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

[Randy_Carson]

J. Knox Chamblin (Contemporary Presbyterian)
“By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself” “Matthew” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].

R.T. France (Anglican)
“Jesus now sums up Peter’s significance in a name, Peter . . . It describes not so much Peter’s character (he did not prove to be ‘rock-like’ in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus’ church. The feminine word for ‘rock’, ‘petra’, is necessarily changed to the masculine ‘petros’ (stone) to give a man’s name, but the word-play
is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form ‘kepha’ would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the ‘rock’ here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. "The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied…Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus’ new community . . . which will last forever.” (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985], vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)

---

William Hendriksen (Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary)
“The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.” (New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973], page 647JPK page 14]

---

Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)
“The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy” (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

David Hill (Presbyterian)
“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

Herman Ridderbos (Contemporary Dutch Reformed)
“It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock petra]’ indeed refer to Peter” Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].

 

[Spirithound]

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 Matthew could not, or even would not, have used the word petros twice. Is there any reason in Greek grammar which prevents such uses?

1. 
   Hi, Spirithound, BA ling. here .
   I shall try to respond, even though I am not familiar with Greek.
   1. This appears to be a question of highly technical Greek translation, and so I don’t feel qualified to answer it. I will, however, criticize the question itself. The question assumes that “Petros” and “petra” are different words. They are not.
   2. In this question, you have agreed that the feminine form “petra” is the basic, common form which would undergo a transformation to “Petros”. The reason that Matthew could not have used “Petros” twice in that verse is that “Petros” had no semantic value. “Petros” and “petra” had different meanings in Attic Gk, but that was 300 years before Koine Gk, and in that time “petros” had lost its separate meaning. 300 years is more than enough time for a word to lose its meaning. Evidence: just a few months ago, I got flamed on a thread for defining “homicide” as the killing of another human being, regardless of intent or justification.
      “Petros”, in the context of Mt. 16:18, very much like our English names today, has no semantic value of its own, but rather takes its value from the transparency of the pun employed in that verse.
      So, to wrap up, “petros” could not have been used twice because it doesn’t exist.

 

[PC_Master]

Randy Carson> Thank you for your response. While that information shows the interpretation many choose to apply to the passage, it unfortunately doesn’t address the specific questions I asked. I do appreciate the effort though (and I did take the time to read the quotes). The problem is that it’s the difference of opinion modern scholars have which leads me to the questions I’ve asked.

Hi, Spirithound, BA ling. here .
I shall try to respond, even though I am not familiar with Greek.

1. This appears to be a question of highly technical Greek translation, and so I don’t feel qualified to answer it.

I know the feeling. That’s why I posted this here – if I were a Greek linguist, I would probably have simply posted a conclusion somewhere. Still, as a linguist, you will hopefully be able to help some. At the very least, you should be able to provide some further avenues of thought on the subject.

I will, however, criticize the question itself. The question assumes that “Petros” and “petra” are different words. They are not.

Is that not akin to saying “el” and “la” in Spanish are not different words? While they serve the same function in every way except for gender, they are distinct in spelling and pronunciation. While petros and petra are certainly and clearly related, they at one time had distinct meanings of their own, which means they were different words, at least at that point. Or am I missing something?

1. In this question, you have agreed that the feminine form “petra” is the basic, common form which would undergo a transformation to “Petros”. The reason that Matthew could not have used “Petros” twice in that verse is that “Petros” had no semantic value. “Petros” and “petra” had different meanings in Attic Gk, but that was 300 years before Koine Gk, and in that time “petros” had lost its separate meaning. 300 years is more than enough time for a word to lose its meaning. Evidence: just a few months ago, I got flamed on a thread for defining “homicide” as the killing of another human being, regardless of intent or justification.

I totally agree with the argument that petros and petra could have been synonymous for exactly the same thing in common use at the time of Matthew’s authorship. What I was getting at though, is that since they were synonymous, why couldn’t one use one in place of the other without changing the meaning of the Greek? In other words, Catholics assume Matthew tried to preserve the word pun, had to use the word petra, and thus converted it to Petros, the closest thing to identical that he could. I’m asking instead, since Petros was penned first, why would he simply think “hmm, I can use petros twice and make it identical – it means the same as petra anyway!”

“Petros”, in the context of Mt. 16:18, very much like our English names today, has no semantic value of its own, but rather takes its value from the transparency of the pun employed in that verse.
So, to wrap up, “petros” could not have been used twice because it doesn’t exist.

