Peter Is Not The Rock!

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Anglian Dear Rick,

Thanks for this. Does this actually represent reality? I ask because a quick look at this Forum suggests that most people are speaking for the Bible, telling us what it means to them. That seems fair enough. It is when they deny what others say it means to them that the problems appear to start.

Peace,

Anglian

Greetings. Harmonization of the OT and NT generally requires patience and understanding of the Word.
Btw, how do you view those 2 "olive trees" in Reve 11:4? Zech 14:4 shows Him standing of course and not sitting as in Matt 24 but Reve 14 does show Him standing. Thanks.

Zech 14:4 And the feet of Him in that day on Mount of the Olives which before Jerusalem from east/rising of sun and is rent Mount of the Olives

Matthew 24:3 He is yet sitting on the Mount of the Olives/elaiwn <1636>, the disciples toward-came to Him according to own, saying, `Tell us, when shall these-things be? and what the Sign of the Thy ParousiaV <3952>, and of the together-finish of the Age?'

Revelation 14:1 And I saw and Behold! [*the] a lamb-kin standing upon the Mount Zion

 

[narnia59]

That question would have been answered with a personal pronoun ("you") and would have been consistent with Him personaly addressing Peter. By Him not using the personal pronoun "you" we can presume that He had to either turn from personaly addressing Peter to address all present, which would moderate but not completely dismiss the question of His use of the impersonal pronoun ("this"- instead of "he"), or that He didn't mean this rock was a person, leaving only the rock of truth this person expressed.

Or perhaps this view:
One of the top Evangelical, non-Catholic scholars in America, Professor Donald Carson of the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in his book, God With Us, Themes from Matthew says, "Jesus was simply using a pun to say that Peter is the rock on which Jesus would build His Church.

Then He would've said "upon you", not "upon this".

He was talking to Peter, and he said 'you'. He said ‘You are Peter (rock) and upon this rock….”

The person scripture repeatedly names as the rock in the OT & NT is Christ, not Peter.

A false dichotomy that is not supported by Scripture. Peter being the visible ‘rock’ does not supercede Christ being ‘the rock’ anymore than Scripture noting the man is the ‘head’ of his family supercedes Christ being the ‘head’ of the body of Christ, or God giving the people ‘one shepherd’, David, when He said that “I myself will shepherd them”.

For what other purpose did Christ give Peter the name of "rock" then?

Why is it do you supposed God sees a human family as needing a visible person in the role of ‘head’ as opposed to each person to take their lead from God directly? Could it be that he understood this was necessary for the family to maintain unity? A model he put in place to support the family, but no such model to support the Christian family?

Then the keys having a symbolic meaning has a point of diminishing returns. That would be the point at which they were unnecessary in assigning the exact same authority to the other apostles. Your over-emphasis is self-serving in this respect.

A rather subjective view when one could equally assume that under-emphasis can play a self-serving role as well?

Which ignores the Melchizedek king/priest model that Jesus presented.

More than can be counted on one hand? I don't think so. Again you over-emphasize, exagerrating a meaning to suit your authority preference.

Again, a quite subjective view of the purpose of emphasis. If the papacy was viewed to be in the role of the OT high-priest, you might have a point. Since it is not, Christ as high-priest in the order of Melchizedek is not ignored at all.

That was king-only. We're talkin' king/priest, & a nation thereof, and a dissemination of the exact same authority amongst at least dozen people*, regardless of a single instance of use of metaphor, no actual keys existing or having been literaly given.

* the Matt 18 scripture shows He was addressing "disciples", not "apostles".

Are you saying that the king alone was in charge of the palace and had the keys? That he did not designate a single individual for this role?

If the single instance of the use of the metaphor had no OT roots to foreshadow it, one might wonder about its purpose. But since Peter, and those who heard him speak to Peter, would have been familiar with the book of Isaiah where the reference clearly equates with the king placing one individual to be in charge of the palace, and since this model is seen many times throughout the Jewish kingships, one can assume they would draw from that knowledge to understand what receiving the keys to the kingdom meant.

