Matthew 16 -- An atypical linguistics question (serious linguists only please)

[PC_Master]

Let me start out by stating that I am not a Catholic. I’m not here to flame or bash anyone, but in the process of studying Matthew 16, I’ve come to a couple of technical questions that hopefully someone will be able to answer.

Also, please understand that I’ve already read most of the posts on this forum, and various other forums, on the subject, and thus I understand the general issues I’m presenting. All I’m looking for here is specific answers to questions.

So, here we go. Everyone’s familiar with the Matthew 16:18 passage, reading, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” The typical arguments look something like this…

• Catholics present that the words used in the passage are “petros” and “petra”, which are obviously just different gender forms of the same word, and thus they must mean the same thing.
• Protestants rebut with the argument that the words are distinctly different, and cite Attic Greek as a proof of this.
• Catholics then point out, first, that this differentiation had, at the time of Matthew’s writing, passed out of usage, and thus the words are synonymous. Additionally, they point out that the original conversation would have been carried on in Aramaic, and the word kepha would have been used in both locations, thus making the words identical.
• Protestants claim that in Aramaic, the word shu’a would have been a more appropriate word to have been translated as petra, rather than kepha. In fact, if we didn’t know that Simon Peter was referred to as Kepha, we probably would have assumed the use of shu’a instead. Kepha, however, could be translated as petros, rather than petra, because lithos is too small to be equivalent to a kepha, and petra is too big. Thus, while outdated, using petros as a smaller stone is the best one could do in translating Jesus’ words.

What it comes down to for me is simple. First, Matthew did use two different words. This was either by choice (to make them distinct enough to recognize the difference), or by requirement (the grammar of Greek requires different uses in both places) My questions, thus, are these.

1. • We know that they chose to translate the Aramaic Kephas/Cephas, that Jesus called Simon Peter, into Petros. If the word in place of “rock” in Aramaic was shu’a (or the Hebrew sela’ or something else equivalent), how would it have been translated into Greek? Would not petra have been the word used? Again, if the sentence, in Aramaic were “You are Kepha, and on this shu’a I will build my church,” how would it have been translated into Greek?
   • It’s been argued that a name for a male would require the conversion of the feminine petra into the masculine petros in order to be proper, and that this didn’t really change any meaning because the words meant the same by that point in time. My question then is why Mattew could not, or even would not, have used the word petros twice. Is there any reason in Greek grammar which prevents such uses?
   Again, I’m looking for linguist answers only. I’m not asking about apologetics, or other proofs of how we know Peter was the rock of the church, etc. I’m simply looking to determine if either of the possibilities I’ve outlined above are even possible.
   
   In advance, thank you for your responses.

 

[scylla]

In most languages that use gender specific nouns such as this case it makes no sense to not use standard grammer rules.

This would be the case here in that it would be obvious to the people reading this in the first or second century of the meaning. There was no use to study the Greek\Aramaic and delve into the real meaning as they understood the meaning.

If I claim that Bill Clinton was the first Black president, is he really black. People familiar with popular culture, politics and Bill Clinton would know what I am talking about.

Much the same way Christians in the first century better understood what Jesus meant by those words.

Cuando estoy hablando, in another language I use proper grammer to communicate with people who understand what I am speaking about.

So they used Petra would we be argueing that Peter was the first woman Pope?
Or should the Petros would we be argueing that possibly the rock was a symbol for masculinity?

God Bless
Scylla

 

[JFT]

Let me start out by stating that I am not a Catholic. I’m not here to flame or bash anyone, but in the process of studying Matthew 16, I’ve come to a couple of technical questions that hopefully someone will be able to answer.

Also, please understand that I’ve already read most of the posts on this forum, and various other forums, on the subject, and thus I understand the general issues I’m presenting. All I’m looking for here is specific answers to questions.

