Non Catholic Interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard:

Have you ever used a Blble Concordance? If you have I’d be interested in knowing which one. If you haven’t, then please do.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Yes I do. Quite often actually. I use the Blue Letter Bible. Which uses Strongs Extra Strong Exhaustive Concordance.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

**Jim Dandy wrote: **

Footnote to Mt 16:19 in the Protestant RSV

–quote-- The keys of the kingdom are a symbol of Peter’s power as the leader of the church. Bind and loose are technical rabbinic terms meaning “forbid” and “permit” some action about which a question has arisen. Later the authority of binding and loosing was also conferred upon all the apostles (18:18). --end quote–

Richard Kastner replied:

Ya, I disagree with this. As I have shown Keys is used to denote knowledge and in this case the knowledge is of the kingdom, which is attained by the words of Jesus. The power to bind and loose is the power to bind or loose people to the kingdom of God to the extent that the word was preached to and/or recieved by those people.

As I said in my previous post, the OT is fulfilled in the NT.

–quote-- In Isaiah 22:22 Eliakim is given the key of the house of David and fills the role of palace administrator for King Hezekiah. In Isaiah 36:3 he is designated literally as the person “over the house” (Hebrew al habayith). The house refers to . . . the king’s palace. . . This was a very prestigious and responsible position since what he “opens no one can shut and what he closes no one can open.” This was a perpetual office beginning with [King] David.

. . .]

Before he left, [King] Jesus left a “palace administrator” or “chief of staff” to rule the affairs of his house – the Church. His name was Peter. Sigificantly, Peter is given the keys to bind and loose even as Eliakim was given the key to open and shut. --end quote–
Robert A Sungenis, letter to the authors of Jesus, Peter and the Keys, Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren and David Hess, Queenship, 1996, p. 49.

–quote-- In Matthew 16:19 it is presupposed that Christ is the master of the house, who has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven with which to open to those who come in. Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord lays the key of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so Jesus commits to Peter the keys of his house, the Kingdom of Heaven, and thereby installs him as administrator of his house." – end quote – This is from Lutheran biblical scholar Oscar Cullman, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, translated by Floyd V. Filson, (Philadelphia, Westminster, 1953) 203, quoted in Jesus, Peter and the Keys, cited above.

Peace be with you, Jim Dandy

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Oh, but it does. It indicates that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, not Greek, when he named Simon “Rock” in Mt 16:18. The English translation in both Greek and Aramaic is, “You are Rock and on this rock . . .” But it’s emphatically clear in the original Aramaic.

It doesn’t matter what language Jesus used. The Gospel we have was translated from Greek. There is no indication that it was ever translated from Aramaic. The FACT is that Matthew CHOSE to use two words for rock in Matt.16:18. If he was concerned about being faithful to Aramaic he would have only used one. He did not and the reason is obvious. He wanted to differentiate between Peter, the rolling stone, petros and Jesus the Rock of Ages, petra.

How do you know Matthew wrote “his gospel”? The Gospels are anonymous. The Catholic Church added the authors’ names.

Saying that the CC added the authors names is a stretch. People that you might consider Catholic, identified them, However that too is irrelavent.

How do you know the author of Matthew was “divinely inspired”? The gospel doesn’t tell you that,

In fact it does
2Tim3
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

and even if it did, that wouldn’t prove it. The Catholic Church, founded by Christ – guided by her ever-present companion, the Holy Spirit – declared that the Gospel of Matthew was divinely inspired (God-breathed) Scripture. Otherwise, we’d have no way of knowing that. First you were told – then you believed it.

You are saying here that if the WORD OF GOD tells us something “that wouldn’t prove it”, but if the CC tells us, then we need to believe it. Are you saying that what the CC says is above what God says?

The Greek is a translation from the Aramaic, a Hebrew dialect, the words Jesus spoke. There are other indications of the underlying Aramaic besides the Scripture quotes I gave you in my previous post – “flesh and blood,” “bind and loose,” “blessed art thou,” and more are Aramaic phrases used in Scripture.

There is no indication that Matt. gospel was written in anything but Greek. If it were, it most certainly was an Aramaic shorthand that was immediately translated into Greek. This would account for the Aramaic phaseology and smattering of Aramaic words.