So you suggest that the word petros had no usage after Attic Greek? If the word truly didn’t exist in Koine, why would so many focus on the fact that they were synonyms, rather than pointing out that the word petros from Attic ceased to exist, and therefore the petros in Matthew 16:18 must be something different? It seems odd that such a glaringly obvious defense to the question would have been missed all these years, at least to me.

In short, I’m not calling you a liar, but I’m just saying I find it very odd to assume that not only could a word change use in 300 years, but that it could disappear so entirely from the vocabulary as to be not understood as that word. Even though there are many Old English words we don’t use now, if someone mentioned one that was similar to a modern English word, we’d still probably recognize it as being from the older dialect. At the very least, the linguists and translators should have…right?

Additionally, since I have a linguist here, I’ll mention one other claim I read, which I have essentially no knowledge of – Could a masculine form of petra also have been formed as petras (legitimately)? Or is this simply wishful thinking? I’m inclined to think that it is, right along with suggesting that Peter was a pebble, rather than a large rock.

Also, can you suggest an answer to my second question? If the original words used were kepha and shu’a, as I’ve hypothesized, how else would the sentence have been translated than petros and petra?

In any case, thank you for the logical response. I don’t totally agree, but at least I can understand where you’re coming from.

[edit] All in all, what I’m trying to do is establish the range of impossible, possible and plausible explanations of this issue, so that I can then determine which I believe to be the most likely.

 

[Todd_Easton]

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.

Although petros and petra may have been synonymous at the time the New Testament was written, it is my understanding (and I am no Greek scholar) that petra was by far, almost to exclusivity, the more common word for rock. If memory serves me right, there are some 75 occurrences of petra in the Greek Septuagint, no occurrences of petros; there are some 15 occurrences of petra in the New Testament, no occurrences of petros, apart for Peter’s name.

It seems to this non-scholar that Christ did not use petros in both places because the common or standard word for rock at the time was petra. Petros was simply the non-standard masculine form of petra, suitable for a man’s name. Using petros in both places might be like Christ saying, ‘You are Rockie (Petros) and on this rockie (petros) I will build my church.’

The sentence, ‘You are Peter (Petros) on on this rock (petra) I will build my church,’ is very similar to the words of St. Paul, ‘and the rock (petra) was Christ (Christos).’ (1 Corinthians 10:4) Notice that Christ (a male) is called petra (a feminine word) and no one is bothered by the same seeming inconsistency.

 

[john_doran]

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.

yes. the greek word for a large rock is “petra”, which is feminine; since nominal genders have to agree, the word “petra” would have had to have been used to translate christ’s reference to the (albeit metaphorical) rock in matthew 16.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Matthew could have used Petra in both instances. But that would present problems with those that used the Greek in their daily lives.

How much respect would Simon have had if Christ had given him the name Petra instead of Petros?

Enlightened Common Sense dictates it would have been folly to call him Petra.

 

[john_doran]

So you suggest that the word petros had no usage after Attic Greek? If the word truly didn’t exist in Koine, why would so many focus on the fact that they were synonyms, rather than pointing out that the word petros from Attic ceased to exist, and therefore the petros in Matthew 16:18 must be something different? It seems odd that such a glaringly obvious defense to the question would have been missed all these years, at least to me.

it’s not that petros didn’t exist, but rather that it wasn’t used to denote a different meaning than petra in 1st century koine greek.
PC Master:

In short, I’m not calling you a liar, but I’m just saying I find it very odd to assume that not only could a word change use in 300 years, but that it could disappear so entirely from the vocabulary as to be not understood as that word. Even though there are many Old English words we don’t use now, if someone mentioned one that was similar to a modern English word, we’d still probably recognize it as being from the older dialect. At the very least, the linguists and translators should have…right?

for one thing, it’s not so easy to recognize obsolete and archaic usages for words that have wholly different contemporary meanings. for example, if you were to read, “the teacher was close”, what would you think was meant? would you know that “close” has an obsolete meaning that is synonymous with “severe”?

and even if linguists and translators are aware of such semantic nuances, what difference does that make? the question is not “what is the usage-history of the word”, but rather “how was the speaker in this passage actually using the word?”

that is to say, why would the authors of the greek NT use an obsolete definition in a work made for popular consumption by people in all likelhood unaware of such a use for the word? it would be like using “close” as a synonym for “severe” in a modern english text…
PC Master:

Additionally, since I have a linguist here, I’ll mention one other claim I read, which I have essentially no knowledge of – Could a masculine form of petra also have been formed as petras (legitimately)? Or is this simply wishful thinking? I’m inclined to think that it is, right along with suggesting that Peter was a pebble, rather than a large rock.

per my post, above, no - it’s not grammatically possible.
PC Master:

Also, can you suggest an answer to my second question? If the original words used were kepha and shu’a, as I’ve hypothesized, how else would the sentence have been translated than petros and petra?

i don’t know, but let me ask you a question: why couldn’t it have been the case that jesus actually said, “thou art shu’a, and upon this shu’a i will build my church”?

as far as i can tell, the protestant argument relies on the usage of shu’a as it appears in the pesshittic aramaic translation of the NT; except that, in that translation, kepha is used in both places in matthew 16:18, and the second instance is claimed as a mistranslation. but if ***that’s ***true, why can’t they both have been mistranslated?

strikes me as equally plausible.

