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 first eight Popes were murdered, i.e., martyred.
Yeah. The Papacy was created by those seeking “worldly power.”
If Jesus did not intend to give some sort of authority to Peter, how do you explain Jesus’ words: “I will give you the Keys of the Kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”?
And, if Jesus did NOT intend us to understand that he was building his church on Peter (”Rock”), why did Jesus stupidly RENAME Simon as “Rock.” Why would Jesus deliberately mislead the apostles and all future generations?
I have somewhat of an understanding of how Jesus felt, when he looked around at some people, grieving at their inbelief, and hardness of their hearts. Do you think this is just a 21st century version?
So sorry Mama, for your loss and the pain you have gone through. Sorry.
Ooooh Mom, no time for any foolishness. Straight to the heart of the matter, as per normal 😄😃
Correct Mama. Joy and unity are utterly unknown in the Catholic Church. Going about trying to establish their own righteousness, to try and work their way to Heaven, and never knowing for sure if they have led a good enough life to make it, can't possibly be joyous snd satisfying, even a little bit. It was quite unsatisfying when I was a catholic.
Another nugget of gold from the Bible. Thank you for pointing out the obvious. I notice rock is not capitalized
which makes sense in that it means spiritual revelation from God and it is all about belief.
For the Jew and the nation of Israel the belief was that Jesus was the messiah, the King, the son of God here in the flesh.
For all us flea ridden moral less dogs we believe what was revealed to Paul, that Jesus died for our sins, was buried and rose again.
The Bible truly is a wondrous gift from God
I just learned that the apostles never went out into the world to preach the gospel to the ends of the earth.
Acts 8:1
And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
What were they waiting for?
Why is Paul known as the apostle to the gentiles rather then Peter?
No, but you are...
“You are Cephas and upon this rock I will build my church.”
This is what Jesus actually said instead of your perversion...
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
There is no 'Cephas' in there anywhere...In fact, there isn't a single bible out there that has the word Cephas in that verse..., except one...
You constantly tell us what Peter and Cephas means in the Aramaic but low and behold...Here it is in the Aramaic translated into English...
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“Also I say to you, that you are Kaypha, and upon this stone I shall build my church, and the gates of Sheol will not withstand it.”
Oh no!!! Look at that...
And again in John:
“You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” — which is translated Peter.
So we know the Catholic version of John 1:42 is a corruption, again...Cephas is translated stone from the Aramaic...Thus: the correct translation is:
Joh_1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
Christians and The Gospel as soon as the persecutions began started the spreading of The Gospel to all nations. Persons who came to Jerusalem heard the Gospel and those who believed like the man Phillip was taken too believed and took the Gospel to distant lands. This didn't require an organized effort by some man picked hierarchy. Rather it was believers lead by The Holy Spirit.
To whom is The Holy Spirit given? Some believe only those ordained to minister and lead. But GOD had other plans because like the Temple Priest and government it could be corrupted and used as a spiritual weapon of enslavement. Instead of allowing that again The Holy Spirit is to all whom receive GOD's Word, believe and receive Jesus Christ as Savior, and Christ calls His own.
Did you not read in the Bible what Paul did when there arose a dispute in Antioch about keeping the Mosaic Law? Paul did not decide this on his own. The church at Antioch did not decide this on its own. Rather, "it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question." (Acts 15:2) I will point out here that they were sent not just to the apostles but to "the apostles and presbyters." The apostles had already associated other men to themselves in the governance of the church.
In this assembly of apostles and presbyters it is Peter who first declares that no further burden should be placed on the gentiles, to which James agrees. But notice carefully what was written in the letter back to the church at Antioch. (vv. 22-29) First, it is written in the name of the apostles and presbyters. Second, it states that the dissension in Antioch was caused by those who were teaching "without any mandate from us." Thus the need to teach in accord with the church and not each according to his own light. And finally, and most importantly, notice by what authority the apostles and presbyters give for their decision: "It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us…" It was by the authority of the Holy Spirit itself that the apostles and presbyters made this decision binding. And this authority was binding as an act of the church prior to its recording in the Scriptures.
Which is why when Jesus says that Peter is the rock on which he will build his church, so be it.
He is the only forgiver of sin.
And when [Jesus] had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” (John 20:22, 23)I accept Jesus at his words. Will not you?
“I have somewhat of an understanding of how Jesus felt, when he looked around at some people, grieving at their inbelief, and hardness of their hearts. Do you think this is just a 21st century version?”
In short, yes... But it is also the human condition before regeneration.
The elementary, childlike understanding protestants have for Christianity is noted.
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). (John 1:43)The Bible says that "Peter" is a translation of "Cephas." That is good enough for me.
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.…
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.
No doubt that Jesus and others knew Greek as well as Aramaic. But what language would they have used with one another? In my church there are many Mexicans. Being in the United States most know at least some English. But when they speak to one another, even those who are completely fluent in English, they use Spanish. When Jesus and his apostles speak with one another there can be no doubt that they would have used their native language, Aramaic.
But even if here, in a private conversation away from the crowds, they were for some reason have used Greek we know from John 1 that "Peter" is only a translation of "Kepha" (rock) and would not have thus had the meaning of only a small pebble. Additionally, this distinction between "petros" and "petra" is only valid for Attic Greek, not for the Koine Greek that they would have used. Attic Greek was replaced by Koine Greek in the 3rd century BC. In Koine Greek there is no distinction between these two forms of the word. If our Lord had wished to make this distinction instead of calling Peter "Petros" he would have called him "Lithos." So even in the Koine Greek the argument of Protestants does not work.
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 you pointed out, the Syriac versions of the Gospels are later translations from the Greek. I do not know which Syriac versions of the Gospel have the Kepha/Tnra distinction but in the Peshitta version, which is considered the standard Syriac version of the Bible, "Kepha" is used in both instances.
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.
Incorrect, grammatically "this" would refer to the closest mentioning of "rock" which is "you are Rock."
Watching someone preform a "ritual " is not worship..
"And Jesus said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
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.