Peter Is Not The Rock!

[Renton405]

If Peter is not the Rock then why would Jesus change Simons name to Rock(Peter, Kepha)?..

simple question

 

[elijah115]

If Peter is not the Rock then why would Jesus change Simons name to Rock(Peter, Kepha)?..

simple question

Matthew 4:17-19

17From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."

The Calling of the First Disciples
18As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. 19"Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men."

Where does it say his name changed afterwards?

 

[Peaceful Dove]

My main issue is when I or some other non-catholic Christian are essentially called a non-christian by a catholic in front of other religions and atheists when we are debating them

This post wasn't directed at me, but I was pretty horrified at this statement made and I think others should be also. Peace.

http://www.christianforums.com/t153...ndu-and-biblical-prophecies.html#post37059135

I am a Catholic. And, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, protestants are not Christians. Therefore, I do not have to have the same position as you, since you are not Christian! (Sorry, NOT trying to be mean. Just going along with the Church!)

I have been looking over all of the threads such as this one. The thing i have noticed is that, contrary to what is always charged, they have not been started by Catholics.

I am a little surprised at you allowing such a completely stupid and untrue statement to get you riled.
You know better and you know, having had page after page of the Catechism posted that the Catholic Church teaches just the opposit. The Catholic Church teaches that Protestants are Christian.

Little Lamb, there are Catholics who are unteachable just as there are non catholics who are unteachable. They have something in their head and it will not go away. You just shouldn't let those folks bother you.

 

[Peaceful Dove]

My main issue is when I or some other non-catholic Christian are essentially called a non-christian by a catholic in front of other religions and atheists when we are debating them

This post wasn't directed at me, but I was pretty horrified at this statement made and I think others should be also. Peace.

http://www.christianforums.com/t153...ndu-and-biblical-prophecies.html#post37059135

I am a Catholic. And, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, protestants are not Christians. Therefore, I do not have to have the same position as you, since you are not Christian! (Sorry, NOT trying to be mean. Just going along with the Church!)

This link didn't show me the quote you mentioned. It was about Hindu prophesy or something. I didn't read it.

 

[Rick Otto]

The Catholic Church teaches that Protestants are Christian.

Not according to Canon 9 & the Canons on Justification from the Council of Trent.
They explicity state that those who believe otherwise (Protestants) are "anethama".

 

[Trento]

Not according to Canon 9 & the Canons on Justification from the Council of Trent.
They explicity state that those who believe otherwise (Protestants) are "anethama".

Anathema, meaning "accursed," is directed by the Council of Trent and other Catholic ecumenical councils towards doctrines, rather than persons, based on the ancient practice in the Church of condemning heretical teachings -- a procedure itself derived biblically from passages such as Galatians 1:8-9 and 1 Corinthians 16:22 (the latter has anathema both in Greek and in many English versions). There is nothing improper whatsoever in defining correct doctrine and rejecting contrary notions. St. Paul does this constantly. The Catholic Church, however, makes no presumption as to the eternal destiny of any individual whatsoever (not even Martin Luther, whom many Protestants might suspect was on our "damned" list).
Neither anathema nor excommunication means "proclaimed damned (by the Church)," as many Protestants mistakenly suppose. The more literal meanings are "out of the Church" (in the sense of divergence from its doctrines) or "out of communion" (with the sacraments and the Christian fellowship of believers). Excommunication is perfectly in accord with Pauline practices and teachings as expounded in, e.g., 1 Corinthians 5:3-5, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 1:19-20, 2 Timothy 2:14-19, 4:14-15, as well as our Lord's express injunction in Matthew 18:15-18.

 

[mont974x4]

uh huh, and what does the RCC say about those out of the church and/or out of communion?

 

[Hap]

uh huh, and what does the RCC say about those out of the church and/or out of communion?

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.
Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, 11.3: AAS 87 [1995-II] 928
It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”
Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3.4.

