Upon this Rock.... Enter the lists

[SetInMotion]

Where are rocks, even small rocks, ever called sand in Scripture? Where is any other Israelite likened to a rock? They are different words for a reason: “rock” has a different symbolic and linguistic meaning from “sand.”

Isa_48:19 Thy seed also had been as the sand, and the offspring of thy bowels like the gravel thereof; his name should not have been cut off nor destroyed from before me.

Luk_19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

Mat_3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

Luk_3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

The “stones” were the people around them, hard in heart., see also :

Mar_4:16 And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness;

 

[MiserereMei]

What? (koine Greek) petros means (in English) ‘a stone’. Simply translating into “Peter” is not a real translation into English, but a transliteration of the koine Greek.

Danker is a Koine dictionary. Did I not say that “Peter” is just the Greek version of “Kephas”? “Stone” might be the meaning of the name, but that does not mean that you translate the meaning of the name when making a translation. You translate names with names.

Isa_48:19 Thy seed also had been as the sand , and the offspring of thy bowels like the gravel thereof; his name should not have been cut off nor destroyed from before me.

This isn’t Scripture calling rocks sand.

Luk_19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out .

Is stones here a reference to the people, or to actual stones. The context seems to indicate literal stones, since the Pharisees were telling Jesus to shut the people up and Jesus was basically saying (MiserereMei’s paraphrase version “No, if I tell those people to shut up the stones will start yelling instead!” If it were the “hard in heart”, why WOULDN’T Jesus have wanted them to cry out “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord”?

Luk_3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

Again, Jesus is saying to the people to repent and not boast in their heritage from Abraham, as he can easily dispense with them and raise up replacements from stones if need be. If “stones” here refers to people Jesus is saying: “Repent and do not boast that you are children of Abraham, because God can turn you into children of Abraham.”

Mar_4:16 And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground ; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness;

The people are sown. They are plants in this parable. Stones are not sown.

 

[SetInMotion]

The people are sown . They are plants in this parable. Stones are not sown.

No, the word of God (seed, even Jesus) is sown into the heart by the sower, and the heart (soil) represents the differing type of people (4 types).

 

[SetInMotion]

Jesus is saying: “Repent and do not boast that you are children of Abraham, because God can turn you into children of Abraham.”

Exactly. Physical descendacy Jesus said was worthless. It was the Heart, the “faith of Abraham” (unto works) that mattered.

Joh_8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

 

[Bithynian]

Danker is a Koine dictionary. Did I not say that “Peter” is just the Greek version of “Kephas”? “Stone” might be the meaning of the name, but that does not mean that you translate the meaning of the name when making a translation.

This is absolutely correct. All approved Catholic Bibles in English treat Πἐτρος as a proper noun, including the Douay Rheims (as well as the KJV), the RSV-CE and the NAB-CE. Likewise, Jerome also translated Πέτρος using the Latinised proper nouns Petrus, as opposed to the common nouns petra or saxum.

There is an oft-repeated joke in Biblical Greek scholarship that Πέτρος should be translated as Rocky in English as that perfectly captures the meaning of John 1:42 and the wordplay in Matt 16:18 “And you are Rocky, and upon this rock I shall build my Church”. The downside is that “St. Rocky” and “The Keys of St. Rocky” doesn’t have quite that ring to it.

 

[MiserereMei]

No, the word of God (seed, even Jesus) is sown into the heart by the sower, and the heart (soil) represents the differing type of people (4 types).

Ok, let’s parse this out a bit.

20 As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away. (RSV)

Interestingly, in v. 19, we DO have Jesus referring to what was sown as the word. However, he switches this in v. 20 to “he who hears the word”, strengthening it by saying in v. 21 that “he” falls away, not the word, as in v. 19. In fact, this is the same way in the rest of the explanation as well.

Exactly. Physical descendacy Jesus said was worthless. It was the Heart, the “faith of Abraham” (unto works) that mattered.

Yes. So, how is this saying that the people’s hearts were the rocks? I thought that was what you were trying to say? To support your

Peter, is a part of the children of Israel, likened unto many small rocks gathered together, called “sand”, in scripture.

statement? Maybe I am tired.

Also, I fear my point

Again, Jesus is saying to the people to repent and not boast in their heritage from Abraham, as he can easily dispense with them and raise up replacements from stones if need be. If “stones” here refers to people Jesus is saying: “Repent and do not boast that you are children of Abraham, because God can turn you into children of Abraham.”

was missed. Does the grammar of my paraphrase there not strike you as odd? Because Jesus says nothing like that in actuality, because the actual verse says: " Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." Not “you stones”; but as in “see all these rocks? Yeah, just like God can turn rocks into bread (cf. Satan’s temptation of Jesus–it would not have been a temptation if it had not been possible), he can turn rocks into not just people but even children of Abraham. So don’t get too ahead of yourselves, don’t pretend you are special.”

 

[SetInMotion]

All approved Catholic Bibles in English treat Πἐτρος as a proper noun,

That is fine and dandy, but that doesn’t give the definition of the transliterated word. Names in scripture have meaning.

for instance:

“… for as his name is, so is he; Nabal is his name, and folly is with him: …”

Noah, meaning to give rest:

Gen 5:29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.

