Pentecostal pastor claims Jesus did NOT build his Church on Peter?

[Darryl_B]

I would like to also add one more thing, in all dogmas, God has revealed just enough, that it is believable to the believer, who submits to God, that the reason is reasonable, to them, but He has left all things open enough, that if we choose, we can formulate reason against. The biggest proof of this is that the Bible is not a tract, it is not a creed, Jesus did not formulate a Creed, that was the work of the Holy Spirit after the Bible.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Baptist scholar D. A. Carson, writes, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary:

[T]he underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses.

In Koine Greek (the dialect of Greek used by the authors of the New Testament), petros and petra are masculine and feminine forms of words with the same root and the same definition—rock. There is no “small rock” to be found in the Greek text, either.

To me if you are correct ,that is ‘kepha’( “you are kepha” and “on this kepha” )in both instances are probably identical ,except one is indicative of a name,then for me ,the common sense language of the verse ,seems somewhat illogical in its sequence .
Why do we not,in Matthew 16:18, see ,if there is no discrimination between the meaning of the two instances where ‘kepha’ is used :see the consequence of this in operation ?

That is ,for example ,one would ,I believe ,expect to see ,would you not agree?

“And I say unto thee ,That thou art Peter and upon thee I will build my church”
Or at the very least ;
" thou art Peter ,and upon thee ,the rock I will build my church"

Obviously I believe there is a difference by the way the sentence is structured.
Of course both are interconnected and identical in one respect.
For me the sentence is found to be more in harmony if the word ‘rock’,Petra,is that from which the name Peter,Petros,or ‘a rock’,is derived.
But derivation is not identification .Any more than a raindrop is the same thing as rain.Or a snowflake as snow.Just so,a rock-or many rocks-may be taken from the elemental nature of rock,yet,whilst being identical in substance,remain different in form.

 

[cath4alltime]

I find this is a good explanation:

In Matthew 16:18, the word “rock” refers to Peter’s confession of faith, and not to Peter himself, despite the fact that Peter/rock is a play on the word for rock in Aramaic [petros] and Greek [petra]. As we read in 1
Corinthians 10:4, “…they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ,” Who alone is the very foundation, or true Rock, upon which stands the Church. It is on Jesus Christ, the Rock, that the Church’s unchanging faith and confession is firmly rooted.

oca.org/questions/history/on-this-rock-i-will-build-my-church

First of all, although Peter was given the prominent role as the first of the apostles, he was always equal to the other apostles. Christ told the apostles that they would sit on twelve thrones (Matt. 19:28). A special throne was not set up for Peter. Moreover the “keys” were given to all the apostles (Matt. 18:18). The other apostles were also the foundation upon which the Church was built (Eph. 2:20). If the Roman view is to be believed, it is interesting to note that when the disciples disputed among themselves as to who would be the greatest, (Lk. 22:24-27), they seemed unaware that Christ had already picked Peter.

Second, the Rock upon whom the Church is established is Christ. When Christ says, “Thou art Peter,” He called him “PETROS,” which means “small stone.” But when He says, “Upon this rock I will build my Church” the Greek term for rock is not Petros but “PETRA” which means “bedrock.” This bedrock which the Church is built upon was always understood by the Greek Fathers and many Western Fathers to mean either Christ Himself, or the profession of faith in Christ’s Divinity.

Third, the patristic witness is that no Father of the Church has seen, in the primacy of Peter, any title of jurisdiction or absolute authority in Church government. The Latin Church Father, St. Ambrose, for instance, taught that Peter and Paul were equal: “It was proper that Paul should go to see Peter. Why? was Peter superior to him and to the other Apostles? No, but because, of all the Apostles, he was the first to be entrusted by the Lord with the care of the churches. Had he need to be taught, or to receive a commission from Peter? No, but that Peter might know that Paul had received the power which had also been given to himself.” (The Papacy, by Abbe Guettee, pp. 173-174).

