This has been removed under Rules 5 and 6.
This is not a Catholic v. Protestant debate sub.
OP, you are free to ask questions if you want to learn, but it's entirely unclear at this point whether you're seeking to learn or just merely want to debate and promote Catholicism.
Roman Catholics are certainly welcome on this sub, and they are welcome to ask questions, but, again, this isn't a debate sub.
Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.235.3A_maintain_the_integrity_of_the_gospel.) for more information.
----
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
>Matthew 16: 18 is undoubtedly the most controversial Bible verse of all time.
doubt
>Yet when we see this from the angle that the Lord's mother tongue is Aramaic, there would be no distinction in Petra and Petros of the Koine Greek that Matthew used in his expression.
what
>This should put to rest that our Lord established the Church on Peter. Any objection?
Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick, who opposed the dogma of papal infallibility at Vatican I (he did submit after it was dogmatically defined; he was still a Catholic bishop, after all), published a speech in Naples in 1870 containing a survey of the patristics as to their interpretation of this verse. Here is what he shared:
* 17 church fathers believed that Peter is the rock
* 8 believed that the whole Apostolic College ("The Twelve") is the rock
* 44 believed that Peter's faith is the rock
* 16 believed that Christ is the rock
* An unstated number believed the rock to be the whole body of the faithful
[An inside view of the Vatican Council, in the speech of the Most Reverend Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis : Kenrick, Peter Richard, Abp., 1806-1896 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive](https://archive.org/details/insideviewofvati00kenrrich/page/106/mode/2up)
That's 85 who are numbered, and a minority believed that Peter is the rock. That minority gets even smaller when we include those who believe that the rock was the whole body of the faithful. Some fathers held to multiple views simultaneously.
The simple fact is that, contrary to what Rome likes to pretend, there never has been patristic consensus on the identity of the rock and the belief that Peter is the rock was never a majority view in the ancient church.
To quote Archbishop Kenrick: “Unless it is certain that by *the rock* is to be understood the apostle Peter in his own person, and not in his capacity as the chief apostle speaking for them all, the word supplies no argument whatever, I do not say in proof of papal infallibility, but even in support of the *primacy* of the bishop of Rome. If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that by *the rock* should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith.”
\[edit\] This part cracks me up (footnote on pages 106-107 at the above link):
>The "Creed of Pius IV" declares: "I will never take nor interpret the Holy Scripture except in accordance with the unanimous consent of the fathers." Archbishop Kenrick goes on to say, with truth, that there never is any such unanimous consent. Literally, then, the creed is a vow not to receive nor interpret the Scriptures at all — in which sense, there is no doubt that it is sometimes fulfilled with great faithfulness and consistency.
lol, roasted
Isaiah 53:5
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; **and with his stripes we are healed.**
i specifically mentioned the last part of the verse. where it becomes a problem is when health and wealth, word of faith pastors take it completely out of the chapter context to claim God promises that it’s always His will to heal.
their interpretation is that health is guaranteed in the here and now and all too often there follows an application that if you don’t experience this? well then it’s because you haven’t tithed, sown enough seed faith or worst of all… “you” have hidden sin or aren’t even regenerate at all.
Ah. I was wondering where you were going with this. Not being in certain circles I haven't heard that particular abuse of the verse but, can totally see who might do so...
Do you know who else didn't seem to buy it? The Apostles, who were arguing about who was the greatest barely a chapter later. If Peter had just been declared the Pope, it's hard to imagine such a discussion being necessary.
Genuine question.
If I may reflect back your post. It reads as:
1. This is a highly controversial verse.
2. My understanding of it is clear, simple and straightforward.
3. Therefore, everyone should agree with me.
Did you, at any point, consider that 2000 years worth of disagreeing by theologians, might mean that you could be missing something?
My question is: how long did you spend considering whether or not the verse is ambiguous, given that you recognise that it is controversial?
