Fellow Christians, please help on interpreting Matt16:18?

Question

I am a new Christian. I have noticed this question and somehow got a little disturbed: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtGVIm2H8Y9jyMXE4NAp5CLsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20100104180817AAyStPL&show=7#profile-info-VtqfhS4Faa

I have gone through writings of the Christian Fathers and they seem to interpret Matt16:18 to mean that Peter is the rock upon which Jesus built His church. I am particularly concerned about the writings of Tertullian and Origen, who I read were later separated from the Catholic Church (I am not sure about this but if any Catholic care to answer you can correct me if I am wrong).

Did Tertullian and Origen speak Greek as their native tongue? If they did then that totally debunks the argument of "petros and petra". Were there any Church Father who said explicitly that Peter as petros was not the rock that Jesus built His Church on? Please let me know and give me references. I have been told by my Catholic friend that the "petros and petra" issue was only raised "when Protestantism emerged."

Tertullian (220 A.D.):

"Was anything hid from Peter, who was called the Rock, whereon the Church was built; who obtained the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth?" (Tertullian, De Praescript Haeret).

Origen (230-250 A.D.):

"See what the Lord said to Peter, that great foundation of the Church, and most solid Rock, upon which Christ founded the Church ..." (Origen, In Exodus. Hom. v. . 4 tom. ii).

"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? 'Oh you of little faith,' he says, 'why do you doubt?'" [Matt. 14:31] (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

"Upon him (Peter), as on the earth, the Church was founded." (Origen, Ep. ad. Rom. lib. v.c. 10, tom iv.)

If Greek-speaking Christians who lived closer to the time when the Gospel of Matthew was written said that the rock referred to in Matt16:18 was the rock upon which Christ built His Church, how can I accept the "petros and petra" argument of modern day Christians who do not even speak Greek?

Answer 1

I think Tertullian's native tongue was Latin. But I also think that he spoke Greek well considering that most Christians at the time spoke Greek. Note that the Jews outside Jerusalem also spoke Greek. They used the Septuagint, which was also used by the early Christians. (Septuagint: Greek translation of the Jewish Bible, made in the third century BCE for the Jews living in the Diaspora. The name means 'translation by seventy men' ).



Origen most likely spoke Greek. He was born in Alexandria but was schooled in hellenistic tradition.



The common interpretation of Matthew 16:18 since the time of the apostles was that Peter was the rock and not Jesus. This is not in contrast with other Bible verses that referred to Jesus as the rock. Somewhere else in the Bible, Jesus was referred to as the foundation of the Church and the spiritual rock (1 Cor. 10:4) while in another part of the Bible, the aposltes and prophets were the foundation (Ephesians 2:20 ). In Matthew 16:18, Peter is the rock foundation. Jesus here cannot be the foundation because he is the builder. It was an act appointing Peter as the pastor who would tend the flock (read John 21:8-19). This position (which I will call the Catholic position) is partly supported by Protestant scholars.



Oscar Cullmann, a Lutheran theologian, disagreed with Luther and the Protestant reformers who held that by "rock" Christ did not mean Peter, but meant either himself or the faith of His followers. He believes the meaning of the original Aramaic is very clear: that "Kepha" was the Aramaic word for "rock", and that it was also the name by which Christ called Peter. Yet, Cullmann sharply rejects the Catholic claim that Peter began the papal succession. He writes: "In the life of Peter there is no starting point for a chain of succession to the leadership of the church at large." While he believes the Matthew text is entirely valid and is in no way spurious, he says it cannot be used as "warrant of the papal succession." (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,890753-1,00.html)



There are other Protestant scholars who also partially defend the historical Catholic position about "Rock." They point out that the Gospel of Matthew was not written in the classical Attic form of Greek, but in the Hellenistic Koine dialect in which there is no distinction in meaning between petros and petra. In any case, a petros/petra distinction is irrelevant considering the Aramaic language in which the phrase might well have been spoken. In Greek, of any period, the feminine noun petra could not be used as the given name of a male, which may explain the use of Petros as the Greek word with which to translate Aramaic Kepha.



Other Protestant scholars believe that Jesus in fact did mean to single out Peter as the very rock which he will build upon, but that the passage does nothing to indicate a continued succession of Peter's implied position. They assert that Matthew uses the demonstrative pronoun taute, which allegedly means "this very" or this same, when he refers to the rock on which Jesus' church will be built. He also uses the Greek word for "and", kai. It is alleged that when a demonstrative pronoun is used with kai, the pronoun refers back to the preceding noun. The second rock Jesus refers to must then be the same rock as the first one; and if Peter is the first rock he must also be the second.

Answer 2

Simply, you can't.



There are different dialects of Greek. The bible was written in Koine Greek and in Koine Greek there is absolutely no difference in meaning between Petros and petra, except of implication of gender. (Petros is masculine, petra feminine). It is only in Attic Greek that a difference in meaning exists. Unfortunately for some people who don't want Peter to be the rock, Attic Greek died out centuries before the New Testament was written.

