Peter not the rock nor the first Pope

[for_his_glory]

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

It wasn't Peter that the Church was built on, but Christ is the rock as being the foundation or cornerstone that the Church (the body of Christ) is built on and no where in scripture does it name the Catholic Church as the one true Church or Protestant Church as the one true Church, but says in Acts 11:26 that the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch as Christ is the foundation of the true Church not made by hands. Acts 1:1-8; 2:1-4 the apostles were instructed to stay in Jerusalem until they received power from God and then they were filled with the Holy Spirit before they could start their journey of being witnesses of Christ to teach others about the kingdom of God through Christ.

There was no apostle greater than another as they all had the same anointing and taught others from their own individual witness of Christ and His teachings as being faithful servants, even as Christ was while here on Earth.
Luke 22:
24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

Matthew 8:14 shows that Peter was married and according to the Catholic belief a Pope can not be married so Peter could have never been the first Pope or ever had a procession of Popes after him. Peter never went to Rome to establish the Catholic Church, but wrote his letters to those who were scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 1Peter 1:1.
Peter wrote his letters from Babylon (Babylon as being referenced in Rev 17 as the Great Harlot) as Peter spent the last years of his life in Rome as Rome at that time was described as a center of adultery. Peter wrote his letters to the Church (body of Christ and not a building made by hands) possibly around 64AD right before the full outbreak of Christian persecution by the hand of Rome's Nero. Paul's letters were also addressed to all who are beloved of God in Rome. Not the Roman Catholic Church, but those who were beloved of God established by that rock which is Christ Jesus and not Peter. The last chapter of the book of Romans Paul sends greetings to 27 members of the church (the body of Christ), but never mentions Peter. According to the tradition of the Catholic Church of Rome, Peter was there from 42 to 67 AD. Paul wrote the book of Romans around 58 AD. Now if Peter was in Rome from 42 to 67 AD that means by 58 AD that Peter should have been there for about 16 years. Not only that but the Catholic Church tradition tells us that he was the first Pope. Why didn't Paul acknowledge Peter in His writings as being the head of the Catholic Church (Pope) since he was addressing those who were beloved of God that lived there. The reason Paul didn't mention Peter is because Peter wasn't there. Peter was crucified by Nero prior to Nero's death in 68 AD. Why would Catholic Rome crucify their own Pope.

Galatians 2:
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me (Paul), as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

 

[Walpole]

The original founders of the Protestant religions had to remove Peter from the Church in order to supplant his authority with that of their own authority. In order to try and accomplish this, they had to replace the "rock" of Matthew 16:18 with something other than Peter, the man, i.e. "the rock is really Peter's faith." However, as the late Oscar Cullmann argued in his great work, Peter: Disciple Apostle and Martyr, the Reformation-inspired position on Matthew is not a valid argument for three primary reasons:

1. Demonstrative pronouns grammatically refer to the nearest substantive, which in Matthew 16:18 is Peter - the man. In order to make it Peter's faith, you would have to go back two verses prior.

2. The play on words between Petros and Petra affirms "Peter" was a common noun in antiquity, never a common name.

3. Our Blessed Lord spoke the language of the time, Aramaic. This is evidenced in the fact that first, Christ calls Peter bar Jonah (v. 17). "Bar Jonah" is Aramaic. Secondly, Peter is referred to as Cephas, which is Aramaic. There is only one word in the Aramaic language for rock: Cephas.


Here are other Protestant scholars acknowledging this as well...

"The meaning is, 'You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.' Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view." William Hendriksen, member of the Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), page 647


"Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which — in accordance with the words of the text — applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis." Gerhard Maier, Evangelical Lutheran theologian "The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate”. (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58


"Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock”. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. 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." Donald A. Carson III, Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke) (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368


"The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter. Donald A. Carson III, Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78


"The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun.... The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock”, etc." John Peter Lange, German Protestant scholar and theologian, Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), page 293

 

[Walpole]

"Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.

But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho”. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha”.... Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.” John A. Broadus, Baptist scholar, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356


"By the words “this rock” Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church”. As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus." J. Knox Chamblin, Presbyterian and New Testament Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary, “Matthew”, Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742


"Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon's nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter”, parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ”, as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 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." Craig L. Blomberg, Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary, The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22 (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252


"On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely." David Hill, Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, England “The Gospel of Matthew”, The New Century Bible Commentary (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261


"The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon”, the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community." Suzanne de Dietrich, Presbyterian theologian, The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16 (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93


"The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built.... The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock... seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy." Donald A. Hagner, Fuller Theological Seminary, Matthew 14-28, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470

 

[Walpole]

A good reminder that the Church is an extension of the Incarnation. Thus...