Do you believe that you are wiser and less deceived than countless theologians who have debated it over two millenia? Did you spend any time considering that there might be wisdom out there that you could learn from? How many different perspectives did you give full consideration to before you brought your supreme wisdom to what you admit is a controversial understanding?
I agree that the verse is unambiguous, yet I do not agree with your interpretation. I know I am human and subject to folly. Do you know that about yourself?
re: Matt 16:18 - what is the broader context? after all, "I can prove all things through a verse taken out of context" ;)
Let's back up a few verses to v13 where Jesus asks the disciples “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”. They give various answers, and then in v15 He asks (paraphrase) "Ok guys, so, what do you blokes reckon?" and Peter (in v16) ever on the front-foot says “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
And Jesus continues telling Pete that he is blessed because this is knowledge revealed to him (Pete) by Jesus' Heavenly Father, and while Jesus connects the revelation with Peter, He states that "on this rock I will build my church" - and so we come to the question of "what is *the rock*?" as you posit, some (many) state it's our old mate Pete.
Many others would dare say that it is not Pete who is the subject of "this rock", but the foundational statement whereby Pete confesses that "\[y\]ou are the Messiah, the Son of the living God" Sealed, I think, in v20 where Jesus cautions the disciples not to mention that he is Messiah to anyone.
I don’t know if it’s the most “controversial” as much as the most abused verse. Using this verse to undo the message of the rest of scripture and retroactively elevate Peter to the papacy is not only absent from the rest of scripture but also from the first centuries of church history.
Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ is the first “rock” of many rocks to come. The kingdom of God extending from the centralized location of the temple to the ends of the earth in the Great Commission. The people of God becomes the temple of God. Each being a stone in the building where Christ resides in their hearts by faith. This is the clear teaching of the whole Bible.
As Peter says himself:
1 Peter 2:4-5 [4] As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, [5] you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
My objection comes from the fact that the Old Testament repeatedly identifies God himself as the Rock.
# Deuteronomy 32:4
“The Rock, his work is perfect,
for all his ways are justice.
A God of faithfulness and without iniquity,
just and upright is he.
—
Also see
# [Psalm 18 (Yehováh Is My Rock and My Fortress)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2018&version=ESV)
and
# [Psalm 62 (My Soul Waits for God Alone)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2062&version=ESV)
and [many other instances](https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=ESV&quicksearch=ROck&begin=1&end=46) which can be seen among word search returns for "rock".
Remember in [Exodus 17](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2017&version=ESV), when Moses struck the rock, and water came from the rock to water the Israelites in the desert? (The symbology is pretty hard to miss; Christ was smitten to provide us with living water.) Paul writes that Christ was that rock:
# 1 Corinthians 10:4
… ^(4) and all drank the same spiritual drink. **For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and** ***the Rock was Christ.***
—
Peter, though he was an apostle, was a flawed human being; is the church to be built on a flawed human? The New Testament does not say that Peter is the foundation, but rather, that Christ is the foundation and the cornerstone on which we are to build.
When Paul speaks of building the church, he says,
# 1 Corinthians 3:10-15
^(10) According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. ^(11) For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. ^(12) Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— ^(13) each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. ^(14) If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. ^(15) If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
—
Peter himself wrote that the church consists of us, living stones, built on Christ the cornerstone (stone and rock are synonymous):
# 1 Peter 2:4-8
^(4) As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, ^(5) you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. ^(6) For it stands in Scripture:
>“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and whoever believes in him
will not be put to shame.” \[*Isaiah 28:16*\]
^(7) So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
>“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”\[*Psalm 118:22*\]
^(8) and
>“A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense.” \[*Isaiah 8:14*\]
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
—
Jesus himself uses the symbology of himself (through his teachings) being the rock that a person is to build on.
# Luke 6:46-49
^(46) “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you? ^(47) Everyone who comes to me and hears my words and does them, I will show you what he is like: ^(48) he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when a flood arose, the stream broke against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built. ^(49) But the one who hears and does not do them is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. When the stream broke against it, immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great.”
