Peter Is Not The Rock!

[plmarquette]

I thought Peter was a Desoto sedan....actually...

 

[MoNiCa4316]

The Word of Yahuweh can't be any plainer than this.

The Savior for whom the Rock was named, asked His disciples the most important question ever posed: "Who do you say (lego - affirm and maintain, advise and teach) I Am (eimi - I exist and am present as)?" To which, a disciple named for the astuteness of his revelation, responded: "Simon (a transliteration of the Hebrew name Shim’own, meaning to listen, understand, discern, regard, and proclaim) Petros (a masculine proper name meaning pebble or stone) gave the answer, ‘The Messiah, the Son of the living God.’" (Matthew 16:15-16)

Affirming this live-saving truth, "Yahushua said (lego), ‘Blessed (makarios - a poetic term denoting transcendent happiness in a life beyond labor and death) are you Shim’own (the one who listens, understands, discerns, regards, and proclaims), son of (bar) Yonah (from yownah, meaning the dove; the name of a Yahudi sent to Nineveh, Assyria whose life and book serve as a prophetic metaphor for Yahushua saving Gentiles), because flesh and blood did not make this manifest (apokalupto - disclose by baring), but My Father who is in Heaven." (Matthew 16:17) As is usually true with Scripture, every name and nuance was carefully chosen, revealing subtle and profound truths.

What follows is important. Petros/Peter isn’t the petra/bedrock. The recognition that "Yahushua is the Messiah, the Son of the living God," is the foundation upon which the ekklesia/called-out assembly would be restored and established. Beyond the evidence sprinkled throughout the Tanach, identifying the Rock with Yahshua, "Petros" was a man and every reference to "petra/bedrock" is feminine.

"Indeed (de), I (kago) say (logos) concerning this (hoti - as a marker of equivalence for identifying and explaining this) to you (soi), you (su) are (ei) Petros (a masculine proper noun meaning pebble or stone), and (kai) upon/by/in/with (epi - "upon" when used with things that are at rest, "by" when used in relationship to people, "with" when used in connection with authority, and "in" used in reference to an observation) this one (taute - singular feminine demonstrative pronoun) Rock (petra - bedrock, a feminine noun; a large stone which projects itself) I shall build by edifying, promoting, and restoring (oikodomeo - rebuild and establish, strengthen and enable, instruct and improve) My (mou) called out gathering (ekklesia)." (Matthew 16:18)

English translations all leave "hoti/concerning this" out of their renderings of Yahshua’s answer. Had it been included, no rational person would have thought that Petros, rather than his answer, was the foundation of the ekklesia. The source of edification and restoration is the Savior, not his flawed and imperfect disciple.

Believing Peter is the Rock is irrational and delusional. The evidence of Yahuweh's Word is irrevocable/irrefutable and supercedes, trumps, pre-empts, negates, refutes, and proves to be a lie all that oppose/contradict it, whether said opposition is human or church dogma.

The reason Petros is masculine and Petra is feminine is because in the Greek, when they were translating, they didn't want to give Peter a feminine name.
In Jesus' time they spoke in Aramaic though, and in that language there is no such distinction for that word.
In Aramaic, it would have sounded like:
"you are the rock, and upon this rock I will build My Church". Jesus would have in fact used the SAME word both times.
And if Peter is not the rock...then why did he get renamed? Jesus did everything for a reason.

Peace

 

[MamaZ]

Jesus is the Rock. It is He that we put our faith in. He is the Rock foundation of the believers and He is also the Chief Cornerstone.

 

[narnia59]

The reason Petros is masculine and Petra is feminine is because in the Greek, when they were translating, they didn't want to give Peter a feminine name.
In Jesus' time they spoke in Aramaic though, and in that language there is no such distinction for that word.
In Aramaic, it would have sounded like:
"you are the rock, and upon this rock I will build My Church". Jesus would have in fact used the SAME word both times.
And if Peter is not the rock...then why did he get renamed? Jesus did everything for a reason.

Peace

You are so correct Monica. It is interesting that people can take the masculine and feminine of the same root word and decide it has two different meanings.

