Posted on 06/02/2018 6:34:56 AM PDT by Salvation
Question: A Protestant told me recently that Peter can’t be the rock since Jesus is described as the rock and cornerstone of the Church, and he showed me a couple of places where Jesus is described as the cornerstone and even a stumbling block to unbelievers. Is there an answer for this? — Allen Desome, Washington, D.C.
Answer: Of course Jesus, Peter and others who are called “rock” or stone are not literally chunks of stone. What we have in such attestations is the application of a metaphor. Scripture, like any lengthy document uses many metaphors, similes and analogies. Such things can be true in different ways.
In the Scriptures we see that Peter is called “the rock” by Jesus (Mt 16:18). Jesus is also called a stone (1 Pt 2:6). And the apostles and prophets are called foundation stones and Jesus as the cornerstone (Eph 2:20). The Book of Revelation describes the Twelve Apostles as foundation stones (Rev 21:14). So there are a number of “stone” references that need not be mutually exclusive.
Jesus is the deepest and surest foundation of the Church. That the Apostles, prophets and, in a special way, Peter are rock is understood in a subordinate sense. That is, they are rock and foundation for the Church on account of the grace and support of Jesus.
|
|
The Protestant to whom you refer fails to see the context and metaphorical sense of the texts and terms. He also fails to see that Jesus, while not abandoning his Church as her true head and foundation, does assign Peter a unique status to be the visible and identifiable rock on which the Church will be built. Peter (and his successors) is the rock, but he does not stand in midair. He is supported by Christ and his grace and affirmed by him as the visible rock and head of the Church. The Protestant approach is to see the Church as invisible. But Jesus did not establish an invisible Church. It is visible and with a visible rock and head: Peter and his successors.
I’m glancing through what was posted; I’m ignoring it on that thread so as not to ignite a flame war... yet.
But... works can add to grace? REALLY?! How on earth does it keep being grace then?
Duplicitous thinking is a hallmark of Catholic apologists on these threads.
Romans 11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
Grace is grace beginning to end.
grace
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grace
a : unmerited divine assistance given to humans for their regeneration or sanctification
b : a virtue coming from God
c : a state of sanctification enjoyed through divine assistance
The Catholic definition of grace is different from what it really is. They don't get that you don't have to do anything to get it. God just gives it because........ We didn't/couldn't work to earn it in the first place, and we don't/can't work to keep it or continue to be given it.
I think Mormons and JWs do pretty good in this line of thinking as well...
 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.' |
And Elsie`s other two hundred.
I guess I assumed wrongly...
John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
Greek has it as stone but it is exactly the same thing as rock, and has the same meaning.
Salvation`s thread explains it very well but it seems that religion has gotten in the way.
You have it backwards. Religion has gotten in the way of the text as the Holy Spirit divinely inspired it. No, He didn’t inspire the Scripture we *don’t* have. He inspired the Scripture we DO have.
Grace + works, for salvation, steals glory from the ONLY ONE due the glory.
Matthew 16:18 - http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm
Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.
Greek: 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros (”small stone”) then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra (”cliff, boulder,” Abbott-Smith).
“4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff” (TDNT, 3, 100). “4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – “a mass of connected rock,” which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is “a detached stone or boulder” (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a “solid or native rock, rising up through the earth” (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.
4073 (petra) is “a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
It’s also a strange way to word the sentence that He would call Peter a rock and say that on this I will build my church instead of *on you* as would be grammatically correct in talking to a person.
There is no support from the original Greek that Peter was to be the rock on which Jesus said he would build His church. The nouns are not the same, one being masculine and the other being feminine. They denote different objects.
Also, here, Paul identifies who petra is, and that is Christ. This link takes you to the Greek.
http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/10-4.htm
1 Corinthians 10:1-4 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock (petra) that followed them, and the Rock (petra) was Christ.
http://biblehub.com/text/romans/9-33.htm
Romans 9:30-33 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
http://biblehub.com/text/1_peter/2-8.htm
1 Peter 2:1-8 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.
As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”
and
“A stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense.”
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
All occurrences of *petra* in the Greek.
http://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_4073.htm
It's there, in the Greek.
Unfortunately, your exegesis of the Greek, along with most Protestant commentators, is akin to a non-English speaker asserting “butterfly” is related to dairy products.
I won’t spend any effort trying to convince you; I’m just being a witness.
For a definitive treatment of the subject, see Protestant Greek scholar D.A. Carson’s commentary.
Exactly. The Scripures do not promise that our guesses or assumptions re what word was spoken are inspired. The promise is that the Scriptures we HAVE are inspured.
Adjusting Scripture to fit a doctrine is a sure recipe for deception.