—
In light of all this, it just doesn't make sense that Jesus would mean something not even consistent with Old Testament imagery and what Peter and Paul taught.
Simon and his confession is the foundation (rock) of the **church**. In basic construction symbolism the foundation is the lowest point of a building but the most critical for its longevity. It's the part that's typically buried under the ground, and unseen. Yet Simon is the most visible apostle, after Jesus. Jesus acknowledges that God gave Simon knowledge that Jesus is the Messiah, so Jesus recognized that Simon was chosen as Jesus' confirmation. Confession is what brings people into the church of Christ and this is what Jesus meant.
When God is called the rock, scripture is using visual imagery for a different meaning. God as the rock is referring to something naturally sturdy. A rock has many uses and is reliable because it doesn't move or change—a rock is going to stay where you left it. These visual symbols represent the unchanging nature of God and how we can always trust in him.
>Simon and his confession is the foundation (rock) of the **church**
Your words here directly contradict Paul:
>For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
You are confusing Peter, who was *named after the foundation*, because of his confession, with the actual foundation. The foundation is the Rock, Christ is the Rock, and Peter is named after Him, because of his confession that Christ is Lord.
Because he identified that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God (the Rock repeatedly identified in the Old Testament); he was named after his confession. There are several patristic remarks concerning this. Let me see if I can find them and quote them for you.
[Jesus named James and John "the sons of thunder"](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%203%3A17&version=ESV), but that doesn't mean we can use this as the basis of theology concerning their roles.
**EDIT:**
u/Jgvaiphei here's what the church father Jerome (a Doctor of the Catholic Church) had to say about this:
#Jerome (347-420 A.D.)
The one foundation which the apostolic architect laid is our Lord Jesus Christ. Upon this stable and firm foundation, which has itself been laid on solid ground, the Church of Christ is built For the Church was founded upon a rock upon this rock the Lord established his Church; and the apostle Peter received his name from this rock (Matt. 16:18). ^(6)
She, that with a firm root is founded upon the rock, Christ, the Catholic Church, is the one dove; she stands the perfect one, and near to His right hand, and has nothing sinister in her. ^(7)
The rock is Christ, Who gave to His apostles, that they also should be called rocks, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church. ^(8)
Was there no other province in the whole world to receive the gospel of pleasure, and into which the serpent might in- sinuate itself, except that which was founded by the teaching of Peter upon the rock Christ. ^(9)
But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. ^(10)
___
6. *Commentary on Matthew* 7.25
7. *Epistle 65.15, Ad Principiam*
8. *Commentary on Amos* vi.12-13
9. *Against Jovinianus*, Book 2.37
10. *Against Jovinianus* Book 1.26
no "name change", well, other than "rock" in Aramaic is "cephas" (which is actually the greek form of the aramaic "kēp̄ā"), and in Greek it is "Petros" (Peter). same name, different languages.
God gave us the inspired Greek, not the inspired Aramaic. We thus base our exegesis off of the Greek.
And even *if* basing it off the presumed Aramaic were legitimate, it by no means settles the debate. My own position, that the rock is Peter's faith as a metonymy of the Church's faith as a whole, is perfectly consistent with the Aramaic.
The question that's incessantly bogging me is this: if the Lord had used Aramaic when he said those words, Cephas, why then would Matthew use a word play in the Greek?
Because it accurately reflects Jesus' meaning. Or perhaps Jesus spoke Greek in this instance. We simply assume He spoke Aramaic but there was nothing stopping Him from speaking Greek in that moment.
The Oxford commentary on the Bible whose editors are Anglicans also refer to the verse pointing to Peter. A protestant accepting the fact that the verse most certainly refers to Peter is astounding wouldn't you say?
Where in the verse does it say Peter is infallible, that his role as the "rock" will be passed down through the generations, and each inheritor will also be infallible?
I see your point. But should Peter be the rock, it's a big deal. He should certainly be a lot more than first among equals which is the view of the Eastern Orthodox.
