Replies

There are numerous passages which identify Christ with the function of a rock or stone of foundation. See how Isaiah's foundation stone is clearly identified with Christ: by Peter himself. First the prophecies:

Isa 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Psa 118:22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.

And Peter recites this here:

1Pe 2:5-6 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (6) Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

And Jesus also speaks of Himself as that cornerstone, the critical component of the foundation structure:

Mat 21:42-44 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? (43) Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. (44) And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

Here of course the word is lithos, but this is probably because the metaphor of foundation can take more than one form. In Matthew 16:18, the idea appears to be of a natural ledge or bedrock structure, whole and immovable in itself, unlike petros, also natural, but small enough to move. In all of these cornerstone passages, the idea is more of a crafted structure, with stones carved to exact specifications by design.

Nevertheless, the metaphor as between the two is consistent, a structure of faith, a temple made of lively stones (we who believe), all built on a solid foundation composed, one way or another, of rock, and that rock being Jesus, as in Paul:

Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Eph 2:19-20 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; (20) And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

But here we have Jesus, before the rock discussion of Matthew 16:18, specifically identifying the Petra with His own ministry:

Mat 7:24-25 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock (Petra): (25) And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock (Petra).

And Paul, in discussing alternative foundations, reveals that no other foundation is possible but Jesus, and one would have to think this applied to the function of foundation no matter which metaphor was used to describe it:

1Co 3:10-11 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. (11) For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

So overall we can see the theme of Jesus as foundation just screaming at us from the text. If it were so important that Peter should be thought of as that rock upon so much would be built, why are all Scriptural witnesses other than that one dubious interpretation of Rome pointing to Jesus and not to Peter as that foundation? Even Peter is in on that pile-up. See 1Pe 2:5-6 above.

Footnote on Matthew 16:18. Jesus says to Peter, "You are Petros and upon this Petra I will build my ecclesia." We can argue about Petros/petra all day long, but the demonstrative pronoun "this" is an anomaly. If Petros carries the full meaning of foundation rock (which most likely it does not), then why immediately repeat it but with an inexplicable shift to the third person perspective? It doesn't make sense. Natural discourse, if He was really addressing this to Peter, would be to say, "...and upon you I will build my ecclesia." When He goes to "this," He has moved away from Peter and on to Petra, most likely as He has earlier defined it in this same book, as His own teaching and person. In that case third person males sense, and is even an established pattern with Him, as He frequently described Himself in third person terminology, as "Son of man," for example.

Anyway, getting late, going to bed.

Peace,

SR

But in the next sentence Jesus addresses Peter directly, giving him the keys and the power to loose and bind. Is this not a direct indication of Peter being the earthly representative of Christ as leader of the church? Doesn’t this reinforce that when Christ named Peter ‘rock’ and immediately referred to the plan for a rock, and then gave Peter authority over what happened on the rock, that the flow of the conversation wasn’t bouncing back and forth between Jesus the rock and Peter the rock, but was actually as straightforward as it appears?

Why did he have to rename Simon Peter? Wouldn’t it have been clearer to rename him something else, especially given the second half of the sentence? Why rename Peter at all? He didn’t rename that many other people, did he? Or was Jesus trying to be confusing as possible? Knowing as he did, of course, that the nuances of the word ‘rock’ would be lost in future translations?