Was Peter thr Rock that the Church was built upon?

[quote name='Miss Hepburn;74782][B][COLOR=Purple]I thought I was the only one that saw that! I also didn't think anyone on a forum had the guts to say it. It's so not mainstream.If I may' date='and I will do my best, someone taught/shared with me another perspective.To look at the scene - foot of Mt. Herman -where so much debauchery and orgies happened around the clock -and were happening as Peter was speaking with Jesus at their encampment -as Peter did not judge or fingerpoint any of his pornographic surroundings, but focused only on Jesus and His understanding of who He was and that "this" - this "faith and lack of distraction and lack of fingerpointing and focus on Jesus and trust in His revelation from the Father"...all of these combined was what Jesus meant by the rock. I thought it was more than cool.But, certainly, not the man, the person of Peter.But it's a tough one - and each will believe what they will.Common denominator is belief and love of Jesus, we all know that. Confusion is not what God's about...that's the other guy's devious trick - he wasn't a snake for nothing!Being a Catholic once - it would be impossible for me [I']personally[/I] to follow what a man says or a Tribunal or Counsel of Elders or Bishops, Protestant or Catholics-and it is too changeable for my taste. Baptist or Anglican.But, it fits like a glove for some to trust others.Whatever floats your boat. Red dress or blue dress as long as you go to the party. [/B][/COLOR][/QUOTE]Hi Miss Hepburn,You will find that I am not mainstream. I have studied the early church and found that much of what is taught today is wrong. The Christianity of today is not very much like The Christianity of the 1st century. Also, I am not so sure about the description you gave about what was going on around Peter, the pornographic stuff, I suspect the may be a little excessive.

Peter and the Papacy

There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

Peter the Rock

Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that—aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2—in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35: 8 , and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.

Look at the scene

Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).

The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name, while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges.

Promises to Peter

When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).

Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.

Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).

Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me more than these?" (John 21:15), the word "these" referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.

Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.

Who is the rock?

Now take a closer look at the key verse: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). Disputes about this passage have always been related to the meaning of the term "rock." To whom, or to what, does it refer? Since Simon’s new name of Peter itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: "You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church." The play on words seems obvious, but commentators wishing to avoid what follows from this—namely the establishment of the papacy—have suggested that the word rock could not refer to Peter but must refer to his profession of faith or to Christ.

From the grammatical point of view, the phrase "this rock" must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God") is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.

As an analogy, consider this artificial sentence: "I have a car and a truck, and it is blue." Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun "it." This is all the more clear if the reference to the car is two sentences earlier, as the reference to Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the term rock.

Another alternative

The previous argument also settles the question of whether the word refers to Christ himself, since he is mentioned within the profession of faith. The fact that he is elsewhere, by a different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4-8) does not disprove that here Peter is the foundation. Christ is naturally the principal and, since he will be returning to heaven, the invisible foundation of the Church that he will establish; but Peter is named by him as the secondary and, because he and his successors will remain on earth, the visible foundation. Peter can be a foundation only because Christ is the cornerstone.

In fact, the New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:14). One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages. Rather, one must respect and harmonize the different passages, for the Church can be described as having different foundations since the word foundation can be used in different senses.

Look at the Aramaic


Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while "rock" is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas"). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of "small stone" and "large rock" in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).

Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church."

Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, "and the Rock was Christ" though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from "Rock . . . rock."

If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.

The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.

source: http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp

While Peter is certainly seen to be primus inter pares among the apostles, along with James and John, he didn't always take the lead. The Jerusalem council is a good example of this where James presides.

Peter isn't the rock in Matthew 16 either. The use of the demonstrative pronoun ταύτη (this) in "this rock" points away from Peter to something else. Jesus addressed Peter directly as the Greek text clearly indicates. Since when is it a legitimate use of language to look someone in the eye, address them directly, and refer to them as "this?"

The other problem here is your comment that the phrase "this rock" must relate back to the closest noun. This is simply incorrect. With demonstrative pronouns the antecedent is not always the closest noun. See below. Don't miss the bold underlined type.

B. Demonstrative Pronouns

2. Functions

a. Regular Use (As Demonstratives)

The near-far distinctions of οὗτος and ἐκεῖνος can refer either to that which is near/far in the (1) context, (2) in the writer's mind, or (3) in space or time of the writer or audience. Sometimes these realms are in conflict: What might be the nearest antecedent contextually might not be the nearest antecedent in the author's mind, etc.

