Matthew 16
v. 13) When Jesus came into the coasts
of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His Disciples, saying, “Whom do men say that I
the Son of Man am?”
v. 14) And they said, “Some say that you
are John the Baptist: some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the
Prophets.”
v. 15) He said unto them, “But whom say
you that I am?”
v. 16) And Simon Peter answered and
said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”
v. 17) And Jesus answered and said unto
him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood have not revealed it
unto you, but My Father which is in Heaven.”
v. 18) And I say also unto you, “That
you are Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of Hell
shall not prevail against it.”
v. 19) “And I will give unto you the
keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be
bound in Heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in
Heaven.”
Introduction
This article is the second in
this series, and it’s topic is not a new one.
This debate has been raging for centuries, and many gallons of ink have
been spilled in defending the arguments on both sides, Catholic and
non-Catholic alike. But we would like to
examine the Catholic view of this passage and offer some food for thought on
this topic.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the
‘rock’ of his Church. He gave him the
keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock…” [directly referring here to Matthew 16:18]. (CCC #881)
“The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, is
the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the
bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his
office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full,
supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always
exercise unhindered.” (CCC #882)
The Catholic Church claims
that Peter alone is the rock upon
whom Jesus built His church. And from
that “foundation” grows this giant structure which is known today as the
Catholic Church, with Peter as its Supreme Pontiff (pope), whose successors
will enjoy the gift of infallibility and “universal power” over the whole
church, and will each be known as the “Vicar of Christ.” He will be headquartered in Rome, with his
multi-layered hierarchy of priests, monsignors, bishops, archbishops, cardinals,
and popes, not to mention other sub-categories, e.g., nuns, monks, abbots, etc. All this mostly arises out of an eisegesis of the passage above. Eisegesis is reading something into the passage rather than allowing
the text to speak for itself.
So, let’s analyze the passage
in question.
“Petros” and “Petra”
There are two important Greek
words in Matthew 16:18 relevant to this topic, “petros” and
“petra.” Jesus stated, “You
are Peter [“petros”] and upon this rock [“petra”] I will build My church.” According to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance
(Complete and Unabridged), “petros” (Strong’s #4074) means “piece of
rock.” On the other hand, “petra”
(Strong’s #4073), means “mass of rock.” So,
we immediately see that there is a distinction between these two words. And, by the way, Strong is not the only
scholar who makes such a distinction.
See here:
Yes, Peter’s name means “rock”
(actually, “piece of rock”) and he was indeed, in a sense, a rock. We’re not denying that. But it’s like saying that a man’s son is “a
chip off the old block” when he resembles his dad. In the same way, Peter resembles Jesus (in purpose
and behavior) and is therefore named Peter (“petros”). In other words, it is simply a play on words,
where Peter is a representative of Jesus.
Just as there is a resemblance between Jesus and Peter, there is a
resemblance between “petra” and “petros,” but again, “petros” and “petra” are
two different words with similar, but distinct, meanings.
But Catholics are trying
their best to say that Peter alone (CCC #881) is the “petra,” the rock and foundation
upon which the church is built. Was
Jesus really saying that only Peter is the foundation of the church (along with
all the “hierarchy” and “infallibility” attachments) or did He mean something
else?
Matthew 16:16-18
Let’s look at it more
closely. In v. 16, Peter makes an
extremely important statement, confessing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
the Living God. Ok, now notice the tiny
word, “it” in v. 17: “flesh
and blood has not revealed IT unto
you,” referring to what Peter said in v. 16. In v. 18, Jesus points to this same “it” when
He says, “Upon THIS rock.”
These two tiny words (“it” and “this”), we believe, are the key
to this whole argument. “It” (v. 17) and
“this” (v. 18) are pointing to the same thing.
They are pointing to Peter’s statement of who Jesus is. THAT is what the church of Jesus Christ is
built upon – the revelation that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, the Christ. He is the object
and focus of the good news (the
gospel) of salvation. So, it is that
truth, that revelation of Peter’s statement about Jesus, or better yet, Jesus Himself, that is the foundational Rock,
not Peter. We’re not trying to take
anything away from Peter, but we want to be faithful and accurate with God’s Word.
If God intended to identify Peter as the rock, then why doesn’t the
inspired Greek text say, “You are Peter and upon you I will build My church”?
This would have removed all doubt.
If Peter is the intended foundation, then why would Jesus use two different words in the Greek (“petros”
and “petra”) with two different meanings?
Again, this a play on words and God intended to distinguish the two from each other. Related, but not the same.
The Gender Argument
But Catholics will say that
“petros” is masculine and it wouldn’t
be right to call Peter a feminine name like “petra.” Yes, “petros” is masculine, but this gender
argument doesn’t hold water, because the feminine “petra” is also used in other verses (Romans
9:33; 1 Corinthians 10:4; 1 Peter 2:8 – see below) in describing Jesus Himself (certainly a male).
But the inspired author could have easily avoided any “gender issues” by
simply saying, “You are petros and upon this petros I will build My
church.” Problem solved. But no, the inspired Greek doesn’t say
this. So, this “gender objection” falls
flat.
Consistency in Scripture
“Petra” refers to Jesus here
in Matthew
16:18 just as much as it refers to Jesus here:
“As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion
a stumblingstone and rock [“petra”] of offence: and whosoever believeth on him
shall not be ashamed.” (Romans 9:33)
And here:
“And did all drink the same spiritual drink:
for they drank of that spiritual Rock [“petra”] that followed them: and that
Rock [“petra”] was Christ.” (1 Corinthians 10:4)
And also here:
“And a stone of stumbling, and a rock
[“petra”] of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being
disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.” (1 Peter 2:8)
Notice who is speaking in this
last verse. This was written by
Peter. Of all people, Peter himself would have known if he was
the “rock,” the foundation of the church.
