A Journey Through Catholicism - Peter

I decided to go back and take a committed look at Catholicism again this year with the intention of coming to some definite conclusions, and I am currently going through the RCIA process again. The only thing that scares me is that, from what I've found so far, the conclusion that I may come to... is that I don't know. But, we're going to try. And each issue that I research I am planning to blog here as I generally forget things that I don't take the time to write down.

The first issue I have started looking into is Peter and the Papacy. Three of the best sources I've come across so far are Scott Hahn's(1) "Answering Common Objections" audio series, the website ScriptureCatholic.com, and the Strong's Concordance online.

The basic view of the Catholic Church is that Peter was the original "Pope" (Although not by that name until much later), and was given that authority in Matthew 16:18 where Christ states that "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church."

The Protestants disagree because the New Testament was written in Greek, and in the Greek language it says "You are Petros, and upon this petra I will build my church." They point out the difference between the words "petros" and "petra" as the foundation for believing it was not Peter that Christ was going to build his church upon (although there seems to be some disagreement as to whether he was using the word petra to refer to Christ Himself, or statement of faith that Peter just made).

There seem to be two main arguments they use to support this point, as follows:

1. The difference in the words themselves. Petros, they say, implies a small stone while petra means a large mass of rock or foundation. Christ was refering to Peter as a small stone, as part of the large foundation (which was either Christ, or Peter's statment of faith depending on the interpretation) that Christ was going to build his Church upon. Petra is also the feminine version of the Greek word rock.

2. The sentence structure. "For example, the first noun (petros) is without the definite article (“the” in the Greek) while the second (petra) is with it... Petros refers to “thou”, of blessed art thou Simon Barjona; and Petra is the “it”, of flesh and
blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father in heaven. Grammatically, this is the nearest antecedent."(2)

Firstly, if you go back to the Strongs Concordance and look up the definitions for the word "rock" you will find several listings. Among them are:

petros (4074) which is "apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:--Peter, rock." It's Biblical usage being exclusively: "1) one of the twelve disciples of Jesus."

petra (4073) meaning: "feminine of the same as 4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively):--rock." It's biblical usage being "1) a rock, cliff or ledge, a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground, b) a rock, a large stone, c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul."

And.. This number 3037 that petros refers to:

"lithos" which according to Strongs is "apparently a primary word; a stone (literally or figuratively):--(mill-, stumbling-)stone." It's Biblical usage is "1) a stone, a) of small stones, b) of building stones, c) metaph. of Christ"

In order to come to a better understanding of these words, let's look at how they're used. The word petros is used 162 times in the New Testament, all of which are speaking directly of Peter. The word petra is used 16 times, translated only as "rock." Lithos is used 60 times and is translated various ways, often referring to stones, mill stones, building stones, or even as a metaphor for Christ himself.

Since petros is used exclusively as Peter's name(3), then the most accurate word to use in the 2nd half of the sentence would be petra since it is the normal word for "rock" and "of the same as [petros]," and was often used to mean foundation stone, such as in the parable about the wise and foolish builder(4). They could also have used the word Lithos as it could mean building stone, but it was also used multiple times of a metaphor of Christ(5). It is the same word that is used in Luke 20:17 when it talks about "the stone that the builders rejected.." Lithos then, would have been a great choice if the translators believed that Christ was referring to himself as the rock. From what I can find, I don't believe that is what they were trying to imply.

Please bear in mind that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic, and there is only one word in Aramaic for rock. It is the word cephas. So what Jesus actually said in the original language was "You are Cephas, and upon this cephas I will build my church." If He had wanted to differentiate between the two, He would have had to make that additionally clear.

Secondly, if you know me then you know I am absolutely ignorant when it comes to grammatical rules for the English language, and all the more so in Greek, but it seems logical to me that the word "this" was inserted for clarification. Without "this" word (cheesy pun intended), it would have read "You are [Rock], and upon [rock] I will build my church." This seems to be a little vague or ambiguous. Would Christ have been talking about Peter the "rock" specifically, or just any rock?

With the insertion of the word "this," it specifies which rock Jesus is talking about. "This," as pointed out by our friend Randall Paquette generally refers to the nearest antecedent. It just so happens that the last rock that Jesus referred to was Peter.


My Thoughts:

It could be interpreted either way depending on which aspects of the debate a person decided to argue, and there have been many scholars on both sides who view it both ways. Scott Hahn quoted protestant scholar RT France who says in relation to Matthew 16:18:

"It describes not so much Peter's character, that is the Rock. He did not prove to be rock-like in terms of stability or reliability but rather the name Rock or Peter points to his function as the foundation stone of Jesus' Church."

And W. F. Albright, who says in his Anchor Bible Commentary on Matthew:

"Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter."(6)

Randall Paquette responded by quoting a saying from Pope Leo the Great, which was used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, saying:

"Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church."(7)

So It seems that it is often interpreted both ways by people on both sides of the debate. I am not particularly adverse even to the idea that there could have been a duel meaning intended. I am not saying that this is correct either, but it is a possibility. If I had to pick a side for argument sake, then I think the trump card goes to the Catholics because there is no differentiation between Peter and the rock upon which Christ will build his church in the original language.

Bear in mind this is only one scripture, and, in my personal opinion, not enough to base a doctrine off of. I am sure there will be much more to come.




1. Scot Hahn was a Protestant Minister who converted to Catholicism and is a very popular speaker on apologetics and theology. Bibliography Here.
2. The Deception of Scott Hahn by Randall Paquette. Here.
3. There is only once where petra is not translated as Peter. It is in John 1:42 where it gives the meaning of Peter's name as "rock."
4. Found in Matthew 7, and Luke 6.
5. See Matthew 21:42-44, Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17-18, and 1 Peter 2:4-8.
6. See Scott Hahn on the Papcy. Here.
7. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 424.