New Covenant only for Jews?

[Illuminator]

Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.

Immediately followed by "therefore", a conjunction, linking verse 18 with 19.
3767 oún (a conjunction) – therefore, now then, accordingly so. 3767 (oún) occurs 526 times in the NT and is typically translated "therefore" which means, "By extension, here's how the dots connect."

Strong's Greek: 3767. οὖν (oun) -- therefore, then, (and) so

biblehub.com

And to no one else.

Wrong. Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

It would be IMPOSSIBLE for the Apostles to accomplish any of this without a share in Christ's all authority, that you call "abominable desecrating heretical blasphemies."

Your anti-authority mentality is reckless and stupid; you end up incriminating yourself.

What Jesus never said.​

 

[robert derrick]

Why does it say the "New Covenant" Jesus made is only for the Jews?

Hebrews 8:8 - But God found fault with the people and said: “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.

For those who say that Christians are not now the Israel of God, and that Jews by flesh are still God's covenant people, this question would be pickle indeed.

 

[BreadOfLife]

yo
FORIGE
TRASFERS
FIRGIVENESS

More illiterate gibberish from your dictonary.

Matt 16:18-19
And so I say to YOU, you are Peter (petros), and upon this Rock (Petra)

Peter the pebble.
Christ the Rock.

Corrected it for you.

Go read your Codex Vaticanus.

Your complete failure to respond to the Scriptural beating I gave you is almost overshadowed by your Biblical and linguistic ignorance. In fact - I'm NOT even sure you can claim "ignorance" here because I've explained this to you before.
Time for another Linguistics Lesson, son . . .

Obviously, your anti-Catholic indoctrinators never told you that Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic - NOT Greek. So, what Jesus actually said to Simon in Matt. 16:18 was:
". . . you are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my Church . . ."

There is NO distinction in Aramaic between a "Pebble" and a "large Rock.: Kepha simply means "ROCK" - period. This is why Peter is referred to as "Cephas" - and NOT Petros" in Paul's Letters.

As for your Protestant scholars - here is what THEY say on the matter . . .

Protestant Biblical and Linguistic Scholars on Matt. 16:16-19
1. There is no distinction between "petros" and "petra."
"In Aramaic 'Peter' and Rock are the same word; in Greek (here), they are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period." --Craig S. Keener,The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90.

"Although it is true that petros and petra can mean 'stone' and 'rock' respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry." --Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

"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 broke 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." --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355.

"I grant that in Greek Peter (Petros) and stone (petra) mean the same thing, save that the first word is Attic [from the ancient classical Greek dialect of the Attica region], the second from the common tongue." --John Calvin, Calvin's New Testament Commentaries: The Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 2, trans. T. H. L. Parker, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 188.

"The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and Petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words."--Gerhard Friedrich, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. VI, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 98-99.

2. Two different Greek words are used because you can't use a feminine noun for a man's name.

"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." --Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

"When using both the masculine and feminine forms of the word, however, Matthew is not trying to distance Peter, Petros, from 'this rock,' petra. Rather, the evangelist changes the genders simply because Simon, a male, is given a masculine form of the feminine noun for his new name." --James B. Shelton, letter to the authors, 21 October 1994, 1, in Scott Butler, Norman Dehlgren, and Rev. Mr. David Hess, Jesus Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, (Goleta, CA: Queenship, 1996), 23.

"The name Peter (not now first given, but prophetically bestowed by our Lord on his first interview with Simon (John 1:42), or Cephas, signifying a rock, the termination being only altered from petra to petros to suit the masculine appellation, denotes the personal position of this Apostle in the building of the Church of Christ." --Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers, vol. 1, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983), 119.

"The most likely explanation for the change from petros ('Peter') to petra is that petra was the normal word for 'rock.' Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man's name, however, Simon was not called petra but petros." --Herman N. Ridderbos, Bible Student's Commentary: Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 303.

"The feminine word for rock, petra, is necessarily changed to the masculine petros (stone) to give a man's name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form kepha would occur in both places)." --R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 254.

3. "This rock" refers to Peter
"Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view." --William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.