Jesus is the Rock, but His Church has rocks. (1 Cor 10:4, Mt. 16:18)

Jesus is the foundation, but the Church has foundations. (1 Cor 3:11, Eph 2:20)

Jesus is the Shepherd, but His Church has shepherds. (John 10:11, John 21:16, Jeremiah 3:15)

Jesus is the Priest, but His Church has priests. (Heb 4:14, Heb 5:6, Rev. 20:6)

Jesus is the light of the world, but His Church is the light of the world. (John 8:12, Mt. 5:14)

 

[for_his_glory]

The original founders of the Protestant religions had to remove Peter from the Church in order to supplant his authority with that of their own authority.

IMO, this is nothing more than speculation as others throw in their own theories.

 

[for_his_glory]

A good reminder that the Church is an extension of the Incarnation. Thus...

Jesus is the Rock, but His Church has rocks. (1 Cor 10:4, Mt. 16:18)

Jesus is the foundation, but the Church has foundations. (1 Cor 3:11, Eph 2:20)

Jesus is the Shepherd, but His Church has shepherds. (John 10:11, John 21:16, Jeremiah 3:15)

Jesus is the Priest, but His Church has priests. (Heb 4:14, Heb 5:6, Rev. 20:6)

Jesus is the light of the world, but His Church is the light of the world. (John 8:12, Mt. 5:14)

The Church is the body of Spiritually born again indwelled with the Holy Spirit Christians with Christ Jesus being the head of the body. It is not Catholic or Protestant, but one in the Lord.

1Co 10:1 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;

1Co 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1Co 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You guys are making it overcomplicated than what it really is. "This rock" was referring to a real rock facing Mount Hermon. This mount was believed to be Baal's dwelling place (Joshua 11:17), ancient Canaanites built shrines up there to worship Baal, and so did apostate Israel in the past, and that rock was literally a huge rock facing Mount Hermon, that place was literally called "gate of hell" at the time. So this was a cultural reference, Jesus was using this to illustrate his power over Satan. Of course, Jesus is the cornerstone, but that's not what he meant in this particular context.

 

[Walpole]

The Church is the body of Spiritually born again indwelled with the Holy Spirit Christians with Christ Jesus being the head of the body. It is not Catholic or Protestant, but one in the Lord.

1Co 10:1 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;

1Co 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1Co 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

What does the word Cephas mean?

 

[for_his_glory]

What does the word Cephas mean?

It means a connection to Peter as Peter is not the rock, but the rock is Christ Jesus and upon this rock, or in other words the answer Peter gave to Jesus was the rock and not Peter. The rock of our salvation is knowing that Jesus is the Son of God as revealed to Peter. Jesus is the rock and foundation of our salvation by God's grace.

 

[for_his_glory]

You guys are making it overcomplicated than what it really is. "This rock" was referring to a real rock facing Mount Hermon. This mount was believed to be Baal's dwelling place (Joshua 11:17), ancient Canaanites built shrines up there to worship Baal, and so did apostate Israel in the past, and that rock was literally a huge rock facing Mount Hermon, that place was literally called "gate of hell" at the time. So this was a cultural reference, Jesus was using this to illustrate his power over Satan. Of course, Jesus is the cornerstone, but that's not what he meant in this particular context.

You are right about this. I use to have an article that explains this, but will have to rewrite it as I lost it through the years.

 

[Vinny37]

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

It wasn't Peter that the Church was built on, but Christ is the rock as being the foundation or cornerstone that the Church (the body of Christ) is built on and no where in scripture does it name the Catholic Church as the one true Church or Protestant Church as the one true Church, but says in Acts 11:26 that the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch as Christ is the foundation of the true Church not made by hands. Acts 1:1-8; 2:1-4 the apostles were instructed to stay in Jerusalem until they received power from God and then they were filled with the Holy Spirit before they could start their journey of being witnesses of Christ to teach others about the kingdom of God through Christ.

