Petros/Petra

I forgot to mention this, Dr. Carson makes two great points in his commentary on pg 368:

“Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been 'lithos' ('stone' of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . .

In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .”

Now I want to explore lithos a little bit. There are a number of words the author could have used for rock or stone in Greek. Petra and Lithos was the most common and they were used interchangeably. Any connotation of small or large depends on context. The words simply mean rock or stone.

In the Septuagint, Joshua 5:2-3, So Joshua made flint knives (out of rocks). You cannot make a stone knife out of a boulder, but it can be done out of a small rock that is manageable by hand.

Though it can be argued that Lithos is more commonly used for small rock or stone, there are examples of it being used as a large stone as well. In Matt 28:2, it used for large stone that was to seal the tomb of Christ. Also Christ refers to himself as a stone in Matt 21:42-44. It is used as small stone in Matt 4:3 when the devil shows Jesus small stones (Greek: lithoi). John 10:31 Jews picked up lithoi to try to stone Jesus. Also in 1 Peter 2:5, Peter uses lithoi to describe the people of God as “living stones” He does not call the body of Christ, Petroi. The only word that is never used to denote “small stone” or small rock in the NT is Petros. Peter had an opportunity to use that word in 1 Peter 2:5, but he did not. The word petros is uniquely applied to Peter in Scripture and is never used to connote "small rock."

Also as I have pointed out A.D Carson points out that the large/small distinction is found only in ancient Greek. A.D Carson and all the others Scholars I have listed agree that there is no distinction in definition between Petros and Petra. All the commentaries I provided are from Protestant Biblical Scholars.

In the Gerhard Kittel’s Greek Dictionary on pg 98-99, 108. Editor Oscar Cullman says:

The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and petros: petra = Kepha = petros.... The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story...For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of 'thou art Rock' and 'on this rock I will build' shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom He has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected."

(Reformed) William Hendriksen in his commentary on pg 647 says:

The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.

Herman Ridderbos in his commentary on pg 35-36 says:

"It is well known that the Greek word (petra) translated 'rock' here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros ('Peter') to petra is that petra was the normal word for 'rock.' Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man's name, however, Simon was not called petra but petros. The word petros was not an exact synonym of petra; it literally meant 'stone.' Jesus therefore had to switch to the word petra when He turned from Peter's name to what it meant for the Church. There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that He was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words 'on this rock [petra]' indeed refer to Peter. Because of the revelation that he had received and the confession that it motivated in him, Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future church."

John Peter Lange in his commentary on pg 293 says:

The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun.... The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock”, etc.

 

As I said earlier if Matthew wanted to distinguish between rocks, he would have used lithos, which could be used to refer to a large rock, although it too (like petra) was more commonly used to denote a small stone. There is a third word that Matthew could have used that ALWAYS means "small stone" or "pebble": Psephos. It is used this way twice in Rev 2:17.

Also Matt 16 Jesus uses the word you 7 times in just three verses. Jesus didn't say he would build the Church on Peter's confession/faith. The context is clearly one in which Jesus is communicating a unique authority to Peter. Plus Jesus is portrayed as the builder of the Church. Jesus is "the wise man who built his house upon the rock" (Matt. 7:24) in Matthew’s Gospel.

From the grammatical point of view, "this rock" must relate back to the closest noun. To say "this rock" refers to Jesus or Peter's faith/confession is to completely ignore the structure of the sentence. Here is an analogy, I have a care and a truck, and it is black. Which is black? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun it. This would be even clearer if the reference to the car were two sentences earlier, as Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the word rock.

Back to the Aramaic agument, in Matthew 27:46, Jesus says, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ Also the 4 times in Galatians and 1 Corinthians, the Aramaic form of Simon's new name is preserved for us. In the English bibles its Cephas, this is not Greek. That's the transliteration of the Aramaic work Kepha

Another point is that Peter said You are the Christos, and Jesus says "you are the Petros." There is just a parallelism there. Peter said you are the Son of the Living God and Jesus says you are the son of Jonah. Simon you are Petros (rock).

Craig S. Keener says in his commentary on pg 426-427,

"'You are Peter,' Jesus says (16:18), paralleling Peter's 'You are the Christ' (16:16). He then plays on Simon's nickname, 'Peter,' which is roughly the English 'Rocky': Peter is 'rocky,' and on this rock Jesus would build his church (16:18)....Protestants...have sometimes argued that Peter's name in Greek (petros) differs from the Greek term for rock used here (petra)....But by Jesus' day the terms were usually interchangeable, and the original Aramaic form of Peter's nickname that Jesus probably used (kephas) means simply 'rock.' Further, Jesus does not say, 'You are Peter, but on this rock I will build my church'....the copulative kai almost always means 'and'.... Jesus' teaching is the ultimate foundation for disciples (7:24-27; cf. 1 Cor 3:11), but here Peter functions as the foundation rock as the apostles and prophets do in Ephesians 2:20-21....Jesus does not simply assign this role arbitrarily to Peter, however; Peter is the 'rock' because he is the one who confessed Jesus as the Christ in this context (16:15-16)...."

