Is Peter ‘the rock?’
Posted on April 19, 2007
Filed Under The Church
by Matt Clifton
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. And I will give unto thee the keys of the
kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. — Matthew 16:18-19 (KJV)
The section of scriptures in Matthew 16:18-19 is probably among the most hotly debated passages in the New Testament. Due to an apparent reference to Peter as “the rock” upon which Christ would build His church, some in the religious world believe this passage is evidence for the superiority of Peter over the other apostles, and that this passage shows support for Peter as the first “pope.” Other views aver that it is Peter’s confession of Christ as the Messiah that is “the rock” Christ speaks of as the foundation for His church. Still others say that “the rock” of Matthew 16:18 is Christ Himself. One scholar even seems to indicate that possibly both Peter and his confession are “the rock” (Guthrie, p. 31). Which view is correct?
The task of this study will be to focus in on these passages and to ascertain their meaning through the use of sound principles of hermeneutics. This writer holds no bias as to whether Peter is “the rock,” or whether his confession is “the rock.” Although some seek to use this passage as evidence for the primacy of Peter, there are many passages in scripture which refute this Roman Catholic doctrine. These passages will be cited in the coming paragraphs as well. Therefore, even if Peter were “the rock,” that fact would still not lend support to the Catholic claim of Peter being the first pope.
In the following study, the discussion will center around the various figures of speech employed in the passages, the symbolism utilized, the prophetic quality of the passages, and how well each view conforms to Bible teaching as a whole.
In Matthew 16:16, the apostle Peter has just responded to the Lord’s question, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered this question by saying, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” This answer leads us directly to the most controversial portion of the passage: “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18a).
Who, or what, is this “rock” to which Christ refers? Is it Peter? Or is it Peter’s confession of Christ as the Messiah, or even Christ Himself? To begin examining this portion, we must first understand the manner in which the word “rock” is used. Since there is no literal “rock” in view in this passage, it must be understood that “rock” is used metaphorically to stand for something else.
To add an historical setting to this passage, Edersheim reminds us of the environment in which the action of this section of scripture took place. Since Jesus and the disciples were in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi, Edersheim suggests that the impressive castle-mount may have provided the material for the imagery of the “rock” in which He would build His church:
The castle itself (about two miles from Banias) is one of the best preserved ruins, its immense beveled structure resembling the ancient forts of Jerusalem, and showing its age. It followed the irregularities of the mountain, and was about 1,000 feet long by 200 wide. The eastern and higher part formed, as in Machaerus, a citadel within the castle. In some parts the rock rises higher than the walls. The views, sheer down the precipitous sides of the mountain, into the valleys and far away, are magnificent”¦It may have been that this rock-wall below the castle, from under which sprang the Jordan, or the rock on which the castle stood, supplied the material suggestion for Christ’s words: “˜Thou are Peter, and on this rock will I build My Church’ (p. 524-525).
Speaking of this historical and environmental setting, Dungan points out that the interpretation of this passage would not have been much in doubt if exegetes would have taken into account where Jesus and the disciples were at the time of this passage:
If we could see the disciples with their Lord in the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, and, therefore, looking into that city, we could easily see the illustration of the Master. There was a city built upon the rock, and Jesus intended to build His church on a foundation just as solid as that (p. 170).
It was this environmental setting, and the understanding that Christ was presenting a consistent image throughout Matthew 16:18-19, that McGarvey relied on in his view. Taking the position that Christ was presenting a prolonged metaphor, McGarvey believed neither Peter nor Christ could be the rock. The leading image, McGarvey contends, is one of two opposing cities, one representing the kingdom of heaven, the other Hades.
Now, it is impossible, without throwing this imagery into confusion, to make either Jesus or Peter the rock; for Jesus assigns to himself the position of the builder, or chief architect, and he assigns to Peter that of gate-keeper, or holder of the keys. We can realize this more vividly is we will suppose the entire imagery to be thrown upon canvas. On one side of your picture you see the dark city of hades, out of whose gates are pouring the assault led by Satan himself. On the other, you see a beautiful city in process of construction, with Jesus standing on a finished portion of the wall and superintending the labor of all the workmen, while Peter stands at one of the gates with the keys in his hand, ready to open at the Master’s biding. You also see that this city is built on a ledge of rock, the precipitous face of which is seen beneath the walls. In gazing on this picture, and seeking to ascertain the symbolic meaning of its parts, you would never conceive that the rock beneath the city symbolizes Jesus or Peter; for you see them both clearly represented in the picture and occupying positions altogether different. Then rock, then, must represent some other object of thought in the context, and this can be no other than the truth which Peter just confessed concerning Christ (p.144-145).
