Matthew 16:18 and the "little rock, big rock" theory

[DarkMark]

I understand we Catholics believed Jesus gave St. Peter the authority in Matthew 16:18, and he is consider the first pope, but many Protestants say that Jesus called St. Peter a “small stone”.

For example, one person told me “Jesus use a play on words here. He calls His disciple ‘Peter’ (GK. petros, meaning a small stone), but goes on to say ‘upon this rock [GK Petra, meaning a massive rock or rocky cliff] I will build my church,’ meaning He will build His Church on Peter’s solid confession. It is Jesus who is the Rock, the first and great foundation of the Church (1 Cor 3:11, cf. 1 Peter 2:4,6-7) not Peter or any other disciple”.

Can someone please explain to me why this interpretation is wrong. I am not a scholar when it comes to Greek.

Thanks.

 

[Leopard]

I understand we Catholics believed Jesus gave St. Peter the authority in Matthew 16:18, and he is consider the first pope, but many Protestants say that Jesus called St. Peter a “small stone”.

For example, one person told me “Jesus use a play on words here. He calls His disciple ‘Peter’ (GK. petros, meaning a small stone), but goes on to say ‘upon this rock [GK Petra, meaning a massive rock or rocky cliff] I will build my church,’ meaning He will build His Church on Peter’s solid confession. It is Jesus who is the Rock, the first and great foundation of the Church (1 Cor 3:11, cf. 1 Peter 2:4,6-7) not Peter or any other disciple”.

Can someone please explain to me why this interpretation is wrong. I am not a scholar when it comes to Greek.

Thanks.

catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

 

[Safe_Eagle]

I’d like to add another explanation in addition to the link posted above. Peter the rock on which the Church was founded was also prophetic in regards to St. Peter.

Peter was crucified upside down on vatican hill before Nero and his concubine Ponpeia along with about a thousand other christians. Peter was given the death of being run through with the sword while the others were dipped in pitch and burned. He is buried below the high alter where the Holy Father celebrates mass in the Vatican.

 

[po18guy]

For example, one person told me “Jesus use a play on words here. He calls His disciple ‘Peter’ (GK. petros, meaning a small stone), but goes on to say ‘upon this rock [GK Petra, meaning a massive rock or rocky cliff] I will build my church,’ meaning He will build His Church on Peter’s solid confession. It is Jesus who is the Rock, the first and great foundation of the Church (1 Cor 3:11, cf. 1 Peter 2:4,6-7) not Peter or any other disciple”.

Well, just ask 'em why:
Christ gave the small stone the keys to heaven…
Paul went to the small stone for approval…
the small stone walked on water…
the small stone raised two people back to life…
the small stone healed a crippled beggar…
the small stone held Ananias and Sapphira’s sins bound and they died on the spot…
the small stone pronounced all foods clean…

Well, you get my drift. Tell them to stop isolating verses and look at the whole bible, which they’ve never seen if they’re Protestants. If they love scripture, tell them they’ll be even more saved with a Catholic bible!

Christ’s peace.

 

[utunumsint]

I understand we Catholics believed Jesus gave St. Peter the authority in Matthew 16:18, and he is consider the first pope, but many Protestants say that Jesus called St. Peter a “small stone”.

For example, one person told me “Jesus use a play on words here. He calls His disciple ‘Peter’ (GK. petros, meaning a small stone), but goes on to say ‘upon this rock [GK Petra, meaning a massive rock or rocky cliff] I will build my church,’ meaning He will build His Church on Peter’s solid confession. It is Jesus who is the Rock, the first and great foundation of the Church (1 Cor 3:11, cf. 1 Peter 2:4,6-7) not Peter or any other disciple”.

Can someone please explain to me why this interpretation is wrong. I am not a scholar when it comes to Greek.

Thanks.

There is no record of any church father making such a distinction in the size of rocks. And the passage had been commented on extensively by the early chuch fathers. This is important because many of the early church fathers were greek speaking and so, IMO, they would have noted such a distinction if it were there for them to note.

This explanation of Matthew 16 can be traced back to the reformation.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

If you’d like some more information on the keys as they relate to Isaiah 22, you can go to this thread I started a while back.

God bless,
Ut

 

[vern_humphrey]

I understand we Catholics believed Jesus gave St. Peter the authority in Matthew 16:18, and he is consider the first pope, but many Protestants say that Jesus called St. Peter a “small stone”.