(Presbyterian) David Hill in his commentary on pg 261 says:

On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.

(Anglican) R.T France in the book 'Gospel According to Matthew on pg 254 says:

"The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied"

 

I want to say just because you commented on my thoughts doesn’t mean your right. DHK you keep saying that Peter name means little stone. And I beg to differ. I have listed numerous Protestant Biblical Scholars that agree with me on this point. Please don’t take offense but on this point of Peter being the Rock, I would tend to believe the Biblical Scholars then someone on a forum.

All these Protestant Biblical Scholars are, sincere and are they are respectable as scholars in insisting upon the obvious evidence in their conclusions on Matt 16.

(Lutheran) Gerhardt Meier in the book, The End of the Historical Critical Method, on pg 58-60 says:

"Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which, in accordance with the words of the text applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis."

"With all due respect to the Protestant Reformers, we must admit that the promise in Matthew 16-18 is directed to Peter and not to a Peter-like faith. As Evangelical theologians, especially, we ought to look at ourselves dispassionately and acknowledge that we often tend unjustifiably toward an individualistic conception of faith. To recognize the authenticity of Matthew 16:17 and following demands that we develop a Biblically based ecclesiology or doctrine of the church."

"the church He's talking about is the one, holy, Catholic Church, the universal church and the rock on which it will be built is Peter, not Peter's confession and the keys that Jesus gives to Peter are keys not only to teach but even to absolve sins."

William F. Albright and C.S. Mann in the Anchor Bible on pg 195 says:

"Rock (Aram. Kepha). This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. On building on a rock, or from a rock. Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community (I will build). Jesus, not quoting the OT, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose. In view of the background of vs. 19 (see below), one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. Cf. in this gospel 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence (cf. Gal 2:11ff)."

RT France in his commentary on pg 925 says: Look, it's only because we Protestants have over-reacted to the Catholic Church that we are not frank and sincere in admitting the fact that Peter is the Rock. He is the foundation stone upon which Jesus is going to build the Church.

 

I believe another point that is important about Peter being the Rock is why did Jesus change Simon the Fisherman’s name to Peter(Kephas/Rock). (note: in the NT James and John were nicknamed Sons of thunder by Jesus but that was never regularly used in place of their original name, it was not their new names. But Peter definitely replaced Simon as his new name.) Now Jesus was not just giving Simon a meaningless gesture.

In Scripture, we find that when God revealed a new and radical calling to certain of his people, he sometimes changed their names. Giving a new name meant that the statue of the person was changed. In particular, this is true in the calling of the patriarchs. Abram ("exalted father" in Hebrew) was changed to Abraham ("father of the multitudes"); Jacob ("supplanter") was changed to Israel ("one who prevails with God"). This should sound familiar, because as you know Jesus changes Simon’s name to Peter(Rock).

There is an interesting parallel between Abraham and Peter. Abraham and Peter had their names changed. (Abram-Abraham and Simon-Peter) And Abraham and Peter are both referred to as Rock. At the inception of the great Abrahamic covenant, God says He set up a rock from which the nation of Israel was hewn. Isaiah 51:1–2 says: “Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you who seek the Lord; look to the rock (Kepha) from which you were hewn. . . . Look to Abraham your father. Then in Matt 16:18, “You are Peter(Kepha/Rock) and on this rock I will build my Church.

Now the people in this forum might understand Matt 16 but the Jewish listeners would immediately understand the import of Jesus’ words, richly couched in their Jewish heritage. The parallels were drawn between Abraham and Peter: name changes to designate new statuses, the designations of both as “rock”, and both standing at the fountainhead of the two major covenants of God with his people. In each case God began with one person to achieve a much larger goal.

Here are some Protestant Biblical Scholars who also see this.
(Methodist) Ivor H Jones in his book the gospel of Matthew on pg 99 says:

"...in 16.18 Peter is the rock on which the new community could be built, as Abraham was described in rabbinic writings as the rock on which God could erect a new world to replace the old....The arguments have raged across the centuries over the phrase 'on this rock' : does it mean on Peter, or on Peter's confession? But the text is clear: Peter was divinely inspired and this was the reason for his new function and the basis of his authorization. His function was to provide for Jesus Christ the beginnings of a stronghold, a people of God, to stand against all the powers of evil and death...They are God's people, the church...as the church they represent God's sovereign power over evil (18.18b) and rely upon a new kind of divine authorization...This authorization is given to Peter; so Peter is not only a stronghold against evil; he also is responsible for giving the community shape and direction."

(Presbyterian) Francis Wright Beare says in the book the Gospel According to Matthew:

"The play on words -- 'Peter', this 'rock' -- requires a change in Greek from petros (properly, 'stone') to petra. In Aramaic, the two words would be identical -- Kepha the name given to Peter, transliterated into Greek as Kephas (Gal. 2:9), and kepha, 'rock'. The symbol itself is Hebraic: Abraham is the 'rock' from which Israel was hewn, and in a rabbinic midrash, God finds in him a rock on which he can base and build the world..."

