Peter Paul Rubens. St. Peter. c. 1611. Oil on canvas.
One of the Roman Catholic Church’s chief scriptural supports for the authority of St. Peter as the leading Apostle, who would become the bishop of Rome — whom we would eventually refer to as the first pope — is the verses of Matthew 16:17-19:
And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 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. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’
This is also a favorite passage of anti-Catholics to pick apart. But with even a basic understanding of the ancient languages, the wordplay that Jesus and the Evangelist were implementing here becomes clear: These verses cannot be interpreted any other way but as an explicit declaration of Peter’s authority. And they never were, until the time of Luther.
Let’s look at the Greek, especially of the critical verse 18 (Greek text from NA27; see also, in English, BibleGateway, Bible.CC, New Advent):
κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ἅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.
Now, I don’t expect my readers to have a lot of Greek. If you do, I am delighted — but I’m here to make this as simple as possible. Here it is transliterated into Roman characters:
kagō de soi legō hoti su ei Petros, kai epi tautē tē petra oikodomēsō mou tēn ekklēsian, kai pulai hadou ou katischusousin autēs.
And one more time, all together: this time cribbed so you can understand it.
κἀγὼ [I, emphatically, in response to Peter’s delaration] δέ [and, also, postpositive: together with first word, and I or I also] σοι [2nd person singular dative pronoun, to you] λέγω [(I) say] ὅτι [that] σὺ [2nd person singular nominative pronoun, you, emphatically] εἶ [2nd person singular present active, are] Πέτρος [Peter], καὶ [and] ἐπὶ [preposition on, upon] ταύτῃ [this] τῇ πέτρᾳ [rock] οἰκοδομήσω [first person singular future active I will build, as in building a house] μου [my (lit. of me)] τὴν ἐκκλησίαν [church (lit. a calling out, a meeting, an assembly — but concretely and universally in Christian lit. refers to the Church)], καὶ [and] πύλαι [(the) gates] ἅδου [of hades] οὐ [negative particle, not] κατισχύσουσιν [3rd person plural future active, will overpower] αὐτῆς [it].
Now, the first thing to note about this is that Jesus addresses Peter in the second person singular: that is, he says you and not y’all. The distinction between the second-person singular and plural personal pronouns has died out in modern English; technically, the singular personal pronouns (thou, thy, thee) have died out and been replaced by the plural (ye, your, you). This is why the Southern U.S. y’all will save the English language. But back to the point: Jesus addresses Peter in the singular you — the King James’ Thou art Peter actually preserves the important distinction. So there can be no question that Jesus is speaking to Peter and to Peter alone here; not to all the Apostles; not to all Christians.
Second, and more important: the wordplay. The name “Peter” — Petros in Greek, Petrus in Latin — translates as “Rock.” Jesus is giving Simon a new name, Peter or Rock, in reference to his firmness or steadfastness.
And on this Rock I will build my Church. “You are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my Church.” That’s the proper way to understand the statement, had it been spoken in English.
Now, the common anti-Catholic refutation of this is thus (first put forward by Luther himself): the Evangelist uses different words in the Greek for Peter and Rock. You are Peter (Πέτρος, Petros) and upon this Rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build my Church. Not only are the two words different, but they are different genders — Petros is masculine and petra is feminine — and they have supposedly, according to the Protestant argument, different meanings in Greek. A petros is a small rock or a piece of rock; a petra is the bedrock or a massive rock formation. Therefore clearly, Jesus wasn’t referring to the same rock in both cases, so the argument goes.
There are several reasons why this argument doesn’t work. First of all, the context. Jesus had asked the disciples who they said he was: John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, some other prophet? And in one of the most dramatic moments of the Gospel, Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ. And Jesus in turn confesses Peter: “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to you . . .” The episode would not make any sense if Jesus had said, “I rename you Peter, a steadfast Rock; and on this (other) rock I will build my Church.”
Not only does that not make sense — but Jesus doesn’t say “other” — he says ταύτῃ, this rock. And there doesn’t seem to be any other rock, any petra present. The common Protestant argument is that petra here refers to Peter’s confession or Peter’s faith. But if that were the case, why the wordplay on Peter’s name? Even more so, why the wordplay without any clarification of the ambiguous metaphor? It seems unlike Matthew to let such an ambiguous statement go without explanation, who in other places is careful to provide explanations for the fulfillment of prophecies (Matthew 3), difficult parables (Matthew 13), and foreign words (Matthew 27:46). The reason he doesn’t here is because to Matthew, and to his earliest readers, it wasn’t ambiguous.
In fact, the literary structure of Jesus’s proclamation mirrors Peter’s exactly: “You are the Christ”; “You are Peter.” And Jesus’s other pronouncements here are perhaps even more important, more indicative of Peter’s singular authority, than His pronouncement of Peter as “Rock”. Jesus gives three separate blessings directed to Peter and Peter alone that leave no doubt of His intention to invest Peter specifically with authority:
-
You (Peter) are “Rock,” and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
-
I will give you (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven [mirroring “the gates of hell”].
-
Whatever you (Peter) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [linked implicitly to the “keys”].
Further, there is no evidence, beyond the assertion itself, that the meanings of petros and petra are as distinct as Protestants argue. No scholarly lexicon I have consulted, in particular neither the LSJ for Classical Greek nor the BDAG for Koine, supports the definiton of petros as merely a small rock or piece of rock. The words seem, rather, to be nearly synonymous. If there is a distinction between them at all, it is between petra, a great mass of rock, and petros, stone as a monumental building material — for building, say, a Church.
But most important: there are perfectly good reasons why Matthew used two different words here, Petros and petra: this was the only way to compose the statement so that it would make sense in Greek.
- Peter’s name in Greek is Petros, not Petra. Why didn’t they call him Petra in Greek? Because Petra is a feminine noun, and Peter is a male. By the time the Gospels were written, Petros had been his Greek name for decades.
- Even supposing the Protestant argument about the different meanings of the words petros and petra were true (all evidence is that this is an anti-Catholic invention) — Jesus wouldn’t have said “on this petros I will build my Church,” to make the statement in Greek seem less ambiguous (to us), because that wasn’t what He meant. He meant “I will build my Church on this bedrock,” this unmovable foundation, not this piece of rock.
- Greek is an inflected language, meaning that the endings of words change depending on the grammatical function in which they are used. For example, πέτρος (petros), πέτρον (petron), and πετρῷ (petro[i]) are all the very same word. So variations in the endings of words with the same stem seem quite natural to the Greek mind, and the difference between petros and petra would have seemed much less significant than it does to an English-speaker. In fact, this type of wordplay between similar-sounding words, called paronomasia, was common in ancient Greek.
- Jesus wasn’t speaking Greek at all. Scholars are pretty certain that in His day-to-day life and teachings, Jesus spoke Aramaic. The Gospels quote Jesus in Aramaic for special dramatic emphasis: “Talitha cumi” (Mark 5:41), “Abba, Father” (Mark 14:36), “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (Mark 15.34).
- So if Jesus was speaking Aramaic, the words for Peter and Rock — Petros and petra — would have been the same word: Kepha (כיפא).
“You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my Church,” is what Jesus would have said (pretending that the rest of the sentence is in Aramaic, which I don’t know, and you probably don’t either). - The Aramaic Kepha (כיפא) was rendered into Greek as Kephas (Κηφᾶς). Why didn’t Matthew just use that in both cases? Because it would have been as awkward as my sentence above, saying most of the sentence in Greek and a couple of words in Aramaic, and then having to explain it. Matthew’s readers apparently didn’t know Aramaic — or at least, if the book was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic as some of the Church Fathers suggest, whoever translated it into Greek didn’t expect his readers would know Aramaic, and provided a crib for the Aramaic phrases.
