Who is the "ROCK" from Matthew 16: Peter or Jesus? w/ Suan Sonna 

This guy knows his stuff

This was very interesting! I'd had no idea this point was ever debated. When I was learning it as a kid (I went to Catholic school), they made a point of highlighting the fact that Peter means "rock" and so it meant that Jesus was building His Church with Peter as the foundation and the head.

I am 38. It has been a four year journey from deep in the protestant world, but I am being confirmed and joining the Holy Catholic Church that Christ Himself founded on all saints day in less than two weeks from now. Matt, there are many people I can thank for my conversion and intend on doing so. You and your work has not been insignificant. I can't find any way to contact you via mail, or email to do so. I can't possibly write all I want to in this comment thread I am typing on my phone. Thank you, brother. Than you!

I've previously listened to the entire video but I really do enjoy these focused edited clips. A nice addition to my electronic library.

This is an extremely important piece of information that needs shared! Thanks Suan!

Hi Matt. Welcome to Ohio!! I usually am not a "commenter" but ever since I found your video debating against the Cameron with the fancy hair I wondered if he was on the same level theologically as my sister who converted to protestantism. So I asked her to look at his channel. She did and said they, (her and her husband) are unsure of him and usually follow John Piper and R.C. Sproul. I really admire the way you have debated with our protestant brothers. Your approach helps me learn how to be genuine. I know John Piper has a podcast. Would you ever consider a debate with one or both of those guys?

Mind blowingly deep and rich conversation on the topic 👌👍👍👍

Amen to the Glory of Jesus Christ.

Whoa. The end is the best!

Obviously Jesus talks like the hulk. "Jesus rock, rock go smash"

The main problem with the "Peter is not the rock" argument is that it turns the nickname that Jesus just gave Simon into an insult

Brilliant!... 🙏🇵🇹

This problem doesn't exist in Greek or in Latin languages. Petra is a femenine word, so Jesus won't give Peter a femenine name, he's a guy after all. So Jesus calls him Petrus, which is masculine.

Amen!

🙏

New sub here! Thank you so much for this! This is the exact thing I have been puzzling over all week. I had almost come to the conclusion that the rock had to be Peter's confession, not Peter. You gave me more to ponder, thanks! (I'm searching for truth and really want Catholicism to be the answer. But I'm trying not to jump into anything too fast. Because I have made that mistake before)

Why not both? Jesus is still the rock. The Church and proper faith are called rock. The person of Peter is still Rock, and that based on the fact he is deified and graced by Christ as Rock, which comes from Christ. Just as Christ is the Light, and we are lights of the world. The prime Rock who is not eternal is Peter, from whom we receive our example, but Peter gets his Rock-ness from Christ who is the eternal Rock of our faith and salvation. I think the mistake is both Protestants and Catholics seem to try to exclude one another’s arguments. But I see that both are correct.

Caesarea Phillipi where Jesus said this has a massive cliff face that was full of idols, which sat on a cavern called 'the Gates of Hades. You can google for the images.

My biggest personal issue with this is how the Scriptures are silent. They never say "and Peter, Cephas, became the head, universal bishop over the entire Church on earth at Rome as instructed by our Lord Jesus Christ. And those he laid his hands upon became his successive leaders"...or something to that effect. When the NT was penned the Church at Rome was barely a blip on the radar. It was still in its infancy compared to all the other Churches already established by one of the twelve other Apostles. Really, the first Church "founded" by Peter himself was Antioch I believe...

An interesting parallel I learned about in a book by Scott Han on the Scriptures was that the temple built by Solomon was built on a very large rock and at the time it was said that the rock was so big that it was the "gate to the underworld." Jesus told Peter that he is the rock on which he will build his church and the gate of Hades will not prevail against it.

Is Suan really only 21 years old?

I've heard before that Jesus was just giving the name Peter as a nickname, like "sons of thunder". Is anyone able to help me make a clear distinction between the two so that I can explain with clarity and confidence that St. Peter IS the rock?

In portuguese (my mother language) it says "Tu és Pedro (Peter) e sobre esta pedra (rock) edificarei a minha Igreja" Pedro = masculine Pedra = feminine So it does makes sense this in latin derived languages

Unless I missed it, Mr. Sonna did not mention all of the Old and New Testament verses where Jesus is described as the rock, foundation and cornerstone. It is the Rock, Christ, that is the means and anchor of salvation. Peter`s declaration regarding who Jesus is, is the very essence of this truth. Christ is the foundation of our faith. Peter and the apostles, as teachers of the Word, build upon this foundation but Christ is the meaning, promise, hope and Rock of our faith.

The rock is Christ, within Peter and everyone who is born again. Peter explains this in his first epistle. The revealing by the Father to Peter, was Christs Spirit. 1 John 5:1. The reason why the renaming, is due to the fact Peter was the first of many. Peter himself does not agree with the RCC interpretation when reading his own epistles. Peter, along with the other apostles, were the foundation, with Peter simply being the oldest.

