Dropping the Rock on C.A.R.M

Why Peter Was the Rock

Say what you will about C.A.R.M, but they have been on the internet since 1995, it’s almost 4 years younger than I. This doesn’t make it truer, but what this does mean is that it marks a foundation for Protestant Christian to begin their counter-Catholic apologetics, and a response to the basics is what we need. I already responded to them before (here). However, I don’t intend to stop and will respond to Slick’s article on Saint Peter (here). Today I will be defending the contention that Peter was the rock mentioned in the following verse,

I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. — Matthew 16:18

The first response that is given is one from linguistics, namely that because of the terms of petros (the masculine term used for Peter), and petra (the feminine use for rock in general) Slick believes there

are problems with the Roman Catholic position. First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18, we see something that is not obvious in the English. “ . . . you are Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church . . . “ In Greek nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine, and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word “petros” is masculine; “petra” is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine “petros” but the feminine “petra.” Let me illustrate by using the words “actor” and “actress:” “You are the actor; and with this actress, I will make my movie.” Do see that the gender influences how a sentence is understood? Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter but upon something else. What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?

This line of reasoning has multiple problems. The first problem is that this is not the only place where Peter is renamed ‘rock’. As John Salza notes, in John 1:42, we read,

He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).

‘Peter’ is merely a translation of Cephas, which is masculine in Aramaic, so it would stand to reason that the translation would also be masculine [1].

How does Slick react? Slick claims,

In contrast to this, in paragraph #2 at the beginning of this article, the Roman Catholic Church says that the rock cannot refer to Jesus “but only Peter — as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for ‘Peter’ and ‘rock.’” The problem is that the text is not in Aramaic — but Greek. Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof of the Roman Catholic position. We have to ask ourselves why the Roman Catholic Church would resort to using something that we don’t have: the aramaic text. Is it because their argument is not supported by the Greek, and so they must infer something from a text we don’t possess?

The problem is that Slick assumes that it is a necessary condition that we have the Aramaic version to confirm this, I disagree. The scripture itself (again, see John 1:42) makes the translation for us. Slick even uses the same scripture when he further argues,

in John 1:42 it says, “He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas,” (which is translated Peter).” The word “Peter” here is petros — not petra. It is used to elucidate the Aramaic kephas which is not a name in Aramaic.

“Except in Jn. 1:42, where it is used to elucidate Aramaic kēphás, Pétros is used in the NT only as a name for Simon Peter . . . The translation supports the view that Kēphás is not a proper name, since one does not usually translate proper names”1

While Kephas’ usage as a proper name is unusual, in the contexts of John and Matthew, it is clear that Jesus is assigning a new title.

And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church Matthew 16:17–18

Here, Jesus is taking the proper name ‘Barjona’ (son of Jonnas, or John), and including the title ‘Peter’ (the translation of Kephas) to it [2].

Slick gives his own interpretation regarding the designation of petra and petros, among additional claims. Slick says,

A stone is movable, unstable; and this is exactly what we see with Peter, who doubted when he walked on water, who denied Jesus, and who was rebuked by Paul at Antioch... Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable and unstable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built… his is consistent with scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference of God but never of a man

The problem is that a just because something is designated as petros does not entail it is movable, as Slick’s own sources claims,

2. Petros, Πέτρος, Peter, meaning stone. The masc. of the fem. pétra (4073), a massive rock or cliff.” (Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, electronic ed., G4074,

3. Petros, Πέτρος, “a noun akin to 4073, used as a proper name; “a stone” or “a boulder,” Peter, one of the twelve apostles: — Peter(150), Peter’s(5).” (Robert L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition, H8674, Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998, 1981).

A boulder need not be a movable object; neither is a cliff or a massive rock movable. While a Petros may be movable it is not necessarily one. Further, even assuming one is called Petra, does not mean one is (morally speaking) immovable. In the Septuagint translation of scriptures[3], Abraham, a human, contrary to Slick’s claim, is called a rock — πέτραν (petra)- in Isaiah 51:1, and and yet there were times when he disobeyed God. Take for example when Abraham lied to Pharaoh to protect his life (Genesis 12).

Another problem is that the change in shift from second to first person makes the analogy rather clumsy, as Jesus is claiming to be both the builder and the thing being built [4].

Slick’s final claim is that,

The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ; and that we, as his redeemed, need to keep our eyes on him. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus — not Peter.

“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor. 3:11).

This verse no more contradicts the passage in Matthew than it does passage 2:19-20 of Ephesians[5],

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone

The fact of the matter is that while these authors use similar analogies, they are used to illustrate different teachings, be it the authority of Peter (Matthew 16:18), the centrality of Jesus (1 Cor. 3:11), or the succession of the apostles in the New Testament, and the Prophets in the Old Testament (Ephesians 2:19–20).

Now that I’ve dealt with Slick’s argument, let me provide a further argument for the thesis Peter is the Rock. The first is that Peter is designated to be a parallel of Abraham. As already stated, Abraham — who was called Abram- was given a new name by God (Genesis 17:5), as was Peter [6]. Both were called rocks [7]. Finally, God establishes both of them as the head of the covenant in profession of their faith (see Galatians 3:29 Romans 4:16 for Abraham; and Matthew 16: 15–18 for Peter) [8]. From the topography, it would seem that Peter is the more likely candidate.

References

[1] John Salza, The Biblical Basis for the Papacy, 37

[2] Ibid, 38

[3]Isaiah 51:1, Septuagint, by The Scholarly Bible Portal of the German Bible Society (here)

[4] John Salza, The Biblical Basis for the Papacy, 39

[5] Ibid, 38

[6] Ibid, 41

[7] Ibid

[8]Ibid, 42