For example, one person told me “Jesus use a play on words here. He calls His disciple ‘Peter’ (GK. petros, meaning a small stone), but goes on to say ‘upon this rock [GK Petra, meaning a massive rock or rocky cliff] I will build my church,’ meaning He will build His Church on Peter’s solid confession. It is Jesus who is the Rock, the first and great foundation of the Church (1 Cor 3:11, cf. 1 Peter 2:4,6-7) not Peter or any other disciple”.

Can someone please explain to me why this interpretation is wrong. I am not a scholar when it comes to Greek.

Thanks.

That would be a good theory, if Jesus spoke Greek. But He spoke Aramaic, a language akin to Hebrew and Arabic. The pun doesn’t work in Aramaic.

 

[bogeydogg]

Yes but the Church affirms that the Scripture writers were inerrant in the writing so you can’t say that linguistic differences explain this.

Consider this though.

Let us say that Peter is the small stone and the confession the rock. Did not Jesus say, Blessed art thou Simon Bar Jonah for flesh and blood hath not revealed this to you but My Father…" Even if the confession was the Rock, which among all the Disciples was chosen to speak it God Himself? Which among the Apostles was then given the authority to bind and loose sins on Earth?

Even if we hold to a Protestant interpretation of this verse, their is still a very sticky problem of getting around Peter’s obvious election to be the one who spoke the confession and then being given authority by Jesus Himself.

BTW, it was this realization that caused me to take a different and long look at the RCC.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes but the Church affirms that the Scripture writers were inerrant in the writing so you can’t say that linguistic differences explain this.

Since tradition tells us Matthew composed his gospel in either Aramaic or Hebrew, then the translator is the culprit – and translators are not considered inspired.

In any case, Jesus spoke in Aramaic – and therefore the pun would not work, regardless of the language used by Matthew.

 

[SolaFide]

I understand we Catholics believed Jesus gave St. Peter the authority in Matthew 16:18, and he is consider the first pope, but many Protestants say that Jesus called St. Peter a “small stone”.

For example, one person told me “Jesus use a play on words here. He calls His disciple ‘Peter’ (GK. petros, meaning a small stone), but goes on to say ‘upon this rock [GK Petra, meaning a massive rock or rocky cliff] I will build my church,’ meaning He will build His Church on Peter’s solid confession. It is Jesus who is the Rock, the first and great foundation of the Church (1 Cor 3:11, cf. 1 Peter 2:4,6-7) not Peter or any other disciple”.

Can someone please explain to me why this interpretation is wrong. I am not a scholar when it comes to Greek.

Thanks.

The interpretation isn’t wrong. The solid rock on which we stand is that Jesus IS the Christ the Son of the Living God!

And when someone mentioned all that Peter did…yes, he walked on water but was doubtful that it was Jesus and asked “Lord, if it’s you…” Even Peter confessed that he was nothing and that Jesus was the head of the church. Let’s stop making Peter into something that Peter himself would be abhorred at.

 

[SolaFide]

Since tradition tells us Matthew composed his gospel in either Aramaic or Hebrew, then the translator is the culprit – and translators are not considered inspired.

In any case, Jesus spoke in Aramaic – and therefore the pun would not work, regardless of the language used by Matthew.

Actually, Jesus DID NOT speak in Aramaic—except maybe when he spoke to Gentiles—he spoke in Hebrew.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually, Jesus DID NOT speak in Aramaic—except maybe when he spoke to Gentiles—he spoke in Hebrew.

And you know that, how?

 

[juliamajor]

Actually, Jesus DID NOT speak in Aramaic—except maybe when he spoke to Gentiles—he spoke in Hebrew.

Wrong !Aramaic was the language of the people and spoken widely
in Israel- hebrew was becoming by then a sacred Language that only the priests and elite were familiar with. In the diaspora- hebrew was used for worship- SO jesus might speak Hebrew in Synagogue but not to ordinary folks. If he was speaking to Gentiles especially Romans- it would have been Greek. Greek being Lingua franca of the Ancient world.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually, Jesus DID NOT speak in Aramaic—except maybe when he spoke to Gentiles—he spoke in Hebrew.

Wrong !Aramaic was the language of the people and spoken widely
in Israel- hebrew was becoming by then a sacred Language that only the priests and elite were familiar with. In the diaspora- hebrew was used for worship- SO jesus might speak Hebrew in Synagogue but not to ordinary folks. If he was speaking to Gentiles especially Romans- it would have been Greek. Greek being Lingua franca of the Ancient world.

Yeah, that claim sort of rocks you back on your heels, doesn’t it?

You’d think Jesus would speak and preach in a language his listeners could understand, wouldn’t you?

