Matt 16:18 and 2nd grade grammar!

[mercygate]

rom323:

It was not Peter who was the rock, for the Old Testament of which both he and Paul both agree on explains who the rock is. Ps.18:31: “For who is our God except the Lord and who is our rock except our God. who is the church built on? Throughout the Old Testament the rock was synonymous with God 2 Sam 22:32: “For who is God, except the LORD? And who is a rock, except our God? Deut 32:15: “Israel forsook God who made him, and scornfully esteemed the Rock of his salvation.” Deut 32:18: “Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful, and have forgotten the God who fathered you.” Ps. 62:2: “He only is my rock and my salvation” Ps. 95:1: “calls God, “ the Rock of our salvation.” In 1 Cor.3:10 Paul claims to as a master builder saying there is no other foundation that can be laid, which is Jesus Christ. Christ is the one we build on and if built on any other, it will not endure the fire of testing for our work. “If anyone’s work which he has built on endures, he will receive a reward”(1 Cor.3:14). Paul’s statement is No human being was ever referred to as a rock in the OT Hebrew Scriptures, neither are they found in the New Testament. The “Rock” (stone, cornerstone) is reserved only for Jesus Christ (Matt 21:42; Isa. 28:16; Cor. 3:11; 10:4; Eph 2:20; 1 Peter 2:6-8).

Here we go again. (Sigh.)

Catholics do not deny that God is the Rock,or that Christ is the cornerstone – which does not nullify Jesus’ declaration that Peter is the rock on which he will build his Church.

Read I Peter 2:4-6. The “rock of the Church” himself emphasizes that Jesus is the stone laid in Zion, “a cornerstone chosen and precious, and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.”

God is the bedrock; Jesus is the cornerstone; Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built.

Protestant scholars at least since W. F. Albright (b. 1891) reject the “Petros/petra” argument as utterly unsound (not to say hopelessly contrived). Albright was a scholar of ancient Near Eastern languages. They reject the papacy, of course, but not based on this specious ratiocination.

 

[martino]

Shibboleth:

Not exactly - well not at all really. It is true that we must be careful not to use misplaced modifiers the modifier is not always directed at the closest noun. For instance I could say,

“The New Testament, in which all Christians abide, is written in Greek.”

This sentence is acceptable and the modifier is not directed at the closest noun. When a prepositional phase separates the agent from the modifier, even though the object of the preposition is closer to the modifier it is not directed at the closest noun.

To keep with your original car analogy a person could say,
“The seats in the truck are red.”

The second point that needs to be considered is that Jesus is speaking this statement not writing it…

Spoken language is quite a bit different than written language, for instance it is entirely acceptable for Jerry Sienfeld to say to Frank Costanza-
“Great joke Costanza, I will build my monologue off of it.”
Now even though Costanza is closer to the modifier it is not the object - thee joke is the object of the modifier.

All that aside this verse was not written in 20th century English
Considering St. John Chrysostom (347-407) says this: “Upon this rock,” not upon Peter. For He built His Church not upon man, but upon the faith of Peter. But what was his faith? “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living
God.”

Funny considering his fist language was Ancient Greek.

You provided a few good examples of how a modifier can actually relate to a noun that is not necessarily the closest in proximity. I was wrong to speak in absolutes and your point is well taken!

However, if we look at the way the referenced verses of Scripture are worded it is still true that in this case the modifier cannot be relating back to an object two sentences back. It is clear to all (and again i will include 2nd graders) that the object of “this rock” is Peter.

Read the verse this way… “And I tell you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.”

I still need someone to tell me how the second “kepha” cannot being referring to the first “Kepha”.

 

[mercygate]

Shibboleth:

Not exactly - well not at all really. It is true that we must be careful not to use misplaced modifiers the modifier is not always directed at the closest noun. For instance I could say,

“The New Testament, in which all Christians abide, is written in Greek.”

This is not a parallel example to the “Thou art Peter” verse;
“in which Christians abide” is parenthetical. The core sentence is: “The New Testament is written in Greek.”

