What is the rock in Matthew 16:18?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Alpha and Omega

New Member
May 11, 2008
250
0
0
38
This is think is one of the best explanations (I have read) of this often misinterpreted verse. Enjoy here are 2 possible explanations.The debate rages over whether “the rock” on which Christ will build His church is Peter, or Peter’s confession that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Matthew 16:16). In all honesty, there is no way for us to be 100% sure which view is correct. The grammatical construction allows for either view. The first view is that Jesus was declaring that Peter would be the “rock” on which He would build His church. Jesus appears to be using a play on words. “You are Peter (petros) and on this rock (petra) I will build my church.” Since Peter’s name means rock, and Jesus is going to build His church on a rock – it appears that Christ is linking the two together. God used Peter greatly in the foundation of the church. It was Peter who first proclaimed the Gospel on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-47). Peter was also the first to take the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48). In a sense, Peter was the rock “foundation” of the church.The other popular interpretation of the rock is that Jesus was referring not to Peter, but to Peter’s confession of faith in verse 16: “You are the Christ, the son of the living God.” Jesus had never explicitly taught Peter and the other disciples the fullness of His identity, and He recognized that God had sovereignly opened Peter’s eyes and revealed to him who Jesus really was. His confession of Christ as Messiah poured forth from him, a heart-felt declaration of Peter’s personal faith in Jesus. It is this personal faith in Christ which is the hallmark of the true Christian. Those who have placed their faith in Christ, as Peter did, are the church. Peter expresses this in 1 Peter 2:4 when he addressed the believers who had been dispersed around the ancient world: “Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”At this point, Jesus declares that God had revealed this truth to Peter. The word for “Peter,” Petros, means a small stone (John 1:42). Jesus used a play on words here with petra (“on this rock”) which means a foundation boulder, as in Matthew 7:24, 25 when He described the rock upon which the wise man builds his house. Peter himself uses the same imagery in his first epistle: the church is built of numerous small petros “living stones” (1 Peter 2:5) who, like Peter, confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and those confessions of faith are the bedrock of the church.In addition, the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that Christ is both the foundation (Acts 4:11, 12; 1 Corinthians 3:11) and the head (Ephesians 5:23) of the church. It is a mistake to think that here He is giving either of those roles to Peter. There is a sense in which the apostles played a foundational role in the building of the church (Ephesians 2:20), but the role of primacy is reserved for Christ alone, not assigned to Peter. So, Jesus’ words here are best interpreted as a simple play on words in that a boulder-like truth came from the mouth of one who was called a small stone. And Christ Himself is called the “chief cornerstone” (1 Peter 2:6, 7). The chief cornerstone of any building was that upon which the building was anchored. If Christ declared Himself to be the cornerstone, how could Peter be the rock upon which the church was built? It is more likely that the believers, of which Peter is one, are the stones which make up the church, anchored upon the Cornerstone, “and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame” (1 Peter 2:6).The Roman Catholic Church uses the argument that Peter is the rock to which Jesus referred as evidence that it is the one true church. As we have seen, Peter's being the rock is not the only valid interpretation of this verse. Even if Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18, this is meaningless in giving the Roman Catholic Church any authority. Scripture nowhere records Peter being in Rome. Scripture nowhere describes Peter as being supreme over the other apostles. The New Testament does not describe Peter as being the “all authoritative leader” of the early Christian church. Peter was not the first pope, and Peter did not start the Roman Catholic Church. The origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Peter or any other apostle. If Peter truly was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, it would be in full agreement with what Peter taught (Acts chapter 2, 1 Peter, 2 Peter).
 

Jake99

New Member
Jul 3, 2008
38
0
0
68
The Rock on which the Messiah will build his church is the Earth itself and his church will not be a building but a system made to resolve all future problems.
 

