Jesus Christ is the Rock. not peter

[rturner76]

Lotta action there, with Word. In O.T. studies all kinds of interesting correlations can be unearthed for all of these terms that lend many layers to all of it. Quite fun, really. Pity to get locked and loaded on these subjects into just a specific avenue, as if God has to jump to our reading comprehension skills

Yes there are many words, translations, and interpretations to consider.

If Jesus has meant that the bread was now His body, and He was still bodily with His disciples, He must have had two bodies.

That's an interesting thought and I believe that to be true. Jesus' physical body is with the father yet he sends his presence into the consecrated bread.

I think one thing that is not considered so much by some is that when the bread and wine come out, that's all they are. What we believe is that after the consecration of the bread and wine, the Real Presence of Christ is made manifest. God (and now a resurected Jesus) can come to us in many ways (and angels in some cases). God the Father has come as a dove for example. God's presence can be made manifest in anything he chooses. I know that there are some interpretive hoops we can jump through in order to say it is simply symbolic the Church just takes what he said littoraly. "This IS my body," "This IS my blood." "Do this in remembrance of me." Another poster and I disagreed that remembrance and symbolism mean the same thing. I don't think it does. IMO symbolism means an artificial representation of something real.) I believe that remberance is in memory of something that is real.

 

[David Lamb]

Yes there are many words, translations, and interpretations to consider.


That's an interesting thought and I believe that to be true. Jesus' physical body is with the father yet he sends his presence into the consecrated bread.

I think one thing that is not considered so much by some is that when the bread and wine come out, that's all they are. What we believe is that after the consecration of the bread and wine, the Real Presence of Christ is made manifest. God (and now a resurected Jesus) can come to us in many ways (and angels in some cases). God the Father has come as a dove for example. God's presence can be made manifest in anything he chooses. I know that there are some interpretive hoops we can jump through in order to say it is simply symbolic the Church just takes what he said littoraly. "This IS my body," "This IS my blood." "Do this in remembrance of me." Another poster and I disagreed that remembrance and symbolism mean the same thing. I don't think it does. IMO symbolism means an artificial representation of something real.) I believe that remberance is in memory of something that is real.

But Jesus also promised His followers:

“19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, [even] to the end of the age." Amen.” (Mt 28:19-20 NKJV)

Not "I will be with you when your priest says a prayer to consecrate the bread and wine," but "always!"

As to what you say about remembrance, yes, it usually refers to remembering something or someone real. Jesus told the disciples, "Do this in remembrance of Me," and He indeed is real. But that doesn't mean the remembrance is the same as Him.

 

[rturner76]

But Jesus also promised His followers:

“19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, [even] to the end of the age." Amen.” (Mt 28:19-20 NKJV)

Not "I will be with you when your priest says a prayer to consecrate the bread and wine," but "always!"

As to what you say about remembrance, yes, it usually refers to remembering something or someone real. Jesus told the disciples, "Do this in remembrance of Me," and He indeed is real. But that doesn't mean the remembrance is the same as Him.

I don't see how any of this negated Christ's Real Presence as he stated "this is My BODY"

 

[David Lamb]

I don't see how any of this negated Christ's Real Presence as he stated "this is My BODY"

If Jesus Christ promised to be with His followers always, how could He only be present with them when they are partaking of the Lord's Supper? As for "This is my body", as I've said before, He spoke those words whilst bodily present with the disciples. In His resurrected body, He ascended into heaven. If He meant more than, "This represents my body" then you have to believe that He had more than one body.

 

[rturner76]

If Jesus Christ promised to be with His followers always, how could He only be present with them when they are partaking of the Lord's Supper? As for "This is my body", as I've said before, He spoke those words whilst bodily present with the disciples. In His resurrected body, He ascended into heaven. If He meant more than, "This represents my body" then you have to believe that He had more than one body.

I think, in the same way other Sacraments have a connection to a one-time action. We still baptize converts because Jesus was baptized We do exactly what they did that day. Sacraments are meant to be outward signs of inward Grace. It's a celebration and all are performed as it was the first time.

Knowing that we have a triune God and not three separate deities like Pagans for example God came down like a Dove, he came as a burning bush, he came to wrestle Jacob. I don't think there is much opposition to believing that God is capable of coming into Earth as anything that exists.

