is it peter the rock? or is it jesus?

[tz620q]

The rock was the revelation from the Father that Peter received.

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church;

We recently had a sermon about Jesus saying to his followers that there would be a day of judgement and on that day he would say to some, I did not know you. This was followed by the analogy of the wide gate and the narrow gate. The wide gate to a city was for merchants and foreigners to use while it was open to come into the city. The narrow gate was used to allow pedestrian traffic for city residents that were returning after nightfall. By saying I did not know you, he is saying that these people were foreigners and not residents of the city. Since the city is Heaven, the residents that make it through the narrow gate already have a place there. They have stored up there treasure in Heaven.

So Peter's confession is important and certainly can be viewed as an ultimate cause for Jesus' reaction. But when viewed deeper, it becomes evident that Peter's confession was from God and to hear God, Peter would have had to recognize who Jesus was, not just a rabbi, but God Himself. He would have had to go against all that he had been taught about who the Messiah is and come to the startling conclusion that the Messiah was not a mere man; but God. At this time that does not seem so radical; but none of the other disciples had arrived at this revelation and they had been taught by Jesus just as long. So why is Peter's confession important. It is important because it showed that Peter had found the narrow gate and could enter Heaven.

This all fits nicely into the whole confession of faith soteriology; but I wonder why the same people who claim that a church is not a building; but the people in that building and they are members because of a confession of faith, fail to acknowledge that Peter and his confession of faith are indivisible. If that is the case, then the rock is both Peter and his confession of faith, not one or the other. To me it seems like the perfect response from Jesus to Peter. Peter reveals that he knows who Jesus really is and Jesus reciprocates by telling Peter who he really is. If Peter was self-reflective at all, he would have realized that he was someone who allowed the winds to blow his beliefs about, hardly rocklike. So Jesus' revelation could have been as shocking to Peter as Peter's was to the others there.

 

[AlexDTX]

that Peter and his confession of faith are indivisible.

Should we, then, say Balaam's ass and the confession of the ass are also indivisible? Num 22:28

 

[parousia70]

Jesus is the King, and He bestowed upon Peter the position of His first "prime minister" when He called him ROCK.
Jesus clearly gave St. Peter "the keys of the kingdom" (Mt 16:18-19), and the power invested in Peter was the same as when the O.T. kings bestowed the keys on their prime ministers. Please read Isaiah 22:15-24 to see what power was invested in the prime minister of Israel's king.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Jesus is the King, and He bestowed upon Peter the position of His first "prime minister" when He called him ROCK.
Jesus clearly gave St. Peter "the keys of the kingdom" (Mt 16:18-19), and the power invested in Peter was the same as when the O.T. kings bestowed the keys on their prime ministers. Please read Isaiah 22:15-24 to see what power was invested in the prime minister of Israel's king.

Except He nicknamed Peter in John 1:42 when they first met...so that was already his nickname long before his declaration of faith

 

[tz620q]

Should we, then, say Balaam's ass and the confession of the ass are also indivisible? Num 22:28

Not sure the ass could fit through the narrow gate. They often put in sharp turns to prevent large animals from being taken through them. Also prevented horse thieves from using this gate to take livestock out after dark.

I love Disney movies too; but as much as they anthropomorphize animals, I still understand that in God's eyes (an anthropomorphic God, I guess to have eyes), we are not the same as animals and are intended to use our free will to chose God. That is what Peter did. To make Peter into God's puppet is to remove all true meaning from the Matthew 16 passage. It would be Jesus having a conversation with himself to show a need for confessions of faith. But those confessions are merely God forcing us to say things to worship Him. I know this is hyperbolic; but it does show the difference in Peter and Balaam's ass.

 

[tz620q]

Except He nicknamed Peter in John 1:42 when they first met...so that was already his nickname long before his declaration of faith

If you take John's chronology too literally, you end up with numerous contradictions with the Synoptics. So do you think we should debate each of these or use the Synoptics for a narrative account and John's Gospel for the wonderful theology he presents?

 

[AlexDTX]

Not sure the ass could fit through the narrow gate. They often put in sharp turns to prevent large animals from being taken through them. Also prevented horse thieves from using this gate to take livestock out after dark.

I love Disney movies too; but as much as they anthropomorphize animals, I still understand that in God's eyes (an anthropomorphic God, I guess to have eyes), we are not the same as animals and are intended to use our free will to chose God. That is what Peter did. To make Peter into God's puppet is to remove all true meaning from the Matthew 16 passage. It would be Jesus having a conversation with himself to show a need for confessions of faith. But those confessions are merely God forcing us to say things to worship Him. I know this is hyperbolic; but it does show the difference in Peter and Balaam's ass.