Alpha and Omega

New Member
May 11, 2008
250
0
0
38
(Jake99;55502)
The Rock on which the Messiah will build his church is the Earth itself and his church will not be a building but a system made to resolve all future problems.
Christ is the rock Christians are the pebbles
 

Jake99

New Member
Jul 3, 2008
38
0
0
68
Yes Christ is also the Rock and I am that man who you call the Messiah, are you ready for the New World?
 

tim_from_pa

New Member
Jul 11, 2007
1,656
12
0
65
Whew boy! This is going to rile those of the Catholic faith. Get ready for going around and around with endless posts. This is why I tend to avoid this subject.But as one with British Israelite beliefs, I'll put my slant to it which you do not hear of often.First off, I agree that Peter is Petros and the rock in which Chirst built his church is petra. That's different. Like you said, it's a play on words.Let's look at some other scripture that that quotes this same "petra".I Corinthians 10:4 says:And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock (petra) was Christ.Since the rock is in the feminine, and we know neither Christ or Peter is feminine, this means that an actual rock is talked about here. Now, legend has it that Paul was referencing the actual rock (thus the feminine) that the Israelites took with them while in the wilderness. This rock was symbolic of Christ and is the same one that gave them the water. However, even if we knew of such a rock does not mean that it should be venerated as the foundation of the church. It was an earthly copy of something spiritual as the bible works in a dualistic fashion. Where is this rock today? This same rock is called Jacob's Pillar. It is used as the coronation stone of Today's British monarchs. The Catholic Church has traditionally been very critical of the British Throne because of their departure from Catholic Hierarchy.Here's a like to this fascinating stone: http://www.asis.com/users/stag/stone.htmlI'll just say this much and no more---- there's always been a war with darkness and light regarding thrones, just as a clue.
 

Jake99

New Member
Jul 3, 2008
38
0
0
68
Christ never knew you because you work the ways of the Anti Christ and Satan. It is not what you say that counts it is what you do. Have any of you stood against the moneychangers and salesman who Jesus wanted thrown out of the kingdom? Petra and Jerusalem has nothing to do with anything Jesus was talking about.
 

treeoflife

New Member
Apr 30, 2008
601
0
0
41
(Jake99;55529)
Christ never knew you because you work the ways of the Anti Christ and Satan. It is not what you say that counts it is what you do. Have any of you stood against the moneychangers and salesman who Jesus wanted thrown out of the kingdom? Petra and Jerusalem has nothing to do with anything Jesus was talking about.
Well, I did stand against a couple of telemarketers when they called me... and someone in the store tried to sell me the something the other day too, but I turned him down. Does that count?
 

Jordan

Active Member
Apr 6, 2007
4,875
6
38
(Jake99;55529)
Christ never knew you because you work the ways of the Anti Christ and Satan. It is not what you say that counts it is what you do. Have any of you stood against the moneychangers and salesman who Jesus wanted thrown out of the kingdom? Petra and Jerusalem has nothing to do with anything Jesus was talking about.
*sigh* Placing ALL Christians in the same place like the rest of the world. It's obvious Jake hasn't yet gotten to a certain scripture just yet. I feel like he himself is a stumbling block for the Body.
 

tim_from_pa

New Member
Jul 11, 2007
1,656
12
0
65
To take a little side road here, I get agitated when I am lumped in with everyone as well. I came to my conclusions with careful study over the years, and I did not rely on mainline preachers, either. As a matter of fact, some of what I believe is considered cultic by many branches of Christianity, and I bear that judgment with pride (if I may have just a tad).When one reads the bible front-to-back and back-to-front as many times as I did, one comes to the conclusion that the bible is the most redundant book on this earth, but it is saying the same thing over and over in many different ways and by prophecy.Whenever I test out what I believe, ALL the scriptures that I know (and it's a lot) has to logically support it. One has to foreshadow the other so that what I believe is found from Genesis to Revelation in a logical progression. Everything taught in the bible for example is not only contained in the OT, but foreshadowed in Genesis as well. God does nothing "off the cuff" in like manner that science is all based on foundational mathematical and scientific concepts so that "nothing is new under the sun".When we see how some people interpret the bible, they rattle off a doctrine like it stands alone and then other doctrine from OT that says something different is left hanging, so that there is no logical progression.
 

