• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

What is the rock?

Carbon

Admin
Joined
May 19, 2023
Messages
6,246
Reaction score
5,926
Points
138
Location
New England
Faith
Reformed
Country
USA
Marital status
Married
Politics
Conservative
Matthew16
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, 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-Jonah! 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 gates of hell 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.” 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.
 
Matthew16
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, 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-Jonah! 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 gates of hell 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.” 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.
The "Rock" referred to in Matthew 16 has always been taken by Catholics to refer to three things:

1) Peter

2) Jesus

3) The confession of Peter. "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God..."

What is interesting is that the historical circumstances in which the ECF found themselves tended to influence what they identified as the Rock.

Prior to AD325, the ECF tended to identify the Rock as Peter. Post AD325, the ECF tended to identify the Rock with Christ and Peter's confession. Why would that be? The Church was defending against the Arian heresy. This heresy denied the full equality of Christ with God the Father. The heresy taught that Jesus was a created being who became the "adopted" Son of God. Jesus was seen as a demigod or demiurge.

Hence, the ECF in response to the heresy naturally emphasized the parts of the passage that deal with the identity of Jesus.

The context of the passage, as Protestants argue is the identity of Christ. This much is true--at least the first part of the passage when Jesus asks his disciples who He is. Peter responds and correctly identifies Christ. However, to make this passage solely about the identity of Christ totally ignores the second part of the passage where Jesus clearly states that he is going to build a Church. The part about Peter and the rock is a play on words. Jesus changes Simon's name to Peter (Kepha in Aramaic, Petros in Greek.) Names are important in the Bible. Names tell you something about the nature of the person. That Peter is named "Rock" says something about his identity in this Church that Jesus is founding.

In Aramaic, it would have been "You are Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my Church." In Greek it would be "You are Petros and on this Petra I will build my Church..." Because in Greek, Petros means unstable rock, small stone, or rolling stone, while Petra means solid rock, Protestants conclude that Jesus could not have been referring to Peter as the rock. However, I think Protestants in claiming this ignore the context of the part about the rock. Peter is named "rock" while the "upon this rock" is clearly an image. The two different Greek words "Petros" "Petra" are used to reflect the different ways they are being used. "Petros" being the new name for Peter--which has a masculine ending, "Petra" not referring to a literal rock, but is an image. If the Greek did not use the different terms, the statement would be translated: "You are Peter and upon this Peter, I will build my Church." That, of course, makes no sense. Hence "You are Petros (Peter) and upon this Petra (rock) I will build my Church."

In any case, Catholics have always seen "the Rock" as Christ, the Confession of Peter, and Peter himself." The three different ways "Rock" are seen is not mutually exclusive.
 
In any case, Catholics have always seen "the Rock" as Christ, the Confession of Peter, and Peter himself." The three different ways "Rock" are seen is not mutually exclusive.
Agreed. "the Rock" can be all three, but recent Protestant scholarship points to the grammar of Peter being the Rock as more correct.
 
Matthew16
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, 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-Jonah! 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 gates of hell 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.” 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.
1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
 
1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Ok, so you say when Jesus said that, he was speaking of himself?
 
The "Rock" referred to in Matthew 16 has always been taken by Catholics to refer to three things:

1) Peter

2) Jesus

3) The confession of Peter. "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God..."

What is interesting is that the historical circumstances in which the ECF found themselves tended to influence what they identified as the Rock.

Prior to AD325, the ECF tended to identify the Rock as Peter. Post AD325, the ECF tended to identify the Rock with Christ and Peter's confession. Why would that be? The Church was defending against the Arian heresy. This heresy denied the full equality of Christ with God the Father. The heresy taught that Jesus was a created being who became the "adopted" Son of God. Jesus was seen as a demigod or demiurge.

Hence, the ECF in response to the heresy naturally emphasized the parts of the passage that deal with the identity of Jesus.