I have no interest in trying to convince any Catholic in their belief that apostolic succession even exists in the first place, of which I do not believe, nor that Peter was the first in that succession. You are going to believe this regardless of what I say.

I made my point. The revelation of God to Peter is the rock, not Peter. Balaam's donkey also had a revelation and knew better than Balaam that he was fighting against God. That was the point of the example.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. I led the horse. If the horse refuses to drink, I will not force it.

 

[zoidar]

some people say that jesus was talking about himself about the rock

matthew 16:18

Two other verses to think of concerning if Peter is the rock is:

Matthew 16
19 I will give you (Peter?)the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

John 21
15 So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Tend My lambs.”

I think it's clear Peter was given a special role. I believe Peter is the rock Jesus is refering to, but I don't believe that Peter was the first pope as Catholics believe.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Two other verses to think of concerning if Peter is the rock is:

Matthew 16
19 I will give you (Peter?)the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

John 21
15 So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Tend My lambs.”

I think it's clear Peter was given a special role. I believe Peter is the rock Jesus is refering to, but I don't believe that Peter was the first pope as Catholics believe.

All the apostles got the "keys". The reason He asked Peter 3 times if he loved Him was because Peter denied Him 3 times...to cancel it out...otherwise he could not move forward.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

If you take John's chronology too literally, you end up with numerous contradictions with the Synoptics. So do you think we should debate each of these or use the Synoptics for a narrative account and John's Gospel for the wonderful theology he presents?

Too literally?!?! It IS literal! It was the first time He met Peter...there is NO contradiction...

 

[zoidar]

All the apostles got the "keys".

Where does the Bible say that?

 

[lambofgod43985889]

Two other verses to think of concerning if Peter is the rock is:

Matthew 16
19 I will give you (Peter?)the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

John 21
15 So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Tend My lambs.”

I think it's clear Peter was given a special role. I believe Peter is the rock Jesus is refering to, but I don't believe that Peter was the first pope as Catholics believe.

what about the theory or truth that jesus was talking about himself when he pronounce the word 'rock'?

 

[JIMINZ]

Jesus is the King, and He bestowed upon Peter the position of His first "prime minister" when He called him ROCK.
Jesus clearly gave St. Peter "the keys of the kingdom" (Mt 16:18-19), and the power invested in Peter was the same as when the O.T. kings bestowed the keys on their prime ministers. Please read Isaiah 22:15-24 to see what power was invested in the prime minister of Israel's king.

That's just the point, Jesus did not do any of what you believe.

 

[JIMINZ]

Where does the Bible say that?

It's found in the same verse where you find that Jesus said He was giving the key's only to Peter?

 

[zoidar]

what about the theory or truth that jesus was talking about himself when he pronounce the word 'rock'?

"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon me (this rock) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven"

I think it sounds weird if we change Rock with "me". Feels more logical he is talking to Peter about his role. I think the biggest reason people read "rock" as someone or something other than Peter is to get a reason to deny the papacy.

 

[JIMINZ]

"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon me (this rock) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven"

I think it sounds weird if we change Rock with "me". Feels more logical he is talking to Peter about his role. I think the biggest reason people read "rock" as someone or something other than Peter is to get a reason to deny the papacy.

Get over yourself, it's because it is Grammatically incorrect, and that is the only reason which counts.

 

[prodromos]

Where does the Bible say that?

Matthew 18:18

 

[parousia70]

Get over yourself, it's because it is Grammatically incorrect, and that is the only reason which counts.

Here's the direct Aramaic to English translation of the verse.
Show us the grammatical incorrectness of it.

("ap" - also)
("en-a" - I)
("e-mar" - say)
("'na" - (I))
("l'akh" - to you)
("d'at" - that you)
("haw" - are)
("kee-pa" - rock)
("w'al" - and upon)
("ha-de" - this)
("kee-pa" - rock)
("aeb-neyh" - I will build)
("l'eed-tee" - my Church)
("w'tar-aae" - and the gates)
("d'shee-ol" - of Sheol)
("la" - not)
("nekh-snaw-nah " - will subdue it)

 

[parousia70]

It's found in the same verse where you find that Jesus said He was giving the key's only to Peter?

Argument from Silence.
The onus is on the claimant to demonstrate where Jesus gave the keys to anyone else.

Again, a simple reading of Isaiah 22:15-24 gives us the scriptural mandate for who gets the keys and for what purpose.

 

[lambofgod43985889]

"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon me (this rock) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven"

I think it sounds weird if we change Rock with "me". Feels more logical he is talking to Peter about his role. I think the biggest reason people read "rock" as someone or something other than Peter is to get a reason to deny the papacy.

but why you wrote this, change 'me' for 'this rock' now, and comment me