About the name "Peter" meaning "rock"

[politicaladdict]

I'd like to know a few answers about this because Catholic say that the verse "You are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church" claim that Peter(rock) was the first Pope, non-Catholics say otherwise.

One things everybody admits is that Peter was apparently called "rock"

Jesus was called "rock" and "cornerstone" and such.

I'm not saying that Peter is Jesus or anything but like to know why he was called rock, and would also like to know what Catholic and non-Catholics views on this is.

Does it matter if "rock" lower-case an order to mean it as a name?

Did it also mean something else?

Help would be appreciated on this!

[JSojourner]

I believe the original Greek name was Petras, which is literally translated "rock".  If I am not mistaken, there is a famous natural landmark in Palestine that came to be called "Petra" because it is a giant rock formation.

I could be wrong about all this, though.

I will let my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters comment about the significance of this in terms of Catholic church polity and structure.

And you're partially correct.  Jesus, or God, have been referred to as a "rock".  The "rock" of our salvation and the "rock" in which we hide (referring to the Old Testament story of Moses being hidden in the cleft of the rock as God's glory passed by).  Jesus is specifically called "cornerstone" and also, of particular interest to me, is the repeated statement that he is a "stone of stumbling".

I take this to apply to those who regard Him as a good teacher, a great man, a prophet, a revolutionary or an honorable example to follow...but cannot accept His own claim to be God in the flesh, a sacrifice for the sins of humankind and risen from the dead.  Hence, they stumble over Jesus. 

[Holmes]

In French, Peter is "Pierre", which means "pebble" more than rock. But same thing.

[J. J.]

I believe the original Greek name was Petras, which is literally translated "rock".  If I am not mistaken, there is a famous natural landmark in Palestine that came to be called "Petra" because it is a giant rock formation.

I could be wrong about all this, though.

I will let my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters comment about the significance of this in terms of Catholic church polity and structure.

And you're partially correct.  Jesus, or God, have been referred to as a "rock".  The "rock" of our salvation and the "rock" in which we hide (referring to the Old Testament story of Moses being hidden in the cleft of the rock as God's glory passed by).  Jesus is specifically called "cornerstone" and also, of particular interest to me, is the repeated statement that he is a "stone of stumbling".

I take this to apply to those who regard Him as a good teacher, a great man, a prophet, a revolutionary or an honorable example to follow...but cannot accept His own claim to be God in the flesh, a sacrifice for the sins of humankind and risen from the dead.  Hence, they stumble over Jesus. 

The origin is in the psalm 118 22-23.  "The stone that builders rejected has now become the cornerstone [or "capstone"].  It is the Lord's doing and a marvelous thing to see."

I would take it to Jesus being rejected by the religious establishment.  Capstone can refer to the absolute pinnacle of a building.  In both contexts, the analogy is that Jesus is the completion .  That analogy is also seen in First Peter 2:5, "you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."

Christ compared himself with the physical Temple, in Mathew, Mark, and John, stating that he would tear it down and rebuild it in three days.

[LastMcGovernite]

Let me throw this out there...

why is Jesus punning in Greek in the first place?

Would this have made any sense at all if this discourse between Peter and Jesus were taking place in conversational Aramaic?

[J. J.]

Let me throw this out there...

why is Jesus punning in Greek in the first place?

Would this have made any sense at all if this discourse between Peter and Jesus were taking place in conversational Aramaic?

Greek was common language, and certainly it was the main written language of the region.

