Protestant interpretations...

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrooklynBoy200
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Randy Carlson,

It just occurred to me you are probably referring to Jhn 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

There are actually two words in the Peshitta used to translate the word rock/stone:

“Cephas” (ke’pha) is always used to translate the Greek word “lithos” which means a little stone and usually for “petros”, with the exception of Mat 16, of course.

The other word is “shu’a”. This word, which means a huge immovable rock, is used to translate the word “petra”, but never “lithos”.

In Mark 15:46, the tomb “hewn out of a rock (petra)” is called “shu’a” in the peshitta. The movable stone (lithos) in the same verse is called ke’pha.

shu’a = large rock - cephas = little rock

So, if we are going to use the Aramaic Peshitta to determine the true meaning of Mat 16, we again see Peter as a little rock, petros, and the petra is in question as to whether it is a translation error in light of the word shu’a being the translation in all other places, except Mat 16. But definitely the two are words for stones of two completely different sizes - one massive, the other small.
 
Ginger2

i’m only a beginner here but thought I’d add something

Also not sure if this aligns correctly with official catholic teaching, but I have always been convinced that Peter himself and his faith are what jesus ‘starts’ to build his church on, with the apostles & all believers (holy priesthood) also beings stones of the overall foundation.

With Jesus being the chief corner stone

As Peter says - “ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrafices, acceptable to God by jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in scripture, behold I lay in Sion a chief corner stone…(ie: jesus)…”1Pet 2:4KJV
I agree with all that you have said. It is Faith in Christ Jesus which is the very foundation of the Christian religion.

It is also obvious that Peter was set apart from the other disciples. There is great significance in being given a new name, as Abraham and Sarah and the Apostle Paul. I agree it signifies a new phase in God’s plan.

Ginger 🙂
 
That would be a very good explanation if the information presented was factual and true, but it is not.

There are different words used for big and little rock formations in Aramaic, also. If you look at the Peshitta and compare Gospel verses translating the words petra and petros, you can clearly see the difference, which suggests Matthew 16:18 is a translation error.

However, that is a lot of work. It might be easier to see what the rest of the Scriptures claim about who is the rock:
There is no doubt that the **rock in Mt 16:18 **is Peter.

Jesus spoke Aramaic. The Aramaic for rock is Kepha. In Aramaic Matthew 16:18 would have gone like this: And so I say to you, you are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my church, “. Straight English translation would have gone “You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my church”.

The Petros /petra problem arose because the Greek language have genders for things. Since Simon is a man, they cannot translate the Aramaic Kepha into Petra because that is a feminine name. So they gave him the male equivalent which is Petros.

Also, although there is a pebble/rock distinction in classical Greek, by the time of Jesus, this distinction has gone and petra and petros are both used to refer to rock.

The Aramaic is evident in the fact that in John 1:47 and elsewhere in Paul’s letter, Peter is called Cephas.

So the rock that Jesus was referring to was not Himself but Peter, that is why he is referred to as Cephas which means rock.
 
Luk 8:13 They on the rock (petra) [are they], which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock (petra)was Christ.
That is true. In Luke 8:13 and 1Cor10:4 the rock refers to God. **But not in Matthew **16:18. In this passage it is clearly Peter. And it is GOD Himself in the person of Christ who makes Peter the Rock. This is something that you must remember. It was Jesus who made Peter the rock foundation upon which He will build His Church.

Here is a more detailed explanation of Matthew 16:13-19

Background:

Caesaria Philipi is around 20 miles ( a rough two days journey up the mountains) from Galillee.

Now why does our Lord go to all that trouble just for this scene?

Caesaria Philipi which used to be called Panneas was dedicated to the Greek god Pan. When Philip Herod became tetrarch of that region he gave it to Augustus Caesar for some favour so it became Ceasaria Philipi, that is, Ceasar’s city from Philip.

In this region is a humongous rock around 500ft long and 200ft high.

On top of this rock is a huge marble temple with an idol of the god Pan. Philip Herod replaced that idol of Pan with the idol of the divine Ceasar Augustus (emperors were considered divine).