 

[MamaZ]

Yes He was speaking to Peter when He said You are Peter..So if He was still speaking to Peter He would have said and upon You I will build my church. There are two different words used. With two different meanings. This has already been discussed.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

'Dude', You Rock!

Forgive me...

 

[narnia59]

Yes He was speaking to Peter when He said You are Peter..So if He was still speaking to Peter He would have said and upon You I will build my church. There are two different words used. With two different meanings. This has already been discussed.

And will be discussed again, I'm sure.

However, since the only time the NT refers to 'petros' is in terms of the person Peter, and the translators never chose to use this to denote any kind of stone, the difference can be equally understood as simply translating the feminine noun to the masculine form to name a man.

And since Peter's name does mean rock, the need to say 'upon you' instead of 'this rock', is not particularly necessary to understand that he was speaking directly to Peter, about Peter and his role.

Which could indeed be the purpose he named him 'rock' in the first place.

As several Protestant Bible scholars seem to believe.

 

[narnia59]

'Dude', You Rock!

Forgive me...

So why do you think Jesus changed Peter's name (the only person whose name he changed) to Cephas (rock) at their first meeting?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

So why do you think Jesus changed Peter's name (the only person whose name he changed) to Cephas (rock) at their first meeting?

Me? What do I think?

I think Christ wanted to show a very strong relationship between Peter and his statement. I certainly don't think he was employing any comedy.

Forgive me...

 

[MamaZ]

And will be discussed again, I'm sure.

However, since the only time the NT refers to 'petros' is in terms of the person Peter, and the translators never chose to use this to denote any kind of stone, the difference can be equally understood as simply translating the feminine noun to the masculine form to name a man.

And since Peter's name does mean rock, the need to say 'upon you' instead of 'this rock', is not particularly necessary to understand that he was speaking directly to Peter, about Peter and his role.

Which could indeed be the purpose he named him 'rock' in the first place.

As several Protestant Bible scholars seem to believe.

Peter means little the other rock means massive or bedrock. Two different words..

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yes He was speaking to Peter when He said You are Peter..So if He was still speaking to Peter He would have said and upon You I will build my church. There are two different words used. With two different meanings. This has already been discussed.

I still haven't heard too much concerning this predicate in Matt 16 and Hebrew 11.

Matt 16:18 `And I yet to thee/soi <4671> am saying, that thou art petroV <4074>, and upon this/tauth <3778>, the petra <4073> I shall be building of Me the 0ut-called, and gates of Hades not shall be prevailing of her;

Hebrew 11:2 For in this/tauth <3778> were testified to the Elders/presbuteroi 3 To Faith we are apprehending...........

Textus Rec.) Matthew 16:18 kagw de soi legw oti su ei petroV kai epi tauth th petra oikodomhsw mou thn ekklhsian kai pulai adou ou katiscusousin authh

Textus Rec.) Hebrews 11:2 en tauth gar emarturhqhsan oi presbuteroi

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Whe can't the RCs understand that petroV was the Apostle to the Circumcison. Another words, he was now an Elder of the FAITH not of the Flesh. Thoughts?

Luke 11:52 `Woe to ye, the lawyers/nomikoiV <3544>, because ye take away the Key of the Knowledge; yourselves not ye enter; and those coming in, ye hinder.'

Matthew 16:19 "I shall be giving to thee the Keys/ of the kingdom/F of the heavens/M. And which if-ever thou should be binding upon the land shall be having been boundin the heavens, and which if-ever thou should be loosing upon the land, shall be having been loosed in the heavens.

Hebrew 11:2 For in this/tauth <3778> were testified to the Elders/presbuteroi 3 To Faith we are apprehending...........

 

[sunlover1]

'Dude', You Rock!

Forgive me...

So why do you think Jesus changed Peter's name (the only person whose name he changed) to Cephas (rock) at their first meeting?