"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." --Gerhard Maier, "The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate," trans. Harold H. P. Dressler, in D. A. Carson, ed., Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context, (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), 58.

"By the words 'this rock' Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter's confession, but Peter himself." --J. Knox Chamblin, "Matthew," in Walter A. Eldwell, ed., Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: MI: Baker, 1989), 742.

". . . If, then, Mt. 16:18 forces us to assume a formal and material identity between petra and Petros, this shows how fully the apostolate, and in it to a special degree the position of Peter, belongs to and is essentially enclosed within, the revelation of Christ. Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession." --Gerhard Friedrich, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed.,Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. VI, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 98-99.

"The expression 'this rock' almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following 'the Christ' in vs. 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." --Craig L. Blomberg, The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 251-252.

"The foundation of the messianic community will be Peter, the rock, who is recipient of the revelation and maker of the confession (cf. Eph 2:20). The significant leadership role of Peter is a matter of sober history . . . . [T]he plain sense of the whole statement of Jesus would seem to accord best with the view that the rock on which Jesus builds His Church is Peter." --William E. McCumber, "Matthew," in William M. Greathouse and Willard H. Taylor, eds.,Beacon Bible Expositions, vol. 1, (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1975), 125.

"'You are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my church.' Peter is here pictured as the foundation of the church." --M. Eugene Boring, "Matthew," in Pheme Perkins and others, eds., The New Interpreter's Bible, vol. 8, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), 345.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Protestant Biblical and Linguistic Scholars on Matt. 16:16-19 (cont'd) . . .

"Let it be observed that Jesus could not here mean himself by the rock, consistently with the image, because he is the builder. To say, 'I will build,' would be a very confused image. The suggestion of some expositors that in saying 'thou art Peter, and on this rock' he pointed at himself involves an artificiality which to some minds is repulsive." --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 356.

"Another interpretation is that the word rock refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage." --Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament, Robert Fraw, ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 170.

"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." --David Hill, "The Gospel of Matthew," in Ronald E. Clements and Matthew Black, eds., The New Century Bible Commentary, (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 261.

"Some interpreters have therefore referred to Jesus as rock here, but the context is against this. Nor is it likely that Peter's faith or Peter's confession is meant. It is undoubtedly Peter himself who is to be the Rock, but Peter confessing, faithful and obedient." --D. Guthrie and others, The New Bible Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1953) [reprinted by Inter-Varsity Press], 837.

"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." --Herman N. Ridderbos, Bible Student's Commentary: Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 303.

"The word-play and the whole structure of the passage demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus' declaration about Peter as vs. 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 to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied." --R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 254.

"The frequent attempts that have been made, larely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock (e.g., most recently Caragounis) seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy." --Donald A. Hagner, "Matthew 14-28," in David A. Hubbard and others, eds., World Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 470.

4. The identity of the rock ("petra") is affirmed by the Aramaic that Jesus was speaking.
"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.'" --William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition on the Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.

"'You are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church (mou ten ekklesian).' These words are spoken in Aramaic, in which Cephas stands both for Petros and petra." --Veselin Kesich, "Peter's Primacy in the New Testament and the Early Tradition," in John Meyendorff, ed., The Primacy of Peter, (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992), 47-48.

"In Aramaic 'Peter' and Rock are the same word; in Greek (here), they are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period." --Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90.

"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." --Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

"'And upon this rock'--As 'Peter' and 'rock' are one word in the dialect familiarly spoken by our Lord--the Aramaic or Syro-Chaldaic, which was the mother tongue of the country--this exalted play upon the word can be fully seen only in languages which have one word for both. Even in the Greek it is imperfectly represented. in French, as Webster and Wilkinson remark, it is perfect, Pierre-pierre." --Robert Jamieson, Andrew Robert Fausset, and David Brown, One Volume Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Associated Publishers, n.d. [197?]), 47-48.

"The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John 1:42; comp. 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; Gal 2:9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun. Hence the old Syriac translation of the N.T. renders the passage in question thus: 'Anath-her Kipha, v' all hode Kipha.' The Arabic translation has alsachra in both cases. The proper translation then would be: 'Thou art Rock, and upon this rock,' etc." --John Peter Lange, trans. Philip Schaff, Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 293.

