Pastor's interpretation of Matthew 16

[Lily_Bernans]

Hi Lily, I really do envy your sources and education background. I have to make do with whatever I can grab my measly little hands on. No language skills, no Biblical study background, no proper Catechism. I have to rely on Google, internet library, snippets of information here and there, some books, a lot of websites, and lots of persistence and an inquisitive mind. Slowly but surely, I inched forward. My university days were spent on different subjects entirely without a whiff of God.

Hi Eric,

I sort of know how you feel. I wish I hadn’t spent years getting my degrees in drama and French and had just concentrated on theology from the beginning. I’d would have had my PhD years ago. But I do feel lucky that I made the switch from English to theology when I did and am on the right track (for me) now.

I think you do wonderfully with the resources you muster. I know I couldn’t do as well if I didn’t have professors to consult from time-to-time. I learn from you as well, and that is a great blessing to me. Thank you!

 

[frangiuliano115]

You are absolutely correct. I was trying to find a way to delete the post, but I do not know how. It did not need to be said and was not kind. I apologize.

No need to apologize Indyann. You said IF he’s an example…
I just wanted to clarify!

Fran

 

[fisherman_carl]

The distinction between small rock and little rock did not exist in koine Greek at the time the NT was written anyways.

I’ve heard all those arguments before. They exist just to avoid the Catholic conclusions. See them for what they are. An aversion to the truth.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Hi Lily, I really do envy your sources and education background. I have to make do with whatever I can grab my measly little hands on. No language skills, no Biblical study background, no proper Catechism. I have to rely on Google, internet library, snippets of information here and there, some books, a lot of websites, and lots of persistence and an inquisitive mind. Slowly but surely, I inched forward. My university days were spent on different subjects entirely without a whiff of God.

Hi Ericc,

I agree with you and Lily Bernans because both ways are a way of learning. It’s all good.
Discussion helps a lot too - to clear your thoughts.

I just wanted to say that I was going to post that the H.S. is our teacher and this passage came to mind, I’ve always liked it a lot:

Jeremiah 31:31-34

It’s too long to type. Please look it up. It’s beautiful!

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

The distinction between small rock and little rock did not exist in koine Greek at the time the NT was written anyways.

Do you know if it existed in Aramaic?

This is interesting…

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Do you know if it existed in Aramaic?

This is interesting…

Here is a whole thread about it:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=32716

I did not read it all, but it looks interesting and seems to contain much information.

 

[ericc]

Hi Ericc,

I agree with you and Lily Bernans because both ways are a way of learning. It’s all good.
Discussion helps a lot too - to clear your thoughts.

I just wanted to say that I was going to post that the H.S. is our teacher and this passage came to mind, I’ve always liked it a lot:

Jeremiah 31:31-34

It’s too long to type. Please look it up. It’s beautiful!

Fran

To that I say the HS ROCKS!

 

[frangiuliano115]

Here is a whole thread about it:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=32716

I did not read it all, but it looks interesting and seems to contain much information.

Oh my gosh. Only christians could speak for 4 pages on the word “rock”!

Thanks for the post.

Fran

 

[guanophore]

Do you know if it existed in Aramaic?

This is interesting…

Around 180 Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)

Scholars presume this to be Aramaic. Modern research and archeology indicate that the Syriac Peshittas may have an older Syriac version of Matthew taken from the Aramaic.

You are right, only Christians could argue so many pages on one little word.

 

[fisherman_carl]

"As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel “was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.” If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used.”

catholic.com/tracts/peter-the-rock

"Greek is an inflected (not “reflexive”) language, which means that the forms of nouns change based on the function a word is performing in a sentence. When this happens, the base meaning of the word remains the same. The inflection communicates information about how the word is being used grammatically but not what it means.

In the case of petros vs. petra, the change is not an inflection. Petros and petra are two different words in Greek. They are similar because they are cognates (just as “president” and “presider” are cognates in English but are nonetheless two different words with different, though related, meanings). Because they are two different words, the inflection (change of form) of petros and petra is not what is at issue here. The basic meanings of the terms is.