“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭16:13-15‬ ‭KJV‬‬ “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 Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭16:16-17‬ ‭KJV‬‬ 1. Jesus: who do men say that I am 2. Disciples: x,y,z 3. Jesus: whom do you say that I am 4. Peter: thou art the Christ, the son of the living God 5. Jesus: Correct and upon this foundation (rock) I will build the church The passage has nothing to do with Peter, the foundation that Jesus built his church was upon the fact that he is the messiah, the savior of the world Is Christianity founded upon Peter or upon Jesus the messiah? The answer is obvious

I like to think that Jesus refers to Peter as Petros, because he is in fact a man, then immediately follows it up with Petra, because Peter, being the head of the Church, is now at the same time with the Church, the bride of Christ. So Petros refers to Peter's masculinity as a man and Petra refers to him being the bride of Christ. No idea if that's a fair interpretation or not, but it makes sense to me.

Even if I grant that Peter is the rock referred to in this passage, how does that do anything to prove the necessity of the papacy? The church was indeed built by Peter (and the other apostles) but that in no way means that Peter has some kind of line of successive popes who also have apostolic authority like him.

If Peter is the Rock and he preached that The Father Yahweh/Jehovah resurrected Jesus why most Christians not even believe in the one who resurrected Jesus? Acts 5:30 The God of our forefathers (JAH) raised up Jesus, whom you killed, hanging him on a stake. Acts 3:13 The God of Abraham (Jehovah) and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his Servant, Jesus,

That's easy. Peter's statement of faith is the Rock upon which Jesus would build his church. By now that statement has been multiplied billions of times and is, in it's essence, the Church. Got it?

I'm not a Catholic but I will enjoy your take on this nonetheless.

A more simple explanation when Jesus spoke-saying "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" might relate more logically to the place where they stood in the region of Caesarea Philippi.

At minute 5:00. Exactly! "The same thing referred to is carried over..." The same thing referred to is Peter's declaration of faith, which is the bedrock and very foundation of the Christian Church. Not Peter. So simple. The Peter/rock thing is just another one of Jesus' play on words.

He says that the reader can decide for himself which interpretation is more likely. He expects the reader to choose between the two, not accept both. Thus, Augustine advocated the *rejection* of the view that Peter is the rock, and he said that others could do the same: Augustine- "In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable." (The Retractions, 1:20:1)

Look at the early church fathers who had a bunch of different views on this passage and then tell me again about your papal claims.

*PETRA/PETROS/LITHOS: MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING* _Why the endless debate over Mt __16:18__ doesn't really matter._ *Point #1:* If Jesus can feed 5,000 people with a small number of fish, He can build a Church on a grain of sand if He wants to. And He did. *Point #2:* REGARDLESS of how Matthew 16:18 is interpreted, the haymaker is the very next verse. In Mt 16:19 Jesus says, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” In this passage Jesus is quoting Is 22:20-22 in which God took the key of the office of Royal Steward from Shebnah and gave it to Eliakim. The typological parallels are stunningly obvious and undeniable. Here are questions to ask our non-Catholic adelphois: 1. Did Jesus inherit the throne of the house of David? (cf. Lk 1:32-33) 2. Is Jesus an eternal king whose kingdom lasts forever? 3. Did Jesus intentionally quote the passage from Isaiah when He spoke to Peter? 4. Did Jesus intentionally re-establish the office of steward by giving Peter the keys symbolic of that office? 5. Does the office of steward continue forever in an eternal kingdom? 6. If a steward is replaced or dies, does another man take his place? 7. Would a steward’s decree contrary to the will of the king be allowed to stand? 9. Peter died and another man took his place, and then another man replaced _him,_ etc.; does that mean that someone still has those keys? 10. Who? By arguing for the papacy from Mt. 16:19 instead of Mt 16:18, you can avoid the petra/petros conundrum and establish apostolic succession at the same time thereby killing two birds with one stone. (See what I did there? 😊)

Or... the rock where they were close by. See Michael Heiser.

80% or so of the quotes from the Fathers say the Rock is Peter’s confession of faith.

Please do not use that image of our Lord (thumbnail). Do I really need to say out loud what the immediate impression of it is?

When you think about it Jesus is considered the corner stone. But Peter is the rock. Kind of like the first Rock Jesus places in building his church. something I was pondering about that subject 🤔

The fact that Jesus is the Christ or messiah is the question, it has nothing to do with Peter, the “rock” or foundation of Christianity is the fact that Jesus is the messiah, the savior of the world

I thought it's Dwayne Johnson? Ba-dum-tss!! 🥁 K bye!

Hmm, I will now say “first” to acquire clout. Also, convert to Catholicism :)

"this" in the Greek does NOT mean "this same." That was a blatant lie, a James White-level lie.

Few problems with the papacy. No office of a papacy (chief shepherd, chief bishop) mentioned in the NT. Peter never claimed to be the chief shepherd or bishop of any church. No apostle acknowledges him as such. Peter never claims to be the rock on which the church is built.

That's so easy. The Rock upon which Jesus would build his Church is Peter's, and every subsequent believer's, confession of faith in Himself, Christ Jesus. And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 2:4‭-‬5 And... The image you have used for Jesus at the beginning of this presentation is indeed unfortunate. Hate to say it but, just kinda looks like a woman.

This is so silly! The whole point of the Rock being Peter is so that Catholics can say that he was the first pope. SMH SHAMEFUL!

Referring to Peter, "rock" was translated from a Greek word, Petros, meaning "piece of a rock" . When Jesus said, "Upon this rock I will build my church..." that Greek word for rock, petra, meant a mass of rock. Peter was a mere human. No, Jesus was/is the Rock, God Himself.