Furthermore, he taught that Peter’s primacy was not one of honor or rank, but of faith and confession: “As soon as Peter heard these words, ‘Whom say ye that I am?’ remembering his place, he exercised this primacy, a primacy of confession, not of honour; a primacy of faith, not of rank.” (Ibid., p. 174).

orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/maxwell_peter.htm

 

[zz912]

I find this is a good explanation:

oca.org/questions/history/on-this-rock-i-will-build-my-church

orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/maxwell_peter.htm

Suuuuuuuuure.

Jesus just coincidently changes Simon’s name to Rock, and then declares that He will build His Church on a rock. COMPLETELY UNRELATED.

Now I’ve got to go off and buy a bridge, someone is selling me one for a great deal!

 

[Nicea325]

To me if you are correct ,that is ‘kepha’( “you are kepha” and “on this kepha” )in both instances are probably identical ,except one is indicative of a name,then for me ,the common sense language of the verse ,seems somewhat illogical in its sequence .
Why do we not,in Matthew 16:18, see ,if there is no discrimination between the meaning of the two instances where ‘kepha’ is used :see the consequence of this in operation ?

That is ,for example ,one would ,I believe ,expect to see ,would you not agree?

“And I say unto thee ,That thou art Peter and upon thee I will build my church”
Or at the very least ;
" thou art Peter ,and upon thee ,the rock I will build my church"

Obviously I believe there is a difference by the way the sentence is structured.
Of course both are interconnected and identical in one respect.
For me the sentence is found to be more in harmony if the word ‘rock’,Petra,is that from which the name Peter,Petros,or ‘a rock’,is derived.
But derivation is not identification .Any more than a raindrop is the same thing as rain.Or a snowflake as snow.Just so,a rock-or many rocks-may be taken from the elemental nature of rock,yet,whilst being identical in substance,remain different in form.

:ehh::ehh:

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Suuuuuuuuure.

Jesus just coincidently changes Simon’s name to Rock, and then declares that He will build His Church on a rock. COMPLETELY UNRELATED.

Now I’ve got to go off and buy a bridge, someone is selling me one for a great deal!

Mark 3:16&17

      "And Simon he surnamed Peter;
      "And James ....and John the brother of James and John; and he surnamed them 
       Boanerges,which is,The sons of thunder"

The above adjoining verses ,seem to me ,to be ,closely connecting the surnaming of all three brethren( in the Lord) .Would you agree?
By looking at the one instance ( of being surnamed by Jesus) and by means of comparison,perhaps,they have other corresponding similarities also.

James and John ( both sons ‘of Zebedee’) are surnamed ,‘The sons of thunder’.
That is Jesus notices something about these two ,that which so catches his eye,in relation to
I believe,there present ( and future) expression of their faith.
For great distances upon the earth ,the attention is immediately drawn to this dominant sound , and one’s gaze is directed upward,in response to such an overwhelming sound: toward the heavens,that is to the source and origins of its manifestation .

This identification and symbolism( thunder) is both dramatic and very expressive and must be suited to those for whom Jesus so marks out in like character.
Being ‘sons of thunder’ ,for me,is not the same as being the ’ thunder’ itself,but simply derive their character from it :‘sons’.
That which is in their character,or the character of their faith,that is ,how their faith is expressed ,is here being likened to ‘thunder’;but they themselves are only ‘sons of thunder’,
not the actual ‘thunder’ itself,that is,the source of that faith,in a metaphor:’ thunder’.
Would you agree?

Then for me what is true of these two brothers is also true in the first instance with Peter: ‘Petros’, or ,'a rock ‘,and that from which his faith has its origins ,Petra,’ or ,‘rock’ itself.

 

[zz912]

The above adjoining verses ,seem to me ,to be ,closely connecting the surnaming of all three brethren( in the Lord) .Would you agree?

No. It is listing the names of the Apostles. There is nothing to indicate the two re-namings were related. Second, both James and John are still known as James and John afterwards. But Simon DOES go by Kepha/Peter afterwards. The namings seem to be fundamentally different.

