I did, did you?

HEADER FOR Expressions

(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)

Welcome

Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."

God bless you...

I did, did you?

Forum: Theological Expressions
Re:

The clergy/laity distinction: a help or a hindrance to the body of Christ? (RTC)
Re:

The bible did show some how............. (Emmanuel)
Re:

More on the Rock (RTC)
Re:

Regarding the Rock.......pebbles......... (Emmanuel)
Re:

Here's more (RTC)
Re:

Did you really read my whole message about petros and kephas? (Emmanuel)
Date: 2001, Jul 31
From: RTC

++Yes I did. That’s why I responded with the article which has dealt with the issues raised in your post. Perhaps you did not get it. Petros is simply the masculine form of the feminine Greek noun petra. Like Spanish and French, Greek nouns have gender. So when the female noun petra, large rock, was used as Simon's name, it was rendered in the masculine form as petros. Otherwise, calling him Petra would have been like calling him Michelle instead of Michael, or Louise instead of Louis.""Wrong." ++I disagree with that. What do you mean by a feminine rock? Of course a rock has no gender! I’m no Greek reader or scholar but I can appreciate the richness, depth and breadth of the Greek language. I think Jesus’ choice of words has nothing to do with gender but to illustrate the difference between petros and petra, petros being a commonly referred to as Peter. Furthermore Vine’s dictionary explains petra denotes "a mass of rock," as distinct from petros, "a detached stone or boulder," or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved. Well, what would you say if I told you that even Protestant Greek scholars like D.A. Carson and Joseph Thayer admit there is no distinction in meaning between petros and petra in the Koine Greek of the New Testament? As you pointed out, petra means a 'rock.' It even usually means a 'large rock.' And that's exactly what petros means, too — large rock. It does not mean 'pebble' or 'small stone,' as you've been told. ++In the beginning of the article I posted it stated that “In secular Greek petra means rock, a mass of rock, boulder, and stone as material. petros, likewise attested from earliest times, means a (broken off) piece of rock, stone. A strict distinction of meaning cannot however be maintained: petros can mean, rock, and petra, stone.” This would probably clarify what DA Carson and Thayer said. But then the article goes on to note the way petros and petra has been used. Did you miss that? If St. Matthew had wanted to draw a distinction between a big rock and a little rock in Matthew 16:17-19, he could have by using lithos, but he didn't. The rock is St. Peter!"Wilma, the VP of finance and a member of your parish has a thought, "Fred, how do you explain the fact that Jesus addresses St. Peter directly seven times in this short passage? It doesn't make sense that He would address everything to St. Peter and then say, 'By the way, I'm building the Church on Me.' The context seems pretty clear that Jesus gave authority to St. Peter, naming him the rock." ++The article also dealt with lithos by saying that “In secular Greek lithos (Homer onwards) means stone. In general lithos can describe stones of every sort. In the NT most instances of the word lithos are in the Synoptic Gospels, especially Matt.; it occurs only occasionally in Paul, in 1 Pet. and in Rev. It is used lit. of a mill-stone, a boulder or a precious stone. Its fig. use is chiefly in connexion with OT quotations which are given a messianic interpretation.” In other words you have to note the context of which lithos was used! notice Matthew used the demonstrative pronoun taute, which means 'this very,' when he referred to the rock on which the Church would be built: 'You are Peter, and on taute petra,' this very rock, 'I will build My Church.'"Also, when a demonstrative pronoun is used with the Greek word for 'and,' which is 'kai,' the pronoun refers back to the preceding noun. In other words, when Jesus says, 'You are rock, and on this rock I will build My Church,' the second rock He refers to has to be the same rock as the first one. Peter is the rock in both cases. "Jesus could have gotten around it if He'd wanted to. He didn't have to say, 'And,' kai, 'on this rock I will build My Church.' He could've said, 'But,' alla, 'on this rock I will build My Church,' meaning another rock. He would have then had to explain who or what this other rock was. But He didn't do that." ++This has been addressed by the article when it says “If, therefore, the rock is Peter himself, the passage gives no grounds for thinking that Jesus gave him this name in virtue of his stable character. In fact, his vacillation under pressure gives a certain irony to the name. It would seem that Peter was the rock in the sense that he was the first member of the church proper. In the context of Christ’s pronouncement Peter is the representative spokesman of the disciples, the first to confess Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God. As such, he is assured that flesh and blood has not revealed this to him but the Father in heaven (Matt. 16:16 f.). He used the keys of the kingdom in opening the church first to the Jews (Acts 2) and then to the Gentiles (Acts 10) by proclaiming the gospel to them. He exercised leadership in the appointment of Matthias to the apostolic band in replacement of Judas (Acts 1) and discipline in the case of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11). He figured prominently in the early days of the church in bearing witness before the Jews and their leaders. However, once the church was thus opened and established, Peter’s foundational role is essentially over. After his imprisonment (Acts 12) he began to occupy a less prominent place. His work was confined to the Jewish mission (Gal. 2:8). In the first great council of the church depicted in Acts 15 it was James, the Lord’s brother, who presided (Acts 15:19 ff.). Although Peter played an important part in the debate (Acts 15:7 ff.), it was James who delivered the decisive judgment. Moreover, nowhere in the NT does Peter lay claim to primacy. In the opening verses of the two epistles of Peter, the author describes himself as an apostle, and this is how Paul views him (1 Cor. 9:5).” The Apostles can be the foundation of the Church because they are in Christ, the one Foundation. The Church can be the light of the world because she is in the true Light of the world. A teacher can teach because he is in the one true Teacher, Christ. In the same way, St. Peter is indeed the rock of Matthew 16, and that doesn't detract from Christ being the rock of 1 Corinthians 10:4. ++I think your argument negates the primacy of Peter on its own merit! If the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, it in no way singles out Peter. Jesus directed His remarks on Peter simply because Peter uttered the truth about Him which was revealed by God the Father. That doesn’t of itself set Peter above the others as RC would like to do so. Here’s some reading for you at http://home.chello.no/~akatanov/papacy/index.htm