Other scholars employ arguments from the Greek, bringing forth the point that Peter (masculine petros) and rock (feminine petra) are different forms, showing a differentiation between the terms (Jackson, par. 19). An additional contrast is seen in the personal pronouns used, with the second person pronoun “you” (su) being used in relation to Peter, and the third person pronoun “this” (taute) being used in reference to the “rock” (Jackson, par. 21). This further brings up the suggestion that if Christ wanted to show that Peter himself was the rock, he could easily have said, “Thou art Peter, and upon you I will build my church” (Mounce, p. 162; emp. mc).
There are others, of course, who make the claim that this distinction in the Greek is nullified in light of the probability that Jesus spoke Aramaic, in which there would be no distinction between masculine and feminine form. According to Bruce, “In the Aramaic which Jesus probably spoke, there was not even such a minor grammatical distinction between the two forms: “˜You are kepha,’ he said, “˜and on this kepha I will build my church’” (p. 143). Though Bruce rejects the argument from Greek grammar, he still contends that the sense of the passage is more in keeping with “the rock” being Peter as a man who confesses Christ, and not of any special status of Peter among the apostles.
Carson echoes this same argument from the Aramaic (p. 367), but seems to throw himself into contradiction on the point of “mixed metaphors.” As McGarvey states, it is hard to understand the passage unless we keep each element confined to its role in the imagery. Carson, however, uses this same argument to deny that Jesus could be “the rock” (p. 368), yet he maintains that if it weren’t for the backlash against Roman Catholic dogma, “it is doubtful whether many would have taken “˜rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter” (p. 368). Basically, Carson seems to rely on this desire not to mix metaphors when it comes to denying that Christ is the rock, but fails to take up the same argument when it comes to Peter. Carson bases this view on the idea that Matthew 16:19 signals a change in the metaphor (p. 370), thereby effectively breaking any metaphorical relationships established in verse 18, which would allow Peter to take on a different metaphorical role.
However, there are no contextual or textual clues whatsoever that signal such a change in images surrounding this passage. The same “church” that Christ was talking about in verse 18 is the same “kingdom” He is referring to in verse 19. Christ often used “signal statements” to signify when He was changing to another teaching image, and the writers often give us additional clues if they are not clear from the direct quotes of Christ’s words. For instance, in Matthew chapter 13, we see Matthew giving us textual clues to break the parables up into clear portions (see verses 24, 31, and 33). And Christ put in His own signals of change in parables, such as in Matt. 13:45,47. It is proper to expect a consistent approach by the Savior to making His words clear, and to suggest that Jesus transitioned to another metaphor without any clues for the reader is incomprehensible, in this writer’s view.
The “extended metaphor” argument bears a lot of weight in the view of this writer, even to the point of negating the argument from the Aramaic and the “split metaphor” view of Carson. Additionally, whatever the case, the intent of the passage seems clearly to be that the foundation upon which Christ would build His church would be the confession of Christ as the Son of God. So whether it is the confession, or the confessor, the concept is the same.
It should further be noted that even if Peter were “the rock” Christ refers to, it in no way gives Peter any special authority over and above other apostles, and certainly doesn’t imply any papal authority to be vested in Peter. This can be known for certain due to the several cases of Peter being viewed as being on the same level as the other apostles in scripture. For instance, if Peter had supreme authority over the early church, why did Paul “oppose him to his face” as recorded in Gal. 2:11? Paul says Peter was “clearly in the wrong” in this case, and that would not be a term that could be applied to an infallible “vicar of Christ,” as the pope is fashioned to be. In fact, Peter refers to himself as a “fellow elder,” meaning that there are elders on the same level as Peter (1 Peter 5:1). Additionally, Peter rebuked Cornelius for falling at Peter’s feet, saying, “Stand up, for I too am just a man” (Acts 10:26, NASB). This bears no resemblance whatsoever to the pope of Catholicism, who readily allows men to bow to him and kiss his ring.
Also, it should be noted here that this passage contains a prophecy and a promise: “I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18a). This promise and prophecy we know was fulfilled on the first Pentecost after Christ’s resurrection, as recorded in Acts chapter 2. Dungan says that such prophecies by Jesus are extremely important: “They are of supreme importance to us; as they are fulfilled before us, we have a continued line of evidence of the clearest and strongest character” (p.394). With every prophecy of Christ that we see a fulfillment of, the evidence for the truth of Him as the Son of God is strengthened.
It may also be observed here that “the church” and “the kingdom” are presented as synonyms in this passage (Turner, p. 275). This passage is one of the clearest arguments against those who attempt to argue that the kingdom has not yet come, and that the church is simply a “plan B” when the Jews would not accept Christ as their king.
Now that “the rock” has been identified as the confession that Christ is the Son of God, we can move on to other figures used in these scriptures. In the second half of Matthew chapter 16, verse 18, we read, “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” This portion of the passage utilizes the figure of speech termed synecdoche, which puts the part of the whole, or the whole for the part. The “gates of hell” in this passage represents all the powers of evil. Carson sees the “gates of hell” as referring to death and dying (p. 370), which can be said to be the ultimate goal of the powers of darkness.