Basing doctrine on a translation instead of the Greek will also lead that route.
You have to go back to the original and compare it to what was originally said, not what might have been said had a different language were used.
Absolutely true. No translation will ever be as accurate and insightful as the originals mss, in the best form in which we have them. Thank God for Greek and Hebrew Bible scholars!
ROCK
-----------
Hebrew words:
kêph: H3710
kafe
From H3721; a hollow rock: - rock.
Jn. 1:42
Job 30:6, Jer. 4:29
selah: H5553
Crag, cliff, lofty stronghold
Num. 20:8 (2x), 10 (2x), 21; 24:21
Deut 32:13
Jdg. 1:36, 6:20, 15:8, 20:47, 21:13
1 Sam. 14:4 (2x), 23:25
2 Sam. 22:2*
2 Chron. 25:2 (2x)(escarpment cliff)
Neh. 9:15
Job 39:1, 39:28 (2x)
Ps. 18:2, 31:3, 55:3, 42:9, 71:3, 78:16
Song 2:14
Is. 22:16, 32:2, 42:11
Jer. 5:3, 13:4, 23:29* (small rock?), 48:28, 49:16
Ez. 24:7,8; 26:4, 26:14
Amos 6:12
Oba. 1:3
sela': H5554
(a place in Edom; same as "Petra")
tsoor: H6697 (Aramaic)
Same meaning as Hebrew "selah"
Ex. 17:6 (2x); 33:21,22
Deut. 8:15, 32:4, 13, 15, 18, 30, 31 (2x), 37
Jdg. 6:21, 7:25, 13:19,
1 Sam. 2:2*
2 Sam. 21:10, 22:3*, 22:32*, 22:47*, 2 Sam. 23:3* (see ctxt)
2 Sam. 22:32 For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a rock, save our God?
1 Chron. 11:15
Job 14:18, 18:4. 19:24*, 24:8. 29:6
Ps. 18:31,46; 27:5; 28:1; 31:2; 61:2; 62:2,6,7; 78:20,35; 81:16; 89:26; 92:15; 94:22; 95:1; 105:41; 114:8
Is. 2:10, 8:14, 10:26, 17:10, 48:21 (2x), 51:1
Is. 8:14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
Jer. 18:14* (= small rock), 21:13* (ditto?),
challâmı̂ysh, khal-law-meesh': H2496
(flint, flinty)
Deut. 8:15, 32:13 Job 28:9
Ps. 114:8
Prov. 30:19
mâ‛ôz mâ‛ûz:
maw-oze', maw-ooz'
(rock, fort, stronghold)
Jdg. 6:26
'eben: H68
(stone as a material, sling-stone, large or small, of tablets, precious stones)
Is. 8:14
Greek:
petra: G4073
Mt. 7:24, 25; 16:18; 27:60
Mk. 15:46
Lk. 6:48 (2x); 8:6, 13*;
Rom. 9:33
1 Cor. 10:4
1 Pet. 2:8
petros:G4074
Mt. 16:18; Jn. 1:42
(162 times referring to Peter, and nothing or no one else)
lithos:G3037
Mt. 27:60
Mt. 15:46
Rom. 9:33
1 Pet. 2:8
---------------------
106 verses found, 119 matches
==============
STONE
-----------
Hebrew/Aramaic:
kêph: H3710
kafe
From H3721; a hollow rock: - rock.
'eben: H68, H69=Aramaic, same sound
eh'-ben
Gen. 2:12, 11:3 (brick=stone), 28:18, 22 (pillow=pillar), 29:2,3,8; 29:10; 31:45; 35:14 (Beth-El); 49:24 (as a material);
Ex. 15:5,16; 17:12; 20:25; 21:18; 24:12; 28:10,11; 31:18; 34:1,4 (2x)
Lev. 20:27; 24:23; 26:1
Num. 14:10, 15:35, 35:17,23
Deut. 4:13,28; 5:22; 9:9,10,11; 10:1,3; 13:10; 17:5; 21:21; 22:24; 28:36; 29:17
Josh. 4:5, 15:6, 18:7, 24:26,27 (a great stone as a monument)
Jdg. 9:5,18;
1 Sam. 6:14,18; 7:12; 14:33; 17:49,50 (sling-stone); 25:37
2 Sam. 20:8
1 Ki. 1:9; 6:7,18; 8:9
2 Ki. 3:25 (2x); 12:12; 19:18; 22:6
1 Chron. 22:14,15
2 Chron. 22:14, 34:11
Neh. 4:3, 9:11
Job. 28:2, 38:6,30
Ps. 98:12, 118:22
Prov. 17:8; 24:31; 26:8,27:3
Is. 8:14*; 28:16 (2x); 39:17
Jer. 2:27; 51:26 (2x),63
Lam. 3:53
Ezek. 1:26; 10:1,9; 16:40; 20:32; 23:47; 28:13; 40:42
Dan. 2:34,35,45; 5:4,23; 6:17
Hab. 2:11,19
Hag. 2:15 (2x)
Zech. 3:9 (2x); 12:3
sâqal: H5619 (verb)
saw-kal'
Ex. 8:26, 17:4,
Deut. 13:10; 17:5; 22:24
1 Ki. 21:10,13
tsôr: H6864
tsore
From H6696; a stone (as if pressed hard or to a point); (by implication of use) a knife: - flint, sharp stone.
