04 Jan 17
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59I dunno, I'm kind of guessing that English came much later, dating to sometime in the fifth century.
Why is Saint Peter so called?
Surely Jesus called Simon the Aramaic word for rock/stone?
That was translated into Greek, then into Latin.
Why not then translate it into English?
Just curious.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
The eternal purpose of God is to "build" a corporate vessel to contain Himself as a living house.
To do this God must not only save us and forgive us but transform us. The changing of the leading disciple's name from Simon Barjona to "Peter" - a "stone" signified:
1.) Christ will TRANSFORM Simon to Peter.
2.) Christ will BUILD Peter as a stone into His living house, the church.
The Apostle Peter never forgot that Jesus changed His name and even more so transformed him to be built into Christ's spiritual house. And Peter reminds ALL of the believers they too are living stoned to be built up as he was.
" You yourselves also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house into a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 2:5)
When God transforms His people, Hell cannot prevail against the living dwelling place of God. For this "house" is composed of deified humanity.
"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." ( Matt. 16:18)
Did you make it down this far in your reading ? Congratulations.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
04 Jan 17
2 edits
The eternal purpose of God is to build God into man and man into God.
This requires redemption and also transformation in the divine life.
For Jesus to change the name of Simon to Peter means that he, Peter, as representative of all the believers, must undergo a transformation in Christ's life and a building up into a corporate living house.
God's house which is the church and consummates in the New Jerusalem, is composed of God-men. The chief cornerstone of this eternal dwelling place is Jesus Christ Who was God / Man by incarnation and resurrection.
The other stones of this house are God-men by Christ's full salvation. So when Peter says "YOU ALSO" he is actually speaking of "also" to the cornerstone Jesus Christ the original God-man.
Now look at the passage again and see that this is right.
"Coming to Him, a living stone, rejected by men but with God chosen and precious.
You yourselves also, as living stones, are [edited] being built up as a spiritual house ..."
Jesus Christ as God and man mingled, is the cornerstone, even though rejected by the religionists who persecuted Him. All the saved as "also" to be living stones not by incarnation but by salvation, including redemption, regeneration, sanctification, transformation, conformation, building up together in love, glorification, and transfiguration in resurrection.
'YOU ALSO" are to be God-men via Christ's salvation. He is the cornerstone of this building of God and man united in a blended corporate expression.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
04 Jan 17
In these last days God is recovering the true meaning of the church.
We have been sidetracked and led astray.
The local church is a matter of God growing Christ in people so as to build locally in so many cities, the building of God.
So Paul says that the church in Corinth is:
1.) God's farm [or cultivated land] for GROWING divine life in the saved.
2.) God's BUILDING for building up together the transformed saints into a corporate dwelling place.
Here's a wonderful proof text on this:
"Now he who plants and he who waters are one, but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor.
For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's cultivated land [farm] God's building." (1 Cor. 3:9,10)
You see, for God to GROW in man is also for God to BUILD up His building. The building is built by the growth and increase of Christ in the saved, locality by locality.
Can anything be higher than to participate in the growing of God in men and the building up of God's building ? What a tremendous matter for the believers in Jesus Christ to give themselves for.
" ... you are God's cultivated land, God's building."
We have to graduate from seeing God as omnipresent to seeing He needs to increase, spread, grow in those whom He saves.
"I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused the growth. So then neither is he who plants anything nor he who waters, but God who causes the growth." (vs. 6,7)
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
04 Jan 17
Originally posted by wolfgang59You asked about the Aramaic for rock.
What I'm saying is that Jesus literally referred to Simon as "Rock".
Why do we persist in keeping the Latinised form?
(Does anyone know what "rock" is in Aramaic or whatever Jeseus actually said?)
"By the word "rock" the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for "Peter" and "rock". His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias; that through this foundation (Peter) the Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm).
04 Jan 17
Originally posted by JS357So why Peter?
You asked about the Aramaic for rock.
"By the word "rock" the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for "Peter" and "rock". His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who believed in ...[text shortened]... f Peter, as the special representative of Christ." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm).
Kipha would be more valid.
Or if you want to translate Rock.
Why stick with the Latin?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
04 Jan 17
6 edits
Originally posted by JS357
"By the word "rock" the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for "Peter" and "rock". His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias;
Brother Peter was not all that solid as rock. He was no doubt the leading of the twelve disciples. He had to be adjusted publicly by a younger apostle Paul. He had wavered in dedication. Like it is with Abraham or David, the Bible is candid about Peter's weaker moments.
My point was that the changing of the name signified the changing of his constitution via a life long process as a disciple. There was no natural solidness in the man which made him some reliable "rock" in himself.
But you might explain why Peter himself refers to Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone of the church rather than himself.
"Coming to Him [Christ], a living stone, rejected by men but with God chosen and precious, ..." ( 1 Pet. 2:4)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
04 Jan 17
1 edit
that through this foundation (Peter) the Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ."
Peter preached the first Gospel message by which thousands entered into the church and into the kingdom of the heavens. He was given the [plural] keys of the kingdom of the heavens.
We may say one key he used to let the Jews in on the day of Pentecost. And the other he used to open the way for the Gentiles to enter in Acts 10 in the house of Cornelius.
There is no hint in the New Testament that Peter pointed to himself as something special. And he humbly recommends the younger apostle Paul as worthy of our attention. This is all the more striking when we know that Paul had rebuked Peter in public (See Gal. 2:11-15) .
"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned, For before some came from James, he continually ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to shrink back and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision.
And the rest of the Jews also joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was carried away in their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not walking in a straighforward way in relation to the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all,
If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like the Jews ? "
This little episode reveals that the most influential of the elder Christians in the church in Jerusalem at the time was most likely James, the brother of Jesus and not Peter. It was the opinion of James and the ones most loyal to James that caused Peter fear.
Where was this "rock" then ? Paul had to remind him not to be a hypocrite about the fact that God had told Peter the Gentiles would be co-members in the church.
The final decision in the council at Jerusalem about the need to circumcise the Gentile Christians was made by James rather than Peter. You over evaluate Peter as being the rock of the church.
"And when they finished speaking, James answered, saying, Men, brothers, listen to me (Acts 15:13) ...
Therefore I judge that we do not harass those from the Gentiles who are turning to God." (v.19)
In that council of apostles and elders the final say was decided not by Peter but by James, the brother of Jesus. I think historically this is quite typical. The early disciples thinking naturally would evaluate the flesh relative of the Messiah to be to closest one to lead the new movement.
Had we been there, we probably would have thought the same thing. "Why not let the natural BROTHER of Jesus be the leader of all the apostles?"
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
05 Jan 17
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59I suggest you search on
So why Peter?
Kipha would be more valid.
Or if you want to translate Rock.
Why stick with the Latin?
What language was Matthew written in?
Several sources say it was Greek from the start. I like the idea that it wasn't written for an Aramaic audience and so wasn't translated from Aramaic.