To keep with your original car analogy a person could say,
“The seats in the truck are red.”

The subject-verb agreement is the key to this one, not the word order.

The second point that needs to be considered is that Jesus is speaking this statement not writing it…

Spoken language is quite a bit different than written language, for instance it is entirely acceptable for Jerry Sienfeld to say to Frank Costanza-
“Great joke Costanza, I will build my monologue off of it.”
Now even though Costanza is closer to the modifier it is not the object - thee joke is the object of the modifier.

Again, “Costanza” is parenthetical. The core sentence is: “Great joke; I will build my monologue . . .”

Considering that First Century Greek has no punctuation, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church” is pretty straightforward. If you want to exclude Peter as the proto-Pope, build the argument some other way but don’t waste time on this one.

 

[Della]

stumbler:

Of course not. Obviously both are true. And my method of reconciling them does not negate or deny either interpretation.

I had hoped to make a few points in my earlier brief post:
1 - make sure all budding Catholic apologists understood that the Church holds both interpretations. It is easy to get caught up defending the plain grammatical sense of the verse. The pitfall to avoid is the easy assumption that the “confession of faith” interpretation must be false.
2 - the 2 interpretations cannot be contradictory. Unfortunately it is common for anti-Catholics to believe the 2 interpretations are contradictory and try to make hay from the notion that the Vatican is refuting itself.
3 - Offer an interpretation that can reconcile (Merriam-Webster: make compatible; bring into accord) the two. The Church is built upon Peter. And Peter stands on his confession. Thus the Church is built on Peter’s confession.

And if you want to take it one step further, Peter’s confession stands on God’s revelation. So the Church that Christ is to build (future tense) is to be built directly upon Peter but ultimately upon God. Peter is just the chosen earthly steward when the King departs (Isaiah and all that – but that’s another thread ).

Please forgive any confusion I caused by bringing up the points I did since it seemed from the way I wrote it that I thought you didn’t know these things. I meant my comments for lurkers and seekers, so they might understand these points, not you.

You elucidated them much better than I! I’m glad you did so because people need to understand that the Bible is not a prooftext, it is a witness to the revelation of God in Christ through Christ’s Church. Once again, I realize that you know these things, but there are others who don’t, who think the Bible fell out of the skies or that each person can interpret it as he feels best or that the words must mean what they want them to mean. And that is what puts people outside the Church Christ founded on Peter and his confession of faith. Yes?

 

[Shibboleth]

mercygate:

This is not a parallel example to the “Thou art Peter” verse;
“in which Christians abide” is parenthetical. The core sentence is: “The New Testament is written in Greek.”
The subject-verb agreement is the key to this one, not the word order.
Again, “Costanza” is parenthetical. The core sentence is: “Great joke; I will build my monologue . . .”

Considering that First Century Greek has no punctuation, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church” is pretty straightforward. If you want to exclude Peter as the proto-Pope, build the argument some other way but don’t waste time on this one.

Once again we are not in disagreement. I think that Jesus is refering to Peter also… why else whould he then go into speaking and giving of the keys to bind and loose if Jesus wasn’t refering to an office.

In relation to the Pope issue - I am not trying to formulate an argument on this issue. Like I said that would be for anouther thread and anouther time.

I am not your typical Protestant - I believe in Apostolic Succession and tradition.

 

[mercygate]

Shibboleth:

Once again we are not in disagreement. I think that Jesus is refering to Peter also… why else whould he then go into speaking and giving of the keys to bind and loose if Jesus wasn’t refering to an office.

Whew! What a relief! When I read your “grammar” post, I thought an alien had taken over my beloved Shibboleth’s user name!

I am not your typical Protestant - I believe in Apostolic Succession and tradition.

Definitely another thread – unless you’re Swedish Lutheran? Nother thread.

