Matt 16:18 and 2nd grade grammar!

  • Thread starter Thread starter martino
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
John 17 3:
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)
Click to expand...
Those verses you quoted certainly doesn’t explain why Jesus said, “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church.” As mentioned by the title, it’s basic grammar that Jesus is speaking about Peter, not his confession. Very basic grammar. The confusion, as I have again noted (and which you conveniently ignored) comes from Matthew’s use of Greek. But this is not a problem when you realize Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not Greek.

**
It is crystal clear that the church is built upon Jesus Christ, not Peter!
Click to expand...
**

First, let us clear some things here: no Catholic denies that the foremost foundation is Christ. It is Christ, only Christ. But it is just as clear the Jesus did not intend to leave His Church without someone to govern it. The point of contention between Catholics and Protestants is, did He really leave someone to take charge of His Church after He ascended? Catholics maintain that He did; Protestants vacilate on this point. Some agree that the Apostles were left in charge, but stops short of going all the way to Peter. Now, why Jesus chose Peter to be the rock, is answered here. It is telling that Jesus is pointed out as the rock in several passages; it is telling as well that Jesus should assign the same to Peter. We can see that there is no contradiction between tthose passages: Jesus has given Peter the charge of the Church, and to him the keys to govern it. So we can see where it all comes from then: Christ has handed down leadership of His Church to Peter, and just as we Catholics say, Peter represents Christ here on earth. The passages you quote tied in with Matthew 16 makes that clear.
 
John 17 3:
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...
Read my second reply: when you made the quote from McGarvey, 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.
So there it is: Matthew’s target were the Greek speaking Gentiles. Could they have understood Aramaic? No. So Matthew took the liberty to transliterate petra to Petros, seeing that there’s no male equivalent for the word. You seem to ignore Jesus spoke in Aramaic, though, and not Greek.
 
In Matthew 16:18 is the “Rock” upon which Christ established His church Peter? Or is the “Rock” Christ? God’s answer:

For other foundation NO ONE can lay, but that which has been laid, which is CHRIST JESUS. (I Corinthians 3:11)

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST. (I Corinthians 10:4).

Jesus said to them, “Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The stone which the builders rejectcd, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?” (Matthew 21:42) (Compare with Psalm 117:21, 23)

For they stumbled or the stumbling-stone, as it is written, “Behold I lay in Sion, a stumbling-stone and a ROCK of offence: and whosoever believeth on him (Christ) shall not be ashamed.” (Romans 9:33)

Let us see what the apostle, St. Peter, had to say concerning this.

To whom coming (Christ), as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men but chosen of God, and precious,

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. Unto you therefore which believe He is preciou: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and, a stone of stumbling, and a ROCK of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: (I Peter 2:4. 6-8)

This is The stone which was set at naught of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: For there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Also the words of St. Peter, speaking of Jesus Christ, as recorded in Acts 4:11, 12)

Turning to the Old Testament we find the following:

The Lord is my ROCK, and my fortress, and my deliverer. My God, is the ROCK of refuge. Psalm 18:2, 94:22.

God was their ROCK, and the high God their redeemer. Psalm 78:35.

Unto Thee will I cry, O LORD, MY ROCK; Psalm 28:1.

Bow down Thy thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be Thou my strong ROCK, FOR A HOUSE of defense to SAVE me. for Thou art my ROCK and my FORTRESS; therefore for Thy name’s sake lead me, and guide me. Psalm 31:2,3).

I will say unto God my ROCK, why hast Thou forgotten me? Psalm 41:l0.

Lead me to the ROCK that is higher than I Psalms 61:2

He Only is my ROCK and my salvation; He is my defense; I shall not be moved. In GOD is my salvation and my glory: THE ROCK of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. Trust in him at all times, ye people, Pour out your heart before him; God is a refuge for us. Selah Psalm 62:6-8

To shew that the Lord is upright: He is my ROCK, and there is no unrighteousness in Him. Psalm92:15.

but the Lord is my defense; and MY GOD IS THE ROCK of my refuge. Psalm 94:22.

O Come, let us sing unto THE LORD; let us make a joyful noise to THE ROCK of our salvation. Psalm 95:1.

The stone which the builders refused is become the head of the corner. This is the Lord’s doing; it is marvellous in our eyes. Psalm 118:22, 23.

Therefore thus saith the Lord God: Behold,** I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation**: he that believeth shall not make haste. Isaiah 28:16.

Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto OUR GOD!** He is THE ROCK**, His work is perfect: for all his ways are judgement: Deuteronomy 32:3,4.

