Replies

Have you ever studied a foreign language. Genders, etc. verbs, past, present, future have different forms.

I can't speak for metmom, but I have studied a number of foreign languages, both modern and ancient, and while it is true that the same root word can have different genders applied in a superficial way, it is also true that the rules for that can be fairly complex, and you can have one-off situations where the rule you think should apply doesn't because that's just the history of the construct in that language.

For example, dig through Liddell & Scott or any of the better lexicons and you will pick up abundant clues that petros and petra are distinguishable from each other by usage patterns over time. They are words with similar roots but different histories, sort of like twins separated at birth. So while there can be times when they are used in an overlapping way, there is a meaningful history of difference that cannot be ignored.

So just writing off the structural difference in Matthew 16:18 to masculinizing petra to accommodate use as a male name is a shallow approach, linguistically speaking. For example, it isn't even necessary for feminine nouns to be given masculine endings to make a male name. Ever heard of Zorba the Greek? That's a feminine ending. As far as I am aware, it is simply not a rule that nouns per se are subject to the natural gender rule that would apply, for example, to pronouns. Thus the argument cannot be won or lost solely on this point by either side.

As for the question of where Jesus is identified as the Petra, Paul does that here:

1Co 10:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; (2) And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; (3) And did all eat the same spiritual meat; (4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Again, no ambiguity here. From Paul's approach we see that he treated his readers as Jewish or otherwise aware of Jewish history. Same thing applies to the "rock" passage in Matthew 16:18. It would have been very easy for those hearers to associate the Petra with the divine intervention of God on behalf of the wandering Israelites, and therefore quite a stretch for them to think it could ever refer to Peter.

Peace,

SR

THANK YOU for that.

I went to Biblehub, which gives the Greek. Here is the link.

http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/10-4.htm

If you look for *rock* in taht passage that identifies the Rock as Christ, it DOES us *petra*.

*Petra*, Jesus, is the rock on which Christ is building His church.

Additionally. the form *petra* is used for Christ in two other places.

One is Romans 9:33 and the other is 1 Peter 2:8, where both Paul and Peter identify *petra* as Christ, the stone of stumbling and the *ROCK* (petra) of offense.

You should find this interesting on this issue. http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/11/built-on-sinking-sand-scriptural.html