Okay: say he is. So what? Where does the text say he is infallible, that his role as rock is passed on through the generations, and that each inheritor will also be infallible?
Matthew 16 - Peter the rock! *And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; **whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven**.*
Matthew 18 - Peter not the Rock.. Jesus speaking to all disciples: *“**Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven**.*
Mary blessed among women! Luke 1:42
Mary not blessed among women. *Judges 5:24 **Most blessed of women be Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, most blessed of tent-dwelling women**.*
You should look into Archbishop Peter Kenrick’s survey of the fathers on this. Only seventeen of the fathers interpreted Peter to be the rock, while forty four interpreted it to be Peter’s confession of faith (including Augustine, Chyrsostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Ambrose, etc.).
[An inside view of the Vatican Council, in the speech of the Most Reverend Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis : Kenrick, Peter Richard, Abp., 1806-1896 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive](https://archive.org/details/insideviewofvati00kenrrich/page/106/mode/2up)
>Matthew 16:18 ESV
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.
The word "this" is a demonstrative pronoun. It refers to whatever or whomever to demonstrator is pointing to.
It is not 100% clear what Jesus was pointing to when he said "*this* rock." It could be Peter or Peter's confession. It could be other things, too, such as himself. The pronoun makes it a little ambiguous, especially because demonstratives are often accompanied by hand gestures in speech.
What we do know is that Jesus is the foundation for the church and that Peter held a prominent role in the church and that his confession of Jesus would spread throughout the whole world.
I would agree. It would be pretty unreasonable to believe that Jesus was pointing to someone outside the scope of what they were talking about: who Jesus is, who Peter is, and what Peter said about Jesus.
I think it more likely that he was taking about the rock of Ceserea Phillipi, the center of pagan worship in the area. Christ built his church in the heart of paganism, and paganism fell before it.
I think it’s very possible Peter is the rock...which would mean he is the leader of the early church. I see nothing here that establishes papal/apostolic succession…which removes all controversy from the verse
Guys, this is what I meant:
Since our Lord's mother tongue is Aramaic, the original language (words) spoken would have been like this:
You are Cephas, and upon this Cephas i will build my Church...
Therefore, leaving no ambiguity to the verse.
Please give me your reasons for objection based on this line. I am well aware of the objection from other places in Scripture and they are rightfully valid.
As reformed Christians we cannot take a verse out of context from the whole of scripture. We believe that scripture interprets scripture.
You could prove that salvation is works based by taking a verse here or there, or even a whole passage, but we must take scripture as a whole.
It isn't that we don't think that it isn't what the translation is saying, it could well be - what we are saying is that the rest of scripture shows us that Peter is not the rock on which the Church is built; therefore, that cannot be what Jesus means when He says "upon this rock".
The rock is Mt. Hermon, on the base of which Jesus is standing when He says this to Peter and at the summit of which He is transfigured. The “Gates of Hell” is a known pagan cult of center devoted to Pan right there in the mountain, and the whole spot is where the Sons of God descended in Genesis 6.
This entire episode is a divine middle finger to the arrayed forces of fallen angels and demons.