 

[Arnobius]

Actually, Jesus DID NOT speak in Aramaic—except maybe when he spoke to Gentiles—he spoke in Hebrew.

Hebrew at this time was largely a liturgical language, and the Aramaic variant was the common tongue.

For some general references (I don’t consider Wiki to be authoritative of course) consider: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_of_Jesus

Of course vern humphry and JuliaMajor have good points. Where do you get your claims that Jesus spoke Hebrew except to the Gentiles? It most likely would have been Greek as the language spoken to foreigners. It was the educated language among the Romans, and commonly known in the Middle East due to the Alexandrian conquests

 

[SolaFide]

And you know that, how?

Well Vern, since I wasn’t there (no cracks about my age) we have to rely on “forensic” evidence. Much like CSI’s do after a murder…they have to surmise what happened based on the evidence since they weren’t present at the crime.

Here’s what we know forensically: (BTW: I studied some Hebrew and my Hebrew teacher (who graduated from Hebrew University in Jerusalem, wrote a book about this)

1. Aramaic was, indeed, one of the languages spoken in Israel at the time of Jesus but much like English today is the language of commerce…Aramaic was more of a language of commerce than the day-to-day language of the people.

Babylon took the Judeans captive and destroyed Jerusalem in 586 BC, the Persian empire conquered Babylon yet retained Aramaic as the primary language internationally until Alexander the Great swept through and made Greek the international language. However, many areas retained Aramaic as a 2nd language and one of these areas was Israel because the number of travelers and traders coming through would not have spoken Hebrew.

Thus the influence of Aramaic names and words such as names starting with “Bar”. We see this in any civilization that has been conquered. Ask anyone who speaks Spanish how many words were influence by the Moors occupation of Spain (Ojala: for example).

Look at So. Cal. How many streets and cities have Spanish names? Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Santa Monica, etc. This doesn’t mean that Spanish is the language in America (although if you live in So. Cal or So. Texas you might wonder) it just means that at one time in the USA there was a great Spanish influence.

For instance: Acts 26:14 actually says in the Greek: “Hebrew dialect” although some translations say “Aramaic” but the Greek tells us otherwise.

Acts 21:40 also says that Paul speaks to the people of Jerusalem in Hebrew.

The sign over Jesus’ head on the cross was written in Hebrew, Latin and Greek (Luke 23:38).

When you want to speak to someone on their native soil, what’s the best way to get your message across? Speak to them in their native tongue of course! Pilate wanted to communicate the message to as many as possible. It doesn’t mean no one was speaking Aramaic, it just means that there wasn’t enough of a population base to make adding the charge in Aramaic worthwhile.

1. The later prophets (post 530 BC) wrote in Hebrew: Zechariah, Malachi, Haggai etc. all wrote in Hebrew. So if these prophets were writing in a language that was not the mother tongue of the majority of the people receiving it at the time, then it would seem that God is not interested in getting His message across.
2. Ancient historical sources such as Josephus, tell us unambiguously that the language of Israel at the time of Jesus was Hebrew.

There is much more which I don’t have the space to go into here but you can buy the book: “The Language of Jesus:Hebrew or Aramaic” by Douglas Hamp

 

[pete_29]

Well Vern, since I wasn’t there (no cracks about my age) we have to rely on “forensic” evidence. Much like CSI’s do after a murder…they have to surmise what happened based on the evidence since they weren’t present at the crime.

Here’s what we know forensically: (BTW: I studied some Hebrew and my Hebrew teacher (who graduated from Hebrew University in Jerusalem, wrote a book about this)

1. Aramaic was, indeed, one of the languages spoken in Israel at the time of Jesus but much like English today is the language of commerce…Aramaic was more of a language of commerce than the day-to-day language of the people.

Babylon took the Judeans captive and destroyed Jerusalem in 586 BC, the Persian empire conquered Babylon yet retained Aramaic as the primary language internationally until Alexander the Great swept through and made Greek the international language. However, many areas retained Aramaic as a 2nd language and one of these areas was Israel because the number of travelers and traders coming through would not have spoken Hebrew.

Thus the influence of Aramaic names and words such as names starting with “Bar”. We see this in any civilization that has been conquered. Ask anyone who speaks Spanish how many words were influence by the Moors occupation of Spain (Ojala: for example).

Look at So. Cal. How many streets and cities have Spanish names? Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Santa Monica, etc. This doesn’t mean that Spanish is the language in America (although if you live in So. Cal or So. Texas you might wonder) it just means that at one time in the USA there was a great Spanish influence.

