Peter the Rock?

[The Learner]

Pope clarifies remarks about homosexuality and sin

Pope Francis, in a letter to Jesuit Father James Martin, clarified remarks he had made during an interview with the Associated Press published Jan. 25....

www.usccb.org

Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to a dubium regarding the blessing of the unions of persons of the same sex

press.vatican.va

Read the full text of the Vatican's declaration approving blessings for same-sex couples

The value of this document, however, is that it offers a specific and innovative contribution to the pastoral meaning of blessings, permitting a broadening and enrichment of the classical understanding of blessings.

outreach.faith

Dichiarazione “Fiducia supplicans” sul senso pastorale delle benedizioni del Dicastero per la Dottrina della Fede

press.vatican.va

I. The Blessing in the Sacrament of Marriage

4. Pope Francis’ recent response to the second of the five questions posed by two Cardinals[4] offers an opportunity to explore this issue further, especially in its pastoral implications. It is a matter of avoiding that “something that is not marriage is being recognized as marriage.”[5] Therefore, rites and prayers that could create confusion between what constitutes marriage—which is the “exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children”[6]—and what contradicts it are inadmissible. This conviction is grounded in the perennial Catholic doctrine of marriage; it is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, proper, and fully human meaning. The Church’s doctrine on this point remains firm.

5. This is also the understanding of marriage that is offered by the Gospel. For this reason, when it comes to blessings, the Church has the right and the duty to avoid any rite that might contradict this conviction or lead to confusion. Such is also the meaning of the Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex.

6. It should be emphasized that in the Rite of the Sacrament of Marriage, this concerns not just any blessing but a gesture reserved to the ordained minister. In this case, the blessing given by the ordained minister is tied directly to the specific union of a man and a woman, who establish an exclusive and indissoluble covenant by their consent. This fact allows us to highlight the risk of confusing a blessing given to any other union with the Rite that is proper to the Sacrament of Marriage.

II. The Meaning of the Various Blessings

7. The Holy Father’s above-mentioned response invites us to broaden and enrich the meaning of blessings.

8. Blessings are among the most widespread and evolving sacramentals. Indeed, they lead us to grasp God’s presence in all the events of life and remind us that, even in the use of created things, human beings are invited to seek God, to love him, and to serve him faithfully.[7] For this reason, blessings have as their recipients: people; objects of worship and devotion; sacred images; places of life, of work, and suffering; the fruits of the earth and human toil; and all created realities that refer back to the Creator, praising and blessing him by their beauty.

The Liturgical Meaning of the Rites of Blessing

9. From a strictly liturgical point of view, a blessing requires that what is blessed be conformed to God’s will, as expressed in the teachings of the Church.

10. Indeed, blessings are celebrated by virtue of faith and are ordered to the praise of God and the spiritual benefit of his people. As the Book of Blessings explains, “so that this intent might become more apparent, by an ancient tradition, the formulas of blessing are primarily aimed at giving glory to God for his gifts, asking for his favors, and restraining the power of evil in the world.”[8] Therefore, those who invoke God’s blessing through the Church are invited to “strengthen their dispositions through faith, for which all things are possible” and to trust in “the love that urges the observance of God’s commandments.”[9] This is why, while “there is always and everywhere an opportunity to praise God through Christ, in the Holy Spirit,” there is also a care to do so with “things, places, or circumstances that do not contradict the law or the spirit of the Gospel.”[10] This is a liturgical understanding of blessings insofar as they are rites officially proposed by the Church.

11. Basing itself on these considerations, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Explanatory Note to its 2021 Responsum recalls that when a blessing is invoked on certain human relationships by a special liturgical rite, it is necessary that what is blessed corresponds with God’s designs written in creation and fully revealed by Christ the Lord. For this reason, since the Church has always considered only those sexual relations that are lived out within marriage to be morally licit, the Church does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when that would somehow offer a form of moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice. The Holy Father reiterated the substance of this Declaration in his Respuestas to the Dubia of two Cardinals.

12. One must also avoid the risk of reducing the meaning of blessings to this point of view alone, for it would lead us to expect the same moral conditions for a simple blessing that are called for in the reception of the sacraments. Such a risk requires that we broaden this perspective further. Indeed, there is the danger that a pastoral gesture that is so beloved and widespread will be subjected to too many moral prerequisites, which, under the claim of control, could overshadow the unconditional power of God’s love that forms the basis for the gesture of blessing.

