# Catholicism & Matthew 16:18



## Greg (Sep 13, 2008)

I'm not extremely familiar with everything that Catholicism teaches, but I've begun a friendly dialog with a Catholic recently. Matthew 16:18 has come up. This is the passage Catholics use to support their belief in the primacy of Peter (which is their foundation for the papacy, correct?). How would you approach the proper interpretation of this passage when speaking with a Catholic?

Particularly the Greek behind it ('petros' and 'petras') and also I've heard them appeal to the Aramaic translation of that passage using the word 'kephas' to support their view.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 13, 2008)

The "rock" (for which Peter is named) is his profession and the content thereof: "Thou art the Christ." Upon *that* profession (and Peter certainly stands out as the first man to verbally express that creed) the church stands forever built. How is anyone incorporated into that building? By assenting to that proposition, by making that first, simplest Christian creed his own.

The papists say that Peter himself is the subject of Jesus' declaration, "On [this man/rock] I will build my church." However, this puts the emphasis on the lesser entity. Which is greater, the person who subjectively professes, or profession of the truth and its object? Jesus is saying that the statement (by Simon) is no subjective opinion at all, but a matter of divine revelation, and of the purest truth.

The same papists capitalize on 1) Peter's early prominence in the church, as he continues to act as principal spokesman; and 2) on the traditional claim (widely disputed) that Peter came to Rome to be its first bishop, thereby establishing the papal primacy.

It should be obvious that there is quite a bit of extrapolation going on there, combined with some reliance on historical convenience (Rome starting out as the First-city of the Empire). And, there has been additional "manufactured" evidence used to bolster Rome's claims over the centuries. Until, finally Rome simply points to the sheer bulk of her massive tradition today and says: "How can you argue with THAT?"

But, it continues to be the case for Rome (as in other cases, like Evolution--which relies mainly, not on its kaleidoscope of historically shifting premises, but on the "its-too-big-to-fail" argument) that on a misappropriation of a fundamental text, a massive edifice has been erected. Take it away, and the whole balloon deflates.


----------



## jambo (Sep 13, 2008)

I have often been asked this and as Bruce says the enphasis is upon Peter's confession that Jesus is Lord which was the rock the church is built upon. 

Just a few verses after Peter's confession Jesus says to him "Get behind me Satan" (16.23) Now Jesus was not really saying that Peter was Satan, rather it is clear the temptation to do what Peter suggested was from Satan. Likewise withthe confession, it is not theperson but what is said. 

As an aside, ask your RC friend what they think of Peter's mother-in-law as in Mk 1.30The realisation that the "first pope" was married, is for some RCs, mind blowing.


----------



## Davidius (Sep 13, 2008)

I'm not defending the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18, but the typical Protestant response, referred to here by Stuart and Rev. Buchanan, doesn't make any sense to me. 

In the passage, Christ first addresses Peter by his original name, Simon. He then changes Simon's name to Peter (rock), and says that he will build His church on this rock. The Protestant argument has the "this rock" referring back to the confession, which took place several clauses previously. It doesn't make sense for a demonstrative pronoun to do that. It's completely counter-intuitive. Not to mention that it's a terribly cryptic way for the confession to be referred to, especially right after renaming Peter.

Something very important is obviously happening in this passage, and I think that the Catholics are right to point out the importance of name changes in the Scriptures. Whenever someone's name changes (Abram -> Abraham, Saul -> Paul, etc), it's for a very important reason. God doesn't do it willy-nilly. Biblical theology shows us that the person whose name is being changed has a very important part in God's redemptive plan. None of the other apostles' names were changed. in my opinion it would be much more honest of us to grant that this passage has something to do with Peter, but show out that the office of the papacy doesn't necessary follow from whatever the change is.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 13, 2008)

But David,
it isn't at all obvious that when Jesus says "upon this [the] rock" (4 Gk words, totally feminine phrase), it refers to Simon Petros (masc). It would have been a most natural rendering, not to mention clear and unmistakable, if the same referent was intended in both places, to maintain the (unusual) masculine ending+def.art.+dem.pron. Reversion to the feminine at least calls for serious consideration that the THING for which Simon is being named is that which is uppermost in Jesus mind.

Nor does this lessen the importance of the event to Simon Peter personally. The incident helps confirm his calling. But it should be seen that his _continuance _as spokesman and leader is a consequence of the incident as a whole, and not derivative of Jesus' naming him and thereby appointing him to an office above the college. He was already in the inner circle. Certainly, his wearing of that new name drew attention to him in the leadership role.

And let me piggy-back on the mention you made of the name-change. Certainly we see new names given quite frequently, however I would point out that those changes are not especially to draw attention to the person so renamed, but to GOD who changed their name. The new name is meant to be considered for its deeper meaning in Redemptive purposes related to the occasion of the change.

Take Jacob/Israel for example. The purpose for his name change is not for us to admire Jacob/Israel. Or to simply mark him as a significant person. The name change is for the purpose of reminding him and his family and later generations of the night of wrestling with God, and what was accomplished there at Peniel.

