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.
The Galatians had heard the Gospel from him and Paul received word they were making a man made mess of things by doctrines of man and conditions of man.
Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2 and all the brothers and sisters[a] with me,
To the churches in Galatia:
3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!
10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.
11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.
18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas[b] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.
21 Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they praised God because of me.
Paul preacher 14 years later after his conversion on the way to Damascus. During those years he was already preaching to confer with the others.
Are you PURPOSELY ignoring the REST of Christ’s words?
Then how do YOU explain the 'words' of learned Catholics in #47 and #49?
Do you have a source or sources regarding the existence of such a curse?
The curse is mentioned in a considerable part of Rabbinical dialogue.
It is obvious that gullible English translators took advice from such sources.
Interesting. Sounds reasonable to a non-expert. It does not seem reasonable that Christ would erect a church on a fallible man(Peter denied Christ three times if I remember correctly). He would build his church on faith in him.
We all have the keys to the Kingdom if we follow the Biblical teachings of God through his Son Jesus Christ. Keys open doors they don’t blow them open or magically open them they are keys and Jesus is the gate/door.
John 10:9 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
9 I am the gate. Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture.
All the Apostle were “Special Messenger” of God. They healed the sick, raised the dead, and tolerated persecution beyond belief, but they all did. Jesus didn’t deliberately mislead any Apostle or anyone else, but Catholics have twisted the Word of Truth thus it appears misleading.
Revelation 21:14 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
14 And the wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.
Psalm 116:15
Too bad that according to Rome; Mary never died.
Also 'remember' that ol' Pete was in ERROR a LOT long after the 'church' was founded on him!
How was the first Pope, Gregory murdered?
It does not seem reasonable that God would become man and be born as a helpless infant. It does not seem reasonable that Christ would allow himself to be crucified. He did what he did. Have faith in what he did.
And I say to you, you are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
It is also reasonable to assert that Christ was talking about “faith” a word he used in the sentence just before the claimed term “Rock”. No no church was erected on a man; if that were true then it would be a man’s church. Peter denied the Lord three times in spite of promising never to do so. Secondly, the term “Church” used in the sentence does not refer to a particular Roman entity but to the believers as a class. Those who believe in Christ as The Lord are the “Church.”
The first Pope was Simon Peter, the apostle. He was murdered in Rome, by being crucified.
He didn't. He named him Cephas, which means 'building stone'... A hand-sized stone used as part of a wall. Different from a foundation stone or cornerstone.
Baptist scholar D. A. Carson, writes, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary:
[T]he underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (”you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses.
This claim that the word “petra” or “cephas” means “little stone” is a complete fiction. Peter is called “Petros” because he is a MALE; the word “petra” is used in the next phrase because the word itself is feminine. There is NO difference in meaning.
There are several other points that make it clear that the “linguistic” arguments that Jesus intended to distinguish between Peter the man and the “rock” on which he would build His Church, are desperate fabrications.
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2013/04/why-protestant-petrospetra-argument-is.html
Right. According to the Aramaic, the word is stone, not rock. Upon Kepha's testimony, Yeshua calls him a building stone (Kepha), and of such stones (Kepha), Yeshua will build his assembly.
The same term is also used as slang for one who is a bit slow or dense... having a childlike grasp of a thing... The exact opposite of his given name, Shimon, which has a sense of being sharp or quick witted... So in the context, considering the pun, Yeshua is using building stones of a certain type, those with a childlike faith. This is a revelation - This is why he nicknamed him Kepha (John 1:42), for this moment... Or he knew the nickname as previously given, perhaps in a derogatory sense, and was turning it into something wonderful.
A kepha in middle-eastern masonry terms, is a building stone of a size somewhere between fist-sized and that which can comfortably be lifted, in order to be placed in a wall.
There is only one Rock, and that is Yeshua Messiah. He is the foundation and the cornerstone.
And it is a moot point, even if you care to read it as foundation stone - as the Bible clearly declares there are twelve foundations under New Jerusalem, and but one is named for Peter... So either way, it doesn't mean what y'all say it means.
Riiiiight. I have heard all this word-mincing before. It amazes me how the Roman church can wring all it's (supposed) authority out of one single phrase in one single verse...
Needless to say, it hardly compares to the authority of Moses, or Yeshua, or any of the prophets, whose authority needs no such wringing, as it is boldly and explicitly declared, and that many times over... Hence I find your claim to be as weak and specious as the Pharisees'.
meh.
The first Pope, technically didn’t evolve until some 600 years later. Pope Gregory, called the first Pope by his successors, even denied the title. Again, another RCC attempt to promote worldliness over our spiritual walk through faith alone in Christ alone.
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.