The missing piece of the YOU ARE PETER puzzle

[Alfred Persson]

15 Jesus then said to them, “But [you], who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!”
17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 I also tell you that you are Peter, and upon this rock 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 commanded his disciples not to tell anyone that he was Jesus, the Christ. - The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible: New Testament (Mt 16:15–20). Laurent A. Cleenewerck (2011).

"The Greek phrasing of this declaration, when compared with that of v. 16, conveys a reciprocity which can be rendered in English only by heavy overtranslation. Simon has declared “You are the Messiah,” to which Jesus now responds “And I in my turn have a declaration for you: You are Peter.” - France, R. T. (2007). The Gospel of Matthew (pp. 620–621). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publication Co.

Because "You are the Christ" is connected to "the Son of the living God", symmetry implies "You are Rock (petros)" is connected to "and upon this the Rock (petra) I will build my church."

But that ignores the change in gender καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ (female) requiring it refers back to the female object revealed to Peter, the revelation (ἀποκάλυψιν, female) Jesus is the Christ, "the Son of the living God" he confessed. Compare Καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ ἦλθον οἱ μαθηταὶ (Joh 4:27 STE), "And upon this [word λόγος] came the disciples."

"You are PeTeR ( compare Strong's 6363)

"And upon this [revelation that gave you life] the [water gushing] Petra, I will build my church."

Therefore parsimony requires PETROS in Aramaic is not Kepha but PETROS, a homonym to the Greek PETROS "stone", meaning "First" or "First born".

compare:

πρῶτος Σίμων ὁ λεγόμενος Πέτρος (Mat 10:2 STE),
"First Simon, the one called PETROS"

Where "First" is not followed by "Second" or "Third" so this is not a numbered list.

Simon is "the first" born of the gospel of Christ and that is why he gets the keys having the binding and loosing power first, before everyone who follows born again by confessing the gospel of Christ, that He is the Son of the Living God.

That Simon was called PeTeR before he met Christ, is clear:

And Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. (Mat 4:18 NKJ)

40 One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's (PETROS) brother.
41 He first found his own brother Simon, and said to him, "We have found the Messiah " (which is translated, the Christ).
42 And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas " (which is translated, A Stone). (Joh 1:40-42 NKJ)

Therefore the Orthodox are correct it is the specific point of faith Peter confessed that is the Rock upon which the church is built, as in the parallel building upon a PETRA in Mat 7:24-25.

 

[barryatlake]

Bottom line: Christ spoke Aramaic and nicknamed Simon "Kepha," ("Cephas") which means "Rock." Most of the New Testament was written in Greek (or translated into Greek, as is possible in the case of Matthew's Book), and Kepha was translated as "Petros" or "Petra" (depending on stylistic needs of the context), which both mean "Rock." In our English Bibles, "Petros" and "Petra" get translated into "Peter." 1 Peter IS "the Rock," the earthly head of Christ's Church as Christ Himself states in Matthew 16. This would be as if you and I, speaking English and discussing someone named Mary, were quoted by an Italian who wrote her name as "Maria," which a Frenchman translated as "Marie".

Many Protestants try to get around Matthew 16:15-19 by pointing to 1 Corinthians 10:3-5 "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." But this is something no Catholic would disagree with! Yes, the SPIRITUAL Rock, Christ, the High Priest and Head of the Church, authorized Peter to be the earthly Rock, His Vicar, of the Church -- the father of the New Covenant, just as God the Father made Abraham the earthly father of the Old Covenant (Isaiah 51:1-2) while remaining the ultimate, SPIRITUAL Father of that Covenant.

Some try to get around these verses in other imaginative ways, saying that Christ was talking only about Himself or only about Peter's faith, as below:





Matthew 16:15-19

Translations


He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Simon makes a profession of faith


And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon bar-Jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Jesus calls Simon blessed and Simon "bar-Jonah," which means "son of the Dove" (the Holy Spirit)


And I say also unto thee,

Jesus is talking to Simon


That thou art Peter (kepha, translated into Koine Greek as "petros" meaning "rock" and into English as "Peter"),

He is still talking to Simon and now renames him "Kepha," or "Rock." He said "thou art Rock," not "I am Rock" or "your faith is rock"


and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.

According to some Protestants, after just calling Simon blessed and renaming him "Rock," Jesus is suddenly talking about another "rock" (Peter's faith, or Jesus Himself)


And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Now they say He just as suddenly is talking to/about Peter again -- as He gives him the keys to Heaven!