To the left of the rock is a cave and in the cave is a deep hole filled with water which is the source of the Jordan river. The pagans believed this to to be the gates of sheol - the doorway to the underworld.

With that scene in mind, let us now read Matthew 16: 13-19

When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Comment:

So now we have Jesus standing next to this rock, on top of which, is a temple to a false god (two false gods as a matter of fact) next to which is a cave that is the gate to sheol. He is now saying that He will do something different. He will build the Church of the True God on top of the true rock and that rock is Simon barJonah and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

We even see here a parallel with the sheep/shepherd motif in the commissioning of Peter in John 21. This area and temple used to be dedicated to Pan, the god of shepherds. Here we have Chist the True God giving the promise to Peter who He will later commission to shepherd His sheep.
 
Randy Carlson (sic),

It just occurred to me you are probably referring to Jhn 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
No, I wasn’t referring to John 1:42; W.F. Albright was referring to Mt. 16:19.
So, if we are going to use the Aramaic Peshitta to determine the true meaning of Mat 16, we again see Peter as a little rock, petros, and the petra is in question as to whether it is a translation error in light of the word shu’a being the translation in all other places, except Mat 16. But definitely the two are words for stones of two completely different sizes - one massive, the other small.
No, Ginger. This is simply untenable. Scholars agree that by the time that Matthew was written, the differences between these meanings had disappeared.

In other words, Jesus did not commend Peter in one breath (Blessed are you) and turn around and demean him in the next (You’re an insignificant little pebble).
 
TWO DOZEN PROTESTANT SCHOLARS ON PETER THE ROCK
(Listed Alphabetically)

“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].

Francis Wright Beare (Presbyterian/Reformed)
“The play on words – ‘Peter’, this ‘rock’ – requires a change in Greek from petros (properly, ‘stone’) to petra. In Aramaic, the two words would be identical – Kepha the name given to Peter, transliterated into Greek as Kephas (Gal. 2:9), and kepha, ‘rock’. The symbol itself is Hebraic: Abraham is the ‘rock’ from which Israel was hewn, and in a rabbinic midrash, God finds in him a rock on which he can base and build the world…” (Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew [Harper and Row, 1981], page 355)

John Broadus (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”

“Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.”
*“But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho”. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha”… Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.” *[Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356JPK page 20]

Craig L. Blomberg (Baptist)
Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter”, parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ”, as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 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.” (The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22 (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252, JPK pages 31-32)
 
M. Eugene Boring (Disciples of Christ)
“**16:18, Peter as Rock. **Peter is the foundation rock on which Jesus builds the new community. The name ‘Peter’ means ‘stone’ or ‘rock’ (Aramaic Kepha Cepha; Greek petros)… There are no documented instances of anyone’s ever being named ‘rock’ in Aramaic or Greek prior to Simon. Thus English translations should render the word ‘stone’ or ‘rock,’ not ‘Peter,’ which gives the false impression that the word represented a common name and causes the contemporary reader to miss the word play of the passage: ‘You are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church.’ Peter is here pictured as the foundation of the church…On the basis of Isa 51:1-2 (cf. Matt 3:9), some scholars have seen Peter as here paralleled to Abraham; just as Abram stood at the beginning of the people of God, had his name changed, and was called a rock, so also Peter stands at the beginning of the new people of God and receives the Abrahamic name ‘rock’ to signify this.” (The New Interpreter’s Bible [Abingdon Press, 1995], volume 8, page 345)

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)

“The word Peter petros, meaning ‘rock,’ (Gk 4377) is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter.” (Carson, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1994], volume 2, page 78, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 18)

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 The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church”. As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus. " (“Matthew” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742).

Oscar Cullman (Lutheran)
“The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and petros: petra = Kepha = petros…Since Peter, the rock of the Church, is thus given by Christ Himself, the master of the house (Is. 22:22; Rev. 3:7), the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he is the human mediator of the resurrection, and he has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection…The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story…For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art Rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom He has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Cullmann, article on “Rock” (petros, petra) trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Eerdmans Publishing, 1968], volume 6, page 98, 107, 108)

Suzanne de Dietrich (Presbyterian theologian)
“The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. ‘Simon”, the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community.” (The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16 (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93, JPK page 34).