The context of the passage, as Protestants argue is the identity of Christ. This much is true--at least the first part of the passage when Jesus asks his disciples who He is. Peter responds and correctly identifies Christ. However, to make this passage solely about the identity of Christ totally ignores the second part of the passage where Jesus clearly states that he is going to build a Church. The part about Peter and the rock is a play on words. Jesus changes Simon's name to Peter (Kepha in Aramaic, Petros in Greek.) Names are important in the Bible. Names tell you something about the nature of the person. That Peter is named "Rock" says something about his identity in this Church that Jesus is founding.

In Aramaic, it would have been "You are Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my Church." In Greek it would be "You are Petros and on this Petra I will build my Church..." Because in Greek, Petros means unstable rock, small stone, or rolling stone, while Petra means solid rock, Protestants conclude that Jesus could not have been referring to Peter as the rock. However, I think Protestants in claiming this ignore the context of the part about the rock. Peter is named "rock" while the "upon this rock" is clearly an image. The two different Greek words "Petros" "Petra" are used to reflect the different ways they are being used. "Petros" being the new name for Peter--which has a masculine ending, "Petra" not referring to a literal rock, but is an image. If the Greek did not use the different terms, the statement would be translated: "You are Peter and upon this Peter, I will build my Church." That, of course, makes no sense. Hence "You are Petros (Peter) and upon this Petra (rock) I will build my Church."

In any case, Catholics have always seen "the Rock" as Christ, the Confession of Peter, and Peter himself." The three different ways "Rock" are seen is not mutually exclusive.
Rock in the Old Testament scripture always refer to deity.

Bible Gateway search results rock = deity

Peter is hardly the rock that the gates of hell should not prevail against when this had happened afterwards.

Matthew 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

So Peter is not the rock that the church was built on.
 
Ok, so you say when Jesus said that, he was speaking of himself?
Jesus was adding to the witness of Peter's regarding what Peter had said about Himself.
 
Agreed. "the Rock" can be all three, but recent Protestant scholarship points to the grammar of Peter being the Rock as more correct.
John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Not a rock.
 
Ok, so you say when Jesus said that, he was speaking of himself?
I think I understand what you may be inferring here.

John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. 13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true. 14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go. 15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. 16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. 17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. 18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
And so Jesus was adding to the witness of Peter's regarding what Peter had said about Himself.

Matthew 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

It is not like He is rewarding Peter for saying that when it was the Father that led Peter to say that about Jesus. Jesus was adding to Peter's testimony from the Father.
 
Sorry Christb4us, your arguments are based on outdated 16th century politics. Recent Protestant scholars have taken a more dispassionate view of Matthew 16:18 and agree that the Catholic understanding of the grammar is correct. What that implies in the future remains to be seen. Peter's preeminence is not based on one verse, but a cumulative one as indicated all over the place in the NT.

Peter is the "Rock" in Matt. 16:18 just as Abraham is the "Rock" of Isaiah 50:1-2

W.F. Albright (Protestant) 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 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.”
(The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

Albert Barnes (Nineteenth-Century Presbyterian)
"The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion"
[Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].

John Broadus (Nineteenth-Century Calvinistic Baptist)
"As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession" [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].

Craig L. Blomberg (Baptist)
"The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification"
[New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].

J. Knox Chamblin (Contemporary Presbyterian)
"By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself"
["Matthew" in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].

R.T. France (Anglican)
“Jesus now sums up Peter's significance in a name, Peter . . . It describes not so much Peter's character (he did not prove to be 'rock-like' in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus' church. The feminine word for 'rock', 'petra', is necessarily changed to the masculine 'petros' (stone) to give a man's name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form 'kepha' would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the 'rock' here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. "The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied. . . Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus' new community . . . which will last forever.”
(Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985], vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)

William Hendriksen (Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary)
“The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.”
(New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973], page 647JPK page 14]

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 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)

Herman Ridderbos (Contemporary Dutch Reformed)
"It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter"
[Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].

