I want to offer an alternate perspective, mostly because I think several faulty lines of reasoning have been proposed for why it is "unlikely" that πέτρα refers to Πέτρος. My response will be divided into three parts:
Reasons in favor
Let me start by acknowledging a strong parallel brought up by Dottard. I ...
There seems to have been a very clear understanding among the Church Fathers that Jesus was referring to Peter's confession of faith and not to the person of Peter himself here.
John Chrysostom (d. 407), in his 52d Homily on the Gospel according to Matthew, wrote:
What then saith Christ? “Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas. ...
Let me quote my (overly) literal translation of Matt 16:16-19 -
“Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living
God.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon bar Jona,
because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who
is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter [Petros (masc), a
stone], and upon this ...
The Greek grammar is unambiguous that:
Jesus was speaking "to Peter" Πέτρῳ = noun dative
Jesus addresses "Satan" Σατανᾶ - noun vocative
That is, Jesus said to Peter, "Get behind me, O Satan." That is, it appears that Satan had inspired the words of Peter and was at that moment dominating his thoughts - Satan was using Peter ...
Here is the text of Matthew 16:18 set out in Greek of Nestle-Aland 27 and English of ESV (as above):
κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος,
kagō de soi legō hoti su ei Petros
And I tell you, you are Peter,
καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν
kai epi tautē tē(i) petra(i) oikodomēsō mou tēn ekklēsian
and on this rock I will build my ...
Short answer: Jesus was referring to the authority Peter would have as an elder in making judgments regarding church discipline; he would be an emissary of the divine court, delivering verdicts that had already been determined in heaven.
Matthew 16:19 is an excellent example of why it is crucial to read the text in the original language prior to drawing ...
I Personally Believe Peter Denied Christ Exactly Six Times
I did a study of this exact problem in my seminary studies for my M.Div., and just looking at the textual details and collating the accounts came to the conclusion that the answer is best resolved as seeing it as two sets of denials of three each, with each group of the three occurring prior to a ...
The confusing passage here seems to be Matthew's account, which we will come to in due course. The other accounts, including the apocryphal Gospel of Peter give rather clear indications of timing, so we begin by examining them:
When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’...
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
Before reconciling the synoptic account, generally, with John's account, it is first necessary to reconcile the different versions of the synoptic account.
In Mark 1:16, Jesus sees Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea and calls them to follow him, and that he will make them fishers of men. Later, in verses 1:29-30, he visits the house of ...
If we read "But whom say ye that I am?" as "But whom say ye that I am?" instead of "But whom say ye that I am?" does this change the question?
Perhaps, but this is not a valid reading of the Greek (For those who missed it as I did the first three times through, the difference is in the bolding of "I" in the OP's proposed translation rather than ...
Peter said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God', Matthew 16:16, a revelation of whom Jesus truly was, God manifest in flesh, 1 Timothy 3:16 [TR]. Peter is blessed for this was a revelation from the Father, Matthew 16:17.
Jesus returns to Peter, 'Thou art Peter'.
Why say Peter's name ? Was it in doubt in any way ? Why emphasise the name of Peter ?...
St. John Crysostom gives an insightful commentary on this scene; his conclusion was that it was to convince Judas not to betray Him, to give him occasion to reconsider his intentions freely, and not by compulsion, by offering him a gesture of the uttermost kindness and humility (though God—cf. Phil 2:5-11):
... Let us see also what He does now towards the ...
Jesus does not explain on that occasion why He is washing the Apostles' feet, but He tells Peter, What I am doing you do not understand now, but you will know after this (John 13:7).
The understanding here is that Jesus was teaching a lesson in humility. Theophylact explains:
"You do not yet understand that I am teaching you humility. But after this ...
Whatever evil was done by Peter in his three-fold denial of the Lord was forgiven upon his three-fold affirmation after the His Resurrection.
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes,
Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” A
This is an interesting question and I think it reveals something of Paul's thinking.
In the context of a situation where Paul had to face Peter regarding an issue of legality in the church, that is to say an inappropriate application of the law of Moses upon Christian believers, Paul calls the apostle both 'Peter' and 'Cephas'.
Paul does not deprive Peter of ...
8Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9“All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
10Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’ ”
11 Then the devil left him, and angels ...
The Gospel of John is loaded with cases like this. Thus, we need to look at more than this one to see what John did. From both tradition and the character of his gospel, John wrote with the understanding that many of his readers would be familiar with the synoptic gospels and rarely repeated them.
Note the differences in John 1:41-42 and Matt. 16:16-18. In ...
The simple answer is no. You see, although the Lord commanded Peter to kill and eat, Peter response sharply by saying that he has epnever eaten anying unclean. (NIV Acts 10:14) Then the Lord replies "Do not call anything impure what God has made clean" (NIV Acts 10:15b). This is metaphorical, and God is not actually telling Peter to kill and eat, but rather ...
I believe there were not more than three denials, based on the Two Sources hypothesis accepted in one form or another by the majority of New Testament critical scholars. This hypothesis states that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were substantially based on Mark's Gospel, with some further material, mainly sayings attributed to Jesus, from the hypothetical '...
There are 2 stories here. The first is when Andrew and Peter first meet Jesus in John's account. The second is when Andrew, Peter, James and John are called as disciples, as described in the synoptic gospels.
In the first story, Andrew and another (often believed to be the apostle John, Andrew's business partner) is with John the Baptist when John sees ...
Harmonizing John 1, Mark 1, Matthew 4:19, and Luke 5:1-11
All of these passages speak about a call of Peter. But only Mark and Matthew recall the same event. The order in chronology is John, Mark and Matthew, Luke.
JESUS MEETS PETER
In John 1, Jesus in introduced to Peter by Andrew. Andrew was following Jesus since the previous day based on his former ...
Bear with me because there is a lot of context to this question.
YLT Acts 10:1-20
And there was a certain man in Cesarea, by name Cornelius, a centurion from a band called Italian [not a Jew],
pious, and fearing God with all his house, doing also many kind acts to the people, and beseeching God always,
he saw in a vision manifestly, as it were the ninth ...
I think if you look at the context of the verses to follow, you get a good idea of why Jesus rebuked Peter.
Matthew 16:23-28 (KJV)
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou
art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of
God, but those that be of men. 24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples,
If any ...
There are many old testament references that State that there is no Rock other than out God. 2 Samuel 22:32 "For who is God, besides the LORD? And who is a rock, besides our God? Psalm 18:31 For who is God, but the LORD? And who is a rock, except our God Isaiah 44:8 "Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared ...
Perfect story that rejects the folly of eternal security.
In Matthew 16:13–16 (and Mark 8:27–29; Luke 9:18–20) Jesus asks the Apostles who do they say that he is? 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 ...