You are also correct about the Aramaic work Cephas -- it does not mean 'little rock' -- it means rock. We are assured this is the actual name Jesus gave Peter because the Aramaic is preserved even in the Greek translations. We're told in John 1:42 at their first meeting, "And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter)."

Aside from that, if 'petros' really meant 'stone', wouldn't the rest of the NT use it when talking about stones? Instead, we only see "Petros" in terms of Peter. When truly speaking about stones, the Greek word used is "lithos", or the plural 'lithoi'. When the NT really means stones, that is the word used, such as in the following passages. "Petros" is only used for Peter, not stones. To try to say it means 'stones' or 'pebbles' contradicts the rest of the translations in the NT. None of the below use the word petros, they use lithoi.

Matthew 4:3 The tempter came and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread."
Mark 13:1
As he went out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Teacher, see what kind of stones and what kind of buildings!"

Luke 19:40 He answered them, "I tell you that if these were silent, the stones would cry out."

1 Peter 2:5
You also, as living stones, are built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

 

[narnia59]

Jesus is the Rock. It is He that we put our faith in. He is the Rock foundation of the believers and He is also the Chief Cornerstone.

It is not contradictory to believe that Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone and that he placed Peter as the visible rock of the church. It is simply the way God consistently operates.

For example, in Ezekiel 34:11-23 we see God saying that He himself will look after His sheep. He is the shepherd. And how does He do this? He appoints one shepherd -- David. Is it a contradiction to believe David was appointed by God as shepherd when God says that he himself will shepherd them? Not according to Scripture.


11 "'For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. 12 As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness. 13 I will bring them out from the nations and gather them from the countries, and I will bring them into their own land. I will pasture them on the mountains of Israel, in the ravines and in all the settlements in the land. 14 I will tend them in a good pasture, and the mountain heights of Israel will be their grazing land. There they will lie down in good grazing land, and there they will feed in a rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. 15 I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign Lord. 16 I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice. 17 "'As for you, my flock, this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will judge between one sheep and another, and between rams and goats. 18 Is it not enough for you to feed on the good pasture? Must you also trample the rest of your pasture with your feet? Is it not enough for you to drink clear water? Must you also muddy the rest with your feet? 19 Must my flock feed on what you have trampled and drink what you have muddied with your feet? 20 "'Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says to them: See, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. 21 Because you shove with flank and shoulder, butting all the weak sheep with your horns until you have driven them away, 22 I will save my flock, and they will no longer be plundered. I will judge between one sheep and another. 23 I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd.

Similarly, Peter refers to Jesus as the "Chief Shepherd" but Jesus also commission only Peter (in the presence of the other apostles) to feed and tend his sheep.

The idea that Peter is the rock does not contradict Jesus being the Chief Cornerstone any more than God appointing David as the "one shepherd" contradicts the fact that God Himself would shepherd His people.

 

[MamaZ]

It is not contradictory to believe that Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone and that he placed Peter as the visible rock of the church. It is simply the way God consistently operates.

For example, in Ezekiel 34:11-23 we see God saying that He himself will look after His sheep. He is the shepherd. And how does He do this? He appoints one shepherd -- David. Is it a contradiction to believe David was appointed by God as shepherd when God says that he himself will shepherd them? Not according to Scripture.


11 "'For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. 12 As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness. 13 I will bring them out from the nations and gather them from the countries, and I will bring them into their own land. I will pasture them on the mountains of Israel, in the ravines and in all the settlements in the land. 14 I will tend them in a good pasture, and the mountain heights of Israel will be their grazing land. There they will lie down in good grazing land, and there they will feed in a rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. 15 I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign Lord. 16 I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice. 17 "'As for you, my flock, this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will judge between one sheep and another, and between rams and goats. 18 Is it not enough for you to feed on the good pasture? Must you also trample the rest of your pasture with your feet? Is it not enough for you to drink clear water? Must you also muddy the rest with your feet? 19 Must my flock feed on what you have trampled and drink what you have muddied with your feet? 20 "'Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says to them: See, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. 21 Because you shove with flank and shoulder, butting all the weak sheep with your horns until you have driven them away, 22 I will save my flock, and they will no longer be plundered. I will judge between one sheep and another. 23 I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd.