Quoting Papias, c. A.D. 130 – Matthew, indeed, composed the Sayings in the Hebrew language; and each one translated them to the best of his ability." --end quote-- William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1, p.38

Ok

The Swiss Protestant theologian, Oscar Cullmann, wrote:

–quote – . . . [T]he great antiquity and the Palestinian origin of the section [Matthew 16:17 ff.] may today be considered beyond question. This is shown by the quite Semetic linguistic character of this section. . . **The parallelism of the two statements: “you are rock and upon this rock I will build my church” shows that the second rock refers to nothing different from the first one. ** This is clearly expressed in the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs both times, than it is in the Greek. . . Thus here the name and the thing are exactly identical. --end quote-- Oscar Cullman, Peter, Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, translator Floyd V. Filson, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953) 185, 206, 185.

The statement that I have emboldened show nothing of the kind it smacks of self serving rationalization and in fact shows the exact opposite. If Matt. would have wanted to show that the two references to “rock” were meant to refer to the same person he would have used the same word like in the Aramaic. He chooses not to and thereby shows that he MEANT to distiguish between the two.

–quote-- In Aramaic there is identity: “You are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build . . .” Another Semitism, ‘gates of hades’ for ‘powers of death,’ [Mt 16:18] plus the Semitisms ‘flesh and blood’ in the preceding verse and ‘bind and loose’ in the following verse (also the presence of Semetic parallelisms), constitute impressive evidence for proposing that these verses originated in a setting where Aramaic was a native tongue . . . – end quote – Raymond E Brown et al., Peter in the New Testament Paulist, New York, 1973, pp. 90-91.

I certainly am not saying that these verses did not "originated in a setting where Aramaic was a native tongue "

Uh, um, how about Kepha (Cephas)? John 1:42. See other verses cited in my previous post.

The word Peter is not in this v.

Petros/petra was as close as Greek could come to translating the Aramaic – 'You are Rock (Petros, Kepha, Peter) and on this rock (petra, kepha, Peter) I will build my church. . . ’ Petra is feminine and was required grammatically in the Greek language (which is all Greek to me).

The use of one would be, as there is only one word for rock in Aramaic. The FACT that Matt. uses two words shows that he was NOT concerned with being true to the Aramaic, but was making a very clear statement that the two “rocks” were refering to two different people.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Jesus called himself petra? Citation(s) please,

Luke 6
47Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
48He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

Both references to rock here are, you guessed it (petra)

Paul also uses petra
1Cor.10
2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Again both references to rock are petra.

Jesus said: ‘Simon, you are Rock and upon myself I will build my church’??? Yeah, sure, that makes perfect sense.

No, He said you are a rolling stone Peter, (petros), but upon myself, (petra), I will build my church.

I think Jesus was capable of saying what He meant – and He did. He changed Simon’s name to Rock and built His Church upon him as the leader.

He was and He did. He called Peter a rolling stone and built His church upon Himself.

Your opinion conflicts with Ephesians 2:19-20, which says the Church is built upon the Apostles and Prophets, with Christ as the cornerstone.

Eph.2
20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Jesus certainly did build His church on THE APOSTLES AND PROPHETS. But it certainly was not in the way the CC says He did. To the extent that they preached the gospel,
Matt.28
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

That’s the extent that He founded His church on them. He gave them no authority to change anything.
BTW the prophets refered to in this verse testified of Jesus.

Rev.19:10b
for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Jesus is the head of the Church; He reigns over it from heaven.

Quite true.

Peter (and his successors) was named head of the Church on earth, Christ’s deputy, His prime minister, assisted by all the other Apostles.

Not true, The ONLY thing he gave Peter and the apostles authority to do was PREACH THE GOSPEL.

How did the first Christians, who were taught directly and personally by the Apostles and their disciples centuries before there was a New Testament, understand these issues?

Peace be with you, Jim Dandy

What issues?

 

[KephasAugustine]

In the argument given by some Non Catholic Christians, they state that Peter was called Petros by Jesus and his church was built on Petra (not Peter).

Please see the link for more on this argument.