To further confirm the Catholic interpretation — it’s not a Catholic interpretation; at least not an invention or reinterpretation of the modern Catholic Church as anti-Catholics charge. This is the way this Scripture has been interpreted since the very earliest biblical commentators:
“. . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a Church whose faith has been praised by Paul . . . The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold . . . My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the Cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the Rock on which the Church is built! This is the house where alone the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.”
—St. Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15:1-2 (A.D. 375)
“Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.”
—St. Augustine, Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 (A.D. 393)
“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties.”
—Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451)
To me, this makes a rock-solid (that’s petra-solid) case: In this verse, there is no doubt that Jesus is declaring Peter to be the Rock on which He would build his Church. Seeing these words in stone did more to move me to this truth, and toward the Catholic Church, than almost anything else: my banner above is a photograph I took of this same declaration, in Latin, around the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica, over the high altar and St. Peter’s tomb.
I can’t argue with the Greek. It does fairly clearly say what it fairly clearly says. What Roman Catholics and Protestants (and the Eastern Orthodox) disagree on is what it means for us today. The passage clearly calls Peter out as special, but it doesn’t say anything about what it means. To the Orthodox, it means that the Bishop of Rome is entitled to a certain honor and primacy among equals afforded to none of the others, but not the sweeping singular authority that the Western Church gave him.
Those descended from the Reformers’ traditions don’t really know what to do. I bet you could get a good number of Protestants to agree with the Orthodox position. Others will find arguments (convincing or otherwise) to counter any notion of papal supremacy because we’ve all had unpleasant encounters in the past.
Right. I have an Orthodox-convert friend (he’s commented a few times here; in fact, he just commented below while I was typing this) and he acknowledges that Peter was the prime Apostle — but he pointed out that the Orthodox claim Peter as the first bishop (or patriarch) of Antioch, too (and the Liber Pontificalis acknowledges as much) — though the See of Antioch doesn’t really exist anymore and there are half a dozen churches that claim to be its rightful successor. In any case, up until the Eastern Schism, most in the East accepted Rome as the See of Peter. Peter was in Rome longer and ended his life there.
I can’t cite sources, but I was taught in school that at least for the first few centuries, the bishop of Rome was said to be “first among equals” — that all bishops were of equal rank, but that Rome had the prime authority. I’m not sure what the official Church position is on that today, since the Church hierarchy is pretty well set up under the pope as a supreme head.
I know a lot of really hard-core Reformed are still very anti-Catholic and have a lot of visceral bitterness and anger for the Church and the pope. It’s really pretty amazing to me that it could hang on unabated for so long. The Reformation was bitter and nasty on both sides, especially for the English, who kept changing sides, and every time they did there were persecutions and martyrs — but the American Civil War, World War I and World War II even, were nasty and bitter also, and yet the North and the South are getting along pretty well now; the English and French and Germans don’t really like each other but are living peaceably enough. The African American descendants of slaves here in the South for the most have moved on. I think part of it is that all of those people have to face each other every day. With churches, we tend to go into our little enclaves and not associate with others. All that is passed around is stereotypes and bitter tales. If people only sit down and talk to each other, I think a lot of the anger will abate.
I have no problem with this article’s defense of the original interpretation, but how you go from Peter being the rock upon which the Church is built to such things as the line of Popes (a longitudinal sanctioned Vicar of Christ status for elected individuals) kinda’ escapes me. I do not see Christ’s comments to Peter being a justification for the concept of the Pope at all. I’m open to arguments, but I just don’t see it. It seems very ad hoc at this point.
Thanks for the comment, David. It’s very easy, for both Catholics and Protestants, to reduce arguments for the papacy to a caricature (that term “Vicar of Christ” is especially misunderstood), since, it’s true, what is supported by Scripture is a much more modest claim than what we see in the modern papacy. But that modest claim, that Jesus did appoint Peter as chief pastor over His Church (cf. John 21:15-19), has consequences, and it is following from that modest claim that we can understand Peter’s actions in Scripture as the prime Apostle among his brother Apostles, and the actions of the bishops of Rome, beginning from the first century (cf. 1 Clement) and onward through church history, as first among their brother bishops. This is the foundation of our understanding of the papacy. If you accept the interpretation of Matthew 16:17-19 that I’ve supported here, what does that entail for you? What does it mean to you that Christ made of Peter a foundation stone for the Church? His peace be with you.
This is a very enlightening article on the position of a Catholic in regards to Matthew 16:18. It is so thorough and well written. I would recommend that you limit you argument to a few of your stronger points (primarily the Greek and Hebrew references) and drop those that weaken your argument, such as the quoting of the church fathers. Each of those quotes were 300 years into church history and after the establishment of Rome as the center of the imperial religion. There is no mention of support from Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, etc. In light of the “modest claim we see in scripture”, why wouldn’t you let scripture interpret scripture. If the exact meaning of “rock” is debated then let’s look at Peter’s role in the early church. In Acts 1-2 we see he is the spokesman for the early church. His preaching leads to the formation of the first church in Jerusalem. That seems like enough to call him “rock”. He is the first evangelist to the gentiles in Acts 10. He has some authority in decision making with the rest of the disciples as seen in Acts. But nowhere in Scripture do we see an authoritative, supreme leader of God’s church on earth. We don’t see it in his actions. We don’t see it in any of Paul’s writings. We don’t see it in Peter’s writings. We don’t see it in the book or Revelation. We don’t see it in any of the writings of the next 5-10 generations of church fathers, including Peter’s own disciples. If the meaning of the passage is debated (as it obviously is) then other scriptures, logic, and contemporary acceptable sources should all be employed. I find your argument above quite logical yet lacking in other scriptural support or any support from the pre-Constantine church fathers.
Hi, thanks for the constructive comment. If I were to write this article today, it would be a different, more mature argument, and probably would follow more along the lines you suggest. I acknowledge in other articles I’ve made that the role as “supreme leader of God’s church on earth” is something that developed over the centuries, and wasn’t clearly visible until around the turn of the third century. But in Peter’s time, he was clearly treated by his brother apostles as the authoritative leader. What can be seen in the early, ante-Nicene Church Fathers, first of all, is that most of them, rightly so, were mostly concerned with local goings-on in their own churches. But they stressed submission to the appointed bishop as an authority in doctrine and practice, as a successor of the Apostles and representative of Christ Himself — Clement and Ignatius in particular stand out in this. We do see, in Clement’s letter — even if, as I acknowledge, he may not have been “the pope” at that time, he appears to have been one of several bishops — the Church at Rome exerting authority over the Church at Corinth by telling them what to do, to get their stuff together. And we see, in the Quartodeciman controversy of the mid-second century, the bishop of Rome presuming he had the authority to excommunicate other bishops — from what, if there was not some idea of “Church” that transcended the local church? By Irenaeus in around A.D. 180, we see a quite clear statement of the Church of Rome’s supreme authority in doctrinal matters.
“Built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone” (Eph. 2:2). This verse makes it clear that all of the apostles and prophets were part of the foundation, that Christ Jesus is the only cornerstone, and that it wasn’t some lineage of persons that were being built upon, but a foundation of truth( God ‘s word ) spoken and practiced that were being built upon.
Hi, thanks for the comment. We agree.
All Christians are part of the building, and the foundation being built on(that of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus as the cornerstone)–that we are told to be careful HOW we build on–has to be built in accordance with right doctrine and practice. When the apostles and prophets are called foundation stones in scripture, they aren’t literal stones. The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth(I Timothy 3:15), and we are “stones” of that building of truth if we hold fast to right doctrine and the true gospel. The stones above us are those we have discipled in accordance with right doctrine and gospel. If we have not discipled rightly, they will be stubble rather than stone and be burned up. If we have built poorly with false doctrines, what we have built will be burned up(I Corinthians 3) and we will suffer loss.
I feel a need to clarify that it isn’t doctrine that saves but that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. A false gospel–one of works salvation, for instance–can’t save, as it denies the faith.
I agree with you.
