Peter the Rock

"And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on thiskepha I will build my Church.’ "When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock."
...

"If kepha means the same as petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?"

"Because he had no choice," I said. "Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.
"You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.
...
Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.

Click to expand...

phattonez said:

On Matthew 16:18, in which Christ establishes Peter as the head of the Church, Protestants have argued that when read in Greek, we see a distinction and that this is not really so. In reality, they say, Peter was contrasted from Christ, the true rock. No one doubts the centrality of Christ, but others want to deny the role of Peter. However, we have to realize that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, and what happens in Aramaic?

Peter the Rock | Catholic Answers

Click to expand...

Logicman said:

Peter is the little rock, Jesus is God the Spiritual Rock (1 Corinthians 10:4). Which then is the more sure foundation?

Click to expand...

Now look at these simularities:

On THIS rock I will build my church....

Destroy THIS temple and in three days I will raise it up again... Jesus was talking about his body, the temple.

In both instances Jesus was talking about himself.

Click to expand...

phattonez said:

Of course I'm not arguing that Jesus is not in every way superior to the popes. Obviously He is. However, what Jesus said is crystal clear. How can you interpret the passage in any other way when read in Aramaic?

Impossible. In the context, Jesus was talking exclusively about Peter.

Matthew 16: 13-20
"13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah,[c] the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter,[d] and on this rock[e] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was[f] the Messiah.[g]"

Click to expand...

Logicman said:

There's nothing there that supports your argument. Jesus is God, and God is the Rock. The Old Testament is full of those kinds of scriptures.

And like I said, scripture identifies Jesus as the Rock in 1 Corinthians 10:4:

" for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ."

The Lord Jesus is very commonly pictured in the Old Testament as the "Rock," and so, any Jew who was familiar with His Scriptures would have recognized Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:18 as a reference to Isaiah 28:16, and so, He it is upon whom the Church is built.

We may certainly expect that the apostles would know upon whom the Church was built, and if the "rock" mentioned in Matthew 16:18 were Peter, he would certainly be recognized and honored as such by the other apostles.

Yet such is manifestly not the case, for Paul quotes a portion of both Isaiah 8:14 and 28:16 as referring, not to a mere man, but to the Lord Himself, (Rom. 9:33). And he goes further by saying, "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ," (1 Cor. 10:4). He refers to the Rock that gave forth water to the Israelites in the desert during the forty years of wandering, but he uses the same word—petra—as is found in Matthew 16:18.

Click to expand...

But as to the foundation, he dogmatically says, "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which Is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11). Is this not clear enough for anyone? It should be, but apparently is not for some. The Church is founded upon a Rock, "and that Rock is Christ," "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." Not only is Christ set forth as the rock that is laid for a foundation, but Scripture declares that there is no other foundation that has been, or can be, laid. Who will controvert this? To even endeavor to do so is to reveal one to have a deep-seated prejudice against the truth that results in knowing rebellion.[/I]

Click to expand...

phattonez said:

Look, I won't deny that Jesus is referred to as a rock. It's undeniable. However, look at the context of the passage. Jesus is speaking of Peter, and he says "You are kepha, and upon this kepha I will build by Church." I want you to directly respond to that and tell me how you could possibly interpret that as Jesus talking about Himself and not Peter. If He was talking only about Himself and not Peter, then boy did He choose a confusing way to say that. What is much more coherent is that Jesus is talking about Peter since later in the passage He talks about the prime minister of the kingdom, and obviously Jesus is the King and not the prime minister since the prime minister acts for the king.

And again, no one denies that Christ is central. However, did Jesus leave no authority with Peter?

Click to expand...

phattonez said:

On Matthew 16:18, in which Christ establishes Peter as the head of the Church, Protestants have argued that when read in Greek, we see a distinction and that this is not really so. In reality, they say, Peter was contrasted from Christ, the true rock. No one doubts the centrality of Christ, but others want to deny the role of Peter. However, we have to realize that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, and what happens in Aramaic?

Peter the Rock | Catholic Answers

Click to expand...

tosca1 said:

Here are 59 verses that talked about God or Jesus as THE ROCK!

Click to expand...

So why would Peter suddenly become The Rock?