[Vindex]

Please look in your Bible and reread Matthew 16:13-20.  You will notice that Jesus was speaking to his disciples (plural).  He asked them a question: "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 
Peter just happened to respond first (you can see his personality by looking at other verses involving Peter).
Peter (which when written in Greek is Petros or Petrus) and is masculine in gender.  Unlike the English language, some languages have feminine and masculine genders (ex. French, Spanish, Greek). 
When Peter responded, Jesus then said:  "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona...."  First of all, Jesus called Peter by his given name.  He did not call him "Petros" or Peter nor is Jesus implying that Peter is "the rock".  Rock is the Greek word "petra" and is feminine in gender.
Now please look at verse 18.  Jesus does use the words "this rock" which in Greek is again the feminine gender "petra".  "This rock" that Christ is speaking of does not refere to Peter, but rather to what Peter stated.  That being: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God".  It is this confession before others of whom Christ is referring.  This is one of the steps towards salvation. 
Steps toward Salvation:
1) Hear the Word (Matt 7:26)
2) Believe (Rom 10:17)
3) Repent of your Sins (Acts 2:38)
4) Confess (Romans 10:9)
5) Be baptized (Mark 16:16)
6) Love God (Ecclesiastes 12:13)
6) Be faithful until death (Rev 2:10)
I hope this has been helpful 

[ilikeverin]

Please look in your Bible and reread Matthew 16:13-20.  You will notice that Jesus was speaking to his disciples (plural).  He asked them a question: "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 
Peter just happened to respond first (you can see his personality by looking at other verses involving Peter).
Peter (which when written in Greek is Petros or Petrus) and is masculine in gender.  Unlike the English language, some languages have feminine and masculine genders (ex. French, Spanish, Greek). 
When Peter responded, Jesus then said:  "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona...."  First of all, Jesus called Peter by his given name.  He did not call him "Petros" or Peter nor is Jesus implying that Peter is "the rock".  Rock is the Greek word "petra" and is feminine in gender.
Now please look at verse 18.  Jesus does use the words "this rock" which in Greek is again the feminine gender "petra".  "This rock" that Christ is speaking of does not refere to Peter, but rather to what Peter stated.  That being: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God".  It is this confession before others of whom Christ is referring.  This is one of the steps towards salvation. 
Steps toward Salvation:
1) Hear the Word (Matt 7:26)
2) Believe (Rom 10:17)
3) Repent of your Sins (Acts 2:38)
4) Confess (Romans 10:9)
5) Be baptized (Mark 16:16)
6) Love God (Ecclesiastes 12:13)
6) Be faithful until death (Rev 2:10)
I hope this has been helpful 

My goodness.  Has jmfcst discovered cloning?

Must've been an odd DNA change that would change his font to blue.

[12th Doctor]

Please look in your Bible and reread Matthew 16:13-20.  You will notice that Jesus was speaking to his disciples (plural).  He asked them a question: "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 
Peter just happened to respond first (you can see his personality by looking at other verses involving Peter).
Peter (which when written in Greek is Petros or Petrus) and is masculine in gender.  Unlike the English language, some languages have feminine and masculine genders (ex. French, Spanish, Greek). 
When Peter responded, Jesus then said:  "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona...."  First of all, Jesus called Peter by his given name.  He did not call him "Petros" or Peter nor is Jesus implying that Peter is "the rock".  Rock is the Greek word "petra" and is feminine in gender.
Now please look at verse 18.  Jesus does use the words "this rock" which in Greek is again the feminine gender "petra".  "This rock" that Christ is speaking of does not refere to Peter, but rather to what Peter stated.  That being: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God".  It is this confession before others of whom Christ is referring.  This is one of the steps towards salvation. 
Steps toward Salvation:
1) Hear the Word (Matt 7:26)
2) Believe (Rom 10:17)
3) Repent of your Sins (Acts 2:38)
4) Confess (Romans 10:9)
5) Be baptized (Mark 16:16)
6) Love God (Ecclesiastes 12:13)
6) Be faithful until death (Rev 2:10)
I hope this has been helpful 

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=81472.msg1853636#msg1853636

Or, to quote my post addressing this directly (although I encourage you to read the thread itself):

So, when did the papacy begin?  Why do we say that Peter was the first Pope?

Well, most people have heard this story:

Matthew 16:

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 Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
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."

Alot happens in this passage.  And, while its not the only one I am going to take a look at, I am going to spend some time on it.