So, here we go. Everyone’s familiar with the Matthew 16:18 passage, reading, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” The typical arguments look something like this…

• Catholics present that the words used in the passage are “petros” and “petra”, which are obviously just different gender forms of the same word, and thus they must mean the same thing.
• Protestants rebut with the argument that the words are distinctly different, and cite Attic Greek as a proof of this.
• Catholics then point out, first, that this differentiation had, at the time of Matthew’s writing, passed out of usage, and thus the words are synonymous. Additionally, they point out that the original conversation would have been carried on in Aramaic, and the word kepha would have been used in both locations, thus making the words identical.
• Protestants claim that in Aramaic, the word shu’a would have been a more appropriate word to have been translated as petra, rather than kepha. In fact, if we didn’t know that Simon Peter was referred to as Kepha, we probably would have assumed the use of shu’a instead. Kepha, however, could be translated as petros, rather than petra, because lithos is too small to be equivalent to a kepha, and petra is too big. Thus, while outdated, using petros as a smaller stone is the best one could do in translating Jesus’ words.

What it comes down to for me is simple. First, Matthew did use two different words. This was either by choice (to make them distinct enough to recognize the difference), or by requirement (the grammar of Greek requires different uses in both places) My questions, thus, are these.

1. • We know that they chose to translate the Aramaic Kephas/Cephas, that Jesus called Simon Peter, into Petros. If the word in place of “rock” in Aramaic was shu’a (or the Hebrew sela’ or something else equivalent), how would it have been translated into Greek? Would not petra have been the word used? Again, if the sentence, in Aramaic were “You are Kepha, and on this shu’a I will build my church,” how would it have been translated into Greek?
   • It’s been argued that a name for a male would require the conversion of the feminine petra into the masculine petros in order to be proper, and that this didn’t really change any meaning because the words meant the same by that point in time. My question then is why Mattew could not, or even would not, have used the word petros twice. Is there any reason in Greek grammar which prevents such uses?
   Again, I’m looking for linguist answers only. I’m not asking about apologetics, or other proofs of how we know Peter was the rock of the church, etc. I’m simply looking to determine if either of the possibilities I’ve outlined above are even possible.
   
   In advance, thank you for your responses.

1. 
   PC Master, I noticed one eansy sic problem with your legitimate question. I believe that the Greek spoken in the time of Jesus was Koine Greek, rather than Attic. Either way, the word for rock would still be kephas. And also, if it were a question of linguistics/semantic, it might be a good idea to ask Jesus himself which language he was using at the time (I know that it sounds facetious, but outside this narrow issue, it’s the best suggestion I can offer…short of storming the Pearly Gates and demanding an audience with Jesus and Peter themselves).

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

So, here we go. Everyone’s familiar with the Matthew 16:18 passage, reading, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” The typical arguments look something like this…

And that is a very inconvenient text for those who deny the special role of the Pope. Hence all the nonsense about “Peter” really meaning a “little pebble” and the rock being an outcrop elsewhere, reversing the intent.

 

[PC_Master]

scylla> While I appreciate your response, the argument that it was “obvious” to the people he was writing to what the words meant is nothing more than appealing to tradition, which is what I’m trying to get away from. There is currently dispute on what the words mean, and even what they meant back in the early church, which is why I’m trying to nail down whether or not there’s any plausible explanation other than that accepted by the Catholic church. If there’s not, then case closed (on this particular passage). On the other hand, if there is, it makes the Catholic claim ambiguous, at best. I simply wish to know which case is accurate.

JFT> I am well aware that the Greek of the New Testament was Koine, and not Attic. What the typical argument is, which I was trying to explain, is that in Attic Greek, which preceded Koine by as much as 300 years, the words petros and petra were distinct. On the other hand, in Koine, the words are thought to be synonymous, despite their differing genders, leading to my question of why petra was used at all, if Simon Peter was indeed the rock of the church.

I also understand that kepha (Aramaic) is rock, just as shu’a (also Aramaic), sela’, kefa (Hebrew), petros, petra, and lithos (Greek) are all rocks. However, they are different types of rocks.

The fact is, the author of Matthew’s original Greek did not use the exact same word in both locations. This means he either had to use different words due to grammar (because the name required masculine, and the other location required feminine), or was choosing to use different words because of whatever underlying Aramaic there was (or for some other reason unknown to us). So, allow me again to reiterate what I wanted to know…

**1) If the original sentence used the word kepha for Simon’s name, and shu’a for the rock of the church, such as “You are kepha, and on this shu’a I will build my church,” how would it have been translated into Koine?