13. Precisely in this regard, Pope Francis urged us not to “lose pastoral charity, which should permeate all our decisions and attitudes” and to avoid being “judges who only deny, reject, and exclude.”[11] Let us then respond to the Holy Father’s proposal by developing a broader understanding of blessings.

Blessings in Sacred Scripture

Declaration Fiducia Supplicans On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings (18 December 2023)

Declaration Fiducia Supplicans On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings (18 December 2023)

www.vatican.va

 

[Truthnightmare]

No - He told one of the parishes to repent.

12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;

To the church!!!

Not to one perisher… the church is more than a perisher.

The whole church was told to repent

Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Them is not singular… But your rebuttals have become just silly at this point. So good luck on your path.

 

[Truthnightmare]

No - He told one of the parishes to repent.

Listen… I don’t have to say a word, all I must do is post what

No - He told one of the parishes to repent.

You are triggered from your own writtings.

The 'Queen of Heaven': Pope Pius XII (1939-58), a Pope many today still remember, described Mary as 'Queen of Heaven'. It was he, on November 1st 1950, who proclaimed ex-Cathedra 'from the seat' (infallibly) that Mary's body was raised from the grave shortly after she died, and she was taken up and enthroned as 'Queen of Heaven.' At St. Peter Square on Easter Day 1988, Pope John Paul II's message included a prayer "to the Queen of Heaven for protection and peace in the world." The only references to be found in Scripture of the 'Queen of Heaven' relate to the Canaanite pagan goddess to whom the Israelites burned incense, made cakes and poured out drink offerings, and who was detestable and wicked in the eyes of the Lord:

Jer 44:25-27
25 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows.
26 Therefore hear ye the word of the LORD, all Judah that dwell in the land of Egypt; Behold, I have sworn by my great name, saith the LORD, that my name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, The Lord GOD liveth.
27 Behold, I will watch over them for evil, and not for good: and all the men of Judah that are in the land of Egypt shall be consumed by the sword and by the famine, until there be an end of them. (KJV)

PICTURE: Pope John Paul II offering incense from an incense burner to a graven image of the Mother Mary (top right of picture), the Catholic 'Queen of Heaven', in direct violation of Almighty God's Word in the book of Jeremiah (see Scriptures below). Photo taken on May 13th 1991, as the Pope was thanking 'Our Lady of Fatima' (Mother Mary) for saving his life on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the assassination attempt upon him.

Jer 44:16-17
16 As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the LORD, we will not hearken unto thee.
17 But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. (KJV)
Jer 7:18
18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger. (KJV)

PICTURE: A Catholic Cardinal offers incense from an Incense Burner to a statue (image) of a Saint. But God's Word forbids any such activity.
Deut 4:16
16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female (KJV)
Hosea 11:2
2 As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images. (KJV)

At the heart of the dilemma for any Christian (whether Catholic or not) is the First (I) and Second (II) Commandments of God as found in [Exodus 20:1-6]:

Exod 20:1-6
1 And God spake all these words, saying,
(I)
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
(II)
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. (KJV)

---

The Veneration of Mary:
Back to list of subsections at top of page

While the veneration with which Mary, the Mother of Christ, is regarded by the Catholic church is indicated in various indirect ways, for example by the large nimbus (Halo), such as may be seen in the pictures of the Crucifixion in the Rabulas manuscript of A.D. 586. As early as A.D. 540 we find a mosaic in which she sits enthroned as Queen of Heaven in the center of the apex of the cathedral of Parenzo in Austria, which was constructed at that date by Bishop Euphrasius. Let's look at one of the Catechisms (teachings) of the Catholic church:

CC (Catechism) 966: "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as QUEEN over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.' [LG 59; cf. Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus (1950): DS 3903; cf. Rev 19:16.] The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians: In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death." [Byzantine Liturgy, Troparion, Feast of the Dormition, August 15th.] *emphasis added

 

[Truthnightmare]

No - He told one of the parishes to repent.

I don’t have the say anything… here is your own writings….

