What is the church Christ founded?

[marco]

From Matthew 16 we have:

17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 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.



Discussion has taken place over what Christ meant here. It seems clear enough he was using a pun on Peter's name, a rock, when he was founding his earthly church on Peter's shoulders.


That would give authority to the RC Church which takes Peter as the first Pope.


However it is argued that Jesus meant that HE was the rock and he was founding his Church on himself, as rock. As the words stand, that seems a spurious interpretation.

So what do the words mean?

[PinSeeker]

Sorry, don't feel like retyping, and linking is here (in my humble opinion) insufficient:

'THIS' IN MATTHEW 16:17,18
An antecedent in grammar is the noun or statement to which a relative pronoun refers. In this case, the antecedent is Christ, not Peter. Some disagree, and that is completely understandable, but it must be admitted, though, that both positions are at least equally valid. What tilts the scales irrevocably in favor of Christ is -- aside from the fact that the whole of the Bible is about Christ -- that 'this' is used in both verses 17 and 18, and both occurrences of 'this' have the same antecedent. The antecedent in this case does not occur between the two, but rather before both. The antecedent, 'Christ' -- which is a little bit obscured by the fact that it is contained in Peter's confession -- is in the verse previous to both 17 and 18, verse 16.

Having said this, though, a discussion regarding Peter is well warranted:

PETER IS A ROCK
Peter’s confession is the rock to which Jesus refers, and this makes good sense, but we err if we say that Peter himself is not in any sense a rock upon which the church is built (again, as I have referenced several times, Ephesians 2:22).

But there is a play on words in the original Greek text. Peter’s name, Petros, is based on petra, that is, “rock� (v. 18). In other words, Jesus declares, “Simon, you are the rock, and on this rock I will build my church.� Peter has primacy in the church — a historical primacy, not papal primacy. Jesus addressed Peter as representative of the Twelve. The use of the two different forms of the Greek for rock would be explained by the masculine petros being used of Peter as an individual man and petra being used of him as the representative of the larger group. So, Jesus says, in effect:

• "You are Peter, a small stone (as all other believers are), and on this group of small stones (you and the other apostles) and Me as the cornerstone, I will build My church."

It was not on the apostles themselves, much less on Peter as an individual, that Christ built His church, but on the apostles as His uniquely appointed, endowed, and inspired teachers of the gospel.

PETER'S HISTORICAL PRIMACY
Aside from being the first to confess Christ, Peter is the first apostle to extend the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10), and his leadership and teaching set the stage for the church’s expansion and maturity (chap. 1–15; 1 and 2 Peter).

PETER ON PETER
Two things:

• * Peter, by His own testimony, did not see himself as the rock on which the church was founded. He wrote that we are living stones, but Jesus is the cornerstone. We could say that Peter was the “first rockâ€� among “many rocks.â€�
  
  * Peter said as much in 1 Peter 2:4-5: "Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

THE CHURCH?
The ancient Greek word 'ekklesia' was not primarily a religious word at all; it just meant, “group� or “called-out group.� In describing the later group of His followers and disciples, Jesus deliberately chose a word without a distinctly religious meaning.

CONCLUSION
We must conclude (with John Calvin, as abhorrent as that may be to some):

• “It is a foolish inference of the Papists, that he received the primacy, and became the universal head of the whole Church. Rank is a different thing from power, and to be elevated to the highest place of honor among a few persons is a different thing from embracing the whole world under his dominion.â€�

[shnarkle]

From Matthew 16 we have:

17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 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.



Discussion has taken place over what Christ meant here. It seems clear enough he was using a pun on Peter's name, a rock, when he was founding his earthly church on Peter's shoulders.


That would give authority to the RC Church which takes Peter as the first Pope.


However it is argued that Jesus meant that HE was the rock and he was founding his Church on himself, as rock. As the words stand, that seems a spurious interpretation.

So what do the words mean?

The answer to this dilemma is found in the Greek itself. When the author states "on this rock", it is in the feminine (e.g. "taute te petra"), but Peter's name is masculine. "petros", and a feminine article and noun cannot refer to a masculine name.

Some have argued that the author couldn't very well have given Peter a feminine name like Petrina or Patricia now could he? While this is quite true, it doesn't trump elementary Greek grammar.

There is nothing preventing the author from writing "tautw tw petrw".

Protestants have also argued that "petros" refers to a stone while "petra" refers to an immovable boulder. Catholics have refuted this argument by pointing out that this distinction exists within Attic Greek, but not the koine of the bible which is all the more reason why the author should have used "petrw" rather than "petra" if he meant to refer to Peter rather than his confession.

[ttruscott]

So what do the words mean?

You have left out the pertinent part:

Matt 16:15 “But what about you?� Jesus asked. “Who do you say I am?� 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.� 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven.…18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.…

The Rock is not Peter himself but his confession.

[marco]

'THIS' IN MATTHEW 16:17,18
An antecedent in grammar is the noun or statement to which a relative pronoun refers. In this case, the antecedent is Christ, not Peter.

We don't have a relative pronoun. We have THIS, which is a demonstrative pronoun in the first case, and certainly refers to Peter's statement. Then we have THIS, a different part of speech, a demonstrative adjective, which relates to "rock".

What tilts the scales irrevocably in favor of Christ is -- aside from the fact that the whole of the Bible is about Christ -- that 'this' is used in both verses 17 and 18, and both occurrences of 'this' have the same antecedent.

They don't have the same antecedent. The adjectival usage has no antecedent. One could argue, wrongly, that "this rock" refers to something in an earlier sentence and completely disregards the start of the sentence about Peter.


There is also the matter of the conjunction "and". Unless we interpret "rock" as a pun on Peter, the first clause has no meaning, and the word "and" is wrongly used.


