Matt 16:18 and 2nd grade grammar!

  • Thread starter Thread starter martino
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Again, 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 **(Peter’s statement, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”)was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.”

In verse 18 Jesus states, “I also say to you that you are Peter (Greek - petros - a stone), and upon this rock (Greek - petra - a large bed-rock, Peter’s confession of faith: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” ) I will build My church;”

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 (****“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”) **I will build My church”

In context the subject of this passage is Jesus, not Peter!

Is it not interesting to note that right after this discourse Jesus rebukes Peter, the one who is now supposedly the rock upon which Jesus will build His church. In verse 23 we read:

"Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

In this passage it appears as though Jesus has actually disqualified Peter to be the rock upon which the church is built! Let’s see, Jesus calls Peter Satan, a stumbling block and tells him that he does not have in mind the things of God!
Peter is part of the foundation of the church but no more so than the other apostles! However, it is Jesus who is the cornerstone, not Peter!

In reading through Scripture, it is crystal clear that the church is built on Jesus, not Peter.

:amen:
 
In reading through Scripture, it is crystal clear that the church is built on Jesus, not Peter.
Click to expand...
What is actually crystal clear is that Jesus chose to build His church upon Cephas and that you pull passages out of context and ignore the fact that Matthew’s Gospel was written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. Since they were indeed speaking Aramaic (the language of Israel) then your whole case disintegrates into nothing more than what it is, a straw man argument that sounds scholarly but is just another misleading bit of rhetoric.
catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp
Pax vobiscum,
 
40.png
martino:
Almost every Protestant whom I have ever discussed the meaning of Matthew 16:18 has given me basically the same interpretation; that Peter’s confession of faith is the rock that Jesus builds his church on, not Peter himself.
Click to expand...
Here’s a Protestant, Albert Barnes, who interprete “the rock” as Peter
And upon this rock … - This passage has given rise to many different interpretations. Some have supposed that the word “rock” refers to Peter’s confession, and that Jesus meant to say, upon this rock, this truth that thou hast confessed, that I am the Messiah and upon confessions of this from all believers, I will build my church. Confessions like this shall be the test of piety, and in such confessions shall my church stand amid the flames of persecution, the fury of the gates of hell. Others have thought that Jesus referred to himself. Christ is called a rock, Isa_28:16; 1Pe_2:8. And it has been thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said, “Upon this rock, this truth that I am the Messiah - upon myself as the Messiah, I will build my church.” Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it. Another interpretation is, that the word “rock” refers to Peter himself.
This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the Church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other interpretation would have been sought for.
Click to expand...
From the end of the quote, one can see he is hostile to Catholicism. There’re many other notes by him that attacks Catholicism
 
40.png
abcdefg:
Here’s a Protestant, Albert Barnes, who interprete “the rock” as Peter

From the end of the quote, one can see he is hostile to Catholicism. There’re many other notes by him that attacks Catholicism
Click to expand...
Sounds like sour grapes to me… 😛
 
John 17 3:
Is it not interesting to note that right after this discourse Jesus rebukes Peter, the one who is now supposedly the rock upon which Jesus will build His church. In verse 23 we read:

“Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

In this passage it appears as though Jesus has actually disqualified Peter to be the rock upon which the church is built! Let’s see, Jesus calls Peter Satan, a stumbling block and tells him that he does not have in mind the things of God!

Peter is part of the foundation of the church but no more so than the other apostles! However, it is Jesus who is the cornerstone, not Peter!
Click to expand...
We are getting a bit beyond the scope of this thread (Matt 16:18), but to clear up your misconception of verse 23 it looks like we need to look at the verses before to understand what Jesus is really saying to Peter. From the NAB:

21 From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.

22 Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.”

23 He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”

In verse 21, Jesus is beginning to show his disciples (over a period of time) that he will suffer his passion. In verse 22, Peter’s refusal to accept Jesus’ predicted suffering and death is seen as a satanic attempt to deflect Jesus from his God-appointed course, and the disciple is addressed in terms that recall Jesus’ dismissal of the devil in the temptation account (Matthew 4:10: “Get away, Satan!”). Peter’s satanic purpose is emphasized by Matthew’s addition to the Marcan source of the words You are an obstacle to me.
Peter was human, just like you and I. He loved Jesus and couldn’t understand why Jesus would have to suffer his passion. Imagine if someone you love and cared for told you that they had to, let’s say, take the place of a death row inmate and take their punishment, while allowing the inmate to go free. Would you say, “God forbid, I don’t understand why you would do such a thing.” I would. But Jesus had to suffer. Your hypothetical friend in the example doesn’t.