By looking at the one instance ( of being surnamed by Jesus) and by means of comparison,perhaps,they have other corresponding similarities also.

Perhaps some similarities, but also some vast differences. We can’t gloss over those.

Then for me what is true of these two brothers is also true in the first instance with Peter: ‘Petros’, or ,'a rock ‘,and that from which his faith has its origins ,Petra,’ or ,‘rock’ itself.

Let’s look again at the verses:

*13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Kepha/Rock/Peter, and upon this kepha/rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 l I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” *

There is NO indication that Jesus is referring to anything other than Peter as the rock on which He will build His Church. Jesus never declares that Peter’s confession is a rock. He declares that PETER is Kepha/Rock.

It takes world-class tap dancing to ignore the obvious. Exactly how much MORE would Jesus have to have said to be clear about it? He renames a man to that which He will build His Church on. Doing so, and intending for something else to be the rock would be intentionally misleading the confusing, which Jesus NEVER was.

 

[pablope]

Mark 3:16&17

      "And Simon he surnamed Peter;
      "And James ....and John the brother of James and John; and he surnamed them 
       Boanerges,which is,The sons of thunder"

James and John ( both sons ‘of Zebedee’) are surnamed ,‘The sons of thunder’.
That is Jesus notices something about these two ,that which so catches his eye,in relation to
I believe,there present ( and future) expression of their faith.
For great distances upon the earth ,the attention is immediately drawn to this dominant sound , and one’s gaze is directed upward,in response to such an overwhelming sound: toward the heavens,that is to the source and origins of its manifestation .

Then for me what is true of these two brothers is also true in the first instance with Peter: ‘Petros’, or ,'a rock ‘,and that from which his faith has its origins ,Petra,’ or ,‘rock’ itself.

You are doing a lot of tiptoeing and mental gymnastics…just to deny or rationalize for yourself what you have been told.

Anyway, going back to the passage of James and John being referred to as sons of thunder…and Simon being named Peter/Cephas, there is a big difference you are missing.

In the case of James and John, there is no command that follow.

In the case of Simon, there is a command, and aligns with significant name changes in the Bible, namely:

Abram to Abraham……Gen 17:15….Neither shall thy name be called any more Abram: but thou shalt be called Abraham: because I have made thee a father of many nations.

Jacob to Israel….Gen 35……. 10And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel………. 11And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;

Simon to Cephas/Peter…Matt 16…17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,** and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”

Abraham’s command was to be the father of nations, Jacob’s was to be the father of the nation of Israel…so where is the command to build something for God in the NT?

Can you find this somewhere else aside from Matt 16?**

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

No. It is listing the names of the Apostles. There is nothing to indicate the two re-namings were related. Second, both James and John are still known as James and John afterwards. But Simon DOES go by Kepha/Peter afterwards. The namings seem to be fundamentally different.

Perhaps some similarities, but also some vast differences. We can’t gloss over /QUOTE]

"for one is your master,even Christ;and all ye are brethren "Matthew 23:8.

Yes the overwhelming context is the calling of the twelve ," And he goeth up into a mountain,and calleth unto him whom he would:and they came unto him
And he ordained twelve"(Mark 3:verses 13&14).

But within this framework ,we see only three apostles ,not being renamed,but rather Jesus by giving to the three an extra name ,that is ,one with a spiritual significance ,he thus provides them also with a surname, “And Simon he surnamed Peter,”( verse 16)
We see ( in John 21) both John the apostle,and Jesus use he first name ,Simon ,together with the surname,Peter:'Simon Peter"( verses,2&15)

Why do we here see these three apostles being singled out in this respect?
As you will no doubt be aware of ,these same three are also selected ,by Jesus ,to ascend up into a mountain again ,and this time they are without their nine brethren.Matthew 17:1
“And after six days Jesus taketh Peter,James and John his brother,and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart”
In this ‘high mountain’ ,and concerning the vision ,which they alone ,were privileged to see there ,afterwards, they were instructed :" tell the vision to no man"(verse 9)
You will be familiar with the same three especially chosen to come the closest to Jesus in his hour of great and terrible need: “unto a place called Gethsemane,and saith unto his disciples,sit ye here ,while I go and pray yonder”

