Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Mathew 16:18--what is the "rock"? | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 41829 | ||
Not what is the rock but who is the rock? Jesus said to Simon, "You are rock (Peter)." Is there any higher authority on the question? |
||||||
2 | Mathew 16:18--what is the "rock"? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 41846 | ||
Greetings Emmaus! I'm sure you have heard this before, but Christ uses two different Greek words in this verse. Jesus uses the masculine 'Petros', which is Peter's name. And, He uses the feminine 'Petra', which is the Greek word for 'rock'. Thus, the question arises: Why the change in words? If Jesus meant to say that He would build His church upon Peter, why did't He simply say, "And upon Petros, I will build my church'? This word change has resulted in several possible understandings. 1) That Peter is the rock! The problem here is that this view doesn't explain the word change in anyway and it isn't even accurate historically. Peter wasn't the leader of even the disciples - James was! 2) That Peter's confession would be the rock! This has the advantage of explaining the word change and being in harmony with Mt. 7:24-25, where words are considered a foundation of 'petra'. 3) That Jesus Himself is the rock! Again, this would explain the word change. It would also fit well with 1 Cor. 3:11, where Jesus Himself is the foundation upon which we build. This seems to me to be the best choice since this very word is used 3 times in the New Testament in reference to Christ (Rom. 9:33, 1 Cor. 10:4, and 1 Peter 2:8. The last reference is especially interesting, since it is Peter himself who uses this term in reference to Christ, but not in reference to himself. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Mathew 16:18--what is the "rock"? | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 41942 | ||
Tim, I have heard the Petros / Petra argument before, but I am surprised you have raised it since it has been debunked and discarded even by Protestant scripture scholars. It does not hold up in a varieties of ways, The most obvious of which is the original Aramaic where Kepha is doers not have the gender problem that the Greek translation has bvecause a man's name in Greek must be masculine while petra is feminine. It comes down to this: Peter equals Kepha equals Rock. to say that the rock is anything or anyone other tha Simon Peter is to do violence to the text. Your other references are all in completely different contexts. Just two well known Protestant commentary references on the matter that should be easy to check out.There are others. "In Aramaic "Peter" and Rock are the same word; in Greek (here), they are cognate terms that were used interchageably by this period. For the idea of a person as the foundation on which something is built, cf Isaiah 51:1-2; Ephesians 2:20 (the promise is made to Peter because Peter was the one who confessed Jesus v 16), Craig Keener The IVP (Intervarsity Press) Bible Background Commentary New Testament, 1993, page 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. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clause (you are kepha and on thia kepha), since the word was used both for a name and "rock.' The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses.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 weel serve as a masculine name." The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Volume 8, page 368, Zondervan 1984 Emmaus |
||||||
4 | Mathew 16:18--what is the "rock"? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 41955 | ||
Greetings Emmaus! I understand the argument based upon Aramaic! However, I don't think it holds any water for one simple reason - the New Testament was written in Greek, not Aramaic. Thus, if God had wanted the verse to say that Peter was the rock upon which He would build the church, He simply would have said, "...and upon Petros I will build my church." Thanks for the response my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | Mathew 16:18--what is the "rock"? | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 41971 | ||
Tim, So are are of the opinion that Jesus was speaking Greek all during his ministry or just at this partiticular time convenient for your position? Emmaus |
||||||
6 | Mathew 16:18--what is the "rock"? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 41996 | ||
Greetings Emmaus! LOL!!! No my friend! I believe He spoke both, but the issue is that we don't have any Aramaic documents. We do however have the inspired Greek documents. Therefore, in my opinion, any argument based upon what Jesus may or may not have said in Armamaic doesn't carry as much water as the inspired documents which we do have. For that matter, we don't even know what Jesus spoke during His ministry. He may have spoken Aramaic, Greek, or both. We simply don't know! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||