CC (Catechism) 968: "Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. 'In a wholly singular way she cooperatedby her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior's work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace." [LG 61.] *emphasis added

CC 969: "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heavenshe did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix." [LG 62.] *emphasis added
CC 973: "By pronouncing her 'fiat' at the Annunciation and giving her consent to the Incarnation, Mary was already collaborating with the whole work her Son was to accomplish. She is mother wherever he is Savior and head of the Mystical Body." *emphasis added

In the Catholic Catechism, Mary is placed on par with Jesus Christ:

CC 964: "Mary's role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. 'This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to his death'; [LG 57.] it is made manifest above all at the hour of his Passion: Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother's heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: 'Woman, behold your son.'[LG 58; cf. Jn 19:26-27 .]" *emphasis added

CC 2677: "Holy Mary, Mother of God": With Elizabeth we marvel, 'And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?' [Lk 1:43] Because she gives us Jesus, her son, Mary is Mother of God and our mother; we can entrust all our cares and petitions to her: she prays for us as she prayed for herself: 'Let it be to me according to your word.' [Lk 1:38] By entrusting ourselves to her prayer, we abandon ourselves to the will of God together with her: 'Thy will be done'. "Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death": By asking Mary to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor sinners and we address ourselves to the 'Mother of Mercy,' the All-Holy One. We give ourselves over to her now, in the Today of our lives. And our trust broadens further, already at the present moment, to surrender 'the hour of our death' wholly to her care. May she be there as she was at her son's death on the cross. May she welcome us as our mother at the hour of our passing [Jn 19:27] to lead us to her son, Jesus, in paradise." *emphasis added
CC 2674: "Mary gave her consent in faith at the Annunciation and maintained it without hesitation at the foot of the Cross. Ever since, her motherhood has extended to the brothers and sisters of her Son 'who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties.' [LG 62.] Jesus, the only mediator, is the way of our prayer; Mary, his mother and ours, is wholly transparent to him: she 'shows the way' (hodigitria), and is herself 'the Sign' of the way, according to the traditional iconography of East and West." *emphasis added

The Catholic dogma even claims that the Commandment prohibiting the use of the lord's name in vain is extended to the name of Mary:

CC 2146: "The second commandment forbids the abuse of God's name, i.e., every improper use of the names of God, Jesus Christ, but also of the Virgin Mary and all the saints." *emphasis added

CC 2162: "The second commandment forbids every improper use of God's name. Blasphemy is the use of the name of God, of Jesus Christ, of the Virgin Mary, and of the saints in an offensive way."*emphasis added

 

[Phoneman777]

Hey Phoneman,

I gave you links to back up what I said/believe so I asked you for any website links to back up your statement, "Jesus called Peter "petros" which doesn't mean "rock" - it means something like "rolling pebble" pushed to and fro," You said Greek scholars disagree with me.

Your post from Strongs Greek supports exactly what I said and does not support your "rolling pebble" statement.

You also post a link to Osmundo S. Sabado(?) giving his opinion on Peter being the rock. Is Sabado a Greek Scholar? No, he is not. So would you like to give me anything from a Greek Scholar AND anything that supports what you said instead of defeats what you said?

Mary

Strong ain't the only scholar out there. Besides, the Bible tells you upon what the church is built (Jesus, the foundation and the corner stone) so comparing Scripture with Scripture points us to "little stone vs. giant rock of immense proportion".

Too often, catholicism attempts to build a doctrine on one verse, but "out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, a thing is established".

 

[Phoneman777]

Phoneman777, I respect your opinion (although I am not sure I agree with it). And I've read a lot of scholarly writings on both sides of the debate. There are indeed some that support your opinion, and a few make quite cogent arguments. But this link you provided is absolute crap. And choosing to post it undermines your credibility. I'd hate to see that happen, because I think you can add something to the debate.

That's some pretty bold criticism you got there. Let's weigh the evidence:

PETER is the "rock" upon which the church is built:​

• scholars who make no appreciable distinction between "Petros" and "Petra"

JESUS is the "Rock" upon which the church is built:​

• Jesus is the Biblical "foundation"
• Jesus is the Biblical "cornerstone"
• scholars who assign inferiority to "Petros" when comparing to "Petra"
• scholars who acknowledge Peter's confession as the only possible foundation: "Thou art the Christ"

Conclusion: In the words of Les Garrett in Which Bible Should We Trust?, "Who but those with Roman catholic sympathies could ever be pleased with the notion" that the Bible identifies Peter as the "rock" upon which the church is built?

I suspect that whatever "scholars" argue in favor of Peter as the "rock" are either outright papists or pretend Protestants and diminished credibility of those who are deceived into supporting such nonsense is the least of their worries.

 

[RedFan]

That's some pretty bold criticism you got there. Let's weigh the evidence:

PETER is the "rock" upon which the church is built:

• scholars who make no appreciable distinction between "Petros" and "Petra"

That's not "evidence." It's also off point. Jesus would have addressed Peter in Aramaic, not Greek, And he spoke the Aramaic word kēpā' to Peter twice -- what in English would be "You are the Rock (kēpā') and upon this rock (kēpā') I will build my church." So this "Petros" and "petra" dichotomy is based on a translator's Greek rendition of a single Aramaic word into two forms, one masculine and one feminine, to press the author's interpretation.