“And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee”(Matthew 26:36&37)

So for me there seems much to connect these three apostles together and also apart unto Jesus.
Of course the three all differed one from the other; but if 'Simon Peter ’ is obviously singled out among the three ,then why is it apparently evident that he himself seems so insecure in relation to one of the three of whom he Peter was also especially favoured,that is “the disciple whom Jesus loved,which also leaned on his breast at supper…”?

Peter seeing him saith to Jesus,Lord,and what shall this man do?" (John 20:20&21)

 

[Darryl_B]

"for one is your master,even Christ;and all ye are brethren "Matthew 23:8.

Yes the overwhelming context is the calling of the twelve ," And he goeth up into a mountain,and calleth unto him whom he would:and they came unto him
And he ordained twelve"(Mark 3:verses 13&14).

But within this framework ,we see only three apostles ,not being renamed,but rather Jesus by giving to the three an extra name ,that is ,one with a spiritual significance ,he thus provides them also with a surname, “And Simon he surnamed Peter,”( verse 16)
We see ( in John 21) both John the apostle,and Jesus use he first name ,Simon ,together with the surname,Peter:'Simon Peter"( verses,2&15)

Why do we here see these three apostles being singled out in this respect?
As you will no doubt be aware of ,these same three are also selected ,by Jesus ,to ascend up into a mountain again ,and this time they are without their nine brethren.Matthew 17:1
“And after six days Jesus taketh Peter,James and John his brother,and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart”
In this ‘high mountain’ ,and concerning the vision ,which they alone ,were privileged to see there ,afterwards, they were instructed :" tell the vision to no man"(verse 9)
You will be familiar with the same three especially chosen to come the closest to Jesus in his hour of great and terrible need: “unto a place called Gethsemane,and saith unto his disciples,sit ye here ,while I go and pray yonder”

“And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee”(Matthew 26:36&37)

So for me there seems much to connect these three apostles together and also apart unto Jesus.
Of course the three all differed one from the other; but if 'Simon Peter ’ is obviously singled out among the three ,then why is it apparently evident that he himself seems so insecure in relation to one of the three of whom he Peter was also especially favoured,that is “the disciple whom Jesus loved,which also leaned on his breast at supper…”?

Peter seeing him saith to Jesus,Lord,and what shall this man do?" (John 20:20&21)

I would like to see you and a few others bring John 1:42 into the equation.

 

[zz912]

So for me there seems much to connect these three apostles together and also apart unto Jesus.
Of course the three all differed one from the other; but if 'Simon Peter ’ is obviously singled out among the three ,then why is it apparently evident that he himself seems so insecure in relation to one of the three of whom he Peter was also especially favoured,that is “the disciple whom Jesus loved,which also leaned on his breast at supper…”?

Peter seeing him saith to Jesus,Lord,and what shall this man do?" (John 20:20&21)

Maybe there is some connection to the “sons of thunder” name given, and their selection for the Transfiguration and in the Garden. But again, it is fundamentally different from the complete new name that Simon took as Kepha/Rock/Peter. We also can’t ignore that Peter was given the keys to the kingdom, and told, individually, to care for, feed, tend, and pastor the Apostles and the entire flock. We can’t ignore that Peter was the one who walked on water, is the one blessed 3 times by Jesus in Matt 16.

And I don’t see insecurity in the question Peter asked about John, that is something you are reading into the passage.

 

[Telstar]

Hi Telstar,

1Corinthians 10:1-4. “Moreover brethren,I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
And were all baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
And did all eat of the same spiritual drink: for they drank of the same spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ”(KJV)

For a number of reasons I disagree with your hypothesis stated above in regards to 'this small fledgling congregation"
Paul’s desire indeed ,was to feed them with the ‘meat’ rather than just the ‘milk’ (1Cor3:3&4) but “hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal, and walk as men”
How then did this carnality manifest itself ? “Now this I say ,that everyone of you saith,I am of Paul ;and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas;and I of Christ.”

