www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Peter is the "Rock"

The subject of what the "rock" of Mt 16:18 refers to came up in another folder, but I thought it would be more appropriate for me to post this article I wrote here, which shows defintively that Peter himself is who Christ referred to when He said, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church."

This article was originally written for Protestant Christians, but as there seem to me even Orthodox and Catholics who question this biblical truth, I feel the need to post it here.

PETER THE ROCK

Probably nothing else causes more diagreement between Catholics and Protestants than Matthew 16:16, where Jesus says to Simon, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church...".

Catholics take Jesus' words at face value; we believe that Jesus was making Peter the rock on which our Lord will build His Church.

Many (not all) Protestants disagree. The usual objection goes something like this:

"No, Jesus wasn't making Peter the rock. He was making a play on words. You see, in the original Greek, this verse reads, 'You are Petros, and upon this petra I will build my church...' Petros means 'little stone', and petra means 'large rock', so Jesus couldn't have been referring to Peter. Besides, numerous other verses call Jesus 'the rock.'"

Answer: Let's deal with the petros/petra argument first, about which a couple of points need to be made:

First of all, Jesus was not speaking Greek; the common tongue of first-century Palestinian Jews was Aramaic. And Aramaic only has one word for rock: kepha. When Jesus meets Simon Peter, He foretells this name change; and is referred to by John as "Cephas".

Secondly, let's suppose that Jesus had been speaking Greek; this argument still wouldn't fly. In first century koine Greek, there is no difference in meaning between petros and petra. Anyone who actually knows biblical Greek will tell you that nouns in this language had genders, much like our modern-day Romance languages. The Greek word for rock, petra, is feminine. But Simon was a man, so it would not do to give him a feminine name; thus is was "masculinized" to Petros. Besides, koine Greek did have a word for "pebble", lithos. Had Jesus truly intended to name Peter "small stone" or "pebble", Matthew would have used this word, not Petros.

Now let's look at the second part of the argument, which is that Jesus could not be actually referring to Peter:

First of all, there is nothing and no one else to which Jesus could have been referring. The grammatical structure of the sentence should tell us as much: "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church." Though many Protestants claim that Jesus is either referring to Himself or to Peter's confession, this is grammatically impossible: the original Greek actually uses as demonstrative pronoun, taute petra, "this very rock". When this is used with the Greek word for "and", kai, the second noun refers back to the first noun. Jesus could have gotten around this easily: He could have used "but" (alla) instead of "and." But he didn't; He obviously meant Peter!

Secondly, this interpretation makes absolutely no exegetical sense. Jesus' identity is revealed to Peter by God (v.15) and Jesus blesses him. He then proceeds to name Peter "Rock". After He does so, in verse 17-18, Jesus gives Peter alone the keys of the kingdom (the form of "you" here is singular). To understand the significance of the "keys" and the authority they represent, we should look at Isaiah 22:22, where we see a reference to the "key" as representing the office of Prime Minister. jesus is in essence making Peter His "Prime Minister", to carry on Christ's mission after He leaves the earth. Jesus then gives to all of the Apostles the authority to "bind" and "loose", which in rabbinic 1st-century language means to declare something lawful or unlawful.

A word about name changes: In ancient Judaism (and even in modern-day Orthodox Judaism), names are sacred; they are not just arbitrary identifiers like they are in our age and society. God created the universe and everything in it by speakig it into existence; one's name is sacred, and is a part of that person. Thus, names could not be changed. In the Bible, only God changes people's names, and a name change always signifies a change in status. So the very fact that jesus changes Peter's name is significant in of itself.

Why would Jesus bless Peter, rename him, turn around and call him a pebble, and then turn around again, promising to give him tremendous authority? This is sloppy and schizophrenic exegesis.

As for pointing out that God and Jesus are both called "the rock" (Is 44:8, 1 Cor 10:4)), that's very true, but it does not mean that Peter isn't. In fact, just seven chapters after Is 44:8, God Himself calls Abraham the rock from which Israel was hewn (Is 51:1-2).

Jesus is the one foundation of the Church in 1 Cor 10:4, but we're told in Rev 21:14 and Ephesians 2:20 that the Apostles are the foundation of the Church. Jesus says that he is the light of the world in Jn 9:5, but Mt 5:14 also says that Christians are the light of the world. Are these contradictions? Of course not-- the rock-ness, the foundation, and the light all come from Christ.He gives us a share in his unique roles: creator, shepherd, etc.

