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?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 26 by brianbbs67]

Peter can be relied upon to get it wrong as he does in just a few verses later when Christ refers to him as "Satan". He's can be relied upon to turn tale and run and predictably deny Christ three times. Not exactly what one would choose as a solid foundation for a church.

The subject is who is Jesus.
The answer given is that he's the messiah.
You are Peter, (masculine)
and on this Petra (feminine)
I will build my church.

For some reason people can't help but ignore the fact that no one else is ignoring the fact that there is a word play between Simon's name and his confession of faith, nor that Petra cannot be referring to Peter.
Had the author used the masculine form "petrw" instead, then it would most definitely been a direct reference to Peter rather than his confession. He didn't do that.

[PinSeeker]

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".

I agree, at least to an extent, with this.

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.

I'll clarify. I agree that the adjectival use has no antecedent, but it has a direct object, which is 'rock.' But 'rock' refers back to 'Jesus' in verse 16. You disagree, I know. Read on...

One could argue, wrongly, that "this rock" refers to something in an earlier sentence and completely disregards the start of the sentence about Peter.

Oh this it is not "wrong," but rather the correct analysis and understanding of Jesus's complete statement. He doesn't get Peter to confess Himself as the Christ and then completely reverse course. To think so is terribly wrong... and really quite ludicrous.

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.

I agree with this. I don't know if I would describe it as a "pun," but I'll allow that. Regardless of parts of speech, both occurrences of 'this' (v. 17, 18) refer back to Jesus in verse 16. You disagree, I know, but you -- and Catholicism in general (although I fully realize you are no longer Catholic) -- understand it wrongly. I appreciate the method through which that misunderstanding is arrived, but it is just that: a misunderstanding. We don't want to add anything to what Jesus said, of course, but it would be a ridiculous to think Jesus spoke in a monotone, so in that light, it might be of benefit to put a slightly heavier accent on 'this' in verse 18, thus accentuating the play on words that we both agree is happening here (or that I say is happening but you merely acknowledge its possibility). Here, I'll help:

• 16 "On Christ the solid rock I stand; all other ground is sinking sand. 17 On this I will not be moved. 18 You are marco, and on this rock the Church is built."
  PinSeeker 1:16-18

See what I did there? If you do this, you may see that Jesus is both acknowledging Peter as a rock in the foundation (which he absolutely is; again, Ephesians 3:22 is a great cross-reference) and proclaiming that He Himself, Jesus, is The Rock (the corner stone; Ephesians 3:20) -- which is intensely consistent with the rest of Scripture and that Peter affirms in his confession in verse 16 -- on which His Church is founded. Like I said, Peter himself further proclaims this in the second chapter of his first epistle, where he quotes extensively from what we now refer to as the Old Testament.

Maybe Catholicism and others who mistakenly hold to their understanding disregard both Ephesians 2 and 1 Peter 2 -- in addition to Paul's proclamation to the Church at Corinth (1 Corinthians 3:11), where he says, "...no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." To make their interpretation work, they would have to, much like Judaism purposely ignores parts of their own Torah that acknowledge Christ as the Messiah.

Further explanatory notes about Peter are not relevant.

Yes, stopping is prudent; we don't want to continue to perpetuate the Catholic misunderstanding.

As you like to say, go well. Grace and peace to you in the name of the Rock of our salvation, Christ Jesus.

[PinSeeker]

.
Moderator removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complimenting or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.

[marco]

we are pondering why the writer in rendering the Aramaic does not simply use petros twice. This is NOT, as I have been telling you, a grammatical point but possibly a stylistic one.

The stylistic possibility is not hindered in any way by "tautw tw petrw". More importantly, it is then identical to the gender neutral Aramaic, and would most definitely be referring to Peter. Why didn't the author just do that if he knew Christ was referring to Peter rather than what he confessed?

The simple fact is that the didn't, and eventually people come to the conclusion that Matthew goofed. He got it wrong.

I don't have the geatest faith in Matthew; my position is simply to examine words that have been delivered to us. It is not really possible to analyse Christ's actual speech, and if we have worries over Matthew's veracity, then as Dante said "Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch' entrate."

[shnarkle]

It is not really possible to analyse Christ's actual speech,

No one is suggesting you need to either. All we have is this account, and the account could have used "tautw tw petrw" which would have clearly indicated that the church was built upon Peter. Why wasn't this used instead? It isn't like it would have negated the poetic impact or the figurative way it connects Peter to the foundation of the church. It would have strengthened it beyond all conjecture or doubt.