Then he forsook **God **which made him, and lightly esteemed THE ROCK of his salvation. Deuteronomy 32:15, 18). And he said: THE LORD IS MY ROCK, and my fortress, and my deliverer II Samuel 22:2.

The Scriptures clearly teach that Jesus Christ is THE ROCK!
:amen:
 
John 17 3 said:
[snip]–the post is too long
The Scriptures clearly teach that Jesus Christ is THE ROCK!
:amen:
Click to expand...

You are not reading, John 17:3. You love to quote, and that is admirable, but you don’t seem to read very well. Again, I will have to quote what I wrote: Now, why Jesus chose Peter to be the rock, is answered here. It is telling that Jesus is pointed out as the rock in several passages; it is telling as well that Jesus should assign the same to Peter. We can see that there is no contradiction between tthose passages: Jesus has given Peter the charge of the Church, and to him the keys to govern it. So we can see where it all comes from then: Christ has handed down leadership of His Church to Peter, and just as we Catholics say, Peter represents Christ here on earth. The passages you quote tied in with Matthew 16 makes that clear.

You see, there is no contradiction really to Peter being rock and Jesus being the rock. Jesus saw to it to pass on His authority to the Apostles (Protestants actually don’t have a problem with this; the problem lies chiefly on how Protestants see Pater and his role in the Church). He saw that as much as He is rock, there must also be someone who must be an anchor of His Church here on earth. That anchor was Peter. Paul himself referred to Peter as Kephas. Again, Protestants don’t seem to have a problem with this, but they have a problem with Matthew 16 referring Peter as Kephas. That is pretty unusual–or maybe not, given the opposition Protestantism has on the Papacy.
 
40.png
Milliardo:
Those verses you quoted certainly doesn’t explain why Jesus said, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church." As mentioned by the title, it’s basic grammar that Jesus is speaking about Peter, not his confession. Very basic grammar. The confusion, as I have again noted (and which you conveniently ignored) comes from Matthew’s use of Greek. But this is not a problem when you realize Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not Greek.

Maybe you need to take another look at your elementary grammar! “this rock” in verse 18 refers to the statement Peter had just made, " “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Now look at Jesus’ reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this ( Peters statement) was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this ( again, Peters statement, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”) rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”
**

First, let us clear some things here: no Catholic denies that the foremost foundation is Christ. It is Christ, only Christ. But it is just as clear the Jesus did not intend to leave His Church without someone to govern it**. The point of contention between Catholics and Protestants is, did He really leave someone to take charge of His Church after He ascended? Catholics maintain that He did; Protestants vacilate on this point. Some agree that the Apostles were left in charge, but stops short of going all the way to Peter. Now, why Jesus chose Peter to be the rock, is answered here. It is telling that Jesus is pointed out as the rock in several passages; it is telling as well that Jesus should assign the same to Peter. We can see that there is no contradiction between tthose passages: Jesus has given Peter the charge of the Church, and to him the keys to govern it. So we can see where it all comes from then: Christ has handed down leadership of His Church to Peter, and just as we Catholics say, Peter represents Christ here on earth. The passages you quote tied in with Matthew 16 makes that clear.

Peter was not given the charge of the church, Jesus was speaking to all the Apostles!

All those who are true believers in Jesus Christ are His representatives on earth!
:blessyou:
Click to expand...
 
Interesting post you have here John 17 3. I carefully read all of it and what you posted in response to my previous post.
John 17 3:
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 …
… 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.
Click to expand...
This quote is too long for me to post completely. For what John posted, scroll up a few posts (to post #73), and for those who wish to see the entire source of John 17 3’s post in order to to see it’s complete context, here is the link mountainretreatorg.net/bible/rock.html
Now for the closing argument that you gave (post #71) to my post above
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!
Click to expand...
In 1 Cor 3:11 For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is Jesus Christ. Well that sounds good. Jesus can be the only foundation.

Now we have Eph 2:20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone. Well, that sounds good too, but what’s this about being built on the foundation of the Apostles, that seems to contradict 1 Cor 3:11 where Christ can be the only foundation.

Let’s mosey over to Revelation, Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Where’s Jesus in this description of a foundation in scripture. Is the Scripture confused? Of course not. Repeating what you said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is an explanation. For example, in the OT, 1 Sam 2:2, Is 44:8, and many other places God is referred to as “rock.” However, in Is 51:1-2 Abraham is referred to as “rock.” Is scripture confused here too? No. Abraham and God both being rock is not a contradiction in that Abraham participates in God. Just the same, the Apostles can be the foundation because they are in Christ, the one foundation.