To conclude, it is, with all due respect, silly to argue against Peter's being the rock of Mt 16:16. To do so is to do so out of sheer anti-Catholic prejeudice. Even many honest Protestant bible scholars don't deny this.

Saintclare,

Pardon what may seem to be an anti-Catholic bias, but I can speak from tradition that "rock" means more than Peter's person. The difference between Eastern and Western sola-Popa interpretation is that the West restricts "rock" to being only Peter's person; the East, on the other hand, is open to a diverse range of interpretations.

You state:

"Though many Protestants claim that Jesus is either referring to Himself or to Peter's confession, this is grammatically impossible ..."

Why just Protestants? Church Fathers, both East and West, claim references to Jesus Himself and Confession, both Peter's and ours. Please investigate your sources.

The Catholic West acknowledges that "rock" can mean more than Peter's person. Its Church Fathers make that explicit. Those who don't acknowledge a richer meaning (or meanings) of "rock" are either: (1) Latin polemicists, (2) recent converts who feel the extra need to justify their conversion - like Steve Ray and his book "Upon This Rock," (3) earlier polemicists in the Eastern Unia movement like Lev Krevza and his book "A Defense of Church Unity," or (4) just plain ignorant.

Like the Carolingian theologians who felt justified to ignore their Pope and insert the Filioque into a Universal document/Creed without needing consiliar approval first, those who limit the rich tradition of "rock" in the CHurch to justifiy a primacy of ecclesiastical rights, obviously misses the best parts of that meaning.

Faith gets lost.

In our tradition of hymns, nowhere do we celebrate or sing in song the "rock" being the Pope or his office as Bishop of Rome. "Rock" always refer to either: (1) Peter's Confession of Faith, (2) Our confession of faith, or (3) Faith in itself. None of them restricting its meaning to a pure ontology of personhood, but rather, an openness to the beauty and wonder of a faith that can move mountains, a faith gretaer than Israel, and a faith that works in tadem with good works.

Your own words only aid in untying that restrictive meaning:

"Jesus is the one foundation of the Church in 1 Cor 10:4, but we're told in Rev 21:14 and Ephesians 2:20 that the Apostles are the foundation of the Church. Jesus says that he is the light of the world in Jn 9:5, but Mt 5:14 also says that Christians are the light of the world."

We can add hear the admonition to become partakers of the divine nature.

You continue:

"Are these contradictions? Of course not-- the rock-ness, the foundation, and the light all come from Christ.He gives us a share in his unique roles: creator, shepherd, etc."

You make a very Orthodox statement. But how does this tie in with your thread's title, "PETER [emphasis is mine] is the "Rock" ???

Glad you can join us on the platitude and multitude of meanings.

God bless,
Joe Thur

Joe,

It is obvious from Scripture that Peter is the Rock. Tradition gives us, in addition to the literal meaning of the passage, a spiritual one, i.e. that Peter's rock-ness is due to his divinely inspired confession of Faith.

Nevertheless, that does not discount the prima facie meaning of Christ's words.

LatinTrad

LT,

Then those Church Fathers and church hymns that interpret it differently are promoting Traditions of Men. What do THEY know?

Joe

Dear Joe,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Thanks for your reply... I don't have a problem with someone saying that the "rock" is MORE than Peter's person, so long as they don't deny that it includes his person.

Other than that, I'll defer to Latin Trad's response, because that's pretty much what I would have said.

God bless,

Karen

Karen,

Obviously, many of the Church Fathers, including Western ones, will not pass this litmus test of Catholicism since a good number never interpret "rock" as Peter's person.

Please check out our Pentecostarion in all the places where "rock" is used. A real eye-opener, even for me.

Joe

Joe, you are not giving a fair cross-section of patristic opinion.

Even the oft-quoted St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote, in commenting on Mt. 16, that Christ bestowed the primacy upon Peter when He named him Rock, and therefore no one can be sure he is in the Church if he is not in communion with Peter's successor at Rome.

No mention is made of Antioch, because St. Peter left a successor in Antioch while he was alive and continued to lead the Church from Rome. Peter's successors as head of the Church therefore resided in Rome. All the Fathers attest to this--check out St. Irenaeus' Against the Heresies, or the homilies of St. Maximos the Confessor.