Similarly, Peter refers to Jesus as the "Chief Shepherd" but Jesus also commission only Peter (in the presence of the other apostles) to feed and tend his sheep.

The idea that Peter is the rock does not contradict Jesus being the Chief Cornerstone any more than God appointing David as the "one shepherd" contradicts the fact that God Himself would shepherd His people.

Thing being this visable head is of the flesh. For The very Bride of Christ is a Spiritual body. Born out of the very Spirit of God. This is why we only have one Head and one Father. This being Christ and God. We see in this scripture it all layed out for us.

1Co 11:3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

 

[MamaZ]

Also the problem with Peter being the rock is that Peter did not die for men. Peter did not start the Church Christ did. Christ is the bedrock of all believers in Him. For our faith and everything that is taught is Christ and Him crucified and risen.

 

[ARBITER01]

The reason Petros is masculine and Petra is feminine is because in the Greek, when they were translating, they didn't want to give Peter a feminine name.
In Jesus' time they spoke in Aramaic though, and in that language there is no such distinction for that word.
In Aramaic, it would have sounded like:
"you are the rock, and upon this rock I will build My Church". Jesus would have in fact used the SAME word both times.
And if Peter is not the rock...then why did he get renamed? Jesus did everything for a reason.

Peace

Unless you have some 1st century Aramaic manuscripts hiding somewhere to prove your point here, we are to use what we have been given through the centuries, which just happens to be the Greek.

 

[narnia59]

Unless you have some 1st century Aramaic manuscripts hiding somewhere to prove your point here, we are to use what we have been given through the centuries, which just happens to be the Greek.

The Aramaic word "Cephas" is preserved in the Greek translations. It point blank tells us in the Greek that Jesus named Simon the Aramaic name "Cephas" at their very first meeting, and that Peter (Petros) is a translation of what Jesus actually said.

John 1:42 -- "He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is by interpretation, Peter)."

 

[narnia59]

Also the problem with Peter being the rock is that Peter did not die for men. Peter did not start the Church Christ did. Christ is the bedrock of all believers in Him. For our faith and everything that is taught is Christ and Him crucified and risen.

None of that contradicts the idea that Christ left a visible shepherd for the church. Having a visible head of the church does not contradict having faith in Christ. It is faith that He did what he said -- sent the Holy Spirit to guide the church to and to keep it as the unified bride of Christ.

 

[ARBITER01]

The Aramaic word "Cephas" is preserved in the Greek translations. It point blank tells us in the Greek that Jesus named Simon the Aramaic name "Cephas" at their very first meeting, and that Peter (Petros) is a translation of what Jesus actually said.

John 1:42 -- "He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is by interpretation, Peter)."

It matters not what we think or imagine, the Greek is what was passed down to us, and the Greek make a distinction here.

 

[MamaZ]

We have some Apostles and some Pastor, teachers for the edifying of the body not to rule over the body. We only have one Father. For which we cry abba Father. So therefore this Pope business is not of the scriptures but of men wanting to claim power that only Christ has as the head.

 

[narnia59]

It matters not what we think or imagine, the Greek is what was passed down to us, and the Greek make a distinction here.

The only distinction the Greek makes is between the masculine and the feminine of the same root word. We know from the Greek that the name Christ actually gave to Simon was the Aramaic name "Cephas". We know that means rock. There is no connatation of it meaning anything other than rock (like pebble or stone).

When translating Cephas to Greek, that would become "petra". Greek is a romance language, where nouns are assigned gender. The noun for rock happens to be feminine. When translating the Aramaic "cephas" -- rock to Greek, petra would be used. However, Petra as a name in Greek belongs to a woman. The male counterpart is Petros. Just like with Louise and Louis, or Michelle and Michael or Josephine or Joseph. Why would the person writing the Greek text of Matthew choose to leave the name in the feminine form of Petra when speaking of Cephas?

We also know that when the Greek actually wants to speak of a pebble or stone, it uses lithos. If the writer wanted to confer a difference between rock and stone, he would have said "you are petra and upon this lithos I will build my church". Two completely different root words to convey a true difference in meaning, rather than simply not assigning a woman's name to a man.