Click to expand...

phattonez said:

On Matthew 16:18, in which Christ establishes Peter as the head of the Church, Protestants have argued that when read in Greek, we see a distinction and that this is not really so. In reality, they say, Peter was contrasted from Christ, the true rock. No one doubts the centrality of Christ, but others want to deny the role of Peter. However, we have to realize that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, and what happens in Aramaic?

Peter the Rock | Catholic Answers

Click to expand...

There are problems with the Roman Catholic position. First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18 we see something that is not obvious in the English. "...you are Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church..." In Greek nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word "petros" is masculine; "petra" is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine "petros" but the feminine "petra." Let me illustrate by using the words "actor" and "actress:" "You are the actor and with this actress I will make my movie." Do see that the gender influences how a sentence is understood? Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter, but upon something else. What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?

The feminine "petra" occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:

•Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."

•Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."

•1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."

•1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."

We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular; "petras" in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8). Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn't we?

In addition, Greek dictionaries and lexicons give us further insight into the two Greek words under discussion:

The Aramaic Kepha
In contrast to this, in paragraph #2 at the beginning of this article, the Roman Catholic Church says that the rock cannot refer to Jesus, "but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for 'Peter' and 'rock'." The problem is that the text is not in Aramaic, but Greek. Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof of the Roman Catholic position. We have to ask ourselves why the Roman Catholic Church would resort to using something that we don't have: the aramaic text. Is it because their argument is not supported by the Greek and so they must infer something from a text we don't possess?

Click to expand...

tosca1 said:

Here are more than 50 Biblical verses that refers to either God or Jesus as The Rock.

59 Bible verses about God, The Rock

Click to expand...

tosca1 said:

On Matthew 7, Jesus really made it plain and simple:

Build on the Rock

24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.

Take note of those boldened phrases, especially the last one. Jesus said, "THE" Rock. Not, "a" rock.
How much more clear can we get?

Jesus is The Rock upon which His church is built, because He is the FOUNDATION of the Christian Church! The foundation are His teachings - which the Apostles in turn will be spreading and teaching to others. They'll all base their teachings upon the sayings of Jesus.

Click to expand...

tosca1 said:

I feel so sorry for Peter for having to drag him through this.....but this has to be corrected.

We have to remember that the incident in Matthew 16 happened BEFORE the death and Resurrection of Christ.


Matthew 16
"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 He *said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 "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 overpower it. 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ," (Matt. 16:13-20).

Here is the explanation why Peter couldn't be The Rock.


Is Peter the rock on which the Church is built? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Click to expand...

Now take a closer look at the key verse: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). Disputes about this passage have always been related to the meaning of the term "rock." To whom, or to what, does it refer? Since Simon’s new name of Peter itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: "You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church." The play on words seems obvious, but commentators wishing to avoid what follows from this—namely the establishment of the papacy—have suggested that the word rock could not refer to Peter but must refer to his profession of faith or to Christ.

From the grammatical point of view, the phrase "this rock" must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God") is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.

As an analogy, consider this artificial sentence: "I have a car and a truck, and it is blue." Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun "it." This is all the more clear if the reference to the car is two sentences earlier, as the reference to Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the term rock.

Click to expand...

Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, "and the Rock was Christ" though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from "Rock . . . rock."

If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.

The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.

Click to expand...

Notice that Jesus tells this to Peter three times, the exact number of times that Peter denied him. The fact that Jesus told Peter this, and no other, indicates that Jesus considers Peter to be the leader of His Church on earth, not John, James, or Matthew.

Click to expand...

John 21

New King James Version (NKJV)

Breakfast by the Sea

21 After these things Jesus showed Himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias, and in this way He showed Himself: 2 Simon Peter, Thomas called the Twin, Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of His disciples were together. 3 Simon Peter said to them, “I am going fishing.”

They said to him, “We are going with you also.” They went out and immediately[a] got into the boat, and that night they caught nothing. 4 But when the morning had now come, Jesus stood on the shore; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. 5 Then Jesus said to them, “Children, have you any food?”

They answered Him, “No.”

6 And He said to them, “Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some.” So they cast, and now they were not able to draw it in because of the multitude of fish.

7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment (for he had removed it), and plunged into the sea. 8 But the other disciples came in the little boat (for they were not far from land, but about two hundred cubits), dragging the net with fish. 9 Then, as soon as they had come to land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid on it, and bread. 10 Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish which you have just caught.”