Except Cod's human body. Human beings can only enter this world from their mother's womb. That brings us back to the thought that The Eurcarist cannot be God's body and blood and he ascended into heaven. I believe, after his time baing resurrected, he had his human body but it was to be transformed into a heavenly body. It is still the Body and Blood of Christ when he was here in human form.

This is my body, this is my blood is pretty clear. I'd like to ask......? Bread and water are JUST that. Once it is consecrated, it changes This is the same consecration The Church does today. I mean the whole passage about the blessing is recited. I always thought that if God shows what something is made of, shows us how to make it and share it with others, Then tells you to continue in his remembrance.. it's a physical manifstation of our spiritual conversion. Goc within us.

 

[rturner76]

If Jesus Christ promised to be with His followers always, how could He only be present with them when they are partaking of the Lord's Supper? As for "This is my body", as I've said before, He spoke those words whilst bodily present with the disciples. In His resurrected body, He ascended into heaven. If He meant more than, "This represents my body" then you have to believe that He had more than one body.

I believe it is not as simple nor as complicated as this. The Eucharist is described as a "mystery," meaning we cannot truly comprehend the mechanism of Christ's physical body entering a believer's body. So when in doubt we look to the scripture. As I think we have both quoted in the Bible:

NABRE
Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.”

Where we and others, seem to disagree on in the interpretation of "do this in memory of me." Others say it should be interpreted to mean "do this as a representation of me every year." My Church interprets it to mean "Consecrate the bread into my body and take it in memory of me. The Bible doesn't seem to say which is the correct interpretation 'THIS IS MY BLOOD" and the definition of " Do this in memory" are quite different than "Do this as a representation of me.

He did have more than one body...He had his Earthly Body and his Spiritual Body, just as we will all shed our Earthly body to accept our Spiritual bodies. It could be that we also disagree in that as well

 

[Paul4JC]

When Jesus said "you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church (ekklēsia)," He was speaking a figure of speech, which He often did, and which caused some confusion for the disciples because they wanted clear literal language. It's a play on words (petros vs. petra), which is also masculine form vs. feminine form. This kind of figure of speech has been historically misunderstood, just like "This is My body" has been historically misunderstood.

So the real question is, what was Jesus referring to by "this rock" - which rock? There have been 3 proposed so far:
1. to Peter, as implied by the similarity between petros and petra. In this case, the meaning is implied "upon you, Peter, I will build My church" - this is the millennia-old interpretation, not often questioned. Yet, why the feminine form? Can anyone give examples of any figure like this where the feminine form is used for the identical thing after the masculine form is used? If not, then this interpretation's validity must be questioned.

Does anyone have Biblical references answering any of these?

Yes #1 is correct and was fulfilled in Acts Chapter 2.

[Act 2:14, 41 NIV] Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: "Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. ... 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

The church is feminine as the bride of Christ...

.[Eph 5:25-32 NIV] 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church-- 30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32 This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church.

[Rev 21:9 NIV] 9 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb."

This does not take, in any way, that the Lord Jesus is the rock of our salvation, cornerstone, etc.

The true church is not an institution but an entity.

 

[David Lamb]

Yes #1 is correct and was fulfilled in Acts Chapter 2.

[Act 2:14, 41 NIV] Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: "Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. ... 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

But Acts 2 doesn't say that Peter was the rock on which Christ's church is built, or the leader of that church. If he had been the leader of Christ's church, Paul must have been in grave error, because we read:

“11 ¶ Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before [them] all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?” (Ga 2:11-14 NKJV)

The church is feminine as the bride of Christ...

.[Eph 5:25-32 NIV] 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church-- 30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32 This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church.

[Rev 21:9 NIV] 9 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb."

This does not take, in any way, that the Lord Jesus is the rock of our salvation, cornerstone, etc.

The true church is not an institution but an entity.

Yes, the church is the bride of Christ, but the argument is about the difference between the Greek words for "Peter" and "rock", with one being grammatically masculine and the other grammatically feminine.

 

[tdidymas]

Yes #1 is correct and was fulfilled in Acts Chapter 2.

[Act 2:14, 41 NIV] Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: "Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. ... 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

The church is feminine as the bride of Christ...

.[Eph 5:25-32 NIV] 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church-- 30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32 This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church.

[Rev 21:9 NIV] 9 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb."

This does not take, in any way, that the Lord Jesus is the rock of our salvation, cornerstone, etc.

The true church is not an institution but an entity.