Alright, so let’s look at verses 13-17 just for starters.  We see here that this discussion breaks out amongst the disciples about who Jesus is.  While the others are discussing it, and getting it wrong, Simon comes up with something remarkable, “you are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.”  And of course he is right.  Burt not only is he correct, but Jesus tells us that this revelation of his has come directly from God.

This discussion doesn’t really have much of a parallel anywhere, except in one part of the scripture and that is over in John.  Now, John has no connection to the Gospel of Matthew, he did not source in anyway, that we know of.  However, he does provide us information of an interesting exchange amongst the Pharisees in Chapter 11.

To set the scene, the Pharisees are arguing about what they ought to do about this Jesus problem of theirs.  And so…

49
But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing,
50
nor do you consider that it is better for you that one man should die instead of the people, so that the whole nation may not perish."
51
He did not say this on his own, but since he was high priest for that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation,
52
and not only for the nation, but also to gather into one the dispersed children of God.

John makes it very explicit that the only reason Caiaphas was able to prophesize in this way was because he was the high priest, so in otherwords, even the Christians acknowledge that there was something special about the position (note, not the man) of high priest of the Sanhedrin that allowed him this kind of inherent revelation.  And indeed, we know that the Jews thought this as well, the high priest wore a breast plate that had stones of many colors that was thought of as, well, a “circuit” really isn’t the term, but it wasn’t merely emblematic either, but the breast plate allowed one to be “ordained” with this ability… I guess a channel for the Spirit, if you will.

Now, this is certainly far from conclusive, but it provides food for thought as we go forward.  And we know that others, both in OT, NT and current times had the power of prophesy, and the Church does not deny this at all, into the modern day (Fatima), but the similarity of these passages is difficult to deny.

Verses 17 and 18 speak for themselves.  There have been a number of odd ways that people have devised to get around them over the years, one of the better ones is that, because the words in Greek for “rock” the object, and “rock” Simon are slightly different, that means that that what Jesus is actually doing is contrasting Simon and the Rock, showing that it is the revelation of his divinity that is really the rock, and that Simon is actually not that significant.  This comes about because the words for “rock” in Greek takes a feminine modifier, while Simon is called what would be the equivalent of “pebble” with the masculine modifier.  Well, this is interesting, except it is simply an accident of language.  In no language, with grammatical gender, would you ever call a man by a feminine verb, and, in fact, Jesus didn’t speak Greek, he spoke Aramaic, and in Aramaic, this sentence would simply be rendered “You are Kephas, and upon this Kephas I will build my Church”… Aramaic has no grammatical gender, so they are the same word.  

And, in fact, in Galatians 2:11-14, which I will revisit later, Paul states, breaking out of Greek and using the Aramaic form by which Simon Peter was really called, that he confronted Kephas.

To simply answer your question, though, Jesus calls Peter by name.  Your claim is utterly ridiculous.  Even Paul called Simon "Rock".

Look below.

[12th Doctor]

And to continue:

This is all not even mentioning that the form of the passage is a blessing of Peter.  To believe that Jesus was contrasting Peter and the Rock would be to say that this passage reads something like, “Blessed are you Simon Bar Jonah.  You are really insignificant.  Here are the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.”  That just doesn’t make sense.

But, then we come to the most interesting, and conclusive, of the segments of this statement, and that is verse 19.

“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."

Keys are not mentioned much in scripture.  Here, and in a few places in the NT, and only twice in the entire Old Testament.  All the other places, they usually refer to things that are somewhat insignificant, unless you want to get into some really high level allegories.  They are literally just functional objects.  But one of those two times they are mentioned in the OT is in Isaiah 22.  To set the scene for you, there is a figure in the Kingdom of Israel who is called the Chief Steward of the House of David.  We would think of him as a kinda Prime Minister.  His job is to take care of the basic tasks of running the kingdom, and he essentially functioned as king in the physical absence of the real king.

There was a Chief Steward named Shebna, who had dishonored himself.  And so God states that he is going to cast him out of the land and replace him with Eliakin.