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 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)

"'You are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my church.' Peter is here pictured as the foundation of the church." --M. Eugene Boring, "Matthew," in Pheme Perkins and others, eds., The New Interpreter's Bible, vol. 8, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), 345.

"Let it be observed that Jesus could not here mean himself by the rock, consistently with the image, because he is the builder. To say, 'I will build,' would be a very confused image. The suggestion of some expositors that in saying 'thou art Peter, and on this rock' he pointed at himself involves an artificiality which to some minds is repulsive." --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 356.


1685938318623.jpeg

continued...
 
Last edited:
"Another interpretation is that the word rock refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage." --Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament, Robert Fraw, ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 170.

"It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. 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." --David Hill, "The Gospel of Matthew," in Ronald E. Clements and Matthew Black, eds., The New Century Bible Commentary, (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 261.

"Some interpreters have therefore referred to Jesus as rock here, but the context is against this. Nor is it likely that Peter's faith or Peter's confession is meant. It is undoubtedly Peter himself who is to be the Rock, but Peter confessing, faithful and obedient." --D. Guthrie and others, The New Bible Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1953) [reprinted by Inter-Varsity Press], 837.

"There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that He was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words 'on this rock [petra]; indeed refer to Peter." --Herman N. Ridderbos, Bible Student's Commentary: Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 303.

"The word-play and the whole structure of the passage demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus' declaration about Peter as vs. 16 was Peter's declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter's confession that Jesus declares his role as the church's foundation, but it is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied." --R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 254.

"The frequent attempts that have been made, larely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock (e.g., most recently Caragounis) seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy." --Donald A. Hagner, "Matthew 14-28," in David A. Hubbard and others, eds., World Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 470.

4. The identity of the rock ("petra") is affirmed by the Aramaic that Jesus was speaking.

"The meaning is, 'You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter, I will build my church.' Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, 'And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.'" --William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition on the Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.

"'You are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church (mou ten ekklesian).' These words are spoken in Aramaic, in which Cephas stands both for Petros and petra." --Veselin Kesich, "Peter's Primacy in the New Testament and the Early Tradition," in John Meyendorff, ed., The Primacy of Peter, (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992), 47-48.

"In Aramaic 'Peter' and Rock are the same word; in Greek (here), they are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period." --Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90.

"The underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ('you are kepha' and 'on this kepha'), since the word was used both for a name and for a 'rock.' The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses." --Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

"'And upon this rock'--As 'Peter' and 'rock' are one word in the dialect familiarly spoken by our Lord--the Aramaic or Syro-Chaldaic, which was the mother tongue of the country--this exalted play upon the word can be fully seen only in languages which have one word for both. Even in the Greek it is imperfectly represented. in French, as Webster and Wilkinson remark, it is perfect, Pierre-pierre." --Robert Jamieson, Andrew Robert Fausset, and David Brown, One Volume Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Associated Publishers, n.d. [197?]), 47-48.

"The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John 1:42; comp. 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; Gal 2:9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun. Hence the old Syriac translation of the N.T. renders the passage in question thus: 'Anath-her Kipha, v' all hode Kipha.' The Arabic translation has alsachra in both cases. The proper translation then would be: 'Thou art Rock, and upon this rock,' etc." --John Peter Lange, trans. Philip Schaff, Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 293.

"But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, 'Thou are kipho, and on this kipho.' The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, 'Thou are kepha, and on this kepha.' (Comp. Buxtorf.) Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: 'Thou are Pierre, and on this pierre'; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, 'Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.'" --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355-356.

"Edersh. finds the words petros and petra borrowed in the late Rabbinical language, and things that Jesus, while speaking Aramaic, may have borrowed those Greek words here. But this is grossly improbable, and the suggestion looks like a desperate expedient; nor has he shown that the late Rabbis themselves make the supposed distinction between the two words." --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 356.

"Furthermore, the whole passage contains semitic structures. In Aramaic the word for both Peter's name and the rock would be identical, Kepha' . . . kepha'." --James B. Shelton, letter to the authors, 21 October 1994, 1, in Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and Rev. Mr. David Hess,Jesus, Peter, and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, (Goleta, CA: Queenship, 1996), 21.

