Posted on 02/28/2015 5:16:22 PM PST by RnMomof7
(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].
JOHN BROADUS
( NINETEENTH-CENTURY CALVINISTIC BAPTIST)
Two quotations from the same work 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 355-356
CRAIG L. BLOMBERG
( CONTEMPORARY BAPTIST)
"The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 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" [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].
JOHN CALVIN
I grant that in Greek Peter(Peteros) and stone (Petra) mean the same thing, save that the first word is Attic[From the Attica region}, the second from the common tongue. New Testament Commentaries The Harmonies of the Gospels Matthew Mark, and Luke Vol. 2 Translated by T.H.L. Parker
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" ["Matthew" in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].
R. T. FRANCE
( CONTEMPORARY ANGLICAN) "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" (Gospel According to Matthew, 254). 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.’ . . . 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" [Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303]. DONALD HAGNER
( CONTEMPORARY EVANGELICAL)
"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] 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" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).
DONALD A. CARSON III
(Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminar )
(two quotations from different works)
Although it is true that petros and petra can mean "stone" and "rock" respectively in earlier Greek, 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. The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke) (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 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. Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78
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 647 Gerhard Maier
(Conservative Evangelical Lutheran theologian)
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
John Peter Lange
(German Protestant scholar)
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
David Hill
(Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies University of Sheffield, England)
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" The New Century Bible Commentary (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261
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 Oscar Cullmann.
(Lutheran Theologian)
He disagrees 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 Religion: Peter & the Rock." Time," Dec. 07, 1953.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,890753-1,00.html
The Holy Spirit had it written in Koine Greek to make a distinction.
True. In 367 Athanasius wrote to the churches in his diocese an Easter letter which is now regarded as the first authoritative statement of the canon of the New Testament. He included several disputed works such as Second Peter and the Book of Revelation, but he excluded The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, First Clement, and The Shepherd of Hermas, which had long been regarded as equal to the apostolic letters. He wrote: "In these [27 books] alone the teaching of godliness is proclaimed. No one may add to them, and nothing may be taken away from them." But his pronouncement was not universally accepted even in Alexandria. Twenty years later, the Alexandrian scholar Didymus the Blind still regarded as authoritative the books that Athanasius excluded, and there were many such examples all over the Empire, both in the East and the West, but by 395 all such dissent had been silenced by the emperor Theodosius. [Church History Institute]
Ping to post # 83.
Sorting them out of the canonical books
Oh, he sorted them out. Okay, got it.
thank you;
Do you also rely on the Talmud as the final authority on how to interpret the subset of the Bible you accept ?
#1...he was not the first or only person to do that.
#2...he didn't THROW them in the garbage, did he?
Would you agree that those who claim he did are lying and trying to deceive?
>I see, you personally decided that a fictional council of anti-Christ Pharisees are the final authority in what should or shouldn’t be in the Old Testament you accept. Do you also rely on the Talmud as the final authority on how to interpret the subset of the Bible you accept ?<
I have no idea what you are talking about, but thanks for the snarky insult anyway. Hope you have a nice day too...
The Bible was whittled down to 66 books because Luther was desperate to get rid of direct statements in Scripture that contradicted his claims. Due to that fact, barring some indication in Scripture or in early Church writings by the Apostles or those directly taught by them that indicates heretics will come along and reduce what they accept to that number, I'd say it has a lot more to do with what Luther could get away with than anything else.
Folks who are focused on Self and Self Alone have become so used to cliches’ and superficial single verse “doctrines” that they don't even realize their defense of accepting only the Anti-Christ Pharisee Approved Luther Subset of Scripture is by definition blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
The only difference between such folks and the leftist useful idiots in this country who adopt whatever they're fed by the media is which media figures they blindly follow.
Non-Catholics have embraced what they once taught against at a rate directly proportional to the rate at which “Christian” media has replaced denominations as the primary source of doctrine for most non-Catholics. Given that media driven embrace of the same standards the non-Christian society embraces, Protestantism is clearly the foundation for the strong delusion Scripture says will lead so many people astray as we approach the second coming of Christ.