And continuing this logical line of interpretation, the Church is built upon Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. The Church is also built upon Kepha (Peter) in that he participates in Jesus Christ. So Jesus is the rock, and Peter is the rock as well as he participates in Christ’s “rockness.” Remember, Jesus chose him. Who are we to tell Jesus otherwise?

And now a question for you John 17 3: (Source: James Cardinal Gibbons) Do you not profess to be a member of Christ’s flock? Yes, you answer. Do you take your spiritual food from Peter and his successor, and do you hear the voice of Peter, or have you wandered into the fold of strangers who spurn Peter’s voice? Ponder well this momentous question. For if Peter is authorized to feed the lambs of Christ’s flock, the lambs should hear Peter’s voice. (remember, Jesus commanded Peter to feed his entire flock in John 21:15-17).

One other thing John 17 3. I can Google up theological defenses on my own. We would like to hear your opinion when posting, in your own words. The first quoted post is not your words but that of Paul Juris (complete with a few key typos) from the link above. If you feel the need to use someone else’s writing, please give them at least the courtesy of citing them. I spent a LOT of time writing this up, please do me the courtesy of reading it with an eye of pure intention.

God Bless,

SG257
 
OK, Let’s try this one more time!

"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.”
"this rock" in verse 18 refers to the statement Peter had just made, " “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Now look at Jesus’ reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this (Peters statement) 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 ** ( again, Peters statement, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

The passage is all about who Jesus is! Notice that in verse 13 He asked all His disciples, not just Peter, who He was!

Look at verse 20 which states, “Then He warned His disciples not to tell anyone that He was the Christ.” This fits in perfectly with the context of the passage.

Please comment!
👋
 
1Peter–Greek-Male-A Rock (from name analysis)

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on **this Peter **I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."
or
And I tell you that you are Rock, and on **this Rock **I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

You are confusing yourself by applying the grammar rules for pronouns to nouns.
 
John 17 3:
OK, Let’s try this one more time!
Click to expand...
You seem to imply that if Peter is the rock (grammatically or otherwise) then we don’t need to believe that Jesus is the Christ. :whacky:

John: we’ve ALL been there/done that a thousand times. Many of us actually read Greek, and do not just parrot this undocumented and worn-out recipe. You’re barking at the wrong dogs.
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."

He asked all His disciples, not just Peter, who He was!
He asked them all and Peter answered. Jesus responds, "This has not been revealed to “thee” (singular) by flesh and blood – not “to you all.”

On another related thread (Petros/petra), the energetic and scholarly Huiou Theou has gone to considerable lengths to identify the origin of the interpretation you repeat here, and has been unable to date it prior to 1945. Serious Protestant scholars have given up on it as evidenced by a series of citations from solid Protestant theologians collected on another thread (I forget the name of it) by itsjustdave1988.

This is a thread about second grade grammar. The grammar is straightforward: “Peter” is the rock.
 
40.png
Mysty101:
1Peter–Greek-Male-A Rock (from name analysis)

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on **this Peter **I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."
or
And I tell you that you are Rock, and on **this Rock **I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

You are confusing yourself by applying the grammar rules for pronouns to nouns.
Click to expand...
you are Peter, and on this Peter I will build my church. Is this how you speak? Please enlighten me as how this is correct grammar! Let’s change the name and try it again: you are Sam, and on this Sam I will build my church. And you actually believe that this is correct grammar? :whacky:

you are Rock, and on **this Rock **I will build my church. Let’s try it another way. You are a stone, and on this Rock, your statement that I am the Son of the living God, I will build my church. Jesus was making a play on words. It’s really pretty simple for anyone who has no prior inclination to elevate a mere man to the position that belongs to Christ alone!
 
John 17 3:
you are Peter, and on this Peter I will build my church. Is this how you speak? Please enlighten me as how this is correct grammar! Let’s change the name and try it again: you are Sam, and on this Sam I will build my church. And you actually believe that this is correct grammar? :whacky:

you are Rock, and on **this Rock **I will build my church. Let’s try it another way. You are a stone, and on this Rock, your statement that I am the Son of the living God, I will build my church. Jesus was making a play on words. It’s really pretty simple for anyone who has no prior inclination to elevate a mere man to the position that belongs to Christ alone!
Click to expand...
You have demonstrated the lengths that people go to hold on to their false notion that Jesus was not talking to Perter about Peter. All one has to do to see the logic of the statement is to move the prepositional phrase. “You are [Rock] and I will build my Church [upon this Rock].” It would be nonsensical to say, “You are [Rock] and I will build my Church [upon this Rock, your statement that I am the Son of the living God.]” For such a statement to be sensible it would have to read. "You are [Rock] BUT I will build my Church upon THAT Rock, your statement that I am the Son of the living God].