 

[PC_Master]

Wow – lots of responses since last night. That’s good.

Although petros and petra may have been synonymous at the time the New Testament was written, it is my understanding (and I am no Greek scholar) that petra was by far, almost to exclusivity, the more common word for rock. If memory serves me right, there are some 75 occurrences of petra in the Greek Septuagint, no occurrences of petros; there are some 15 occurrences of petra in the New Testament, no occurrences of petros, apart for Peter’s name.

That sounds about right. I totally agree that the word petra was far more common in NT usage, which is why I accept the Catholic explanation as possible – it’s just not absolute, or close enough to it for me to be certain.

It seems to this non-scholar that Christ did not use petros in both places because the common or standard word for rock at the time was petra. Petros was simply the non-standard masculine form of petra, suitable for a man’s name. Using petros in both places might be like Christ saying, ‘You are Rockie (Petros) and on this rockie (petros) I will build my church.’

But by using petros and then petra, it would be akin to saying “You are Rocky, and on this rock I will build my church.” On the other hand, if the words used were kepha in both places, wouldn’t the best way to translate be “You are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church.” ? I mean, if the play on words was the primary importance, and if Matthew had chosen to preserve that analogy via using identical words when translating (such as petros in both places), would the readers not still have understood the meaning of the word?

The sentence, ‘You are Peter (Petros) on on this rock (petra) I will build my church,’ is very similar to the words of St. Paul, ‘and the rock (petra) was Christ (Christos).’ (1 Corinthians 10:4) Notice that Christ (a male) is called petra (a feminine word) and no one is bothered by the same seeming inconsistency.

Well, first off, I’d point out that Paul’s writings are frequently used to refute the papacy, because Christ himself is defined as rock, foundation, corner stone, etc, and is declared to be unique in such a position as that.

Second, as I understand (from my very limited studies of Greek scholars), it would be acceptable to call Christ a petra, as petra is being used as a descriptor rather than a name. That doesn’t really explain why, however, one would use two different gender forms of a word, if they could have used an identical gender form, when the goal is to show a word play (where the original word used in Aramaic was identical in both instances).

yes. the greek word for a large rock is “petra”, which is feminine; since nominal genders have to agree, the word “petra” would have had to have been used to translate christ’s reference to the (albeit metaphorical) rock in matthew 16.

Could you perhaps explain to me how nominal genders work a bit more? This sounds like it could be important to understanding this passage.

Matthew could have used Petra in both instances. But that would present problems with those that used the Greek in their daily lives.

How much respect would Simon have had if Christ had given him the name Petra instead of Petros?

Enlightened Common Sense dictates it would have been folly to call him Petra.

I totally agree – what I don’t yet understand is why it would be folly to call him, and the rock of the church, petros.

 

[PC_Master]

Sorry for the double post – I had no choice.

it’s not that petros didn’t exist, but rather that it wasn’t used to denote a different meaning than petra in 1st century koine greek.

for one thing, it’s not so easy to recognize obsolete and archaic usages for words that have wholly different contemporary meanings. for example, if you were to read, “the teacher was close”, what would you think was meant? would you know that “close” has an obsolete meaning that is synonymous with “severe”?

I can see your point, but if the words were truly synonymous, then Matthew could have easily used petros twice in that passage, and yet did not. If they weren’t synonymous, then Matthew probably knew that people would perceive the two words as being distinct.

and even if linguists and translators are aware of such semantic nuances, what difference does that make? the question is not “what is the usage-history of the word”, but rather “how was the speaker in this passage actually using the word?”

that is to say, why would the authors of the greek NT use an obsolete definition in a work made for popular consumption by people in all likelhood unaware of such a use for the word? it would be like using “close” as a synonym for “severe” in a modern english text…

Yes – the pattern seems to keep falling into one of two arguments…

1. 
   *]The words petros and petra were synonymous at the time of Matthew’s authorship. In this case, Matthew could have written petros twice and we would have assumed it to mean that Simon and the rock were identical, having come from the same Aramaic source word. This would leave no controversy.
   *]The words were not synonymous, and would provoke different thoughts in peoples’ minds, and thus using the same word twice makes all the more sense.
   
