A Catholic apologist named Sean showed me some good insights about the Petros-petra debate from Matthew 16:18. If you have never heard the Protestant claim, it's basically that when Jesus says "You are Peter [Petros] and upon this Rock [petra]" the Greek word Petros means "little pebble" while petra means "big rock". Thus, the Protestant is arguing that Jesus was not identifying Peter with "Rock," but rather contrasting Peter's littleness with the bigness of the Rock (i.e. Jesus). But this argument is simply ridiculous and desperate, and many Protestant scholars have rightly rejected it as well.
The best place to begin tackling this objection is to look at how the Bible uses the term petros. The term petros appears 162 times in the New Testament, with all 162 of those times referring to the Apostle Peter. This is very significant, because just from this data there is no Biblical basis at all that petros ever means "little pebble". In fact, the term petros is simply never used in the NT as a generic term for any rock of any specific size.
So where did the notion that Peter means "little pebble" even come from
if not the Bible? Protestant detractors apparently dug up this
distinction from a long outdated form of Greek that wasn't even in use
at the time of the Apostles (i.e. not Biblical Greek). This detail alone
makes the Protestant argument extremely dubious and invalid.
The next term to consider is the Greek term petra. This term is used 16 times in the New Testament, signifying not just "big rock," but something more akin to bedrock, the firmest foundation (Lk 6:48-49). This is significant because it would entail that when Jesus identified Peter as petra, Jesus was not just speaking of a big rock, but rather that Peter is the bedrock upon which the Church is built. This rendering makes far more sense than the Protestant reading of Peter being called a "little pebble," which is actually an insult to Peter after he just professed Jesus to be the Son of God!
The last term to consider is the Greek term lithos, which has a generic meaning of "stone" and is used 60 times in the New Testament. It can refer to small stones that fit in your hand (Mt 7:9; Lk 22:41; Jn 8:59), large rocks the size of boulders (Mt 28:2; Mk 9:42), and even large stone-cut bricks used to build buildings (Mk 13:1-2). Interestingly, the term lithos is also used metaphorically to refer to Jesus (1 Peter 2:6-8), but Protestants would never say that just because lithos is sometimes used to mean "small stone" that Jesus is a "small stone"! Thus, even if petros could mean "little pebble" does not mean we absolutely should take it to mean that when referring to Peter. And if the Protestant thesis were true, we would better expect Jesus to have said to Peter, "You are lithos, and upon this petra," which Jesus didn't do.
The amusing thing is that though Jesus is described as stone and foundation, these same Greek terms apply to Peter as well (1 Peter 2:5; Rev 21:14). So really, there is no good reason why Petros does not mean petra, especially when both are mentioned in the same breath in Matthew 16:18. The only reason why the word ending is different is because petra is a feminine noun, which must be modified to the masculine to fit with the fact Peter was a male. Without that modification, it would be like naming a man Billie (a female name) rather than Billy. And given that Jesus is speaking of Himself as the Builder, "upon this Rock I will build," shows that Jesus is not the referent to Rock here, further strengthening the link between Petros and petra.
To better help Catholics see just how significant this is, they need to know that translating Peter as simply "Rock" actually loses a lot of its force. That's because what Jesus is saying is more akin to "You are Bedrock, and upon this bedrock I will build by Church," or another option, "You are Foundation, and upon this foundation I will build my Church." This brings out the metaphor a lot better and helps people see what Jesus was getting at.
215 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 215 of 215cwdlaw223,
Acts is the best place to start to see how the NT worshipped. Where in Acts do we see a mass i.e. where a priest takes the bread and wine and changes them into Christ being celebrated?
How about that list of true believers there anonymous? Shouldn't be hard.
Anonymous -
Don't forget the names of the "true believers" in history (4th Century through the 8th Century to make it easy on you)! Please don't give me anyone who participated in the Mass for that would show me that they weren't "true believers" under your construct of a true believer.
All I can find THROUGHOUT history are Christians celebrating/worshiping through the Mass. You can always find a group of nut jobs that don't particpiate in the Mass, but they don't last THROUGHOUT history and they certainly aren't universal.
I'm looking for proper practice in history according to you. Or, do you believe the practice was screwed up for 1,400+ years and then was fixed? Sort of like Joseph Smith but without the new revelation?
cwdlaw223,
Where is the mass in the NT? The Lord's supper and the mass are 2 different things.
Where is a priest in the NT saying the mass?
Where in the NT does it say the NT believers believed in 7 sacraments? Where do they list them?
Anonymous -
Why can't you just give me some names of "true believers" throughout history (4th-8th Century) so I can look these people up?
I already sent you a very good link that explains the sacraments. The fact that you choose to not see them in Scripture isn't my fault. You want Scripture to be a recipe and it isn't there.