 

[martino]

rom323:

It was not Peter who was the rock, for the Old Testament of which both he and Paul both agree on explains who the rock is. Ps.18:31: “For who is our God except the Lord and who is our rock except our God. who is the church built on? Throughout the Old Testament the rock was synonymous with God 2 Sam 22:32: “For who is God, except the LORD? And who is a rock, except our God? Deut 32:15: “Israel forsook God who made him, and scornfully esteemed the Rock of his salvation.” Deut 32:18: “Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful, and have forgotten the God who fathered you.” Ps. 62:2: “He only is my rock and my salvation” Ps. 95:1: “calls God, “ the Rock of our salvation.” In 1 Cor.3:10 Paul claims to as a master builder saying there is no other foundation that can be laid, which is Jesus Christ. Christ is the one we build on and if built on any other, it will not endure the fire of testing for our work. “If anyone’s work which he has built on endures, he will receive a reward”(1 Cor.3:14). Paul’s statement is No human being was ever referred to as a rock in the OT Hebrew Scriptures, neither are they found in the New Testament. The “Rock” (stone, cornerstone) is reserved only for Jesus Christ (Matt 21:42; Isa. 28:16; Cor. 3:11; 10:4; Eph 2:20; 1 Peter 2:6-8).

Please address my question! I honestly want to hear the answer to this.

You quoted practically the whole Bible except for the one verse I am talking about!

 

[martino]

Well i got the answer that I figured I would get…that there is no good answer to my question!

I also sent an email to a protestant friend asking the same thing and also receieved no response…again, I wasn’t surprised!

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH RULES!!! :bowdown:

This thread can now be closed as far as I am concerned.

 

[Della]

martino:

Well i got the answer that I figured I would get…that there is no good answer to my question!

I also sent an email to a protestant friend asking the same thing and also receieved no response…again, I wasn’t surprised!

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH RULES!!! :bowdown:

This thread can now be closed as far as I am concerned.

What you mean is there is no answer that will silence Protestant objections, but then there never is. Protestantism isn’t built on what is true but on what they want to believe, so the best you can get out of Protestants who simply do not want to understand is endless arguments. You should do with them what Jesus did–let them go their own way. If even he couldn’t get people to let go of their biases, fears, and willfulness, how in the world do you think you can? Let the Holy Spirit work on hearts as you give them the truth in love and be at peace!

 

[martino]

Della:

What you mean is there is no answer that will silence Protestant objections, but then there never is. Protestantism isn’t built on what is true but on what they want to believe, so the best you can get out of Protestants who simply do not want to understand is endless arguments. You should do with them what Jesus did–let them go their own way. If even he couldn’t get people to let go of their biases, fears, and willfulness, how in the world do you think you can? Let the Holy Spirit work on hearts as you give them the truth in love and be at peace!

Good advice!

 

[Shibboleth]

martino:

You provided a few good examples of how a modifier can actually relate to a noun that is not necessarily the closest in proximity. I was wrong to speak in absolutes and your point is well taken!

However, if we look at the way the referenced verses of Scripture are worded it is still true that in this case the modifier cannot be relating back to an object two sentences back. It is clear to all (and again i will include 2nd graders) that the object of “this rock” is Peter.

Read the verse this way… “And I tell you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.”

I still need someone to tell me how the second “kepha” cannot being referring to the first “Kepha”.

It certainly can be and probably is pointing to the first kepha - there is some discussion about the masculine vs. the feminine but whatever -

Why was Simon named Peter - was it perchance due to his confession of faith? Maybe, I don’t know…

What I think many people have problem with is that this in no way states:

Well you will be made the Supreme Pontiff of the Church and have infallibility in certain areas, and although the keys and other things are given to the other Apostles later you have better keys and keys that they do not have, and you can pass this ability on, and even though you ordained a Bishop in Antioch we are going to say that it is the See of Rome, and so on and so forth…

Anyways, the concept of Jesus refering to the Confession didn’t come out of Protestantism - it just seems to have taken root there…

 

[michaelp]