"PETER (Gr. Petros). Simon Peter, the most prominent of Jesus' twelve disciples. Peter's original name was Simon (Aram. sim'on, represented in Greek by Simon and Symeon). Jesus gave him the Aramaic name kepha "rock" (Matt. 16:18); Luke 6:14 par.; John 1:42), which is in Greek both transliterated (Kephas; Eng. Cephas) and translated (Petros)." --Allen C. Myers, ed., The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 818.

"Rock (Aram. Kepha). This 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. On building on a rock, or from a rock, cf. Isa 51:1ff.; Matt 8:24f. Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community (cf. I will build). Jesus, not quoting the OT, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose." --W. F. Albright, and C. S. Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), 195.

"On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and Petros: petra = kepha = Petros." --Gerhard Friedrich, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed.,Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 6, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 98-99.

"The play on words in [Mat 16] verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage." --Suzanne de Dietrich, The Layman's Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16, trans. Donald G. Miller, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), 93.

The standard reply to all this is: "I don't go by scholars and reference manuals, I have a Bible and the Holy Spirit."

View attachment 28
 
Last edited:
Why establish an office (Peter, in effect, was made the prime minister of the Church by Jesus, as the exegesis of the “keys of the kingdom” establishes, with much Protestant exegetical support), only to have it cease with the death of Peter? That makes no sense. The very nature of an office is to be carried on; to have a succession. One doesn’t start a business, e.g., with a president, and then after the first president dies, the office ceases to exist and everyone is on their own. His former office is made into a lounge . . .

We’re told that “the Bible doesn’t mention Roman bishops at all.” So what? It doesn’t mention the canon or sola Scriptura at all, either. But it certainly does mention bishops and mentions distinct churches. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to put two and two together.

The case for the papacy is a cumulative argument. As such, showing that the consensus today is that Peter was the Rock is one aspect of that. It isn’t the whole ball of wax. We also show what was meant by having the keys of the kingdom, etc. We support our positions one-by-one and then conclude that the evidence is strong. It is irrelevant whether the scholars cited accept the papacy or not. If anything, they are important as “witnesses” for our biblical “case” precisely because they are ultimately “hostile” witnesses, who cannot be accused of Catholic bias.

The main things, far and away, were Jesus’ own words to Peter. That’s where the whole notion originated. It didn’t come from nowhere, or “vain Romish imaginings and wishful thinking.” And that’s a pretty good place to start (with our Lord and Savior Jesus). Once one admits that Peter was the leader of the apostles, then that is perfectly consistent with our argument that this is an indication that he would be the leader of the Church Universal.
read more here
 
Rock in the Old Testament scripture always refer to deity.
Which is why it is so telling that Jesus names Peter "Petros" "Rock." The term "Rock" is not only being applied to a human being, but Jesus is naming said human being "Rock."
Peter is hardly the rock that the gates of hell should not prevail against when this had happened afterwards.
In and of himself, of course he is hardly the Rock that the gates of Hell should not prevail against!

Peter isn't the "Rock" becasue of anything inherent in himself, but becasue Jesus names him "Rock" and will give him the graces necessary to fulfill that mission. Peter is "Rock" precisely becasue Jesus is Rock.
Matthew 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

So Peter is not the rock that the church was built on.
Yeah--I have never understood why Protestants think this is an argument for anything. For starters, this episode happens prior to Pentecost. The Holy Spirit had not yet come upon the Church and the apostles to give them the gift of understanding. Peter does not become "Rock" until Pentecost when the Church is born. Peter's ministry doesn't start until Christ ascends and sends the Holy Spirit. If you look at Peter's ministry after Pentecost, you can clearly see a change that took place in him. Granted, he still has imperfections, but he is clearly changed.
 