   The problem is that Matthew didn’t use the same word twice. The problem is, I don’t know, for certain, why he didn’t.
   

   per my post, above, no - it’s not grammatically possible.

   It’s not grammatically possible to use an -as suffix for a masculine form? Why? Your post doesn’t explain this. It’s not that I don’t believe you, but rather that I’m trying to understand why it is a certain way.
   

   i don’t know, but let me ask you a question: why couldn’t it have been the case that jesus actually said, “thou art shu’a, and upon this shu’a i will build my church”?

   It’s unlikely because we have many other recorded instances that Jesus called Simon Peter “Kephas” (hellenized as Cephas). Thus, if Jesus chose to give Simon the surname Kephas, why would he later change to the word shu’a, which would obviously indicate something different as compared to kephas? Granted, if we ignore the rest of the NT, we could assume that the word shu’a was used in both places, but this isn’t very logical, given what’s in the rest of the NT. Clearly, Jesus called Simon Kephas, just as he called James and John the “sons of thunder”. To change that name would be like…“Okay, you’re simon, and I’m going to call you Boulder (Kephas).” and then, at Matthew 16, say “Well, before I called you Boulder (Kephas), but now I’m going to call you Massive Rock (Shu’a) instead, so that I can make an analogy. Why did I call you Kephas in the first place? Who knows?”
   

   as far as i can tell, the protestant argument relies on the usage of shu’a as it appears in the pesshittic aramaic translation of the NT; except that, in that translation, kepha is used in both places in matthew 16:18, and the second instance is claimed as a mistranslation. but if ***that’s ***true, why can’t they both have been mistranslated?

   Simply put, if shu’a is an appropriate translation of petra, as it seems to be, from dictionaries, and from other translatory uses in the NT, why should there be any reason to translate otherwise? In fact, if we stick to that, perhaps petros and petras could both have been (in my mind, mistakenly) translated as shu’a – this would make sense, except that we know Jesus used Kephas as Simon’s surname). Thus, we’re left with a dillemma – either you obviously mistranslate Simon Peter’s name in Aramaic, or lose a traditionally assumed play on words.
   
   I have a feeling we’ve gotten about as far with my gender-related question as we will here. I’ll continue to inquire elsewhere on this. However, I’d still like an answer to my other question…
   
   If the original word for “rock” in Matthew 16:18 used was shu’a, while still maintaining the use of kepha as Simon Peter’s name, as in “You are kepha, and on this shu’a I will build my church”, what other possible translation of the sentence could there be than “You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my church” ?

 

[scylla]

How would it be translated if it was “you are shua and upon this kepha I will build my Church?”

What is the logical translation of that using the same rules?

In Christ
Scylla

 

[ILO]

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.

Mexicans in the South speak Aramic?? Wow!!

 

[JoeyWarren]

Mexicans in the South speak Aramic?? Wow!!

The mexicans when they are conversing with each other are speaking Spanish. They only speak English when they have to.

 

[PC_Master]

Scylla> You make an interesting point. However, if your point is accurate, that only further demonstrates that my point is accurate. The point is that “what Jesus said and meant” is ambiguous if judging on that one passage, whereas Catholics and Protestants typically cite it with their perspective explanations of the meaning, and both act as though their interpretation of the passage is completely unambiguous.

Again, my point is only that we cannot say for sure that kepha was used in both instances, nor can we even say that was most likely, due to the answer to the question that I asked.

Regarding a technical point with your idea, however – we can say, with reasonable certainty, that Jesus used Kepha in reference to Simon, as we see that usage elsewhere as “Simon, who was called Cephas”. If not for that, however, I would say that translating both words as shu’a is as plausible as translating both as kepha, or translating each of the words differently.

 

[Nita]

Scylla> You make an interesting point. However, if your point is accurate, that only further demonstrates that my point is accurate. The point is that “what Jesus said and meant” is ambiguous if judging on that one passage, whereas Catholics and Protestants typically cite it with their perspective explanations of the meaning, and both act as though their interpretation of the passage is completely unambiguous.

…

.

Which is exactly why Our Lord established the Papacy and Magisterium - so we could know which interpretation is right. Truth is very important to Our Lord, it’s His very essence (“I am the …truth…”). If we are to know Him as he really is, we need to know the truth. Do you honestly think He would not have made provision for something as important as that?