J.D. Douglas
“That the rock is Peter himself . . . is found almost as early as the other [interpretation], for Tertullian and the bishop, whether Roman or Carthaginian, against whom he thundered in De Pudicitia, assume this, though with different inferences. Its strength lies in the fact that Mt 16:19 is in the singular, and must be addressed directly to Peter . . . Many Protestant interpreters, including notably Cullmann, take the latter view.” (New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 972)
 
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)

“The name Peter means ‘Rock’, and Jesus played on this meaning to designate Peter as the foundation of the new people of God. His leadership would involve the authority of the steward, whose keys symbolized his responsibility to regulate the affairs of the household. Peter would exercise his leadership by his authority to declare what is and is not permissible in the kingdom of heaven (to bind and to loose have this meaning in rabbinic writings)…It is sometimes suggested that because the word for ‘rock’ (petra) differs from the name Petros, the ‘rock’ referred to is not Peter himself but the confession he has just made of Jesus as Messiah. In Aramaic, however, the same term kefa would appear in both places; the change in Greek is due to the fact that petra, the normal word for rock, is feminine in gender, and therefore not suitable as a name for Simon! The echo of Peter’s name remains obvious, even in Greek; he is the rock, in the sense outlined above.” (France, New Bible Commentary with consulting editors Carson, France, Motyer, Wenham [Intervarsity Press, 1994], page 925, 926)

**Richard B. Gardner (Brethren/Mennonite) **
“The key question here is whether the rock foundation of the church is Peter himself, or something to be distinguished from Peter. If the latter, Jesus could be speaking of Peter’s faith, or of the revelation Peter received. It is more likely, however, that the rock on which Jesus promises to build the church is in fact Peter himself, Peter the first disciple (cf. 4:18; 10:2), who represents the whole group of disciples from which the church will be formed. At least four considerations support this view…” (Gardner, ***Believers Church Bible Commentary: Matthew ***[Herald Press, 1991], 247)

Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)
*“The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built… The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this 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.” *(Matthew 14-28 Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470, JPK pages 36-37)

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]

David Hill (Presbyterian)
On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. 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)

Ivor H. Jones (Methodist)
“…in 16.18 Peter is the rock on which the new community could be built, as Abraham was described in rabbinic writings as the rock on which God could erect a new world to replace the old…The arguments have raged across the centuries over the phrase ‘on this rock’ : does it mean on Peter, or on Peter’s confession? But the text is clear: Peter was divinely inspired and this was the reason for his new function and the basis of his authorization. His function was to provide for Jesus Christ the beginnings of a stronghold, a people of God, to stand against all the powers of evil and death…They are God’s people, the church…as the church they represent God’s sovereign power over evil (18.18b) and rely upon a new kind of divine authorization…This authorization is given to Peter; so Peter is not only a stronghold against evil; he also is responsible for giving the community shape and direction.” (Jones, The Gospel of Matthew [London: Epworth Press, 1994], page 99)
 
Craig S. Keener (Protestant Evangelical)
“‘You are Peter,’ Jesus says (16:18), paralleling Peter’s ‘You are the Christ’ (16:16). He then plays on Simon’s nickname, ‘Peter,’ which is roughly the English ‘Rocky’: Peter is ‘rocky,’ and on this rock Jesus would build his church (16:18)…Protestants…have sometimes argued that Peter’s name in Greek (petros) differs from the Greek term for rock used here (petra)…But by Jesus’ day the terms were usually interchangeable, and the original Aramaic form of Peter’s nickname that Jesus probably used (kephas) means simply ‘rock.’ Further, Jesus does not say, ‘You are Peter, but on this rock I will build my church’…the copulative kai almost always means ‘and’… Jesus’ teaching is the ultimate foundation for disciples (7:24-27; cf. 1 Cor 3:11), but here Peter functions as the foundation rock as the apostles and prophets do in Ephesians 2:20-21…Jesus does not simply assign this role arbitrarily to Peter, however; Peter is the ‘rock’ because he is the one who confessed Jesus as the Christ in this context (16:15-16)…” (Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Eerdmans, 1999], page 426-427)