20
On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
21
I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
22
I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.

Now, anyone who knows thing number 1 about scripture knows that Jesus, as the Messiah, is the new David.  He came to usher in the new kingdom, and to bring about the formation of His Church.  You have to be in pretty heavy denial to claim that the connection between the passages here is an accident.  Jesus is establishing Peter as the New Chief Steward of the House of the New David.  In the ancient word, keys were always used as a symbol of authority.  So this New Chief Steward has authority over the rest of the New Kingdom, which is Christ’s Church.  The spiritual authority of this New Chief Steward is made apparent by Christ’s specific addition of “Heaven” to this mix.

Now, for time’s sake, I am going to throw a series of passages at you very quickly, and explain them without plastering them up here.  I assure you, go to any of them and they will say exactly what I claim:

Luke 22:23 – Jesus tells us that Satan has particularly targeted Simon Peter, but that Peter’s faith will strengthen the others

John 21:17 – Jesus specifically gives Simon his flock (more on this in a bit)

Mark 16:7 – Angel sent to announce resurrection to Peter, first of the Apostles

Luke 24:34 – Risen Lord first appears to Peter

Acts 1:13-26 – Peter leads the meeting that elects Matthias to replace Judas

Acts 2:14 – Peter led the apostles in preaching at Pentacost

Acts 2:41 – Peter received the first converts

Acts 3:6-7 – Peter performs the first miracle

Acts 5:1-11 – Peter inflicts the first punishment to members of the flock

Acts 8:21 – Peter excommunicated the first heretic, Simon Magus

Acts 10:44-46 – Peter received the revelation to allow Gentiles into the Church

Acts 15:7-19 – Peter led the first council of Jerusalem and pronounces the first dogmatic decision of the Church

Peter’s name heads every single list of the Apostles in the Bible: Matthew 10-1, Mark 3:16, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13 and the Apostles are referred to as “Peter and his companions” in  Luke 9:32 and Mark 16:7.  In all four gospels, Peter speaks for the rest of the Apostles, Matthew 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 8:45 and 12:41 and John 6:69

Finally, Peter’s name occurs exactly 195 times in the Gospels, which is more than all the other Apostles combined.

Now, what of Galatians, which I mentioned earlier?  Well, there is a scene in Galatians 2 that is often pointed out to deny Peter’s authority.  Paul recounts how he traveled to Jerusalem, three years after his conversion, to see the leader of the Apostles.  Here, he only mentions having conferred with Kephas (Cephas in some translations, but it means the same thing).  He mentions having seen James, but merely as an afterthought.

After that, he left again, and after having preached the Gospel to the Gentiles, he returned to Jerusalem.  Peter and the other Apostles accepted Gentiles into the Church, but still discouraged mixing between the two communities.  So Paul tells us:

11
And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.
12
For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised.
13
And the rest of the Jews (also) acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.
14
But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, "If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

And so people point at this and say “aha… Paul corrected Peter.”  And they would be right.  But Peter had already made the Dogmatic decision to allow Gentiles into the Church after his vision.  What was going on here was a personal failing on his part.  The Church makes no claims against those, and never did, as I expressed earlier.

Welcome to the NFL, pal.  That Sandlot sh**t isn't gonna fly here.

[LastMcGovernite]

not to be a smartass, but if you go through Matthew, a few verses later, in 16:23, Jesus tells Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan."  Hardly a sound basis for establishing dogmatic authority.

[12th Doctor]

not to be a smartass, but if you go through Matthew, a few verses later, in 16:23, Jesus tells Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan."  Hardly a sound basis for establishing dogmatic authority.

It was a personal rebuke.

[12th Doctor]

not to be a smartass, but if you go through Matthew, a few verses later, in 16:23, Jesus tells Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan."  Hardly a sound basis for establishing dogmatic authority.

It was a personal rebuke.

My point being that such criticism would make perfect sense if the Catholic Church ever claimed that popes were perfect.

[12th Doctor]

Let me throw this out there...

why is Jesus punning in Greek in the first place?

