Matt 16:18 and 2nd grade grammar!

  • Thread starter Thread starter martino
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
%between%From KJV Bible commentary. 1997, c1994. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
18**.** Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. The Greek word used for “rock” (Gr petra) is played against the name Peter (Gr petros) in the original. The Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage is that Peter was the foundation stone of the church, that he had a primacy among the apostles, that he became Bishop of Rome, and that his primacy was passed on to his successors, the popes. The verse will scarcely bear the first of these propositions and certainly none of the others. Protestant interpreters, with some patristic support (Chrysostom, Justin Martyr, and Augustine), have tended to identify the rock with Peter’s faith or confession, or with our Lord Himself. The most straightforward interpretation seems to be that Peter is meant by the rock, but that he is not the exclusive foundation (J. Broadus). For the twelvefold foundation of the church see Ephesians 2:20; Revelation 21:14. This view seems borne out by the fact that the same words are spoken to all the disciples in Matthew 18:18 as are spoken to Simon Peter in 16:19. Therefore, the rock or foundation of the church is the confession (ultimately, the doctrine) of the apostles, which became normative for the true church.

%between%%between%
 
Notice, all of these are Evangelical Protestant commentaries and all of them say the most probable referent to “rock” is Peter (although, they most add that he is not the theologically exclusive referent).

Hope this helps.

Michael
 
The controversy at the moment is whether this **ROCK **is Jesus or Peter. The truth is, it is Jesus, and Peter himself testifies to it very clearly in Scripture: Jesus is the ROCK on which He will build His Church:

1 Pet 2:3 “If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. 4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 And a stone of stumbling, and a ROCK OF OFFENCE, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. 9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.”

Here the phrase ROCK of offence refers to Jesus alone, otherwise Peter would be preaching himself, just as Catholics preach Peter instead of Jesus. Notice the word used in reference to Jesus:

ROCK of offence: Strong’s: 4073. petra, pet’-ra; fem. of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (lit. or fig.):–rock.

This word comes from the following word:

Strong’s: 4074. Petros, pet’-ros; appar. a prim. word; a (piece of) rock (larger than G3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:–Peter, rock. Comp. G2786.

Look at them together:

**Matthew 16:17-20: ROCK **

ROCK Strong’s: 4073. petra, pet’-ra; fem. of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (lit. or fig.):–rock.

ROCK Strong’s: 4074. Petros, pet’-ros; appar. a prim. word; a (piece of) rock (larger than G3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:–Peter, rock. Comp. G2786.

**1 Peter 2:3-10: ROCK **

ROCK of offence: Strong’s: 4073. petra, pet’-ra; fem. of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (lit. or fig.):–rock. ROCK Strong’s: 4074. Petros, pet’-ros; appar. a prim. word; a (piece of) rock (larger than G3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:–Peter, rock. Comp. G2786.

It appears to me that seeing Peter as the rock on which Jesus would build His church indicates that Jesus is an offence to those who profess this. At least, that is what the Scriptures say:


  1. *]they have “disallowed” Him, though “chosen of God, and precious.”
    *]they do not believe in Jesus as the one sent by God from “Sion [as] a chief corner stone, elect, precious” and “believeth [not] on him [and are] confounded.”
    *]They do not “believe he is precious,” but “[are] disobedient,” “disallowing” the stone laid by God in this world to build His Church.
    *]The true Jesus is “a stone of stumbling, and a ROCK OF OFFENCE, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.”

    The Catholic doctrine of the pope as head of Christ’s Church on earth is a usurption of Jesus Christ as head of the Church, prevailed over by the Holy Spirit. The Church is built on the revelation of our Heavenly Father that Jesus Christ is His Son and is to be followed by the leading of His Spirit in the hearts of all who believe. Man as pope or head of the Church on earth is one example of those whom Jesus said would come:

    John 5:39 "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. 41 I receive not honour from men. 42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. 43 I AM COME IN MY FATHER’S NAME, AND YE RECEIVE ME NOT: IF ANOTHER SHALL COME IN HIS OWN NAME, HIM YE WILL RECEIVE."

