In Matt. 16, does the second rock refer back to the first rock?

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joe370

Guest
In Matthew 16, grammatically speaking, does the second rock refer back to to the first rock - upon which Jesus’ church is built? Please, just click on the thumbnail attached to this post before responding. Thanks. 👍
 
I have never seen how it could not. As the name in gospel of Peter is Cephas, it seems clear that Jesus actually gave him his name in Aramaic. A lot is made of the Greek difference, but that is simply understood when we realize that Petra is a feminine noun and could not be used (grammatically)in both places. The authors were simply following the rules of the language while writing in Greek. With the close proximity of the two words I do not understand how the pronoun could not be taken as Peter.
 
I agree; I don’t see how the the pronoun can be pointing to anything but Peter, (petros) - grammatically speaking. Curious to see what others have to say. Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.
pnewton said:
I have never seen how it could not. As the name in gospel of Peter is Cephas, it seems clear that Jesus actually gave him his name in Aramaic. A lot is made of the Greek difference, but that is simply understood when we realize that Petra is a feminine noun and could not be used (grammatically)in both places. The authors were simply following the rules of the language while writing in Greek. With the close proximity of the two words I do not understand how the pronoun could not be taken as Peter.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, grammatically speaking, Peter must be the rock. There is no other grammatically acceptable option. I’ve been saying this for years.

I was discussing this very thing with an anti-Catholic once, and he was at a loss, so to make him feel a bit better, I posited that Jesus could have been the rock had he physically pointed to himself at the same moment he said “this”. Big. Mistake.
 
That I know of, Matthew was written in Greek. Where are their Aramaic manuscripts?

Second of all, Thank the Lord we have Peter Himself to clarify that all Christians are living stones built on the foundation of Christ.

1 Peter 2:5

Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
Code: 
  “ Behold, I lay in Zion
  A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
  And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”
7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,
Code: 
  “ The stone which the builders rejected
  Has become the chief cornerstone,”
8 and
Code: 
  “ A stone of stumbling
  And a rock of offense.”
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.

Matthew 7 (Build your house on Christ)
24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.
26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”

Paul understood that Jesus is the Rock.

Isaiah 8:14 (Old testament prophesy)
And he will become a sanctuary and a stone of offense and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Romans 9:33
as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

1 Cor 10:4
4and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
 
From what I’ve heard, Peter is spelled Petros in Greek, which also means Rock, so it’s sort of a play on words, too.
 
rbarcia - I have to ask the very simple “so what?” We know Jesus is refered to as a rock elsewhere in scripture. That does not, however, allow one to ignore the necessary grammatical structure or context of this verse, which is in a different context and written by a different author years apart from those other verses.

That Jesus was called a rock elsewhere in the bible is entirely, completely, and utterly irrelevant. If I am sick, and my buddy brings over a video game for me to play while I am sick, and I say “thanks, man, you’re my rock,” am I blaspheming by calling him Jesus?" Of course not. Different situation, different context, and different “rock”.
 
Will you please address post #1?
rbarcia said:
That I know of, Matthew was written in Greek. Where are their Aramaic manuscripts?

Second of all, Thank the Lord we have Peter Himself to clarify that all Christians are living stones built on the foundation of Christ.

1 Peter 2:5

Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
Code: 
  “ Behold, I lay in Zion
  A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
  And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”
7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,
Code: 
  “ The stone which the builders rejected
  Has become the chief cornerstone,”
8 and
Code: 
  “ A stone of stumbling
  And a rock of offense.”
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.

Matthew 7 (Build your house on Christ)
24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.
26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”

Paul understood that Jesus is the Rock.

Isaiah 8:14 (Old testament prophesy)
And he will become a sanctuary and a stone of offense and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Romans 9:33
as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

1 Cor 10:4
4and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
Click to expand...
 
Farsight001 said:
rbarcia - I have to ask the very simple “so what?” We know Jesus is refered to as a rock elsewhere in scripture. That does not, however, allow one to ignore the necessary grammatical structure or context of this verse, which is in a different context and written by a different author years apart from those other verses.

That Jesus was called a rock elsewhere in the bible is entirely, completely, and utterly irrelevant. If I am sick, and my buddy brings over a video game for me to play while I am sick, and I say “thanks, man, you’re my rock,” am I blaspheming by calling him Jesus?" Of course not. Different situation, different context, and different “rock”.
Click to expand...
good call 👍
 
It can be determined what the meaning is by simply reading it like this: “Simon, you are rock and on this I will build my church”.
 
I believe the “rock” in verse 18, refers to verse 17: " …for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." which is referring to verse 16: “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God.”.
The statement of “That thou art Peter” is a way that Jesus identified Peter as the next leader of the church through which the rock of revelation from the rock of our Lord would come through.
 
flyonthewall said:
I believe the “rock” in verse 18, refers to verse 17: " …for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." which is referring to verse 16: “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God.”.
The statement of “That thou art Peter” is a way that Jesus identified Peter as the next leader of the church through which the rock of revelation from the rock of our Lord would come through.
Click to expand...
So just to clarify, you’re saying that Jesus renames Simon “Kepahs”(which means “rock”), and then refers to a second, totally different kepahs (rock) in the same sentence?

