The phrase “upon this rock I will build my church,” spoken by Jesus in Matthew 16:18, stands as a cornerstone of Christian theology, particularly within the Catholic tradition. But what exactly did Jesus mean? For many, including a missionary who once visited my doorstep, the interpretation of this powerful verse is far from straightforward. This encounter, years before I delved deeply into biblical study, became a pivotal moment in understanding the richness and depth of scripture, and the importance of looking beyond surface-level readings.
Like many at the time, my biblical knowledge was rudimentary. Missionaries at the door often left me feeling ill-equipped to articulate my Catholic faith. I possessed a Bible, yet it remained largely unopened, a beautiful book more admired than studied. Then came the day a Seventh-day Adventist missionary arrived, ready to “share” insights from the Bible, aiming to highlight perceived discrepancies within the Catholic Church and promote his own denomination’s teachings. Little did he know, I was about to unveil a perspective that would challenge his assumptions and deepen my own faith.
The Missionary’s Challenge: A Lesson in Greek?
The missionary, with well-practiced ease, flipped through his Bible, quoting verses he believed supported his arguments against the “errors of Rome.” Familiar with some biblical passages, yet ignorant of many others, I felt myself growing increasingly silent. I lacked the scriptural fluency to engage effectively. Then, he landed on Matthew 16:18: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.”
“Hold it there!” I interjected, a spark of recognition igniting. “That verse! That’s where Jesus establishes Simon as the head of the Church on Earth, the first Pope!” A confident smile spread across my face, anticipating his rebuttal. I knew from past encounters that this verse was a common point of contention.
As expected, the missionary responded with a knowing air, “I understand your interpretation, but you Catholics misunderstand this verse due to a lack of Greek knowledge. Your Church and its scholars stumble because they don’t grasp the original language of the New Testament. To truly understand Matthew 16:18, we must delve into the Greek.”
Intrigued, I played along, feigning ignorance of the linguistic “trap” he was setting. “Is that so?” I asked, prompting him to elaborate.
“Indeed,” he affirmed. “In Greek, the word for ‘rock’ is petra, denoting a large, massive stone. However, the name Jesus gives to Simon is Petros, a different word meaning a small stone, a pebble.”
This explanation, while seemingly convincing to the untrained ear, contained a critical flaw. The missionary was presenting a linguistic distinction that, while valid in ancient Attic Greek, did not hold true in Koine Greek, the language of the New Testament.
The Greek Misconception: Petros and Petra in Koine Greek
The missionary’s assertion hinged on the idea that petra and petros represented distinctly different sizes of stones in the Greek of Matthew’s Gospel. However, linguistic scholarship, including that from non-Catholic experts, reveals a different picture. In first-century Koine Greek, the distinction between petros and petra as “small stone” and “large rock” had largely faded. They were essentially synonyms, both meaning “rock.” Had Jesus intended to call Simon a “small stone” or “pebble,” the Greek word lithos would have been the appropriate choice.
Even Evangelical Protestant Greek scholars acknowledge this point. D.A. Carson, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, concedes that in Koine Greek, the intended distinction the missionary was making simply wasn’t there.
Undeterred, the missionary pressed on, “You Catholics, lacking Greek understanding, assume Jesus equated Simon and the rock. But the Greek reveals the opposite! Jesus contrasted them. He, Jesus, is the true rock, the foundation. Simon? Just a minor, insignificant pebble, unqualified to be the foundation.”
This interpretation, however, felt forced and contextually weak. It diminished Peter’s role immediately after Jesus had just affirmed him. But I had a counter-argument ready, one that delved even deeper into the linguistic roots of Jesus’s powerful statement.
Turning to Aramaic: Unveiling the Original Language
“Well,” I responded, “I agree wholeheartedly that we must go beyond the English to the Greek.” He beamed, nodding in approval. “But,” I continued, delivering the key piece of information I had recently discovered, “surely you’d also agree that we must go even further, behind the Greek to the Aramaic.”
“The what?” he questioned, his smile faltering slightly.
“Aramaic,” I stated. “As you know, Aramaic was the everyday language of Jesus, the apostles, and the Jews in Palestine. It was the common tongue of the land.”
He countered, “I thought Greek was.”
“No,” I clarified. “While many, if not most, in that region knew Greek – it was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world, the language of culture and commerce – Aramaic remained the vernacular. The New Testament books were written in Greek to reach a wider audience, Christians in Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, not just those in Palestine where Aramaic was spoken.”
I continued, “While most of the New Testament is in Greek, evidence suggests Matthew’s Gospel was initially written in Aramaic. Eusebius of Caesarea, an early Church historian, recorded this. Though this Aramaic original is lost, like all New Testament originals, the Greek translation remains. But understanding the Aramaic background is crucial.”