JESUS is the "Rock" upon which the church is built:

• Jesus is the Biblical "foundation"
• Jesus is the Biblical "cornerstone"
• scholars who assign inferiority to "Petros" when comparing to "Petra"
• scholars who acknowledge Peter's confession as the only possible foundation: "Thou art the Christ"

That's not "evidence" either. And it's likewise off point. Jesus is the Biblical "foundation" and Biblical "cornerstone" of what? Not the "church" of Matt. 16:18! Go back and read the epistles from which you lift these references. If you find "ekklesia" in them, let me know.

The "scholars" who assign inferiority to "Petros" when comparing to "Petra" must have thought Jesus spoke Greek to Peter -- which he didn't (see my comment above), and anyway, if you find me an English translation of Matt. 16:18 that has the word "pebble" in it, let me know.

As to your last bullet point, you need to get your story straight. Which do you say is the "rock" of Matt. 16:18? Is it Jesus (as in your bullet points 1 and 2), or is it Peter's confession (as in your bullet point 4)? Make up your mind, and stop comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Phoneman777]

That's not "evidence." It's also off point. Jesus would have addressed Peter in Aramaic, not Greek, And he spoke the Aramaic word kēpā' to Peter twice -- what in English would be "You are the Rock (kēpā') and upon this rock (kēpā') I will build my church." So this "Petros" and "petra" dichotomy is based on a translator's Greek rendition of a single Aramaic word into two forms, one masculine and one feminine, to press the author's interpretation.

Yes, a "single Aramaic word" whose breadth of meaning can easily accommodate the Greek dichotomy, in the same way the English word "rock" can refer to both "pea gravel" rock or the "Rock of Gibraltar".

God asks us to "reason together" with Him. It's not reasonable to say the church is built on Peter, a flawed foundation if there ever was one.

That's not "evidence" either. And it's likewise off point. Jesus is the Biblical "foundation" and Biblical "cornerstone" of what? Not the "church" of Matt. 16:18! Go back and read the epistles from which you lift these references. If you find "ekklesia" in them, let me know.

It's you who needs to lay aside Roman catholic sympathies and embrace the only church Foundation, Jesus:

• "the stone that the builders rejected, the same is become the Head of the corner"
• God will lay in Zion "a stone, a sure "foundation, a precious cornerstone, a tried stone"
• Jesus is the only legit "foundation" which can be laid
• Jesus is the "living foundation stone" upon which "lively stones" comprise the church

The "scholars" who assign inferiority to "Petros" when comparing to "Petra" must have thought Jesus spoke Greek to Peter -- which he didn't (see my comment above), and anyway, if you find me an English translation of Matt. 16:18 that has the word "pebble" in it, let me know.

No, they simply exercised "line upon line, precept upon precept". I've already shown you several verses proving beyond question the church foundation is Jesus, which disqualifies everyone else, including Peter...leaving only one conclusion about "kepha":

"Thou art PeeGravel ("kepha"), and upon this Gibraltar ("kepha") - your confession - I build the church: Myself".

As to your last bullet point, you need to get your story straight. Which do you say is the "rock" of Matt. 16:18? Is it Jesus (as in your bullet points 1 and 2), or is it Peter's confession (as in your bullet point 4)? Make up your mind, and stop comparing apples to oranges.

Surely, you're being obtuse. I think you know full well by now that pointing to "Peter's confession" as the church foundation isn't referring to Peter's act of confessing, but the content of his confession - that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

And, since connecting the dots leads to the conclusion that catholicism's "Peter" is none other than "Simon Magus the Sorcerer", I'll grant the papacy to build as many catholic churches upon him as they wish.

 

[JohnD]

Close inspection of the text in Matthew 16 :17-23 reveals Christ's statement about the Rock could not refer to Simon Peter since by verse 23 he'd already flip flipped.

It is far more reasonable to interpret the passage as Jesus himself being the Rock / Cornerstone / Foundation of the Church (which the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:11 wrote about and Peter himself later commented on in 1 Peter 2:3-9).

There is also another interpretation of the Rock Jesus was referring to... that of the revelation of the Father. "Flesh and blood hat not revealed this unto thee but my Father who is in heaven..." the foundation for truth versus the ways of man and Satan which is the mire of untruth.