Regards
Jesus was saying that the Church would not be built on a little stone like Peter
In the context of the full statement, it does not make sense that Jesus would say that the Church would not be built on a little stone like Peter. Jesus said to Peter: “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Why would Jesus give ‘a little stone’ this level of authority?
>In the context of the full statement, it does not make sense that Jesus would say that the Church would not be built on a little stone like Peter. Jesus said to Peter: “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Why would Jesus give ‘a little stone’ this level of authority?<
What level of authority, exactly? Please define what it is and why it makes a difference. Why couldn’t Peter be given the keys, but the Church still be based on Christ as the foundation rock in the parables of Mt.7.24-25 and Lk.6.48?
Or are you saying that Peter is the foundation rock in the parables of Mt.7.24-25 and Lk.6.48?
Then please also explain why it is Christ that is called petra in Ro.9.33, 1Co.10.4 and 1Pe.2.8 and not Peter.
What level of authority, exactly? Please define what it is and why it makes a difference. Why couldn’t Peter be given the keys, but the Church still be based on Christ as the foundation rock
Jesus is the foundation rock, the cornerstone. He is the One who can give Peter the keys and He is the One who can give Peter the authority to bind and to loose, which He did. I agree that the Church is based on Christ as the foundation rock. But there is no reason that Jesus could not call Peter the rock upon which He will build His church. It makes more sense than for Jesus to tell Peter he’s just a little pebble and then go ahead and give him the keys and the authority to bind and to loose anyway.
#1...he was not the first or only person to do that.
#2...he didn’t THROW them in the garbage, did he?
Would you agree that those who claim he did are lying and trying to deceive?
To say he threw them in the garbage is probably overstating it. Who was the first to sort them out and when was it done?
Oh, so calling them unspired trash and removing them from his version of the Bible isn't the same as throwing them in the garbage?
Of course, they're still not in the Protestant Bible and Protestants swear they're not inspired in spite of their having been accepted right along with the rest of the Old Testament for nearly eighteen hundred years which means whatever you choose to call his throwing them out it's functionally identical to throwing them in the garbage.
Maybe folks should read what Luther had to say about the books Moses wrote and the books he managed to remove before they claim Luther didn't throw them in the garbage.
True, it's far easier to avoid the issue with little word games and it is only your eternal soul at risk for blaspheming the Holy Spirit, so what's the big deal?
Oh, so calling them unspired trash and removing them from his version of the Bible isn’t the same as throwing them in the garbage?
I do not agree with what Luther did. Neither do I agree with those who removed the Deuterocanonical books.
My understanding is that Luther placed these seven books between the Old Testament and New Testament with the description: “Apocrypha: These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read.”
This is not giving these books the respect they deserve, but to say he called them uninspired trash and removed them from his version of the Bible is not quite accurate.
Martin Luther sure lives rent free in many RCs minds! It's noticed you avoided answering what passages in the Apocryphal books - you mistakenly said Luther threw away "because Luther was desperate to get rid of direct statements in Scripture that contradicted his claims" - actually DID contradict his teachings. Go ahead, name them.
WRT the priesthood of all believers, it's funny how Catholics' "first" pope was the one who taught the priesthood of ALL believers. Was HE a heretic? Will you throw out this passage from your Bible?:
>Jesus is the foundation rock, the cornerstone. He is the One who can give Peter the keys and He is the One who can give Peter the authority to bind and to loose, which He did. I agree that the Church is based on Christ as the foundation rock. But there is no reason that Jesus could not call Peter the rock upon which He will build His church. It makes more sense than for Jesus to tell Peter he’s just a little pebble and then go ahead and give him the keys and the authority to bind and to loose anyway.<
Not much of an explanation, but whatever floats your boat.
Obviously you haven’t read what Luther himself wrote as opposed to what his fan club has made easily available and altered to suit their agenda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.