The "it" in matt 16 18

[Fatima-Crusader]

From my understanding the reflexive pronoun “it” at the end of the sentence agrees grammatically with “rock” as they are both in the dative case, whereas “church” is in the accusative case. Correct me if im wrong but when the gates of Hell cant prevail is it just talking about peters seat or the ekklesia?

 

[Nmc]

The mystical body of Christ

 

[BartholomewB]

In Matthew’s Greek, the last word of this verse, αὐτῆς, translated as “it”, is a feminine pronoun agreeing with its antecedent, the feminine noun ἐκκλησίαν, “church”.
https://biblehub.com/text/matthew/16-18.htm

 

[De_Maria]

The “it” in matt 16 18
From my understanding the reflexive pronoun “it” at the end of the sentence agrees grammatically with “rock” as they are both in the dative case, whereas “church” is in the accusative case. Correct me if im wrong but when the gates of Hell cant prevail is it just talking about peters seat or the ekklesia?

I don’t know anything about the grammar. But, the reference is to a military siege. Therefore, I believe it is a reference to the Church, the Institution which Jesus Christ established to combat evil.

 

[Bithynian]

The word used is αὐτή. Here, it is not being used reflexively as it does not agree grammatically (specifically, in terms of number) with the subject, αἱ πύλαι, of the main verb κατισχύσουσιν. If it were being used reflexively, αὐτῶν would be used. (NB: This would not make much sense: “The gates of Hades will not prevail against themselves” is the result of a reflexive pronoun being used.)

Instead, here it is being used as the third person personal noun. Grammatically, the antecedent of αὐτή could either be ἡ πέτρα (the rock) or ἡ ἐκκλησία (the church): αὐτή agrees with both in gender and number. When αὐτή is used as a third person personal pronoun, it does not need to agree with the case of its antecedent, only gender and number.

Most reasonably, the antecedent of αὐτή is ἡ ἐκκλησία, as it is syntactically the closest word. If αὐτή did refer to ἡ πέτρα, I would expect the verse to read more like:

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐλλκησίαν ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αυτῆς.

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and I will build my church upon this rock and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.”

In this example, the phrase “ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ” (upon this rock) has been moved closer to “καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αυτῆς” (and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it).

 

[Jonathan2]

Can someone help me with an expose of whether the rock used is small rock, as in pebble, or an immovable rock, as in the Conner stone referring to Christ

 

[BartholomewB]

Ah yes, petros and petra, the old Protestant objection to citing this verse as support for the papacy. The standard answer to that objection, I believe, is that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, and keifa (כֵּיפָא ) means rock as in “immovable rock” or “living rock”, but when Matthew was writing his Gospel in Greek, it would have been unsuitable, for obvious reasons, to give him the feminine name Petra.

 

[edward_george1]

Also, the distinction between “Petra” and “Petros” being “boulder” and “pebble” didn’t exist in the Koine Greek of the New Testament, but in the Attic dialect.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[Gorgias]

Grammatically, the antecedent of αὐτή could either be ἡ πέτρα (the rock) or ἡ ἐκκλησία (the church): αὐτή agrees with both in gender and number.

And considering that, just a few verses later, Jesus rebukes Peter, it’s pretty obvious that it’s the church and not just anyone who is part of it who will not fall…

 

[De_Maria]

If you notice, in Scripture, Jesus named Simon, “Cephas”.

John 1:42And 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.

Therefore, when you go to the Matthean text, you can see that Matthew only changed Simon’s name to “Petros” because he is male and identifying as female was not a thing, back then. So, Petra was out of the question.

As indicated by the Johanine text, Jesus probably said, in Aramaic, “You are Cephas and on this cephas, I will build my Church.” I hope that helps.

 

[DaveBj]

Does anyone else notice that a city’s gates are part of its wall, or in other words, part of its defenses? That would change the meaning somewhat – the gates (defenses) of hell will not prevail against (the onslaughts of the forces of) the Church.

I could be wrong. It wouldn’t be the only time that Jesus changed the meaning of a reference in the middle of a pericope.

D

 

[steve-b]

From my understanding the reflexive pronoun “it” at the end of the sentence agrees grammatically with “rock” as they are both in the dative case, whereas “church” is in the accusative case. Correct me if im wrong but when the gates of Hell cant prevail is it just talking about peters seat or the ekklesia?

Excerpted

…“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. The missionary’s argument didn’t work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek”. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).

Context: Peter the Rock | Catholic Answers

I seem to recall that same point was also used by Karl Keating past Pres of Catholic Answers

 

[Jonathan2]

On this topic, a deep excursion of the linguistic patters if the Petras petro time may help a lot.

Like Jesus tells Peter that “Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
To me, and through a cross-reference with Peter’s denial on Christ, and given that Peter later looked down upon the gentiles when Paul confronted him for leaving the table where the gentiles were eating, Peter was a rolling stone and not the immovable stone upon which the gates of hell shall not prevail.
Christ talks to Peter as to a disciple, that you are Peter, you are a rolling stone. In other words, Peter shall be tempted often and often, but he’s given the mandate to strengthen the church of God. Christ, on the other hand, is the solid Rock, the cornerstone, the immovable rock. He who builds on the solid rock shall not be moved and tossed to and fro. When Peter later realised his instability, he cried and repented bitterly and remorseful. It’s like saying, "thou art Peter, and upon ‘this rock’, ‘’‘myself’’’ as in Jesus Christ, the gates of hell shall not prevail.

The gates of hell in this case indicates the snares of Satan.

The word Peter signifies a stone,—a rolling stone. Peter was not the rock upon which the church was founded. The gates of hell did prevail against him when he denied his Lord with cursing and swearing…That Rock is Himself,—His own body, for us broken and bruised. Against the church built upon this foundation, the gates of hell shall not prevail.

 

[BartholomewB]

The word Peter signifies a stone,—a rolling stone.

Did the Greek language share with English the idiomatic expression “a rolling stone,” to denote someone who lacks perseverance, who seems unable to go on doing the same job for any length of time?
I suspect it probably didn’t, and that you’re reading into Matthew’s Greek something that isn’t there.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Christ, on the other hand, is the solid Rock,

Yes, Christ is referred to as a rock. Christ is the type of rock from the Old Testament.

To me, and through a cross-reference with Peter’s denial on Christ,

This is the wrong “cross-reference”. The proper context for understanding what is happening with Peter becoming the rock is found in the next verse after verse 18:

Verse 19:
”I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.”

Jesus is passing His authoritative teaching position/office to Peter. Now, Peter becomes the rock on which the Church is built.

The gates of hell did prevail against him when he denied his Lord

The “gates of hell” will not prevail against the Church. The passage is not necessarily about the gates of hell not prevailing against Peter.

 

[Zaccheus]

The gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church.

Does anyone else notice that a city’s gates are part of its wall, or in other words, part of its defenses? That would change the meaning somewhat – the gates (defenses) of hell will not prevail against (the onslaughts of the forces of) the Church.

That was pointed out to me a long time ago. Indeed. The defences of Hell will fail against the assault of the Church.

 

[Zaccheus]

Also, the distinction between “Petra” and “Petros” being “boulder” and “pebble” didn’t exist in the Koine Greek of the New Testament, but in the Attic dialect.

-Fr ACEGC

Huh. I was under the impression it didn’t exist at all. That some anti-Catholic made it up.