"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.' (Comp. Buxtorf.) Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: 'Thou are Pierre, and on this pierre'; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, 'Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.'" --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355-356.

"Edersh. finds the words petros and petra borrowed in the late Rabbinical language, and things that Jesus, while speaking Aramaic, may have borrowed those Greek words here. But this is grossly improbable, and the suggestion looks like a desperate expedient; nor has he shown that the late Rabbis themselves make the supposed distinction between the two words." --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 356.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Protestant Biblical and Linguistic Scholars on Matt. 16:16-19 (cont'd) . . .

"Furthermore, the whole passage contains semitic structures. In Aramaic the word for both Peter's name and the rock would be identical, Kepha' . . . kepha'." --James B. Shelton, letter to the authors, 21 October 1994, 1, in Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and Rev. Mr. David Hess,Jesus, Peter, and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, (Goleta, CA: Queenship, 1996), 21.

"PETER (Gr. Petros). Simon Peter, the most prominent of Jesus' twelve disciples. Peter's original name was Simon (Aram. sim'on, represented in Greek by Simon and Symeon). Jesus gave him the Aramaic name kepha "rock" (Matt. 16:18); Luke 6:14 par.; John 1:42), which is in Greek both transliterated (Kephas; Eng. Cephas) and translated (Petros)." --Allen C. Myers, ed., The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 818.

"Rock (Aram. Kepha). This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. On building on a rock, or from a rock, cf. Isa 51:1ff.; Matt 8:24f. Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community (cf. I will build). Jesus, not quoting the OT, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose." --W. F. Albright, and C. S. Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), 195.

"On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and Petros: petra = kepha = Petros." --Gerhard Friedrich, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed.,Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 6, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 98-99.

"The play on words in [Mat 16] verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage." --Suzanne de Dietrich, The Layman's Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16, trans. Donald G. Miller, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), 93.

"On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition." --David Hill, "The Gospel of Matthew," in Ronald E. Clements and Matthew Black, eds., The New Century Bible Commentary, (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 261.

"The feminine word for rock, petra, is necessarily changed to the masculine petros to give a man's name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form kepha would be occur in both places) . . . ." --R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 254.

"The natural reading of the passage [Mat 16:18], despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built (thus rightly Morris, France, Carson, Blomberg, Cullman [Peter, 207], Davies-Allison; so too the interconfessional volume by Brown, Donfried, and Reumann [Peter in the NT, 92])." --Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, in David A. Hubbard and others, eds., World Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 470.

5. The keys symbolize authority over the house.
"The keys are the symbol of authority, and Roland de Vaux (Ancient Israel, tr. by John McHugh [New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961], 129 ff.) rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel." --W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), 196.

"For the same reason, Christ calls the office of teaching the word, (Mat 16:19) 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven'; so that it is idle and foolish to spend much time in endeavouring to find a hidden reason, when the matter is plain, and needs no ingenuity." --John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, vol. 2, trans. William Pringle, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1948), 136-137.

"The image of keys (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration (Is 22:22, in conjunction with 22:15). The issue then is not that of admission to the church (which is not what the kingdom of heaven means; see pp. 45-47) but an authority derived from a delegation of God's sovereignty." --Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 256.

"The keeper of the keys has authority within the house as administrator and teacher (cf. Isa 22:20-25, which may have influenced Matthew here). The language of binding and loosing is rabbinic terminology for authoritative teaching, for having the authority to interpret the Torah and apply it to particular cases, declaring what is permitted and what is not permitted. Jesus, who has taught with authority (7:29) and has given his authority to his disciples (10:1,8 ) here gives his primary disciple the authority to teach in his name." --M. Eugene Boring, "Matthew," in Pheme Perkins and others, eds., The New Interpreter's Bible, vol. 8, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), 346.

"The keys of the kingdom would be comitted to the chief steward in the royal household and with them goes plenary authority." --George Buttrick and others, eds., The Interpreter's Bible, (New York: Abingdon, 1951), 453.