But reading the verse honestly, especially in context and without anti-Roman prejudice, shows the above sort of rendering to be -- well, quite absurd. It's almost as though they would have it read, "Simon, you are blessed! Know what I'm going to do, you old son of the Holy Spirit you? I'm going to call you Kepha, which means "rock," which the Koine Greek translators of what I am saying will write as "petros," which 1,500 years from now people called "Protestants" will insist means "little pebble." The Protestants will have it right: calling you a little pebble is what I indeed mean 'cause that's all you are -- a tiny, insignificant stone. Kind of Me to point that out after your profession of faith, eh? And, hey, forget about My having just called you blessed and how an insult simply doesn't fit the context of what I've been saying. It's the schizophrenia acting up again. Speaking of which, and by the way, while you're here, take the keys to Heaven, please; I don't really mean anything by this gesture at all, I just thought it'd be a nice thing to do." Silliness!

Now obviously Christ re-named Simon "Peter" in response to Simon's confession of faith in Christ the Rock, the Foundation Stone, so the Protestant assertion that "the rock" was "Peter's faith" has some merit in a circuitous way (and you will read early Church Fathers speaking of the rock of Peter's confession), and of course, Cephas the rock derives his authority from and must never contradict the Rock Who is Christ; but in addition to the exegesis above, it simply can't be ignored that Peter was re-named Kepha (Rock!) and exercised authority among the apostles: he was always named first when the apostles were listed (Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) -- sometimes it was only "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32); he was the apostles' spokesman (Matthew 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:69, Acts 4:1-13, Acts 2:37-41, Acts 5:15); he exhorted the other bishops (1 Peter 5:1); he was there at the most important moments (Matthew 14:28-32, Matthew 17:24, Mark 10:28); he was the first to proclaim Christ's divinity (Matthew 16:16); he was the first to preach the Gospel after Pentecost (Acts 2:14-40), thus starting the whole "Church era"; he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7); he had the revelation that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48); he alone was told by Christ after His resurrection to "Feed My lambs; feed My sheep" (John 21:15-17) and strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:31-32).

 

[Alfred Persson]

Bottom line: Christ spoke Aramaic and nicknamed Simon "Kepha," ("Cephas") which means "Rock."

Bottom line is I dispute that error, the supposition kepha underlies "Petros/Peter" in the NT.

How can I possibly dispute such a common, universally believed premise? It's wrong according to the scriptures, particularly John 1:42.

and he brought Simon to Jesus. When Jesus saw him, He said, "You are Simon, son of John. You will be called Cephas " (which means "Rock "). (Joh 1:42 CSB)

"Rock" (petros) is not a proper noun in John 1:42, it "means Rock", not is "translated Rock", that follows because "Cephas" (capitalization notwithstanding" isn't a proper noun, is just "stone" in Aramaic.

To illustrate, the Spanish "coche" means "car" in English, "car" didn't become a proper noun.

Professor Markus Bockmuehl of Oxford observes:

"John 1:42 which, on a certain reading, might be taken to suggest that ‘Peter’ is a secondary translation of an existing name Ke¯fa. It is instructive to note, however, that two verses earlier the evangelist seems to undermine even this conventional assumption of the priority of ‘Cephas’ by referring casually to ‘Simon Peter’ (1:40). Taken at face value, the text implies that it is this Simon, nicknamed Petros, who from now on ‘shall be called Cephas’. All four gospels, indeed, allow for the possibility that Matthew 16 merely affirms and interprets in Aramaic an existing Greek nickname that Peter had all along...See Mark 3:16; Matt. 4:18; Luke 5:8; John 1:40, 42." -Bockmuehl, Markus: Simon Peter's Name in Jewish Sources, Vol 55, No. 1, Spring 2004, p. 71.

There is no "Rosetta Stone" proving Kepha underlies Petros/Peter, its a guess and like some guesses, clearly wrong:


The Aram. proper name פֶּטְרוֹס [petros](on the various ways of writing it cf. Str.-B., I, 530 on Mt. 10:2) may be connected with פטר [ptr, compare Strong's 6363] and if so means the διανοίγων τὴν μήτραν [opening the womb] → 872, 27, the firstborn. Cf. → 101, n. 8; O. Cullmann, Petrus (1952), 13 and n. 11; 14, n. 13 (ET [1953], 19, n. 11, 13); O. Betz, “Felsenmann u. Felsengemeinde,” ZNW, 48 (1957), 65, n. 48.
Aram. Aramaic.

