“You are Rock (Peter), and upon this rock I will build my Church”, makes perfect grammatical sense. It's the only way the sentence makes sense. Jesus is telling “the Rock” that the Church will be built upon him. Why would he change Peter's name to Rock and then in the next breath tell him that He's building the Church on Himself as Rock? He would have said, “upon ME I will build my Church”, if that were the case. Why give Simon a dramatic new name, “Rock”, and then change the subject by calling Himself “Rock”? Why rename Simon at all? Why then does Jesus confer the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven on Peter and give him the power of binding and loosing, which is universal jurisdiction over the Church. Awesome power and authority, wouldn't you agree? If Jesus is building the Church on Himself as Rock, why would he rename Peter "Rock", immediately change the subject, then turn back to Peter and give him the primary authority to govern the universal Church on Earth? The whole passage is about Peter and the primacy. There's no other rational explanation.
Read the post again carefully. He called him a “this” because He had just named him a “this”, the Rock.
On a related note, since the Holy Spirit was promised to the Apostles as a sure Guide who would lead them into “ALL TRUTH”, why would God allow the entire Church for 1500 years to be confounded into believing that Peter was the Rock and had the primacy? That goes against the reliability and truthfulness of God's promises. That's utterly impossible.
And there are dozens of scripture verses where Peter is called Peter or Simon Peter before the verses in Matthew where Jesus “changes” his name. blah, blah, blah...
This is but one example of the unresolvable arguments we will spar over. All they do is is provoke hostility, anger and injured feelings. Nothing really gets resolved because once people become convinced of something it takes nothing short of a miracle to change their minds.
I think that miracle is the gospel of salvation by grace through faith alone in Christ alone. Once the obstacle of false confidence in man-made religion is removed then the light of truth can shine through. The scales come away and we can see.
I totally understand why people cling to their religion and venture no criticism against it. It proves that they are trusting in that religion. I trust in the person of Christ and the revelation he has left us (Holy Scripture). That is my authority and guide and through the leading and illumination of the Holy Spirit which he promised, I can know the truth and I am free from the bondage of sin.
Because the Church is not the church that Jesus Christ founded...
Peter was no pope...Peter wouldn't let anyone bow to him...Peter did not pray to Mary...
And God will allow people to be deceived if they make His words of none effect...
It's like one astute fella said...If you mess with that book, God will mess with your head...
Read the post again carefully. He called him a “this” because He had just named him a “this”, the Rock.
***********************
Excellent analysis of this most compelling piece of Scripture.
“You are Rock (Peter), and upon this rock I will build my Church”, makes perfect grammatical sense. It's the only way the sentence makes sense. Jesus is telling “the Rock” that the Church will be built upon him. Why would he change Peter's name to Rock and then in the next breath tell him that He's building the Church on Himself as Rock? He would have said, “upon ME I will build my Church”, if that were the case. Why give Simon a dramatic new name, “Rock”, and then change the subject by calling Himself “Rock”? Why rename Simon at all? Why then does Jesus confer the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven on Peter and give him the power of binding and loosing, which is universal jurisdiction over the Church. Awesome power and authority, wouldn't you agree? If Jesus is building the Church on Himself as Rock, why would he rename Peter "Rock", immediately change the subject, then turn back to Peter and give him the primary authority to govern the universal Church on Earth? The whole passage is about Peter and the primacy. There's no other rational explanation.
Friend, I remain with you. :)