Nita

 

[PC_Master]

Nita> That’s basically rhetoric. It all sounds well and good, but there’s nothing substantial there. It’s basically back to the age old appeal of “It make sense to have a pope, doesn’t it?”

The Catholic church interprets the passage to mean a certain thing based on its belief that it is the true church. But, if my interpretation of the passage is correct, then the Catholic church isn’t the true church, and thus it doesn’t have the right to interpret the passage absolutely in the first place.

Do you see the problem here? Do you see how claims of “the Catholic church says so” do absolutely nothing for us when we’re questioning the foundation of the authority of the Catholic church?

First, we have the premise that when Jesus said “and on this rock”, he was referring to Simon Peter as being the first Pope.

Second, we have that the Catholic church is the one true apostolic church as set up in the New Testament (which requires the first point to be true).

Third, we have the idea that the Catholic church, therefore, can establish and perfectly define the interpretation of scripture.

Fourth, we have that the meaning of the Matthew 16:18 passage is defined by the Catholic church.

However, if I question the first premise, the whole system falls to pieces. You cannot say that the Catholic church has defined the passage to mean such without using circular logic. Thus, the argument does not hold.

I was going to go further on this, but I really did want to avoid apologetics here. I’m simply trying to establish whether the Catholic church’s interpretation of Matthew 16:18 can be considered the only explanation on an empirical level. Are either of the ideas that I’ve expressed regarding it’s possible translation actually plausible? So far, both seem to be, and thus, the Catholic church’s interpretation might not be, thereby depriving that church of its authority to decree the interpretation of passages of scripture.

So, again, I’d just prefer that people would answer my remaining question…

If the original Aramaic was akin to, “You are Kepha, and on this shu’a I will build my church,” how would it have been translated? The typical Greek rendering seems far more likely to me than any other possibility.

 

[TheApologist]

Second, as I understand (from my very limited studies of Greek scholars), it would be acceptable to call Christ a petra, as petra is being used as a descriptor rather than a name. That doesn’t really explain why, however, one would use two different gender forms of a word, if they could have used an identical gender form, when the goal is to show a word play (where the original word used in Aramaic was identical in both instances).

BINGO

There you have it. There’s the explanation. “…petra is being used as a descriptor rather than a name.” That’s most probably why there are two different forms in Matthew 16:18. The first rock(petros) is being used as a name and therefore has to reflect the gender of the person being named. The second rock(petra) is being used as a descriptor and therefore has to reflect the general usage of the descriptor noun.

I’m not a big linguistics, but I do know basic Spanish language rules which could apply.

Let’s say a guys name in Spanish is Torio which(let’s just say) means flower. If I see him, and he reminds me of a flower(let’s say flower as a descriptor noun is universally ending in -a). I would say to him…(You are) Torio (and you are a) toria. This would be the correct way to say it.

So the question is…was petros used commonly in Koine Greek to commonly describe something(in addition to properly name something which is obvious).
Why I say “used commonly” is this: if petros(torio) is rarely used, then there would be sly chance it would be used twice, especially if translating from kepha and kepha. Since kepha is sorta gender universal, translating it into a Greek proper noun would need suiting to the gender of the person, translating it into a Greek common noun would need suiting to the general usage.

So I ask this:

1. Was petros used as a common noun in Koine Greek?
2. Was petra used as a gender universal common noun?
3. If petros truly could have been easily used in place of petra and there was a difference in Aramaic between the two rock words…if it was “you are kepha, and on this s’hua”[or whatever word you used] What is the difference between the meanings of s’hua and kepha. What real importance would it come to? Please elaborate because it is at the core of our discussion.

 

[metal1633]

The Aramaic NT exists and in both cases the word Keepa is used.

Case closed.

 

[TheApologist]

The Aramaic NT exists and in both cases the word Keepa is used.

Case closed.

Source?

 

[metal1633]

Source?

I am a West Syrian Christian and unless the Aramaic Scriptures used by us for the last 2000 years is wrong, and therefore not the Word of God, then Jesus said…“also I say to you that you are Keepa and on this Keepa I will build my Church and the Gates of Sheol will not subdue it”

You can look it up. There is an interlinear at www.peshitta.org. They use the Eastern Peshitta but the Western Peshitto says the same thing.

 

[onenow1]

This is just an opinion now,since even my knowledge in english is suspect: Just assuming for the moment, that Jesus meant pebble it would be just what God does very often, choosing the weak to show his strength. On the flip side, if he was calling Peter the rock, and complementing him for being a blessed man, Jesus would be showing his confidence in his Father’s choice of Peter as lead man. Either way, the Father’s will is fullfilled,just as His will was fullfilled on the cross.

Peace, OneNow1