I agree. The most exegetically sound way to take this reference it to Peter. I understand that there was knee jerk reactions with certian Protestants, but most all Protestant exegetical commentaries would say that Peter is the Rock. But Shib made the key point. PETER was the rock that the Church was built upon, but this says nothing of infallible apostolic succession of bishops.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

From Keener, C. S. (1997). Vol. 1: Matthew. The IVP New Testament commentary series (Mt 16:18). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

16:18**.**The next two verses have constituted some of the most difficult and certainly some of the “most controversial of all of Scripture.”9 Two extremes need to be avoided. On the one hand, Roman Catholicism has read into these verses an elaborate doctrine of Papal succession and infallibility based on a supposed investiture of Peter with exclusive authority and status. Protestants have responded by downplaying Peter’s importance and pivotal role by these texts. Peter is either viewed as the “typical disciple” or merely a representative of all the other disciples.10 However, it is difficult to ignore the intensely personal focus of verses 18–19. After Peter makes his evaluative affirmation concerning Jesus, Jesus in turn addresses Peter personally (note singular pronouns, σοι soi] and σὺ εἰ̂ su ei], cf. v. 16), making a play upon his name (“you are Peter”=πέτρος, petros). Peter’s name in Greek is probably derived from the Aramaic כיפא (kēypha), meaning a “rock” or “crag.”11 Since Jesus probably originally responded to Peter in Aramaic,12 the wordplay suggested in verse 17 becomes readily apparent: “you are kēypha and upon this kēypha I will build my church.” In Greek the wordplay is not as apparent since the feminine noun πέτρα (petra) must become masculine (petros) when referring to a man’s name. Hence the argument that the rock upon which Jesus builds his church could not be Peter because the genders fail to match cannot be grammatically sustained. There does not appear to be good reason to see the “rock” (petra) upon which Jesus builds his church as anything other than Peter (petros).13 But as Kingsbury has pointed out, Peter should be seen as “first among equals, and his ‘primacy’ … is ‘salvation-historical’ in character.”14 This means that Jesus’ words are intended to assign to Peter a pivotal role in the new phase of redemptive history involving the church (cf. Acts 1–12), not to give him special status with respect to some ecclesiastical office. In this respect France’s words are particularly cogent:

10 See the balanced treatment of J.D. Kingsbury, “The Figure of Peter in Matthew’s Gospel as a Theological Problem,” JBL 98 (1979), 67–83.

11 See the study of J.A. Fitzmyer, “Aramaic Kepha and Peter’s Name in the New Testament,” in To Advance to Gospel: New Testament Studies (New York: Crossroad, 1981), p. 115.

12 It should not be construed that Jesus did not know Greek or use it on occasion; see S.E. Porter, “Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?” TynBul 44 (1993), 195–235.

13 For an able defense that the “rock” was Peter’s confession see C.C. Caragounis, Peter and the Rock (BZNW 58; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989).

14 Kingsbury, “The Figure of Peter,” p. 71.

 

[michaelp]

%between%From Elwell, W. A. (1996, c1989). Vol. 3: Evangelical commentary on the Bible. Baker reference library (Mt 16:13). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.
"By the words *this rock *Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative *this, *whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literarily close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church.” As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation *this rock *from Jesus. Moreover, while Jesus here addresses Peter individually (“you” in vv. 18–19 is always singular), he addresses him as representative of all the apostles (the authority granted Peter in v. 19 is bestowed on all the disciples in 18:18).

In verse 18b Jesus, not Peter, dominates the passage. It is he whom Peter confesses. It is he who utters the words of verses 17–19; whatever Simon is to be and to do is the effect of Jesus’ authoritative declaration about him. The church belongs to Jesus, not to Peter. Jesus, not Peter, builds the church and protects it from destruction. Far from being a builder, Peter belongs to the building; he is *Petros, *a foundation stone in the edifice, a position he shares with other apostles (Eph. 2:19–21; Rev. 21:14)."