The point the article is making is that in Attic Greek there was a slight difference in meaning between the two, but in Koine Greek (the dialect of the New Testament) they were synonyms. A place to look this up is D. A. Carson’s commentary on Matthew 16 in the Expositors Bible Commentary. He makes this point very well, and he is a highly-respected Evangelical Bible scholar. "

jimmyakin.com/2004/04/petros_vs_petra.html

“you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church. This is one of the most controversial and debated passages in all of Scripture. Roman Catholics have appealed to this passage to defend the idea that Peter was the first pope. The key question concerns Peter’s relationship to “this rock.” In Greek, “Peter” is Petros (“stone”), which is related to petra (“rock”). The other NT name of Peter, Cephas (cf. John 1:42; 1 Cor. 1:12), is the Aramaic equivalent: kepha’ means “rock,” and translates in Greek as Kēphas. “This rock” has been variously interpreted as referring to (1) Peter himself; (2) Peter’s confession; or (3) Christ and his teachings. For several reasons, the first option is the strongest. Jesus’ entire pronouncement is directed toward Peter, and the connecting word “and” (Gk. kai) most naturally identifies the rock with Peter himself.”

• Protestant ESV bible commentary

 

[fisherman_carl]

"This is tremendously important. If anybody had a reason to deny papal authority or the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16, it would have been the Greek Orthodox. From the 5th century all the way through the Middle Ages the Greeks contested the papacy’s claims over authority over the Church of God. Since this was the case, and since the Greeks, especially of the earlier centuries, were reading the Scriptures in their original languages, does it not stand to reason that if there was any import to Christ’s use of the words petra and petros in Matthew 16, the Greeks would have noticed it? If such a distinction really did have the import that Protestants say it does, this argument would have been invaluable in the hands of the Greek apologists in the contest with Rome for primacy.

But, since the Greeks who read the New Testament in its original language and had a vested interest in debunking the claims of Rome to primacy never utilized this argument, their silence is telling. They attack Roman primacy, to be sure, but they never use the petros/petra argument. Instead they talk about the union between Church and Empire and Constantinople being the imperial seat; they talk about a fictional apostolic succession based on a legendary founding of the Byzantine Church by St. Andrew the Apostle; they bring forward different ecclesiological interpretations of what kind of primacy St. Peter was given; they drudge up the old canards of Vigilius and Honorious; but they never resorted to the petros/petra argument (at least until modern times, when they borrowed it from Protestants). If classical Greek Orthodox polemic at its height never utilized this argument, we are safe in presuming there never was an argument there to be utilized."

unamsanctamcatholicam.com/apologetics/86-contra-protestantism/165-petra-vs-petros-silence-of-luther-and-the-greeks.html

 

[frangiuliano115]

"As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel “was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.” If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used.”

catholic.com/tracts/peter-the-rock

"Greek is an inflected (not “reflexive”) language, which means that the forms of nouns change based on the function a word is performing in a sentence. When this happens, the base meaning of the word remains the same. The inflection communicates information about how the word is being used grammatically but not what it means.

In the case of petros vs. petra, the change is not an inflection. Petros and petra are two different words in Greek. They are similar because they are cognates (just as “president” and “presider” are cognates in English but are nonetheless two different words with different, though related, meanings). Because they are two different words, the inflection (change of form) of petros and petra is not what is at issue here. The basic meanings of the terms is.

The point the article is making is that in Attic Greek there was a slight difference in meaning between the two, but in Koine Greek (the dialect of the New Testament) they were synonyms. A place to look this up is D. A. Carson’s commentary on Matthew 16 in the Expositors Bible Commentary. He makes this point very well, and he is a highly-respected Evangelical Bible scholar. "

jimmyakin.com/2004/04/petros_vs_petra.html

“you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church. This is one of the most controversial and debated passages in all of Scripture. Roman Catholics have appealed to this passage to defend the idea that Peter was the first pope. The key question concerns Peter’s relationship to “this rock.” In Greek, “Peter” is Petros (“stone”), which is related to petra (“rock”). **The other NT name of Peter, Cephas (cf. John 1:42; 1 Cor. 1:12), is the Aramaic equivalent: kepha’ means “rock,” and translates in Greek as Kēphas. “This rock” **has been variously interpreted as referring to (1) Peter himself; (2) Peter’s confession; or (3) Christ and his teachings. For several reasons, the first option is the strongest. Jesus’ entire pronouncement is directed toward Peter, and the connecting word “and” (Gk. kai) most naturally identifies the rock with Peter himself.”

• Protestant ESV bible commentary

I had posted regarding Jesus giving Peter the name Cephas in my post no. 21. You might want to take a look - there’s something I thought of regarding this name.

Also the word, AND, as you state, is very important in this passage. Never thought of this.

It still would be interesting to know if in the aramaic the word for stone is the same as for small stone. Or stone the same as rock. Once you translate to Greek, it changes everything a bit. It’s difficult to translate ideas.