Jesus realizes that Satan is at work trying to get Peter (again, a human like you and I) to deflect Jesus from his mission. Jesus is telling Peter that he doesn’t understand God’s thinking because he is thinking like a human.

Plus, I can’t recall anywhere Jesus says to Peter, “Simon, you are no longer to be called Peter, that significant name change I gave you is no more….and by the way, give me back those keys I gave you…”
 
Church Militant:
Sounds like sour grapes to me… 😛
Click to expand...
yeah, this is ironic. I have another presbyterian note on this passage but it was so long that I won’t even bother to read it. it’s by Matthew Henry.
 
40.png
jimmy:
I think it is very compelling that Jesus changed Simon’s name. Think about it; he changes his name to a name that means rock, and then he makes reference to “this rock”. That is very interesting. Why would he rename Simon as Petros, if he was not speaking of Peter when he made reference to “this rock”?

It makes zero sense.
Click to expand...
From listening to The Great Adventure Bible Study (airing on Relevant Radio) by Jeff Cavins, he said that any time God changes someone’s name in the Bible, it has Great Significance. As Sarai was changed to Sarah and Abram to Abraham; Simon being changed to Peter is a great sign.

Is that related to why we take another name at confirmation??

Sorry I can’t elaborate more on this.

Blessing to all!
 
Church Militant:
What is actually crystal clear is that Jesus chose to build His church upon Cephas and that you pull passages out of context and ignore the fact that Matthew’s Gospel was written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. Since they were indeed speaking Aramaic (the language of Israel) then your whole case disintegrates into nothing more than what it is, a straw man argument that sounds scholarly but is just another misleading bit of rhetoric.
catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp
Pax vobiscum,
Click to expand...
Again, you continue to ignore the context of Matthew 16:13-18!

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 **(Peter’s statement, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”) was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.”

In verse 18 Jesus states, “I also say to you that you are Peter (Greek - petros - a stone), and upon this rock (Greek - petra - a large bed-rock, Peter’s confession of faith: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” ) I will build My church;” Here Jesus purposely uses two Greek words which, though not identical are closely related in meaning. What he said was, "You are petros, and upon this petra I will build my church," meaning, “You are a rock, and upon the rocky ledge (or cliff) of the Christ, ‘the Son of God the living’ who was revealed to you and whom you confessed, I will build my church.” If Jesus had intended to convey the thought that he was going to build his church on Peter he would have said, "and on you I will build my church."
Conclusion:** the church is to be built upon the person of Christ, not upon the disciple Peter.
In Matthew, J. W. McGarvey, p8 we read:

“There has been much difference of opinion among scholars as to whether Matthew originally wrote his narrative in Greek, or in the Hebrew dialect of his age. The most satisfactory statement of the evidence pro and on accessible to the general reader may be found in Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Art. MATTHEW, gospel. or. The essential facts in the case are the following: All of the ancient writers, whose extant writings allude to the question, represent Matthew as having written a narrative in Hebrew; but not one of them claims to have seen it except Jerome, and he subsequently expresses doubt as to whether the book which he saw under this name was the genuine Matthew. If a genuine Hebrew narrative at anytime existed, it perished with the age which gave it birth. All of the writers just named were familiar with the Greek Matthew; and none of them speak of it as a translation. A large majority of the modern writers regard the Greek as the original, and it is a singular confirmation of the correctness of this opinion that Alford, who, in the first edition of his commentary, took ground in favor of a Hebrew original, in the later editions acknowledges that he has been constrained to abandon that position.”

Why is it so important to you that the church be built on Peter rather than Christ?
**
 
40.png
abcdefg:
Here’s a Protestant, Albert Barnes, who interprete “the rock” as Peter

From the end of the quote, one can see he is hostile to Catholicism. There’re many other notes by him that attacks Catholicism
Click to expand...
Why is it that anytime someone disagrees with a Catholic teaching they are branded as hostile or anti-Catholic? Isn’t there any room for legitimate disagreement? Do you agree with all the teachings of, for example, Mormonism?
:hmmm:
 
John 17 3:
Why is it that anytime someone disagrees with a Catholic teaching they are branded as hostile or anti-Catholic? Isn’t there any room for legitimate disagreement? Do you agree with all the teachings of, for example, Mormonism?
:hmmm:
Click to expand...
Yep…sure do. We aren’t Mormons. Duh…
 
Matthew 16:18

A survey of patristic writings show that 17 of the early church fathers felt the passage means that the church was built on Peter. This includes Origen and Jerome.