 

[RedFan]

Surely, you're being obtuse. I think you know full well by now that pointing to "Peter's confession" as the church foundation isn't referring to Peter's act of confessing, but the content of his confession - that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

Who is being obtuse? The content of the confession, like the act of confession itself, is different from Jesus Christ, the rock and cornerstone of the epistles you cite. So I ask you again, which do you say is the "rock" of Matt. 16:18?

 

[Truthnightmare]

Consider the source, Einstein . . .

This video is from USA Today - a left-wing, secular news source that makes denigrating ALL things Christian part of their agenda.
Today it's the Catholic Church. Tomorrow, it's YOUR sect . . .

Forgot the source… We can listen to the Pope speak, you know, straight from the horses mouth.

Left leaning? I have the Pope saying we should take in migrants and refugees… isnt that a left leaning position?

Is Fox News left leaning?

 

[Truthnightmare]

What kind of nonsense is this…

 

[Truthnightmare]

How man migrants is the Vatican taking in…

 

[The Learner]

A study I found from various understandsing of

"Upon This Rock": an Exegetical and Patristic Examination of Matthew 16:18​

Later, Jesus takes his disciples to Caesarea Philippi (16:13), a place known for its pagan activity, including the famous grotto where people worshipped the Greek god Pan.19

upon this question: Who/What is this so-called “rock”? For Roman Catholics, the word-play between Simon’s surname, Peter (Pevtro", Lat. Petrus), and the “rock” (pevtra, Lat. petram) is not coincidental. This pun clearly points to the “rock” being none other than the apostle himself. Protestant scholars, however, have largely fallen into three camps regarding the interpretation of the verse: 1) the rock is Jesus; 2) the rock is the confession of faith; 3) the rock is Peter.

Luke 22:32 and John 21:15-17, not only affirms the preeminence of Peter as the Prince of the apostles, but it also lays the groundwork for the establishment of a permanent Roman see with full Petrine authority.

Introduction to an Exegetical and Patristic Examination of Matthew 16:18 | Bible.org

Of the three Synoptic Gospels, Matthew appears to be the most concerned with Jesus’ relationship to Judaism and his role as the Savior of Israel. Israel’s prophets had long promised that a final king and/or dynasty would descend from David (Isa 9:7; Jer 23:5), and this messianic theme would...

bible.org

 

[The Learner]

"Upon This Rock": an Exegetical and Patristic Examination of Matthew 16:18 | Bible.org

This masters thesis was presented by Ms. Burnette while a student and intern of Daniel B. Wallace at Dallas Theological Seminary.

bible.org

1. The Exegetical Examination of Matthew 16:18​

“You are Peter”: A Linguistic Study of Πέτρος (16:18a)​

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω. “And I” (κἀγώ) follows the revelation that the Father made to Peter. According to Walter Bauer, the pronoun κἀγώ should be understood as “but I, for my part.”38 In other words, Jesus is saying: “My Father has just revealed something to you, but I, for my part, will also reveal a truth to you.” Therefore, the και … δε combination essentially serves as an adversative conjunction.39 Jesus uses the emphatic pronoun, which in light of Peter’s confession, means “I, the Messiah”; it marks the following words as important.40 Peter has made an important statement about Jesus; Jesus, in turn will make an important statement to Peter.41

ὅτι σὺ ει Πέτρος. The ὅτι is a substantival conjunction of content.42 It introduces the direct object clause of λέγω. The σοι should then be taken as the indirect object of λέγω. The σύ here is being used emphatically. Jesus is therefore singling out Peter. He is essentially saying: “You, the man who has just made this important statement; you, to whom my Father has revealed this great truth.”43 This parallels the emphatic σύ in Peter’s confession in v. 16. Here, Πέτρος functions as the predicate nominative to σύ.

The word Πέτρος means “stone”44 and occurs 156 times in the New Testament.45 Except at John 1:42, where it is used to clarify the Aramaic Κηφᾶς, Πέτρος) is only used in the NT as the nickname of Simon, one of the original twelve apostles of Jesus.46 It occurs 29 times with Σίμων; of those 29 times, three occur in the Gospel of Matthew (4:18; 10:2; 16:16).47 The original name of the apostle is either Symeon or Simon.48 Symeon is a Hebrew name that was used quite commonly among Jews, but this Semitic form is only used of Peter in Acts 15:14 and 2 Peter 1:1.49 In the New Testament, nine people, apart from Peter are called Simon, and two people, apart from Peter, the patriarch Simeon (Rev. 7:7), and an ancestor of Jesus (Luke 3:30) are called Simeon (Luke 2:25, 34; Acts 13:1).50 It appears to have been the most prevalent Jewish name between the period of 100 B.C.-A.D. 200, no doubt because it was a patriarchal name that was readily assimilated into Greek.51 It should be noted that the use of the name “Simeon” in 2 Peter 1:1 has been met with some controversy.52 The Gospels, though, consistently use the Greek name of Simon.53 Since there is a similarity of sound between the Greek and Hebrew names, the former probably replaced the latter.54 It is possible that Peter bore both names from the very beginning, especially if he came from Bethsaida, which was under heavy Greek influence.55