It is the question of carnality that Paul is here dealing with not so much with the ‘meat’ (or doctrine) and as this is a major priority for him here; in order to root it out, he would leave no stone, I believe, unturned.

First, my view of what Paul meant by “milk” and “meat” may be different than yours. I believe he’s referring to their spiritual progression, and their inability to grasp the more transcendent concepts of spirituality (meat), because they were still quibbling over the basic things (milk), like Who they should actually be following as Christians. So, he had to set them straight that it was Jesus that they must follow, first and foremost. If he had told them that Peter was the head of the flock at that time, it just would have caused more arguments and resentments among them. That certainly wouldn’t have solved the problems, but would have caused more, possibly fracturing the whole group.

If you consider that Paul in regards to those who were teaching the Corinthian 'church ’ that Paul’s ministry was somehow inferior to theirs( Paul especially deals with this problem at length in the last three chapters of his second letter) then Paul would be for me ,foolish to leave this young ‘church’ at the mercy of such if he was not to properly address the Cephas sect that had developed.

I’m a little confused as to who you’re referring to that you claim Paul’s ministry was “inferior to”. He does refer to some ‘false apostles’, that were teaching them error. But, I think those were some members of the church, not any of the ones that had been sent by him, or the other Apostles. He also infers that these so-called ‘apostles’ were becoming a burden to the church, where the true Apostles were never a burden to them. They provided for themselves and didn’t expect any kind of compensation, because they were only there to preach the Gospel.

As far as you claiming that there was anything like a “Cephas sect”, I really don’t see that. Paul mentions several Apostles that some of them claimed to follow, not just Peter. It was that they were choosing sides according to whoever Baptized them, as to who they thought ‘the greatest apostle’ was, that he was correcting them on.

Furthermore, as is seen in my opening verse Paul does not treat of this gentile ‘church’ with any less respect than that of their circumcised brethren. That is when he includes them with “all our fathers were under a cloud, and all passed through the sea”

Why wouldn’t he treat them with respect?

He’s teaching that the Jewish people being ‘under the cloud’, and passing through ‘the sea’, in the story of Moses are precursors of Christian baptism. And, by their Christian baptism, they also become children of God, like the Jews.

Notice that Paul is also going into some considerable depth of teaching here also, and what is also relevant is his reference here to Christ : “and that Rock was Christ”,

In context: (DR) [3] "And did all eat the same spiritual food, [4] And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)"
This refers to them eating manna and drinking the water that came from the rock, which is the precursor of the Holy Eucharist (“the bread that came down from Heaven”). There’s no argument that Jesus is “that rock”, “the cornerstone that the builders rejected”. Paul was talking about Jesus, because it was a lesson about baptism and the Eucharist.

Ought not Paul for the same reason you are suggesting in regards to this 'fledgling ’ congregation ,that he should have refrained from using this metaphor in regards to Christ, if that is, they were somehow to here of another Rock( Cephas) in the apostles absence? what of this door of confusion?

Not if he was teaching about baptism and the Eucharist. Why would he say something completely unrelated to that? They had a hard enough time realizing that Jesus is the most important part of the Gospel, not the ones who teach it.

Another puzzling verse for them, later on, would be in the same letter (3:9) “We are labourers together’ that is in relation to " he that planteth and he that watereth are one”(verse 8)

Why did Paul tell us, all were on an equal level (among the twelve) if we now understand Peter to be the one exception?

As I said, those that preach the Gospel are all vessels used by God. They all do their part, one teaching, and another building upon what they’ve already learned. But, they should beware of anyone that tries to teach them things that are contrary to what they already learned from the Apostles. Those who preach the Gospel are less important than the message that they teach. In the end, God is the only One that has all of the power to accomplish what the Gospels teach, through Jesus. All are one in Jesus Christ. This lesson was to confirm that fact to them.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

I would like to see you and a few others bring John 1:42 into the equation.