Also, if you’re saying that “Jesus identified Peter as the next leader of the church through which the rock of revelation from the rock of our Lord would come through” doesn’t that eliminate the possibility of a “great apostasy”?
 
I would go with Augustine and John Chrysostom.
And Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." And this he heard from the Lord: “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but my Father which is in heaven.” See what praises follow this faith. “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” What means, “Upon this rock I will build my Church”? Upon this faith; upon this that has been said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Upon this rock,” says He, “I will build my Church.”
Click to expand...
Augustine (Homilies on 1 John, Homily 10, paragraph 1)
newadvent.org/fathers/170210.htm
You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;" that is, on the faith of his confession.
Click to expand...
John Chrysostom (Homilies on Matthew, Homily 54)
newadvent.org/fathers/200154.htm
 
rbarcia said:
That I know of, Matthew was written in Greek. Where are their Aramaic manuscripts?
Click to expand...
Good point but Jesus would have been speaking in Aramaic. Isn’t what He actually said and the meaning behind that more important? Matthew recorded what Jesus said in a language other than the one He was speaking in so there are going to be some nuances.
 
Rommegrot said:
Good point but Jesus would have been speaking in Aramaic. Isn’t what He actually said and the meaning behind that more important? Matthew recorded what Jesus said in a language other than the one He was speaking in so there are going to be some nuances.
Click to expand...
But we only have what is written. You can’t know what was said. You are going on speculation. Petros and petra are two distinct words in the Greek. Petros is a shifting, rolling, or insecure stone, while petra is a solid, immovable rock. In the English language the gender is not specified by the article. We say the fork, the spoon, and the knife. The three words have the same article. In the Greek, as in many of the modern languages, each noun and corresponding article is in the masculine, feminine, or neuter gender. In many cases it is an arbitrary arrangement, regardless of sex. The article in Greek is important. If one noun is in the masculine it must have a masculine article, and if it is in the feminine it must have a feminine article. The text under consideration in the Greek shows that petros is in the masculine, and petra in the feminine, proving that they are two distinct words; and each one has a different meaning.
 
Farsight001 said:
rbarcia - I have to ask the very simple “so what?” We know Jesus is referred to as a rock elsewhere in scripture. That does not, however, allow one to ignore the necessary grammatical structure or context of this verse, which is in a different context and written by a different author years apart from those other verses.

That Jesus was called a rock elsewhere in the bible is entirely, completely, and utterly irrelevant. If I am sick, and my buddy brings over a video game for me to play while I am sick, and I say “thanks, man, you’re my rock,” am I blaspheming by calling him Jesus?" Of course not. Different situation, different context, and different “rock”.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that I can’t refer to other Bible verses in the same scripture but you can refer to tradition outside. I talked about the grammar in another post. Nonetheless, I think other scripture is very important and the best evidence we have. I pointed to Peter’s writing (the person Jesus was talking to in this statement) and Peter was writing on the very topic how we are all living stones on the foundation rock, that is Christ.
 
rbarcia said:
But we only have what is written. You can’t know what was said. You are going on speculation. Petros and petra are two distinct words in the Greek. Petros is a shifting, rolling, or insecure stone, while petra is a solid, immovable rock. In the English language the gender is not specified by the article. We say the fork, the spoon, and the knife. The three words have the same article. In the Greek, as in many of the modern languages, each noun and corresponding article is in the masculine, feminine, or neuter gender. In many cases it is an arbitrary arrangement, regardless of sex. The article in Greek is important. If one noun is in the masculine it must have a masculine article, and if it is in the feminine it must have a feminine article. The text under consideration in the Greek shows that petros is in the masculine, and petra in the feminine, proving that they are two distinct words; and each one has a different meaning.
Click to expand...
 
These are probably the most relevant paragraphs from the Catechism on this topic:

**424 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.'8 On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.9

552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve;283 Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it."284 Christ, the “living Stone”,285 thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.286

553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."287 The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep."288 The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles289 and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.
**
 
rbarcia said:
So you are saying that I can’t refer to other Bible verses in the same scripture but you can refer to tradition outside. I talked about the grammar in another post. Nonetheless, I think other scripture is very important and the best evidence we have. I pointed to Peter’s writing (the person Jesus was talking to in this statement) and Peter was writing on the very topic how we are all living stones on the foundation rock, that is Christ.
Click to expand...
I’m not referring to tradition outside. I have as of yet spoken only of the scripture itself. Had I referred to the traditions of the Church, it still wouldn’t really matter because the traditions I mention would pertain directly to the verses in question. Your verses, however, are of no relation to Matthew 16:18.

If you would please - don’t ignore what I typed, but actually respond to it. Redirecting the subject is not something I welcome. You can, frankly, assert that the other verses are relevant all you want, but that doesn’t make it true. I explained clearly exactly why they were not relevant. You have not even acknowledged that my explanation exists, let alone address it as you should have.

As for Petros and Petra being two distinct words in Greek - this is true, but this is true of Attic Greek, a dialect that went out of favor centuries before the new testament was written, back around the last time Rome had been sacked if I recall correctly. Scripture uses Koine Greek, in which the the only distinction in meaning between the words is the gender connotation. The “a” implies femininity and the “os” masculinity. After that, they both just mean “rock”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top