It also completely ignores the fact that upon their first meeting, Jesus changed Simon's name to "rock". Significant event in the Bible. Abraham's name was changed by God as father of the covenant. Jacob's name was changed to Israel as father of the Jewish nation. And Peter's name was changed by God as father of the church Christ would establish.

 

[narnia59]

We have some Apostles and some Pastor, teachers for the edifying of the body not to rule over the body. We only have one Father. For which we cry abba Father. So therefore this Pope business is not of the scriptures but of men wanting to claim power that only Christ has as the head.

Scripture is clear that we have men who are our spiritual fathers. That does not contradict God being our one father.

The idea that the Pope 'rules' rather than shepherds is not Catholic.

 

[MamaZ]

Scripture is clear that we have men who are our spiritual fathers. That does not contradict God being our one father.

The idea that the Pope 'rules' rather than shepherds is not Catholic.

We only have one that is our Father. It is not the pope. Shepherd is to lead the the flock to the truth. Not declare what is and is not truth. Difference there. For truth is found in the written pages of scripture and when one does not lead the flock to the written word of scripture that declares Gods truth how can one be a shepherd that cares for his sheep?

 

[AmericanCatholic]

The evidence of Yahuweh's Word is irrevocable/irrefutable and supercedes, trumps, pre-empts, negates, refutes, and proves to be a lie all that oppose/contradict it, whether said opposition is human or church dogma.

I always love this kind of statement as if Scripture is somehow disparaged or ignored by Catholics. My knee-jerk response is usually: duh.

 

[MamaZ]

we as Christians are to recoginze no man by the flesh. So We are not to recoginze Peter as such either nor the succession of man. For we do not even Recoginze Christ this way even though the Apostles knew Him this way. So therefore the Head of the Church we also recoginze in the Spirit and not in the flesh and the Head of the Church is Christ and not man.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

We only have one that is our Father. It is not the pope. Shepherd is to lead the the flock to the truth. Not declare what is and is not truth. Difference there. For truth is found in the written pages of scripture and when one does not lead the flock to the written word of scripture that declares Gods truth how can one be a shepherd that cares for his sheep?

But the Pope does lead the flock to the written word of Scripture.. because what he does, is he never declares new truth. The Magisterium never ever declares anything new, but simply clarifications of the "faith once given".. It might sound new at first, because of the way it's put, but if you look at it closely you'll find it in the Bible.
The Pope does not declare new truths, but simply interpretations of Scripture as revealed by the Holy Spirit. If the Church was just people trying to interpret the Bible on their own, we'll have everyone with a different interpretation..in fact, much like the Protestant world today - with all the different denominations..

The only distinction the Greek makes is between the masculine and the feminine of the same root word. We know from the Greek that the name Christ actually gave to Simon was the Aramaic name "Cephas". We know that means rock. There is no connatation of it meaning anything other than rock (like pebble or stone).

When translating Cephas to Greek, that would become "petra". Greek is a romance language, where nouns are assigned gender. The noun for rock happens to be feminine. When translating the Aramaic "cephas" -- rock to Greek, petra would be used. However, Petra as a name in Greek belongs to a woman. The male counterpart is Petros. Just like with Louise and Louis, or Michelle and Michael or Josephine or Joseph. Why would the person writing the Greek text of Matthew choose to leave the name in the feminine form of Petra when speaking of Cephas?

We also know that when the Greek actually wants to speak of a pebble or stone, it uses lithos. If the writer wanted to confer a difference between rock and stone, he would have said "you are petra and upon this lithos I will build my church". Two completely different root words to convey a true difference in meaning, rather than simply not assigning a woman's name to a man.

It also completely ignores the fact that upon their first meeting, Jesus changed Simon's name to "rock". Significant event in the Bible. Abraham's name was changed by God as father of the covenant. Jacob's name was changed to Israel as father of the Jewish nation. And Peter's name was changed by God as father of the church Christ would establish.

Thing being this visable head is of the flesh. For The very Bride of Christ is a Spiritual body. Born out of the very Spirit of God. This is why we only have one Head and one Father. This being Christ and God. We see in this scripture it all layed out for us.