Str.-B. H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum NT aus Talmud und Midrasch, 1922 ff.
101, n. 8 Probably there lies behind this closer definition the need in polygamy to distinguish between the firstborn of the father and the firstborn of the mother, H. Haag, Art. “Erstgeburt,” Bibel-Lex. [1956], 422). The formulations are, of course, more general and do not bring out the distinction, a matriarchal background being no longer apparent, cf. J. Hempel, “Das Ethos d. AT,” Beih. ZAW, 67 (1928), 68. On the other hand it is evident that in polygamy the firstborn (or firstbegotten) of the father must occupy a special position as the “רֵאשִׁית [firstfruit] of his power” (Gn. 49:3; Dt. 21:17).
ET The Expository Times, Edinburgh 1900 ff.
ZNW Zeitschrift für die nt.liche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums, 1900 ff.

Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964- (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.


As Peter was called PETROS before he met Christ (Matt 4:18; John 1:40)---before the event in John 1:42, its elementary Jesus did not give Simon PETROS the name "petros stone". That was John's interpretation into Greek of the name Jesus gave Simon, "Cephas."

The currency of Simon's name Petros is confirmed:

"The currency of Peter’s name is confirmed in Tal Ilan’s identification of three additional first and second-century Palestinian Jewish individuals who bear the name Petros.[10] It is worth noting that the Palestinian Talmud and midrashim repeatedly feature an early Amoraic Rabbi Yose ben Petros, whose father constitutes proof that even this Greek name was by no means unknown in the early rabbinic period. "-Bockmuehl, Markus: Simon Peter's Name in Jewish Sources, Vol 55, No. 1, Spring 2004, pp. 71-72.


So why did John explain kepha means petros in Greek, and not use the more common LITHOS? To link the event to Matthew 16:18, to support this construct is a asymmetric JANUS PARALLELISM on the word PERTOS, view

Looking back: And also Jesus says to him, "You are Petros Firstborn of the divinely revealed Gospel of Christ;

Pivoting forward: You are[4] petros (kepha)lively stone from whose belly flows the living water it drunk from the gushing massive Petra Rock and upon this revelation[5] I will build my church so your faith is from above and not of yourself[6]---salvation eternally founded on the Rock[7] of God. Moreover, the gates of hell will not prevent My rising from the dead and securing My elect.

The authenticity of this context[8] is confirmed by the usage of the names Simon and Petros in Mark's gospel, which indicates the time of Simon's surnaming (Mark 3:16) is at Matthew 16:18. Simon first appears in Mark 1:16, 29, 36 and only once switches to Petros in Mark 5:37 when revealing his place among Christ's inner circle (which is relevant to the meaning of Kepha). Petros doesn't appear again until Mark 8:29 "But who do you say that I am?" Petros answered "You are the Christ". Then a burst of Petros references- (Mark 8:32-33; 9:2,5; 10:28; 11:21; 13:3; 14:29, 33, 37, 54, 66-67, 70, 72; 16:7). The phenomena indicates Jesus put upon (ἐπιτίθημ&#953 Simon the meaning of Petros at Matthew 16:18, not John 1:42.


[5] The artistry requires the demonstrative pronoun ταύτῃ (Matthew 16:18) idiomatically paralleling Καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ (John 4:27) "And upon this [word λόγος] came his disciples", the antecedent implied object in the verse before: So: "And upon this [revelation ἀποκάλυψις or truth ἀλήθεια] the [life giving] Rock, I will build my church."

[6] For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (Ephesians 2:8 KJV)

[7] 24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock(petra):
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock(petra). (Matthew 7:24-25 KJV)

[8] I credit the fallacy of circular reasoning for inspiring doubts about this text's authenticity. The conclusion Kepha appears twice in Christ's speech is a textbook example of supporting a premise with the premise.


ואוף אנא אמר לך דאת הו פטרוס ועל הדא כיפא אנא בני כנישתי
"And Ι say to thee, Thou art Petros, and on this kepha Ι shall build my church"

- Chrys C. Caragounis, Peter And The Rock (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin; New York 1990), p. 34



The inelegance of the reconstruction would confirm the text is inauthentic, but it is the kepha 2x wordplay theory that should be rejected: "The supposed כיפא - כיפא, the repetition of the same word with the same meaning, is inconceivable as a word play."-Ibid., p. 48.

