W
WesleyF
Guest
What is the meaning of kepha? Does it mean “stone” or “rock”? Someone told me that kepha means “stone” and not “rock”. In that case, what’s the word used for “rock” in 1 Cor 10:4?
- Status
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
Kepha is Aramaic for “rock.” It does not imply any size (just as the English word “rock” may mean a large or small mineral mass).
1 Cor was written in Greek, not Aramaic. The Greek word used is “petros” (sorry, I don’t know how to type the actual Greek characters into this forum). This is the usual Greek word for “rock” (and it is a feminie noun - the masculine equivalent being “petros” which, of course, is the name given to Peter).
The usual Greek word for “stone” (a smal rock) is “lithos.” The word “petros” is used ONLY to refer to Peter (he could not be called “petra” because -a is a feminine ending).
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
Kepha is Aramaic for ROCK.
The letter to the Corinthians was written in Greek.
The Greek NT has two different words (translated a stone and the second a cliff or rock formation) used in 1 Cor 10:4 translated in English as rock.
W
WesleyF
Guest
Br. Rich, could you provide me with an authentic online source for this?
M
mark_a
Guest
If you read the next couple of verses, you’ll see that this stone or rock is given the keys to the kingdom by God himself.
So does it really matter whether its stone, rock, insignificant pebble, female stone, river rock, aquarium gravel, or whatever?
John Martignoni makes the point that when someone shoots a verse or interpretation at you, you should read the entire chapter or at least the verse before and after to get the context right.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
We need to remember that the letters may have been written in Greek but the original words were spoken in Aramaic - the language Jesus spoke. So going to the Greek one automatically picks up a translation artifact from the words that came out of Christ’s lips. I assume you are running into the standard Protestant nonsensical arguments that the church was not founded on Peter and Christ was referring to himself or not to Peter personally but to his confession etc. etc. Here is a quick rebuttal to this stubbornly contorted protestant logic spaghetti.
Mark 3:16; John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon “Kepha” in Aramaic which literally means “rock.” This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because “rock” was not even a name in Jesus’ time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person’s name, He changes their status.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are “Kepha” and on this “Kepha” I will build my Church. In Aramaic, “kepha” means a massive stone, and “evna” means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is “petra”, that “Petros” actually means “a small rock”, and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus’ blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used “Kepha,” not “evna.” Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.
Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the “small rock,” he would have used “lithos” which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).
Matt. 16:13 - also, from a geographical perspective, Jesus renames Simon to rock in Caesarea Philippi near a massive rock formation on which Herod built a temple to Caesar. Jesus chose this setting to further emphasize that Peter was indeed the rock on which the Church would be built.
Matt. 7:24 - Jesus, like the wise man, builds His house on the rock (Peter), not on grain of sand (Simon) so the house will not fall.
Luke 6:48 - the house (the Church) built upon the rock (Peter) cannot be shaken by floods (which represent the heresies, schisms, and scandals that the Church has faced over the last 2,000 years). Floods have occurred, but the Church still remains on its solid rock foundation.
Matt. 16:21 - it is also important to note that it was only after Jesus established Peter as leader of the Church that He began to speak of His death and departure. This is because Jesus had now appointed His representative on earth.
There is a great scripture based logical progression of Peter as “the Rock” and the authority of The Church at this site:
scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html
James
Mark 3:16; John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon “Kepha” in Aramaic which literally means “rock.” This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because “rock” was not even a name in Jesus’ time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person’s name, He changes their status.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are “Kepha” and on this “Kepha” I will build my Church. In Aramaic, “kepha” means a massive stone, and “evna” means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is “petra”, that “Petros” actually means “a small rock”, and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus’ blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used “Kepha,” not “evna.” Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.
Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the “small rock,” he would have used “lithos” which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).
Matt. 16:13 - also, from a geographical perspective, Jesus renames Simon to rock in Caesarea Philippi near a massive rock formation on which Herod built a temple to Caesar. Jesus chose this setting to further emphasize that Peter was indeed the rock on which the Church would be built.