John Peter Lange (Protestant)
The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun… The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock”, etc.” (Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8 [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976], page 293, JPK page 19)

Thomas G. Long (Presbyterian/Reformed)
“Since, in the original Greek, Petros and petra both mean ‘rock,’ it is easy to spot this statement as a pun, a play on words: ‘Your name is “Rock,” and on this “rock” I will build my church.’ Jesus’ meaning is plain: Peter is the rock, the foundation, upon which he is going to erect his church…Jesus spoke Aramaic, however, not Greek. In Aramaic, the words for ‘Peter’ and ‘rock’ are the same (Kepha)…the most plausible interpretation of the passage is that Jesus is, indeed, pointing to Peter as the foundation stone, the principal leader, of this new people of God…there is much evidence that he also played a primary leadership role in the early Christian church…For the church, the new people of God, Peter was, indeed, the ‘rock,’ corresponding to Abraham of old, who was ‘the rock from which you were hewn’ (Isa. 51:1).” (Long, Matthew [Westminster John Knox Press, 1997], page 185, 186)

Gerhard Maier (Lutheran)
“Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which — in accordance with the words of the text — applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.” (“The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate,” Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58, JPK pages 16-17)

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.’ Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man’s name, however, Simon was not called petra but petros. The word petros was not an exact synonym of petra; it literally meant ‘stone.’ Jesus therefore had to switch to the word petra when He turned from Peter’s name to what it meant for the Church. 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. Because of the revelation that he had received and the confession that it motivated in him, Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future church.” (Ridderbos, Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew [Zondervan, 1987], page 303 as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 35-36)

Eduard Schweizer (Presbyterian/Reformed)
“The ‘rock’ is Peter himself, not his confession. Only on this interpretation does the pun make sense.” (Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew [John Knox Press, 1975], page 341)
 
No, I wasn’t referring to John 1:42; W.F. Albright was referring to Mt. 16:19.
So, you are claiming the Greek NT Mat 16 uses the Aramaic word cephus and not petros??? Where can I verify this claim?
No, Ginger. This is simply untenable. Scholars agree that by the time that Matthew was written, the differences between these meanings had disappeared.
Scholars don’t agree, but I’ll give you a chance to prove it.

Find a secular writing from the time of Jesus that uses petra and petros in the exact same manner.

That will settle it for me.
 
You were making more sense before. Jesus also told them to obey Caesar. It was not to say Caesar spoke for God tho, was it.
Sorry, I guess I missed that part where Jesus told His followers to obey Caesar. Is there some text where He says upon this Caesar, He will build His Church?

If you look at the Scriptures as a whole, and include the early Church Fathers, it’s very clear that the Catholic understanding of Matthew 16:18 is completely in line with Scriptures and Tradition. It’s really the only thing that makes any sense whatsoever in the full context. Please stop taking things out of context, and twisting them to portray something Christ didn’t say. Remember, we’re talking about Christ here, our Lord. When people like you put false words in Christ’s mouth, we as His Mystical Body who love Him will stand up for His truth, and defend against those who like you pose a heretical view. What you’re proposing is not very intelligent in the full view of context, as it doesn’t fit in with context, nor does it help you to come to Christ.
 
So, you are claiming the Greek NT Mat 16 uses the Aramaic word cephus and not petros??? Where can I verify this claim?
I’m not sure I understand the confusion.

Matthew may have written his gospel in Hebrew (or Aramaic) or he may have written it in Greek. Scholars may argue this point, though my understanding is that most agree that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (or Aramaic) and later written in Greek, also. No matter.

What is generally agreed upon by these scholars is that Jesus spoke Aramaic.

Thus, Jesus said, “You are kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.” There was no distinction between a big, immovable rock and a little pebble in Aramaic, and there was no distinction between Peter and the rock upon which Christ would build the Church.

If you have taken the time to read the 20+ quotations I provided, you will see that this is the position of prominent Protestant scholars. The debate on this point is OVER.
Scholars don’t agree, but I’ll give you a chance to prove it. Find a secular writing from the time of Jesus that uses petra and petros in the exact same manner. That will settle it for me.
I’ll do my best, but the point is moot. The distinction between petra and petros is overridden by the fact that Aramaic, not Greek, is the deciding factor.
 