I was looking for examples in scripture where some figure of speech had masculine term compared to feminine term for #1,

or, in #2 any examples in scripture where a man uses a feminine metaphor referring to himself.
"2. to Jesus, since "rock" refers to the Messiah or God mostly in scripture. The implied meaning is "upon Myself I will build My church." So it begs the question, does any male person in scripture use a figure in the feminine form to refer to himself? If so, then this would be strong evidence for this interpretation."

I think most theologians interpret it that Jesus was referring to Himself, seems to fit the wider context of scripture.

 

[Paul4JC]

But Acts 2 doesn't say that Peter was the rock on which Christ's church is built, or the leader of that church. If he had been the leader of Christ's church, Paul must have been in grave error, because we read:

“11 ¶ Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before [them] all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?” (Ga 2:11-14 NKJV)

Yes, the church is the bride of Christ, but the argument is about the difference between the Greek words for "Peter" and "rock", with one being grammatically masculine and the other grammatically feminine.

I understand, yet the church is feminine. Maybe that's why the Lord used the feminine word if he did really use a feminine word. (See link below). My grammar is bad.

Where did I say that Peter was the leader of the church? Yet the church starts at Pentecost, and Peter preaches the first sermon.

Peter is the rock, and the Lord Jesus is the Rock.

Galatians 2 is post-Pentecost and is a totally different story. Peter and Paul were equals as Apostles.

The church was established in Act's 2, through the preaching of the Apostle Peter. Again this in no way made him a Pope of some establishment, because the church is not an establishment of this world. All are equal if we are in Christ.

 

[Paul4JC]

In Matthew 16:18, was Jesus referring to Peter or himself...​

The antecedent of "this rock" has been debated for millennia. There appear to be 4 possible antecedents--let's look at the preceding verses:

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 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.
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.

Possible antecedents:

1. Jesus Himself (v 16)
2. My Father (v 17)
3. Peter (v 17)
4. Revelation/testimony from God (v 17)

Definition of an antecedent from Oxford languages: "a word, phrase, clause, or sentence to which another word (especially a following relative pronoun) refers".
Petros vs petra
Peter in Greek is "petros", a masculine noun. The rock upon which the church will be built is "petra", a feminine noun, and the meanings of these words differ. Petra is a larger rock mass (see here) whereas petros is generally a smaller rock or pebble (see here).
As Caragounis points out:

f the reference were intended to [be] Peter there were only two alternatives available – which would have put the matter beyond reasonable doubt. The first alternative would be: Σὺ εἷ Πέτροςκαὶ ἐπὶ σὲ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. There would still be a word-play here, in as much as Πέτρος would have been understood to refer to the well-known disciple, while at the same time the thought of building would have reflected on the meaning of Peter’s name, i.e., the idea of a bedrock on which to erect the ἐκκλησία. The other alternative, which is still better, would be: Σὺ εἷ ὁ Πέτρος ἐφ= ᾧ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. Ηere, the word Πέτρος would have been understood doubly as the personal name of Jesus’ interlocutor and as the rock-foundation of the Church. In this case, there would have been no doubt that the rock was Peter. That Matthew chose to use Πέτρος and πέτρα, two different words, whose very collocation marks a conscious juxtaposition, indicates clearly his intention to contradistinguish the two terms

(see full discussion in Chrys C. Caragounis, Peter and the Rock (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1990), 89-107) (see also abbreviated discussion here)
To those who believe on other grounds (e.g. patristic writings) that this is a reference to Peter this grammatical oddity has not been a deal-breaker, but it has led many to conclude Peter is likely not the antecedent.
Aramaic
A common argument is that the statement was originally made in Aramaic, in which there would have been no difference in gender or meaning – it would probably (this is debated) just be one word: kepha. Aramaic was spoken in this time and place and so this is possible.
However, this does leave a different matter unresolved: why when translating the statement into Greek did the author not simply use “petros” both times? To not do so introduced additional meaning (and unnecessary ambiguity) not found in the original. While it’s possible for an author/translator to take liberties with a source, it doesn’t do the authenticity (or authority) of the text any good to go down this route. (see here esp. footnotes 3 & 4)
Hebrew
Another interesting hypothesis is that Hebrew was spoken. (for evidence that Hebrew was a spoken language at this time, my thoughts here). As David Bivin has pointed out, the word play works in Hebrew too:

אַתָּה פֶּטְרוֹס וְעַל הַפֶּטְרָא הַזּוֹ אֶבְנֶה אֶת עֲדָתִי (atah petros ve-al ha-petra ha-zo evneh et adati; You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my community)