Daniel Wallace—Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics, pp.325-326

Click to expand...

Food for thought:

“In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep (Jn 21:15-19), down to the present episcopate.

“And so, lastly, does the very name of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.

“Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should…With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me… No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion…For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”


“ It is to Peter himself that He says, ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.’ Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but life eternal.”
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition”.

St. Irenaeus (disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John)
(Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).



It seems that the very first Christian leaders in the Church had a very different idea regarding the Church and St. Peter. Please note also that the quotes above are from Church leaders in the Eastern Church, (except Augustine) which would be known as "Eastern Orthodox" today, so you cannot claim that they are prejudiced apologists from Rome.

Let me ask you this: If we do not have a leader over the Church on earth, then how do we administer discipline, elect subordinate leaders, shepherd the Church in moral and doctrinal areas, and make statements which are binding upon all Christians for the good of their souls and their salvation? How can a body on earth without a head be led?

No organization, whether it be military, business, or spiritual, can run without a leader. How then would Christ leave His Church without leadership after His Ascension?

"... No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion…For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
- St. Augustine (AD 354-430 )
AD 397

Click to expand...

You know, I'll bet the Catholic Church was pretty different back then.
Every quote must be taken in context of the times.
I could not apply the feelings of St Augustine to myself in the 21st c.
regarding the Catholic Church.
Can't debate this - them's just my feelings.

Miss Hepburn

Miss Hepburn said:

Every quote must be taken in context of the times.

Miss Hepburn

Click to expand...

I agree, "Catholic" in the modern sense of it, can only be used since the time Luther and onwards

Absolutely NOT! Peter was NOT the foundation upon which Christ built His church. Christ HIMSELF was and is that Rock and foundation. He would not build His church on a sinful and fallible man when He could build it upon himself--sinless, perfect. and infallible.

Miss Hepburn said:

Hi Jon-marc, et al,

You know? I just don't know ---I am small enough to know -I was not there -did Jesus
touch His chest and say ,"Upon THIS rock I build my church." ?

Or was He indeed talking directly to Peter - the rock.
I ...do....not... know...... -I just do not!!!
I was not there in that moment.


Now, does it matter or do I simply do the best I can?
Do not judge, be humble and care about what I DO know.
Yes.
Miss Hepburn

Click to expand...

You need not see Christ touch His chest, you only need to know your Rocks!

Miss Hepburn said:

You know, I'll bet the Catholic Church was pretty different back then.
Every quote must be taken in context of the times.
I could not apply the feelings of St Augustine to myself in the 21st c.
regarding the Catholic Church.
Can't debate this - them's just my feelings.

Miss Hepburn

Click to expand...

Since the doctrines were the same (i.e., the Seven Sacraments, which is what constitutes the Church) then how might you think it to be so different?

IrishEddieOHara said:

Since the doctrines were the same (i.e., the Seven Sacraments, which is what constitutes the Church) then how might you think it to be so different?

Click to expand...

Well we would need to speak about the differences between sacrament and sacramental. But beyond that, as you well know, the Roman Catholic doctrines include a bit more than just the sacraments, and some of those were not declared dogma until the first Vatican council.

IrishEddieOHara said:

Since the doctrines were the same (i.e., the Seven Sacraments, which is what constitutes the Church) then how might you think it to be so different?

Click to expand...

Well, remember I said I can't debate this?

All I can say - is the 300s were different for one reason because it was before... in the name of the Catholic Church,
innocent men, women and children were brutally massacred in their villages...for simply having different beliefs.
The 300s was a simpler time, probably.

I can only sit back and learn from any further discussion.
I don't know enough about this subject to offer much.

I also did not know the 7 Sacraments = the Church.

Miss Hepburn said:

Well, remember I said I can't debate this?

All I can say - is the 300s were different for one reason because it was before... in the name of the Catholic Church, innocent men, women and children were brutally massacred in their villages...for simply having different beliefs. The 300s was a simpler time, probably.

I can only sit back and learn from any further discussion.
I don't know enough about this subject to offer much.

I also did not know the 7 Sacraments = the Church.

Click to expand...

The 7 Sacraments are what are the foundation of the Church. Most of the folks I have discussed the Catholic Faith with agree on that point. Some of the other doctrines are a little more flexible. For instance, I am Greek Catholic and we do not accept the concept of Purgatory as taught in the Latin Catholic rite. We also have a different view of the afterlife. Yet we are fully Catholic, and what makes us so is the Sacraments.