My question is this: For you Non Catholic Christians that hold this interpretation, who holds the Keys of Heaven if not Peter?

The “Petros v Petra” argument is irrelevant. Jesus didn’t speak Greek to His Apostles; He spoke Aramaic, and there is one word for rock, which was given by the Lord to Simon, son of Jonah, as a new name to signify his primacy among the Apostles and in the Church.

 

[Javl]

Yes I do. Quite often actually. I use the Blue Letter Bible. Which uses Strongs Extra Strong Exhaustive Concordance.

Thank you. I’ll have to pick up a copy.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Jim_Dandy]

To Richard, et al.

James B. Shelton, Associate Professor in the (Protestant) School of Theology and Missions, Oral Roberts University, Tulsa, Oklahoma, wrote this concerning the Greek of Mt 16:18:

–quote-- Our Lord’s reference to Simon as Peter (Petros) has suffered partisan interpretation. Some interpreters with reformational and revisionist agendas have made much of the difference in Greek between the words Peter (Petros, masculine) and “this rock” (tautei tei petra), demonstrative + definite article + feminine form, which is the usual gender of petra). They see petra as referring to the messiahship of Jesus, or the corporate faith of Jesus’ followers, rather than to the person of Peter.

When using both the masculine and feminine forms of the word, however, Matthew is not trying to distance Peter, Petros, from “this rock,” petra. Rather, the evangelist changes the genders simply because Simon, a male, is given a masculine form of the feminine noun for his new name.

Furthermore, the whole passage contains semetic structures. In Aramaic, the word for both Peter’s name and the rock would be identical, “Kepha . . .kepha.”

Finally, the force of the context calls for a direct identification between Peter (Petros) and the rock (petra). The case for petrine hegemony among the Apostles must be seriously considered and not dismissed by sectarian eisegesis." --end quote–

James B. Shelton, letter to the authors, 21 October 1994
Jesus, Peter and the Keys, Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, Rev. Mr. David Hess, Queenship Publishing, Santa Barbera, CA, 1997, p. 23

Peace, Jim Dandy

 

[Javl]

The “Petros v Petra” argument is irrelevant. Jesus didn’t speak Greek to His Apostles; He spoke Aramaic, and there is one word for rock, which was given by the Lord to Simon, son of Jonah, as a new name to signify his primacy among the Apostles and in the Church.

In the Council of Rome in 382, in which the Bible was first formulated, the council had decided to place Matthew’s Gospel in first place. It was given the place of honor since it was written in Aramaic, the language of Jesus and the Apostles. It was then translated into Greek for the Hellenized ( Greek ) Jews who neither read nor spoke Aramaic and/or Hebrew. ( ref: notes on the early councils ).

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Richard_Kastner]

The “Petros v Petra” argument is irrelevant. Jesus didn’t speak Greek to His Apostles; He spoke Aramaic, and there is one word for rock, which was given by the Lord to Simon, son of Jonah, as a new name to signify his primacy among the Apostles and in the Church.

But the Gospel was given to us in Greek and as I have shown it **is **relavant in Greek.

 

[Nicea325]

But the Gospel was given to us in Greek and as I have shown it **is **relavant in Greek.

True,but does not change the fact Jesus spoke Aramaic. Apparently you must be monolingual,because anyone who is fluent in more than one language knows one cannot always make a straight literal translation. Something is always lost when making translations/transliterations.

 

[Nicea325]

To Richard, et al.

James B. Shelton, Associate Professor in the (Protestant) School of Theology and Missions, Oral Roberts University, Tulsa, Oklahoma, wrote this concerning the Greek of Mt 16:18:

–quote-- Our Lord’s reference to Simon as Peter (Petros) has suffered partisan interpretation. Some interpreters with reformational and revisionist agendas have made much of the difference in Greek between the words Peter (Petros, masculine) and “this rock” (tautei tei petra), demonstrative + definite article + feminine form, which is the usual gender of petra). They see petra as referring to the messiahship of Jesus, or the corporate faith of Jesus’ followers, rather than to the person of Peter.

When using both the masculine and feminine forms of the word, however, Matthew is not trying to distance Peter, Petros, from “this rock,” petra. Rather, the evangelist changes the genders simply because Simon, a male, is given a masculine form of the feminine noun for his new name.