11 Simon Peter went up and dragged the net to land, full of large fish, one hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not broken. 12 Jesus said to them, “Come and eat breakfast.” Yet none of the disciples dared ask Him, “Who are You?”—knowing that it was the Lord. 13 Jesus then came and took the bread and gave it to them, and likewise the fish.

14 This is now the third time Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after He was raised from the dead.

Jesus Restores Peter
15 So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?”

He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.”

He said to him, “Feed My lambs.”

16 He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of Jonah,[c] do you love Me?”

He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.”

He said to him, “Tend My sheep.”

17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonah,[d] do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?”

And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.”

Jesus said to him, “Feed My sheep. 18 Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, “Follow Me.”

The Beloved Disciple and His Book
20 Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” 21 Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, “But Lord, what about this man?”

22 Jesus said to him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.”

23 Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?”

24 This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true.

25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

Click to expand...

tosca1 said:

First,

Look at the heading before verse 15, "Jesus restores Peter." By the sound of that it means Peter was being RE-INSTATED. He was given another chance. Why he has to be re-instated, we can only speculate....but we have to remember that at one time, Jesus called Peter a "stumbling block" to Him.

Click to expand...

But we know too, that Jesus had prayed for Peter's faith.

Jesus had to correct him too in the garden of Gethsemane

Peter - though with good intentions in his heart - was bumbling as a disciple. That seems to be obvious.

Click to expand...

Second,

Let's go back to John 21, Catholic Apologetics had placed significance to the fact that of all Apostles, Jesus had asked Peter three times, if he (Peter) love Jesus. Why, indeed? It does begs the question.

The fact that even Peter was grieved that Jesus had to ask him three times shows that the line of questioning was not being taken by Peter in a positive way.

It was not a promotion in any way, simply put.

Let me ask you, aside from Peter....who else among the other Apostles had to be corrected or rebuked several times, in front of other Apostles?

If you read farther down John 21, you'll see that Peter had been rebuked again!



What is that to you? Peter was overstepping. Peter was being put firmly in his place!

Does that sound like he is the rock?

Click to expand...

phattonez said:

Matthew is supposed to have originally been written in Aramaic, though. And still, the distinction in Greek is necessary: there is no way around it given grammar rules. So how exactly do you make a huge theological distinction over a rule in grammar, especially considering the following verses in which Peter is given the keys to the kingdom?

Click to expand...

Jesus Restores Peter

15 So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?”

He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.”

He said to him, “Feed My lambs.”

16 He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of Jonah,[c] do you love Me?”

He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.”

He said to him, “Tend My sheep.”

17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonah,[d] do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?”

And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.”

Jesus said to him, “Feed My sheep. 18 Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, “Follow Me.”

Click to expand...

phattonez said:

Sure, because Peter denied Jesus. He's still human and can sin, afterall.

Sure, he was human and made mistakes, like us all. How does this negate anything thing I've presented so far?

Sure, because again being the rock does not mean that he was made perfect. You're arguing against a straw man. Again, Jesus named him "rock". So obviously Jesus thought that he was a rock despite the faults.

Click to expand...

phattonez said:

Sure, because Peter denied Jesus. He's still human and can sin, afterall.
Sure, he was human and made mistakes, like us all. How does this negate anything thing I've presented so far?
Sure, because again being the rock does not mean that he was made perfect. You're arguing against a straw man. Again, Jesus named him "rock". So obviously Jesus thought that he was a rock despite the faults.

Click to expand...

The Beloved Disciple and His Book

20 Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” 21 Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, “But Lord, what about this man?”

22 Jesus said to him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.”

23 Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?”

Click to expand...

tosca1 said:

You're hanging simply on a verse that was translated in Greek - and the Greek translation was explained above. The straw man is in the Catholic Apologetic's position that brought up Aramaic when there is no Aramaic text to verify.

Click to expand...

If we have to put significance into every action or events....consider the difference between Paul and Peter and how they became disciples.

Peter was led to Jesus by Peter's brother, Andrew. Whereas...
Paul, formerly known as Saul of Tarsus, was personally picked and approached by Jesus Christ AFTER HIS RESURRECTION to preach to the gentiles.

There shouldn't be any attempt to make one Apostle elevated than the others.

Click to expand...