1. If the original sentence used kepha in both locations, why not translate it in such a way as to maintain the play on words almost perfectly, by saying, “You are petros, and on this petros I will build my church.” ?**

One other thing comes to mind – the word petra is used to describe a rock on which a foundation is built in Jesus parable of the wise man and the foolish man. In the Peshitta (Aramaic translation from the Greek), the word petra is rendered shu’a, therefore indicating that those two words could be quite similar in meaning.

Malcolm> I don’t mean to be cruel here, but apologetics are exactly what I didn’t want here. I’m looking for exegesis (explanation of the actual meaning of the text). Regarding “those who deny the special role of the Pope”, you base your assertions on the “fact” that the papacy is real, which you substantiate by passages such as Matthew 16. It’s circular logic, in essence. I mean, I could have said (and please don’t take this as me flaming – it’s just an example) “Matthew 16:18 is very inconvenient for those who want to validate the papacy, and thus they choose to interpret it in such a way as to ignore the difference of the Greek words, the existance of the Aramaic word ‘shu’a’, etc”.

However, I did not approach this topic in that fashion (as I don’t believe the Catholic church to be intentionally trying to cover the truth, especially currently). I also did not toss about any of the aforementioned “nonsense” of the pebble vs rock argument, as I don’t believe the name Kepha can be equated to a pebble. It equally cannot, however, be equated to a large immovable mass of rock such as that Jesus’ tomb was carved from. The Aramaic shu’a, or the Hebrew sela’ probably can.

What I am asking for is an objective response as to whether what I’ve suggested is plausible. I’m not arguing (yet) that the Catholic interpretation is totally invalid – I’m simply saying that there are other explanations which are equally plausible, such as the idea that Christ could have actually used two distinct words which Matthew might have had trouble translating into Greek. Thus, I’m asking very specific questions which will either confirm my hypothesis, or deny it. I’m just looking for the truth – if there’s no way to reasonably explain the passage as meaning anything but what the Catholic church interprets it as, that would go a long way toward convincing me of the validity of the papacy, and of the whole Catholic church.

All I’m asking for is an educated, and specific answer to the two questions above, as noted in bold.

So, to all, thank you for your responses thus far. Please keep them coming. Hopefully we’ll hit the nail on the head soon.

 

[JoeyWarren]

shu’a?

Can you give us some scholarship on this word?

 

[PC_Master]

I just realized I missed responding to a point by JFT. Also, apologies for the double-post. My previous post was at the length limit, so I had no choice but to start a new one.

And also, if it were a question of linguistics/semantic, it might be a good idea to ask Jesus himself which language he was using at the time

Most scholars seem to agree (from my reading), that Jesus was probably fluent in Aramaic, which was the language of many Jewish communities in his area, as well as Greek (the language of trade in the Roman empire) and possibly Hebrew (though some argue that the only scriptures Jesus read from were in the Greek Septaugint, I find this to be unlikely).

If Jesus spoke Greek in this passage, my second question above still remains valid – why not simply use petros in both places unless intentionally differentiating? If he spoke Hebrew, there are words like sela’ and kefa which are equivalents of the Aramaic words (shu’a and kepha) I’ve noted, so the equation remains much the same. I, however, think it’s more likely that he spoke Aramaic to his disciples, as we have recorded the hellenized form of the name of Simon Peter as “Cephas”. That is, of course, pure supposition on my part, but it fits, and as I’ve demonstrated, my questions (at least in part) remain valid in any case.

shu’a?

Can you give us some scholarship on this word?

Not really. I’m not a scholar, as I think I mentioned. However, I can say that the oldest manuscripts of the Peshitta (Syrian Aramaic Bible) translate petra as shu’a consistantly (and not as kepha), except for in a couple of locations. The first is where large rocks were split into smaller ones (so the shu’a became kepha, thus possibly explaining the decision), and the other is the Matthew passage which is currently being disputed.