Furthermore, the whole passage contains semetic structures. In Aramaic, the word for both Peter’s name and the rock would be identical, “Kepha . . .kepha.”

Finally, the force of the context calls for a direct identification between Peter (Petros) and the rock (petra). The case for petrine hegemony among the Apostles must be seriously considered and not dismissed by sectarian eisegesis." --end quote–

James B. Shelton, letter to the authors, 21 October 1994
Jesus, Peter and the Keys, Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, Rev. Mr. David Hess, Queenship Publishing, Santa Barbera, CA, 1997, p. 23

Peace, Jim Dandy

Likewise,the name Kepha/Cephas was not a common name to give a Jewish male.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

In the Council of Rome in 382, in which the Bible was first formulated, the council had decided to place Matthew’s Gospel in first place. It was given the place of honor since it was written in Aramaic, the language of Jesus and the Apostles. It was then translated into Greek for the Hellenized ( Greek ) Jews who neither read nor spoke Aramaic and/or Hebrew. ( ref: notes on the early councils ).

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

First of all the bible was not formulated in Rome in 382 AD. The OT was in existance long before there ever was a CC. The new testament canon may have been confirmed for Catholic use at this council but it was not “formulated” here. Also, if Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, where is this manuscript?

 

[Nicea325]

First of all the bible was not formulated in Rome in 382 AD. The OT was in existance long before there ever was a CC. The new testament canon may have been confirmed for Catholic use at this council but it was not “formulated” here. Also, if Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, where is this manuscript?

Yes the OT was in existence,but not in a fixed canon. And where are the extant manuscripts for the NT scriptures?

 

[elvisman]

First of all the bible was not formulated in Rome in 382 AD. The OT was in existance long before there ever was a CC. The new testament canon may have been confirmed for Catholic use at this council but it was not “formulated” here. Also, if Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, where is this manuscript?

First of all, it was the Catholic Church who not only WROTE the NT, but compiled it and declared the canon. Before the canon was declared, there were SEVERAL other books that were considered by many to be divinely inspired such as the Sherpherd of Hermas, the Letters of Barnabas, the Letters of Clement, etc. These books were read from pulpits from the first century on - until the canon was declared by the Catholic Church.

Lastly - there are no existing autographs of the Gospels so there wold be no original Aramaic manuscript of Matthew’s Gospel. However, there is a concensus among Biblical Scholars that Matthew was translated from Aramaic into Greek since Greek was the lingua franca at the time.

 

[Nicea325]

First of all, it was the Catholic Church who not only WROTE the NT, but compiled it and declared the canon. Before the canon was declared, there were SEVERAL other books that were considered by many to be divinely inspired such as the Sherpherd of Hermas, the Letters of Barnabas, the Letters of Clement, etc. These books were read from pulpits from the first century on - until the canon was declared by the Catholic Church.

Lastly - there are no existing autographs of the Gospels so there wold be no original Aramaic manuscript of Matthew’s Gospel. However, there is a concensus among Biblical Scholars that Matthew was translated from Aramaic into Greek since Greek was the lingua franca at the time.

Welcome back! Nice to hear from you again…

 

[Richard_Kastner]

True,but does not change the fact Jesus spoke Aramaic. Apparently you must be monolingual,because anyone who is fluent in more than one language knows one cannot always make a straight literal translation. Something is always lost when making translations/transliterations.

Nicea, what difference does it make that Jesus spoke Aramaic? Answer: Absolutely non. Why? Because the gospel of Matt, was translated from Greek, and altho it may have been originally transcribed in Aramaic, for which there is also no evidence, the fact is that Matt. gave the world the gospel in Greek and this gospel says exactly what God wants it to say and that is that Jesus is talking about two different people when He says petros and petra.

 

[elvisman]

It doesn’t matter what language Jesus used. The Gospel we have was translated from Greek. There is no indication that it was ever translated from Aramaic. The FACT is that Matthew CHOSE to use two words for rock in Matt.16:18. If he was concerned about being faithful to Aramaic he would have only used one. He did not and the reason is obvious. He wanted to differentiate between Peter, the rolling stone, petros and Jesus the Rock of Ages, petra.