 

[The Learner]

Moreover, Simon also bears another name, Κηφᾶς. This name is a Greek transcription of the Aramaic wordֵֹכיפָא .56 The word ֵֹכיפָא means “rock”.57 The Hebrew noun kēph is found in Jer 4:29, Job 30:6, and Sir 40:1458; the common noun kephā appears twice in the Targum of Job from Qumran Cave 11 and several times in the texts of Aramaic Enoch from Qumran Cave 4.59 In the Qumran passages, the word has the sense of “rock” or “crag,” a part of a mountainous or hilly area.60 For years it was thought that Κηφᾶς was not used as a proper name. However, Fitzmeyer has shown that kp does occur as a proper name in a Aramaic text from Elephantine that dates to the eighth year of the reign of Darius II, hence to 416 B.C.61 Thus Peter was not the first person to have had the name, and the existence of Κηφᾶς as a proper name at least makes more plausible the suggestion that a wordplay in Aramaic was involved.62 Κηφᾶς is used to reference Simon most often in the writings of Paul.63 It seems highly unlikely that Paul would simply choose to give Peter an Aramaic name, so it can be safely assumed that Paul knew that Peter was also called Κηφᾶς when he wrote his epistles.64 This would indicate a very early use of Κηφᾶς as a proper name, certainly prior to the composition of Matthew.65 This too would lend credence to the arguments that Jesus probably spoke to his disciples in both Aramaic and Greek.66

As previously stated, Πέτρος is used to clarify Κηφᾶς in John 1:42. As a rule, Semitic names of the New Testament period were far more subject to Hellenization than those of the OT.67 Often the same name, if it belongs to a NT person, is Grecized68; grammatically, this Hellenization could take place through a variety of ways, but Κηφᾶς-Πέτρος serves as a great example of Hellenization taking place through translation.69 While some have argued that the Κηφᾶς of Galatians is not the apostle Peter70, this is probably not the case.71

“Upon this Rock”: A Linguistic Study of πέτρα (16:18b)​

 

[The Learner]

καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃͅ τῇ πέτρᾳ. The καί merely serves as a connective conjunction, so it should simply be translated as “and.” When used with the dative, ἐπί can be understood in a spatial, temporal, or causal sense.72 Here, a spatial understanding works best, and the word may be understood as “on, upon”.73 The object of ἐπί should be understood as πέτρα.

The ταύτη (“this”) also refers to πέτρα. The use of the article τῇ with the demonstrative pronoun ταύτη, which is in the predicate position, indicates attributive function.74 So, the phrase may be translated as such: “and upon this rock.” The word πέτρα means “rock, stone”; literally, it refers to the rock out of which a tomb is hewn.75 According to Cullman, in the LXX, πέτρα can be used to signify the following: a. “rock or cliff” (Exod 17:6; Ps 80:16); b. place-name or geographical note, (1 Βar 23:28); c. fig. (Isa 8:14), of an unbending character (Isa 50:7) or the hardened mind (Jer 5:3); d. occasionally a name for God (2 Βar 22:2).76 The word occurs fifteen times in the New Testament77; nine of those fifteen occurrences are in the Gospels78; five of the fifteen are in Matthew.79 Only in Matt 16:18 are πέτρα and Πέτρος used in the same verse.

POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS OF ΠΈΤΡΑ​

While the argument from Aramaic would work well in proving that the πέτρα in question is Peter, it is by no means certain that Jesus spoke Aramaic here.80 Given the distinct possibility that Jesus may have spoken Greek here, and given the fact that Matthew’s verses are in the Greek, one might do well to stick to a Greek understanding of the πέτρα-Πέτρος word-play. If this is done, a wide variety of interpretations may be obtained. Gundry, for example, argues that the πέτρα is the teachings of Jesus. He argues that Matthew essentially quotes 7:24, so the πέτρα consists of Jesus’ teaching (i.e., the law of Christ).81 But other interpretations are offered as well. Caragounis argues that πέτρα refers to Peter’s confession of faith. He states the following:

It is obvious that if the reference were intended to [be] Peter there were only two alternatives available – which would have put the matter beyond reasonable doubt. The first alternative would be: Σὺ εἷ Πέτροςκαὶ ἐπὶ σὲ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. There would still be a word-play here, in as much as Πέτρος would have been understood to refer to the well-known disciple, while at the same time the thought of building would have reflected on the meaning of Peter’s name, i.e., the idea of a bedrock on which to erect the ἐκκλησία. The other alternative, which is still better, would be: Σὺ εἷ ὁ Πέτρος ἐφ= ᾧ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. Ηere, the word Πέτρος would have been understood doubly as the personal name of Jesus’ interlocutor and as the rock-foundation of the Church. In this case, there would have been no doubt that the rock was Peter. That Matthew chose to use Πέτρος and πέτρα, two different words, whose very collocation marks a conscious juxtaposition, indicates clearly his intention to contradistinguish the two terms… . It is this confession of Jesus as God’s anointed Messiah, a confession that sets Peter and the other disciples apart from unbelieving Jews, a confession which in Matthew’s context exercises a constraining influence on Jesus to come to terms with his hard calling, to direct his steps to the place of duty, seeing behind Peter’s words his Father’s affirmation of his mission and office, that lies at the basis of Jesus’ words to Peter. Peter’s words are not merely an honorific title; they are a challenge, the challenge of Messianic calling, of Messianic suffering, of Messianic community, of God’s kingdom, of reward and glory… . The πέτρα is the content of Peter’s insight, i.e., that Jesus is the Messiah.82

First, Caragounis places a great deal of emphasis on the fact that Matthew chose to use both Πέτρος and πέτρα in v. 18; for him, this proves that Matthew was not equating the “rock” with the apostle. Second, Caragounis argues that Matthew 16 centers largely upon the fact that Jesus is the Messiah. The “unbelieving Jews” (e.g., the Pharisees and the Sadducees) could not see that truth, and though they previously proclaimed him as the Son of God previously (14:33), even his disciples did not openly affirm Jesus as the Messiah at Caesarea Philippi. While Peter accurately identifies Jesus as the divine Son-Christ (and receives a blessing for doing so), the apostle does not stand at the center of Matt 16:18; what is important is Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ. Other commentators, such McNeile, Allen, and Ryle also support a πέτρα = faith reading of the text. Theologian John Ryle, for example, states the following about the identity of the πέτρα: “To speak of an erring, fallible child of Adam as the foundation of the spiritual temple is very unlike the ordinary language of Scripture… . The true meaning of the “rock” appears to be the truth of the Lord’s messiahship and divinity.”83 It should be noted that this view also had the support of some notable Reformers, including John Calvin.84

 

[The Learner]

In his treatise On True and False Religion, Ulrich Zwingli states the following:

[It] is as though Christ were saying, ‘I was right to give thee the name Peter; for thou art Peter. For staunchly and clearly and unwaveringly [Peter] confesseth that which has saving power for all. I, too, will build my church upon this rock, not upon thee; for thou art not a rock (petra). God alone is the rock on which every building shall be built… . So, thou, Peter, art not a rock.’ For how would the Church have collapsed when he, trembling at the feeble voice of her who kept the door [John 18:17] began to make denial! … That the divine Apostle so understood the words of Christ he himself bears witness, 1 Pet 2:4-5: ‘Unto whom’ – Christ, that is – ‘coming, a living stone, rejected indeed of man, but with God elect and precious, ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house.’ ‘Behold as Christ is a rock,’ you say, ‘so are we rocks,’ But see in what sense Christ is a rock, and in what sense we are rocks. Christ is the rock upon which the building rises, we are the common stones in the building which has its foundations in Christ. Christ alone, therefore, not Peter nor any creature is the rock, built upon which the Church stands fast against all the vicious fury of all the storms.85

Interestingly, theologian George A. F. Knight holds a similar understanding of the verse. With Zwingli, he argues that Peter never would have understood himself to be the “rock” in question. As a first-century Jew, he would have automatically connected the “rock” with God.86 Throughout the Old Testament, the God of Israel is often called “rock” (Deut 32: 4, 15, 18, 30; 1 Sam 2:2, 22:32, 47; Ps 18:31, 19:14, 28:1, 42:9, 89:26; Isa 30:29). In the whole story of God’s self-revelation through His relationship with Israel, He proved that He was their provider and caretaker – the rock of their faith.87 Like Zwingli, Knight maintains that the rock cannot be either the apostle or his faith because “[in] a matter of only weeks Peter’s faith failed him wholly, and his so-called rock-like qualities became in the High Priest’s courtyard nought but sinking sand.”88 For Knight, then, it is not Peter’s faith that becomes the rock upon which the Church rests; instead, the Church rests on the faithfulness, the reliability, and the rocklike trustworthiness of God.89 Thus, according to Knight, “the rock is none other than God-in-Christ.”90