It does seem that Jesus would not say to Peter: hey, you are the rock
but I’m building my church on THIS rock (referring to Himself).

Anyway, this is very interesting. It’s also a play on words as I understand from knowing Italian.

Tu sei Pietro your are “rock” , male gender
e su questa pietra and on this “rock” female (rocks are female in gender)

Fran

 

[fisherman_carl]

I had posted regarding Jesus giving Peter the name Cephas in my post no. 21. You might want to take a look - there’s something I thought of regarding this name.

Also the word, AND, as you state, is very important in this passage. Never thought of this.

It still would be interesting to know if in the aramaic the word for stone is the same as for small stone. Or stone the same as rock. Once you translate to Greek, it changes everything a bit. It’s difficult to translate ideas.

It does seem that Jesus would not say to Peter: hey, you are the rock
but I’m building my church on THIS rock (referring to Himself).

Anyway, this is very interesting. It’s also a play on words as I understand from knowing Italian.

Tu sei Pietro your are “rock” , male gender
e su questa pietra and on this “rock” female (rocks are female in gender)

Fran

No, there is no variation of Kepha in Aramaic like there was in Greek. The only reason we see a variation of Petros/Petra is because Petra had a feminine connotation even though means rock. Whereas Petros which I believe here is the first use of the word as a name in general was the masculine form. Since Peter is a male.

Because Jesus said ‘and’ he is talking about Peter as the rock he will build his church on. If he had said ‘but’ then we might take a different connotation.

The words do not have to be exactly the same to have the same meaning. For instance if I said you are Bannana and upon this fruit I will build my plantation. Would you not expect that I think your name is banana and I am planning to build my plantation on that fruit? You would not think I was actually secretly pointing to an orange when I said upon this fruitt. But Jesus is not building a rock garden. He is building a church. But not a building. his church is people. So it is fitting that he would use people as a foundation.

The clincher is this. God normally doesn’t change people’s names in the Bible that often. Yet when it does it has great significance. Protestants often under appreciatethat significance in Peter. Yet we see Jesus changing his name to rock. It makes no sense to say that Jesus changed his name to little pebble to make him feel inferior.

 

[ericc]

Yes, I do know you’re right, eric. I was just pointing out that some Protestants use Acts to bolster their argument that Jesus was referring to himself.

In my advanced New Testament classes and Greek classes, I had to go through those words myself, though I would not call myself an expert. I do call my professors experts, though, and they say Christ is referring to Peter. They agree with you about the syntax.

Just out of curiosity, if Protestant scholars already nailed down the syntax of this rocky subject, why are Protestants still using this petra/petros argument? Don’t they know that their own scholars already know that their argument is incorrect and that some of their own Protestant brothers/sisters also knew that? Unless there are also Protestant scholars who disagree that the rock refers to Peter syntactically and that the academic community eventually will have a show down on the topic. But if that subject is a done deal, then it only reflect 2 things about the proponent of that, ignorance/willful ignorance or misrepresentation. Either of which is bad. I think there is a Q source equivalent for Protestant apologetics. Because this subject never dies, like a zombie. Decades after decades when it should have been properly buried and forgotten.

 

[frangiuliano115]

No, there is no variation of Kepha in Aramaic like there was in Greek. The only reason we see a variation of Petros/Petra is because Petra had a feminine connotation even though means rock. Whereas Petros which I believe here is the first use of the word as a name in general was the masculine form. Since Peter is a male.

Because Jesus said ‘and’ he is talking about Peter as the rock he will build his church on. If he had said ‘but’ then we might take a different connotation.

The words do not have to be exactly the same to have the same meaning. For instance if I said you are Bannana and upon this fruit I will build my plantation. Would you not expect that I think your name is banana and I am planning to build my plantation on that fruit? You would not think I was actually secretly pointing to an orange when I said upon this fruitt. But Jesus is not building a rock garden. He is building a church. But not a building. his church is people. So it is fitting that he would use people as a foundation.

The clincher is this. God normally doesn’t change people’s names in the Bible that often. Yet when it does it has great significance. Protestants often under appreciatethat significance in Peter. Yet we see Jesus changing his name to rock. It makes no sense to say that Jesus changed his name to little pebble to make him feel inferior.

Thanks. This is gettng printed because I come across this a lot.

That little word AND opened up new thought for me.

Also, the going back to the Aramaic instead of the Greek (which ends up is the same).

You explained it really well and it’s an imporant passage.