1Co 11:3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

We do not deny that Christ is the Head of the Church or even the Rock.. the Pope does not replace Christ!! He is simply the visible "rock" that Christ put upon the earth to help guide us. He is a representative of the Head, not the Head.

You said that "having a visible head is of the flesh. the very Bride of Christ is a Spiritual body". But what do you mean by "spiritual"? I think the definition of "spiritual" goes above and beyond simply saying that it's "not physical".
This comment sounds a little gnostic to me.. not everything physical is "of the flesh".. "flesh" is everything that's fallen, but when it's redeemed, it can be physical yet not be "flesh" anymore. Examples are..the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and our future resurrection. and the Sacraments.
Just because the Church is a Spiritual Body doesn't mean that it's invisible or doesn't interact with the physical world in any way. If you continue this argument to its logical conclusion, you'll end up with the idea that the Incarnation is "of the flesh".
Do you see what i mean?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

But the Pope does lead the flock to the written word of Scripture.. because what he does, is he never declares new truth. The Magisterium never ever declares anything new, but simply clarifications of the "faith once given".. It might sound new at first, because of the way it's put, but if you look at it closely you'll find it in the Bible.

The Pope does not declare new truths, but simply interpretations of Scriptureas revealed by the Holy Spirit. If the Church was just people trying to interpret the Bible on their own, we'll have everyone with a different interpretation..in fact, much like the Protestant world today - with all the different denominations..

Greetings and interesing post. I suppose that is one reason I am neither RC or Protestant
We are all a Kingdom of Priests according to YHWH and His Christ Jesus.

Joshua 6:16 and becoming in Time the Seventh, the [Seven] Priests blew in Trumpets, and Y@howshuwa` is saying to the people, "Shout ye!/07321 ruwa`, that YHWH gave to ye the City;

Joel 2:1 Blow ye a Trumpet in Tsiyown, and shout ye!/07321 ruwa` in mountain of holiness of Me. All of the inhabitants of the land shall be trembled, that coming Day of YHWH, that nigh-at-hand!

Hebrews 11:30 by faith the walls of Jericho did fall, having been surrounded/kuklwqenta <2944> upon seven days;

Revelation 10:7 But in the Days of the voice of the Seventh Messenger, when-ever he may be being about to be Trumpeting, also is finish the Mystery of the GOD, as He brings good-news to His bond-servants, the prophets.

Revelation 8:6 And the Seven Messengers having the Seven Trumpets make ready themselves that they-should-be-trumpeting;

 

[katholikos]

It matters not what we think or imagine, the Greek is what was passed down to us, and the Greek make a distinction here.

FIRST: There is good evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic. Both Papias and Irenaeus told us that in the second century. More importantly, and more certainly, Jesus would have spoken his discourse of Matthew 16 in Aramaic, not Greek. Although Greek was the dominant language of the Roman Empire in the first century, most of the Jewish people Jesus spoke to were not fluent in it. They spoke Aramaic.

There is also biblical evidence, in John 1:42, that Jesus used Aramaic in the naming of Peter:

[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter).​

The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic name Kepha, which simply means "rock." There was no "small rock" to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter. Even well-respected Protestant scholars agree on this point. Baptist scholar D. A. Carson writes:

The underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; at 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 a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8, Zondervan, 368)​

SECOND: In Koine Greek (the dialect used by the authors of the New Testament), petros and petra are the masculine and feminine form of a word with the same root and the same definition—"rock." Therefore, there is no "small rock" in the Greek text either. So why did Matthew use two different words for "rock" in the same verse?

Petra was a common word for "rock" in Greek. It is used fifteen times to mean "rock," "rocks," or "rocky" in the New Testament. Petros is an ancient Greek term that was not commonly used in Koine Greek at all. In fact, it was never otherwise used in the New Testament except when Jesus changed Peter’s name from Simon to Peter.

It follows that when the Gospel of Matthew was translated into Greek, petra would have been used for "rock," but petra is a feminine noun. It would have been improper to call Peter " petra," and so petros, the masculine form, was used for his name.




source
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0611btb.asp