However, other scholars (such as Keener, Carson, and Ridderbos) argue that the πέτρα is Peter. Against Caragounis, Ridderbos argues that the difference between πέτρα and Πέτρος is rather insignificant. He asserts:

The most likely explanation for the change from petros (“Peter”) to petra is that petra was the normal word for “rock.” Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man’s name, however, Simon was not called petra but Petros. The word Petros was not an exact synonym of petra, as it literally meant “stone.” Jesus therefore had to switch to the word petra when He turned from Peter’s name to what it meant for the church. There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the church. The words “on this rock [petra]” indeed refer to Peter. Because of the revelation that he had received and the confession that it motivated in him, Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future church. Only Peter is mentioned in this verse, and the pun on his name of course applied to him alone.91

 

[The Learner]

Cullman agrees with Ridderbos’ assessment. He also maintains that since the word πέτρα is feminine in the Greek and has a feminine ending (-α), the New Testament chose a less usual Greek word which had the masculine ending (-ος) for the apostle: Πέτρος.92 Cullman goes on to state that there is no essential difference between πέτρα and Πέτρος, for even though πέτρα denoted a “live rock” and Πέτρος meant a “detached stone," the distinction was not strictly observed.93 In several instances, πέτρα is used with the meaning “piece of rock” or “stone.”94

Exegetically, it seems least probable that Jesus is referring to himself as theπέτρα. Carson maintains that if Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was the stone while Jesus was the rock, then the more common word to use would have been lithos (which denotes a “stone” of almost any size) and no pun would have existed.95 It is true that there are numerous instances of God the Father being described as “rock” in the OT (see above) and Jesus being described as “rock” or “foundation” in the NT (1 Cor 3:11, 10:4); however, that does not necessarily mean that Jesus is referring to himself (or the Father) as the “rock” of Matt 16:18.96 As a chapter, Matthew 16 does concentrate heavily on the theme of Jesus’ identity, but vv. 17-19 seem to focus particularly on Peter and his statements regarding Jesus’ identity. Therefore, it would seem likely that the πέτρα of v. 18 either refers to the man or to his confession of faith.

If Peter’s confession of faith is the “rock,” then why did Jesus not say “upon this faith” or “upon your words” I will build my Church? According to R. T. France, it is overreaction against the papal claims of the Roman Catholic Church that has inspired some Protestants to view the “rock” as Peter’s faith rather than the man.97 It seems that the word-play and the whole structure of the logion demands that v. 18 is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as v. 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus.98

It should also be noted that in v. 17, Jesus refers to the apostle as “Simon”. In v. 18, though, Jesus specifically refers to Simon as Peter, the nickname that he had previously given the apostle. If Peter is not in view, why would Jesus deliberately use a word that almost mirrored the apostle’s name? Considering that this is the only place in the entire New Testament corpus in which πέτρα and Πέτρος are used in the same verse, it is difficult to imagine that Jesus was not in some way referring to Peter. This could very well be a case of paronomasia, which is common in the Bible and should not be belittled.99 The only logical explanation is that there is some relationship between the two, and Jesus wanted to make that connection known.

Furthermore, Keener asserts that Jesus does not say, “You are Peter, but on this rock I will build my church”; the adversative δε sometimes means “and” but the copulative και almost always means “and” (with a few exceptions).100 It is true that 16:18 is quite reminiscent of 7:24-27 and ultimately, Jesus’ teaching is the foundation for disciples (1 Cor 3:11), but in this verse, Peter functions as the foundation rock as the apostles and prophets do in Eph 2:20-21.101 If all the apostles and prophets are seen as rocks, does that diminish the unique blessing to Peter? Not at all. Although the apostles may be “rocks” in one sense, Peter is “the rock” in special sense.

 

[The Learner]

Qumran sect was founded upon a “rock”.110 Tractate 1QH 6.25-28 reads: “For Thou wilt set the foundation on rock and the framework by the measuring-cord of justice; and the tried stones [Thou wilt lay] by the plumb-line [of truth], to [build] a mighty [wall] which shall not sway; and no man entering there shall stagger.”111 So, the idea of a community being founded upon a “rock” is present in the Jewish milieu of Jesus’ day.