"The authority of Peter is to be over the Church, and this authority is represented by the keys." --S. T. Lachs, A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1987), 256.

"What do the expressions 'bind' and 'loose' signify? According to Rabbinical usage two explanations are equally possible: 'prohibit' and 'permit', that is, 'establish rules'; or 'put under the ban' and 'acquit.'" --Oscar Cullman, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, trans. Floyd V. Filson, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953), 204-205.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Protestant Biblical and Linguistic Scholars on Matt. 16:16-19 (cont'd) . . .

"These terms [binding and loosing] thus refer to a teaching function, and more specifically one of making halakhic pronouncements [i.e., relative to laws not written down in the Jewish Scriptures but based on an oral interpretation of them] which are to be 'binding' on the people of God. In that case, Peter's 'power of the keys' declared in [Matthew] 16:19 is not so much that of the doorkeeper, who decides who may or may not be admitted to the kingdom of heaven, but that of the steward . . . . whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household." --R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1989), 247.

"In other words, Peter would give decisions, based on the teachings of Jesus, which would be bound in heaven; that is, honored by God." --Ralph Earle, "Matthew," in A. F. Harper and others, eds.,Beacon Bible Commentary, vol. 6, (Kansis City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1964), 156.

"This verse [Mat 16:19] therefore probably refers primarily to a legislative authority in the church." --Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90.

"Hence handing over the keys implies appointment to full authority. He who has the keys has on the one side contol, e.g., over the council chamber or treasury, cf. Mt. 13:52, and on the other the power to allow or forbid entry, cf. Rev. 3:7." --J. Jeremias, "Kleis," in Gerhard Kittel, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 749-750.

**Particularly note-worthy are the words of Martin Luther in his tract called "The Keys," which he wrote 9 years after his excommunication:

"So we stand there and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Mat. 16:19 that he will give the keys to Peter. He does not say he has two kinds of keys, but he gives to Peter the keys he himself has and no others." --Martin Luther, "The Keys," in Conrad Bergendoff, ed., trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergendoff, Luther's Works, vol. 40, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958), 365-366.

6. Peter's position is like that of the steward in Isa 22.
"Isaiah 22:15 ff. udoubtedly lies behind this [Mat 16:19] saying." --W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), 196.

"And what about the 'keys of the kingdom'? The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or majordomo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . . (Isaiah 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward." --F. F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 1983), 143-144.

"The 'kingdom of heaven' is represented by authoritative teaching, the promulgation of authoritative Halakha that lets heaven's power rule in earthly things . . . . Peter's role as holder of the keys is fulfilled now, on earth, as chief teacher of the church." --M. Eugene Boring, "Matthew," in Pheme Perkins and others, eds., The New Interpreter's Bible, vol. 8, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), 346.

"The keeper of the keys was one of the most important roles a household servant could hold (Mark 13:32-34). A higher official held the keys in a royal kingdom (Is 22:22) and in God's house, the temple." --Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90.

"'The keys of the kingdom of heaven: the phrase [from Mat 16:19] is almost certainly based on Is. 22:22 where Shebna the steward is displaced by Eliakim and his authority transferred to him." --D. Guthrie and others, The New Bible Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1953) [reprinted by Intervarsity Press], 837.

"The master of the palace had similar functions at the court of Judah. Announcing the promotion of Elyaqim, Isaiah 22:22 says: 'I lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder, if he opens, none will shut; if he shuts, none will open.' The Egyptian vizier's instructions are described in a very similar fashion. Every morning 'the vizier will send someone to open the gates of the kings house, to admit those who have to enter, and to send out those who have to go out.' One is reminded of the Lord's words to Peter, the Vizier of the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 16:19)." --Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel, trans. John McHugh (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961), 130.

"In Isa 22:22 the key of the house of David is promised to Eliakim. According to Paul, Jesus is the only foundation (1 Cor 3:11), and in Rev 1:18; 3:7, Jesus possesses the key of David and the keys of death and Hades. But in this passage [Matthew 16:19] Peter is made the foundation (cf. Eph 2:20, where the Christian apostles and prophets are the foundation and Christ is the cornerstone) and holds the keys." --George Buttrick and others, eds.,The Interpreter's Bible, (New York: Abingdom, 1951), 453.