"And he brought him to Jesus.And when Jesus beheld him,he said,thou art Simon the son of Jona:thou shalt be called Cephas,which is by interpretation,A stone"John1:42 (KJV)

It seems to me that Jesus at this point, does not call Simon ,Cephas; but instead he is apparently allocating this name " shalt be called" for use ,sometime in the future.
Why not there and then ?
If the claim that It is Simon ,and not his confession of faith,upon which Jesus is to build his church ,why is Jesus either unable or unwilling to identify Simon as ‘kepha’ or ‘rock’ or Peter at this time?
For example ,‘Simon the son of Jona,thou art kepha,which is by interpretation ,rock’ ?

From my point of view I would say this is evidenced in the first part of the verse ,seen in the present tense,“thou art Simon the son of Jona” ,that is ,at this time he is only seen by or through the eyes of his earthly birth ,‘son of Jona’.
If so kepha,or Peter( Petros) was of spiritual ( not earthly) origins (revealed by ‘my Father which is in heaven’)and in this connection it was as yet ,to be his heavenly identity in the future;this being identifiable in his confession or the words of faith,which we all agree,he uttered in Matthew 16:16.

 

[rcwitness]

"And he brought him to Jesus.And when Jesus beheld him,he said,thou art Simon the son of Jona:thou shalt be called Cephas,which is by interpretation,A stone"John1:42 (KJV)

It seems to me that Jesus at this point, does not call Simon ,Cephas; but instead he is apparently allocating this name " shalt be called" for use ,sometime in the future.
Why not there and then ?
If the claim that It is Simon ,and not his confession of faith,upon which Jesus is to build his church ,why is Jesus either unable or unwilling to identify Simon as ‘kepha’ or ‘rock’ or Peter at this time?
For example ,‘Simon the son of Jona,thou art kepha,which is by interpretation ,rock’ ?

From my point of view I would say this is evidenced in the first part of the verse ,seen in the present tense,“thou art Simon the son of Jona” ,that is ,at this time he is only seen by or through the eyes of his earthly birth ,‘son of Jona’.
If so kepha,or Peter( Petros) was of spiritual ( not earthly) origins (revealed by ‘my Father which is in heaven’)and in this connection it was as yet ,to be his heavenly identity in the future;this being identifiable in his confession or the words of faith,which we all agree,he uttered in Matthew 16:16.

Simon was not made into the new creation of Peter until the Father revealed to His only Son, Jesus, that Peter would ascend to the answer of Jesus’ question,… Which was, “Who do you say that I am?” This was the moment in time when the Father, through Jesus Christ, anointed Simon with his place in the Body of Christ, which was chief Apostle.

At the moment Jesus met Simon, He revealed what He would make Simon into. He also told him He would make him a fisher of men. He was not yet a fisher of men, but of fish:shrug:

Jesus makes us all into a new creature, with a new purpose, and with a special place in His Mystical Body on earth. Do not be scandalized by Peter’s place among the rest! It does not make Him any greater in God’s eyes than a lowly servant who can be even more noble than Peter himself!

Yet to deny Peter’s annointing from Jesus is to undermind His authority over us.

 

[Darryl_B]

"And he brought him to Jesus.And when Jesus beheld him,he said,thou art Simon the son of Jona:thou shalt be called Cephas,which is by interpretation,A stone"John1:42 (KJV)

It seems to me that Jesus at this point, does not call Simon ,Cephas; but instead he is apparently allocating this name " shalt be called" for use ,sometime in the future.
Why not there and then ?
If the claim that It is Simon ,and not his confession of faith,upon which Jesus is to build his church ,why is Jesus either unable or unwilling to identify Simon as ‘kepha’ or ‘rock’ or Peter at this time?
For example ,‘Simon the son of Jona,thou art kepha,which is by interpretation ,rock’ ?