Further explanatory notes about Peter are not relevant.

[marco]

The answer to this dilemma is found in the Greek itself. When the author states "on this rock", it is in the feminine (e.g. "taute te petra"), but Peter's name is masculine. "petros", and a feminine article and noun cannot refer to a masculine name.

The Greek is also a translation of what Christ actually said. Of course Peter's name has a masculine form: but the root of the name pertains to stone. There is no problem with having a man's name attached to an object, metaphorically, that is neuter or feminine. The play on words still works.

Protestants have also argued that "petros" refers to a stone while "petra" refers to an immovable boulder. Catholics have refuted this argument by pointing out that this distinction exists within Attic Greek, but not the koine of the bible which is all the more reason why the author should have used "petrw" rather than "petra" if he meant to refer to Peter rather than his confession.

This is all very well but the simple fact is that Christ did not speak in Greek: we have an attempted rendering of his words. This applies in Latin and in English, or whatever language we are reading. In Latin the pun works perfectly well, since it is clear that the name "Peter" is derived from stone. Unless we say that the English translation is flawed, and had no inspiration from God, we are at liberty to examine that and make deductions.

"Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church" is a simple statement containing two principal clauses joined by the conjunction "and". If we take Peter's name to be associated with stone then the meaning is crystal clear: Christ is endowing Peter with power.

The structure of the sentence leads to ONE interpretation: You are X and on X I will build. Otherwise Christ should have said:


You are Peter BUT I will be building my church, not on you, but on some metaphorical rock. There is too much shuffling and changing just to avoid the interpretation that Rome has taken for centuries. That is the way of reformers, I suppose; when Christ's words don't suit their theories, they alter the words, not the theories.

[marco]

The Rock is not Peter himself but his confession.

Not as the words are written. You are Peter AND …. anticipates an explanatory attachment to Peter. There is an obvious pun on Peter and rock, so it is unreasonable to ignore this and call the "rock" Peter's statement, or "Peter's truth". If we take that meaning then the words: "Thou art Peter" are meaningless and silly.

Instead: Listen Peter, I will build my church on the rock of the faith you just expressed would make sense BUT Christ did not say this.

I am reminded of the reading of the words "I tell you today you will be with me in Paradise" as being inconvenient for some theologies and so a silly comma is inserted after today, thus making Christ, minutes from death communicate to the repentant thief that his words are spoken "today" and the voyage to Paradise might take place some millennia away.

Perhaps it is better NOT to adjust Christ's words to suit what we want to believe.

[shnarkle]

The answer to this dilemma is found in the Greek itself. When the author states "on this rock", it is in the feminine (e.g. "taute te petra"), but Peter's name is masculine. "petros", and a feminine article and noun cannot refer to a masculine name.

The Greek is also a translation of what Christ actually said. Of course Peter's name has a masculine form: but the root of the name pertains to stone. There is no problem with having a man's name attached to an object, metaphorically, that is neuter or feminine. The play on words still works.

Protestants have also argued that "petros" refers to a stone while "petra" refers to an immovable boulder. Catholics have refuted this argument by pointing out that this distinction exists within Attic Greek, but not the koine of the bible which is all the more reason why the author should have used "petrw" rather than "petra" if he meant to refer to Peter rather than his confession.

This is all very well but the simple fact is that Christ did not speak in Greek: we have an attempted rendering of his words. This applies in Latin and in English, or whatever language we are reading. In Latin the pun works perfectly well, since it is clear that the name "Peter" is derived from stone. Unless we say that the English translation is flawed, and had no inspiration from God, we are at liberty to examine that and make deductions.

"Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church" is a simple statement containing two principal clauses joined by the conjunction "and". If we take Peter's name to be associated with stone then the meaning is crystal clear: Christ is endowing Peter with power.

The structure of the sentence leads to ONE interpretation: You are X and on X I will build. Otherwise Christ should have said:


You are Peter BUT I will be building my church, not on you, but on some metaphorical rock. There is too much shuffling and changing just to avoid the interpretation that Rome has taken for centuries. That is the way of reformers, I suppose; when Christ's words don't suit their theories, they alter the words, not the theories.

So essentially what you're saying is that due to the fact that the original conversation took place in a gender neutral language, the author of this narrative got it wrong. Again, what prevented him from using "tautw tw petrw" instead? That would have made it just as seamless as its original gender neutral articulation.

Your claim doesn't negate the fact that "taute te petra" can't grammatically refer to Peter. No one is discounting or ignoring the wordplay here.

[brianbbs67]

Peter's role, whatever that was, seems irrelevant. Historically, it appears James the Just headed the Jerusalem church. Peter's belief may have founded this but he was not the first church leader or the second, Simeon, or the third, Jude.

[marco]

So essentially what you're saying is that due to the fact that the original conversation took place in a gender neutral language, the author of this narrative got it wrong. Again, what prevented him from using "tautw tw petrw" instead? That would have made it just as seamless as its original gender neutral articulation.

Well essentially I am saying that an exploration of the gender of words does not give any explanation of the meaning of Christ's statement. It is obvious there is a play on petros and petra.

No one is discounting or ignoring the wordplay here

Jesus has just asked "Who do you say that I am?" Christ's reply to Peter picks up and echoes this question: And I say that YOU ARE PETER.


The various translations continue "AND", which means the next clause builds upon "You are Peter". It cannot grammatically refer back to what Peter answered, though the earlier "this" does indeed refer back to Peter's words. It must, to make sense, refer to Peter, the rock.

Effectively, and with beautiful rhetoric, Christ is saying: And I tell you who you are, Peter, a rock, on which I will build my church, never allowing misinterpretation or selfish interest to destroy what I am offering you. The words in translation, by Christ's wish, mean what they say, without twisting them out of shape.