Why establish an office (Peter, in effect, was made the prime minister of the Church by Jesus, as the exegesis of the “keys of the kingdom” establishes, with much Protestant exegetical support), only to have it cease with the death of Peter? That makes no sense. The very nature of an office is to be carried on; to have a succession. One doesn’t start a business, e.g., with a president, and then after the first president dies, the office ceases to exist and everyone is on their own. His former office is made into a lounge . . .

We’re told that “the Bible doesn’t mention Roman bishops at all.” So what? It doesn’t mention the canon or sola Scriptura at all, either. But it certainly does mention bishops and mentions distinct churches. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to put two and two together.

The case for the papacy is a cumulative argument. As such, showing that the consensus today is that Peter was the Rock is one aspect of that. It isn’t the whole ball of wax. We also show what was meant by having the keys of the kingdom, etc. We support our positions one-by-one and then conclude that the evidence is strong. It is irrelevant whether the scholars cited accept the papacy or not. If anything, they are important as “witnesses” for our biblical “case” precisely because they are ultimately “hostile” witnesses, who cannot be accused of Catholic bias.

The main things, far and away, were Jesus’ own words to Peter. That’s where the whole notion originated. It didn’t come from nowhere, or “vain Romish imaginings and wishful thinking.” And that’s a pretty good place to start (with our Lord and Savior Jesus). Once one admits that Peter was the leader of the apostles, then that is perfectly consistent with our argument that this is an indication that he would be the leader of the Church Universal.
read more here
Indeed. The support for the papacy hardly stands or falls with Matthew 16:18. Indeed, it is a cumulative argument. Protestants make the mistake of isolating Matthew 16:18 from everything else and thinking this is the only verse that can be produced to prove a papacy.
 
Which is why it is so telling that Jesus names Peter "Petros" "Rock." The term "Rock" is not only being applied to a human being, but Jesus is naming said human being "Rock."
John 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
In and of himself, of course he is hardly the Rock that the gates of Hell should not prevail against!
Then Peter's name is not the rock after all.
Peter isn't the "Rock" becasue of anything inherent in himself, but becasue Jesus names him "Rock" and will give him the graces necessary to fulfill that mission. Peter is "Rock" precisely becasue Jesus is Rock.
But you just said Peter is not that rock that the church was built on that the gates of hell shall not prevail against. So you have to look at what Peter had said ( which was not really from Peter but from the Father ) for how and why Jesus was referring to Himself as that rock that the church is built upon that the gates of hell would not prevail against.

Revelation 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

See?

Yeah--I have never understood why Protestants think this is an argument for anything. For starters, this episode happens prior to Pentecost. The Holy Spirit had not yet come upon the Church and the apostles to give them the gift of understanding. Peter does not become "Rock" until Pentecost when the Church is born. Peter's ministry doesn't start until Christ ascends and sends the Holy Spirit. If you look at Peter's ministry after Pentecost, you can clearly see a change that took place in him. Granted, he still has imperfections, but he is clearly changed.
Peter and His disciples, including Judas Iscariot, had a temporary indwelling of the Holy Ghost when He had sent them out to preach the kingdom of heaven to the cities of Israel in Matthew 10th Chapter.

Jesus just said that what Peter had said was from the Father and so short while later, Satan was in Peter to be rebuked out of.

Then after His resurrection per John 20:22, He did give another temporary indwelling of the Holy Ghost to His disciples, except for Thomas because he was not there.

But I agree with you that at Pentecost, when Jesus was no longer present with them and had gone to the Father above, the Father had sent the promise of the Holy Spirit to the believers at Pentecost for when His remaining disciples were actually saved.
 
So you think 'rock' in scripture can have only one meaning?
For Who Jesus was talking about where the gates of hell shall not prevail against, expounding on Peter's witness of him from the Father?

Matthew16
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, 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-Jonah! 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 gates of hell 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.” 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

Revelation 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Yes. Only that meaning for the rightly dividing of the word of truth in scripture.
 