"You are the Christ"
"You are 'petros"
"and on this "petra", I will build my church"

We all see the connection, but that doesn't negate the fact that petra cannot refer to petros. Petw would, but the author didn't do that, and there no reason for him not to if that was what he meant.

[PinSeeker]

I don't have the geatest faith in Matthew; my position is simply to examine words that have been delivered to us. It is not really possible to analyse Christ's actual speech, and if we have worries over Matthew's veracity, then as Dante said "Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch' entrate."

Ah, so the proposition (solution?) is to put words in the collective mouths of Matthew, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and ultimately God. Collectively speaking... Well, while understood, that is not to be done. But understood.

[marco]

"On Christ the solid rock I stand; all other ground is sinking sand. On this I will not be moved. You are marco, and on this rock the Church is built."

On solid rock you think you stand,
All other ground is sinking sand.
This a noble declaration
Sprung from a false interpretation,
Based not on what Saint Matthew said
But on your own ideas instead.

"This" is an adjective relating to "rock"which is Peter, who is the man on whom Christ has chosen to found his church. Your interpretation causes Christ's statement to lack continity, as if he had overimbibed. In your understanding Christ might as well have said: Hi Peter, I'm building my Church not on you, but on the statement that I'm the Son of God. Boastful, silly and at odds with what is reported. But you are entitled to take whatever meaning you want.

[marco]

I don't have the geatest faith in Matthew; my position is simply to examine words that have been delivered to us. It is not really possible to analyse Christ's actual speech, and if we have worries over Matthew's veracity, then as Dante said "Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch' entrate."

Ah, so the proposition (solution?) is to put words in the collective mouths of Matthew, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and ultimately God. Collectively speaking... Well, while understood, that is not to be done. But understood.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I am taking the statement: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church" and attaching to it the best interpretation one can offer. Peter's name is being used as a pun (it's also called paronomasia, by the way) so that the church is being built on solid foundations as well as on Peter. It is a nice piece of verbal engineering.

Your "interpretation" ignores the word play and grants miraculosu significance to the word "this" when it obviously relates to the first part of the statement, not to something Matthew had for breakfast.

Anyway I've explained all sufficiently well. Further comment would be a waste of time, unless we've got Matthew standing by to offer guidance.

[PinSeeker]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Well that's unfortunate. But I think you do, actually; it's not hard to figure out.

I am taking the statement: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church" and attaching to it the best interpretation one can offer.

Sure, by one with a predisposed inclination to supposition of Scripture, I guess. But if the premise is flawed, the outcome is necessarily flawed, too.

Peter's name is being used as a pun (it's also called paronomasia, by the way) so that the church is being built on solid foundations as well as on Peter. It is a nice piece of verbal engineering.

I know what it is, thanks. But again, your understanding of the "engineering" is only limited. Peter is a rock, and part of the foundation, as I fully acknowledged (because Scripture itself does). But Peter is not the corner stone on which the Church of Christ Jesus is built. Only Christ is, and he proclaims that directly (and chiefly) to Peter, but also indirectly to the other disciples -- who will become apostles -- there with him.

Your "interpretation" ignores the word play...

Oh, not at all; that's far from the case. It's a little funny (in a dark sort of way) that you say that when I very emphatically agreed with you on the point that there is obviously a play on words there.

... and grants miraculous significance to the word "this" when it obviously relates to the first part of the statement, not to something Matthew had for breakfast.

"Miraculous?" That's laughable. Unless you want to call the relating of God's Word to man miraculous, which it very much is.

Anyway I've explained all sufficiently well.

For Catholics, who are mistaken, yes.

Further comment would be a waste of time...

Agreed.

...unless we've got Matthew standing by to offer guidance.

Well, in a figurative sense, we do, actually. Plus we have the rest of Scripture, which can be used to explain Matthew's account very well, as I have done.

Grace and peace to you.

[marco]

It is not really possible to analyse Christ's actual speech,

"You are the Christ"
"You are 'petros"
"and on this "petra", I will build my church"

We all see the connection, but that doesn't negate the fact that petra cannot refer to petros. Petw would, but the author didn't do that, and there no reason for him not to if that was what he meant.

. I have no problem with Matthew using two words, the first to identify Peter himself, and the second to associate him with the church, ekklésia, which incidentally is feminine. There's no reason why petra, the word for rock, cannot be used here, especially since it is being essentially linked to ekklésia.

The Latin rendering gives us a better idea than does English: Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram .... the masculine form is used for the name and both words have the same root, making perfect sense.