There was no apostle greater than another as they all had the same anointing and taught others from their own individual witness of Christ and His teachings as being faithful servants, even as Christ was while here on Earth.
Luke 22:
24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

Matthew 8:14 shows that Peter was married and according to the Catholic belief a Pope can not be married so Peter could have never been the first Pope or ever had a procession of Popes after him. Peter never went to Rome to establish the Catholic Church, but wrote his letters to those who were scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 1Peter 1:1.
Peter wrote his letters from Babylon (Babylon as being referenced in Rev 17 as the Great Harlot) as Peter spent the last years of his life in Rome as Rome at that time was described as a center of adultery. Peter wrote his letters to the Church (body of Christ and not a building made by hands) possibly around 64AD right before the full outbreak of Christian persecution by the hand of Rome's Nero. Paul's letters were also addressed to all who are beloved of God in Rome. Not the Roman Catholic Church, but those who were beloved of God established by that rock which is Christ Jesus and not Peter. The last chapter of the book of Romans Paul sends greetings to 27 members of the church (the body of Christ), but never mentions Peter. According to the tradition of the Catholic Church of Rome, Peter was there from 42 to 67 AD. Paul wrote the book of Romans around 58 AD. Now if Peter was in Rome from 42 to 67 AD that means by 58 AD that Peter should have been there for about 16 years. Not only that but the Catholic Church tradition tells us that he was the first Pope. Why didn't Paul acknowledge Peter in His writings as being the head of the Catholic Church (Pope) since he was addressing those who were beloved of God that lived there. The reason Paul didn't mention Peter is because Peter wasn't there. Peter was crucified by Nero prior to Nero's death in 68 AD. Why would Catholic Rome crucify their own Pope.

Galatians 2:
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me (Paul), as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

Peter was the rock in Mt.16’s setting. BTW a play in Greek (feminine/masculine) is unlikely, since the root gender is feminine yet would change to masculine for a man’s name: the Amplified Version was in error. In Jhn.1:42, kēphas (massive rock) served for both masc/fem, though possibly at first it was a fun-name with a prophetic hint: Simon was not even called to be a disciple of Yeshua at that time so continued as Simon, perhaps built like a rock.

Don Carson argued in Mt.16’s setting that “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” (Matthew (EBC) 2010:825), and that in Aramaic kêpā’ would probably have been used in both clauses. The more common name for stone, λιθος/lithos, was not used here.

The Q perhaps boils down to how Jesus should be interpreted here. Eventually Roman church leaders took a certain line against the East, adding in the idea of Peter having been Rome’s founding bishop: the whole idea about bishops transformed from many bishops in each church, to bishops over churches and archbishops over bishops. The Roman Catholic denomination (not ‘church’) nowadays has long been petrified in its Petrine claims. Yet Mt.16:18 says nothing of Peter having successors (contra Liber Pontificalis; would such have had authority over, say, the apostle John?), about infallibility, nor about exclusive/supreme authority. It does show Peter being the first to commit to messiahship, and his boldness and openness did grant him initial leadership.

Metaphors could have multiple application, each valid in its setting: context is king. Eg, Jesus would build his church; Paul would build the church (Mt.16:18; 1 Cor.3:10). Jesus is the church’s foundation; the apostles and prophets are that foundation (1 Cor.3:11; Eph.2:19-20). Peter would have the keys; Jesus has the keys (Rv.1:18; 3:7). Jesus is the world’s light; his disciples were that light (Jhn.9:5; Mt.5:14). I can picture the others asking, “Upon Peter? What about me? Will you build your congregation on me, too?”

Re. celibacy, Catholicism might allow Peter exceptional status, being preconversion marriage: it allows ecclesiastical priests if married, to transfer to Roman auspices. Abraham arguably had been a polytheist, yet began a monotheist (or henotheist) line. From the silence about Mrs. Peter (and other apostles’ wives (or husbands?)), some simply reckon that she had (conveniently) died. We can neither confirm nor deny.

I do not allow the big jump to global church primacy, either of Rome or its popes, but allow that as a Christian denomination it is entitled to its own network structure.

 

[Walpole]

It means a connection to Peter as Peter is not the rock, but the rock is Christ Jesus and upon this rock, or in other words the answer Peter gave to Jesus was the rock and not Peter. The rock of our salvation is knowing that Jesus is the Son of God as revealed to Peter. Jesus is the rock and foundation of our salvation by God's grace.

Incorrect. Cephas does not mean connection.

It means rock / stone. You don't even need a lexicon to confirm this, as it is stated in Scripture.

"And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son ofJona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a stone." - John 1:42

A stone: the hard substance, formed of mineral matter, of which rocks consist; a rock or particular piece or kind of rock, as a boulder or piece of agate; a piece of rock quarried and worked into a specific size and shape for a particular purpose; a small piece of rock; as a pebble; a precious stone

 

[for_his_glory]

Here is an article I feel out of many that really explains the rock and the gates of hell.

