Featured What Did jesus mean" Upon This Rock, I Will Build my Church?"

So you capitalize every other word in the title except Jesus?

 

Peter was not a rock at the time Jesus said this, he was shifting sand. Jesus was saying, "Peter, it is no average folk like you that I am going to have to depend on when I am no longer with you."

A good description of this is found in the book by Elton Trueblood, The Humor of Christ.

 

1. The question is not directed toward Peter but to all the disciples
2. All discples previously confessed Jesus was the Christ the Son of God - Mt. 15
3. "Thou" 2 person singluar versus "this" third person singular
4. "Petros" nominative masculine singular vesus Petra nominative feminative sing
5. "petros" anathrous construct - what characterizes a building stone
6. Builidng context -
a. There is a builder named "I will"
b. There is a building to be built - "my church"
c. There is something to build "upon this rock"
d. There is building material characterized by anarthous construct "Petros"

7. Nearest grammatical antecedand for "this" in verse 16 is "it" in verse 15 which refers to Peter's confession in verse 14.

8. Peter's own personal application - 1 Pet. 2:5,8; 5:1-3
a. Peter describes building materials used to build church "lively stones" - v. 5
b. Peter defines "Petra" to be Christ not him - v. 8
c. Peter claims EQUALITY with other elders but denies supremacy over - 1 Pet. 5:1-3

 

Peter was not a pope, and Jesus is the Rock of Ages and the ONLY Foundation of the church. Building upon any other foundation is like building your home on sand.

While all believers are priests through Christ, Christ is the Great High Priest. To the best of my knowledge, the name Peter does NOT mean "rock"; it means "little stone". Jesus said "Upon THIS rock (meaning Himself), I will build my church." He did NOT say, "Upon you, Peter, I will build my church."

Peter was just one of 12 disciples. Although he seemed more verbal than the rest, Jesus did not exalt him above the others.

 

Jesus Is the Rock!!

"Peter" in Greek is petros, meaning a small stone. "Rock" in this passge was translated from the Greek word petra, which means a HUGE rock (Think of the Rock of Gibraltar [Prudential Insurance's logo].)

(At the risk of sounding unintentionally disrespectful, you might say that Peter was just a chip off The Rock.)

 

Jesus did not say Petra as Peter

Jesus spoke Aramaic in common conversation so most likely he would have called Peter "Cephus"


"We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’*

 

I have been in study of this passage I don't know my old testament that well but aberaham had a name change and he was the earthly spiritual leader of the old covedent and Peter had a name change and he was the earthly spiritual leader of the new covedent

From greek the literal translation of testament is covedent

 

You are right that out of Abraham God would bring a people through natural birth - the Israelites.

Do you think that such analogy might better harmonize with Christ or with Peter. Is it out of Peter that God brings forth people by birth (new birth) or out of faith in Christ?

You are also right about the name change from "Simon" to "Peter." However, did you notice how Peter describes the materials God uses to build the congregation in 1 Pet. 2:5 "lively stones built up a spiritual house"? Also did you notice how Peter defines "rock" (Gr. Petra) in 1 Pet. 2:8?

How do you think Peter came up with such an analogy for the materials used to build the church and the "rock" upon which that assembly is built in 1 Peter 2:5-8?

 

You are right. In common conversation between himself and his disciples he probably did speak Aramaic.

However, the Holy Spirit led all Jewish New Testament writers to write all their epistles in Greek not Aramaic because their commission was to "all nations" not to Israel. There is absolutely no historical evidence that any book of the New Testament was ever written in Aramaic. Indeed, the inclusion of Aramaic at some instances in the gospels prove they did not write it in Aramaic or else they would not have included the Aramaic definitions and explanations.

Also, the grammatical factors that I pointed to in the above post make it clear that they were using the Greek language in every possible manner to make sure the reader did not mistake the name "Peter" to be the "rock" upon which the church was built. Every grammatical distinction was used to avoid that conclusion. On the other hand, Matthew could have easily said, "Thou art Peter and upon YOU I will build my church" but did not.

 

Again, here is my original post where I point out the effort Matthew went to in order to avoid the conclusion by any reader that Peter was the "rock" and how Peter himself made ever possible effort to avoid that conclusion by the structure of the congregation as "lively stones built up" rather than the foundation and purposely identifying the femine "Petra" translated "rock" in Mt. 16:18 to define Christ not himself in 1 Pet. 2:8, as well as, to purposely deny any office of supremacy over other elders in 1 Pet 5:1-4 but only equality.

Christ and Peter did everything possible to make sure the readers would avoid the conclusion that Peter was that "rock."

 

God spoke to aberaham in genisis

(Jesus) God spoke to Peter in mathew

Both 1st books

Different perspectives I have studied on this passage

Catholic=
Peter is the 1st pope the earthly speaker of Christ church

Eastern orthodox =
Peter is the 1st pope the 1st among equals but equal to other apostles

Oriental orthodox
Peter is the 1st pope and is the 1st among equals but doesn't explain Jesus earthly nature correctly

Anglican/ episcopal
Peter is the 1st pope and they are in a loose affiliation of the catholic church through apostolic sucssion

Lutheran
Peter is the 1st pope but a series of popes made bad decisions on doctirne and the pope is currently invalid to some degree

Methodist
Peter may or may not be the 1st pope but the pope is currently teaching in error

Presbyterian
Peter may or may not have been the 1st pope and he may or may not be the anti Christ currently

Baptist
Peter was not the 1st pope Jesus was just talking figuratively about peters faith and Matt 16:18 had nothing to do with being pope

 

I think there is historical evidence that Matthew penned his gospel in Aramaic. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote in 180 AD:


'Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who Fifty years earlier Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, wrote, "Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could" (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 3:39]).
also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.' (Against Heresies 3:1:1)

And then some fifty years earlier, 'Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, wrote, "Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could" (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 3:39]).' Eusebius himself declared that "Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews, and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue [Aramaic], so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote" (History of the Church 3:24 [inter 300-325]).

 

If he did, it is certain that God did not preserve it or we would have some one quoting from it or copies or fragments of it. Irenaeus could be wrong also as he was not even alive when Matthew lived or wrote.

To base an entire doctrine upon silence when every Greek grammatical fact denies it, and when Peter's own epistles contradict it, is a pretty desperate act.

 

Traditions are all fine IF doctrine was determined by traditions instead of Scripture. However, that is not the case with Bible believers (Isa. 8:20; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Pet. 1:19-21).

Analogies are all fine IF they harmonize with the actual scriptural facts. But these analogies do not harmonize with the Biblical or grammatical data as my previous post demonstrates. It does not harmonize with Matthew's account or Peter's account of their use of "petra."

 

Interesting ???

How do we know peter went to Rome if it wasn't in the bible

I can find one verse that suggests so. Babylon was a code word for The roman empire and Rome by early Christians and Jews

1 Peter 5:12-13
King James Version (KJV)
12*By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand.

13*The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.