The redundancy of repeating kepha twice with the same precise meaning destroys any play on one word as it separates the Rocks, leaving only the latter upon which Christ will build His church. Then the precision of our Greek Version, which effectively show Christ is speaking TO Rock ABOUT the Rock, is justified. -Alfred Persson, The precise asymmetric Janus Parallelism on the Petros homonym in Matthew 16:18

The precise wording necessary for the Janus Parallelism and Qal Wahomer is the best explanation why the other gospel writers leave it to Matthew to recount.

 

[narnia59]

.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Bottom line: Christ spoke Aramaic and nicknamed Simon "Kepha," ("Cephas") which means "Rock."

Bottom line is I dispute that error, the supposition kepha underlies "Petros/Peter" in the NT.

How can I possibly dispute such a common, universally believed premise? It's wrong according to the scriptures, particularly John 1:42.

and he brought Simon to Jesus. When Jesus saw him, He said, "You are Simon, son of John. You will be called Cephas " (which means "Rock "). (Joh 1:42 CSB)

"Rock" (petros) is not a proper noun in John 1:42, it "means Rock", not is "translated Rock", that follows because "Cephas" (capitalization notwithstanding" isn't a proper noun, is just "stone" in Aramaic.

To illustrate, the Spanish "coche" means "car" in English, "car" didn't become a proper noun.

Professor Markus Bockmuehl of Oxford observes:

"John 1:42 which, on a certain reading, might be taken to suggest that ‘Peter’ is a secondary translation of an existing name Ke¯fa. It is instructive to note, however, that two verses earlier the evangelist seems to undermine even this conventional assumption of the priority of ‘Cephas’ by referring casually to ‘Simon Peter’ (1:40). Taken at face value, the text implies that it is this Simon, nicknamed Petros, who from now on ‘shall be called Cephas’. All four gospels, indeed, allow for the possibility that Matthew 16 merely affirms and interprets in Aramaic an existing Greek nickname that Peter had all along...See Mark 3:16; Matt. 4:18; Luke 5:8; John 1:40, 42." -Bockmuehl, Markus: Simon Peter's Name in Jewish Sources, Vol 55, No. 1, Spring 2004, p. 71.

There is no "Rosetta Stone" proving Kepha underlies Petros/Peter, its a guess and like some guesses, clearly wrong:


The Aram. proper name פֶּטְרוֹס [petros](on the various ways of writing it cf. Str.-B., I, 530 on Mt. 10:2) may be connected with פטר [ptr, compare Strong's 6363] and if so means the διανοίγων τὴν μήτραν [opening the womb] → 872, 27, the firstborn. Cf. → 101, n. 8; O. Cullmann, Petrus (1952), 13 and n. 11; 14, n. 13 (ET [1953], 19, n. 11, 13); O. Betz, “Felsenmann u. Felsengemeinde,” ZNW, 48 (1957), 65, n. 48.
Aram. Aramaic.

Str.-B. H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum NT aus Talmud und Midrasch, 1922 ff.
101, n. 8 Probably there lies behind this closer definition the need in polygamy to distinguish between the firstborn of the father and the firstborn of the mother, H. Haag, Art. “Erstgeburt,” Bibel-Lex. [1956], 422). The formulations are, of course, more general and do not bring out the distinction, a matriarchal background being no longer apparent, cf. J. Hempel, “Das Ethos d. AT,” Beih. ZAW, 67 (1928), 68. On the other hand it is evident that in polygamy the firstborn (or firstbegotten) of the father must occupy a special position as the “רֵאשִׁית [firstfruit] of his power” (Gn. 49:3; Dt. 21:17).
ET The Expository Times, Edinburgh 1900 ff.
ZNW Zeitschrift für die nt.liche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums, 1900 ff.

Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964- (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.


As Peter was called PETROS before he met Christ (Matt 4:18; John 1:40)---before the event in John 1:42, its elementary Jesus did not give Simon PETROS the name "petros stone". That was John's interpretation into Greek of the name Jesus gave Simon, "Cephas."