Matt. 7:24 - Jesus, like the wise man, builds His house on the rock (Peter), not on grain of sand (Simon) so the house will not fall.
Luke 6:48 - the house (the Church) built upon the rock (Peter) cannot be shaken by floods (which represent the heresies, schisms, and scandals that the Church has faced over the last 2,000 years). Floods have occurred, but the Church still remains on its solid rock foundation.
Matt. 16:21 - it is also important to note that it was only after Jesus established Peter as leader of the Church that He began to speak of His death and departure. This is because Jesus had now appointed His representative on earth.
There is a great scripture based logical progression of Peter as “the Rock” and the authority of The Church at this site:
scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html
James
J
JRKH
Guest
There was a thread a while back (within the last year) where this was thoroughly discussed by a couple of gentlmen who were Scholars of Ancient Middle Eastern Languages. I wish I could remember the Thread, because they basically took every Protestant argument apart at it’s source.
The upshot was that any reasonable reading of the passage was that Jesus Renamed Simon, Rock (Kepha) (not Peter’s faith) and that He gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.
I’ll check my subscribed threads list and post a link if I can find it, but I suspect it’s gone.
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
Hooray - I DID Find it.
HERE It Is.
Look for the Posts by Ronydish. Starting on Pages 8 and 9.
While it gets quite detailed, it’s interesting reading for anyone really interested.
Peace
James
HERE It Is.
Look for the Posts by Ronydish. Starting on Pages 8 and 9.
While it gets quite detailed, it’s interesting reading for anyone really interested.
Peace
James
S
SteveGC
Guest
THANK YOU mark. I mean, is there really any refuting the keys? We put so much effort into the rock/pebble debate (which Catholics obviously always win), that we forget that it makes no difference what Christ called him…he gave him the keys!
I’m sure there must be some shallow rebuttal for the keys debate, but I’m also sure that they think they can win us over just by making some plausible argument about rocks and pebbles, while stiff-arming the “key” issue (pun intended).
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
No, because I generally don’t use online sources, Most of my sources are in print form in my library.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
It is my understanding that although there may have been some distinction in very early manuscripts, by the time the New Testament was written, kepha had come to mean “rock” without implying any size one way or the other.
Perhaps you can share with us why this is important to you and we can offer futher assistance.
W
WesleyF
Guest
James, what I’m looking for is an online dictionary resource which says so. Please provide me with an authentic link which says that “kepha” means “rock”. I just cannot tell them that James said so!
G
gamesport
Guest
Protestant interpretation of Matt 16:18-20:
" 18. thou art Peter; and basically you are an insignificant rock, so i don’t even know why i changed your name to begin with. But i will build my Church upon this insignifant rock, which might or might not be your faith.
19. I will also give you the keys to the kingdom, and give spare keys to James White and other protestants to infallibly interpret for themselves, and have direct access to me
20. and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven, but don’t go around binding stuff, cuz you ain’t even all that. One once you die this authority will disappear, because by then i would have already predestined all calvinist whom are in no need of you petty binding powers"
" 18. thou art Peter; and basically you are an insignificant rock, so i don’t even know why i changed your name to begin with. But i will build my Church upon this insignifant rock, which might or might not be your faith.
19. I will also give you the keys to the kingdom, and give spare keys to James White and other protestants to infallibly interpret for themselves, and have direct access to me
20. and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven, but don’t go around binding stuff, cuz you ain’t even all that. One once you die this authority will disappear, because by then i would have already predestined all calvinist whom are in no need of you petty binding powers"
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
What?James, what I’m looking for is an online dictionary resource which says so. Please provide me with an authentic link which says that “kepha” means “rock”. I just cannot tell them that James said so!
uch: Since when is my screen name not a sufficient reference?? 
You’d think someone who bears the namesake (James) of one of the Βοανηργες (Boanērges - Sons of Thunder) could be taken at name-value to know the language of his own roots. :knight2:Well then, how about Boston University School of Theology?
