the New Testament is not bound to places and persons as the Levitical ministry, but it is dispersed throughout the whole world, and is there where God gives His gifts, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers; neither does this ministry avail on account of the authority of any person, but on account of the Word given by Christ. 27] [Nor does the person of a teacher add anything to this word and office; it matters not who is preaching and teaching it; if there are hearts who receive and cling to it, to them it is done as they hear and believe.] And in this way, not as referring to the person of Peter, most of the holy Fathers, as Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, 28] Hilary, and Bede, interpret this passage: Upon this rock. Chrysostom says thus: “Upon this rock,” not upon Peter. For He built His Church not upon man, but upon the faith of Peter. But what was his faith? “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Hilary says: To Peter the Father revealed that he should say, “Thou art the Son of the living God.” 29] Therefore the building of the Church is upon this rock of confession; this faith is the foundation of the Church.

Jon

 

[jonathan_hili]

In the midst of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants regarding the interpretation Matthew 16:18, I’m wondering how do Protestants interpret the name change from Simon to Peter?

We all know the significant name changes of Abram and Jacob and along with their name change came a significant change to their identity and role…

I’d also suggest a parallel in Matthew’s Gospel with Matt 7:24-25:

“Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.”

An interesting expression is used here: “the rock”, not just “a rock”. Even though there could be a reference to the Temple as well, I suspect this is a foreshadowing of naming Peter “the rock” upon whom Jesus builds his house. And if there was ever a wise man, it was Jesus!

 

[jonathan_hili]

As an aside, one thing I’ve noticed about the way Protestants interpret passages like Matthew 16, Matthew 25 or John 6 is that they have to do exegetical gymnastics so that the outcome of their interpretation resembles nothing like what’s originally in the verse. And they don’t see the obvious problem here: if their interpretation is correct, nobody but a Protestant biblical scholar would have been able to understand it correctly, since Jesus is so unclear. I mean, in John 6 he sounds like he’s talking about his body but really he’s not; in Matthew 25 it sounds like he’s talking about works that contribute to salvation but really he’s not; and in Matthew 16, it sure sounds like he’s talking about founding the Church on Peter, but really he’s not.

Man, Jesus wasn’t that great a teacher after all!

 

[JonNC]

As an aside, one thing I’ve noticed about the way Protestants interpret passages like Matthew 16, Matthew 25 or John 6 is that they have to do exegetical gymnastics so that the outcome of their interpretation resembles nothing like what’s originally in the verse. And they don’t see the obvious problem here: if their interpretation is correct, nobody but a Protestant biblical scholar would have been able to understand it correctly, since Jesus is so unclear. I mean, in John 6 he sounds like he’s talking about his body but really he’s not; in Matthew 25 it sounds like he’s talking about works that contribute to salvation but really he’s not; and in Matthew 16, it sure sounds like he’s talking about founding the Church on Peter, but really he’s not.

Man, Jesus wasn’t that great a teacher after all!

For a protestant to say the Peter the man is irrelevent to Matt 16:18 would be theological gymnastics. For a protestant to say that John 6 doesn’t at least in some way predict the Eucharist is also gymnastics. For a protestant to say that works have no value, or are not necessary in the godly life would be theological gymnastics.
All true.
To say that Matthew 16:18 is evidence for universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the Bishop of Rome is, too, theological gymnastics.

Jon

 

[jonathan_hili]

For a protestant to say the Peter the man is irrelevent to Matt 16:18 would be theological gymnastics. For a protestant to say that John 6 doesn’t at least in some way predict the Eucharist is also gymnastics. For a protestant to say that works have no value, or are not necessary in the godly life would be theological gymnastics.
All true.
To say that Matthew 16:18 is evidence for universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the Bishop of Rome is, too, theological gymnastics.

Jon

I agree, John. As far as I can see, Matthew 16:18 can only say so much:

• Jesus founded a Church (an actual institution) on Peter, who is its head;
• Peter is given special authority as its head to bind and loose (however that may be interpreted);
• this authority is official, that is, it belongs to his office, because of the parallel with Isaiah 22; and
• this office is continuous, that is, it is not supposed to end with Peter (again, the parallel with Isaiah 22, also because Jesus set up a Church that would continue to exist beyond Peter’s earthly life).

Now, it could be argued - not using this text but further information, such as from Church history - that Peter passed his office on to another by the laying on of hands. As for universal jurisdiction, I don’t think that comes directly from this text. Perhaps a cumulative case could be made, I’m not sure.

 

[JonNC]

=jonathan_hili;10447377]I agree, John. As far as I can see, Matthew 16:18 can only say so much:

Hi Jonathan,
With some caveats.

• Jesus founded a Church (an actual institution) on Peter, who is its head;

Jesus is its head, but Peter held a special place of leadership.