From my point of view I would say this is evidenced in the first part of the verse ,seen in the present tense,“thou art Simon the son of Jona” ,that is ,at this time he is only seen by or through the eyes of his earthly birth ,‘son of Jona’.
If so kepha,or Peter( Petros) was of spiritual ( not earthly) origins (revealed by ‘my Father which is in heaven’)and in this connection it was as yet ,to be his heavenly identity in the future;this being identifiable in his confession or the words of faith,which we all agree,he uttered in Matthew 16:16.

The KJV is probably heavily weighted against the office of Peter for obvious historical reasons within the turmoil that was England, I would suggest referencing other versions.

You should read it more as even before Peter was called to be a disciple he was named Peter (Cephas). There is no future allocation, the name is henceforth from that occasion, from now on, not in the past but for all future. (Probably much as Mary would be called blessed by all generations).

The disciples were in pairs (they were sent out in pairs and Mark 3 does seem to have pairing with two exceptions), the pairing of Peter seems to have been Judas Iscariot. That is probably why Peter was concerned about getting a replacement to Judas in Acts 1:15-22.

The significance of this is that the prime was paired by Jesus with the betrayer. The foremost paired with the least. That is exactly the sort of thing Jesus would do. Isaac Ishmael, Jacob Esau.

My problem with your interpretation on Matthew is that Jesus usually intended to say exactly what he mean. But you are interpreting his statement as referring to a confession, which is actually really just an admission. But that makes the statement “And I tell you (subject), you (subject) are Peter” entirely meaningless, entirely unrelated to anything Jesus was saying. I tell you, you are Bernard, but forget that for a moment, your words are more precious than you.

Instead Peter makes a statement about Jesus Christ, and in return Jesus Christ makes a statement about Peter, person to person, not statement to statement.

I believe in Jesus Christ, the person, not Jesus Christ the statement.

 

[Telstar]

"And he brought him to Jesus.And when Jesus beheld him,he said,thou art Simon the son of Jona:thou shalt be called Cephas,which is by interpretation,A stone"John1:42 (KJV)

It seems to me that Jesus at this point, does not call Simon ,Cephas; but instead he is apparently allocating this name " shalt be called" for use ,sometime in the future.
Why not there and then ?
If the claim that It is Simon ,and not his confession of faith,upon which Jesus is to build his church ,why is Jesus either unable or unwilling to identify Simon as ‘kepha’ or ‘rock’ or Peter at this time?
For example ,‘Simon the son of Jona,thou art kepha,which is by interpretation ,rock’ ?

From my point of view I would say this is evidenced in the first part of the verse ,seen in the present tense,“thou art Simon the son of Jona” ,that is ,at this time he is only seen by or through the eyes of his earthly birth ,‘son of Jona’.
If so kepha,or Peter( Petros) was of spiritual ( not earthly) origins (revealed by ‘my Father which is in heaven’)and in this connection it was as yet ,to be his heavenly identity in the future;this being identifiable in his confession or the words of faith,which we all agree,he uttered in Matthew 16:16.

As Darryl B said, the KJV is problematic. It doesn’t show Peter as anything special for a reason. But, in this instance, Jesus has just met Simon and immediately says he will be called Cephas (Peter). The DR translation says: " [42] And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter." While Cephas does mean ‘rock’, at this point in time it’s merely noted that Jesus called him ‘Peter’. He already knew that Simon’s faith would be as solid as a ‘rock’, so He called him ‘Peter’. Peter was also the first one that was ‘called’ to be a disciple, as this passage shows that he’s the first one Jesus addresses, even giving him another name.

 

[dronald]

If Jesus said the same word twice for Peter in Aramaic, would it be better translated “Thou art Peter and upon thou Peter I shall build my Church”?

Why does Jesus say, “this rock” and not “on you” or something?

 

[Telstar]

If Jesus said the same word twice for Peter in Aramaic, would it be better translated “Thou art Peter and upon thou Peter I shall build my Church”?

Why does Jesus say, “this rock” and not “on you” or something?