    👋
 
If Jesus were actually referring to Peter as the rock, Jesus would have used the MASCULINE word petros for the rock. Jesus instead used a different Greek word for “this rock” a FEMININE word petra indicating something other than Peter. Since the Holy Spirit guided the apostles writings into all truth we should expect the precise words used to convey the meaning (John 14:26; 16:13).
 
If Jesus were actually referring to Peter as the rock, Jesus would have used the MASCULINE word petros for the rock. Jesus instead used a different Greek word for “this rock” a FEMININE word petra indicating something other than Peter. Since the Holy Spirit guided the apostles writings into all truth we should expect the precise words used to convey the meaning (John 14:26; 16:13).
 
40.png
rom323:
The controversy at the moment is whether this **ROCK **is Jesus or Peter. The truth is, it is Jesus, and Peter himself testifies to it very clearly in Scripture: Jesus is the ROCK on which He will build His Church:

1 Pet 2:3 “If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. 4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 And a stone of stumbling, and a ROCK OF OFFENCE, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. 9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.”

Here the phrase ROCK of offence refers to Jesus alone, otherwise Peter would be preaching himself, just as Catholics preach Peter instead of Jesus. Notice the word used in reference to Jesus:

ROCK of offence: Strong’s: 4073. petra, pet’-ra; fem. of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (lit. or fig.):–rock.

**Matthew 16:17-20: ROCK **

ROCK Strong’s: 4073. petra, pet’-ra; fem. of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (lit. or fig.):–rock.

ROCK Strong’s: 4074. Petros, pet’-ros; appar. a prim. word; a (piece of) rock (larger than G3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:–Peter, rock. Comp. G2786.

**1 Peter 2:3-10: ROCK **

ROCK of offence: Strong’s: 4073. petra, pet’-ra; fem. of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (lit. or fig.):–rock. ROCK Strong’s: 4074. Petros, pet’-ros; appar. a prim. word; a (piece of) rock (larger than G3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:–Peter, rock. Comp. G2786.

The Catholic doctrine of the pope as head of Christ’s Church on earth is a usurption of Jesus Christ as head of the Church, prevailed over by the Holy Spirit. The Church is built on the revelation of our Heavenly Father that Jesus Christ is His Son and is to be followed by the leading of His Spirit in the hearts of all who believe. Man as pope or head of the Church on earth is one example of those whom Jesus said would come:

John 5:39 "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. 41 I receive not honour from men. 42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. 43 I AM COME IN MY FATHER’S NAME, AND YE RECEIVE ME NOT: IF ANOTHER SHALL COME IN HIS OWN NAME, HIM YE WILL RECEIVE."

👋
Click to expand...
You danced around the verse that is in question. I am saying that in Matt 16:18, “and on this kepha” refers back to , “you are Kepha”. Can you just stick to this verse and tell me how it is that when Jesus says “you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church”, he is not actually referring to Kepha but to a statement made 2 verses back!

I appreciate your interpretations of all those other verses but I am only concerned with this one for the time being. I am not saying that this verse places Peter over Jesus, I am only saying that Jesus is referring to Peter in his statement.
 
40.png
martino:
You danced around the verse that is in question. I am saying that in Matt 16:18, “and on this kepha” refers back to , “you are Kepha”. Can you just stick to this verse and tell me how it is that when Jesus says “you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church”, he is not actually referring to Kepha but to a statement made 2 verses back!

I appreciate your interpretations of all those other verses but I am only concerned with this one for the time being. I am not saying that this verse places Peter over Jesus, I am only saying that Jesus is referring to Peter in his statement.
Click to expand...
"I also say to you that you are Peter (Greek - petros - a stone), and upon this rock (Greek - petra - a large bed-rock) I will build My church;"It is important to understand that the name “Peter” in Greek meant “rock” or “stone”. Also in this verse Jesus used a related word “petra” which meant “boulder” or large bed-rock. If we were to paraphrase this it would say something like:
“I also say to you that you are Stone, and upon this large Rock I will build My church”