The currency of Simon's name Petros is confirmed:

"The currency of Peter’s name is confirmed in Tal Ilan’s identification of three additional first and second-century Palestinian Jewish individuals who bear the name Petros.[10] It is worth noting that the Palestinian Talmud and midrashim repeatedly feature an early Amoraic Rabbi Yose ben Petros, whose father constitutes proof that even this Greek name was by no means unknown in the early rabbinic period. "-Bockmuehl, Markus: Simon Peter's Name in Jewish Sources, Vol 55, No. 1, Spring 2004, pp. 71-72.


So why did John explain kepha means petros in Greek, and not use the more common LITHOS? To link the event to Matthew 16:18, to support this construct is a asymmetric JANUS PARALLELISM on the word PERTOS, view

Looking back: And also Jesus says to him, "You are Petros Firstborn of the divinely revealed Gospel of Christ;

Pivoting forward: You are[4] petros (kepha)lively stone from whose belly flows the living water it drank from the river of living water flowing out from this massive Petra Rock upon which[5] I will build my church so your faith is from above and not of yourself[6]---salvation eternally founded on the Rock[7] of God. Moreover, the gates of hell will not prevent My rising from the dead and securing My elect.

The authenticity of this context[8] is confirmed by the usage of the names Simon and Petros in Mark's gospel, which indicates the time of Simon's surnaming (Mark 3:16) is at Matthew 16:18. Simon first appears in Mark 1:16, 29, 36 and only once switches to Petros in Mark 5:37 when revealing his place among Christ's inner circle (which is relevant to the meaning of Kepha). Petros doesn't appear again until Mark 8:29 "But who do you say that I am?" Petros answered "You are the Christ". Then a burst of Petros references- (Mark 8:32-33; 9:2,5; 10:28; 11:21; 13:3; 14:29, 33, 37, 54, 66-67, 70, 72; 16:7). The phenomena indicates Jesus put upon (ἐπιτίθημ&#953 Simon the meaning of Petros at Matthew 16:18, not John 1:42.


[5] The artistry requires the demonstrative pronoun ταύτῃ (Matthew 16:18) idiomatically paralleling Καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ (John 4:27) "And upon this [word λόγος] came his disciples", the antecedent implied object in the verse before: So: "And upon this [revelation ἀποκάλυψις or truth ἀλήθεια] the [life giving] Rock, I will build my church."
[6] For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (Ephesians 2:8 KJV)

[7] 24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock(petra):
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock(petra). (Matthew 7:24-25 KJV)

[8] I credit the fallacy of circular reasoning for inspiring doubts about this text's authenticity. The conclusion Kepha appears twice in Christ's speech is a textbook example of supporting a premise with the premise.

The circular reconstruction is contradicted in the Syriac Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum:

ואוף אנא אמר לך דאת הו פטרוס ועל הדא כיפא אנא בני כנישתי
"And Ι say to thee, Thou art Petros, and on this kepha Ι shall build my church"

- Chrys C. Caragounis, Peter And The Rock (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin; New York 1990), p. 34



The inelegance of the reconstruction would confirm the text is inauthentic, but it is the kepha 2x wordplay theory that should be rejected: "The supposed כיפא - כיפא, the repetition of the same word with the same meaning, is inconceivable as a word play."-Ibid., p. 48.

The redundancy of repeating kepha twice with the same precise meaning destroys any play on one word as it separates the Rocks, leaving only the latter upon which Christ will build His church. Then the precision of our Greek Version, which effectively show Christ is speaking TO Rock ABOUT the Rock, is justified. -Alfred Persson, The precise asymmetric Janus Parallelism on the Petros homonym in Matthew 16:18

The precise wording necessary for the Janus Parallelism and Qal Wahomer is the best explanation why the other gospel writers leave it to Matthew to recount.

 

[Rick Otto]

There's plenty of clues to obviate truth, not personality, is the foundation of the church.
Look at how the personal pronoun changes to an impersonal one.
If Jesus meant to build on the person rather than the truth, would He not have said,"... and upon YOU I will build my church,"?

 

[BobRyan]

They all drank from the spiritual Rock (PETRA) and that ROCK (Petra) was CHRIST -- 1Cor 10:1-4.

No foundation can anyone lay other than has been laid and that foundation is CHRIST - 1Cor 3.

Matt 16 "23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.”"

