Upon This Rock

The Cripplegate, New Generation of Non-Conformists ^ | June 10, 2014 | Nathan Busenitz, Instructor of Theology

[RnMomof7]

June 10, 2014

Upon This Rock

by Nathan Busenitz

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.

[Petrosius]

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.

Perhaps you should look again at way back to John 1:42:

Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).

The name which Jesus used was Cehpas, Aramaic for "rock." "Petros/Peter" is only a translation. The use of "Petros" in distinction to "petra" was necessitated in the translation from the Aramaic into the Greek because of the need for a masculine word for the name rather than the feminine form of "petra." What our Lord actually said in Aramaic is:

You are Cephas (rock) and upon this cephas (rock) I will build my church.

There is no distinction the the Aramaic that our Lord spoke.

[Petrosius]

I do not understand why some say it is a man instead of Jesus. Jesus is the Rock of our salvation not some man.

Because Jesus said so. Have faith in the word of God!

[metmom]

Peter himself told us that the rock, *petra* was Christ.

JESUS is the chief cornerstone.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

One slight quibble here.

“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.”

No. It doesn’t work that way. As we see here daily, the Roman denomination decides what the doctrine will be - often at the inclusion of syncretic paganism - then goes to Scripture to find something that sounds like what they claim.

In this instance, the Roman denomination decided all should bow to Rome. They then try to justify it by twisting the passage in Matthew. The Orthodox denominations didn’t agree with the arrogance of Rome. Rightly so.

[Dawgmeister]

Context is essential with the Scriptures. This is an excellent example of someone taking a verse out of context and building a whole denomination on it. BTW, where else in the Bible is Peter referred to as the foundation of the church? With Matt 16:18, you have to include verses 13 thru 17 to accurately understand verse 18. Jesus asked his disciples who did men say that he was, and the disciples answered variously Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets. Jesus then asked them who did They say that he was, and Peter piped up with, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, to which Jesus said, “Blessed are you Simon, son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter (Petros=pebble, chip off of the block), and on this rock (Petra=Block), ie what Peter had answered to His question, the statement that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. That was the bedrock that the church is built upon. Context, context, context...

[RnMomof7]

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.

It does not confuse the saved.. it only confuses the lost

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[CynicalBear]

>>Because Jesus said so. Have faith in the word of God!<<

No He didn't. Jesus is the Rock and the ekklesia is built on the belief in that Rock. God Himself said there was no other rock.

Isaiah 44:8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

[Springfield Reformer]

LOL! I had to read that twice. :)

[John Leland 1789]

But what if the church of Matthew 16:18 is not at all talking about the Body of Christ Church of the current dispensation? What if our Lord was prophesying the Great Assembly Church of the Kingdom (verse 19), the gathering of a converted and restored Israel and believing Gentiles out of Daniel's 70th Week? The Millennium, the Messiah's earthly Kingdom.

That Kingdom Church (Great Assembly) was not a mystery; it was prolific in prophesy.

At the time of Christ's words in Matthew 16, the Body of Christ Church of the current dispensation was a mystery hid in God---unsearchable in Old Testament prophesy.

There is nothing in the context mandating the word "church" refer to anything that can be seen on earth today or until the return of Christ.

[CynicalBear]

Jesus eating blood would have made Him a sinner you know.

[MamaB]

Jesus is the rock. No man is that. His church is built on Him and I am not talking about the Catholic one. He knew no man is perfect. Do not let a man take the place of Him. Like I have said on here before, “Jesus is the answer, the only answer.”. He is the only forgiver of sin. Some on here depend on man and a church way too much. I had a very hard day yesterday because it was the 11th anniversary of my daughter’s death. When I turned my pain and sadness over to Him, I felt much better. I know He is the answer.

[metmom]

It’s an old joke.

Goes back years.

And don’t forget the soda pope.

[sasportas]

the Roman denomination

An accurate description. Not the trunk of the tree, the true universal church with Jesus Christ its cornerstone, but a Roman denomination with the Papacy its cornerstone.

[bonfire]

Which is why they dreamed up Peter being the “rock”. Otherwise the entire system comes tumbling down.

Those who put man before Jesus are headed towards eternal damnation. God bless those who have come out of the dark and into the light.

[Faith Presses On]

Considering the reverence given to Christ’s body and blood in evangelical churches, and the things believed about who Jesus is, what His death meant, and how we have eternal life, as well as other things, such as that Jesus was the new Passover lamb (and the Passover lamb was eaten), I don’t believe evangelicals mean that Communion is just a symbol in the way we think of human symbols, such as the American flag or the World Trade Center. I do understand the point that’s being made, but think evangelicals should really consider anew what they really believe about Communion, for the sake of greater understanding. It seems to me that in some way, a spiritual way, we are partaking of the Lord’s body and blood, but it’s a mystery beyond our understanding. If Jesus literally wanted to give the twelve disciples His actual body and blood, then He could have done so, either at the Last Supper, or after His Resurrection. But very clearly He didn’t, and let’s acknowledge the truth that He did not.

Many a time, too, I’ve heard Catholics say that Jesus said “this is My body,” etc., so that is literal language, but that doesn’t prove their point. Metaphor can take that grammatical form, as elementary English classes teach children over and over again during their time in school. Simile uses “like” or “as” for comparison, and metaphor doesn’t.