LatinTrad

Dear Friends,

Again, it is not so much whether Peter and his faith, inspired by God, is the Rock - I don't think we can dispute that, it is "Peter and his faith."

But it is a matter of "so what?"

What does that mean in terms of the claims of authority for the Church?

Can this passage be quoted to support papal claims and even papal doctrines of Jurisdictional primacy?

That, I think is the real issue behind this debate.

Alex

Alex, then why do Orthodox and Catholics even fight over this passage at all? What if Peter is the Rock as Catholicism says. What would that mean in the Church. What if Peters Confession is the Rock of the Church like Orthodoxy says. I think it would make a differance how the Church runs today Catholic or Orthodox.

You got my all confused now.

If Peter is the Rock, what does that mean?
If Peters Confession is the Rock of the Church, what does that mean?

Ill be looking forward to your comentary so you can on confuse me Thanks.

In Christ
Daniel

Saint John Chrysostom 54th Homily On the Gospel of Saint Matthew.

How do we interpret this?

In Christ+
Daniel

Dear Daniel,

Yes, as Kallistos Ware says, the Confession of Peter is just that "Peter's."

The Church is built not on the flesh and bones of a man, namely Peter, but on the Divine inspiration of Peter that sanctified him and gave him this insight. It is the Grace of the Holy Spirit working in Saint Peter.

Authority issues are about service and charity. I think all Churches recognize this.

There is a tradition of Petrine Primacy in the Bishops of Rome, recognized by Ecumenical Councils and theologians.

The arguments are about how this primacy is to be exercised for the good of the Church.

But there can be no doubt that the "Rock that Christ mentions is not so much a person, but an interaction between the working of the Holy Trinity and Peter - along with the other apostles who repeated Peter's confession.

Alex

Dear Alex,

With all due respect some of your statements about the "rock" sound like the Protestants I used to "church" with.

I believe Scripture unequivacly teaches that Peter is the Rock that Christ built His Church on. Further more, Jesus gave Peter the "keys of the kingdom", i.e full authority over the Church.

Yes, bishops share in that authority within their particular church, but to no one else but Peter did Christ give the "keys of the kingdom." And to no other Apostle did Jesus change their name to "Rock."

I don't want to be a Protestant any more.

Paul

[Even the oft-quoted St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote, in commenting on Mt. 16, that Christ bestowed the primacy upon Peter when He named him Rock, and therefore no one can be sure he is in the Church if he is not in communion with Peter's successor at Rome.]

St Cyprian of Carthage also wrote the following when he criticized Pope Stephen for his quest for authority -

Sketches of Church History - Chapter VIII: St Cyprian, Part II (AD 253-257)

After this, Cyprian had a disagreement with Stephen bishop of Rome. Rome was the greatest city in the whole world, and the capital of the empire. There were many Christians there even in the time of the Apostles, and, as years went on, the Church of Rome grew more and more, so that it was the greatest, and richest, and most important church of all. Now the bishops who were at the head of this great church were naturally reckoned the foremost of all bishops, and had more power than any other, so that if a proud man got the bishopric of Rome, it was too likely that he might try to set himself up above his brethren, and to lay down the law to them. Stephen was, unhappily, a man of this kind, and he gave way to the temptation, and tried to lord it over other bishops and their churches. But Cyprian held out against him, and made him understand that the bishop of Rome had no right to give laws to other bishops, or to meddle with the churches of other countries. He showed that, although St. Peter (from whom Stephen pretended that the bishops of Rome had received power over others) was the first of the Apostles, he was not of a higher class or order than the rest; and, therefore, that, although the Roman bishops stood first, the other bishops were their equals, and had received an equal share in the Christian ministry. So Stephen was not able to get the power which he wished for over other churches, and, after his death, Carthage and Rome were at peace again.

OrthoMan

A helpful explanation of the multiple meanings of "rock" from a Catholic viewpoint can be found at:

http://www.catholic-forum.com/churches/communion/eng/library/qb/54.shtml

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear: Alex,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Alex, if Peters was the Rock of the Church which Christ spoke of, wouldnt that mean that he is Supreme to the Apostels and not equal to them, and that he would have Universal Jurisdiction of the Church.

But since Christ and Peters Confession are the Rock of the Church, what "special privaliages" does the successor of Peter and Peter Himself on Earth Recieve?

In Christ+
Daniel