The need for scholarship is part of why I’m here. I was hoping, as I’ve seen this argument elsewhere (after I came up with the idea and googled for it, I found it wasn’t original), that someone had a good response to it.

 

[JoeyWarren]

I just realized I missed responding to a point by JFT. Also, apologies for the double-post. My previous post was at the length limit, so I had no choice but to start a new one.

Most scholars seem to agree (from my reading), that Jesus was probably fluent in Aramaic, which was the language of many Jewish communities in his area, as well as Greek (the language of trade in the Roman empire) and possibly Hebrew (though some argue that the only scriptures Jesus read from were in the Greek Septaugint, I find this to be unlikely).

If Jesus spoke Greek in this passage, my second question above still remains valid – why not simply use petros in both places unless intentionally differentiating? If he spoke Hebrew, there are words like sela’ and kefa which are equivalents of the Aramaic words (shu’a and kepha) I’ve noted, so the equation remains much the same. I, however, think it’s more likely that he spoke Aramaic to his disciples, as we have recorded the hellenized form of the name of Simon Peter as “Cephas”. That is, of course, pure supposition on my part, but it fits, and as I’ve demonstrated, my questions (at least in part) remain valid in any case.

Most Scholars and Theologians agree that when Jesus was walking with his Apostles he spoke in his native tongue of Aramic. Just like the Mexicans here in the South.

Have you considered the other greek word for stone?

lithos
*
*

 

[PC_Master]

Joey> I agree regarding the Aramaic. I was merely trying to explain that the question I pose isn’t totally reliant on that, but would apply under other languages as well.

Regarding this other Greek word for stone – the only words I am aware of are petra, petros, and lithos. All other words I was able to find referencing rock or stone were either referring to an action (to stone someone) or to a jewel or precious stone of some sort, not to a “rock”. So, those don’t seem to apply. Please feel free to point it out if I missed a word though. Thanks.

[edit] I just reread your post and saw that you were speaking of lithos. I’m not sure how I missed that before. However, as I think I mentioned already, lithos is understood to be a smaller stone which can be given to another person. To translate Kepha (a large, but still movable, stone) as lithos (a small, easily movable stone) would not be right in my opinion. It would also convey that Simon Peter was nothing but a pebble, which I do not believe to be the case. The apostles as a group are said to be a part of the foundation of the church, with Christ as the chief corner stone. You don’t use pebbles in a foundation, so that seems unlikely as a translation.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Does “Sacred Feminine” ring a bell?

 

[PC_Master]

No, it doesn’t, but it sounds like a digression from the topic at hand.

 

[JoeyWarren]

gpcredding.org/petra.html

Is this where you got your information from?

Too much reliance on a Peshitta Syriac Translation. And too much reliance on slanted lexicons.

Here are strong’s numbers.

**G3037 **λίθος lithos *lee’-thos
Apparently a primary word; a stone (literally or figuratively): - (mill-, stumbling-) stone.

**G4073 **πέτρα petra *pet’-ra
*Feminine of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): - rock.

**G4074 **Πέτρος Petros *pet’-ros
*Apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than G3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle: - Peter, rock. Compare G2786.

Here is an english translation from another Aramaic Bible that is not of the Peshitta Syriac New Testament

1. I am also telling you that you are the Rock [Peter] and on this rock I am building my Church, and the doors of sheol cannot draw* it in.

from v-a.com/bible/matthew-16.html
v-a.com/bible/

There are at least 4 other Aramaic translations that contradict the Syrian translation.

Chaldean, Suryoyo, Ma’luli, Mardini

This is definitely is going to be a good discussion.

 

[JoeyWarren]

No, it doesn’t, but it sounds like a digression from the topic at hand.

No, it is very relevant.

The Greek language developed thru the “Sacred Femininie”.

Most Greek inanimate objects have a gender with the Feminine being the larger of the two. The language is a natural progression of the Historical beliefs that Woman was greater than Man since Woman is the Lifegiver.

I studied the Greek Languages in 1980. What I remember is that the Feminine 95% of the time denotes the larger of the two.

 

[scylla]

Isn’t linguistics based upon tradition also, isn’t scholarship based upon tradition?