 

[barryatlake]

Jesus builds His Church (“ecclesia&#8221 upon the person of Peter. Jesus changes Simon's name to "Kepha," and says that on this "Kepha" He will build the Church. Kepha, in Aramaic (the language Jesus spoke), means a massive rock formation, and Jesus' use of Kepha to rename Peter signifies Peter's foundational leadership in the Church. (See also Mark 3:16 and John 1:42 where Jesus renames Simon "Cephas" which is a transliteration of the Aramaic "Kepha."). Only the Catholic Church recognizes and proves through an unbroken lineage of successors that her foundation is Peter.

 

[barryatlake]

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus' blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha," not "evna." Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.

Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the "small rock," he would have used "lithos" which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).

Matt. 16:17 - to further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, Jesus says Simon "Bar-Jona." The use of "Bar-Jona" proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, "Bar" means son, and "Jonah" means John or dove (Holy Spirit). See Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time.

Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting "on this rock," the Scriptures use the Greek construction "tautee tee" which means on "this" rock; on "this same" rock; or on "this very" rock. "Tautee tee" is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee&#8221 generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros&#8221. Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”

Matt. 16:18-19 - in addition, to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter's leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter - you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom).

Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith.
more here

But as the passions of the Reformation era have cooled, and Protestant scholars have taken a more dispassionate look at this text, they have come to agree more and more that Jesus was referring to Peter himself as the rock. Of course, they disagree with the Catholic interpretation of what this means, but many now agree that the Catholic explanation of the grammar of the text is correct.

The following quotations, all of which are from "PROTESTANT" Bible scholars, are taken from the book Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy (Scott Butler et al., (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing), 1996).

William Hendriksen Member of the Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary says Peter is the Rock

Gerhard Maier Leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian says Peter is the Rock.

Donald A. Carson III Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary says Peter is the Rock

John Peter Lange German, Protestant scholar says Peter is the Rock

John A. Broadus Baptist author says Peter is the Rock

J. Knox Chamblin Presbyterian and New Testament Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary says Peter is the Rock

Craig L. Blomberg Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary says Peter is the Rock

David Hill Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, England says Peter is the Rock

Suzanne de Dietrich Presbyterian theologian says Peter is the Rock

Donald A. Hagner Fuller Theological Seminary says Peter is the Rock

 

[Rick Otto]

Only the Catholic Church over reaches its authority by misinterpreting this verse and claiming Jesus would rather build on a personality He had just said Get the behind me Satan, to rather than on the rock of truth.
It is the only way they can force a false claim, as they have proven themselves prone to doing with the Donation of Constantine forgery.

A church built on truth would not so quickly begin killing, but a cult of personality would take to it like a fish to water.

 

[barryatlake]

Rick Otto, Jesus did rebuke Peter ,Jesus was reminding Peter of his cowardice in denying Jesus three times [ Matt. 26; 69-75] In order to bring Peter to repentance and to restore Peter Jesus asks Peter three times if he loved him in order to bring Peter back in restoration and communion with our Lord. This connection between the three -fold denial and the three fold affirmation of loyalty to our Lord we can appreciate the consummational pastoral skill exercised by Jesus in giving Peter a chance to "cancel out " Peter's earlier betrayal

One more thing, funny that all cults [ as you call the CC ] use the KJV.

 

[Rick Otto]

Rick Otto, Jesus did rebuke Peter ,Jesus was reminding Peter of his cowardice in denying Jesus three times [ Matt. 26; 69-75] In order to bring Peter to repentance and to restore Peter Jesus asks Peter three times if he loved him in order to bring Peter back in restoration and communion with our Lord. This connection between the three -fold denial and the three fold affirmation of loyalty to our Lord we can appreciate the consummational pastoral skill exercised by Jesus in giving Peter a chance to "cancel out " Peter's earlier betrayal

Which is entirely beside my point of truth and not personality, being the foundation of the true church instead of the one schizmed in ancient history.

Paul also had to correct your foundation, and you forgot to mention Peter was married, which stands as a criticism to the celibacy of the personality church.

 

[barryatlake]

Rick Otto, you haven't a clue to understanding about the one true Church founded by Jesus. Jewish men were required by their religion to marry, think, until Jesus formed His Church all those Jewish men were married ,but, after their wives died they were to only be married to Christ's Church ,as was the case with Peter. Jesus never promised us a "perfect" Church ,to the contrary as found in Matt.13:24-30 where it is foretold by Jesus that His Church would contain "good " and "bad" members. Also see [ Matt.5: 13-16, Matt 13;1-9 ]

 

[Albion]

Only the Catholic Church over reaches its authority by misinterpreting this verse and claiming Jesus would rather build on a personality He had just said Get the behind me Satan, to rather than on the rock of truth.
It is the only way they can force a false claim....