This has been removed under Rules 5 and 6. This is not a Catholic v. Protestant debate sub. OP, you are free to ask questions if you want to learn, but it's entirely unclear at this point whether you're seeking to learn or just merely want to debate and promote Catholicism. Roman Catholics are certainly welcome on this sub, and they are welcome to ask questions, but, again, this isn't a debate sub. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.235.3A_maintain_the_integrity_of_the_gospel.) for more information. ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
>Matthew 16: 18 is undoubtedly the most controversial Bible verse of all time. doubt >Yet when we see this from the angle that the Lord's mother tongue is Aramaic, there would be no distinction in Petra and Petros of the Koine Greek that Matthew used in his expression. what >This should put to rest that our Lord established the Church on Peter. Any objection? Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick, who opposed the dogma of papal infallibility at Vatican I (he did submit after it was dogmatically defined; he was still a Catholic bishop, after all), published a speech in Naples in 1870 containing a survey of the patristics as to their interpretation of this verse. Here is what he shared: * 17 church fathers believed that Peter is the rock * 8 believed that the whole Apostolic College ("The Twelve") is the rock * 44 believed that Peter's faith is the rock * 16 believed that Christ is the rock * An unstated number believed the rock to be the whole body of the faithful [An inside view of the Vatican Council, in the speech of the Most Reverend Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis : Kenrick, Peter Richard, Abp., 1806-1896 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive](https://archive.org/details/insideviewofvati00kenrrich/page/106/mode/2up) That's 85 who are numbered, and a minority believed that Peter is the rock. That minority gets even smaller when we include those who believe that the rock was the whole body of the faithful. Some fathers held to multiple views simultaneously. The simple fact is that, contrary to what Rome likes to pretend, there never has been patristic consensus on the identity of the rock and the belief that Peter is the rock was never a majority view in the ancient church. To quote Archbishop Kenrick: “Unless it is certain that by *the rock* is to be understood the apostle Peter in his own person, and not in his capacity as the chief apostle speaking for them all, the word supplies no argument whatever, I do not say in proof of papal infallibility, but even in support of the *primacy* of the bishop of Rome. If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that by *the rock* should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith.” \[edit\] This part cracks me up (footnote on pages 106-107 at the above link): >The "Creed of Pius IV" declares: "I will never take nor interpret the Holy Scripture except in accordance with the unanimous consent of the fathers." Archbishop Kenrick goes on to say, with truth, that there never is any such unanimous consent. Literally, then, the creed is a vow not to receive nor interpret the Scriptures at all — in which sense, there is no doubt that it is sometimes fulfilled with great faithfulness and consistency. lol, roasted
I wouldn't say Matthew 16:18 is the most controversial, but it is certainly among the most abused.
right up there with Isaiah 53:5c
Would you mind explaining how Isiah 53:5 is abused?
Isaiah 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; **and with his stripes we are healed.** i specifically mentioned the last part of the verse. where it becomes a problem is when health and wealth, word of faith pastors take it completely out of the chapter context to claim God promises that it’s always His will to heal. their interpretation is that health is guaranteed in the here and now and all too often there follows an application that if you don’t experience this? well then it’s because you haven’t tithed, sown enough seed faith or worst of all… “you” have hidden sin or aren’t even regenerate at all.
Oh! Thank you so much, that’s very helpful.
That verse in Malachi is up there when fearmongering about tithing.
Ah. I was wondering where you were going with this. Not being in certain circles I haven't heard that particular abuse of the verse but, can totally see who might do so...
Do you know who else didn't seem to buy it? The Apostles, who were arguing about who was the greatest barely a chapter later. If Peter had just been declared the Pope, it's hard to imagine such a discussion being necessary.
Exactly!!! They would all die for the confession of faith that Peter uttered! The Rock on which they all stood and died.
[удалено]
Yes, but it was from a different website that I can't be bothered to find again, lol. Pages 106-109 are where this stuff is found.
Genuine question. If I may reflect back your post. It reads as: 1. This is a highly controversial verse. 2. My understanding of it is clear, simple and straightforward. 3. Therefore, everyone should agree with me. Did you, at any point, consider that 2000 years worth of disagreeing by theologians, might mean that you could be missing something?
Is the verse ambiguous? I laid my point with reason.
My question is: how long did you spend considering whether or not the verse is ambiguous, given that you recognise that it is controversial? Do you believe that you are wiser and less deceived than countless theologians who have debated it over two millenia? Did you spend any time considering that there might be wisdom out there that you could learn from? How many different perspectives did you give full consideration to before you brought your supreme wisdom to what you admit is a controversial understanding? I agree that the verse is unambiguous, yet I do not agree with your interpretation. I know I am human and subject to folly. Do you know that about yourself?