Boston University School of Theology Archives: Aramaic of Jesus:
James
W
WesleyF
Guest
That’s quite amusing!
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
I am assuming that one of the motives for starting this thread is to get evidence to counter Protestant claims that Peter was not appointed head of the church. No Protestant with any scholastic background can deny Peter’s authority since its really unassailable. All any Protestant can try to claim is the extremely weak and unprecedented position that the original Church established under the popes fell away and was “reformed” by Divine action. Of course this too is a ludicrous position since a bible-only Christian will never be able to find any scriptural authority or justification to rebel against God’s established order (even young David did not rebel against Saul as “God’s anointed” or murder him when he had the chance).
Anyway, I want to also link in a few references into this thread that may prove useful to others reading here. The whole Protestant “Paul rebuked Peter” argument for claiming Peter was not the head of the church falls apart under scriptural scrutiny.
Read this:
members.cox.net/studyhisword/PeterVindicated.pdf
Also here is a link to a great CAF discussion on if Peter and Cephas were the same people in Galatians . They aren’t - its clear that Cephas is a disciple of Peter and one of the other later 70 disciples so Paul never rebuked Peter as Protestants like to believe…
Peter and Cephas in Galatians 2:7-14
James
Anyway, I want to also link in a few references into this thread that may prove useful to others reading here. The whole Protestant “Paul rebuked Peter” argument for claiming Peter was not the head of the church falls apart under scriptural scrutiny.
Read this:
members.cox.net/studyhisword/PeterVindicated.pdf
Also here is a link to a great CAF discussion on if Peter and Cephas were the same people in Galatians . They aren’t - its clear that Cephas is a disciple of Peter and one of the other later 70 disciples so Paul never rebuked Peter as Protestants like to believe…
Peter and Cephas in Galatians 2:7-14
James
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
I want to clarify in the above post that the thesis that Peter and Cephas are two different people in Galatians is a personal opinion.
A few early Church fathers hold the same opinion but a great many others do not. There is no official Catholic interpretation here but generally The Church does not see any problem whatsoever with a subordinate member pointing out inappropriate conduct in its leadership . Our Catholic popes are only infallable on teaching of faith and morals - they are not impeccable in personal conduct and are sinners just like all the apostles were.
In either case, the Galatians passage itself is not a proof text for either the position of papal supremacy or the strange Protestant theory that Christ founded a leaderless “invisible” church.
James
A few early Church fathers hold the same opinion but a great many others do not. There is no official Catholic interpretation here but generally The Church does not see any problem whatsoever with a subordinate member pointing out inappropriate conduct in its leadership . Our Catholic popes are only infallable on teaching of faith and morals - they are not impeccable in personal conduct and are sinners just like all the apostles were.
In either case, the Galatians passage itself is not a proof text for either the position of papal supremacy or the strange Protestant theory that Christ founded a leaderless “invisible” church.
James
S
SteveGC
Guest
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Here is NETBible of the Greek word in Matthew 16:18, I assume you mean that?James, what I’m looking for is an online dictionary resource which says so. Please provide me with an authentic link which says that “kepha” means “rock”. I just cannot tell them that James said so!
Strong’s Greek #4074 & 2786.
Just from an exegetical standpoint, only “large” rock makes sense. Otherwise the passage would strangely be understood as…
You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven!
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this little insignificant stone I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven
See? Doesn’t fit the passage. That’s why the word for “large rock” is used.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
PROTESTANT SCHOLARS ON PETER THE ROCKJames, what I’m looking for is an online dictionary resource which says so. Please provide me with an authentic link which says that “kepha” means “rock”. I just cannot tell them that James said so!
“You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter)." (John 1:42)
“Jesus replied, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:17-19)
W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann
“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence…The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)
Albert Barnes (Nineteenth-Century Presbyterian)
“The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion” Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].
John Broadus (Nineteenth-Century Calvinistic Baptist)
“As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession” Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].
Craig L. Blomberg (Baptist)
“The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification” New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].
Donald A. Carson (Baptist)
“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . 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 well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)
(cont.)
- Status