One fact that supports your contention is that no bishop of Rome cited this passage in support of his claims to universal jurisdiction over the church until several centuries after the Scripture was written and accepted in the church. It makes no sense to think that, as the bishops of Rome were attempting to assert themselves, they would not have made this verse a "proof text" in their campaign--if anyone had seen it as supporting something like a Papacy.

barryatlake, concretecamper, or some other poster who wants to do so, is free--and welcome--to show us that the passage was thought by anyone to refer to the Papacy from the first century onward, if they have any information to that effect. My understanding is that there is none, and history itself would suggest that there is none since it is recognized that it wasn't until about the time of Leo the Great in the fifth century that the bishops of Rome began to argue that Christ had intended for Peter's successors in the Diocese of Rome to rule the church.

 

[barryatlake]

Albion, Christ's Church that He established on Earth was given the authoritative power to make "the rules" and coin the words i.e. "Trinity", [ Pope ] based on His Church being built on His Apostles/Successors see Luke 10:16 ,along with Jesus commissions His first Ambassadors / Presbyters., see Matt.28:18-20; ]
"On behalf of Christ, therefore, we are acting as ambassadors, God, as it were, appealing through us " [ 2 Cor.5: 20 ]

1 Cor 4:14 - Pope meaning papa/father [ Papacy ] is also taken from that verse.

Christ knew that the apostles would not live to the end of the earth. Jesus obviously intended His Apostolic Teachings taught also to future generations , therefore , Jesus confided to His apostles the right and duty to select future successors, while the popes are simply Christ's vicar/deputy ambassadors here on earth, with all of Christ's single Apostolic Church's authority to " bind and loose''.
"bind and loose", see Matt 16: 15-19
Authoritative earthly shepherds see Luke 10: 16

 

[Albion]

Albion, Christ's Church that He established on Earth was given the authoritative power to make "the rules" and coin the words i.e. "Trinity", [ Pope ] based on His Church being built on His Apostles/Successors see Luke 10:16 ,along with Jesus commissions His first Ambassadors / Presbyters., see Matt.28:18-20; ]
"On behalf of Christ, therefore, we are acting as ambassadors, God, as it were, appealing through us " [ 2 Cor.5: 20 ]

1 Cor 4:14 - Pope meaning papa/father [ Papacy ] is also taken from that verse.

That's the theory that the Roman church created centuries later. I offered you the opportunity to show (if it is possible) that the Papacy was believed in by the Apostolic Church--and that it relied upon that Matthew passage for it. It was not an invitation to testify that you personally believe what your church wants you to believe. We already know that.

 

[barryatlake]

Albion ,the Catholic Church is formed on the Apostles, of course it existed then at Pentecost Apostolic Age. The Church also never labeled the word "Trinity" until years later.

 

[Albion]

Albion ,the Catholic Church is formed on the Apostles, of course it existed then at Pentecost Apostolic Age. The Church also never labeled the word "Trinity" until years later.

So you DON'T know of any evidence that Matthew 16 was ever used by a bishop of Rome prior to the fourth century to support the claims you made about the Papacy (or that institution by whatever name) being ordained by Christ. Then we are in agreement about that.

 

[barryatlake]

No, we are not in agreement.I gave you biblical evidence that supports the role of Peter as vicar of Christ on earth.
Matt.16: 17-19; Jn.21: 15-17. The clear testimony of Holy Scripture and history [ early Christian writings ] demonstrates the primacy of Peter. Peter was clearly appointed as the rock upon which Jesus would build His Church. Many Protestant Scholars acknowledge that in Jn. 21: 15-17, it describes the appointment of Peter as a shepherd by the risen Lord . Albion, the Holy Bible is not a doctrinal textbook or manual. Systematic definition of doctrine is needed. As I previously indicated, the doctrine of the Trinity as formulated in the Nicene Creed, is an excellent example.

 

[Albion]

No, we are not in agreement.I gave you biblical evidence that supports the role of Peter as vicar of Christ on earth.
Matt.16: 17-19; Jn.21: 15-17.

I KNOW that you interpret those verses as meaning what you just said here. That is what your church now says, so you do also.

What I asked was whether you could find any evidence that the Popes/bishops of Rome had any idea of that interpretation until centuries after Christ.