Was Peter the "Rock"?

Cornerstone Church ^

[Sir Gawain]

Was Peter the "Rock"?

Question: Was Peter the "rock" on which Jesus will build His church?

Answer: Here is the passage that you are referring to:

Matthew 16:13 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?"

Matthew 16:14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."

Matthew 16:15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Matthew 16:17 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.

Matthew 16:18 "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."

The Greek word for Peter is petros, meaning "a pebble." The Greek word for rock is petra, meaning "a massive rock" such as bedrock. Jesus is the Rock, petra. Everyone who receives this revelation from the Father like Peter received it—that Jesus is the Son of God (Lord and Savior)—becomes a part of His Church.

Christ used the word petra when He told the parable of the man building a house upon a rock to illustrate its size.

Matthew 7:24-25 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock (petra). And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the rock (petra)."

Jesus was talking about building upon bedrock, not a pebble.

The apostle Paul tells us that Jesus is the foundation upon which we build our lives:

1 Cor. 3:11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

The apostle Peter also informed up that every believer is a "stone" and that Jesus Christ is the "cornerstone" or foundation.

1 Peter 2:4-6 And coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected by men, but choice and precious in the sight of God, you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For this is contained in Scripture: "Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious cornerstone, and he who believes in Him shall not be disappointed."

Every believer is a stone in Christ’s Church. Peter was not the rock, but just one of many who are a part of this spiritual house of worship.

[Sir Gawain]

ping

[BibChr]

Of course he wasn't. What a silly idea!

...no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ
1 Corinthians 3:11

Dan
What Is Biblical Christianity?

[DSHambone]

Christ used the word petra when He told the parable of the man building a house upon a rock to illustrate its size

Funny that a man speaking Herbrew or Aramaic would suddenly throw in a Greek word. As Arsenio would say, "Hmmmmmmmmmm!!!???"

[MassExodus]

I always thought it was wierd that folks consider Peter the foundation of the Church,

wasn't PAUL the one who preached to the gentiles and spread the word BEYOND the Jews?

Of course, I've never understood why some folks would pray to the woman from whom God chose to birth himself.

[Campion]

The Greek word for Peter is petros, meaning "a pebble." The Greek word for rock is petra, meaning "a massive rock" such as bedrock. Jesus is the Rock, petra

This argument is totally destroyed, nuked, flattened, and vaporized in Butler, Hess, and Dahlgren's Jesus, Peter, and the Keys.

Briefly:

1. petros was used to mean "little pebble" in classical Greek poetry, not in the Koine of the NT. The whole argument falls to pieces just on that basis, but they don't stop there.
2. Jesus could not have said "you are petra and upon this petra I will build my Church" even if he had wanted to because "petra" has feminine gender and cannot be used as a man's given name. It would be like naming a boy "Roberta" or "Julia". To get a man's name, you have to switch to a masculine declension, hence, "Petros".
3. There's really no point in renaming Simon with anything resembling "rock" unless "rock" has something to do with Simon personally. The rest of the verse clearly grants special authority to Simon personally; it wasn't to Simon Peter's confession that Jesus gave the power to bind and loose, nor does it make any sense whatsoever for Jesus to say, "You, Simon, are but a little pebble (but I'm a big rock), and to you I give the keys of heaven ..."
4. This tortured exegesis totally ignores the Biblical significance of the keys. The passage is a reference to Isaiah 22:22, where the "keys" are viewed as an emblem of the power granted to the royal vizier, the king's right hand man under the Davidic monarchy.
5. Jesus would have been speaking to Peter in Aramaic, not Greek. There is even tradition that Matthew's Gospel was written in "Hebrew". That may mean Hebrew, or may mean Aramaic, but in neither language is the alleged "petros/petra" play on words exist. In Aramaic, it's "kepha/kepha". And we know from the Bible that Peter was referred to as "kepha" in Aramaic, because that's where "Cephas" comes from.

[Cicero]

No one, Protestant or Catholic, disputes your point. Jesus was the stone Whom the builders rejected which became the cornerstone (or keystone of the arch). Nevertheless, the Peter's name was Simon until Jesus changed it, in this very passage. God renames those whom He means to begin life over again for a special purpose, as he did with Abram, Sarai, Jacob, and Saul. "Peter" means rock, in both Greek and Latin.

[Texaggie79]

ping

[gdani]

And, if he was, did we smell what he was cookin'?

[Campion]

...no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ

"built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets" -- Ephesians 2:20

Guess you forgot that verse.

[DSHambone]

LOL

[Sir Gawain]

I knew that would be posted.

[gdani]

I knew that would be posted.

My apologies. I couldn't resist.

[SubMareener]

Christ used the word petra when He told the parable of the man building a house upon a rock to illustrate its size.

Ah! Duh! I thought Jesus Christ spoke Aramaic. What Aramaic word did he use?

[Cicero]

We don't know for sure whether the Gospels were written first in Aramaic or not, or for that matter whether Jesus and the Apostles spoke to each other or to the Jewish crowds in Aramaic. Greek was the Lingua Franca of the Middle East since the time of Alexander the Great. We have no manuscripts going back prior to the Greek, so it's all speculative as to what might have preceded what we have. And much "scientific biblical criticism" has an axe of one kind or another to grind.

[Coleus]

NO, Prudential Is!! :)

[yankeedame]

wasn't PAUL the one who preached to the gentiles and spread the word BEYOND the Jews?

True. Without him the beief of Christ as the Messiah,etc. would have withered on the vine as a Jewish heracy.(sp??) Of course, I've never understood why some folks would pray to the woman from whom God chose to birth himself.

It's called "intercession".

[DSHambone]

We don't know for sure whether the Gospels were written first in Aramaic or not, or for that matter whether Jesus and the Apostles spoke to each other or to the Jewish crowds in Aramaic. Greek was the Lingua Franca of the Middle East since the time of Alexander the Great. We have no manuscripts going back prior to the Greek, so it's all speculative as to what might have preceded what we have.

Continuing on with your train of though - we don't know for sure - that Jesus was the Son of God....got to have some faith here!
But dollars to donut holes that Jews speaking familarly with each other did not use Greek, but use a Hebrew/Aramaic dialect.

[don-o]

This'un will go to 500 replies and will plow the same ground, repeat the same arguments, flame the same flames, ignore the same evidence as a hundred other religious threads.

QUESTION: Has any Freeper ever changed his mind or even thought much about points made by opposing views on the religious threads? Be honest, and give examples.

Or do we automatically load the apologetic ammo and fire?

[Gophack]

This is a well-thought out argument against the Roman Catholic Church's interpretation of Matthew and the Primacy of Peter. However, I would like to submit the following to counter your assertion that Peter is NOT the rock upon which Christ built his church:

First, the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic, the language Jesus used. In Aramaic, Jesus said in Matthew 16:18

'aph 'ena' 'amar-na' lak da'(n)t-(h)uw ke'pha'
and I say - I to thee that-thou-art Kephas

we`'al hade' ke'pha' 'ebneyh le`i(d)tiy
and upon this rock I will build her namely my church

Note that the word for Peter, ke'pha', is the same word for rock. The words are equated: Peter is the rock.

The core of the meaning appears to rest in the two words for a "rock." If Matthew recorded that Christ used the same word both for (1) the proper name of Peter and (2) the foundation on which Christ says he will build the church, then an interpretation follows that the foundation of the church is Peter.

Karl Keating explains further:

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.

God bless.