Jacob himself engages in an act of renaming right there too. He "renamed" that place Peniel, why? Because it was a really important piece of real estate? No. To infuse that place with meaning? No, it was renamed for a reason similar to why people's names are changed--as a reminder of something that happened there. The "something" is important, the place (as with persons) are, in a sense, incidental.

To repeat, name changes are not to direct us to "mark this person" whose name was changed, but to mark the occasion of the name change. God (the greater party) is usually the one imparting a new name, and he is directing attention on those occasions, and in those persons, to himself, to what he has done or said. That such renamed persons typically go on to serve in positions for which they are well remembered or noted is not surprising at all, given they have been marked out.


On a lesser note, there were other names given to apostles by Jesus. "Sons of Thunder" come to mind.


----------



## Davidius (Sep 13, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> But David,
> it isn't at all obvious that when Jesus says "upon this [the] rock" (4 Gk words, totally feminine phrase), it refers to Simon Petros (masc). It would have been a most natural rendering, not to mention clear and unmistakable, if the same referent was intended in both places, to maintain the (unusual) masculine ending+def.art.+dem.pron. Reversion to the feminine at least calls for serious consideration that the THING for which Simon is being named is that which is uppermost in Jesus mind.
> 
> Nor does this lessen the importance of the event to Simon Peter personally. The incident helps confirm his calling. But it should be seen that his _continuance _as spokesman and leader is a consequence of the incident as a whole, and not derivative of Jesus' naming him and thereby appointing him to an office above the college. He was already in the inner circle. Certainly, his wearing of that new name drew attention to him in the leadership role.



Your point about the gender is well-taken, which is why I wanted to make sure to append my previous post with such a caveat. The primacy of Peter doesn't necessitate the Roman papal doctrine. I guess my stance is that neither option is obvious. From the gender I can see why one would argue that it doesn't refer to Peter; because of the demonstrative pronoun's distance from the confession and the (in my opinion) unclear way of stating that the confession is in view (if indeed it was), I can see why one would find it more natural to take the two rocks together. If I wanted it to be clear that I were referring to an idea, I would have simply said τοῦτον and left the second rock out, but I'm obviously not Matthew, or rather Jesus. If I wanted to be clear that Peter was in view, I would've kept the masculine form of the noun. Perhaps there's something to the argument that they weren't speaking Greek anyway, and that the words would have been Kephas and Kephas, but I don't know enough about Aramaic or what the value of such questions would be. And were such a concession made, one would still have to explain Matthew's choice of words.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 13, 2008)

I happen to think that in Matt 16:18 Jesus IS referring to Peter (hence the name change) and I think this bears out in the fact that not only was he merely "prominent" in the early church, but he was the point man. It was at his preaching/arrival, etc... that the Holy Spirit came upon the first major groups up to and including the gentiles, representing the establishment of the church in "the nations." 

BUT... none of that implies that Jesus was saying that Peter gets to be his authoritative vicar on earth. This is implied by the fact that it was James who led the Jerusalem church. Furthermore, even if one grants the interpretation that Jesus is speaking to, and referring to, Peter, there is nothing that either requires or implies the notion of a papacy or successionalism. 

Simply put, I believe that Jesus was "honoring" Peter by allowing him to be the guy who would bring the Jews, Samartians, and Gentiles (represented by a few key occurances and manifestations of the Holy Spirit) into the Church, thus representing the establishment of the church in all the world.


----------



## Greg (Sep 15, 2008)

Thanks for the answers and input so far...very helpful. 

I see the distinction being made in the Greek between 'petros' and 'petras'. I've heard that downplayed by the Catholic's rebuttal that this dialog was very likely originally spoken in Aramaic, and in Aramaic the word is 'kephas'. And it is assumed that since there is no difference like there is in Greek, then the argument used for the Greek isn't a valid one.

Again, thanks for all the input. More is very welcome as I want to approach my discussions with him both scripturally and with as much understanding of his position as possible.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 15, 2008)

> I see the distinction being made in the Greek between 'petros' and 'petras'. I've heard that downplayed by the Catholic's rebuttal that this dialog was very likely originally spoken in Aramaic, and in Aramaic the word is 'kephas'. And it is assumed that since there is no difference like there is in Greek, then the argument used for the Greek isn't a valid one.


This is a poor argument.
1) Aside from the Aramaic translation of the Bible (from the Greek), there isn't any "original Aramaic" record of this conversation. The RC is assuming a naive correspondence theory of the preservation and translation of this conversation.

2) Because there isn't an Aramaic original record, there is no reason not to suppose that the Greek text, with its variation between masc. & fem. construction actually preserves a distinction intended by Jesus, and expressed in an original Aramaic conversation. Could have been more words uttered, or gestures, or vocal stress, or ... you name it, than the economy of words that are used in the Greek preservation of the conversation.

3) The bottom line is, even if the Aramaic translation of the Greek Bible itself supports a RC understanding _(and I have no idea if it does, on a tendentious reading),_ that still doesn't establish a baseline below the Greek text (as if the Aramaic translation was a verbatim record of the conversation). And the RC is still left arguing for his position from a NON-EXTANT record of the exchange, filled with assumptions that validate his conclusions.


----------