Well, I’m sure you know where the Orthodox stand on this. First among equals, yes. Supremacy, no. This was St. Cyprian’s understanding: ‘Even Peter, whom the Lord first chose and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul later disputed with him over circumcision, did not claim insolently any prerogative for himself, nor make any arrogant assumptions nor say that he had the primacy and ought to be obeyed’ (Epist. 71, 3).” Christ speaks here not just of the person of Peter, but of all bishops in their individual communities, with Peter as the example. Peter does have authority, but a sacramental authority shared in common by all bishops, not a prerogative to overrule others or to set himself and his successors up as universal bishops. Saint Ignatius writes: “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be,” not “wherever the Pope of Rome shall appear.”
This is a fairly short article on the Orthodox position: http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/maxwell_peter.htm
Forgive me.
Thanks for this. I was just thinking of you in my response to the comment above, and you replied while I was typing it. I’m glad to have this understanding. I’m not sure what the official Catholic position is on the bishop of Rome being “first among equals”: I know that was the way they treated it at least for the first few centuries. The burgeoning medieval bureaucracy kind of necessitated a monarchical hierarchy, I think. For a standpoint of personal preference, I kind of appreciate having a supreme head, and more-or-less unity throughout the worldwide Church, rather than so many autocephalous churches. I am still very curious about Orthodox — I have a book sitting on my desk right now, in fact, I’m meaning to read, The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware. How consistent throughout the various Orthodox churches is doctrine and practice?
I too am woefully ignorant when it comes to the Orthodox church, something I need to work on.
From my recollection (off the top of my head here), the pope really started taking on more and more power by necessity when the Roman government collapsed. Was it Gregory I think who basically had to step in and run the city to keep it from being completely annihilated?
Metropolitan Kallistos (Timothy) Ware is an excellent writer, a convert, and just an incredibly erudite man (and very British). I had the privilege of hearing him speak here in Memphis last year. That particular book is a very good introduction.
Well, forgive me, but from my limited understanding, when we speak of the Orthodox Church, we’re not including those who are monophysites – like the “Oriental Orthodox,” or those whose bishops cannot claim apostolic succession. “Orthodox churches” is therefore a misnomer. The Orthodox Church is composed of national jurisdictions that are different in terms of language used, but are the same in terms of theology and practice. For instance, even though I was baptized by a priest of the OCA (Orthodox Church in America, which is one of several jurisdictions in the U.S.) I could take communion at a church of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese or a Russian Orthodox Church, or a large number of other jurisdictions. I currently go to an Antiochian Church in Memphis. There is currently a movement to unify all of the American jurisdictions into a single American Church with a single metropolitan, which God willing may take place in my lifetime. All of these jurisdictions (including a host of other national Orthodox churches) are theologically unified. Differences in practice are slight, with the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom being the standard eucharistic service. So there is unity in terms of doctrine and practice. That said, I prefer how the Slavs do things, style wise.
I can understand the preference for a supreme head – it’s certainly easier to understand, and in many other circumstances I would prefer it (I’m as monarchist as they come in my political beliefs). Ultimately for the Orthodox it comes down to whether a bishop is in communion with the other bishops. I prefer this because it makes things move at a glacial place and prevents novel ideas from entering into Church doctrine. Hence, Orthodoxy’s reputation for being conservative and its zealous attachment to Tradition. A Great Council is needed to bring about changes or to clarify matters, and there hasn’t been one of those in centuries.
Regarding St. Gregory, I cannot comment too greatly on him, for I am ignorant of most of the history of that period, but the article I posted in the comment above provides a few quotations from him in which he asserted his equality with his fellow bishops, as well as arguing that anyone who made himself a “universal bishop” would be in grave error.
You’ll have to excuse my ignorance, as well as my presumption to speak for the Church.
Forgive me.
No one here speaks for our respective church–we speak for ourselves, and that’s the best we can do 🙂 .
Thank you — no, don’t apologize. You’re being very helpful. 🙂 I should know more about St. Gregory but I’m not an expert, either. But I do remember that, as Ken said, he stepped in and assumed a good bit of temporal power in Rome as the civil authorities collapsed. There was also Pope St. Leo the Great, who turned back Attilla the Hun.
See, that’s one of the things I wasn’t sure about, and don’t really understand. I know there is the Coptic Orthodox Church, and the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Greek Orthodox Church, etc. — and these are all in communion with each other? But they are each autocephalous, no? I guess I need to read the book. 🙂
The Catholic Church moves pretty slowly, too, but not as slowly as y’all, I don’t guess. To do anything major we need a council, too; last one was Vatican II in 1962–1965; last one before that was Vatican I in 1868; last one before that was Trent in 1545–1563. The popes issue opinions, but most often they clarify things that have already been said in the past. I think the opinion still holds that the popes aren’t quite “universal bishops” — which is why they have to call councils to do anything significant.
I don’t speak for my Church, either. I’m still a newb.
“I can understand the preference for a supreme head”–the Supreme Head is Christ no matter what preference men have. Trying to set up another supreme head is foolishness, as the unity of Christians is in Christ alone, not I am of Paul, I of Apollos, I of Christ . If the keys of the kingdom have been passed, they were passed to local autonomous churches and/or their elders, who have authority over their flock only.
Suleyman would probably agree with you much more than I, being Orthodox. I have not heard from him in a number of years, so I’m not sure we will hear from him again.
Pingback: Saints Peter and Paul: Apostles to the Protestants? « The Lonely Pilgrim
Suleyman – the Oriental Orthodox Churches are not monophysites http://www.coptic.net/articles/MonophysitismReconsidered.txt and the claim they are is not sustainable. They certainly claim Apostolic succession, and the last Coptic Pope was the 117th successor in direct line from St. Mark.
You are right, of course, that the issue is exactly what authority the Bishop of Rome has, but no one in the ancient church wanted to be out of communion with Rome. Rome, of course, has someone with the authority to say that the Orthodox Churches have valid sacraments and orders, even if they are in schism. The OC has no one with such authority. Indeed, of course, no one speaks for Orthodoxy!
In our relativistic modern world, as the OC comes more into contact with it, it will be interesting to see whether it will end up being any more effective than the Anglicans have been when the issue of same sex marriage starts to be pressed – as one day it will.
Thanks for this. I was ignorant of this whole controversy and the split at Chalcedon. The linked article was an enlightening read. I have so much I need to learn about the Church in the East. I pray that the Chalcedonian and the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox can achieve reunion. Every step toward reunion in the Body of Christ is a step toward us one again being One.
There is not a great deal which divides the Copts and the Catholics in terms of doctrine and dogma, it is mostly history. The Coptic Pope, although never pronounced as infallible, has never needed to be so as his bishops do not question him! I pray for unity, but after 1600 years, we really do need the intervention of the holy Spirit.
Yes, we do. I have another friend who’s a Coptic convert. I should poke her to come over here. (“Here” being this post. Lest “here” be interpreted any other way. :-p)
It would be interesting to have her view.
Thanks Jessica and Joseph,
Like everyone else, I must say I can’t speak for my church. The church for which I am not speaking is the Coptic Orthodox Church. 🙂
I also might take this discussion in a different direction, away from the various views of St. Peter, because I have some things on my mind and I want to see if they resonate with any of you who have converted into other Apostolic churches.
I don’t think we Coptic Orthodox are the monophysites that people think we are, and I have heard that Nestorians do not believe what my church accuses them of (separating the divinity and humanity of Christ in such a way as to resemble Arianism). I personally can see the logical problem one nature presents in that this can imply God died when Christ was crucified, an impossibility if God is perfect and death is change. But I don’t know anyone who means to believe that God can change. Christ is rather understood to be 100% human and 100% man and that a line cannot be drawn between these two parts, in order to avoid conclusions such as “what we do with our flesh has no spiritual implications” or “Christ merely was a human sacrifice and therefore not an eternally effective one.” I think all orthodox (in the common meaning) believers agree that God does not change, that Christ’s work on the cross is eternal, and that what we do with our flesh has spiritual implications. It is certainly difficult to describe the nature of Christ. I am not the only member of the Coptic Orthodox Church I know of who thinks that other churches might have a slightly better description than our church does. As Joseph said, we don’t change.