A second view of the church fathers was that the church was built on all the apostles, not simply upon Peter. But a majority of the 45 of the church fathers felt that these words are to be understood of the Faith which Peter had confessed, that is, that this Faith, this profession of faith, by which we believe that Christ is Son of the living God, is the eternal and immovable foundation of the Church.

This is by far the more common interpretation, and it is attested to by the Eastern church fathers Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact. It is supposed by such Western fathers as Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, and Gregory the Great.

That the rock was Peter would not be fully espoused until Siricius, bishop of Rome, in 385 wrote a letter to the bishop Himerius of Tarragona, Spain, arguing for the primacy of Peter.

Though it is a faulty hermeneutical argument, the interpretation that Christ is the Rock does not take away from the third interpretation, held by most of the fathers, that it is upon Peter’s confession that the church rests. In fact some feel that both views are acceptable. Hence Dionysius the Carthusian gives the two interpretations as equally expressing the meaning of the words, saying, "And upon this rock, that is, upon the firmness and foundation of his Faith (i.e., upon that of Peter], or upon this Rock which thou hast confessed, that is Myself, the chief-corner-stone, the lofty mountain of which the Apostle says other foundation can no man lay.

But one of the major rules of biblical interpretation is that there is almost always just one meaning for a given passage. It would be rare for two very distinct ideas to be embedded in one sentence or short paragraph.

**The weight of early church history points to the fact that most church fathers believed that Christ’s statement in regard to the rock has to do with Peter’s confession of who Jesus really is. It is upon that confession that the church will be built. **
:yup:
 
John 17 3:
But a majority of the 45 of the church fathers felt that these words are to be understood of the Faith which Peter had confessed, that is, that this Faith, this profession of faith, by which we believe that Christ is Son of the living God, is the eternal and immovable foundation of the Church.
Click to expand...
It sure was built on Peter’s Faith. And it’s a package deal too. You have Peter’s Faith along with Peter the Apostle, aka the body/soul composite, or human being; your choice.

YOU CANNOT SEPARTE PETER’S FAITH FROM PETER.
 
John 17 3:
In verse 18 Jesus states, “I also say to you that you are Peter (Greek - petros - a stone), and upon this rock (Greek - petra - a large bed-rock, Peter’s confession of faith: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” ) I will build My church;” Here Jesus purposely uses two Greek words which, though not identical are closely related in meaning. What he said was
Click to expand...
Point of fact: Jesus never spoke in Greek. Even most Biblical scholars, both Catholic and Protestant, doubt Jesus ever spoke in Greek. He did spoke Aramaic though, and there the only word used by Jesus was one: Kephas. Matthew transliterated Kephas from the Greek word petra because the Greek word is used in the feminine. There would have been no problem with Christ’s listeners when He spoke in Aramaic. The confusion though stems from the use of Greek, as well as the transliteration. Again, the conclusion you just came upon is based on that confusion; either that or the one making that conclusion is ignoring the fact Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek.

**
"There has been much difference of opinion among scholars as to whether Matthew originally wrote his narrative in Greek, or in the Hebrew dialect of his age. The most satisfactory statement of the evidence pro and on accessible to the general reader may be found in Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Art. MATTHEW, gospel. or. The essential facts in the case are the following: All of the ancient writers, whose extant writings allude to the question, represent Matthew as having written a narrative in Hebrew; but not one of them claims to have seen it except Jerome, and he subsequently expresses doubt as to whether the book which he saw under this name was the genuine Matthew. If a genuine Hebrew narrative at anytime existed, it perished with the age which gave it birth. All of the writers just named were familiar with the Greek Matthew; and none of them speak of it as a translation. A large majority of the modern writers regard the Greek as the original
Click to expand...
, and it is a singular confirmation of the correctness of this opinion that Alford, who, in the first edition of his commentary, took ground in favor of a Hebrew original, in the later editions acknowledges that he has been constrained to abandon that position."**

Funny you should quote this, as it does not even refute the Catholic claim for it; if anything, it merely explains that Matthew wrote in Greek. It did not even dispute at all that Jesus spoke in Aramaic. Matthew’s audience was to the Greek-speaking Gentiles, who would not have understood Aramaic anyway. And thus another Protestant notion bites the dust.
 
40.png
stargazer257:
It sure was built on Peter’s Faith. And it’s a package deal too. You have Peter’s Faith along with Peter the Apostle, aka the body/soul composite, or human being; your choice.

YOU CANNOT SEPARTE PETER’S FAITH FROM PETER.
Click to expand...
Let’s take another look at the passage:

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” (Matthew 16:13-19)

Controversy surrounded the identity of Jesus; opinions were in a constant state of flux. Some said he was an evil troublemaker, while others said he must be from God. Jesus was aware of what the opinion polls were saying when he asked his apostles who people thought he was. Their reply showed the extent of the speculation surrounding his identity.