Tell me where I can find people who were "true believers" in history or admit that people just failed out of gate and didn't recover until the printing press was invented and the Reformers came on the scene.
BTW - Where is scripture claiming to be inerrant? inspired? listing all of the books? that sola-scriptura is how scripture must be read?
You are the one that admitted history counts. Give me some names of true believers who didn't celebrate the Mass. All I find is people participating in the Mass in history who could be deemed "true believers."
Anonymous
Post April 29 2013@ 9:05 am
LOL
thanks for the laughter
seriously man are you for real???
I don't think you ever read what was put in front of you. I don't know it it is tactic or simply a mental blockage.
the church DID NOT establish the inquisitions
Barbara -
He closes his eyes at times or just when he's forced to admit the Catholic position he changes topics or just won't answer your question.
My story about the person claimg dead men bleeding fits him perfectly. If you took him to outer space to show him the earth was round he would say you drugged him and it's an illusion. Of course, there's enough in scripture for the Trinity and Hypostatic Union but not enough for the other Catholic doctrines he rejects. Double standards all over the place.
He can't even name true believers in history who lived continuously and didn't celebrate the Mass. Very Mormon like. There will always be someone who has a better interpretation of Scripture than the Catholic Church.
Jimmy Akin on the Matt 16:18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5VSv1LsAmg
you can find his articular that he alluded to
http://jimmyakin.com/why-be-catholic
Nick,
You do your readers a disservice in several areas:
1. You gloss over the distinction between Petros and Petra by trying to sweep it aside as "a long outdated form of Greek that wasn't even in use at the time of the Apostles (i.e. not Biblical Greek)." Why then, Nick, was this the Greek term used when the Apostles and other NT author's wrote the NT? Were they writing in obsolete language that no one would understand? This is your main argument "This detail alone makes the Protestant argument extremely dubious and invalid." and it is an invalid point.
Obviously there is a distinction between the two Greek words. I am not a Greek scholar, but those who know more than I do say that that "petra" refers to a distinctly smaller stone than the correctly identified bedrock meaning for petros. Most Evangelical Protestants would not refer to "petros" as a "little pebble" as you have portrayed. Your anger at Protestants shows through in your patronizing their viewpoint of Catholics. Most do not belittle Catholic doctrine like you insinuate by using this term. I'm not saying all, but most.
2. Jesus did not identify Peter as petra. Jesus used the term petros in Mt 16:18, but the question is "who was He referring to?" I believe the Scriptures teach that there is no other "Petra" than Jesus. For a full reading on this, please visit www.ThinkonHisTruth.com/Peter.htm
3. You mislead your readers by simply applying the Greek term "lithos" to Jesus without its modifying adjective "akrogōniaios" which modifies lithos to make it The Corner Stone:
1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner [akrogōniaios] stone [lithos], elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone [lithos] which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
1Pe 2:8 And a stone [lithos] of stumbling, and a rock [Petra - huh] of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
The argument that Jesus could have used the term lithos is a weak argument because, as you rightly point out, He didn't.
4. The same Greek terms that apply to Jesus do not apply in the same way to Peter. You cite:
1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones [lithos], are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
This obviously is not being applied to Peter since Peter is the one writing the Epistle and Peter is addressing those to whom it is written as "lively stones"... not Peter, himself. The stones referred to here are the saints being built into the spiritual temple of God.
You also cite the verse below as a proof text:
Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
The foundations being spoken here are not the Chief Cornerstone or Rock (Petros), but rather, the spiritual house of the church is being built upon the testimony of Apostles. Even if this was twisted in the way that you would like to, it refers to 12 foundations of the 12 Apostles... not just Peter.
5. Jesus spoke of Peter as Petra even though Peter was a male. The male word Petros could have referred to Jesus as well as Peter since it was in the masculine, but, again, there are other Scriptures that point to Jesus as the Petros as seen in page I mentioned in item 2.
www.ThinkonHisTruth.com
Marty,
You are not carefully reading what I'm saying, and in turn you end up making straw men of my claims.
(1) There is no *biblical* basis to say there is any significant difference between Petros and Petra. Every time it's used in the NT, Petros simply refers to Peter. Never is it used to refer to "rock" of any specific size. From that fact *alone* the notion that Jesus must have been referring to two different types/sizes of rocks is an unsubstantiated claim. The best explanation for why Simpo was called Petros instead of Petra is because Petra is a girl's name. It would be like calling a guy "Nikki" instead of "Nick".
Also, you are not properly informed on what Protestant scholars have to say on this point. First of all, none of them have given proof they refer to two different sized stones, except for pointing to different and obsolete form of Greek from the Greek of the NT. Many Protestant scholars just regurgitate that error, but that's not genuine scholarship. Second, there are reputable Protestant scholars who say Peter is the Rock that Jesus spoke about and they even say the Petros/Petra distinction is not any significant distinction.