Although we don’t change, in the eight years since I converted I have learned that there is quite a diversity in practice and even some in theology in my church. This is not admitted or discussed, but I will break the taboo here and give you some examples.
The late pope HH Shenouda III, when he was a lay leader, thought the Apostle’s Fast should be only 12 days long. It currently has a fixed solar calendar end and a variable start (the day after Pentecost). But when he became Pope he felt his duty was to keep things the same, not change them.
Another prominent figure in the church, the late head of a monastery, Father Matthew the Poor, wrote many books, some of which contradicted books written by the Pope. Matthew the Poor continued to write and sell his books, but out of deference to the Pope he sold them only out of the monastery. It was hard to get his books in the rest of Egypt. But there are many people who collected his books and his sermons on tape and felt they identified closely with his theology.
One (I think awful) holdover we have from an ancient time is that women are not supposed to take communion while menstruating. If you ask any priest who doesn’t know you, he will tell you that this is church doctrine and give you a theological explanation. Matthew the Poor wrote against this doctrine and I know of at least two priests who in their capacity as fathers of confession have advised women to ignore this rule.
These days we are starting a lot of what we call “missionary churches” in “the lands of immigration.” These churches are founded to serve converts. The liturgies are in English only and sometimes are a bit shorter. I came into this church in part because I am biculturally Middle Eastern and Western, so these really don’t hold an attraction for me. I don’t mind going without the Arabic, but I like to have Coptic in the liturgy, especially since a lot of church Coptic is Greek. Anyhow, much is made of these churches and there is some discussion of what is essential. We also have church plants in many countries in Africa (and historically we have some authority over the Ethiopian church–or so my church thinks).
I understand it is important to use the local language, but I have trouble with the attempts to make church less foreign when the traditions have such a long history. I personally think that things like re-establishing communion with the other Orthodox churches are more important endeavors. And if my church wants to do something for converts it should develop some of the theology it needs to address things other churches have already been addressing for a long time, like how to handle marriages with people outside the Coptic Orthodox Church. The current official position is that the spouse must convert, including being rebaptised, unless they are a member of an Oriental Orthodox church. If a Coptic Orthodox Church member marries in another church, the official position is that they can’t take communion anymore. No one says “excommunication,” but that is in effect what is threatened. I have never seen this enforced when people did what they wanted and then came back to the church, but I have noticed that when people ask and try to work things out, then the threats get serious. Forgiveness is easier to get than permission.
Also the Coptic Orthodox Church, unlike some of the other Oriental Orthodox Churches, with which it shares communion, officially requires that all converts be rebaptised. I have been told by a Protestant theologian that the Armenian and Assyrian Orthodox Churches developed a theology that did not require this in a situation where they were reaccepting many people who had been under the influence of Protestant missionaries, but that it occurred at a time when the Coptic Church was isolated from these other churches. Thus a would-be Coptic convert, if she feels her baptism is valid but the Copts are insisting on rebaptism, can convert in one of the other Oriental Orthodox churches, get chrysmated, and then attend her local Coptic church and take communion there. This is another problem I think ought to be solved.
If you are interested in replying, I’m curious how those of you who converted feel about such issues with your respective churches. Do you feel able to express dissent? Do you find that your churches have a variety of practices and viewpoints? What do you wish your churches would address theologically that they are not?
For a long time I felt that as a convert I should not wish any change for my church, that I could disagree but since I chose her I should keep my thoughts to myself. Lately I feel that this has inhibited my relationship with my church. She might be correct in all she does and I might be wrong everywhere I disagree (I doubt this, but it is possible). Yet even if this is the case, we can’t have a good relationship if I can’t express my concerns. So I am trying to do so, thoughtfully but honestly.
Thanks so much for the comment. For the record, I’m an evangelical to Catholic convert, Suleyman (Tyson) is an evangelical to Antiochian Orthodox convert, and Jessica is Anglo-Catholic with affinities for both Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
The doctrinal disputes within Orthodoxy sound so much to me like the disputes between Protestants and Catholics — in that one side accuses the other of some heresy that the other doesn’t actually hold, based on a misunderstanding or willful misstatement. Talking to anti-Catholic Protestants about Catholic beliefs is so frustrating — because often, no matter how I state it, they are completely unwilling to accept that Catholics (and Orthodox) don’t “worship” Mary, etc. The willingness to listen goes a very long way.
I’ve learned more in this thread about Orthodoxy than I ever knew before the thread started, but based on what I’ve read here, it seems to me that, at least as far as our representative churches (Roman Catholic and both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox — is there a better way to describe that? I know the non-Chalcedonian are “Oriental” — but aren’t all Orthodox “Eastern”?) — we all have an orthodox Christology.
As for differences of theology and practice within the Church — there seems to be a good bit, but it is more on the bottom than at the top. That is, the bishops and hierarchy of the Church seem to be mostly orthodox, but some parishes and priests and nuns on the ground want to run in another direction. The point of departure for most people is the Second Vatican Council (1965–1968), a.k.a. Vatican II. Traditionalists (with a capital T) dispute almost everything about it, and would prefer to roll it back entirely and return especially the liturgy to what it was prior (especially an all-Latin liturgy, ad orientem). The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) is a Traditionalist faction that is formally in schism with the Church, after some unauthorized consecrations of bishops. The Vatican is now in negotiations with the SSPX to try to restore it to full communion.
At the other end of the spectrum are liberals and modernists who want to follow “the spirit of Vatican II,” which they believe was one of modernization. I don’t have much contact with this, but I think this thought ranges from pushing for more contemporary worship, to pushing for open communion, women’s ordination, acceptance of homosexuality, etc. Whenever there is a spat going on within the Church in the media, it is usually these people behind it. The “spirit of Vatican II” is not actually Vatican II at all — as a reading of the documents confirms, the council was really all about continuity and affirming traditions rather than modernizing them.
The Catholicism I know here in the South is conservative, traditional, and orthodox, but comfortable. It’s living and vibrant, full of passionate and committed people. As the article I retweeted yesterday says, “The unique challenge for Catholics seeking to live their Christian faith in the South leaves no room for spiritual mediocrity, doctrinal confusion, uncertain commitments or a lukewarm interior life.” I agree with this assessment entirely. As Father Joe says, here among so many evangelicals, we have to stand for a real and authentic Catholicism.
Father Joe is a wonderful pastor who balances well the demands of tradition and the needs of pastoral care, especially here in such a relaxed place as a southern university town. Communion is closed, but he extends a pastoral blessing to all non-Catholics who want to come forward — something that’s welcoming and beneficial but not necessarily traditional. At the same time, he stresses that Catholics should only take Communion when they are well disposed, when they have been practicing the Sacraments, have been to Confession, are not in mortal sin, etc. I think this is a wonderful and vibrant parish and I’m so glad to be here.
As for criticizing the Church — you’re right, as a new convert, I don’t really feel it’s my place. But right off I can’t think of anything I feel inclined to oppose or criticize. I stand behind the bishops and the Tradition of the Church completely. I feel that God has appointed our pope and bishops to lead us by the Holy Spirit, and I will trust in their guidance. It really bothers me a lot when some people speak out with voices of “reform” — especially when proposed reforms go entirely against Tradition (the major issues now, of course, are homosexuality, contraception, and women’s ordination, to name a few).
(*poke* also to Jessica’s comment below, which I’m not sure will have been e-mailed to you)
Pingback: The Same Gospel: A Plea to Protestants « The Lonely Pilgrim
Pingback: Authority « All Along the Watchtower
‘Chalcedon451’ on my blog was a member of an Oriental Orthodox Church, and he agrees with you, A. He felt, in the end, that as a Westerner there was too much in the Church with which he was uncomfortable; as he had also come to the conclusion that Pope Leo was right, he followed the logic into the Catholic Church.