Wrong.
First of all there is NO proof that Matthew chose these 2 words - NONE.
Secondly, the proof is in the fact that Paul also refers to Peter as “Kepha” and “Cephas” in his letters

In fact it does
2Tim3
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Ummm . . . in fact, it doesn’t. This passage NEVER says that Matthew was divinely inspired. It was the Catholic Church at the councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo who declared its canonicity.

You are saying here that if the WORD OF GOD tells us something “that wouldn’t prove it”, but if the CC tells us, then we need to believe it. Are you saying that what the CC says is above what God says?

NOPE. What the Catholic Church says IS what God says.
Remember - the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). If you don’t believe that - take it up with the Holy Spirit.

In fact - the ONLY other entity in ALL of Scripture that is referred to as the “truth” - other than God - is the CHURCH.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea, what difference does it make that Jesus spoke Aramaic? Answer: Absolutely non. Why? Because the gospel of Matt, was translated from Greek, and altho it may have been originally transcribed in Aramaic, for which there is also no evidence, the fact is that Matt. gave the world the gospel in Greek and this gospel says exactly what God wants it to say and that is that Jesus is talking about two different people when He says petros and petra.

To you it makes no difference because I bet you are only fluent in wrong language. Does a make a difference,because Jesus spoke Aramaic,not Greek. Everything he said was transliterated/translated into Greek,not vice versa. As stated,you evidently only speak one language.

 

[IHeartAquinas]

In fact it does
2Tim3
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I would like to point out that when the epistle to Timothy was written, few would regard what would later become the NT as scripture. The common method of prayer was the daily recitation of the 150 Psalms. Not even the “Our Father” as described in the Gospel was widely prayed until later.

When the Epistle says “All scripture is given by inspiration of God,” it is referring EXPLICITLY to the Old Testament. That is what the Apostles and all the disciples would have known as “scripture.” If they were applying it to the New Testament books, or rather what would in four hundred years become the New Testament, they would have stated “all scripture and what we the Apostles are writing today.” But they didn’t, and that passage does not apply to the New Testament in any way. To do so is to grossly forget the cultural and historical reality of when that Epistle was written.

As to it making no difference whether or not Christ spoke Aramaic, Semitic sentence structure and grammar in written Greek is to be expected as normal only when Egyptian sentence structure and grammar is written into English. The fact that Semitic elements exist in a clearly non-semitic language or culture shows an attempt at direct translation. Very similarly to the following translation from Russian to English:

Odin’ den’, v magazin ekhala moya mama. Kupila ona sobaku. Eyo lyubim my.

Proper translation: One day, my mother went to the store. She bought a dog. We love her.
Direct translation: One day, to the store went my mother. Bought she a dog. Her [the dog] love we.

While it is not so extreme in the Greek as this, it is a similar example. And the specific emphasis on the order of the words in Russian is lost in English regardless of the translation, so one must interject words and phrases that realize the emphasis, which changes the sentence structure again and quite often makes the wording awkward.

Whether or not the Gospel as translated was Greek when the Church adopted it is what is irrelavent. The style and structure of the text clearly shows that the Greek manuscripts we received were translated from another source, a clearly Semitic source. Judging by the culture in which Jesus and the Apostles were born, this source was more than likely written in Aramaic.

Summation: The Gospel was written in Aramaic originally. Therefore, understanding of Semitic structure is important in understanding the meaning of the text. Timothy does not apply to the New Testament and only the successors of Peter (in the Catholic Church) can declare canon and inspiration.

 

[Nicea325]

Wrong.
First of all there is NO proof that Matthew chose these 2 words - NONE.
Secondly, the proof is in the fact that Paul also refers to Peter as "Kepha" and “Cephas” in his letters

Ummm . . . in fact, it doesn’t. This passage NEVER says that Matthew was divinely inspired. It was the Catholic Church at the councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo who declared its canonicity.

NOPE. What the Catholic Church says IS what God says.
Remember - the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). If you don’t believe that - take it up with the Holy Spirit.

In fact - the ONLY other entity in ALL of Scripture that is referred to as the “truth” - other than God - is the CHURCH.

Amen brother!