We traditionally understand language, which is why we can even understand language these days as it is based upon our tradition of understanding.

As far as language goes, then are you just looking for a scholarly look at the roots of the words, and what is that based upon?
Ultimately it will come down to who’s opinion do you value?

100 year old writings from dead men
or 1400 year old writings from dead men
or older.
How do we understand language except from the understanding of the specific time in which it is written.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[Nita]

To have used two words with different roots would not have the same verbal effect as using the same sounding root word. An example of this is the way most English translations read - where we transliterate petros as Peter. “…you are Peter and on this rock…”. This is not nearly as effective as “…you are Rock and on this rock…”

Assuming Jesus said “You are Kepha and on this kepha…”, then His use of the same word has not only a literal meaning, but also an **audible **impact. A translator who wanted to faithfully transmit both of these qualities would use the same word/root - and not two totally different sounding ones.

I don’t know Greek, but I did have Latin. Whenever translating, we always had to be careful to use the proper gender ending. Can’t imagine a conscientious translator not following the grammatical rules. Therefore, in my mind, the different endings seem the only proper way to translate kepha.

Also, there’s evidence that Matthew’s gospel was originally written in Hebrew - later translated into Greek. Ive forgotten the name of the biblical scholar and the name of his book, but he translated Matthew from the Greek into Hebrew and was amazed at some of the things that showed up. eg. in some areas where the Greek wording was clumsy, when the text was translated backwards into Hebrew, (interlinear fashion) the clumsiness disappeared in the Hebrew; the wording was in the proper order. He said it was like someone was very careful to directly translate the Hebrew into the Greek. (A little like reading a Greek/English interlinear translation.)

Nita

 

[JoeyWarren]

To have used two words with different roots would not have the same verbal effect as using the same sounding root word. An example of this is the way most English translations read - where we transliterate petros as Peter. “…you are Peter and on this rock…”. This is not nearly as effective as “…you are Rock and on this rock…”
Nita

or

You are Peter and on this Petrina(or Petrice?)…

At least the Latin Vulgate adhere to the above.

et ego dico tibi quia tu es **Petrus **et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam

 

[PC_Master]

gpcredding.org/petra.html

Is this where you got your information from?

Not exactly. As I indicated, I thought of the idea on my own, and later used a search engine to find out more background information, which did turn up that article, in addition to other sources.

Too much reliance on a Peshitta Syriac Translation. And too much reliance on slanted lexicons.

Subjective comments like that are what I wanted to avoid.

Here are strong’s numbers.

You should guage your views of the meaning of the word not only on Strong’s numbers, but also on other Lexical/Dictionary sources. Additionally, and this is key, the context of each usage in scripture can be very helpful, especially if all of the usages (in a particular category) seem to mean the same thing.

In the case of lithos, petros, and petra, it indicates that lithos is certainly a much smaller stone, as I’ve previously explained, and in context, seems much smaller than a kefa, sela’, shu’a, or petra.

There are at least 4 other Aramaic translations that contradict the Syrian translation.

I’m sorry if I’m being dense or something here, but I totally miss the importance you were indicating. The only reason I was using the Peshitta is to demonstrate that “shu’a” is a valid word which at least some people feel would validly translate to/from petra.

This is definitely is going to be a good discussion.

I hope so.

No, it is very relevant.

The Greek language developed thru the “Sacred Femininie”.

Most Greek inanimate objects have a gender with the Feminine being the larger of the two. The language is a natural progression of the Historical beliefs that Woman was greater than Man since Woman is the Lifegiver.

I studied the Greek Languages in 1980. What I remember is that the Feminine 95% of the time denotes the larger of the two.

Well, that would certainly explain the difference of use in Attic Greek, but it doesn’t really help us understand the Koine unless the author specifically felt that it was more important to show the size of the rock of the church than it was to show the similarity between Simon Peter and that rock.

Isn’t linguistics based upon tradition also, isn’t scholarship based upon tradition?

We traditionally understand language, which is why we can even understand language these days as it is based upon our tradition of understanding.