As an Anglican it is quite difficult to dissent from the teaching of the Church, as it is such a broad church that it incorporates everything from people who are just about Calvinists to people like me who consider themselves Catholic. I would think that if I converted, it would be hard to dissent, as I would have made a choice. As an Anglo-Catholic I think obedience is important; my problem is knowing who to obey 🙂
Pingback: ‘Peter speaks through Leo’ « All Along the Watchtower
Pingback: The Roman Catholic Controversy: Claims of Authority « The Lonely Pilgrim
Pingback: The Roman Catholic Controversy: Sola Scriptura « The Lonely Pilgrim
Pingback: A Biblical Argument for the Authority of the Papacy | The Lonely Pilgrim
Actually the word petrol can be used in the plural. There is no reason to think Jesus was singling Peter out. You can’t separate where the history of this catholic theology came from & where every other fraud & forgery came from. The Middle Ages saw pope after pope trying to rewrite history to make the Catholic Church into something it was not. This Peter declaration is no different.
Peter himself explains in 1 Peter the 2nd chapter what Matthew 16:18 means.
Jesus himself is the rock the church is founded on. He is the chief cornerstone. The house is made up of the living stones which was Israel & the modern church along with the apostles.
Matthew 16:18 should read in English:
“For you are small stones but upon this rock I will build my church”
Peter breaks this down in 1 Peter
5 And you are living stones that God is building into his spiritual temple. What’s more, you are his holy priests.Through the mediation of Jesus Christ, you offer spiritual sacrifices that please God. 6 As the Scriptures say,
“I am placing a cornerstone in Jerusalem,
chosen for great honor,
and anyone who trusts in him
will never be disgraced.”[c]
7 Yes, you who trust him recognize the honor God has given him.[d] But for those who reject him,
“The stone that the builders rejected
has now become the cornerstone.”
Who is the rock of the church here? Jesus. Who are the living stones that build the house up together? Us.
The Catholic Church came up with this Peter nonsense to solidify its power in a troubling time when it’s own corruption was seeing revolts all over Europe that finally came to a head during the reformation. The reformation was not just about salvation by grace. The Catholic Church wants history to remember it as being that. It was about the Catholic Church being caught in lie after lie & being exposed as for conning & frauding people out of their life earnings & the public weariness of torture & executions by catholic inquisitors when pope after pope got away with incest & murder.
Catholics need to wake up & research the history of the church & the history of Catholicism. Catholics seem to have an unhealthy devotion to institution instead of having faithfulness to God who is responsible for the sending of His Son Jesus.
Hi, John. Thanks for the comment. I do appreciate the input; however, I must take issue with some of your assertions.
I wonder if you can explain to me how “petrol” has anything to do with this passage? Presumably we can blame your autocorrect for that one 😉 , but the fact is that the Greek words here are Πέτρος (Petros, nominative singular) and πέτρᾳ (petra, dative singular), both unmistakably singular nouns that, no, cannot be understood as plurals. Not only are those nouns singular, but Jesus twice, emphatically, refers to Peter with the second person singular pronoun σὺ (su), in both the nominative σὺ and the dative σοι (soi); and He states that Simon is Peter with the second person singular verb form of to be, εἶ (ei). To put it into archaic English (since modern English no longer has a singular form of you), He says, “I say unto thee, thou art Peter…” The entire statement, in its pronouns, nouns, and verbs, is explicitly singular. Jesus was singling Peter out.
Yes, there is no doubt that Jesus is the cornerstone on which the Church is built, and the Church has never argued otherwise. But it is precisely because He is the cornerstone that He can build His Church “on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets” (Ephesians 2:20). Here, He calls Peter a rock suitable to be part of that foundation.
This post quite intentionally has nothing to do with history nor even with theology; so the rest of your argument here is not even to the point. I have stuck only to the grammar of the Scripture, and I say again, it simply cannot be understood the way you want to understand it.
The peace of the Lord be with you!
Oh btw? The author saying “This scripture cannot be interpreted any other way..”
is greatly disturbing & vastly inhibits his credibility.
This Scripture could be interpreted in a few different ways. The 1 way I can’t see it being interpreted unless you have ulterior motives is yo say Jesus was calling Peter the rock he would build his church on. The language doesn’t say that.
It would even be understandable for one to think Jesus was referring to peters revelation. But not Peter himself. Nowhere in literature of any kind will you find the word THIS referring to a person. It could refer to an idea but not a person.
To say it can be interpreted only the catholic way is nothing short of blind loyalty.
Btw, the author is me, and it’s okay to refer to me in the second person. 🙂
In fact, the language does say just exactly, literally that. How you interpret that (the statement that Peter is the Rock) is up for debate.
Really? “This man” doesn’t refer to a person (Matthew 12:24, Mark 15:39, Luke 23:4, John 7:46)? Or “this king” (Psalm 24:10)? Or “This is my son” (Matthew 3:17)? This is what is called a demonstrative pronoun, and it’s used for pointing at things — and it can point at people just as well as anything else.
I said nothing of “the Catholic way.” I said “this cannot be interpreted except as a (singular) declaration of Peter’s authority.” And it cannot.
Concerning “blind loyalty”: I’ve given very good, academic and linguistic reasons to support my argument. Perhaps it is “blind loyalty” that would reject my argument without good reasons.
His peace be with you!
Due to the article in the Greek before petra the rock can only refer to simon who is rock, it tells you rock is a definitive and not a quality like Jesus rockness nor the rockness of Peter’s proclamation, and it is anaphoric meaning it refers to the prior use of at least a synonym for rock.
Thus Simon is the rock upon which the Church will be built by Jesus. There is no other meaning and the church fathers built from this meaning spiritually.
Joseph,
As I was looking up info relative to Matthew 16:18 and its interpretations, I came across this post. As I was reading, I appreciated the fact that you exegeted from the Greek; however, I must make one correction. You state that LSJ and BDAG do not differentiate between petros and petra, yet they both do.
I have an older ‘little Liddell’ as well as an older ‘middle Liddell’ and while there is a difference between the two under “ΠΕΤΡΑ” (the former is truncated), they each specifically point out a difference between the masculine and feminine, though the latter is more detailed and explicit. I also have the ‘middle Liddell’ in my Accordance software, so I’ll copy and paste it here. Assuming all the html tags are rendered properly, I’ve bolded the relevant portion:
Under the entry for ΠΈΤΡΟΣ (which is on the same page in both physical books) a distinction is made at the outset, pointing the reader back to ΠΈΤΡΑ for particulars.
Given this, other interpretations of the Biblical text are possible. And, in fact, as you note, the Hebrew and Aramaic do not have gender distinctions as does the Greek, thus indicating that the distinction here is quite purposeful.
Craig,
Thanks very much for the thoughtful comment. I apologize for the delay in my response. I’ve been busy with work and family concerns. My pastor encouraged me last night not to neglect the blog — so I decided to pick it up again today.
First, I did not say that those lexicons “do not differentiate” between those words. What I said was:
It was a hasty comment, and it appears you have a point. I have been digging and researching in the lexica and their references and it appears my statement about the lack of distinction in classical Greek was incorrect. In classical Greek, πέτρος did mean simply a stone or rock, the kind that might be thrown or rolled. This usage appears common throughout Homeric and classical Greek and even continues into early Koine Greek (cf. the Septuagint). What confused me in making the above statement is the definition in the LSJ, which give simply “stone”; I did not adequately follow through the references. I also read statements from other scholars that by the New Testament, there was not much of a distinction between πέτρος and πέτρα and that the words were used interchangeably (cf. e.g. Rev. Caleb Clark, “Exposition of Matthew 16.18,” in The Biblical Repository and Classical Review, third series, no. 3 [July 1845], LIX:413–421, at 417). Contrary to what I said, the word that referred to stone as a monumental building material in the Bible was more commonly λίθος.