 

[mont974x4]

You see, the RCC can not even bring itself to admit that we are churches and consider us lesser because we aren't "in communion" with it.


In reality, it is all about our relationship with Christ, and not with rome.

 

[sunlover1]

If Peter is not the Rock then why would Jesus change Simons name to Rock(Peter, Kepha)?..

simple question

And a good one.

Matthew 4:17-19

I don't see what you're getting at here elijah.

This verse is interesting though.
And we need to note that Jesus
interpreted the word for a reason.
Because He wanst speaking it in
Greek.
IMO this implies that the other passage,
if it had been in Aramaic, would have
been treated the same way.


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.


http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=37062606#_ftnref1

 

[IamAdopted]

Well Simon was also called Peter it seems before Jesus said His name was Peter. So I am wondering if maybe and this is just my opinion by the way tee hee. If choosing from the two Jesus chose Peter..

 

[Hap]

You see, the RCC can not even bring itself to admit that we are churches and consider us lesser because we aren't "in communion" with it.


In reality, it is all about our relationship with Christ, and not with rome.

So if you say it's about our relationship with Christ and the Catholic Church says that the Holy Spirt does dwell inside churches outside of the Catholic church and uses then an instrument for salvation. I'm not sure that I follow your objection. My wife is Baptist and I know that the Catholic church does not teach that she is not saved or that her church does not bring people to salvation.

 

[mont974x4]

Hap, you just changed what is said. You consider us in churches, the official RCC position differs from yours.

 

[John1and1]

So Rick, and Sun lover

do you 2 REALLY believe the church is built on PETER?

You would elevate Peter above the confession of Jesus as the Christ?

Do you not know there are 2 differant words used in the greek for 'peter' and 'rock' in this very passage?

I hope you care that your statements are confusing people i know personally lol, but thats ok it gives me a chance to show them the greek and what is REALLY said lol

 

[Hap]

Hap, you just changed what is said. You consider us in churches, the official RCC position differs from yours.

So you have a problem that the Catholic church defines the word Church differently then you, even though it still says that the Holy Spirt still leads those to salvation through the people who assemble in a building that you are present at to worship the Lord lead by a person who is not ordained as defined by the Catholic Church but who can still lead people to Christ. Like you said, if Christ is present isn't that important, if i thought that the Catholic church taught that you are not going to Heaven because your not a card carry Catholic I would have a huge problem with that teaching. That is why I left the Church of Christ because they taught that if you were not a member salvation was not possible.

Sorry! I got way off topic.

Yes Peter is the Rock.

 

[Trento]

So Rick, and Sun lover

do you 2 REALLY believe the church is built on PETER?

You would elevate Peter above the confession of Jesus as the Christ?

Do you not know there are 2 differant words used in the greek for 'peter' and 'rock' in this very passage?

I hope you care that your statements are confusing people i know personally lol, but thats ok it gives me a chance to show them the greek and what is REALLY said lol

Just so you are not confused here is how Protestant scholars interpret this passage. If you want more let me know.

According to
William Hendriksen
member of the 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 647
JPK page 14
Gerhard Maier
leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian
Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which — in accordance with the words of the text — applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.


"The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate"
Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context
(Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58
JPK pages 16-17
Donald A. Carson III
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
(two quotations from different works)
Although it is true that petros and petra can mean "stone" and "rock" respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover 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. 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.


The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368
JPK pages 17-18
The word Peter petros, meaning "rock" (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus' follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken "rock" to be anything or anyone other than Peter.


Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78
JPK page 18
John Peter Lange
German Protestant scholar
The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun.... The proper translation then would be: "Thou art Rock, and upon this rock", etc.


Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), page 293
JPK page 19
John A. Broadus
Baptist author
(two quotations from the same work)
Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.
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".... Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: "Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre"; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, "Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier."



Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
(Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356
JPK page 20
J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor
Reformed Theological Seminary
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. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, "You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church". As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus.