"In Matthew 16:19 it is presupposed that Christ is the master of the house, who has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, with which to open to those who come in. Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord lays the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so Jesus commits to Peter the keys of his house, the Kingdom of Heaven, and thereby installs him as administrator of the house." --Oscar Cullman, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, trans. Floyd V. Filson, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953), 203.

"Materially, then, the keys of the kingdom of God are not different from the key of David. This is confirmed by the fact that in Mt. 16:19, as in Rev. 3:7, Jesus is the One who controls them." --J. Jeremias, "Kleis," in Gerhard Kittel, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed.,Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 749-750.

R. T. France, in his commentary on Mat. 16:19 says that Isaiah 22:22 is "generally regarded as the Old Testament background to the metaphor of keys here. . . ." --R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1989), 247.

 

[covenantee]

Protestant Biblical and Linguistic Scholars on Matt. 16:16-19 (cont'd) . . .

"These terms [binding and loosing] thus refer to a teaching function, and more specifically one of making halakhic pronouncements [i.e., relative to laws not written down in the Jewish Scriptures but based on an oral interpretation of them] which are to be 'binding' on the people of God. In that case, Peter's 'power of the keys' declared in [Matthew] 16:19 is not so much that of the doorkeeper, who decides who may or may not be admitted to the kingdom of heaven, but that of the steward . . . . whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household." --R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1989), 247.

"In other words, Peter would give decisions, based on the teachings of Jesus, which would be bound in heaven; that is, honored by God." --Ralph Earle, "Matthew," in A. F. Harper and others, eds.,Beacon Bible Commentary, vol. 6, (Kansis City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1964), 156.

"This verse [Mat 16:19] therefore probably refers primarily to a legislative authority in the church." --Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90.

"Hence handing over the keys implies appointment to full authority. He who has the keys has on the one side contol, e.g., over the council chamber or treasury, cf. Mt. 13:52, and on the other the power to allow or forbid entry, cf. Rev. 3:7." --J. Jeremias, "Kleis," in Gerhard Kittel, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 749-750.

**Particularly note-worthy are the words of Martin Luther in his tract called "The Keys," which he wrote 9 years after his excommunication:

"So we stand there and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Mat. 16:19 that he will give the keys to Peter. He does not say he has two kinds of keys, but he gives to Peter the keys he himself has and no others." --Martin Luther, "The Keys," in Conrad Bergendoff, ed., trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergendoff, Luther's Works, vol. 40, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958), 365-366.

6. Peter's position is like that of the steward in Isa 22.
"Isaiah 22:15 ff. udoubtedly lies behind this [Mat 16:19] saying." --W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), 196.

"And what about the 'keys of the kingdom'? The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or majordomo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . . (Isaiah 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward." --F. F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 1983), 143-144.

"The 'kingdom of heaven' is represented by authoritative teaching, the promulgation of authoritative Halakha that lets heaven's power rule in earthly things . . . . Peter's role as holder of the keys is fulfilled now, on earth, as chief teacher of the church." --M. Eugene Boring, "Matthew," in Pheme Perkins and others, eds., The New Interpreter's Bible, vol. 8, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), 346.

"The keeper of the keys was one of the most important roles a household servant could hold (Mark 13:32-34). A higher official held the keys in a royal kingdom (Is 22:22) and in God's house, the temple." --Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90.

"'The keys of the kingdom of heaven: the phrase [from Mat 16:19] is almost certainly based on Is. 22:22 where Shebna the steward is displaced by Eliakim and his authority transferred to him." --D. Guthrie and others, The New Bible Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1953) [reprinted by Intervarsity Press], 837.

"The master of the palace had similar functions at the court of Judah. Announcing the promotion of Elyaqim, Isaiah 22:22 says: 'I lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder, if he opens, none will shut; if he shuts, none will open.' The Egyptian vizier's instructions are described in a very similar fashion. Every morning 'the vizier will send someone to open the gates of the kings house, to admit those who have to enter, and to send out those who have to go out.' One is reminded of the Lord's words to Peter, the Vizier of the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 16:19)." --Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel, trans. John McHugh (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961), 130.