He was making a statement about His plan.
When He did it with Abraham it was never about
the man, when He did it with Jacob it was
certainly never about the man.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Narnia,

Thanks for your continued patience. As an Orthodox, I am still awaiting a satisfactory answer to the question of why Christ changed Peter's name to rock and then said 'on this rock'.

We say, as many of the ECFs did, that it is the rock of Peter's faith, but some also read it the other way. The issue of the keys also seems significant, and I don't see the answers any of us giving on these two things as representing anything more than one tradition of interpretation. What remains odd to my mind is that it seems to be the non-Catholics arguing there is only one way of reading these verses, when patently there has always been more than that.

You make a good case, and I, for one, am glad for your continued patience.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[narnia59]

Me? What do I think?

I think Christ wanted to show a very strong relationship between Peter and his statement. I certainly don't think he was employing any comedy.

Forgive me...

At the time Christ changed his name, there was no statement though. Andrew brought Peter to meet Jesus, Jesus took one look at him, and changed his name before Peter ever uttered a word.

His statement of faith comes much later....

 

[Anglian]

He was making a statement about His plan.
When He did it with Abraham it was never about
the man, when He did it with Jacob it was
certainly never about the man.

Dear Sunlover,

But the Catholic position is that His plan, as revealed here, was that Peter should be be the rock. I'm not understanding the point about 'little rock' unless people are suggesting Our Lord was making a joke - and no one has explained why He should be or what it meant.

My own Church takes the view that it was Peter's faith which was the rock; but I am uneasy with the way none of us is really dealing with the change of name. Why does Christ change Simon's name to Peter, which means Rock. He calls John and James 'Sons of Thunder', but we don't get an explanation there. All quite perplexing, unless we actually acknowledge there has been more than one way of reading these verses. Or are we saying that only the way we read them is right?

Peace,

Anglian

 

[narnia59]

Peter means little the other rock means massive or bedrock. Two different words..

Same root word, and when speaking about actually naming a person, the gender of the noun and the gender of the person being in conflict requires a resolution. In terms of names, Petra and Petros are the feminine/masculine version of the same name.

Especially telling that 'petros' is never used to indicate anything but the name of Peter.

Just like Louis/Louise, Joseph/Josephine, Michael/Michelle

Don't you think it would have been a little odd if the Greek translators had given him the name Petra?

 

[MamaZ]

At the time Christ changed his name, there was no statement though. Andrew brought Peter to meet Jesus, Jesus took one look at him, and changed his name before Peter ever uttered a word.

His statement of faith comes much later....

Jesus can look into the hearts of men. Knowing that Peter would deny Him and knowing Peter He changed His name for Peter.. Not for anyone else but PETER.

 

[narnia59]

He was making a statement about His plan.
When He did it with Abraham it was never about
the man, when He did it with Jacob it was
certainly never about the man.

For it never being about the man, we are certainly told about a lot about the man Abraham. Jesus himself refers to him as 'Father Abraham'. He told the Jews that if they were children of Abraham, they would do the things Abraham did. He had no problem in crediting Abraham the man for the role he was given and fulfilled. Why should we minimize that?

 

[MamaZ]

Just as Sarah's name was changed and Saul,s name was changed and why John was named John. This is personal between Jesus and Peter..

 

[MamaZ]

For it never being about the man, we are certainly told about a lot about the man Abraham. Jesus himself refers to him as 'Father Abraham'. He told the Jews that if they were children of Abraham, they would do the things Abraham did. He had no problem in crediting Abraham the man for the role he was given and fulfilled. Why should we minimize that?

Now we see that those who believe in Christ greater things will they Do. Not those who believe in Peter.

 

[narnia59]

Jesus can look into the hearts of men. Knowing that Peter would deny Him and knowing Peter He changed His name for Peter.. Not for anyone else but PETER.

I am certain there were many private conversations between Christ and all of his disciples. These were not recorded. To assume this was recorded for no purpose relating to us .... what else are we going to write off as being 'not meant for us'? Or do we believe that every word, every letter has its purpose, for us?