 

[MiserereMei]

There is an oft-repeated joke in Biblical Greek scholarship that Πέτρος should be translated as Rocky in English as that perfectly captures the meaning of John 1:42 and the wordplay in Matt 16:18 “And you are Rocky, and upon this rock I shall build my Church”. The downside is that “St. Rocky” and “The Keys of St. Rocky” doesn’t have quite that ring to it.

Off topic, but: Just trying to give this the same linguistic treatment as Peter → Petrine is making me crack up.

 

[JimG]

So if Jesus spoke Aramaic, He said, “Thou art Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my Church.” At the time he said this, not one word of the new testament had been written.

 

[MiserereMei]

That is fine and dandy, but that doesn’t give the definition of the transliterated word. Names in scripture have meaning.

That does not mean that you translate a name with a meaning when you render the name in English. And the standard dictionaries for the name in question have no denotation of “small” or “rolling” or “sand” or anything else that qualifies it. Petrus/Peter/Petros is just the masculine name meaning “rock”. The fact that it is masculine gives it no linguistic change in meaning from the feminine, which is “rock”.

Yes, names mean something. So when God changed Abraham’s name, did that not mean that the meaning of the name was identified with his function in salvation history? If so, why is Peter any different? The plain grammar of the passage demands that Peter is the “rock” upon which the Church is built. Now, is it because of his good confession? Of course! Christ says as much! But it requires too much linguistic acrobatics and confessional reading into the text to say other than what the vast majority of experts in the field and the vast majority of Christian interpreters (many of them knew Greek natively and were well-regarded as the most erudite men of their day) through the centuries have said.

 

[Mishakel]

There are zero transcripts in Aramaic or Hebrew. To speculate Christ used the literal word Kepha & not shu’a or something else is 10,000% conjecture.

The usage of two different words in the inspired Greek original, if representing an Aramaic original (which is in no case certain) would seem to point to the usage of two separate Aramaic words in this passage.

 

[SetInMotion]

There is an oft-repeated joke in Biblical Greek scholarship that Πέτρος should be translated as Rocky in English as that perfectly captures the meaning of John 1:42 and the wordplay in Matt 16:18 “And you are Rocky, and upon this rock I shall build my Church”. The downside is that “St. Rocky” and “The Keys of St. Rocky” doesn’t have quite that ring to it.

Reminds me of this guy:

 

[SetInMotion]

That does not mean that you translate a name with a meaning when you render the name in English.

Mar_3:17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:

Mar 3:17 GNT TR και ιακωβον τον του ζεβεδαιου και ιωαννην τον αδελφον του ιακωβου και επεθηκεν αυτοις ονοματα βοανεργες ο εστιν υιοι βροντης

Mar 3:17 DRB And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he named them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder.

Mar 3:17 Jerome Latin Vulgate et Iacobum Zebedaei et Iohannem fratrem Iacobi et (name removed by moderator)osuit eis nomina Boanerges quod est Filii tonitrui

Mar 3:17 Bishops And he called Iames [the sonne] of Zebedee, and Iohn, Iames brother (and gaue them to name Boanarges, which is to say, the sonnes of thunder.)

Mar 3:17 Genevans Then Iames the sonne of Zebedeus, & Iohn Iames brother (and surnamed them Boanerges, which is, the sonnes of thunder,)

Simply following the pattern:

Joh_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.

 

[C.Longinus]

This is my interpretation. Jesus calls Peter a pebble because that’s who he is but He promises that He will make him a large rock mass.

 

[SetInMotion]

This is my interpretation. Jesus calls Peter a pebble because that’s who he is but He promises that He will make him a large rock mass.

I think I know where he is today then:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Looks like Paul got the same though …

 

[Mishakel]

Contrary to some beliefs, the idea of Peter not being granted some official papacy role wasn’t invented by Protestants. Plenty of prominent early church fathers shared this belief in writing.

 

[po18guy]

1. Semantics do not lead directly to the truth - or at all.
2. Semantics were not preached by Christ.
3. Semantics, if anything lead to division and a distancing from the Lord. That is the tactic of the evil one.
4. Semantics are required if you ignore how Christ founded the Church.
5. Semantics are required if one ignores how that Church developed and has been preserved and handed on for about 100 generations.
6. Semantics were introduced to mankind in Genesis 3.

 

[SetInMotion]

• Semantics do not lead directly to the truth - or at all.
• Semantics were not preached by Christ.
• Semantics, if anything lead to division and a distancing from the Lord. That is the tactic of the evil one.
• Semantics are required if you ignore how Christ founded the Church.
• Semantics are required if one ignores how that Church developed and has been preserved and handed on for about 100 generations.
• Semantics were introduced to mankind in Genesis 3.

I agree with all of the above, and thus see it from the other position, looking at a certain theological systems bo-janglin’.

 

[po18guy]

Nice modern twist. Refreshing, efferverscent, lighter than air!

Historically rancid.

 

[MiserereMei]

Semantics do not lead directly to the truth - or at all.

This is why, at the end of the day, a living and final arbiter is needed when Christians come into conflict.

Semantics can prove anything from the Bible. I would know.