Curiously though, this use of πέτρος in the sense of “stone” does not continue to the New Testament. Of all the instances in which the New Testament refers to a “rock” or “stone,” in about forty-eight cases λίθος is used, fifteen are πέτρα, and two are ψῆφος (a voting-pebble, as in Revelation 2:17). There is not one clear use of πέτρος in the New Testament as a common noun; this word and its forms are simply not used to refer to a stone or rock in the common sense.
It appears, then, that the masculine form πέτρος, as a word for “a stone,” had generally fallen into disuse in Koine Greek by the New Testament era. This is confirmed by several commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew (cf. John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, The New International Greek Testament Commentary [Eerdmans, 2005], 669; Charles L. Quarles, Matthew, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament [B&H, 2017], 320). The word is not used in the common sense in the patristic corpus, or in later Byzantine Koine Greek, as far as I can tell (cf. G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon; E. A. Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods). From the New Testament onward, in patristic and Byzantine Koine, I can only find references to Πέτρος, a proper noun, referring to the Apostle Peter. Accordingly, the common noun πέτρος does not have an entry in the BDAG, or in the lexica of later Greek I referenced above.
What slightly complicates this is that there are uses of πέτρος in the common sense (“a stone”) in other Greek literature contemporary to the New Testament and even centuries afterward — for example, in authors such as Philo, Plutarch, and Lucian. The difference is that these authors were consciously emulating or affecting a classical Attic style and vocabulary. While Koine Greek continued to evolve in its vocabulary and usage, “Atticist” Greek adhered rigidly to the vocabulary and forms of the classical age. Consulting the LSJ or other Liddell lexica will give you a view of classical usage, but not of the Greek language as it was commonly used (koine) in the first century A.D.
As I said above, in Jesus’s original declaration in Aramaic, he would have used the same word twice: כיפא (Kepha). Thus Jesus did not make a distinction between the words in his speech — so why did the Evangelist?
I discussed this above, but I will reiterate: The main distinction between πέτρος and πέτρα, as far as the New Testament text is concerned, is one is Peter’s name, and the other is not. By the time of the writing of the Gospels, Πέτρος had probably been Peter’s Greek name for several decades. All four Gospels and the Book of Acts refer to him as that. There’s no way to know when the name was hellenized from Κηφᾶς to Πέτρος — Paul refers to Peter only as Κηφᾶς, so either he was not aware of the Greek form or simply preferred the Aramaic one — but since the Gospel of Mark uses Πέτρος, we can know with fair certainty that Matthew did not invent the form Πέτρος for Κηφᾶς. So when it came to penning Matthew 16:18 — if we assume, for the sake of argument, the Catholic interpretation, that Jesus intended to draw a parallel between “you are Peter” and “on this rock” — he had, perhaps, several choices:
Now, to take the opposing viewpoint: Suppose Matthew did intend to create some distinction in his wordplay between Πέτρος, Simon Peter, and πέτρα, the bedrock on which Jesus would build His Church. What distinction could he possibly be wanting to make? Did he want to declare that Peter was not a πέτρα, but rather a rock of a different sort — as I have often heard Protestants claim he meant by calling him πέτρος? Once again, Matthew did not invent the name Πέτρος for Peter — so whatever linguistic distinction there might be between Πέτρος and πέτρα is owed to whoever first coined the name Πέτρος and not to Matthew. If Matthew did wish to declare that Peter was of a lighter sort of rock than πέτρα, he would have used the word λίθος for “stone”, as he used elsewhere (cf. Matthew 21:42, 24:2, 27:60). He might have said instead, “You are Peter (Πέτρος), and on this rock (λίθος) I will build my Church…” Again there would be no wordplay, and no indication that Jesus in fact spoke the same word twice (Kepha and kepha).
Of course, this is not the point Matthew intended to make at all: Jesus is declaring that He will build His Church on an immovable foundation, not on a throwing-stone. I think that much, all Christians agree upon. So πέτρα is the only possible Greek word he could used for the second clause of his statement. Since Πέτρος is the only possible Greek word he could have used in the first clause — that being Peter’s name — then it appears there is no other way to render the passage. If we agree that Matthew meant to say that Jesus was building His Church on a solid foundation of stone, then it is at best unclear what he meant by the wordplay between Πέτρος and πέτρα — only that he meant it — and any question of the meaning becomes more a exegetical and theological one than a grammatical or lexicographical one.
Scripture tells us that Jesus renamed Simon Kepha (Κηφᾶς). Generally, Bible scholars tell us this means “rock.” I’m not an Aramaic expert, but according to Marcus Jastrow’s Dictionary of Targumim, Talmud, and Midrashic Literature (London: Luzac, 1903), the word כיפא is generally translated “a rock, stone, ball” — and there is not another Aramaic word defined that means “stone”, and no other word to make a distinction between a bedrock and a smaller rock. So whoever first rendered Peter’s name Κηφᾶς in Greek translation — what Greek word for “stone” did they intend to draw for Peter’s name? Assuming πέτρος as a word for “rock” was no longer in common use — it would appear they meant to compare Peter to a πέτρα; else they might have called him Λίθος (“Rock”) or Λιθώδης (“Rocky”). Rendering Πέτρος from Κηφᾶς was certainly not a foregone conclusion.
Again, I don’t know why they didn’t use Πέτρας. Not being a native Greek speaker, there may be reasons. In the example of Agrippa above — Ἀγρίππας is a Greek rendering of a Latin name, in which similarly it’s a masculine name in the generally feminine first declension. So it’s not quite the same case as rendering a masculine name from a feminine noun. Very generally — basing this on just a few observations — masculine forms of first-declension feminine nouns are rendered simply by swapping -α for -ος and moving it to the second declension. For example, Κάσσανδρος (Cassander) for Κασσάνδρα (Cassandra), Εὐφημίος (Euphemios) for Εὐφημία (Euphemia), Ὕπατιος (Hypatios) for Ὑπατία (Hypatia), and so forth. So, keeping with this trend, it’s entirely appropriate to render a masculine form for πέτρα as Πέτρος — perhaps entirely naïve to the fact that this would cause so much controversy and debate among non-Greek-speaking Bible scholars almost two millennia later.
First, I’d like to say that I like your explanation in the last paragraph above for a possible reason for the use of Πέτρος as a move from the first-declension feminine to the second-declension masculine in order to accommodate the new name for Simon. But, then again, why wouldn’t Matthew be consistent and use the dative form (Πέτρῳ) of this new name in the “upon this rock” clause? If the argument then is that the intention was to convey “foundation” (as in πέτρα), then it becomes circular. Moreover, πέτρα is used specifically for “foundation” in the NT, and, as you note, juxtaposed with λίθος in many contexts. But when πέτρα is used of a person in the NT, each and every time that person is Christ.
Matthew could have used Πέτρῐνος, which is derived from πέτρα, to make the connection clearer.
Because it’s πέτρα in the dative in the “on this rock” clause (ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ) and not Πέτρος? I already explained above why he didn’t use πέτρος twice: in the first clause (“You are Peter”), Πέτρος is Peter’s name; in the second clause, πέτρα, an immovable rock, is what Jesus is building His Church on, and not any other kind of rock. Yes, Jesus built the Church on an immovable foundation — this is what He meant, as the context indicates (“and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it”). This is not assuming anything about Peter, but about the Church. That πέτρα is what Jesus meant with regard to the Church is not a question. The question is whether the juxtaposition of Πέτρος and πέτρα is meant to declare that Peter is the immovable foundation on which the Church would be built.