Your construction of the meaning of the statement requires that there be disjunction and contrast in the statement between Peter and the rock that Jesus is building His Church on. No such disjunction and contrast exist in His statement. You interpret the words of Jesus as if He said. “You are Rock BUT I will build my Church on the rock of your statement that I am the Son of the living God.” The problem is that these are NOT the words of Jesus. They are words that you WISH He had said, but did not say.
 
40.png
All4lifetoo:
You have demonstrated the lengths that people go to hold on to their false notion that Jesus was not talking to Perter about Peter. All one has to do to see the logic of the statement is to move the prepositional phrase. “You are [Rock] and I will build my Church [upon this Rock].” It would be nonsensical to say, “You are [Rock] and I will build my Church [upon this Rock, your statement that I am the Son of the living God.]” For such a statement to be sensible it would have to read. "You are [Rock] BUT I will build my Church upon THAT Rock, your statement that I am the Son of the living God].

Your construction of the meaning of the statement requires that there be disjunction and contrast in the statement between Peter and the rock that Jesus is building His Church on. No such disjunction and contrast exist in His statement. You interpret the words of Jesus as if He said. “You are Rock BUT I will build my Church on the rock of your statement that I am the Son of the living God.” The problem is that these are NOT the words of Jesus. They are words that you WISH He had said, but did not say.
Click to expand...
Which is what many of us have been pointing out. Thank you for a much clearer way of presenting it. See, John 17:3, the Protestant logic doesn’t make sense. I can’t make heads nor tails of it. Like what we’ve been pointing out, it’s basic grammar. You tried to point out it’s in the Greek, but Jesus (we’re not talking of the Gospel writer here) spoke in Aramiac–never Greek. And the word used is only one: Kephas. Like I also pointed out, the Protestant misunderstanding comes from the use of the writer of Greek–petra is feminine. To get around such a problem, the writer transliterated it to Petros. There is no Greek word that is Petros; it was used only in Matthew to denote a man. The writer took the liberty to transliterate petra to it–and thus the Protestant notion. If you would take the Protestant notion, it will sound just like it’s illustrated above–nonsensical, and confusing. Hearing it in Aramaic and how direct Jesus said it would leave little doubt as to who He was referring to. As again noted, there is nothing in the verse, nor the ones before it, nor the ones after it, that would even imply to Jesus talking about Peter’s confession, or the rock in the sense pointing to Christ. That’s why it’s merely basic grammar and common sense to understand it.
 
John 17 3:
you are Peter, and on this Peter I will build my church. Is this how you speak? Please enlighten me as how this is correct grammar! Let’s change the name and try it again: you are Sam, and on this Sam I will build my church. And you actually believe that this is correct grammar? :whacky:

you are Rock, and on **this Rock **I will build my church. Let’s try it another way. You are a stone, and on this Rock, your statement that I am the Son of the living God, I will build my church. Jesus was making a play on words. It’s really pretty simple for anyone who has no prior inclination to elevate a mere man to the position that belongs to Christ alone!
Click to expand...
There are many gramatical errors in scripture translations. I do not speak the original languages, so I cannot even attempt to authenticate the translations. As I said, you seem to be applying the rules for pronouns to the noun “rock”.

If I said,“Thou art Ford, and in this vehicle”, would there be this confusion? Peter and rock are synonimous in this passage, so therefore you cannot claim “rock” refers to anything other than Peter, just as vehicle would not refer to a person or statement.
 
John 17 3:
you are Peter, and on this Peter I will build my church. Is this how you speak? Please enlighten me as how this is correct grammar! Let’s change the name and try it again: you are Sam, and on this Sam I will build my church. And you actually believe that this is correct grammar? :whacky:

you are Rock, and on **this Rock **I will build my church. Let’s try it another way. You are a stone, and on this Rock, your statement that I am the Son of the living God, I will build my church. Jesus was making a play on words. It’s really pretty simple for anyone who has no prior inclination to elevate a mere man to the position that belongs to Christ alone!
Click to expand...
No, we say, “You are rock, and on this rock”. Since the name Peter comes from the Greek word petros, which means rock, we can make this statement.