"In Isa 22:22 the key of the house of David is promised to Eliakim. According to Paul, Jesus is the only foundation (1 Cor 3:11), and in Rev 1:18; 3:7, Jesus possesses the key of David and the keys of death and Hades. But in this passage [Matthew 16:19] Peter is made the foundation (cf. Eph 2:20, where the Christian apostles and prophets are the foundation and Christ is the cornerstone) and holds the keys." --George Buttrick and others, eds.,The Interpreter's Bible, (New York: Abingdom, 1951), 453.

"In Matthew 16:19 it is presupposed that Christ is the master of the house, who has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, with which to open to those who come in. Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord lays the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so Jesus commits to Peter the keys of his house, the Kingdom of Heaven, and thereby installs him as administrator of the house." --Oscar Cullman, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, trans. Floyd V. Filson, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953), 203.

"Materially, then, the keys of the kingdom of God are not different from the key of David. This is confirmed by the fact that in Mt. 16:19, as in Rev. 3:7, Jesus is the One who controls them." --J. Jeremias, "Kleis," in Gerhard Kittel, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed.,Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 749-750.

R. T. France, in his commentary on Mat. 16:19 says that Isaiah 22:22 is "generally regarded as the Old Testament background to the metaphor of keys here. . . ." --R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1989), 247.

Debunked multiple times in previous posts.

The manuscript was written in Greek, and copied in Greek.

Go read your Codex Vaticanus.

 

[Illuminator]

Thanks, BoL, for the comprehensive list.

But as the passions of the Reformation era have cooled, and Protestant scholars have taken a more dispassionate look at this text, they have come to agree more and more that Jesus was referring to Peter himself as the rock. Of course, they disagree with the Catholic interpretation of what this means, but many now agree that the Catholic explanation of the grammar of the text is correct.
+++
"...the principle of private judgment is completely incompatible with the idea that truth is one. This creates an unbearable intellectual and psychological tension. The initial outcome may well be an insular conviction that everybody else is wrong, but the secondary outcome, for slightly more reflective people, is the growing suspicion that there is something terribly wrong with our method of knowing, or that spiritual principles and moral values cannot be known, or that there is simply no such thing as absolute and unitary spiritual and moral truth. The inevitable cultural outcome is a pressing need to live as if what seems true to me will work fine for me, and what seems true to you will work fine for you. This is practical relativism.

Where practical relativism leads, true relativism is almost certain to follow, characterized by a deep psychological refusal to acknowledge or consider the question of truth, along with an insistence that the values a person should hold are whatever values make him comfortable with himself. In our day, this unbridled relativism has been transformed into subservience to the reigning group values, but that is a subject for another discussion. Suffice it to say that, given the mysterious ways in which cultural trends and even mere fashions shape our lives when we have nothing else to shape them, all of this tends to degenerate into the dictatorship of relativism that Benedict has so persuasively described.

My only point here is to trace the clear connection between the Protestant principle of private judgment and the rise of relativism. Interestingly, the war between evangelicals and mainline Protestant churches demonstrates that Protestants who have not yet spun off into relativism generally abhor it. But this war is very different from that between orthodox Catholics and Modernists. In the Catholic case, the orthodox are fighting against a corruption of their faith by the relativism of the surrounding culture. In the Protestant case, the conservative Christian is attempting to stave off an inevitable development in his own fundamentally irrational intellectual and moral culture. Relativism follows from private judgment as night follows day. Private judgment allows no way of apprehending the unity of Truth; relativism simply ceases to seek what so obviously cannot be found.

Private Judgment and the Rise of Relativism

To round out my recent discussion of Protestantism and private judgment, I think it will be helpful to say something about the strong connection between Protestantism and the rise of relativism. There are several important historical factors which led over time to what Pope Benedict XVI has...

www.catholicculture.org

 

[BreadOfLife]

yo
FORIGE
TRASFERS
FIRGIVENESS

More illiterate gibberish from your dictonary.