Caesarea Philippi: The Gates of Hell Will Not Prevail

Jesus brought his disciples to the region of Caesarea Philippi before his final journey to Jerusalem, as described in the Gospel of Matthew. They had been together for almost three years and were f…

donnagawell.com

 

[Walpole]

Here is an article I feel out of many that really explains the rock and the gates of hell.

Caesarea Philippi: The Gates of Hell Will Not Prevail

Jesus brought his disciples to the region of Caesarea Philippi before his final journey to Jerusalem, as described in the Gospel of Matthew. They had been together for almost three years and were f…

donnagawell.com

You can't get away from the fact that Jesus changed Simon's name to Cephas (Peter), which means rock.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You can't get away from the fact that Jesus changed Simon's name to Cephas (Peter), which means rock.

That was merely a word play. The word for Peter, petros, was a small rock like a pebble; the word for "this rock", petra, was huge rock like a rock bed. When Jesus declared this, he and the disciples were at such a rock bed. It was an illustration of his message "build your house on a rock" in the sermon on the mount. Jesus's early occupation, "tekton", from which we get the English words "technician", "architect", "technocrat", often referred to builder or craftsman at the time, Jesus himself was called the stone which the builders rejected, so it was very likely that Jesus said this out of his earthly working experience.

 

[for_his_glory]

You can't get away from the fact that Jesus changed Simon's name to Cephas (Peter), which means rock.

Yes, I agree, but that is not the rock Jesus was speaking about if one understands why Jesus took the Disciples to such an evil place as Caesarea Philippi being the gates of hell for its evil paganism.

I gave my understanding, but I do not expect any Catholic to believe this so I will bow out and you have a great day.

 

[Walpole]

Yes, I agree, but that is not the rock Jesus was speaking about if one understands why Jesus took the Disciples to such an evil place as Caesarea Philippi being the gates of hell for its evil paganism.

I gave my understanding, but I do not expect any Catholic to believe this so I will bow out and you have a great day.

That makes no sense given Simon is continued to be called Cephas...

Bible, King James Version

Furthermore, given your interpretation, our Blessed Lord would've said, "You are likened to a rock..." Instead, he says, "You ARE Peter..."

 

[Walpole]

That was merely a word play. The word for Peter, petros, was a small rock like a pebble; the word for "this rock", petra, was huge rock like a rock bed. When Jesus declared this, he and the disciples were at such a rock bed. It was an illustration of his message "build your house on a rock" in the sermon on the mount. Jesus's early occupation, "tekton", from which we get the English words "technician", "architect", "technocrat", often referred to builder or craftsman at the time, Jesus himself was called the stone which the builders rejected, so it was very likely that Jesus said this out of his earthly working experience.

You are correct about the play on words. Here are Protestant scholars affirming...

"By the words “this rock” Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church”. As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus." J. Knox Chamblin, Presbyterian and New Testament Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary, “Matthew”, Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742



"Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon's nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter”, parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ”, as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 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." Craig L. Blomberg, Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary, The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22 (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252


"On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely." David Hill, Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, England, “The Gospel of Matthew”, The New Century Bible Commentary (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261


The Rock is clearly Peter, the person.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The Rock is clearly Peter, the person.

It's silly to generalize all rocks as the same, a rock bed is not a small pebble. Do you really think that Jesus was referring to Peter as well in Matt. 7:24? Come on, the the bible is consistent, you gotta let the bible interpret itself.

Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. (Matt. 7:24)

 

[Walpole]

It's silly to generalize all rocks as the same, a rock bed is not a small pebble. Do you really think that Jesus was referring to Peter as well in Matt. 7:24? Come on, the the bible is consistent, you gotta let the bible interpret itself.

Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. (Matt. 7:24)

It's hardly a generalization. Simon is singled out by Jesus. Why is Simon called Peter?

Jesus is the Rock by right; Peter by delegation. Once again, the Church is an extension of the Incarnation. Hence...

Jesus is the Rock, but His Church has rocks. (1 Cor 10:4, Mt. 16:18)
Jesus is the foundation, but the Church has foundations. (1 Cor 3:11, Eph 2:20)
Jesus is the Shepherd, but His Church has shepherds. (John 10:11, John 21:16, Jeremiah 3:15)
Jesus is the Priest, but His Church has priests. (Heb 4:14, Heb 5:6, Rev. 20:6)
Jesus is the light of the world, but His Church is the light of the world. (John 8:12, Mt. 5:14)

As a side note, Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible. Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60 percent of the time any disciple is referred to.

Hardly a generalization!