To be clear, grammatically, Jesus is not calling Peter a πέτρα in this passage; He is not declaring that “Peter is a πέτρα.” If He had done so, the meaning would be clear. This passage is more subtle. Jesus renames Peter “Rock” (as I think we agree) and declares that it is “on this rock” that He will build His Church. What is the rock? Is it Peter himself? His confession? His faith? What exactly Jesus meant by this is a question of exegesis and not of grammar. Even the Greek Fathers, to whom the language was natural, had varying interpretations, and certainly the meaning has more than one layer. That neither Peter’s name nor the grammar and word choice of the passage does not exclude Peter being the rock is clear enough from the fact that among the Fathers this is a common interpretation.
Once again: Matthew didn’t coin the name Πέτρος. It was at least as old as the Gospel of Mark and probably older. Πέτρος was Peter’s name, not Πέτρας, not Πέτρινος or Πετρώοδης or Πετραῖος. This was not Matthew’s decision. I’ve shown in several ways why it’s unlikely that Peter’s name being Πέτρος was meant to equate him with a Homeric πέτρος, in contrast to the πέτρα with which he’s juxtaposed here: that word πέτρος was an archaic word no longer in common use; Πέτρος is a standard masculinization of the feminine πέτρα. Tellingly, no Greek-speaker raised such an argument as this at any time in the first millennium of the Church; it’s only been raised by English-speakers in the last two centuries.
One other thing that needs investigating: Note that there’s no article preceding Petros, while there is an article preceding petra. As I presume you know, the article is sometimes lacking before concrete nouns in preposition phrases, yet, though petra is in a PP, the article is present. What can be made of these facts?
The following is each occurrence of Petros through Matthew 17, with the article noted by + , and its absence by – :
4:18 + with participle (τὸν λεγόμενον Πέτρον [the one called Peter])
8:14 – (εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν Πέτρου)
10:12 same as 4:18
14:28 +
14:29 + or – (manuscripts are split, but most +)
15:15 +
16:16 – (Simon Peter, not Peter by itself)
16:18 – ; (ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ [upon this fixed stone])
16:22 +
16:23 +
17:1 +
17:4 +
17:24 +
As can be seen, Petros is largely preceded by the article. In 8:14 it could be argued that the article is governing “house” because that’s the main focus, and/or concrete nouns sometimes lack the article in PPs. One would have to do more analysis to come to anything definitive.
In any case, I think we’d agree that in 16:16 Petros…petra is paronomasia, but I don’t know if we’d agree on what it may mean exactly. Could Petros be (lower case) petros, as in “a stone/rock”, an individual rock/stone (no Greek article present, with the English indefinite article supplied in translation), with “Peter” understood as secondary (no Greek article)? With this in mind, could it be, “You are an individual rock [petros]/Peter, and upon this (other) fixed rock [tē petra] I will build my ekklēsia”, with the (other) fixed rock being Peter’s earlier confession? That is, “You are an individual rock/Peter and upon your confession that I am the Christ, the Son of the living God, I will build my ekklēsia”.
Now, I’ll go ahead and address your other comments.
I think this is a stretch. As I said above, there are no unambiguous cases in the New Testament of the word πέτρος being used as a common noun (“rock”), and every Greek edition I consulted rendered every use as the proper noun Πέτρος. By all appearances, judging by the New Testament and later Koine literature, the common noun πέτρος had fallen into disuse. It would be very strange indeed if the only case of this word in the New Testament to refer to a “rock” came at the moment of such a dramatic declaration — indeed, at the moment of Peter’s renaming by Jesus, as far as the Gospel of Matthew is concerned.
When a noun is used without the definite article, it is called, in grammatical terminology, an anarthrous noun. It’s not at all an uncommon usage in the New Testament for proper names to appear anarthrously. I’m not enough of a grammarian to draw meaning from the mere absence of the article. Cursory research suggests (see, for example, this comment) that such wording is often used in cases of Semitic sentence structure — which Matthew is almost certainly using here. It is a question worth researching — and a lot of scholarly ink has been spilled on it.
My larger point here, which I didn’t make explicit, is the presence of the arthrous petra juxtaposed with the anarthrous P[/p]etros. In other words, if both refer to the exact same referent, then why aren’t both nouns anarthrous or both nouns arthrous, in this particular context?
Dropping the article with a proper name does not necessarily mean “a Peter” any more than using the article means “the Peter.” On the other hand, to emphasize that Jesus means “this, the rock” and not merely “this, a rock,” the article is used. One of the reasons for dropping the article with a proper name is emphasis, and certainly this is an emphatic statement: “You are Peter.”
The mechanics of using the definite article in Greek are different than they are in either English or Aramaic. In Greek, the article is used in many cases when it is not used in other languages, and the meaning does not translate precisely. Once again, if Jesus did not use a definite article in his original Aramaic declaration — and He would not have — then Matthew would not have used the article here in the Greek.
If we assume an emphatic “You are Peter” and if we assume that Jesus meant that Peter was the petra in the PP, then why didn’t this anarthrous use carry over into the PP? The use of “this” would have been enough to assume the connection to those so persuaded, would it not?
In any case, you are now agreeing that this is an exegetical issue rather than a grammatical issue. But, the OP makes a more definitive statement that the Catholic interpretation is the correct one.
You mention above in the comments that there were different interpretations of petra in the early Church. I’m sure you are aware of Tertullian and Origen as two who do not align with the RCC interpretation. Are you aware that Augustine, a recognized Doctor by the Catholic Church, changed his mind, as well?:
And I tell you…‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).
And:
And this Church, symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle; but when it was said to him, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven,’ he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by divers temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falleth not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VII, St. Augustin, On the Gospel of John, Tractate 124.5).
No. You are assuming an English grammatical mindset. Once again, the Greek language uses articles in many cases when we would not. The use of a demonstrative pronoun does not necessarily exclude the use of an article as it does in English. An object can be demonstrative and definite or it can be demonstrative and indefinite. In this case, the definite article is used. I am repeating the very same arguments, and, it seems, you are badgering me.
The original post stands on more than this one turn of phrase. Jesus made three positive and direct affirmations to Peter. Whether or not one argues that Peter and Peter alone is the rock Jesus affirms, the fact remains that Jesus singled Peter out for all these affirmations, and declared that to him, Peter, he will give the keys of the kingdom. This is just as powerful a declaration as the one you want to quibble over.
Yes, there are different interpretations among the Fathers. I do not see any contradiction or “change of mind” between the two statements of Augustine; merely two different statements. You are overly hung up over whether or not “Peter is the rock”; in both statements, Augustine declares that Peter is the foundation of the Church.
No; I’m not badgering you. In some ways it seems we may be unintentionally talking past one another. Earlier I’d mentioned that sometimes in PPs a concrete noun is anarthrous when it is a definite noun, whereas other times it is arthrous. Since I’ve been going through John 1, I’ll make my point from there. The very first use of Θεος is in 1:1 in a PP with the article (let’s leave out 1:1c). This is repeated in 1:2. Yet, in 1:6 we found the anarthrous use of Θεος in a PP—obviously the noun here is just as definite as in 1:1 and 1:2.
Comparatively, we find the arthrous σκοτία in 1:5, first in a PP (dative), then arthrous again as a nominative. Is it possible that this is because the referent is the same within the same sentence? Now, I’m not resting solidly on this, because I’ve seen what appears to be inconsistencies within PPs with respect to the presence/absence of the article, and I’ve not fully tested this.
But, yes, it’s possible, and maybe even likely, that the anarthrous Petros was to indicate emphasis. Yet, if Petros is a masculinized Petra(s) and if the immediately following PP refers to this same entity (i.e., assuming the demonstrative pronoun refers to “Petros”) would it be more likely that petra would be anarthrous? Maybe this is a faulty presumption; but, at the same time, I don’t think we can definitively state that it is arthrous because petra is definite as opposed to indefinite. Perhaps it’s arthrous because it’s the very first usage of this term (Matthew 7:24-25 notwithstanding because it’s an entirely different meaning/reference); and, if it’s arthrous because it’s the very first usage of this term, then Petros may be argued as not meant as a masculinized Petra(s), because it is anarthrous, using the example of John 1:5 above (the arthrous “darkness” in a PP and as a nominative).