Actually, it might also have been translated simply as, “Thou art rock, and upon this rock I will build My church.”, which is essentially what He was saying. He called Simon, Peter, because he was solid. The others, and Peter, might have assumed that it was because of his physical characteristics. But, it was more likely because Jesus already knew of his strong faith in God, when He first chose him as a disciple.

Does all this mean that Peter was the first “Rocky”?

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

As Darryl B said, the KJV is problematic. It doesn’t show Peter as anything special for a reason. But, in this instance, Jesus has just met Simon and immediately says he will be called Cephas (Peter). The DR translation says: " [42] And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter." While Cephas does mean ‘rock’, at this point in time it’s merely noted that Jesus called him ‘Peter’. He already knew that Simon’s faith would be as solid as a ‘rock’, so He called him ‘Peter’. Peter was also the first one that was ‘called’ to be a disciple, as this passage shows that he’s the first one Jesus addresses, even giving him another name.

Hi Telstar;I would strongly disagree with the objections made in regards to the KJV,it could be said of any version there was hidden reason and criticism in regards to why such a verse is put in a certain way.Indeed it was your own Bernard of Clairvaux ( greatly revered translator and expositor- to the pontif-)who was criticised by Augustine of Hippo,for not accurately rendering word for word in translation,but rather the sense of the passage ought not to have been given the priority over the accuracy of the word in the translation process.
The Textus receptus dates further back than Henry the eighth incidentally ;and in its original format ,is still available for comparison today also.
The KJV does ,I would also argue ,greatly esteem the apostle Peter ,who was greatly loved by Jesus ,but this is in the context of 12 apostles ,all chosen by one Christ.
With all due respect to Peter( for they were all scattered,and fled "All ye shall be offended"Matt26:31) Jesus foreknowledge of Peter also ,as you will know,included a threefold denial that he even new Jesus .
Was then also your ‘rock’?
Finally if you look closely at John chapter 1 as a whole and verse 42 in particular ,you will notice that the day before Andrew( a disciple of the baptist) shows and brings Peter to "Christ’,Andrew is standing with John the Baptist ,who is apparently a free man.
But in Mark chapter one,verse 14 “Now after that John was put in prison,Jesus came into Galilee”
Why is this significant? Because immediately after Peter meets Jesus in John 1:42,we see Jesus move on :

“the day following Jesus would go into Galilee,and findeth Philip,and saith unto him Follow me”(verse 43)

But this is only the day after Andrew,Peter’s brother,stood along side a free John the Baptist ;
According to Marks gospel Jesus doesn’t command Peter and the other ‘fishers’ to leave their nets and follow him until after John has been put in prison.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Actually, it might also have been translated simply as, “Thou art rock, and upon this rock I will build My church.”, which is essentially what He was saying.

Exactly. In fact, this is only a difficulty in some languages. In French, for instance, the Bible says something along the lines of (of course in French):
“You are Pierre, and on this pierre I will build My church.”

More to the point, in the Aramaic translation (which many deny is a translation at all; they claim that the Aramaic is the original and they have good reason for saying that in the case of Matthew’s Gospel), the Pe*****ta says:
“You are Keepa, and on this keepa I will build My church.”
(Of course the words are scrambled and mostly backward since it is Aramaic)

He called Simon, Peter, because he was solid. The others, and Peter, might have assumed that it was because of his physical characteristics. But, it was more likely because Jesus already knew of his strong faith in God, when He first chose him as a disciple.

Yeah, I’d slightly disagree with this.
He was only “solid” because Christ promised, and prayed for, him to be.
Lu 22:31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you [ed: this “you” is plural, meaning all the Apostles], that he might sift you like wheat,
32 but I have prayed for you [ed: this “you” is singular, meaning St. Peter], that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

More literally, it says “the faith of you may not fail”.

Does all this mean that Peter was the first “Rocky”?

It’s interesting that the Gospels themselves tell us that St. Peter was the PRIMARY Apostle:

Mt 10:2 The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;

When you think about this, it’s pretty unambiguously stated here.