Answer 3

Tertullian spoke Latin as his heart language. He lived in North Africa and it's anybody's guess how well he understood Greek. We also don't know if he wrote, spoke, or preached in Greek or in Latin. You can find more about him, and Origen, at sites like http://www.ccel.org



Now for the petra versus petros debate. Petros, as most if not all lexicons will tell you, refers to small rocks like pebbles or small stones. Petra, completely different, refers to bedrock, and even a mountain range, as reported by one of the Greek scholars (Dr. A. T. Robertson may have said this; if he didn't, another competent scholar did),



We also need to discuss the role of Peter in the Church. He never stated he was the chief, the boss, the prince, the pauper, the big dog or the little puppy when it came to being in leadership. He did speak powerful messages, but that was after Pentecost and the coming of the Holy Spirit. He went to jail at least twice rather than deny Jesus, but he also waffled in Antioch, leaving Gentile-background belivers alone when orthodox-style "men from James" came to visit (see the Book of Galatians for details, especially chapter 2). Even in Acts 15, he didn't lead the council--James did! He was a servant who tried to live for the Lord and share the faith with others.



Finally, you're making what could be considered a somewhat elitist comment. We may not speak Greek, and if we did, it isn't anywhere near the same as the Koine' or blue-collar or slang Greek spoken by people away from Athens and its environs. Dr. Ray Summers in his textbook, "Essentials of New Testament Greek" observed that comparing Koine' or New Testament era Greek to standard or Attic Greek (the Athens dialect, rather like the "King's English" of that time) was about like comparing modern English to Chaucer's era (as in, "The Canterbury Tales"). We do have the writings and benefits of people who spent years in study of God's Word. Granted, we could hope to learn from their labors, even to share leftovers in their pantry, to change the figure of speech. But that doesn't mean we can't study the Bible in the original languages or to use the readily available Bible study tools.



Tell you what, why not take a look at sites like http://www.blueletterbible.org Type any word you want to look for, or anybody's name, or a verse or reference, and you'll see what's out there for your personal study. I do wish you the best as you study God's word!

Answer 4

3. What then says Christ? You are Simon, the son of Jonas; you shall be called Cephas. Thus since you have proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begot you; all but saying, As you are son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father. Else it were superfluous to say, You are Son of Jonas; but since he had said, Son of God, to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begot Him, therefore He added this, And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; Matthew 16:18 that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And if not against it, much more not against me. So be not troubled because you are shortly to hear that I shall be betrayed and crucified.

Answer 5

You have discovered a truth that so many refuse to see. Congratulations. Both of those early fathers spoke Greek. Tertullian later left the Church, Origen did not. Keep searching out the truth friend. Pax Christi

Answer 6

Protestants would have you believe that Jesus was referring to Himself when HE made this statement. The fact is, Jesus does not talk in run about manner. HE is very deliberate in HIS communication with Peter. Let's look at it linguistically...



1-Jesus gets Peter's attention

2-Jesus then tells him who he is... "You are Peter..."

3-Jesus then continues to address Peter... "and upon this rock, I will build MY Church" --- Notice how Jesus builds HIS Church, not Peter's Church... However, HE builds it UPON Peter.



There would be no reason for anyone to call out to another, address them by name, then switch back to talking about themselves. Linguistically, that makes no sense. Jesus, as such IS referring to Peter. As for Origen and Tertullian, they are the early Church Fathers... the early Christians who conveyed the message of Christ, that was verbally conveyed through the Apostles.



There is no denying that the Church Fathers would know what they are talking about. For anyone after that to say any different is ignoring Sacred Tradition... After all, the Bible was not given to the world until 397AD, and by the Catholic Church at that...



If you want the fullness of the faith, you can come find it in the 2000 years of Church history... Catholic Church history... the Church that Jesus said Himself, that HE would build upon St. Peter.



GOD BLESS...

Answer 7

Christ was referring to himself when he said the church would be built on this rock. There is no way that Peter could sustain the church down through the ages as he died and was buried. Christ has sustained his church down through the ages despite persecution and destruction. Christ is the only one that has power to protect and sustain the lives of his people down through the ages. The word hell was translated from the Greek word hades which means grave. Christ was saying that his church would continue down through the ages even until this day. Here we see a biblical account of Christ protecting his church in the end time just before he returns. You must understand that when the word woman is used in prophecy it means church. (Revelation 12:15 So the serpent spewed water out of his mouth like a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood. Revelation12:16 But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the flood which the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. Rev 12:17 And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.) The woman is the church that keeps the commandments of God. Christ is the one who has perpetuated his church down through the ages. It did not die out and go to the grave. He is that eternal rock who has sustained us all.

Answer 8

I have a detailed explanation on my site;



MATT. 16:16-18 GATES OF HADES/ PETER AS THE ROCK/BINDING AND LOOSING



http://messianicgentiles.blogspot.com/2007/04/acts-155-20-binding-loosing.html

Answer 9

I don't understand your question. I personally think you are a troll trying to prove an irrelevant point.



Anyways.



Peter's name is actually Simon. Jesus named him Cephas which means rock in Aramaic, which means Petra or w/e in Greek. And somehow we get Peter in English.



You already cited the verse where Jesus said He was going to make Peter the foundation of the church. What more do you want?



You don't make any sense. Have a great day.

Answer 10

Matt. 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

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.



Jesus said to Peter that it was GOD who revealed to him (revelation from God) who Jesus is, and THAT is the PETRA that the church was built on, and Peter was the PETROS (prophet seer and revelator).