Sorry Christb4us, your arguments are based on outdated 16th century politics. Recent Protestant scholars have taken a more dispassionate view of Matthew 16:18 and agree that the Catholic understanding of the grammar is correct.
But not according to actual scripture, brother, which predates 16th century and modern day tainted education when applying it according to church's teachings rather than actual scripture.
 
John 1:41 "He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone."
Not all translations of Scripture agree. Some have it rendered "You will be called Cephas, which when translated is Peter."
Then Peter's name is not the rock after all.

But you just said Peter is not that rock that the church was built on that the gates of hell shall not prevail against. So you have to look at what Peter had said ( which was not really from Peter but from the Father ) for how and why Jesus was referring to Himself as that rock that the church is built upon that the gates of hell would not prevail against.

Revelation 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

See?
No, I do not "see" at all. Jesus clearly tells Peter that he will give him the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

You think Jesus only has one copy of those keys or something--that if he gives them to Peter, he no longer has them? Peter is analogous to the "Prime Minister." He does not bind and loose or use the keys independently from Christ. I don't understand what is so difficult to understand here or why you insist on making this more complicated than it is.

Ultimately, Jesus is everything. Anything anyone in the Church is, they are only so becasue of Jesus. So of course Jesus, in the ultimate sense is the Rock. Peter's "rockiness" comes from that of Christ.

Peter and His disciples, including Judas Iscariot, had a temporary indwelling of the Holy Ghost when He had sent them out to preach the kingdom of heaven to the cities of Israel in Matthew 10th Chapter.
So?
Jesus just said that what Peter had said was from the Father and so short while later, Satan was in Peter to be rebuked out of.
Again, I do not see why this is an argument for anything.
Then after His resurrection per John 20:22, He did give another temporary indwelling of the Holy Ghost to His disciples, except for Thomas because he was not there.

But I agree with you that at Pentecost, when Jesus was no longer present with them and had gone to the Father above, the Father had sent the promise of the Holy Spirit to the believers at Pentecost for when His remaining disciples were actually saved.
The Spirit was given to the apostles at different times for different purposes. On Pentecost, they received the fullness of the Spirit. It was then, that Peter assumed his leadership role in the Church.
 
But not according to actual scripture, brother, which predates 16th century and modern day tainted education when applying it according to church's teachings rather than actual scripture.
Modern day tainted education? Your private opinion of "actual scripture" trumps a long list of PROTESTANT scholars and reference manuals using "actual scripture"?? That makes no sense. The only authority you accept is your own, a biproduct of "sola scriptura", an unworkable, unhistorical self defeating man made tradition invented by Martin Luther, who was mentally ill and angry with the Pope. If you want to defend "Bible alone" theology, (which has no defense), start another thread. The topic is Peter the Rock, not your 'infallible' opinions that rules out scholarship.

"actual scripture" clearly indicates Peter as leader of the Apostles. Once that is established, using "actual scripture", then Peter as leader of the Universal Church naturally follows.

Matt. 17:24-25 – the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus’ tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Matt. 17:26-27 – Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ’s representative on earth.

Matt. 18:21 – in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus’ teachings.

Matt. 19:27 – Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 10:28 – here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 11:21 – Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus’ curse on the fig tree.

Mark 14:37 – at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

Mark 16:7 – Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.

Luke 5:4,10 – Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the “fisher of men.”

Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-à-vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him.

Luke 8:45 – when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.

Luke 9:28;33 – Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

Luke 12:41 – Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter’s formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.

Luke 22:31-32 – Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 – John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first. (you have no idea why)

John 21:15 – in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus “more than these,” which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.

John 21:15-17 – Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

Acts 1:13 – Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord’s ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.

Acts 1:15 – Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn’t it need one to Peter? Of course.

Acts 2:14 – Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.

Acts 2:38 – Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 5:3 – Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.

Acts 5:15 – Peter’s shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.

1 Peter 5:1 – Peter acts as the chief bishop by “exhorting” all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

2 Peter 3:16 – Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul’s letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.

The onus is on you to prove, with scripture alone, that Peter is NOT leader of the Apostles. Good luck with that.
 
Back
Top