Jesus Spoke Aramaic: Echoes in the New Testament
“We know Jesus spoke Aramaic because fragments of his Aramaic words are preserved within the Gospels themselves. Consider Matthew 27:46, Jesus’s cry from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That’s not Greek; it’s Aramaic, meaning, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'”
“Furthermore,” I added, “Paul’s epistles, specifically Galatians and 1 Corinthians, retain the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name – eight times in total! In our English Bibles, it appears as Cephas. This isn’t Greek; it’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (Hellenized as Kephas).”
Kepha is Rock: The Undeniable Truth
“And what does Kepha mean?” I asked rhetorically. “It means ‘rock,’ the same as petra! Not a pebble, not a small stone. In Aramaic, Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18, ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.'”
“Understanding the Aramaic reveals that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock, not contrasting them. Some modern English translations capture this more accurately, rendering the verse as: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ Even in French, the single word pierre serves for both Simon’s name and the ‘rock’.”
The missionary paused, momentarily speechless. Then, a new objection arose.
“Wait,” he countered. “If kepha and petra are synonymous, why doesn’t the Greek text read, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’? Why use Petros for Simon’s name in Greek, if it supposedly means something different?”
Grammatical Nuances and Context: Beyond Word Meanings
“The answer lies in the grammatical structures of Greek and Aramaic,” I explained. “Aramaic allows for kepha to be used in both instances in Matthew 16:18 seamlessly. Greek, however, presents a grammatical challenge due to noun genders.”
The Grammar Issue: Gender in Greek Nouns
“Greek nouns have masculine, feminine, and neuter genders. Petra is a feminine noun. It works perfectly well in the second part of Matthew 16:18 – ‘upon this petra.’ However, you can’t give a man a feminine name in Greek, at least not in that cultural context. To make it a masculine name, the ending had to be altered, resulting in Petros, a masculine form that was already a recognized word for ‘rock’.”
“Admittedly,” I conceded, “it’s an imperfect translation from the Aramaic. Some of the wordplay is lost in the Greek. In English, with ‘Peter’ and ‘rock,’ the connection is further obscured. But Petros was the closest and most grammatically appropriate way to convey the Aramaic Kepha in naming Simon ‘Rock’.”
Context is King: Peter’s Elevated Role
“Beyond linguistic evidence, the narrative context of Matthew 16:15-19 strongly refutes any attempt to diminish Peter’s role. Look at the structure: Peter makes a profound confession about Jesus’s identity, and in direct response, Jesus bestows a threefold blessing upon Peter.”
“Jesus doesn’t say, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble, and on this rock (meaning myself, not you) I will build my Church… I will give you (but you’re insignificant) the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ That makes no sense! Jesus is clearly elevating Peter, granting him a threefold blessing, culminating in the gift of the keys to the kingdom, a symbol of immense authority, not undermining him.”
“To interpret Jesus as downplaying Peter contradicts the entire context. Jesus is installing Peter as a chief steward, a prime minister under the King of Kings, by entrusting him with the keys to the kingdom. Isaiah 22:22 illustrates this perfectly: Old Testament kings appointed chief stewards with great authority to rule in their stead. Jesus directly echoes Isaiah, making his intention clear. He is raising Peter as a father figure (Isaiah 22:21) to lead and guide the household of faith (John 21:15-17). This authority, symbolized by the keys worn on the shoulder, has been passed down through the papacy for 2000 years.”
I paused, a knowing smile returning. The missionary, visibly taken aback, offered a tight, uncomfortable smile in return. He glanced at his watch, feigned surprise at the passing time, and excused himself. I never saw him again.
Confidence in Faith: The Power of Understanding
What emerged from this encounter was twofold: a personal awakening and, hopefully, a seed of doubt planted in the missionary’s mind.
For me, it sparked a newfound confidence. I realized that defending my faith wasn’t an insurmountable task. With a little “homework,” with dedicated study, I could articulate and defend my beliefs. The deeper the study, the stronger the defense.
This realization extends to every Catholic. You don’t need to doubt your faith simply because you lack an immediate answer to a challenging question. Develop that confidence, that inner conviction to say, “I may not know the answer now, but I know the answer exists, and I can find it if I dedicate myself to learning.”
As for the missionary, I hope he left with a seed of doubt regarding his preconceived notions about Catholics and the Catholic faith. Perhaps that doubt has matured into a recognition that Catholics possess reasoned and informed perspectives on their faith, worthy of deeper consideration – a consideration of the Faith he once so confidently opposed.
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827 permission to publish this work is hereby granted. +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
Did you like this content? Please help keep us ad-free