Throughout all the Gospels, a major concern is belief and unbelief. And sometimes Jesus judged unbelief, especially as the Jews were a people that God prepared to receive the Messiah. But repeatedly the Gospels talks of the people’s unbelief, and one place that happened was John 6. A group of people were miraculously fed by Jesus, and He tells them a day later that they were desperately seeking Him not because they’d seen the miracles He’d done (which were to show them He was the Messiah, the Bible says) but for the meal. Then they even after that demand a sign from Jesus. At that point, they were so faithless that they couldn’t respond to Jesus, and drove them away out of judgment by offending their sensibilities. And the same with His disciples who didn’t trust Him, unlike the Twelve who as a group (Judas of course wasn’t faithful) seemed not to think of leaving Him as the other did, and confirmed that when Jesus asked them. They had faith that kept them with Jesus even when doubt was thrown their way.

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

Which Protestants said it was stupid to give Peter the name of *rock*? Can you point to the infallible declaration to that position?

---

It’s called a “Straw Man” argument. You attribute an opinion or point of view to your opponent and destroy the false argument.

It’s easier than dealing with valid arguments.

[Faith Presses On]

I was born in 1970 and came to know Christ outside of the Roman Catholic Church. Since I’m following Him, I would go wherever He would lead me, including the Catholic Church. I even looked into it when I didn’t have much by my simple faith and understanding of the Gospel, and had read the Gospels. I went to masses for awhile, and in my 20’s found some appeal in all the artwork (this was a basilica) and the mysticism that was there in the service, but there was no personal connection there (no one ever spoke to me) and something, looking back, seemed to be missing. I found it to be better than the Lutheran services I grew up in, in which people seemed to see themselves as enduring them, and were only too ecstatic to be released from for another week once they were over. But once I read the whole Bible, and meditated on it over and over, so that my understanding grew, I saw how so much of Roman Catholicism is in clear contradiction to God’s Word and Spirit. And the argument that “it’s the exact same religion” for 2000 years falls flat, too. There might not have been wholesale changes, like Mormonism’s Book of Mormon, but there is over and over again distortion of what was there at the beginning, that result in wholesale changes due to altered meanings of things.

[Springfield Reformer]

There is no distinction the the Aramaic that our Lord spoke.

Pure speculation. Show me the Aramaic. Don't have it?  Hmmmm.

Here's the deal. The exact language Jesus spoke in any given circumstance is unknown except for where the text directly identifies it.  Given His close proximity to the multicultural nexus of Cesarea, it is possible He spoke in Greek, Latin, Hebrew AND Aramaic at various times and circumstances.  Please take a look at this link for some current thinking on the matter:

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Jesus_Hebrew/jesus_hebrew.html

So without an actual Aramaic text, no one knows of Jesus said this in Aramaic, Hebrew or Greek. Therefore, anyone confidently proclaiming they know with certainty that anything was said in Aramaic in Matthew 16:18 is talking through their hat. Sorry about that.

But even if for the sake of argument we grant the unprovable assumption this was said in Aramaic, there is still good reason to accept a distinction in the two terms.  This is because even in Aramaic there were other terms for Rock than Kepha that may well have occupied the second slot, and there is evidence from the Syriac that this is exactly how those early translators perceived the situation, using, not Kepha, but Tnra (another Aramaic word for stone) in the second slot, to preserve the distinction. Two. Different. Words.

As for what Jesus actually said, the RC hypothesis that the two terms in Greek are different solely due to gender alignment is false.  According to recent scholarship, Petros was already serviceable as a proper name, meaning it was NOT a gender-adjusted form of Petra to avoid a feminine effect.  The name in it's own right already conformed to the masculine pattern.

Furthermore, the fact that Petros shares a root with Petra is not enough to demonstrate they are the same word. Many distinguishable words share common roots.  If I said, "You are Rocky, and on this Rock I will build an indestructible spiritual family," are you really going to miss the distinction I'm making? No, of course not.  The fact remains that if Jesus wanted to make sure we understood that it was Peter He spoke of in both places, Petros could have been used in both places: "You are Rocky, and on you, Rocky, I will build an indestructible spiritual family." That would have kept the second person form of address in tact.  

But instead, Matthew introduces the demonstrative pronoun "this" (ταύτῃ), jarring the listener out of the address to Peter, and signaling a new, 3rd person referent.  This makes it clear, unmistakable, that Jesus is NOT making reference to the same person.  Furthermore, it was very comon for Jesus to use theird person titles to refer to Himslef, "You will see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven," etc.

On the other hand, if Matthew had in fact wanted to show they were the same person, He could easily have used Petra for Peter in the first slot AND the second, because contrary to what you may have heard, some masculine Greek names do have the feminine ending. Example you say? Sure. Zorba the Greek.  Feminine ending on a masculine name. Go figure.  So if the alleged underlying Aramaic was really Kepha/Kepha, that could be rendered with equally symmetry into the Greek (Petra/Petra) without fussing about gender endings.

Bottom line? Those two Greek words bolded below really are two different words, not the same word adjusted for gender setting:

Matthew 16:18 Κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω, ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾍδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

If you or anyone else is interested to some serious scholarship on the matter, I would direct your attention to a book called Peter and the Rock, by Chrys C. Caragounis, which is a very detailed analysis of the linguistic possibilities in Matthew 16:18, including an excellent survey of the multiple Aramaic terms that could have been used behind Petra.  It is expensive, but well worth it.

Peace,

SR

[MamaB]

I got the same impression from some masses on tv. The people there seemed bored out of their skulls. They never smiled or changed expressions. On the other hand, I have seen local Black churches on tv which were wonderful. They loved Jesus and were not afraid to show it. And, do not forget those colorful hats. We used to wear hats but I have not seen any in 35-40 years. Even the little girls do not wear them anymore. Belonging to Jesus should be a joyful experience and I do not see that in a catholic service. Could it be that thy do not have anything to have joy about?

[MamaB]

Thy should be they. My iPad is still doing its own thing. I misspelled a word recently and the speller made a word I had never heard of and I do not even think it was even a word.