If Peter really did have a “special office,” different than, and above
all the other apostles, then why doesn’t anything in Peter’s epistles reflect
that idea? In fact, we see equality with the other apostles there,
instead (1 Peter 5:1).
The Phantom Aramaic
But Catholics will say that
Jesus spoke Aramaic, and that the book of Matthew was actually first written in
Aramaic, not Greek. They tell us the
Aramaic word for rock is “Kepha” (or “Cephas,” which is the name Jesus earlier gave
to Peter – John 1:42). Supposedly,
the Aramaic uses the same word for “Peter” and for “rock.” They say that this verse in Aramaic would read,
“You are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build My church.” So Catholics believe that this proves that
the apostle Peter and “the foundational rock” are one and the same.
But this is a very weak
argument, since we don’t have any
manuscript copies of Matthew in Aramaic.
Why would the Catholic Church refer to something that doesn’t even exist? This is pure speculation and it only shows
the weakness of their argument.
Besides, in John
1:42, when Jesus said, “Thou art Simon
the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a
stone [petros],” we can see that the
Aramaic “Cephas” is translated into the Greek “petros” anyway, not “petra.” In Scripture, the two terms (“petra” and
“petros”) are never used interchangeably.
The bottom line here is that the inspired language that God used for the
New Testament is Greek. And Greek is a very specific language… which distinguishes between “petros” and “petra.” So, this argument also fails.
Thrones and Foundations
And if Peter really did have
primacy over all the other apostles, then why is this not mentioned or implied
in Matthew
19:27-28, or Luke 22:29-30, where Jesus tells the apostles that they will
sit on twelve thrones? In both cases,
Jesus had opportunity to make Peter’s status over all the others clear, but He mentions nothing of the sort. Nothing is said about Peter’s throne being
special, or different than any of the others.
Again, in Revelation 21:14, the walls of the city of New Jerusalem have
twelve (seemingly equal) foundations with the apostles’ names on them, but it
never implies that Peter’s foundation would be special or stand out in any way
above the foundation of the other apostles.
Strange, if Matthew 16 were implying otherwise.
An Argument Settled
In Luke 9:46-48, the
disciples are arguing about who is the greatest among them. It is interesting that in this same chapter,
just a few verses earlier (Luke 9:18-21), we have the parallel
passage to Matthew 16, where Peter is supposedly made the “rock.”
But when the disciples
started arguing here (v. 46), Jesus didn’t say, “Hey guys,
we’ve just gone through this already! I
just told Peter that HE was the rock, that HE was the greatest among you! Why are you arguing about this. Have you already forgotten?” No, Jesus says nothing at all like this. He simply points out their need for humility
(v.
47-48). This clearly
demonstrates that there was no apostle who was above all the other apostles.
Papal Claims
The papacy’s extraordinary
claims require extraordinary proof. The
Catholic Church would need far more than this eisegesis of Matthew 16 to prove anything
like a papacy, with all its accompanying (unbiblical) attachments. Peter was indeed one of the leaders of the
apostolic circle and he even was a “rock,” but he didn’t have the office or the
type of primacy that the Catholic Church gives him.
Ephesians 2:20 would have been an excellent place for Paul to point
out Peter’s primacy over all the others.
But instead of mentioning Peter only, Paul speaks of apostles (plural)
and prophets (plural) as being the foundation of the church.
The reason that they were the
foundation is because they were the first to receive the message of the
gospel. They were the pioneers of the
foundational revelation given to the church, and this is the message of
salvation through Jesus Christ alone, who is THE Rock. Neither this passage nor any other in
Scripture singles Peter out as a separate foundation.
Emphasis on Peter?
So, the emphasis in Matthew
16 is NOT on Peter. Jesus said, “Whom
do men say that I the Son of Man am?”
He didn’t ask, “Hey Peter, whom do men say that YOU are?” Just because Peter grasped the revelation of
who Jesus was, doesn’t make him a pope.
And it’s not like Jesus’
question about His identity (just above) was a test for all the apostles, and
only Peter got the answer right. That’s
not likely. It wasn’t that none of them
except Peter knew the correct answer, it’s just that Peter would often speak first.
He was impetuous, that is, he would often act or speak quickly, without
first thinking things through - sometimes with good results, and sometimes with
bad - for example, Matthew 14:25-31; 16:21-23; 17:1-5; 26:33-35; John
13:6-9; 18:10-11; 21:5-7. But that
was Peter’s nature.
And for the record, pointing
out special things that Peter did also does not
demonstrate a papacy. We could just as
well point out the many special things that the apostle Paul did, but no one is
claiming that he’s a pope.
Conclusion
The issue is not whether
Peter is some type of “rock” or some kind of “foundation.” Protestants already believe that both can be
applied to him. But the real question is
this: Can you biblically demonstrate
that Peter is above or greater than all
the other apostles, as the Catholic Church insists? We firmly believe that the answer is no.
But even if it could be proven beyond
a doubt that Peter is the “petra” in Matthew 16, the foundation upon which
the church is built, it is STILL not Peter
apart from the other apostles. You
can say that Peter is a rock in some way, but you cannot biblically isolate
Peter, as a foundation, from the rest
of the apostles (Ephesians 2:20; Revelation 21:14).
Once again, Catholics are
reading way too much into this passage.
Matthew 16 is simply about our Lord building, heading and sustaining His
church, as Christians proclaim the good news of salvation (the gospel of Jesus
Christ) and set people free through knowing Him and trusting in His work on the
cross.
We will continue with this
series next month.