Scholars don’t agree, but I’ll give you a chance to prove it.

Find a secular writing from the time of Jesus that uses petra and petros in the exact same manner.

That will settle it for me.
I don’t have the secular writing you requested nor do I have a lifetime to spend studying ancient Greek literature. Fortunately, other people have done the work, and one of them is the respected Baptist scholar, D.A. Carson:
Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek [emphasis added], the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. 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). (D.A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.)

Carson’s points are these:
  1. The distinctions between petra and petros were evident in Greek poetry prior to the period of the NT.
  2. Aramaic is more relevant since that is the language that Jesus spoke regardless of the language that Matthew chose to record it in.
Ginger, Protestant scholars have already conceded this point. I realize that there are some big implications for you. However, you can’t ignore the facts simply because they don’t suit your theology.
 
I’m not sure I understand the confusion.

Matthew may have written his gospel in Hebrew (or Aramaic) or he may have written it in Greek. Scholars may argue this point, though my understanding is that most agree that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (or Aramaic) and later written in Greek, also. No matter.

What is generally agreed upon by these scholars is that Jesus spoke Aramaic.

Thus, Jesus said, “You are kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.” There was no distinction between a big, immovable rock and a little pebble in Aramaic, and there was no distinction between Peter and the rock upon which Christ would build the Church.
  1. I don’t put much faith in what scholars say as I have found they are prone to give opinions which don’t always correspond to historical fact. They are also prone to bias, and often state their opinions as fact - even when it directly contradicts the facts. Why you think non-Catholic scholars will hold authority with me over Catholic, I can’t understand. I do not respect human beings as most are either intentional or unintentional liars, IMO.
  2. Even if you could show Jesus spoke Aramaic, which would contradict the Scriptural evidence, you still have no way of proving he said “You are kepha, and on this kepha …” because you do not have the original text. All you have is the Peshitta which was written after the Greek, and contains other discrepancies from the Greek besides Mat 16.
The distinction between petra and petros is overridden by the fact that Aramaic, not Greek, is the deciding factor.
Like I said, you don’t know what was originally said in Aramaic/Hebrew, because you don’t have the texts to see.

If the words were really the exact same, why would the original Greek text depart from that and use two different words, which you have already admitted you cannot prove your claim they are synonymous, but that secular writings do indeed show there are different.

Ginger
 
Ginger, Protestant scholars have already conceded this point. I realize that there are some big implications for you. However, you can’t ignore the facts simply because they don’t suit your theology.
Oh yes, the infallible Protestant scholars!!!

Why do you quote those you consider to be deceived? Are they only deceived when they disagree with your opinion and then suddenly provide infallible statements when they agree with you?

Very interesting… 😛
 
…"… the distinction is largely confined to poetry. …" (D.A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.)
This doesn’t say “exclusively confined to poetry”, so I don’t get your rational for dismissing it. There is a distinction between the two words, yet you seem to look for anything that you can use as an excuse to ignore the fact.

Where is the proof, these two words lost all distinctive properties by Jesus day? The Peshitta suggests a distinction between the two.

Ginger
 
I don’t know where you’re getting that from. Look, this scripture is very simple: Jesus asked His disciples a question, and Peter answered it. So Jesus turned the conversation to Peter, and then at the end turned it back to all His disciples. Here are the words used:

“I will give you (su) the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.”

Strong’s:

su <4771>

Origin: the person pronoun of the second person singular

“Who do you (humeis) say I am?”

Strong’s:

humeis <5210>

Origin: irregular plural of 4771

Well I certainly don’t think you’re intentionally distorting Scripture, but that is the bottom line. I don’t think you’ll find a single Father or Doctor - Greek or Latin - who said that anyone on earth but Peter and his successors held the Keys of the Kingdom. Even Tertullian, who rejected the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, said that Peter was given the keys; he just denied that that authority was handed down to Peter’s successors. And he ended up a schismatic, and fell into many heresies. If you go to Scripture Catholic you’ll see at the first three links (The Church) tons of quotes from the early Church, and they all spoke with one voice, including on the Keys of the Kingdom.