Now, I fully understand that this is speculative; however, my point is that it’s speculative on both our parts. The bottom line is that I don’t think we can make assertions regarding the use/non-use of the article here.
Yes, I understand there’s more to your post than 16:18 here. Though I don’t intend on engaging on 16:19, I do think one must consider the similar verbiage found in 18:18 in one’s analysis of 16:19. Also, note Augustine’s statement that he understands Peter here as representative of the Church.
Yes, you are engaging in void speculation without any real evidence, and really getting down in the weeds. I am not engaging in speculation, or making any assertions about the use of the article. I can only cite the scholarship of others. But with regard to the accepted understanding of the text, I have as evidence (1) the fact that πέτρος is not used as a common noun anywhere else in the New Testament; (2) the interpretations of every one of the Church Fathers, who, whether they believed πέτρα referred to Peter or not, certainly believed that Πέτρος referred to Peter by name; (3) every edition and translation of the text, from St. Jerome onward, that understands this phrase is the traditional and accepted sense, “tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam…”; (4) a high stack of biblical commentaries, by Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Bible scholars, who all accept this textual understanding. If you wish to overturn the two-millenia textual tradition, you’d better have a little more than niggling over a missing ὁ.
Here are a few other points to ponder.
It’s not exactly clear when Simon was named Peter. To be fair, all the previous occurrences of “Peter” are in narrative or discourse, but not actually on anyone’s lips. Thus, it could be argued that Matthew, as narrator, was simply calling him “Peter”, as this was commonly known by the time he recorded his Gospel. But, then again, in John 1:42 we have Jesus saying to him, “You will be called Cephas” upon first calling him (with the narrator defining the term as Petros); however, we don’t know if this means ‘from now on’, or ‘at some point in the future’. The bottom line is that there is some ambiguity here.
The word ekklēsia is not strictly designated for the Church—though, of course, here Jesus means precisely that (the article is present, plus the pronoun “My” is used). Yet, the word, at root, simply means “assembly”. It is used in the NT for a strictly Jewish assembly (Acts 8:38), and it is used for an unruly mob (Acts 19:32), plus some sort of legal authority (19:39). Thus, it seems reasonable to view the term as “assembly”, but Jesus’ particular assembly, i.e., Christ-followers. Of course, Paul would use this word as a collective for Christians at a given locale in his epistles.
The arguments regarding Kepha and petros/petra can go either way. If we assume an Aramaic ‘original’, then why didn’t Matthew record petros twice here, especially, if, as you assert in this blog post, there really is no difference between petros and petra? This is especially true, the way I see it, given the RCC view that Peter (and each successor) is the singular leader of the Church. Even if there is a difference—as per LSJ—then it would seem to me, that petros would be appropriate in the PP, for, once again, Peter (and each successor) is recognized by the RCC as the supreme authority over the Church. Not to be too argumentative, but to argue another perspective, your assertion, when accepting the Protestant distinction, that Peter is the “bedrock” (petra) is circular, as it assumes your premise. If the Aramaic Kepha simply means “rock”, we must ask why Matthew made his distinction in the Greek; and, it’s for this reason that I don’t think Aramaic is the original here.
The following goes a bit beyond your post, but there is ample evidence that Jesus would have taught in Greek, so one cannot lean too heavily on an Aramaic original. To this point, note the response of some apparent Jews to Jesus Aramaic cry on the Cross (Mark 15:34)—they misunderstood him as calling Elijah. And, in John’s Gospel—which is recognized more and more as being more ‘Jewish’ than ‘Greek’—both Kepha and Messias are translated by the narrator. Thus, it seems even some Jews didn’t know Aramaic, which, to me, makes it more likely Jesus mostly taught in Greek (there is no doubt of rampant Hellenization, and note the Greek translation of the Tanakh ca. 200BC by Jewish scholars).
Sorry Acts 8:38 above should be Acts 7:38.
Yes, and the Gospels of Matthew and John present the narrative of Jesus’s life and ministry in dramatically different ways. It is apparent that in Matthew’s telling, Jesus’s renaming of Peter took place dramatically here, at Jesus’s declaration of Jesus at Christ, despite Matthew having referred to Peter by that name earlier in the text. It was, in Greek, the name by which Peter was most commonly known. The fact that John presents the renaming in a different context need not be seen as a discrepancy.
I believe I addressed this above.
What “ample evidence” is there that Jesus would have taught in Greek, or that he even knew Greek? On numerous occasions in the Gospels, the Evangelists quote Jesus’s Aramaic directly. As a relatively uneducated Galilean artisan — if he received any education at all, it was a rabbinic one — he would have had little reason to know Greek, let alone to teach in it. We can assume from the Evangelists placing the Septuagint on Jesus’s lips only that this was the text of Scripture that was available to them.
On the contrary, they would not have related what he said to Elijah unless they had understood it.
There is no indication that any of the extant Gospels was intended for a primarily Jewish audience. By the very fact of their authorship in Greek — and by their frequent definition of Aramaic words — it is clear that they were meant for a wider Hellenistic audience.
Thank you for the comments. I’ve enjoyed researching the replies. The peace of the Lord be with you!
Briefly, you’re assuming Markan priority, while I’m not. I remain ambivalent on this issue. Thus, if we assume for the sake of argument Matthean priority, then the analysis must be reconsidered accordingly.
I believe you dismiss too quickly the possibility that Jesus knew Greek. It was called “κοινη” for a reason–that it was the lingua franca of the day. The historicity of the LXX provides strong evidence of that. And, being a carpenter like His earthly father Joseph, it would seem possible He and Joseph knew Greek in order to sell their handiwork to the Greeks. You may want to investigate this possibility a bit more.
I personally don’t think there’s any reasonable argument for Matthaean priority. But suppose we presume that. Do you really think that Matthew — or Mark — invented the name Πέτρος? Bear in mind that the Evangelists were not making this story up out of whole cloth, but recording the recollections and traditions of others, as much for the edification of the Christian community as for any evangelical purpose — a community that would not have liked a scribe meddling with such traditions. The Evangelists would not have recorded Peter’s name as Πέτρος if he were not already known as that. I merely cited Mark as the earliest documented use of the name. Beyond the New Testament, Peter was referred to as Πέτρος in the First Epistle of Clement, for which a strong argument can be made to date as early as the A.D. 70; in the Epistles of Ignatius, probably around the turn of the second century; in fragments of Papias, probably around the same time. In Christian literature, Πέτρος became the standard name for Peter, as “Peter” continues to be in translation.
Sure, it’s a possibility. But there is no evidence in the text. When the Evangelists quote Jesus speaking, sure, they put Greek on His lips, because the text itself is in Greek. But on numerous occasions they put Aramiac on His lips, when He is speaking to the Apostles or to the multitudes. Thus the textual evidence suggests that Aramaic, not Greek, was the Lord’s everyday language and the language He taught in.
All of this, it seems, is an attempt to undermine the traditional interpretation of this text by raising whatever speculative doubt you can. You may find this scattershot method effective, but I don’t. You raised a valid criticism of my post, which I addressed. If you have more evidence, I’ll be glad to discuss it. But that doesn’t appear to be what you’re doing.
You neglected the anaphoric article in tē Petra that can only really refer to Petros — thou are Rock and upon this, the same rock,…
Hi, thanks for pointing that out. I’m at best an amateur at Greek.
The Book of Mathew was written in Greek, not Aramaic, sometime after 70 CE. Therefore your Aramaic claim falls apart like a bunch of loosely stacked ” petros”, just like Peter who is another mere man like everybody else. Called by God, even the Popes are mere men, except for God’s enablement.
Thanks for the comment, but I wonder, did you even read the article? 🤔