(2) As some Protestant scholars have pointed out, Jesus is said to be the "builder" in this situation, and thus He isn't identifying himself as the building itself. It fits with the whole reason why Jesus renamed Peter at this moment, which you really cannot explain.
(3) You completely overstate your case by arguing that Jesus isn't any ordinary lithos, but the corner-stone lithos. The problem with that argument is that "corner stone" is supposed to get a person thinking about the analogy of a building to mean that there are other similar sized stones right along with it, only that the corner-stone is the most significant. In other words, the corner-lithos isn't the only lithos, since all those in the church, especially in leadership roles are each their own lithos as well.
(4) I never said Peter or the other Apostles were corner-stones or on par with Christ. That's a straw man. What you're doing is effectively saying that Jesus had no good reason to name Simon "Petros" and in fact you're effectively saying this is of no significance. That's not how to treat the Bible, trivializing and neutralizing details like that. Why didn't Jesus give all the Apostles new names and grant them all the added title "Petros"? That's why I've become more and more convinced that Protestants don't really follow the Scriptures nor care what they say, and rather all that matters is trying to disprove Catholicism.
(5) Jesus only spoke of Peter as petra in so far as petra is the noun for rock, where as Petros is only seen as a name/title. Petros was not it's own term for the noun rock.
You said: "The male word Petros could have referred to Jesus as well as Peter". That's just laughable and no scholar would take that seriously. Your argument on your link is that Jesus was speaking in the THIRD PERSON so that it's possible He was speaking of Himself. That's a major assumption and not warranted by the context, especially because Jesus is heaping blessings on Peter. But to really show how bad an argument you made, Jesus is speaking NOT in the third person, but in the SECOND Person: YOU. There's no way that "you" could be Jesus speaking of Himself.
The more Protestants resist the Bible, the more they end up tearing it down and making nonsense of it.
Nick,
First, I never claimed I was a scholar nor would I ever want to. I am a simple person who simply reads the Bible. In my experience, many "scholars" are not trustworthy as many have agendas and set out to prove their agenda instead of seeking truth. Consider the wisdom of the "scholars" of Jesus' day: the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the scribes and compare that to the wisdom of the relatively simple fishermen who hung around with Jesus.
I also don't accept many "Protestant" views because while many are biblical, many are not. If it were me, I would advise someone to seek the "Biblical" view - not a "Protestant" or "Catholic" view.
1) You are correct; I did misread the portion of the "Biblical basis" for the meaning of petros. However, I don't know that it is unwarranted to find out what a word means by seeing how it is used in the language. Do you care to elaborate on your sources for where the detractors dug up the distinction from?
2) Why can't Jesus be the builder and the foundation? You are limiting Him to our own human limitations. He is the High Priest and the Lamb at the same time. He was God and man at the same time. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last. Simon getting a new name is not unique to Peter. Paul was Saul, Israel was Jacob, etc. A name change does not necessarily equal a bestowing of power.
3) The corner stone is not just another stone. Scripture is very clear that the only corner stone is Jesus, Himself. Even though He is classified under the term leethos, it is clear that He alone has the modifying adjective of corner. This argument is not overstated if one wants to seek out what all the Scriptures have to say on the matter.
4) Your response doesn't make any sense. Nick said "The amusing thing is that though Jesus is described as stone and foundation, these same Greek terms apply to Peter as well (1 Peter 2:5; Rev 21:14)." I interpret this as you saying that leethos=stone=Peter=Jesus. I contend that the modifying adjective of "corner" makes "corner leethos" apply only to Jesus, and therefore, “corner leethos”=Jesus, “corner leethos”≠leethos, “corner leethos”≠Peter (or any other Apostle or church leader), and leethos=Peter (or any other saint in His kingdom).
5. When Jesus uses the term “YOU”, He is clearly referring to Peter, but, He is not necessarily referring to Peter when He uses the term “Petra”. It can clearly be seen that Jesus commonly used the term “you” and mixed it with third person references to Himself (Mt16:28, 19:28, 26:64, etc.). The overwhelming evidence of the use of the word Petra (other than the times it is referring to a literal rock) shows that Petra can only be referring to Jesus, Himself.
Marty @ ThinkonHisTruth
Go past the Greek to the aramaic and you will see the word Kephas, meaning rock, is uses in both places. You are Kephas and on this Kephas I will build my church. This whole petra/petros argument is pointless.
// The Catholic Church reviews the situation and judges whether the challenge is right or wrong. So far, no challenger has proven any Catholic Teaching wrong. All Catholic Doctrine is infallible. //
Oh help....! We certainly can prove that some Catholic teaching is very wrong, before we even get started on practice and misrepresentation of history.
Post a Comment