Fran

 

[CompSciGuy]

"This is tremendously important. If anybody had a reason to deny papal authority or the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16, it would have been the Greek Orthodox. From the 5th century all the way through the Middle Ages the Greeks contested the papacy’s claims over authority over the Church of God. Since this was the case, and since the Greeks, especially of the earlier centuries, were reading the Scriptures in their original languages, does it not stand to reason that if there was any import to Christ’s use of the words petra and petros in Matthew 16, the Greeks would have noticed it? If such a distinction really did have the import that Protestants say it does, this argument would have been invaluable in the hands of the Greek apologists in the contest with Rome for primacy.

But, since the Greeks who read the New Testament in its original language and had a vested interest in debunking the claims of Rome to primacy never utilized this argument, their silence is telling. They attack Roman primacy, to be sure, but they never use the petros/petra argument. Instead they talk about the union between Church and Empire and Constantinople being the imperial seat; they talk about a fictional apostolic succession based on a legendary founding of the Byzantine Church by St. Andrew the Apostle; they bring forward different ecclesiological interpretations of what kind of primacy St. Peter was given; they drudge up the old canards of Vigilius and Honorious; but they never resorted to the petros/petra argument (at least until modern times, when they borrowed it from Protestants). If classical Greek Orthodox polemic at its height never utilized this argument, we are safe in presuming there never was an argument there to be utilized."

unamsanctamcatholicam.com/apologetics/86-contra-protestantism/165-petra-vs-petros-silence-of-luther-and-the-greeks.html

As I read this I got curious about what Orthodox Christians have to say about Matthew 16, so I did a google search and found this discussion:
orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=45871.0

It seems that a lot of them are using the same arguments as the Protestants.

 

[frangiuliano115]

As I read this I got curious about what Orthodox Christians have to say about Matthew 16, so I did a google search and found this discussion:
orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=45871.0

It seems that a lot of them are using the same arguments as the Protestants.

You HAD to bring this up?

1. I was just going to shut down!
2. Now we have to find out WHEN the Mathew 16 interpretation came about. Peter was accepted as a leader after Jesus’ ascension. When Mat 16 was written about, at least, 20 years later. Was there an association I wonder with what it would mean re Peter being the rock. If it was included in the gospel it meant it was important. So why would the Orthodox teach as the protestants? Because they broke from the church 1,000 years ago, I’d guess and if they trace back to Peter, it means they made a mistake.

Right?

Can’t think about this anymore right now, but you bring up an interesting point.

Fran

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Just out of curiosity, if Protestant scholars already nailed down the syntax of this rocky subject, why are Protestants still using this petra/petros argument? Don’t they know that their own scholars already know that their argument is incorrect and that some of their own Protestant brothers/sisters also knew that? Unless there are also Protestant scholars who disagree that the rock refers to Peter syntactically and that the academic community eventually will have a show down on the topic. But if that subject is a done deal, then it only reflect 2 things about the proponent of that, ignorance/willful ignorance or misrepresentation. Either of which is bad. I think there is a Q source equivalent for Protestant apologetics. Because this subject never dies, like a zombie. Decades after decades when it should have been properly buried and forgotten.

I don’t know why Protestants keep trotting that out, Eric. I suppose it’s because some of them have taken a stand that is wrong, and now they are just too stubborn to back down and admit they were wrong.

 

[fisherman_carl]

As I read this I got curious about what Orthodox Christians have to say about Matthew 16, so I did a google search and found this discussion:
orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=45871.0

It seems that a lot of them are using the same arguments as the Protestants.

Which they borrowed from the Protestants. In other words it is a non orthodox view.

That’s the whole point of the article I quoted. What difference does it matter if the view started in the 19th or 20th century? The point is that it was never an argument the Greek Orthodox used prior. Which is highly suspicious don’t you think? For the 5th century Greeks (who were opposed to papal authority) to not use that argument is telling. Since they read it in the original language. It was a non-issue.

 

[fisherman_carl]

You HAD to bring this up?

1. I was just going to shut down!
2. Now we have to find out WHEN the Mathew 16 interpretation came about. Peter was accepted as a leader after Jesus’ ascension. When Mat 16 was written about, at least, 20 years later. Was there an association I wonder with what it would mean re Peter being the rock. If it was included in the gospel it meant it was important. So why would the Orthodox teach as the protestants? Because they broke from the church 1,000 years ago, I’d guess and if they trace back to Peter, it means they made a mistake.

Right?

Can’t think about this anymore right now, but you bring up an interesting point.

Fran

I heard somewhere in the 20th century.