"Matthew"
Evangelical Commentary on the Bible
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742
JPK page 30
Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament
Denver Seminary
Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon's nickname "Peter" (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus' declaration, "You are Peter", parallels Peter's confession, "You are the Christ", as if to say, "Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are." The expression "this rock" almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following "the Christ" in v. 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.


The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22
(Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252
JPK pages 31-32
David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield, England
On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. 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.


"The Gospel of Matthew"
The New Century Bible Commentary
(London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261
JPK page 34
Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian
The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. "Simon", the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the "rock" on which God will build the new community.


The Layman's Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16
(Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93
JPK page 34
Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary
The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built.... The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock... seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.


Matthew 14-28
Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b
(Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470
JPK pages 36-37

 

[mont974x4]

Hap, I would wager than you and I are really on the same page, viewing the true Church to consist of all beleivers and our unity is in Christ. The popes restating the of the RCC position that it is the true church and we protestants are lesser christians gives the sense that we are the red-headed step-children...like, "ok, so you are saved and God can use you, but you're still not a real Christian." This has led em to examine more closely the official teachings of the RCC on other issues and while I do know that there are true beleivers in the RCC that are my brother and sister, I can not in any way pretend that there are not major issues in the teachings of the RC denomination. Then we have RC's on here jumping to say that it isn't what that means, but when looking at the official vatican website, it really is what they mean.

 

[Hentenza]

Just so you are not confused here is how Protestant scholars interpret this passage. If you want more let me know.

According to
William Hendriksen
member of the 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 647
JPK page 14
Gerhard Maier
leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian
Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which — in accordance with the words of the text — applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.


"The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate"
Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context
(Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58
JPK pages 16-17
Donald A. Carson III
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
(two quotations from different works)
Although it is true that petros and petra can mean "stone" and "rock" respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover 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. 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.


The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368
JPK pages 17-18
The word Peter petros, meaning "rock" (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus' follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken "rock" to be anything or anyone other than Peter.


Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78
JPK page 18
John Peter Lange
German Protestant scholar
The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun.... The proper translation then would be: "Thou art Rock, and upon this rock", etc.


Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), page 293
JPK page 19
John A. Broadus
Baptist author
(two quotations from the same work)
Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.
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".... Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: "Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre"; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, "Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier."



Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
(Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356
JPK page 20
J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor
Reformed Theological Seminary
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. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, "You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church". As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus.


"Matthew"
Evangelical Commentary on the Bible
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742
JPK page 30
Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament
Denver Seminary
Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon's nickname "Peter" (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus' declaration, "You are Peter", parallels Peter's confession, "You are the Christ", as if to say, "Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are." The expression "this rock" almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following "the Christ" in v. 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.


The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22
(Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252
JPK pages 31-32
David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield, England
On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. 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.


"The Gospel of Matthew"
The New Century Bible Commentary
(London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261
JPK page 34
Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian
The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. "Simon", the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the "rock" on which God will build the new community.


The Layman's Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16
(Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93
JPK page 34
Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary
The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built.... The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock... seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.


Matthew 14-28
Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b
(Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470
JPK pages 36-37

They are wrong and so is the CC.

 

[mont974x4]

LOL of course, to copy and paste the same thing over and over again doesn't make them any less wrong. It just helps to know who to put on ignore.

 

[sunlover1]

This verse is interesting though.
And we need to note that Jesus
interpreted the word for a reason.
Because He wanst speaking it in
Greek.
IMO this implies that the other passage,
if it had been in Aramaic, would have
been treated the same way.


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.

So Rick, and Sun lover

do you 2 REALLY believe the church is built on PETER?

You would elevate Peter above the confession of Jesus as the Christ?

Do you not know there are 2 differant words used in the greek for 'peter' and 'rock' in this very passage?

I hope you care that your statements are confusing people i know personally lol, but thats ok it gives me a chance to show them the greek and what is REALLY said lol

Hi John.

Did this post confuse you?
Or a different one.
I'm so sorry I wasn't clear.
Sometimes I expect others
are mind readers.