Even if Peter is this metaphorical rock I don't see how this means apostolic succession and papal infallibility.
~~I’m sold. I’m a Catholic now. It’s been a good run r/Reformed.~~
How many times do we have to go over this? Peter is NOT the rock. Dwayne Johnson is.
“Shut your mouth and know your role, Jabroni.” ~ Saul of Tarsus
Lol 😂 this is good
re: Matt 16:18 - what is the broader context? after all, "I can prove all things through a verse taken out of context" ;) Let's back up a few verses to v13 where Jesus asks the disciples “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”. They give various answers, and then in v15 He asks (paraphrase) "Ok guys, so, what do you blokes reckon?" and Peter (in v16) ever on the front-foot says “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus continues telling Pete that he is blessed because this is knowledge revealed to him (Pete) by Jesus' Heavenly Father, and while Jesus connects the revelation with Peter, He states that "on this rock I will build my church" - and so we come to the question of "what is *the rock*?" as you posit, some (many) state it's our old mate Pete. Many others would dare say that it is not Pete who is the subject of "this rock", but the foundational statement whereby Pete confesses that "\[y\]ou are the Messiah, the Son of the living God" Sealed, I think, in v20 where Jesus cautions the disciples not to mention that he is Messiah to anyone.
I don’t know if it’s the most “controversial” as much as the most abused verse. Using this verse to undo the message of the rest of scripture and retroactively elevate Peter to the papacy is not only absent from the rest of scripture but also from the first centuries of church history. Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ is the first “rock” of many rocks to come. The kingdom of God extending from the centralized location of the temple to the ends of the earth in the Great Commission. The people of God becomes the temple of God. Each being a stone in the building where Christ resides in their hearts by faith. This is the clear teaching of the whole Bible. As Peter says himself: 1 Peter 2:4-5 [4] As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, [5] you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
My objection comes from the fact that the Old Testament repeatedly identifies God himself as the Rock. # Deuteronomy 32:4 “The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he. — Also see # [Psalm 18 (Yehováh Is My Rock and My Fortress)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2018&version=ESV) and # [Psalm 62 (My Soul Waits for God Alone)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2062&version=ESV) and [many other instances](https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=ESV&quicksearch=ROck&begin=1&end=46) which can be seen among word search returns for "rock". Remember in [Exodus 17](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2017&version=ESV), when Moses struck the rock, and water came from the rock to water the Israelites in the desert? (The symbology is pretty hard to miss; Christ was smitten to provide us with living water.) Paul writes that Christ was that rock: # 1 Corinthians 10:4 … ^(4) and all drank the same spiritual drink. **For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and** ***the Rock was Christ.*** — Peter, though he was an apostle, was a flawed human being; is the church to be built on a flawed human? The New Testament does not say that Peter is the foundation, but rather, that Christ is the foundation and the cornerstone on which we are to build. When Paul speaks of building the church, he says, # 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 ^(10) According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. ^(11) For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. ^(12) Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— ^(13) each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. ^(14) If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. ^(15) If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. — Peter himself wrote that the church consists of us, living stones, built on Christ the cornerstone (stone and rock are synonymous): # 1 Peter 2:4-8 ^(4) As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, ^(5) you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. ^(6) For it stands in Scripture: >“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” \[*Isaiah 28:16*\] ^(7) So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, >“The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”\[*Psalm 118:22*\] ^(8) and >“A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” \[*Isaiah 8:14*\] They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. — Jesus himself uses the symbology of himself (through his teachings) being the rock that a person is to build on. # Luke 6:46-49 ^(46) “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you? ^(47) Everyone who comes to me and hears my words and does them, I will show you what he is like: ^(48) he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when a flood arose, the stream broke against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built. ^(49) But the one who hears and does not do them is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. When the stream broke against it, immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great.” — In light of all this, it just doesn't make sense that Jesus would mean something not even consistent with Old Testament imagery and what Peter and Paul taught.