Matt 16:18-19
And so I say to YOU, you are Peter (petros), and upon this Rock (Petra)

Peter the pebble.
Christ the Rock.

asjed

Debunked multiple times in previous posts.

The manuscript was written in Greek, and copied in Greek.

Go read your Codex Vaticanus.

Once again - you RUN from the because you don't have an intelligent response.

The fact that Matthew may have been WRITTWN in Greek is irrelevant, Einstein. It could gave been WRITTEN in Swahili, The fact remains that ?Jesus and the Apostles SPOKE in Aramaic.

Soooo, explain why Paul calls Peter, "Cephas" - and NOT Peter.
- WHY doesn't he call him "Petros"??
- Can you me a linguistic refutation of the DOZENS of scholarly testimonies I presented that say Peter is the ROCK??
- Why did Jesus pray for Peter - and Peter ALONE to bring the other disciples BACK to faith (Like 22:31-32)??
- Why did Jesus ask Peter - and Peter ALONE to "Feed mu Lambs", "Tend my Sheep" and "Feed my Sheep" (John 21:15-19??

Just answer the questions already and STOP running.
Talk about "craven cowardice" . . .

 

[Illuminator]

Debunked multiple times in previous posts.

"Debunked multiple times" is a cowardly non-answer. You won't name the post # and the Protestant scholar/reference that has been debunked.

The manuscript was written in Greek, and copied in Greek.

You forced to deny that Jesus spoke Aramaic because it presents a strong argument you can't cope with. "Codex Vaticanus" is a cheap shot because it is never used in public liturgy.

 

[covenantee]

"Debunked multiple times" is a cowardly non-answer. You won't name the post # and the Protestant scholar/reference that has been debunked.

You forced to deny that Jesus spoke Aramaic because it presents a strong argument you can't cope with. "Codex Vaticanus" is a cheap shot because it is never used in public liturgy.

Thanks for the guffaw. The earliest extant manuscript of Matthew is in Greek, not Aramaic.

And it renders Matthew 16:18 as "Petros/Petra".

"Public liturgy" is irrelevant. If Codex Vaticanus is not legitimate, what is it doing in the Vatican library?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Thanks for the guffaw. The earliest extant manuscript of Matthew is in Greek, not Aramaic.

One of your usual nervous non-answers, along with, "Thanks for the entertainment", which you always vonit out when you din't have an intelligent response.

And it renders Matthew 16:18 as "Petros/Petra".

"Public liturgy" is irrelevant. If Codex Vaticanus is not legitimate, what is it doing in the Vatican library?

THANK YOU fore repeating this irrelevant idiocy.

As I educated you earloier - it doens't matter if it waas originally written in Swahili or Spanjish pr Greek.
Jesus and His Apostles SPOKE in Aramaic and NOT Greek.
If it's so important to you - WHY can't you answer the question I asked of you:
Why did Paul refer to Peter as "Cephas" an not "Petros"??

Cephas , which is a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic word, "Kephas" is pronounced kay-fas in Greek,

STILL waiting for an answer to this and for the alleged "DEBUNKING" or the Protestant scholarship on Matt. 16:18 that I presented in posts #'s 1023-1026, which left you shaking in your boots . . .

 

[covenantee]

One of your usual nervous non-answers, along with, "Thanks for the entertainment", which you always vonit out when you din't have an intelligent response.

THANK YOU fore repeating this irrelevant idiocy.

As I educated you earloier - it doens't matter if it waas originally written in Swahili or Spanjish pr Greek.
Jesus and His Apostles SPOKE in Aramaic and NOT Greek.
If it's so important to you - WHY can't you answer the question I asked of you:
Why did Paul refer to Peter as "Cephas" an not "Petros"??

Cephas , which is a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic word, "Kephas" is pronounced kay-fas in Greek,

STILL waiting for an answer to this and for the alleged "DEBUNKING" or the Protestant scholarship on Matt. 16:18 that I presented in posts #'s 1023-1026, which left you shaking in your boots . . .

vonit
din't
earloier
or
an

More papist gibberish. Your dictonary still isn't working.


