Peter's Nature

Jesus gave Simon the name Peter or Petros, which was usually done to name the person after his nature or attributes. The word Peter means a rock one can send or throw. It isn't a giant rock formation like Petra. There is an article on this site you can turn to to read about the words petros and petra.

The reason for naming a person Petros could be for internal properties of the person. A stone can be thrown, sent, or carried; but it may be the internal attributes of Peter Jesus is referring to.

Mark Dunagan in his commentary on I Peter said,

Jesus had given Simon the name Peter, probably indicating Peter’s character, ‘hard, staunch, unyielding, rock-like’ (Oberst p. 41)

This makes a lot of sense and it seems to match the Character of Peter. It isn't all bad to be called a stone, we are actually exhorted to be steadfast and immoveable. It is very much used as a compliment by Christ. If Christ was using it comparing Peter to the hardness of a stone, it would mean Peter could be sent but it is hard and uneasily changed. A good quality for an apostle to have.

It would be used of a description of character and not position, however.

Yet, Petros is a name just like Christ is a title, and Son of God is a description. Christ seems to be comparing Peter's name with his title as Christ.

I have written other articles comparing Petros and Petra in Greek, showing they are two different words, Petros meaning a detached stone and Petra meaning a large slab such as a mountain shelf made of a large rock formation. The name Peter and Bar Jonas also has an article comparing them. Barjona and Petros could be the play on words that is over looked. Son of Jonah a reluctant but effective preacher sent to foreign soil, petros a stone that can be sent abroad..

Petros is smaller than Christ, one is petros and the other Petra. It does not infer Peter is insignificant, but Peter's name is less important than the Petra who is Christ. Christ is also the one the Holy Spirit was given without measure, so the Christ implies all his attributes such as revelation. Christ poured out the Holy Spirit on the apostles in Acts 2.

In Matthew 16:18-19 Jesus seems to be saying Peter is not the Petra the church is built upon.

The Greek pronoun "And" can also be translated "Yet" or "Also" or "but",

Thou art Petros and upon this Petra I will build my church.

Thou art Petros but upon this Petra I will build my church.

Thou art Petros yet upon this Petra I will build my church.

Translators could easily translate with any of the three words. All are viable uses of the word Kai. The word separates thoughts in a sentence to make them distinguishable.

καί

kai

Thayer Definition:

1) and, also, even, indeed, but

Part of Speech: conjunction

A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force

καί

kai

kahee

Apparently a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force; and, also, even, so, then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words: - and, also, both, but, even, for, if, indeed, likewise, moreover, or, so, that, then, therefore, when, yea, yet.

Kai usually separates two topics so they can be distinguished and added together. That is why "also" is its 2nd most translated form, it is translated "Yet or "and yet" or "even though" in the New Testament. It just depends upon which Bible. see 

Joh 21:23  ThenG3767 went this saying abroadG1831 G3778 G3056 amongG1519 theG3588 brethren,G80 thatG3754 thatG1565 discipleG3101 should notG3756 die:G599 yetG2532 JesusG2424 saidG2036 notG3756 unto him,G846 He shall(G3754) notG3756 die;G599 but,G235 IfG1437 I willG2309 that heG846 tarryG3306 tillG2193 I come,G2064 whatG5101 is that toG4314 thee?G4571 

There are other New Testament verses where Kai is translated "yet" or "but". It is very possible Jesus was making sure we knew Peter was not the Petra. The context of the entire passage is that God revealed the knowledge to Peter, that is the major point Jesus makes. Peter and the other apostles would use revelation over private opinion to build the church. This would disprove the papacy and the concept of oral tradition.

Peter would not receive more standing than the other apostles since all relied upon revelation, and taught by revelation.

If Jesus is comparing Petros as a description of Simon, with Simon's description of Christ, that he is the Christ the Son of God, making Peter's description of Christ a much larger and more important description than Christ's description of Peter.

Through Christ comes revelation.

One is a Petros, the other is a Petra and much larger and more important. He isn't saying Petros is the Petra. He is actually separating them. On the other hand it may just be revelation is the Petra of the church, with Christ as head and the Apostles his workers.

Peter is important and noteworthy, but Christ being the Son of God is way more important. Peter without revelation would be just another Hebrew man.

This seems to be a better reading than Peter being a Pope. Since there is no real evidence he was a Pope.