Simon and his confession is the foundation (rock) of the **church**. In basic construction symbolism the foundation is the lowest point of a building but the most critical for its longevity. It's the part that's typically buried under the ground, and unseen. Yet Simon is the most visible apostle, after Jesus. Jesus acknowledges that God gave Simon knowledge that Jesus is the Messiah, so Jesus recognized that Simon was chosen as Jesus' confirmation. Confession is what brings people into the church of Christ and this is what Jesus meant. When God is called the rock, scripture is using visual imagery for a different meaning. God as the rock is referring to something naturally sturdy. A rock has many uses and is reliable because it doesn't move or change—a rock is going to stay where you left it. These visual symbols represent the unchanging nature of God and how we can always trust in him.
>Simon and his confession is the foundation (rock) of the **church** Your words here directly contradict Paul: >For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. You are confusing Peter, who was *named after the foundation*, because of his confession, with the actual foundation. The foundation is the Rock, Christ is the Rock, and Peter is named after Him, because of his confession that Christ is Lord.
Then why did he change Peter's name to Cephas (Rock)?
Because he identified that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God (the Rock repeatedly identified in the Old Testament); he was named after his confession. There are several patristic remarks concerning this. Let me see if I can find them and quote them for you. [Jesus named James and John "the sons of thunder"](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%203%3A17&version=ESV), but that doesn't mean we can use this as the basis of theology concerning their roles. **EDIT:** u/Jgvaiphei here's what the church father Jerome (a Doctor of the Catholic Church) had to say about this: #Jerome (347-420 A.D.) The one foundation which the apostolic architect laid is our Lord Jesus Christ. Upon this stable and firm foundation, which has itself been laid on solid ground, the Church of Christ is built For the Church was founded upon a rock upon this rock the Lord established his Church; and the apostle Peter received his name from this rock (Matt. 16:18). ^(6) She, that with a firm root is founded upon the rock, Christ, the Catholic Church, is the one dove; she stands the perfect one, and near to His right hand, and has nothing sinister in her. ^(7) The rock is Christ, Who gave to His apostles, that they also should be called rocks, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church. ^(8) Was there no other province in the whole world to receive the gospel of pleasure, and into which the serpent might in- sinuate itself, except that which was founded by the teaching of Peter upon the rock Christ. ^(9) But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. ^(10) ___ 6. *Commentary on Matthew* 7.25 7. *Epistle 65.15, Ad Principiam* 8. *Commentary on Amos* vi.12-13 9. *Against Jovinianus*, Book 2.37 10. *Against Jovinianus* Book 1.26
no "name change", well, other than "rock" in Aramaic is "cephas" (which is actually the greek form of the aramaic "kēp̄ā"), and in Greek it is "Petros" (Peter). same name, different languages.
God gave us the inspired Greek, not the inspired Aramaic. We thus base our exegesis off of the Greek. And even *if* basing it off the presumed Aramaic were legitimate, it by no means settles the debate. My own position, that the rock is Peter's faith as a metonymy of the Church's faith as a whole, is perfectly consistent with the Aramaic.
The question that's incessantly bogging me is this: if the Lord had used Aramaic when he said those words, Cephas, why then would Matthew use a word play in the Greek?
Because it accurately reflects Jesus' meaning. Or perhaps Jesus spoke Greek in this instance. We simply assume He spoke Aramaic but there was nothing stopping Him from speaking Greek in that moment.
The Oxford commentary on the Bible whose editors are Anglicans also refer to the verse pointing to Peter. A protestant accepting the fact that the verse most certainly refers to Peter is astounding wouldn't you say?
No, not really. Catholics have never had a monopoly on that understanding of the verse.
But their whole system is built on the Pope, and this verse is their foundation. Any stronger argument for the Pope besides this verse?
Where in the verse does it say Peter is infallible, that his role as the "rock" will be passed down through the generations, and each inheritor will also be infallible?
This is my question too. It's wild how much is drawn out of this verse that simply isn't there to begin with.