That’s true, but appealing the argument that “we know how they interpreted the passage” isn’t the same as appealing to their knowledge of the language. If Jesus spoke the language, and used the word shu’a, for instance, it should bring to the mind of the Torah-observant Jew (including the twelve) the many times God was declared to be the rock on which all is founded, the strong tower, the mighty fortress, etc.

As far as language goes, then are you just looking for a scholarly look at the roots of the words, and what is that based upon?
Ultimately it will come down to who’s opinion do you value?

Greek grammar had certain rules. We can take a fairly unbiased look at those rules and see, for example, that giving a feminine noun as a name to a male would be improper. This is simply a rule of grammar, distinct from personal desires. Now, granted, our understanding of this rule can be slanted by bias, but in the case of the gender of the name, we seem to agree.

Thus, I am looking for a scholarly view on the grammatical requirements, of whether a particular word may or may not have been permissible.

100 year old writings from dead men
or 1400 year old writings from dead men
or older.
How do we understand language except from the understanding of the specific time in which it is written.

We can never understand it perfectly, as things are mostly subjective, and influenced by religious groups, political rulers, and so forth. What we can do is try to take an impassioned look at what the possibilities are.

Nita> In most Latin-based languages, nouns have a specific gender. In many languages, excluding English, the part that changes are the articles for “the” and so forth, and you must take care to use the masculine or feminine form (“la” or “el” in Spanish), based on whatever word you’re using it with. Is that not also the case with Greek?

I mean, while what you’ve said makes the use of lithos and petra in the same sentence improbable, I still don’t understand how that would limit the use of petros in both locations. In fact, in that case, it would not only be the same root in both locations, but the exact same word. You would simply change the preceding word, “tu taute”, I believe, to its appropriate masculine form, would you not?

 

[john_doran]

Thus, I am looking for a scholarly view on the grammatical requirements, of whether a particular word may or may not have been permissible.

let me see if i understand you here: you’re asking for a scholar to opine as to whether using a feminine noun as the proper name for a man would have been improper in the koine greek of 1st century palestine?

does that mean you’re asking for something like academic confirmation that the following sentence would have been inappropriately used by jesus in matthew 16: “you are patricia, and upon this rock i will build my church”?

i guess my question to you would be what are your criteria for “scholarship”? and why do you feel you need it? i mean, isn’t it sort of like asking for scholarly confirmation of “4*4=16”?

have you ever studied languages? adjectival/adverbial/nominal genders always agree, especially in inflective languages - like greek - since it’s the ending of the word (like the endings that determine gender) that determines its role in the sentence, not its position.

 

[PC_Master]

let me see if i understand you here: you’re asking for a scholar to opine as to whether using a feminine noun as the proper name for a man would have been improper in the koine greek of 1st century palestine?

does that mean you’re asking for something like academic confirmation that the following sentence would have been inappropriately used by jesus in matthew 16: “you are patricia, and upon this rock i will build my church”?

i guess my question to you would be what are your criteria for “scholarship”? and why do you feel you need it? i mean, isn’t it sort of like asking for scholarly confirmation of “4*4=16”?

have you ever studied languages? adjectival/adverbial/nominal genders always agree, especially in inflective languages - like greek - since it’s the ending of the word (like the endings that determine gender) that determines its role in the sentence, not its position.

Actually, if you would read what I’ve written, I actually agree that using a feminine noun for the name of a man would be improper. What I’m asking is if using a masculine noun for the “rock” on which the church would be built is equally improper.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m looking for linguist answers only.

I’m not sure if this is what you’re looking for, but I’m going to give you a bunch of quotes from Protestant scholars who are pretty serious linguists…perhaps you might check them out for additional material.

PROTESTANT SCHOLARS ON PETER THE ROCK

“You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter)." (John 1:42)

“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. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:17-19)

W.F. Albright (Protestant) and C.S. Mann
“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence…The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

Albert Barnes (Nineteenth-Century Presbyterian)
“The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion” Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].

John Broadus (Nineteenth-Century Calvinistic Baptist)
“As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession” Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].

Craig L. Blomberg (Baptist)
“The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification” New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)
“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

---

(cont.)