Arguments such as they spoke in Aramaic don’t hold up. Maybe they did speak this language but it was written in the Greek. The ones that were there and heard wrote it in Greek under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
 
John 17 3 said:
"I also say to you that you are Peter (Greek - petros - a stone), and upon this rock (Greek - petra - a large bed-rock) I will build My church;"It is important to understand that the name “Peter” in Greek meant “rock” or “stone”. Also in this verse Jesus used a related word “petra” which meant “boulder” or large bed-rock. If we were to paraphrase this it would say something like:
“I also say to you that you are Stone, and upon this large Rock I will build My church”

Arguments such as they spoke in Aramaic don’t hold up. Maybe they did speak this language but it was written in the Greek. The ones that were there and heard wrote it in Greek under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...

Duh…Matthew wrote his gospel in Aramaic…Since they DID speak Aramaic…hence the name “kepha”…oh geez…ther goes another objection down in flames. 😛
 
40.png
BlackKnight:
Duh…Matthew wrote his gospel in Aramaic…Since they DID speak Aramaic…hence the name “kepha”…oh geez…ther goes another objection down in flames. 😛
Click to expand...
Exactly, that is why both John and Paul refer to him as Cephas (which is and Anglicanization of a Hellenization of “Kepha”).

Check out Jn 1:42:

“And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona. Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.”

Check out the Greek:

Joh 1:42 καὶ ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν. ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἶπεν· σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς ᾿Ιωνᾶ, σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς, ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος.

The underlined word is Kephas, and in case you were wondering about the definition:

Kēphas
*kay-fas’

*Of Chaldee origin (compare [H3710]); the Rock; Cephas (that is, Kepha), surname of Peter: - Cephas.

Thus, since John says “Cephas” is interpreted as Peter (Petros), and Cephas means a rock (not a stone or pebble), Peter must mean rock. Furthermore, in the Greek of the New Testament, “lithos” would be the appropriate word for “stone or pebble”, not petros. For your consideration, here are the occurances of “stone” in Matthew’s Gospel: 4:6; 7:9; 21:42; 21:44; 24:2; 27:60; 27:66; 28:2. In each instance “lithos” is used in the Greek for “stone”

In Mark: 12:10; 13:2; 15:46; 16:3-4. Again, “lithos” is used, not “petros”

In Luke: 4:3; 4:11; 11:11; 19:44; 20:6; 20:17-18; 21:6; 22:41; 23:53; 24:4. Once more “lithos” is used for “stone”, not “petros”

And for good Measure, John: 2:6; 8:5, 7; 10:31-33; 11:8; 11:38-39, 41; 20:1. Once again, “lithos” is used for stone. In fact “to stone” someone has at it’s root “lithos”.

Your interpretation is just wrong, John 17 3. Fact is, Petros was used instead of Petra because Petra is a feminine noun and not suitable for a direct address to a man.
 
40.png
martino:
I would like to deal with a very specific verse in Scripture that seems to be the basis behind a major dispute between Catholics and non Catholics. Almost every Protestant whom I have ever discussed the meaning of Matthew 16:18.
Click to expand...
It is completely unambiguous to anyone who wants to know the plain meaning of it.
However, “To those who refuse, no proof will be sufficient.”
 
40.png
challenger:
The basis of the confession of faith argument is the difference between petros and petra.
Click to expand...
You cannot call Simon bar Jonah “Petra”, it would be an insult. Is that not plain to you? Besides, Christ was speaking in Aramaic, not Greek. Simon would have been given the name Cephas, which means rock. The grammer is plain to anyone seeking the true meaning. But, “To those who refuse, no proof will be sufficient.”
 
40.png
BlackKnight:
Duh…Matthew wrote his gospel in Aramaic…Since they DID speak Aramaic…hence the name “kepha”…oh geez…ther goes another objection down in flames. 😛
Click to expand...
We have good reason to think that he wrote it in Aramaic - we do not know for sure in fact I would put it at a little over 50/50 chance.
 