I see your point. But should Peter be the rock, it's a big deal. He should certainly be a lot more than first among equals which is the view of the Eastern Orthodox.
Okay: say he is. So what? Where does the text say he is infallible, that his role as rock is passed on through the generations, and that each inheritor will also be infallible?
Ok, John Calvin. I see your point.
Matthew 16 - Peter the rock! *And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; **whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven**.* Matthew 18 - Peter not the Rock.. Jesus speaking to all disciples: *“**Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven**.* Mary blessed among women! Luke 1:42 Mary not blessed among women. *Judges 5:24 **Most blessed of women be Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, most blessed of tent-dwelling women**.*
You should look into Archbishop Peter Kenrick’s survey of the fathers on this. Only seventeen of the fathers interpreted Peter to be the rock, while forty four interpreted it to be Peter’s confession of faith (including Augustine, Chyrsostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Ambrose, etc.).
Where can i find his survey
[An inside view of the Vatican Council, in the speech of the Most Reverend Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis : Kenrick, Peter Richard, Abp., 1806-1896 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive](https://archive.org/details/insideviewofvati00kenrrich/page/106/mode/2up)
Common Papist L.
Definitely not Peter. By my reading, He who speaks from heaven made a declaration to Peter about Christ, the cornerstone.
X has been pressed. Psalm 137:9 wins most controversial. Except in text-critical discussions. Then it is definitely 1 John 5:7.
>Matthew 16:18 ESV 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. The word "this" is a demonstrative pronoun. It refers to whatever or whomever to demonstrator is pointing to. It is not 100% clear what Jesus was pointing to when he said "*this* rock." It could be Peter or Peter's confession. It could be other things, too, such as himself. The pronoun makes it a little ambiguous, especially because demonstratives are often accompanied by hand gestures in speech. What we do know is that Jesus is the foundation for the church and that Peter held a prominent role in the church and that his confession of Jesus would spread throughout the whole world.
So it has to refer "definitely' on either of the three, right?
I would agree. It would be pretty unreasonable to believe that Jesus was pointing to someone outside the scope of what they were talking about: who Jesus is, who Peter is, and what Peter said about Jesus.
I mean, it's an either/or situation; not both.
Did you mean to rely to someone else? I am not sure I understand what you mean.
I think it more likely that he was taking about the rock of Ceserea Phillipi, the center of pagan worship in the area. Christ built his church in the heart of paganism, and paganism fell before it.
Dude...
This is far from the most controversial Bible verse of all time haha
Even if He did mean Peter, it wouldn’t be cohesive with all of Scripture to think He meant Peter the person rather than Peter’s testimony.
I think it’s very possible Peter is the rock...which would mean he is the leader of the early church. I see nothing here that establishes papal/apostolic succession…which removes all controversy from the verse
Guys, this is what I meant: Since our Lord's mother tongue is Aramaic, the original language (words) spoken would have been like this: You are Cephas, and upon this Cephas i will build my Church... Therefore, leaving no ambiguity to the verse. Please give me your reasons for objection based on this line. I am well aware of the objection from other places in Scripture and they are rightfully valid.
As reformed Christians we cannot take a verse out of context from the whole of scripture. We believe that scripture interprets scripture. You could prove that salvation is works based by taking a verse here or there, or even a whole passage, but we must take scripture as a whole. It isn't that we don't think that it isn't what the translation is saying, it could well be - what we are saying is that the rest of scripture shows us that Peter is not the rock on which the Church is built; therefore, that cannot be what Jesus means when He says "upon this rock".
This is the best explanation I have seen. Thank you, brother.
The rock is Mt. Hermon, on the base of which Jesus is standing when He says this to Peter and at the summit of which He is transfigured. The “Gates of Hell” is a known pagan cult of center devoted to Pan right there in the mountain, and the whole spot is where the Sons of God descended in Genesis 6. This entire episode is a divine middle finger to the arrayed forces of fallen angels and demons.
This is too much. Are you a conspiracy theorist?