Would this have made any sense at all if this discourse between Peter and Jesus were taking place in conversational Aramaic?

Greek was common language, and certainly it was the main written language of the region.

So it was, but Aramaic would have been the default language of the Galilee.  Chances are pretty good that, of the twelve at least one of them spoke very little or no Greek.  Remember that we are dealing with men who weren't very high on the social ladder, for the most part.

But, I don't really need to suppose here, because as I pointed out, Paul's letters are written in Greek, and yet Paul breaks out of Greek in order to call Simon by the Aramaic form of them name given to him by Jesus, that name being "Kephas".  If Jesus had called Simon by the Greek "Petro" (I think that's what it is, my Greek is a little rusty) and contrasted him with the Greek "Petra" as is presupposed, then why would Paul, already writing in Greek, ever call Simon by the Aramaic form?

The answer obviously must be that that was how Simon was actually called, and that this name was then translated into Greek.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Please look in your Bible and reread Matthew 16:13-20.  You will notice that Jesus was speaking to his disciples (plural).  He asked them a question: "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 
Peter just happened to respond first (you can see his personality by looking at other verses involving Peter).
Peter (which when written in Greek is Petros or Petrus) and is masculine in gender.  Unlike the English language, some languages have feminine and masculine genders (ex. French, Spanish, Greek). 
When Peter responded, Jesus then said:  "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona...."  First of all, Jesus called Peter by his given name.  He did not call him "Petros" or Peter nor is Jesus implying that Peter is "the rock".  Rock is the Greek word "petra" and is feminine in gender.
Now please look at verse 18.  Jesus does use the words "this rock" which in Greek is again the feminine gender "petra".  "This rock" that Christ is speaking of does not refere to Peter, but rather to what Peter stated.  That being: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God".  It is this confession before others of whom Christ is referring.  This is one of the steps towards salvation. 
Steps toward Salvation:
1) Hear the Word (Matt 7:26)
2) Believe (Rom 10:17)
3) Repent of your Sins (Acts 2:38)
4) Confess (Romans 10:9)
5) Be baptized (Mark 16:16)
6) Love God (Ecclesiastes 12:13)
6) Be faithful until death (Rev 2:10)
I hope this has been helpful 

My goodness.  Has jmfcst discovered cloning?

Must've been an odd DNA change that would change his font to blue.

dude, I don't even agree with what he is saying

[Vindex]

What specifically do you not agree with??

[12th Doctor]

What specifically do you not agree with??

You could take a swat at answering me there, Chief, or at you waiting for Pastor Bob's next Sunday sermon?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What specifically do you not agree with??

First, you imply Jesus did not call Peter "Peter", but rather only referred to him by his birth name.  But the scripture says point blank that Jesus called him Peter:

Matthew 16:18
"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

Second, it is clear Peter was the unquestioned leader of the early church, as Mat 16:18 implies. 

So, I don’t really agree with your position.

---

But, I also don’t agree with the Catholic’s position, for it is clear when Paul was chosen, the scripture explicitly states that Peter was the lead Apostle to the Jews and Paul was the lead Apostle to the Gentiles (Gal 2:7-8).   Which is why the first half of Acts is centered on Peter’s ministry and the second half of Acts is centered on Paul’s ministry.  And when Paul was having to go before the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15, Gal 2:1-10), he said he didn’t care what position of authority Peter, John, and James held (Gal 2:6,9).  Paul was given the gospel through revelation and did NOT learn it from any man (Gal 1:11-12), Paul had direct authority from God that was NOT predicated upon the authority of Peter or anyone else. 

The whole purpose of the book of Galatians is to mow down the church leadership in order to show that leadership is fallible.  To do this, Paul starts with himself and tells about how he lived in Judaism as a enemy of Christ (Gal 1:13-14) and that it was God who chose Paul, not man (Gal 1:15-24).  Paul then, in chapter 2, mows down the supposed brothers who caused the need for the Jerusalem council.  Then Paul moves on to Peter, John, and James.  Then focuses on Peter's slide back into legalism.