And, yes, of course our Lord has given us power and authority through faith in Him. But as I said, the ultimate authority on earth is the Pope.

Of course they’re not equivalent! How dare you! 😃 The point is that there are multiple keys!
You overlook the complexity of the Greek; if it were in the plural, then there would be more than one key that “permits and refrains” or “loose and bind” or let one “into the gate of heaven or keep them out”; however since there is one authority or key; the the “you” is used in the singular and I discovered it must be that way because the object must match, with few exceptions. I was mistaken when I said it was plural. In fact, if were anyone other than singular, then it would not make sense unless there is more than a single key that opens the door to heaven, which Peter and the rest of the apostles were given the “Key” or “authority” which opens or shuts out people from heaven. he authority comes in and through the profession of Peter, the Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Here is the example: I have a handful of keys, 12 to be exact, and I say “I am giving each of you a key.” This is what Jesus is saying. I kept stumbling on the fact that “keys” was plural and the you was singular, which is a problem because the indefinite pronoun will act on the object. The clear object in this case is the “keys”, but it is a “single” key given to each one that solves the riddle. The substantive in the dative is given (or receives) the direct object of an active verb, or is given (or receives) the subject of a passive verb. If dative can be translated ‘to’ or ‘for’, then it is most likely an indirect object, which in this case is true. For further evidence in Scripture; look at Matthew 5:42 & Luke 6:30 as other examples.

We know from the day of Pentecost all of the apostles preached the word in a variety of tongues, Furthermore, we know the authority is given to all Christians that can articulate the gospel. This is real world reality that we see everyday and what is witnessed in the gospel.
 
This doesn’t say “exclusively confined to poetry”, so I don’t get your rational for dismissing it. There is a distinction between the two words, yet you seem to look for anything that you can use as an excuse to ignore the fact.
Ginger, the truth is the other way around. Non-Catholic scholars who have spent their lives studying this stuff have concluded that (a) Jesus spoke Aramaic and (b) the distinction between petra and petros is insignificant.

So, the real question is: Why do you choose to ignore the work of these brilliant Protestant men who clearly have NO INTEREST in supporting Catholic doctrine?
Where is the proof, these two words lost all distinctive properties by Jesus day? The Peshitta suggests a distinction between the two.

Ginger
You asked for information concerning the Greek writing of the period.

Happily, there is an older thread which I bumped for you in the Sacred Scripture forum entitled, “Petros/Petra?”.

In that thread, someone did an fair bit of work analyzing the Greek of Homer.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5680879#post5680879
 
But, I’m not sure what difference it makes. Protestants could point out that Paul wrote far more Scripture than Peter.
Nobody disputes that Saul was far more educated than Simon. 🙂

Seems like a lot of effort regarding regarding the gender of the word for Peter.

If we were speaking German I would imagine we be arguing the gender of the word Madchen (girl) which is neuter “das madchen” vs. “die madchen” and somehow tying it to Mary’s perpetual virginity.

If he called Peter mustard seed - he could move a mountain (a really really big rock).

Sorry I’m in a weird mood this morning.

Perhaps my point is are we missing the forest for the trees. Anyway, I look at it as very hard to believe that it and the following verses are not about Peter.

The passage that seals it for me is 24:27. This is what the Church has always taught, and it is what we see in its great saints. The Church teaches that we all (even protestants) must deny themselves. take up their cross and follow Him. We are all to be as heroic according to our vocation (married, single, religious etc) as say mother Teresa or St. Francis. I don’t see this as emphasized in protestant circles, yes of course many many protestants do deny themselves and do great works of charity etc. but it seems more optional in the theology.
 
Here is the example: I have a handful of keys, 12 to be exact, and I say “I am giving each of you a key.” This is what Jesus is saying. I kept stumbling on the fact that “keys” was plural and the you was singular, which is a problem because the indefinite pronoun will act on the object.
Where does it say 12, why not 3, 7 or 144,000?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top