%between%

 

[michaelp]

**%between%From: The IVP Bible background commentary : New Testament (Mt 16:18). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

16:18****.** In Aramaic, “Peter” and “rock” are the same word; in Greek (here), they are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period. For the idea of a person as the foundation on which something is built, cf. Isaiah 51:1–2; Ephesians 2:20. (This promise is made to Peter because Peter was the one who confessed Jesus—v. 16; the point is that Peter is the rock in his role as confessor, and others build on the foundation by their proclamation of the same confession.)%between%

%between%

 

[michaelp]

**From Blomberg, C. (2001, c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

16:18** Acknowledging Jesus as the Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname, “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter,” parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ,” as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.97%between%

 

[michaelp]

%between%From Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible commentary : 21st century edition. Rev. ed. of: The new Bible commentary. 3rd ed. / edited by D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer. 1970. (4th ed.) (Mt 16:13). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press.

“The name *Peter *means ‘Rock’, and Jesus played on this meaning to designate Peter as the foundation of the new people of God. His leadership would involve the authority of the steward, whose *keys *symbolized his responsibility to regulate the affairs of the household. Peter would exercise his leadership by his authority to declare what is and is not permissible in the *kingdom of heaven *(to *bind *and to *loose *have this meaning in rabbinic writings). The story of the early years of the church in Acts shows how Peter fulfilled this role. But the same authority was shared with the other disciples in 18:18 (where *you *is plural; here it is singular). He was thus a representative leader rather than an overlord.”

 

[michaelp]

%between%From Hughes, R. B., Laney, J. C., & Hughes, R. B. (2001). Tyndale concise Bible commentary. Rev. ed. of: New Bible companion. 1990.; Includes index. The Tyndale reference library (Page 412). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.

“In Matthew 16:18–19 Jesus commissioned Peter to be the foundation of a new community.”
%between%

 

[michaelp]

%between%From Pfeiffer, C. F., & Harrison, E. F. (1962). The Wycliffe Bible commentary : New Testament (Mt 16:18). Chicago: Moody Press.

1. Upon this rock I will build my church. There is an obvious play upon the words Peter (Petros, proper name denoting a piece of rock) and rock (petra, a rocky mass). The spiritual body, the church, mentioned here for the first time, is built upon the divinely revealed fact about Christ confessed by Peter (I Cor 3:11; I Pet 2:4) as men are made aware of and acknowledge His person and work (so Chrysostom, Augustine). Another view common among some Protestants (Alford, Broadus, Vincent) is that Peter (along with the other apostles; Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14) is the rock, but without the papal supremacy ascribed to him by unscriptual Romish notations. %between%
   %between%

 

[michaelp]

From 1: Matthew. The IVP New Testament commentary series (Mt 16:17). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.**
Jesus then plays on Simon’s nickname, Peter, which would be roughly the English “Rocky”: Peter is rocky, and on this rock Jesus will build his church (16:18). Scholars have debated precisely what Jesus means by rock. Protestants, following Augustine and Luther, have sometimes contended that the rock in this passage is only Jesus himself (references in Cullmann 1953:162 n. 13). But by Jesus’ day the Greek terms petros (Peter) and petra (rock) were interchangeable, and the original Aramaic form of Peter’s nickname that Jesus probably used (kēphas) means simply “rock” (Cullmann 1953:18–19; Ladd 1974b:110; Carson 1984:368; France 1985:254; Blomberg 1992:252).

Further, Jesus does not say, “You are Peter, but on this rock I will build my church”; he says, And on this rock I will build my church. Jesus’ teaching is the ultimate foundation for our lives (7:24–27; compare 1 Cor 3:11), but here Peter functions as the foundation rock like the apostles and prophets in Ephesians 2:20–21. Jesus does not simply assign this role to Peter arbitrarily, however; Peter is the “rock” because in this context he is the one who confesses Jesus as the Christ (Mt 16:15–16; Cullmann 1953:162; Ladd 1974b:110; C. Brown 1978:386). Others who share his proclamation also share his authority in building the church (18:18 with 16:19).

%between%%between%