• Peter is given special authority as its head to bind and loose (however that may be interpreted);

That special authority belongs to the Church

• this authority is official, that is, it belongs to his office, because of the parallel with Isaiah 22; and

But is not exclusively his office.

• this office is continuous, that is, it is not supposed to end with Peter (again, the parallel with Isaiah 22, also because Jesus set up a Church that would continue to exist beyond Peter’s earthly life).

Agreed.

Now, it could be argued - not using this text but further information, such as from Church history - that Peter passed his office on to another by the laying on of hands. As for universal jurisdiction, I don’t think that comes directly from this text. Perhaps a cumulative case could be made, I’m not sure.

We’ll see what others say.

Jon

 

[Della]

It is mostly our non-liturgical brethren who argue against any form of leadership role for Peter because they claim they do not embrace any form of hierarchy. Of course, they do have a hierarchy, it just isn’t bishops, priests, and deacons.

So, understanding that helps us understand why they must reject and reinterpret some passages to fit the way they wish to worship/who or more properly, what they will accept as their ultimate authority in matters of faith and morals. In most cases, it’s their local pastor and in some more radical cases it’s each individual alone with his Bible–which ever version he prefers.

The Church does not “base” the papacy on this verse or any other, but on the whole of Sacred Tradition. SC does not exist, and indeed is not even known about in some Christian circles. I’d never heard of it until I became a Catholic and I’d been raised Episcopalian until I was about 15 years old. Of course, I only learned the most basic traditional teachings and so that’s not all that surprising. But, in some Christian bodies there is never any mention of SC nor do the people in their congregations have any idea what it is, having never heard of it. So, again, it’s not surprising that, when they are told the Bible is the supreme authority they have no historical context into which to put that statement thus they do not heistate to say, “Amen.”

Trying to get people who have been told all their lives that “their” Bible is all they need that there is more to the picture than that, is extremely hard. They’ve invested so much of their spiritual and emotional lives into believing that they cannot see how it could be any other way.

So, simply arguing semantics does little good. Nor does cherry picking Bible verse–they’re often better at doing that than most Catholics because they do it all the time. The subject has to be approached from where they are on an individual basis. Although it may be useful, if they are open to it, to give them some good apologetical material.

 

[Augustine3]

I have another question for my Protestant friends.

What are the “keys of the kingdom of Heaven” given to St Peter and why only St Peter?

 

[jonathan_hili]

Okay, Jon, I agree with some points:

Jesus is its head, but Peter held a special place of leadership.

You’re right - I worded it badly.

That special authority belongs to the Church.

I agree with you here, again, but only if you then say Peter and his office would have a special special authority

But is not exclusively his office.

This I’m less in agreement about. Yes, Jesus gives authority to bind and loose later in the Gospel to the other apostles too, but here he specifically gives Peter the keys. If, as a parallel to Isaiah 22, Jesus is establishing Peter as a kind of prime minister and high priest (I can explain what I mean by this, if you want), then this office is somehow different from the general authority given to the apostles.

 

[Shamati]

This is a point in which I am in a somewhat disagreement with the catholic church.
It is clear to me that the scriptures does grant some kind of special standing to Peter.
But I don’t see why that must have the implications that Rome alone must be the sole authority within the church of Christ. The Bible doesnt say that the city in which Peter will die is the sole heir to the highest authority within the church of Christ.
St. Peter was also the first Patriarch of Antioch and served as bishop there for 7 years. Because of this the Orthodox churches hold they are in communion with the successor of St. Peter.

But lets say that the Roman Bishop is the rightful heir to the position held by St. Peter in the early church. St. Peter was held to be the “First among equals”. This expression implies that decisions in matters of dogma and faith was to be worked out between hierarchs in communion as equals with the final say in case of conflict or controversies given to the Bishop of Rome.

So the Orthodox Church I believe is actually further away from union with the catholic church than is most protestant denominations. The dogmatic development of the western catholic church (who is also apparent in protestantism) has gone int a separate direction from the Orthodox church who has not made any new dogmas but instead developed a spirituality around the existing dogmas from the 7 ecumenical councils. The biggest difference that has most ramifications to my mind is the doctrine of original sin. The catholic position on original sin is also present within protestantism (inherently sinful humanity) and I see the doctrine of Marys immaculate conception as a logical consequence of this position. So the orthodox church will never submit to this view of original sin (and therefore lack the need to define a dogma on Marys conception) while the catholic church has to hold that the developments of new dogmas is a natural development of the already recieved dogmas who have only been understood more deeply and can not “return” to a position more in line with the 7 ecumenical concils and the orthodox. This would not be possible because catholic believe the Pope to be infalliable when stating a new Dogma and that the church is protected from teaching error.