Brother James

Active Member
Jun 2, 2008
270
56
28
68
Melbourne, FL
We do argue endlessly about "the rock". Not much can be gleaned from the writer's use of "petra" vs. petros, however, since Jesus did not speak Greek when he made that statement. He spoke Aramaic. Aramaic does not have the same distinction of meaning that Greek does between the two words. One church makes much of this verse because it is the cornerstone of who they claim to be, the single one church established by Christ and presereved in perfect doctrine and interpretation of scripture for all time. That's a tall order, and a lot to build on one verse of scripture written in Greek describing an event where the language spoken was Aramaic.
 

For Life

New Member
Feb 24, 2007
232
0
0
53
Why is the new testament written in Greek if Jesus spoke Aramaic? Shouldn't it have been written in Aramaic? Are you sure Aramaic is the only language that Jesus spoke? I don't remember reading in the Bible that Jesus spoke Aramaic.
 

winsome

New Member
Feb 15, 2008
180
0
0
80
Oh dear, this one goes round and round. I’ll have my say and leave it.Firstly it does not make grammatical sense that Jesus would be referring to Peter’s confession of faith since it occurs in a previous sentence, well separated from his comment.Secondly the Petros/Petra comments are a red herring. Jesus spoke Aramaic and in Aramaic the word for rock (a great big one) is Kephas, which is what Jesus renamed Simon.He brought Simon to Jesus, who looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter). Jn 1:42 (Cephas is written Kephas in the Greek, Peter is Petros in the Greek).Also see 1 Cor 1:12, 1Cor 9:5, 1Cor 15:5, Gal 1:18, Gal 2:9, Gal 2:11 & Gal 2:14 - Peter was well know as Kephas, the Aramaic word, the great big rock. When Kephas was translated into Greek, Petros had to be uses as Petra is feminine, and so Jesus’ point is lost slightly, but it is quite clear if you go back to Aramaic. There is no need for all the fancy footwork trying to dodge round the point that Jesus was making. And I tell you, you are a BIG ROCK, and on this BIG ROCK I will build my church.
 

Brother James

Active Member
Jun 2, 2008
270
56
28
68
Melbourne, FL
Kephas, in Aramaic, means rock. Only rock. Not big rock, not little rock, just rock. Since the exact phraseology spoken in Aramaic by Christ was not recorded in Aramaic, it is pointless to argue that Jesus spoke this word or that word in Aramaic because there is no way to know for sure what word or phrase was used in Aramaic. It was not recorded. Further, when Jesus said the "gates of hell will not prevail" think about what a gate is. It is not an offensive structure, but a defensive one. The church is to break through the gates of hell, not stand in defense against the gates of hell. I find that to be far more interesting to contemplate than the Catholic vs. Protestant interpretations of "rock".
 

Jake99

New Member
Jul 3, 2008
38
0
0
68
(tim_from_pa;55536)
When one reads the bible front-to-back and back-to-front as many times as I did, one comes to the conclusion that the bible is the most redundant book on this earth, but it is saying the same thing over and over in many different ways and by prophecy.Whenever I test out what I believe, ALL the scriptures that I know (and it's a lot) has to logically support it. One has to foreshadow the other so that what I believe is found from Genesis to Revelation in a logical progression. Everything taught in the bible for example is not only contained in the OT, but foreshadowed in Genesis as well. God does nothing "off the cuff" in like manner that science is all based on foundational mathematical and scientific concepts so that "nothing is new under the sun".When we see how some people interpret the bible, they rattle off a doctrine like it stands alone and then other doctrine from OT that says something different is left hanging, so that there is no logical progression.
Tim I agree with you that the bible is redundant saying the same things over and over in different ways. I do the same thing when I talk about the New World in the Internet forums because I have to back up my plan for the restoration and world conflict resolution plan from every perspective. I have to prove who I am as the true Messiah from every angle so I started on the narrow road 40 years ago and have fulfilled at least 300 prophecies in the process. I was taught the bible as a child and have not picked one up since then because I realized what the true message was that it was trying to describe. The only things new under the sun are knowledge of new ways and that is what the world is waiting for the Messiah to reveal, teach and install.About 50 prophecies were fulfilled during my 2 trials and the rest were as a manager of a fortune 500 company and probably the best all around athlete, leader and competitor known to mankind. http://s16.photobucket.com/albums/b5/James...rrent=scan3.jpg
 