So at the very least the Aramaic hypothesis has some competition and probably should not be selected arbitrarily. As discussed on this site here, Jesus would have been familiar with Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek.
(Quick aside for those who can't get enough of the linguistics discussion--see here yet another perspective--an argument from Porter that the conversation was originally in Greek)
Jesus is the rock
Jesus is certainly referred to as a rock in other places. He is the chief cornerstone in Ephesians 2:20, so Jesus is the preferred antecedent to many readers who do not accept Peter as the answer. This possibility is explored in greater depth in other responses.
In counter to this view, if He is indicating He is building His church upon Himself, what is the place/purpose of this passage in the story? (it is immediately followed by “I will give you the keys of the kingdom…”) Why does He need to tell them "my church is built on me" or “my church is my church?” And why not refer to Himself with “I” or “the Son of Man” as He usually does?
The word play would be unnecessary. Jesus would be telling Peter “blessed art thou”, “you’re just a little rock I can’t build on” and “I’m giving you the keys and the power to bind & loose” one after the other. The continuity and consistency appear to be lost.
Conclusion
None of these are knock-down arguments for or against a particular antecedent; if they were, I wouldn’t have had to start the post with the statement that this passage has been debated for millennia =).
Jesus, His Father, and Peter are all masculine—a feminine noun "petra" would be inappropriate as a name for any of them, so clearly a proper name is not intended (contra Petros which is being used as a proper name here). Each of these options is grammatically possible but the use of any as the antecedent is awkward, to say nothing of vague.
I will offer what I believe is the most grammatically simple solution. Since any of the singular masculine nouns could readily be referred to without ambiguity using a singular masculine pronoun, the antecedent probably is not a singular masculine noun. By process of elimination, revelation from God appears the most likely antecedent. It is the only one of the four options that can be referred to by “petra” but cannot be disambiguated by a pronoun.
This would mean that revelation, as Peter has received from the Father, is the process by which Jesus intends to guide His church.

 

[LoveofTruth]

When Jesus said "you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church (ekklēsia)," He was speaking a figure of speech, which He often did, and which caused some confusion for the disciples because they wanted clear literal language. It's a play on words (petros vs. petra), which is also masculine form vs. feminine form. This kind of figure of speech has been historically misunderstood, just like "This is My body" has been historically misunderstood.

So the real question is, what was Jesus referring to by "this rock" - which rock? There have been 3 proposed so far:
1. to Peter, as implied by the similarity between petros and petra. In this case, the meaning is implied "upon you, Peter, I will build My church" - this is the millennia-old interpretation, not often questioned. Yet, why the feminine form? Can anyone give examples of any figure like this where the feminine form is used for the identical thing after the masculine form is used? If not, then this interpretation's validity must be questioned.

2. to Jesus, since "rock" refers to the Messiah or God mostly in scripture. The implied meaning is "upon Myself I will build My church." So it begs the question, does any male person in scripture use a figure in the feminine form to refer to himself? If so, then this would be strong evidence for this interpretation.

3. to Peter's statement "You are the Christ." The implied meaning is, "Upon your confession I will build My church." I've read arguments for this, but I still don't get it. I need to see examples of figures in scripture where it's referring to something earlier in a conversation. It doesn't appear to me that exegetical commentaries show that. If other examples in scripture are shown to contain figures in feminine form referring to statements, this would be enough evidence.

Does anyone have Biblical references answering any of these?

I see it as part of two and three. Jesus is the Rock of salvation and he asked Peter "whom say ye that I am?" Peter answered thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God and this revelation was given by the Father, not taught my men. The question Jesus asked and Peters answer was the revelation in context. This evidenced that Peter was born again and had God dwelling in him and saved. Jesus Christ would build his Church called out assembly) upon himself and the revelation of the Father to the believers. Jesus said that no man comes to him except the Father first revels him. The Father revels the So and the Son reveals the Father as Jesus told us.

Here are some scriptures to consider here, we see this revelation and confession a few times in the scripture

“Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.” (1 John 5:1 KJV)

“Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.” (1 John 4:16 KJV)

"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 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." (Matthew 16:15,16 KJV)

"And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? 27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world" (John 11:26,27 KJV)

“And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.” (John 6:69 KJV)

"Others said, This is the Christ. (John 7:41 KJV)

"And many more believed because of his own word; 42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world." ( john 4:41, 42 KJV)


"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." ( John 6:44-47 KJV).