So you are saying that Christ is the rock? That can not be found in the speech. The peshitta, which is aramaic, says, “You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church.” To say that anything other than Peter is the rock is to deny the text. Jesus is talking about Peter in the previous verse and he is talking about Peter in the following verses. To say that he switched from talking about Peter to talking about himself to talking about Peter again is to deny the text.
 
40.png
jimmy:
No, we say, “You are rock, and on this rock”. Since the name Peter comes from the Greek word petros, which means rock, we can make this statement.

So you are saying that Christ is the rock? That can not be found in the speech. The peshitta, which is aramaic, says, “You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church.” To say that anything other than Peter is the rock is to deny the text. Jesus is talking about Peter in the previous verse and he is talking about Peter in the following verses. To say that he switched from talking about Peter to talking about himself to talking about Peter again is to deny the text.
Click to expand...
Here we go again!

The passage in question was written in Greek therefore it reads, “And I tell you that you are petros, and upon this ***Petra ***I will build my church”. As we know ***petros ***is masculine and means a stone while Petra is feminine and means a large mass of rock. Now why would the writer, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit change gender and use a different word when referring to the same person in the same sentence? The answer:

"this rock" in verse 18 refers to the statement Peter had just made, "“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Now look at Jesus’ reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this (Peters statement) 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 **( again, Peters statement, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

There is another point that has not been discussed. The languages spoken in Israel at the time of Christ were Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin. Most Jewish people spoke the first three, and some were conversant in Latin as well. What does this prove, probably nothing, however using the argument that in Aramaic the word kepha would have been used also proves nothing. The fact is the passage under discussion was recorded in Greek under the inspiration of God!

In context the passage is all about who Jesus is, not Peter!

:tiphat:
 
John 17 3:
Here we go again!

The passage in question was written in Greek therefore it reads, “And I tell you that you are petros, and upon this ***Petra ***I will build my church”. As we know ***petros ***is masculine and means a stone while Petra is feminine and means a large mass of rock.
:tiphat:
Click to expand...
Here we go again. :yawn: You haven’t looked at the thread on this subject entitled Petros/petra on the Scripture forum, which I directed you to earlier. Apparently, the earliest example of the Petros/petra argument from grammar can be p(name removed by moderator)ointed no earlier than 1945. My Greek dictionary doesn’t have the word petros listed at all. (I admit my dictionary is primarly for NT Greek, so that isn’t a decisive factor. But the dictionary is from a protestant publishing house, so the opportunity would have been there to include the word petros, since that is the form it lists for Peter’s name. Only Petros as the proper name is listed.)
 
The petra/petros distinction is used in poetry prior to koine Greek. The NT uses koine Greek. Protestant Bible scholars have already dismantled your “little rock/big rock” thesis.

Here … I blogged it …

**Upon this Rock … is the rock of Matt 16:18 Peter? **
Twelve Quotations from Ten Protestant Biblical Scholars
itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com

It was a three-fold blessing:
  1. Blessed are you Simon, you are Kepha (rock) [name change signifies a blessing, a change in identity, like Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel]
  2. upon this kepha I will build my Church (pun preseverved in the Greek with petro/petra, with Peter’s name in the masculine)
  3. Keys to the kingdom given to Peter
This was followed by a three-fold denial of Christ by Peter, which was subsequently followed by a three-fold confession of love by Peter to Christ, post-resurrection.
 
Let’s take a look at an earler Matthew passage:

“Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock.
The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock.”

Hmmm. Do we know any wise men that built houses? How about Solomon, who built the House of the Lord on a massive rock? Is it really resonable to think that Matthew is going to bring this up, only to get into this pointy-headed game over big rocks vs. little ones in Matt 16? :rolleyes:

Scott
 
“Good job Simon, your Dad Jonah should be proud, you professed what my Father enlightened you with. Don’t forget though that you are only a pathetic human and I’m going to build MYchurch on ME, but what the heck while I’m talking to you and since you were so nice to speak up when you did, along with a catchy new name i’ll give you the keys to the kingdom (MY kingdom that is) a symbol of my authority handed on to my prime minister, but PLEASE don’t get the impression it actually means anything.”
 
“Good job Simon, your Dad Jonah should be proud, you professed what my Father enlightened you with. Don’t forget though that you are only a pathetic human and I’m going to build MYchurch on ME, but what the heck while I’m talking to you and since you were so nice to speak up when you did, along with a catchy new name i’ll give you the keys to the kingdom (MY kingdom that is) a symbol of my authority handed on to my prime minister, but PLEASE don’t get the impression it actually means anything.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top