Finally, in chapter 3, after mowing all the leadership down, including himself, Paul turns his guns on the Galatians and asks why they have allowed someone to distort the gospel that was given them. 

[ilikeverin]

Please look in your Bible and reread Matthew 16:13-20.  You will notice that Jesus was speaking to his disciples (plural).  He asked them a question: "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 
Peter just happened to respond first (you can see his personality by looking at other verses involving Peter).
Peter (which when written in Greek is Petros or Petrus) and is masculine in gender.  Unlike the English language, some languages have feminine and masculine genders (ex. French, Spanish, Greek). 
When Peter responded, Jesus then said:  "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona...."  First of all, Jesus called Peter by his given name.  He did not call him "Petros" or Peter nor is Jesus implying that Peter is "the rock".  Rock is the Greek word "petra" and is feminine in gender.
Now please look at verse 18.  Jesus does use the words "this rock" which in Greek is again the feminine gender "petra".  "This rock" that Christ is speaking of does not refere to Peter, but rather to what Peter stated.  That being: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God".  It is this confession before others of whom Christ is referring.  This is one of the steps towards salvation. 
Steps toward Salvation:
1) Hear the Word (Matt 7:26)
2) Believe (Rom 10:17)
3) Repent of your Sins (Acts 2:38)
4) Confess (Romans 10:9)
5) Be baptized (Mark 16:16)
6) Love God (Ecclesiastes 12:13)
6) Be faithful until death (Rev 2:10)
I hope this has been helpful 

My goodness.  Has jmfcst discovered cloning?

Must've been an odd DNA change that would change his font to blue.

dude, I don't even agree with what he is saying

What, you mean you don't believe in having two Steps 6 in the Seven Steps towards Salvation?

[anvi]

Let me throw this out there...

why is Jesus punning in Greek in the first place?

Would this have made any sense at all if this discourse between Peter and Jesus were taking place in conversational Aramaic?

In this case, the Greek pun in the New Testament would have worked the same in the
Hellenized Aramaic that Jesus almost certainly (and exclusively) spoke.  Petros in Greek
is in Aramaic Kephas, which also means "rock."  The New Testament Greek is probably
then a faithful translation of the original Aramaic pun in this instance.  Incidentally, it may
have been Jesus who gave this disciple the name Kephas/Petos, since previously he was
known to his own family only as "Simon" (John 1:42). 

[anvi]

Just one more small clarification, at least as I understand it, from the original post by Supersoulty.  To quote:

"This comes about because the words for “rock” in Greek takes a feminine modifier, while Simon is called what would be the equivalent of “pebble” with the masculine modifier.  Well, this is interesting, except it is simply an accident of language.  In no language, with grammatical gender, would you ever call a man by a feminine verb, and, in fact, Jesus didn’t speak Greek, he spoke Aramaic, and in Aramaic, this sentence would simply be rendered “You are Kephas, and upon this Kephas I will build my Church”… Aramaic has no grammatical gender, so they are the same word."

This is correct.  It's true that "petra" (large rock), which is the direct translation of the Aramaic "kephas," takes a feminine modifier in Greek, and one would never use a feminine modifer for a man's name.  But the New Testament Greek for Peter's name is the masculine form "Petros" (little rock).  In Matthew 16:18, the Greek reads: "You are Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petra), I will build my church."  The Greek translators modified the form of the name because of the grammatical gender issue.  But we need not worry that the literal distinction between the "little rock" (Petros) and the "large rock" (petra) reflects some distinction in the original Aramaic, because in the original Aramaic Jesus is cited as speaking, the word "Kephas" is used in both occurances (Jesus is not cited as using the Aramaic word "kevna" for "little rock" in either instance of that sentence).  So, the Greek translation is making a slight modification in order to give Peter a masculin name, but the Greek translator in the New Testament is making it, at least as I see it, very clear that the Greek words accurately transmit the original Aramaic meaning of Peter's name.