Jesus: "Peter, you are the Rock."

“One problem with this interpretation, which many Protestant Bible scholars admit, is that while Petros and petra did have these meanings in some ancient Greek poetry, the distinction was gone by the first century, when Matthew’s Gospel was written. At that time the two words meant the same thing: a rock. Another problem is that when he addressed Peter, Jesus was not speaking Greek, but Aramaic, a cousin language of Hebrew. In Aramaic there is no difference between the two words which in Greek are rendered as petros and petra. They are both kepha; that’s why Paul often refers to Peter as Cephas (cf. 1 Cor. 15:5, Gal 2:9). What Christ actually said was, “You are Kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church.” But even if the words Petros and petra did have different meanings, the Protestant reading of two different “rocks” would not fit the context” (Madrid, Patrick. Surprised by Truth. Pg. 68. San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994).

This is a selection from James Akin’s chapter in Surprised By Truth, a response to Protestant interpretations of Matthew 16:13-20, with an emphasis on verse 18. Among the common interpretations of this passage of Scripture, Akin is here attempting to demonstrate that the words for “Peter” and “rock” can be equated to mean the same thing. In other words, his interpretation of verse 18 goes something like this: “Peter, you are the rock I will build my church upon.” But this is not what the text says, and as much as Roman Catholic apologists wish it were different, the Greek words Petros and petra are not identical.  

I believe it is for this reason that Mr. Akin, and other Roman Catholic apologists put forth this unique “It was said in Aramaic, so it doesn’t matter how the Greek reads” argument. The major problem with this line of reasoning is that it was in Koine Greek that this conversation was recorded and inspired. I hope James Akin is not suggesting that the God-breathed account of Matthew 16 contradicts the conversation between Jesus and his disciples? I am also glad that Akin does not here attempt to defend the idea that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic – an indefensible idea that is limited to theory because there is no manuscript evidence to support this – though Patrick Madrid in Pope Fiction does make this claim about an Aramaic original of the Gospel according to Matthew.

Moving past the Greek terms “Peter” and “rock,” I think it is important to mention that I believe Jesus is addressing Peter about the rock, and not calling him the rock. When Jesus speaks to Peter he is addressing him in the second person. However, “this rock” is said in the third person using the demonstrative pronoun “this” to clearly differentiate between Peter and the rock.

This also makes perfect sense with the flow of the passage. Consider who the subject is … is it Peter? No, rather the subject is Christ: “He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” (13). Again, he asks more directly, “But who do you say that I am?” (15). Peter confesses Christ’s messiahship, which is followed by a statement reaffirming the subject: “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.”  (17). The reason Peter is called blessed by Christ is because of the received revelation from the Father that Jesus is the Messiah. Then follows the disputed verse 18: “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church.” 

Note that Jesus does not say what Roman Catholic apologists wish he said: “Peter, you are the rock I will build my church upon” or even “Peter = the rock.”

Roman Catholicism is in an odd position when we consider the doctrine of papal primacy. They claim to be ultimate authority in all things relating to faith and practice, which can be expressed as Sola Ecclesia, or the Church Alone. Furthermore, it is “Mother Church” who infallibly defines and interprets the Scriptures, and can alone guide Christianity because only she has been entrusted with the unwritten traditions passed down through the Roman Magisterium, with the Pope at her head. Yet the Roman Church appeals to the Scriptures to support her ultimate authority, especially with regards to papal infallibility. Matthew 16 has the honor of being such a passage.

The Roman Catholic position bears the burden to prove not simply that their understanding of Matthew 16 is possible, but that it is absolutely true. Unfortunately for Rome, there are strong reasons for believing that “the rock” upon which Christ’s church was built was the confession that Jesus was the Messiah made by Peter and the disciples. Verse 20 concludes their conversation, remaining on the messiahship of Christ, “Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.”

Within the next few days I hope to also interact with a few more comments from Surprised by Truth as well as Patrick Madrid’s Pope Fiction.

Thanks for reading,
Case of Base