Why can't you answer this question?:

Why did Jesus refer to Peter as "Petros" and not "Cephas"???

 

[BreadOfLife]

Why can't you answer this question?:

Why did Jesus refer to Peter as "Petros" and not "Cephas"???

Because “Cephas” is a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic, “Kephs”, which is what Jesus called him.
How many times does this have to be explained to you before you understand, Einstein?

Here is another question for you, my linguistically-bankruptt friend:
Was Jesus’s name “Jesus” or was it “Yeshua” or was it “Iεσουσ” (ee-ay-sooce')??

If you think that's a stupid question - then read YOUR posts . . .

 

[covenantee]

Because “Cephas” is a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic, “Kephs”, which is what Jesus called him.
How many times does this have to be explained to you before you understand, Einstein?

Here is another question for you, my linguistically-bankruptt friend:
Was Jesus’s name “Jesus” or was it “Yeshua” or was it “Iεσουσ” (ee-ay-sooce')??

If you think that's a stupid question - then read YOUR posts . . .

In what manuscript did Jesus call him “Kephs”?

 

[BreadOfLife]

In what manuscript did Jesus call him “Kephs”?

Jesus NEVER called Peter "Kephs" He called him KEPHAS - and that's why Paul called him "Cephas".

Now - stop running and ANSWER the previous question:
Was Jesus’s name “Jesus” or was it “Yeshua” or was it “Iεσουσ” (ee-ay-sooce')??

 

[covenantee]

Jesus NEVER called Peter "Kephs" He called him KEPHAS - and that's why Paul called him "Cephas".

Now - stop running and ANSWER the previous question:
Was Jesus’s name “Jesus” or was it “Yeshua” or was it “Iεσουσ” (ee-ay-sooce')??

From your previous post:

``“Kephs”, which is what Jesus called him.``

You have no idea what you`re talking about. Go back to the monastery.

 

[BreadOfLife]

From your previous post:

``“Kephs”, which is what Jesus called him.``

You have no idea what you`re talking about. Go back to the monastery.

More dodgimg, I see . . .

Now - stop running and ANSWER the previous question:
Was Jesus’s name “Jesus” or was it “Yeshua” or was it “Iεσουσ” (ee-ay-sooce')??

Your silence is an admission of your total ignorance.

 

[Illuminator]

In what manuscript did Jesus call him “Kephs”?

Matt. 16:18 – Jesus said in Aramaic, you are “Kepha” and on this “Kepha” I will build my Church. In Aramaic, “kepha” means a massive stone, and “evna” means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is “petra”, that “Petros” actually means “a small rock”, and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus’ blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used “Kepha,” not “evna.” Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.

Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the “small rock,” he would have used “lithos” which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).

The Biblical Church - Scripture Catholic

Contents1 Scripture1.1 I. Peter is the Rock on which the Church is Built1.2 II. Peter has the Keys of Authority over the Earthly Kingdom, the Church1.3 III. Peter’s Keys and Papal Succession1.4 IV. The Church is Infallible and Supernatural1.5 V. The Church is Visible and One1.6 VI. The Church is...

www.scripturecatholic.com

 

[BreadOfLife]

Matt. 16:18 – Jesus said in Aramaic, you are “Kepha” and on this “Kepha” I will build my Church. In Aramaic, “kepha” means a massive stone, and “evna” means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is “petra”, that “Petros” actually means “a small rock”, and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus’ blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used “Kepha,” not “evna.” Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.

Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the “small rock,” he would have used “lithos” which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).

The Biblical Church - Scripture Catholic

Contents1 Scripture1.1 I. Peter is the Rock on which the Church is Built1.2 II. Peter has the Keys of Authority over the Earthly Kingdom, the Church1.3 III. Peter’s Keys and Papal Succession1.4 IV. The Church is Infallible and Supernatural1.5 V. The Church is Visible and One1.6 VI. The Church is...

www.scripturecatholic.com

GREAT post - for anybody with even a modicum of intelligence.
Unfortunately, our friend is comlpetely DEVOID of this . . .