The Sacraments are simply this: Christ entering the Church to bless and grace His people. He is in them and through them we are blessed.

kestrel said:

Well we would need to speak about the differences between sacrament and sacramental. But beyond that, as you well know, the Roman Catholic doctrines include a bit more than just the sacraments, and some of those were not declared dogma until the first Vatican council.

Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, the one dogma that was made to be infallibly a part of Church teaching at Vatican I was that of "papal infallibility." (Or was it the Assumption....dern, I always get the two mixed up!!!)

IrishEddieOHara said:

It seems that the very first Christian leaders in the Church had a very different idea regarding the Church and St. Peter.

Click to expand...

Yes, they did and they were far from unanimous on Matthew 16. Your few quotations are for too simplistic. Provided below are two links to a lengthy study by William Webster demonstrating that Rome's claims with regard to Peter are incorrect.

http://www.christian...athersmt16.html

http://www.the-highw...18_Webster.html

I've already addressed the problem surrounding Jesus' use of the demonstrative pronoun "tautay" to refer to Peter in Matthew 16, so I won't go into it again. I'll simpy provide a link.

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/11340-was-peter-thr-rock-that-the-church-was-built-upon/page__view__findpost__p__75426

Miss Hepburn said:

Hi Jon-marc, et al,

You know? I just don't know ---I am small enough to know -I was not there -did Jesus
touch His chest and say ,"Upon THIS rock I build my church." ?

Miss Hepburn

Click to expand...

I have no idea if He touched His chest, but He did say, "Upon this rock." He did NOT say, "Upon you, Peter." Christ is the Rock,
1 Cor. 10:4. The name Peter means "small stone"--not rock. 1 Cor. 10:4

Jesus did not give the keys to the Kingdom to a statement. He gave them to a person -- Simon Peter.

In John 17, Jesus prayed for unity among believers. 33,000 different denominations with hundreds of different teachings is not the unity that Jesus prayed for, and it is not the Catholics who are disrupting the unity of the Church and creating such a bad witness of Christianity.

How do you justify the thousands of individual denominations when Jesus prayed for there to be one Church?

IrishEddieOHara said:

Jesus did not give the keys to the Kingdom to a statement. He gave them to a person -- Simon Peter.

In John 17, Jesus prayed for unity among believers. 33,000 different denominations with hundreds of different teachings is not the unity that Jesus prayed for, and it is not the Catholics who are disrupting the unity of the Church and creating such a bad witness of Christianity.

How do you justify the thousands of individual denominations when Jesus prayed for there to be one Church?

Click to expand...

It would seem you want to change the subject here Eddie. To recognize Peter as primus inter pares among the Apostles is a far cry from proving that Peter is the rock referred to in Matthew 16. As I posted twice before now, not only is there a glaring problem with the way Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy would have Jesus use the demonstrative pronoun "tautay," there is no such thing as unanimous consent among the Fathers on what "this rock" means in Matthew 16. Instead of addressing my points and presentation head on, you have decided a red herring will suffice. So be it.

Nomad said:

It would seem you want to change the subject here Eddie. To recognize Peter as primus inter pares among the Apostles is a far cry from proving that Peter is the rock referred to in Matthew 16. As I posted twice before now, not only is there a glaring problem with the way Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy would have Jesus use the demonstrative pronoun "tautay," there is no such thing as unanimous consent among the Fathers on what "this rock" means in Matthew 16. Instead of addressing my points and presentation head on, you have decided a red herring will suffice. So be it.

Click to expand...

Okay. Suppose I admit that the confession of Peter is the rock that Christ built the Church upon. Then what? The next step for you is to take this admission and then say that this means that Peter is not even the head of the Church, isn't it?

That is why I am ganging the two issues together.

Let's play the game a little here. The rock is Peter's confession.

Is Peter the head of the Church?

IrishEddieOHara said:

Jesus did not give the keys to the Kingdom to a statement. He gave them to a person -- Simon Peter.

In John 17, Jesus prayed for unity among believers. 33,000 different denominations with hundreds of different teachings is not the unity that Jesus prayed for, and it is not the Catholics who are disrupting the unity of the Church and creating such a bad witness of Christianity.

How do you justify the thousands of individual denominations when Jesus prayed for there to be one Church?

Click to expand...

The Church of Philadelphia has those keys now, not the Catholic Church, or your Pope or the "33,000 different denominations."