For instance: Acts 26:14 actually says in the Greek: “Hebrew dialect” although some translations say “Aramaic” but the Greek tells us otherwise.

Acts 21:40 also says that Paul speaks to the people of Jerusalem in Hebrew.

The sign over Jesus’ head on the cross was written in Hebrew, Latin and Greek (Luke 23:38).

When you want to speak to someone on their native soil, what’s the best way to get your message across? Speak to them in their native tongue of course! Pilate wanted to communicate the message to as many as possible. It doesn’t mean no one was speaking Aramaic, it just means that there wasn’t enough of a population base to make adding the charge in Aramaic worthwhile.

1. The later prophets (post 530 BC) wrote in Hebrew: Zechariah, Malachi, Haggai etc. all wrote in Hebrew. So if these prophets were writing in a language that was not the mother tongue of the majority of the people receiving it at the time, then it would seem that God is not interested in getting His message across.
2. Ancient historical sources such as Josephus, tell us unambiguously that the language of Israel at the time of Jesus was Hebrew.

There is much more which I don’t have the space to go into here but you can buy the book: “The Language of Jesus:Hebrew or Aramaic” by Douglas Hamp

Was/is there a diminutive or feminine word for rock in Hebrew. If not then the pun still doesn't work.

 

[DarkMark]

Thank-you. Since Jesus spoke primary Aramaic, and the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, according to Tradition, then that just destroy the Protestant claims.

Thanks again!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Was/is there a diminutive or feminine word for rock in Hebrew. If not then the pun still doesn’t work.

My point, exactly.

 

[juliamajor]

Well Vern, since I wasn’t there (no cracks about my age) we have to rely on “forensic” evidence. Much like CSI’s do after a murder…they have to surmise what happened based on the evidence since they weren’t present at the crime.

Here’s what we know forensically: (BTW: I studied some Hebrew and my Hebrew teacher (who graduated from Hebrew University in Jerusalem, wrote a book about this)

1. Aramaic was, indeed, one of the languages spoken in Israel at the time of Jesus but much like English today is the language of commerce…Aramaic was more of a language of commerce than the day-to-day language of the people.

Babylon took the Judeans captive and destroyed Jerusalem in 586 BC, the Persian empire conquered Babylon yet retained Aramaic as the primary language internationally until Alexander the Great swept through and made Greek the international language. However, many areas retained Aramaic as a 2nd language and one of these areas was Israel because the number of travelers and traders coming through would not have spoken Hebrew.

Thus the influence of Aramaic names and words such as names starting with “Bar”. We see this in any civilization that has been conquered. Ask anyone who speaks Spanish how many words were influence by the Moors occupation of Spain (Ojala: for example).

Look at So. Cal. How many streets and cities have Spanish names? Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Santa Monica, etc. This doesn’t mean that Spanish is the language in America (although if you live in So. Cal or So. Texas you might wonder) it just means that at one time in the USA there was a great Spanish influence.

For instance: Acts 26:14 actually says in the Greek: “Hebrew dialect” although some translations say “Aramaic” but the Greek tells us otherwise.

Acts 21:40 also says that Paul speaks to the people of Jerusalem in Hebrew.

The sign over Jesus’ head on the cross was written in Hebrew, Latin and Greek (Luke 23:38).

When you want to speak to someone on their native soil, what’s the best way to get your message across? Speak to them in their native tongue of course! Pilate wanted to communicate the message to as many as possible. It doesn’t mean no one was speaking Aramaic, it just means that there wasn’t enough of a population base to make adding the charge in Aramaic worthwhile.

1. The later prophets (post 530 BC) wrote in Hebrew: Zechariah, Malachi, Haggai etc. all wrote in Hebrew. So if these prophets were writing in a language that was not the mother tongue of the majority of the people receiving it at the time, then it would seem that God is not interested in getting His message across.
2. Ancient historical sources such as Josephus, tell us unambiguously that the language of Israel at the time of Jesus was Hebrew.

There is much more which I don’t have the space to go into here but you can buy the book: “The Language of Jesus:Hebrew or Aramaic” by Douglas Hamp

Aramaic- which has been around forever was picked up by the Jews In Babylon and transported it to Israel- they are closely related Languages. aramaic was so widely used that reading of Hebrew scripture was accompanied by translation into AramaicEvidence For Jesus use of Aramaic-Mark 5:41"Talitha cum"aramaic. Mark 15:34"Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani" Percentage of those who believe Hebrew was Jesus Primary language is very low.Jesus’ words from his own mouth-say he spoke Aramaic.Other evidence becomes moot.