"But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter said in reply "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God."
Matthew 16:15-16
My blog today is about the scripture passage in Matthew, 16:13-20. This passage, I have discovered, is so conflicted between the Christian denominations. I myself ran into this conflict with my friend Colin.
Back in March he and I talked about it. Recall, if you will, the part of the passage here...
"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt 16:16-18)
According to my friend, Jesus was saying that he himself was the rock and that the church was built on him.
However, this cannot be so. I have done so much research on this, I'm finding it quite hard to put into words!
So let me begin...I italicized the important words in the passage that I am going to be deciphering.
Four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians we have the Aramaic form of Simon's new name preserved for us. In out English Bibles it comes out as Cephas...That's not Greek, that's a transliteration(which means to represent letters or words written in one alphabet using the corresponding letters of another) of the Aramaic word Kepha.
Well what does Kepha mean? Why is it important? It means rock, the same as Petra. It doesn't mean little stone or pebble. What Jesus said to Simon was this "You are Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my Church."
Does that make sense?
Now I found an argument against this...
"If kepha means the same as petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?"
The reason is that he had no choice. In Greek and Aramaic there are different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use Kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings. You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matt 16:18 without trouble. But you can't use it as Simon's new name, because you can't give a man a feminine name(at least back then you couldn't. ;P) You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock. It's a rather imperfect rendering of the Aramiac...You lose part of the play on words. In English, we have 'Peter' and 'rock,' you lose all of it but really, that's the best you can do in Greek.
I took both Latin and Italian so I understand the whole grammatical situations. It makes so much sense to me.
However, those who have not taken another language don't understand this concept.
But if they really and truly wanted to understand the whole truth about this passage you would think one would go as far as looking up this bit of information. It is small, but small things make big differences.
Now, it is not only the translation that proves our belief, but also the interpretation and understanding of the structure of this verse. I would probably end up rambling for 3 pages before actually getting out what I'm trying to say so I found someone who described it very well...
"Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church(That part is just great! Don't you agree?). . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. "
- Karl Keating
There, plain and simple yet quite thorough. Every time I am able to understand a verse in the Bible as much as there is knowledge of it, I become so happy! When I discovered these interpretations, guided to me by the grace of the Holy Spirit, I was crying tears of joy. I had the perfect refute to my friends accusations! =]
Ok, I got that cleared out of my system! Now let me talk a little bit about the Keys Jesus gave Peter. Our priest at Saint Aloysius did a very good job covering this, let me see if I can remember what he said, put into my own words of course!
In Matthew 16:19 Jesus says this;
"And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."
First off, notice the word "Keys" is italicized and underlined. This word is connected with the other two words that are italicized. Why? Because Jesus gave Peter two keys. One key for binding; the ability to grant forgiveness, and one key for loosing; the ability to withhold forgiveness.(If I am remembering Fathers homily correctly...Might be vice-versa.)
Sound familiar at all? Since then, men known as priests have been given the ability and responsibility to forgive and withhold forgiveness of our sins confessed to them.
This is what I have to say about this past Sunday's reading. It is my favorite for two reasons. One: Because it shows us that Jesus passed on his authority to Peter and all the Pope's that were to follow. He made sure to take care of us through all generations. Number two: Because I get to show protestants the Truth about Peter and all the Popes.
May the Grace of God remain always with you!
God Bless,
~Katherine