Ex. 4:25, 7:19,
tserôr: H6872
(pebble)
2 Sam. 17:13* (small stone)
shâmı̂yr: H8068
(adamanine, flint, diamond)
Zech. 7:12;
sappı̂yr: H5601
(sapphire-stone, lapis lazuli)
Ex. 24:10
râgam: H7275 (verb)
(to kill by stoning)
Lev. 20:2; 20:27; 24:14,16; 24:23
Num. 14:10, 15:35
Deut. 21:21,
Ezek. 16:40, 23:47
gâzı̂yth: H1496
hewed (stone)
1 Ki. 6:36
Lam. 3:9
Amos 5:11
Greek
akrogōniaios: G0204
(Corner foundation stone)
1 Pet. 2:6
lithos: G3037
lee'-thos
Mt. 4:3,6; 7:9; 21:42,44; 24:2 (2x); 27:60,66; 28:2
Mk. 12:10; 13:2 (2x); 15:46; 16:3,4
Lk. 4:3,11; 11:1; 19:44; 20:17,18; 21:6; 24:2
Jn. 8:7; 10:32; 11:38,39,41
Acts 4:11; 17:29 (as material)
1 Pet. 2:4,7,8*
Rev. 4:3; 18:21; 21:11
lithinos: G3035 (adjective)
(of stone)
Jn. 2:6
1 Cor. 3:3
Rev. 9:20
lithazō (verb)
to stone
Jn. 10:32,33; 11:8
katalithazō: G2642 (verb) Lk. 20:6
lithoboleō: G3036
(cast stones at)
Acts 14:5
laxeutos: G2991
lax-yoo-tos'
(hewn-stone; from λᾶς las (a stone) )
Lk. 23:53
mulos: G3456
(specifically a stone mill)
Rev. 18:21
psēphos: G5586
(a small worn smooth stone, a pebble)
Rev. 2:17
Kēphas: G2786
kay-fas'
Of Chaldee (=Aramaic) origin (compare [H3710]); the Rock; Cephas (that is, Kepha), surname of Peter: - Cephas.
Jn. 1:42
Other tha Jesus' one use as recorded in the NT, only Paul speaks of Kefas (transliterated to Cephas in KJV):
1 Cor. 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:5
Paul only spoke of Petros = Peter in Galatians, and that not very positively.
Simon bar Jona's sobriquet (nickname) "Peter" was found 162 times in the NT, and the word was not used in any other way for any other purpose than a nickname. The word is NOT used to translate a rock or a stone, although th word in a sentence does have that meaning. It is a strech to think that Jesus was using the word to describe Simon bar Jona's character, That is a supposition not warranted by the text doctrine.
Thanks for all that work and providing it.
You made some very interesting observations in there.
Arguing over whether the creature in question is an elephant or a pachyderm; while it steps on everyone’s toes in the room and craps in the corners.
I have more, but so far not enough time to put then down. And on “angels” too, on the other rabbit trail.
You have it backwards. Religion has gotten in the way of the text as the Holy Spirit divinely inspired it. No, He didn’t inspire the Scripture we *don’t* have. He inspired the Scripture we DO have.
Meaning “””
Concerning Jesus if the Catholis`s believe it the protestants don`t believe it, it is just a stupid religious thing and has nothing to do with scripture inspired or not.
Exactly. The Scripures do not promise that our guesses or assumptions re what word was spoken are inspired. The promise is that the Scriptures we HAVE are inspured.
In the Scripture we have—i.e.: inspired, inerrant Scripture—there is a fundamental difference between ‘petros,’ and ‘petra.’ This isn’t a Catholic or non-Catholic distinction. It is a crucial distinction given to us by the breather of Scripture, the Holy Spirit. We have no choice but to accept this distinction, understand it and honor it.
‘if [the Scriptures] were inspired to be written in greek just to make a liar out of Jesus as some of you seem to believe then they were not inspired by God.’
The Holy Spirit, who inspired the Scriptures, IS God. He did not make a liar out of Himself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.