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.
bump
God bless you, FRiend. I don’t do Red Herrings. Now Halibut is a different matter. :)
Peace,
SR
First, Jesus isn't stupid.
Christians understand keeping the Bible in context.
Next, if we use the ECFs as catholics love to cling to in order to justify their non-biblical "tradition", it's up to catholics to explain why they cherry pick the ones they like in contradiction of their own requirement for unanimous agreement amongst the ECFs.
It's nothing but Catholic fiction to state that there is a line of single popes leading back to Peter.
It truly is baffling. Just the title “vicar of Christ” would cause me to back away. Vicar from the Latin vicarius which means “instead of” or “in place of”. Christ said when He left He would send someone but it wasn’t a pope. It was the Holy Spirit who would indwell every true believer. The only scripture reference to a person “instead of” or “in place of” is the anti-Christ. And no, I’m not saying the pope is the anti Christ. I’m saying I would back off from anyone who claimed that title because scripture says there will be many anti Christs.
I think people have the false assumption that when the Antichrist arrives they will be able to identify him. They forget that God says clearly he will send deception as such that they will certainly fall under his power and control and not be able to see him as he truly is.
.
Our savior’s name is Yehoshua, just like his OT namesake.
The “short form” of that name is Yeshua, not YSU or YSV.
There is absolutely nothing innocent about using the curse. Had it been innocent, both names would have been rendered the same.
I hold no one under the curse, I reject it, and I love my Lord enough to call him by the name he was given, the one that shouts to the creation what he did for us.
What you call “evidence” is nothing but contrivance.
As far as the Bible codes go, they are proven beyond the most minuscule doubt. Perhaps you choose to support the liars that attempted unsuccessfully to discredit what is there in the masoretic text that, as Paul revealed to us in Romans, is the Oracles of Yehova.
Edwin Sherman fully demolished the attack in his book Bible Code Bombshell. I recommend it to anyone that has the slightest doubt. (I have no respect whatsoever for the Kabbalist fool that wrote the original Bible Code book.)
.
.
>> “They were not killed by “rivals.” They were martyred, by the State.” <<
.
They were the state.
That is what the ‘catholic church’ was until Napolean’s time.
.
....” because we insist that JESUS is who the church is founded on instead of Peter”....
I can’t see that catholics could do more than follow what catholicism teaches them regarding Peter, and get their pants in a knot when when the truth is presented that Jesus is the Rock not Peter.... Their Priesthood depends on them believing the lie, which must be in order to continue to secure the Priesthood, for which without their faith and catholicism would fall.
They left the Centrality of Jesus Christ ages ago....though they strive to attach his name onto everything.....simply as an add-on....and afterthought.
LOL! How well it all fits together now ....
Peace,
SR
The Catholic Church was “the State” in the years 33-300?
I’ll just let that hang out there and let sane people reach their own conclusions.
Mom, LOL, I see you made the "dedicated anti catholic" list of heroes. Maybe you are considered the de facto president of the dedicated anti catholic cabal. Don't you feel special? Think of the possibilities. I would ask you if another ex catholic, like me, could be the Vice President. We will need a secretary of OFFENSE. I am thinking Elsie would be a perfect fit. We can all get in on the ground floor. Sound like a winner to you? 😄😃😀
Wow. Why should I be very interested in all that? I love to read but it has to be something I m interested in. I am more interested in what the Bible says. Too much emphasis is placed on them anyway.
I don’t know if FR is ready for us.
But we might have a problem.
Someone has already been crowned as the lead anti-Catholic on the RF. I don’t recall if it was gamecock or alex, but one of them had it in their tagline for a while.
There might be two or three of us leaders at once.
And you know how that can play out.
.
I have no idea what you think fits together.
One thing is for sure though; you’ve no grasp of how the word of God is one complete work that cannot be divided.
.
.
One cannot believe in Yeshua, as a disciple, and not recognize that the RCC is pure pagan bedlam.
.
.
The RCC didn’t exist until 364 AD.
That was when Constantine renamed the Roman state to be “The Church.”
.
Someone has already been crowned as the lead anti-Catholic on the RF. I don’t recall if it was gamecock or alex, but one of them had it in their tagline for a while.
There might be two or three of us leaders at once.
And you know how that can play out.
Oh darn, my hopes are dashed again. I thought we had discovered something new, but I think the Bible says, there is nothing new under the sun. If GC or Alex already have it going on, we should not try to wiggle into their operation. If no one has a name for the organization yet, the opposition might call us ACES, or those afflicted with Anti Catholic Exposure Syndrome. They need to beware, we have a lot more ACES in our deck, than they have in theirs. How does that grab ya? 😄😃😀
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.