Hi martino, 🙂

I am no expert on this, and I offer this possible explaination in Christian Charity; I will concede that I am still trying to figure this out, but it may go something like this…(I apologize if someone else has phrased it this way. I have only just encountered this thread and skimmed it; not finding this version)
If I may be so bold as to tamper with the phrasing of this statement…
***Matt *****18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. **
It could end up something like this-: Matt.18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this your confession of faith, I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

If we keep in mind that regardless of whether Peter was a large Stone, Rock or Pebble, his confession of faith was the humble beginnings of the Church, for if he had not confessed Jesus as Lord, who would have? Would the other apostles have admitted as much? Because Peter confessed his faith, Jesus had a small admition of faith upon which He could start His
ministry…if no-one had followed him, all His ministrations would have fallen on deaf ears, and therefore there would be no church…i.e…Christianity would not exist. We therefore needed to have someone initially place his faith in Jesus as Lord, and thus began the Church and once Christianity was established, no matter how new, whilst Peter confessed his faith, there was the beginnings of a foundation, the other apostles added to the foundation and even now, we Christians keep the Church standing…whilst there remains a Christian in the world to defend Christ/ Christianity, The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
(A an aside note, one of my bibles, which is a KJV, states that the name Peter means rock)

Sorry for rambling. :o I hope my meaning is a little clearer than mud.
Peace and goodwill to all:)
 
40.png
Ignatius:
You cannot call Simon bar Jonah “Petra”, it would be an insult. Is that not plain to you? Besides, Christ was speaking in Aramaic, not Greek. Simon would have been given the name Cephas, which means rock. The grammer is plain to anyone seeking the true meaning. But, “To those who refuse, no proof will be sufficient.”
Click to expand...
Dude, I’m on the Catholic side.
 
40.png
Shibboleth:
We have good reason to think that he wrote it in Aramaic - we do not know for sure in fact I would put it at a little over 50/50 chance.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it is a virtual certainty that He spoke in Aramaic.
 
40.png
challenger:
Dude, I’m on the Catholic side.
Click to expand...
I guess I didn’t understand your statement:
40.png
challenger:
The basis of the confession of faith argument is the difference between petros and petra.
Click to expand...
Can you clarify?
 
When read in context, Matthew 16:13-18 is all about Jesus! In verse 13 Jesus asks his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" Then in verse 15 Jesus asks his disciples, “Who do you say I am?” In verse 16 Peter answers for the disciples when he states, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” In verse 17 Jesus responds, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for **this **was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.” The context never changes! It’s all about who Jesus is, not Peter!
 
John 17 3:
It’s all about who Jesus is, not Peter!
Click to expand...
Jesus is speaking to Simon bar Jonah! He renames him, as He renamed Abram to Abraham, and Jacob to Israel. It is a sign of a great event anywhere in Scripture that He changes someones name.
Then He follows up with the very powerful statement that He will give Peter “the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.” You have to understand that this statement in Ancient Israel was very significant. By these words He gives Peter full Authority. And then He followed it up with a full affirmation of that Authority when He said “whatsoever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall have been bound in heaven.”
 
40.png
Ignatius:
Jesus is speaking to Simon bar Jonah! He renames him, as He renamed Abram to Abraham, and Jacob to Israel. It is a sign of a great event anywhere in Scripture that He changes someones name.
Then He follows up with the very powerful statement that He will give Peter “the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.” You have to understand that this statement in Ancient Israel was very significant. By these words He gives Peter full Authority. And then He followed it up with a full affirmation of that Authority when He said “whatsoever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall have been bound in heaven.”
Click to expand...
As Scott Hahn commented, the 4 promises to Peter would be useless if we take the Protestant interpretation. It would sound silly for Jesus to say one thing in one sentence, then go on another track in another. Totally senseless. The Catholic position is more consistent not only theologically, but even basic grammar, he pointed out.
 
Jesus knew he needed someone on earth to lead his Church after he ascended into heaven. Peter showed by his faith he was the one to lead the infant Church and Jesus gave him that authority (the keys). (BTW, you can’t separate Peter’s faith from Peter).

Peter and his successors are the prime ministers, speaking for the King (and his Church) and we all know Jesus is the King! :yup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top