tim_from_pa

New Member
Jul 11, 2007
1,656
12
0
65
I heard one preacher teach (and I agree) that no matter what language was spoken by Jesus, that God wanted the New Testament recorded in Greek. Why? Because unlike English and Hebrew, the Greek is very precise and denotes the the exact meaning that God intended. Just look at, for example, how many words the Greek has for "love". I think that the "rock" in Matthew 16:18 can definitely be represented by the same rock that Paul mentioned in I Corinthians 10:4. And the rock in the Corinthian passage is all over the Old Testament. That rock represented Christ and it is the same one as Jacob's Pillar that I previously mentioned.This is why one has to compare scripture to scripture to draw a conclusion regarding the world around us. We don't start with a notion, such as Peter is the head of the church, then find passages that build a world around him. Otherwise, what about the other passages that say the same thing that have nothing to do with Peter? It leaves them hanging without significance and fragments the bible in the same manner as there are different denominations. But indeed, biblical passages fit into each other like pieces of a puzzle and only conclusions can be drawn if all the passages would endorse it.
 

winsome

New Member
Feb 15, 2008
180
0
0
80
(tim_from_pa;55753)
I heard one preacher teach (and I agree) that no matter what language was spoken by Jesus, that God wanted the New Testament recorded in Greek. Why? Because unlike English and Hebrew, the Greek is very precise and denotes the the exact meaning that God intended. Just look at, for example, how many words the Greek has for "love".
Who cares what some fallible anonymous man says.Your contention has no scriptural support whatsoever
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Matthew 16:16-18
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 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. 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.
My own emphasis added, because there's the answer to the question in verse 16. Peter (correctly) identified Christ, which I Corinthians 10:4 tell us is the rock - amongst numerous other references to a rock, New Testament and Old Testament.As Tim highlighted about the lack of ambiguity in the Greek, the feminine use of petra was chosen for a reason because it was not Peter that was the rock, but the confession he made. Clearly, the original writer and scribes knew this.
 

tim_from_pa

New Member
Jul 11, 2007
1,656
12
0
65
(winsome;55763)
Who cares what some fallible anonymous man says.Your contention has no scriptural support whatsoever
Well, he wasn't exactly anonymous. He was on shortwave stations all over the world 24-7, something unparalleled in any ministry. I rather listen to him who had a scholarly basis for what he said than anyone with a fish-hat of Dagon. Secondly, I have plenty of scriptural support and I just quoted it. The rock in the physical sense is Jacob's pillar, and Paul equated that with Christ, not Peter. The throne of God on this Earth is with the British monarchy right now, and any other system can kick and scream against it all they want. This throne is over the lost house of Israel, which are the Christian nations that brought the gospel to the world.
 

winsome

New Member
Feb 15, 2008
180
0
0
80
I’ve never seen so much wriggling and grasping at strawsStraw 1.When Jesus said “this rock” he was referring to something in a previous sentence rather than the nearest noun It’s very simple You are Peter (Rock) and on this Rock I will build my Church. Straw 2Koina Greek was very precise. Koine Greek was common Greek and like all langages spoken by the mass of people changed over time. According to my sources Petra and Petros were different in ancient Greek, but by NT times the difference was more or less gone.Straw 3The writer must have referred to Peter as Petros for a reason.Yes, because Petra was feminine and Petros was masculine.Straw 4God wanted the NT written in Greek for a reasonActually thereis evidence that the original documents weren’t Greek. According to the Church historian Eusebius (3rd century) Papias (early second century) said “So then Matthew composed ta logia in the Hebrew language” (which is generally assumed to mean Aramaic). Straw 5We can’t be certain Jesus spoke Aramaic and therefore referred to Peter as Kephas.He brought Simon to Jesus, who looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter). (Jn 1:42)Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mk 15:34)He took her by the hand and said to her, “Talitha cum,” which means, “Little girl, get up! (Mk 5:41)