(Disciples of Christ) M. Eugene Boring in the New Interpreter’s Bible pg 345 says:

"16:18, Peter as Rock. Peter is the foundation rock on which Jesus builds the new community. The name 'Peter' means 'stone' or 'rock' (Aramaic Kepha Cepha; Greek petros).... There are no documented instances of anyone's ever being named 'rock' in Aramaic or Greek prior to Simon. Thus English translations should render the word 'stone' or 'rock,' not 'Peter,' which gives the false impression that the word represented a common name and causes the contemporary reader to miss the word play of the passage: 'You are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church.' Peter is here pictured as the foundation of the church....On the basis of Isa 51:1-2 (cf. Matt 3:9), some scholars have seen Peter as here paralleled to Abraham; just as Abram stood at the beginning of the people of God, had his name changed, and was called a rock, so also Peter stands at the beginning of the new people of God and receives the Abrahamic name 'rock' to signify this."

(Presbyterian/Reformed )Thomas G. Long in his book Matthew on pg 185-186:

"Since, in the original Greek, Petros and petra both mean 'rock,' it is easy to spot this statement as a pun, a play on words: 'Your name is "Rock," and on this "rock" I will build my church.' Jesus' meaning is plain: Peter is the rock, the foundation, upon which he is going to erect his church...Jesus spoke Aramaic, however, not Greek. In Aramaic, the words for 'Peter' and 'rock' are the same (Kepha)...the most plausible interpretation of the passage is that Jesus is, indeed, pointing to Peter as the foundation stone, the principal leader, of this new people of God...there is much evidence that he also played a primary leadership role in the early Christian church....For the church, the new people of God, Peter was, indeed, the 'rock,' corresponding to Abraham of old, who was 'the rock from which you were hewn'

(Brethren/Mennonite) Richard B. Gardner in his Commentary on pg 247 says:

"The key question here is whether the rock foundation of the church is Peter himself, or something to be distinguished from Peter. If the latter, Jesus could be speaking of Peter's faith, or of the revelation Peter received. It is more likely, however, that the rock on which Jesus promises to build the church is in fact Peter himself, Peter the first disciple (cf. 4:18; 10:2), who represents the whole group of disciples from which the church will be formed.”

 

If you say that Jesus can only be the foundation, you start with a big handicap because as you know there is biblical evidence for other things to be referred to as “a foundation.” You can’t interchange descriptive figures of speech willy-nilly between different illustrations (commonly called “mixing metaphors.”) I believe mixing metaphors does great violence to each textual illustration and is a good example of poorly “dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). In the metaphorical description in Matthew 16, Jesus couldn’t be the foundation—he clearly states he is the builder, not the foundation! Builders lay foundations, they are not the foundation.

1 Cor 3:10-11, “Like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it. For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." Paul didn’t claim to have laid the foundation of the universal Church, only the foundation of the local Church at Cornith. Thus he is speaking of Christ as the foundation of the local, not the universal, Church.

Someone can go beyond the literal meaning of the passage and expand it to include the universal Church, but not without taking into account everything else the NT has to say about the Church’s foundation. Also since 1 Cor 3 in only 1 of 5 places where the Church’s foundation is discussed, and in them the same metaphor is never used twice.

Then in 1 Pet 2:6 where Is 28:16 is applied to Christ. But the word for "stone" here isn’t petros (the name Jesus gave Peter (John 1:42)) it’s lithos, a completely different word. (Lithos is the everyday word for stone; petros is an uncommon synonym, which makes its use as Peter’s name and in Matthew 16:18 all the more striking.)

More important, in 1 Pet 2:6 Jesus is the Church’s cornerstone, not its foundation. A cornerstone is only one piece of a foundation (the corner part of it), and this doesn’t exclude other pieces.

Do you want proof? Ephesians 2:20, which says the household of God is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone."

The prophets here are not the writers of the Old Testament but prophets of the New Testament age, as made clear by the two other references to them in the epistle (Eph. 3:5, 4:11).

Together with the apostles, they form the Church’s foundation in this passage, which was written by the same apostle who wrote 1 Corinthians 3:11, showing there was no contradiction in his mind between Christ being the foundation in one sense and others being the foundation in another.

 

In Revelation 21:14, where New Jerusalem is said to have not one foundation, but twelve, with the names of the apostles. This is a select group, including only the eleven who were apostles during Christ’s earthly ministry, plus Matthias (Acts 1:26). Not even Paul and Barnabas, who also were called apostles (Acts 14:14), were members of the Twelve.

Matthew 16:18: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

In 1 Corinthians 3, Christ is the foundation of the local Church. In 1 Peter 2, Christ is the cornerstone of the Church. In Ephesians 2, Christ is the cornerstone with the apostles and New Testament prophets as the foundation. In Revelation 21, the foundation is the Twelve. And in Matthew 16, the rock is Peter.