Posted on 01/16/2015 3:29:49 PM PST by RnMomof7
June 10, 2014
In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said to Simon, “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.”
Roman Catholics interpret Matt. 16:18 to mean that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built. That interpretation then becomes the basis for the doctrine of papal succession. If Peter is the rock on which the church is built, and if the bishops of Rome are Peter’s successors, then it follows, they say, that the papacy remains the foundation of the church.
But that is not at all what Matthew 16:18 teaches.
The name “Peter” was a nickname given to Simon by Jesus, all the way back in John 1:42 when Peter first met Jesus. Coming from the Greek word petros (or the Aramaic word “Cephas”), the name Peter means “Rock” or “Stone.” To use an English equivalent, Peter means “Rocky.”
But when Jesus said, “I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church,” He differentiated between Peter and the “rock” by using two different Greek words. The name Peter is petros, but the word for “rock” is petra.
Those terms may sound similar to us, but ancient Greek literature shows that they actually refer to two different things. Petros was used to signify a small stone; petra, by contrast, referred to bedrock or a large foundation boulder (cf. Matt. 7:24-25).
So, to paraphrase Jesus’ words, the Lord told Peter, “I say to you that you are a small stone, and upon this bedrock I will build My church.” It was a play on words that made a significant spiritual point.
What then was the bedrock to which Jesus was referring? The answer to that question comes a couple verses earlier in Matthew 16.
Matthew 16:13–17: Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” [14] And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” [15] He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” [16] Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” [17] And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.”
Peter was just a small stone built atop the bedrock of something much bigger than himself: namely, the truth that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God. Put simply, Peter was not the rock; Christ is the Rock. And as Peter and the other apostles testified to the truth about Christ (which Peter did in verse 16), the church was built upon its only sure foundation.
The rest of the New Testament bears this out.
In 1 Corinthians 3:11, Paul wrote that “no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
In Ephesians 2:20, Paul further explained that Jesus Christ is the cornerstone on which the church is founded by the apostles.
Even Peter himself, in 1 Peter 2:1–10 compared all believers to small stones that are part of the superstructure of the church. By contrast, Peter noted in vv. 6, 7, the Lord Jesus is the cornerstone on which the church is built. Peter said the same thing to the Jewish religious leaders in Acts 4:11. Speaking of Jesus, Peter proclaimed, “He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the chief corner stone.”
If we were to go beyond Peter’s lifetime, and consider the writings of the church fathers from Origen to Chrysostom to Augustine – we would likewise find that the vast majority of ancient interpreters did not view the rock in Matthew 16:18 as a reference to Peter. The church fathers generally understood the “rock” to refer either to the apostles collectively, or to the specific content of Peter’s confession. In either case, they understood that Matthew 16:18 ultimately centered on Christ – the One to whom the apostles testified, and the One to whom Peter’s confession pointed.
Thus, we see the Roman Catholic understanding of Matthew 16:18 falls short on at least four levels:
1) Grammatically, it does not account for the lexical distinction between petros (Peter) and petra (Rock).
2) Contextually, it makes Peter the focal point of Matthew 16, when the text is clearly featuring truth about Jesus.
3) Theologically, it tries to make Peter the rock when the rest of the New Testament declares Christ to be the Rock.
4) Historically, the Roman Catholic view is not the patristic view of the first few centuries.
(Moreover, even if Peter were the “rock” of Matthew 16:18, such an interpretation would still not necessitate the notion of papal succession. But that is the topic of another post.)
Peter’s nickname might have been Rocky, but Peter himself understood that the Rock was Jesus Christ. The Rock on which Peter’s life was built was none other than the Rock of Salvation; the Rock of Deliverance; the Chief Cornerstone; and the Rock of Ages.
Peter bore witness to that truth in Matthew 16:16. The rest of the Apostles bore witness to that throughout their ministries. And it was the truth of that apostolic witness to Jesus Christ that formed the foundation of the church.
PING
Jesus = petra
Peter = petros.
Not the same thing.
The church, Christ’s body, is built on HIM, even according to Peter.
Amen!
Ping!
I love 'em all (my parents people were German Lutherans for 500 years), so I don't participate in these pissing contests very often.
I must say, however, that the most fervent literalists on Earth turn away from eating His flesh and drinking His blood (watch how fast they will say, "it's just symbolic). So it is with tu et Petrus. It is Peter's FAITH which is the rock, yes, not his sinful flesh, but that big "Rocky" had a real, designated role in His Church - and still does.
I guess the other question is: When was Yeshua ever in Rome?
Amen to that too! Yeshua is the rock, not some building.
I do not understand why some say it is a man instead of Jesus. Jesus is the Rock of our salvation not some man.
I agree with the Protestant position: Namely, that it was just plain STUPID of Jesus to give Simon the name “Rock.” If Jesus had not done that, all the confusion could have been avoided.
I’m already warming up the popcorn ... :)
Thanks. I need to pop some for me. Appreciate the reminder.
Which Protestants said it was stupid to give Peter the name of *rock*? Can you point to the infallible declaration to that position?
Petros is not petra.
A cliff is not a pebble.
Although, I do suppose that Catholicism was built on a pebble.
The true body of Christ is built on the bedrock of Jesus.
Perhaps some popecorn would be more to your liking?
Colossians 1:13-18 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
Ephesians 5:23-24 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
And yet Roman Catholicism demands submission to the pope.
Popecorn would be acceptable!
I may have to bring out NetPopeus Hossus I if you’re not careful.
:D
Hoss
:)
Since Protestants deny that Jesus intended to give Peter a position of primacy in the Church, I think Protestants need to explain how Jesus could be so stupid as to fail to foresee that giving Simon the nickname “Rock” would cause confusion.
(Rustling noises....)
Where are my dang red shoes? I did find the pointy hat, though.
Hoss
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.