Was he any of the above-mentioned characters, or was he someone else? Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, came by way of divine revelation from the Father and not by human speculation.

When Jesus spoke about building his church upon a rock, what was he referring to? In answering this question it is vital that we not lose sight of what the Father had just revealed about Jesus. When the Father endorsed Jesus as his Son, he was saying that Jesus is God the Son, equal in every way to God the Father (John 10:30-36). It does not make sense to think that Jesus would talk about building his church and, in the very same context, have nothing to say about the revelation the Father had just made known about Jesus’ true identity.

When we think of building something, we think of the need for a foundation. If the building is to last, then the foundation must be solid. The church that Jesus came to build must also have a solid foundation. It will have to be a foundation which has been tested and found reliable, a foundation which can endure for all time, and one upon which all generations of Christians can confidently place their faith.

There is only one Person who qualifies to provide such a foundation — Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the living God. His deity is the solid rock, the unshakeable foundation upon which the church rests. The writings of the apostles confirm that the church is indeed built upon Jesus, that he alone is the rock upon which it has been established.

Scripture says that the church is ‘built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.’ (Ephesians 2:20)

‘For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.’ (1 Corinthians 3:11)

It is crystal clear that the church is built upon Jesus Christ, not Peter!
 
40.png
Milliardo:
Point of fact: Jesus never spoke in Greek. Even most Biblical scholars, both Catholic and Protestant, doubt Jesus ever spoke in Greek. He did spoke Aramaic though, and there the only word used by Jesus was one: Kephas. Matthew transliterated Kephas from the Greek word petra because the Greek word is used in the feminine. There would have been no problem with Christ’s listeners when He spoke in Aramaic. The confusion though stems from the use of Greek, as well as the transliteration. Again, the conclusion you just came upon is based on that confusion; either that or the one making that conclusion is ignoring the fact Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek.

You continue to ignore the fact that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the writers of the New Testament recorded the events using the Greek language. Are you saying that the Holy Spirit errored?
Click to expand...
 
The following is considered by many to be the best known and accepted method for arriving at the correct interpretation of Scripture. When confronted with any verse of Scripture which can be interpreted with more than one meaning, then the verse in question, must be considered in the light of “ALL OTHER” Scriptures throughout the Bible which pertain directly to the subject in question. By way of illustration, it is much like assembling the pieces of a jig saw puzzle. One piece of the puzzle in itself usually does not reveal very much. In the puzzle it has a definite place and can only be correctly used in that one place, where it fits. However, when we set about joining other pieces directly connected with this single piece, the picture becomes easier to understand. Depending upon the number of pieces correctly joined together, it will determine how much of the picture will be clearly understood.

Now let us apply this thinking to the Scriptures. Any verse of Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit and contained in the Bible, has one particular meaning by its Author. God, who is the Author of the Bible, had one definite meaning for everything He said and for which He inspired writers of the books of the Bible to write. At the same time, we are aware of the fact that God never contradicts Himself. Also that the Word of God in itself, cannot contain error. All true Christians uphold the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

These facts, again comparing with our illustration, would be the equivalent of this; although, not knowing exactly where each piece fits, yet we have the assurance and guarantee by God, that all pieces do belong to the puzzle. Also that each has its correct place, according to the intention of its Author. By joining other Scriptures pertaining directly to this subject, from throughout the Bible, to the one in question, the Bible MAKES ITSELF CLEAR AS TO ITS MEANING. Truly it may be said that Scirptures (plural) interprets Scripture (singular). In other words. whatever God says in one place in the Bible, will usually be repeated, confirmed, and in perfect harmony in other places tbroughout the Bible. The only positive way to arrive at a meaning which we can be absolutely certain is correct, is to use only parts which belong in the picture. In interpretation, personal opinion, human reasoning, logic, assuming or judging by appearances only, is like putting foreign pieces belonging to another puzzle, into the picture. They can never possibly fit correctly. They cause confusion. They deceive and detract from the true meaning. Lets face it, we cannot expect to be able to understand what God’s Word says unless we become thoroughly familiar with its contents. For the Christian, nothing can equal earnest, diligent, consistent, prayerful study of God’s Word to prepare him for this task. It is highly desirable to be so familiar and absorbed in the contents of the Bible that along with the leading of the Holy Spirit, the Christian may clearly see where and how the truths obviously fit together to form sound Christian doctrine.
:amen:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top