In Matthew 16:19a, we encounter another figure of speech. This portion of the passage reads, “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Are there actual “keys” that open up heaven? No, it is certain that “keys” is used here are another metaphor. But what does this metaphor mean?
Knowing that “the church” and “the kingdom of heaven” are used interchangeably by Christ in this passage, and understanding that the church was instituted in the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), we can make the connection that Christ said He would give Peter the “keys” to the church. But what type of power or authority would this include for Peter?
From scriptural evidence, we see that Peter delivered the first gospel sermon of the New Covenant era (Acts 2). We further see Peter being the first to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10). Because of this scriptural evidence, it can be gathered that the “keys to the kingdom” referred to Christ allowing Peter to be the first to “open the door” of the kingdom to the Jews and then to the Gentiles. On this point, support is found in both Bruce (p. 144) and McGarvey (p. 146). Therefore, “keys” is a metaphor for Peter’s privilege of preaching the gospel first. McGarvey additionally notes that the keys for both the Jews and the Gentiles were the same keys, and once the respective doors were opened, they were never closed (p. 146).
But to fully complete this analysis, we must look at the final section of scripture, Matthew 16:19b: “and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Exactly what does this “binding and loosing” meaning?
According to McGarvey, simply put the meaning of this passage is that what Peter binds or looses, will be what heaven allows to be bound or loosed. In other words, what Peter would do would be in fulfillment of the will of God:
To bind represents pronouncing against a man as unworthy of a place in the kingdom, and to loose it to pronounce him freed from condemnation. Peter would do both by laying down the conditions on which men would be admitted into the kingdom. Jesus could safely say that his acts in this particular would be ratified in heaven, because he foreknew that Peter would be guided in all by the Holy Spirit (p.146-147).
By pronouncing to men the conditions by which man must be saved, Peter was in effect binding and loosing in accordance with the will of God. This does not, of course, entail that Peter or the other apostles had the power to enact any requirements themselves. Carson finds examples of Peter’s “binding and loosing” throughout the book of Acts:
Fulfillments of this in Acts are not found in passages like Acts 15:10 but in those like 2:14-39; 3:11-26, so that by this means the Lord added to the church those who were being saved (2:45), or, otherwise put, Jesus was building his church (Matt. 16:18). But the same gospel proclamation alienates and excludes men; so we also find Peter shutting up the kingdom from men (Acts 4:11-12; 8:20-23). The periphrastic future perfects are then perfectly natural: Peter accomplishes this binding and loosing by proclaiming a gospel that has already been given and by making personal application on that basis (Simon Magus). Whatever he binds or looses will have been bound or loosed, so long as he adheres to that divinely disclosed gospel (p. 373).
In conclusion, this writer feels the evidence for Peter being “the rock” is not substantial, even though such an interpretation still does not lend weight to the Roman Catholic view of Peter as the first pope. Interpreting Christ to be “the rock” in this passage would not be proper either, since it would give Jesus two metaphorical positions in the same image. Further, there seems to be little reason to think the illustration begun in Matt. 16:18 ends there; instead the image seems more likely to be carried over into verse 19. If this is the case, there is certainly no reason to suppose that Peter can assume two places in the illustration, either. Therefore, the conclusion can be reached that “the rock” to which Christ refers is indeed the confession of Christ as the Son of God.
It can be further concluded that “the church” and “the kingdom” refer to the same institution, and that the “gates of hell” refers to the powers of evil in totality. The metaphorical keys that Christ promised to give to Peter was the privilege of being the first to formally preach the kingdom of heaven to the Jews and to the Gentiles, and thereby opening wide the doors of the kingdom. And finally, the “binding and loosing” refers to Peter being vested with the authority to preach the kingdom and the assurance that what he spoke would be approved by heaven, as he was inspired by the Holy Spirit. This did not mean that Peter could make up new rules, but only that what Peter would teach would be what was already bound or loosed in heaven.
The historical setting of this illustration by Christ serves to clue us in on the meaning. When we envision that solid fortress on the rocky cliffs that was at Caesarea Philippi, we should also be impressed with the thought that Christ has indeed built His church, and it cannot be destroyed by the powers of evil. The Lord’s church stands on the firm foundation of the truth of Christ being the Son of God, and it will continue to stand, being invulnerable to the attacks of the evil one.
WORKS CITED
- Bruce, F.F. (1983) Hard Saying of Jesus. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
- Carson, D.A. (1984). The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke. Frank Gaebelein, Ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
- Dungan, D.R. (-) Hermeneutics. Delight, AR: Gospel Light Publishing Company.
- Edersheim, Alfred. (1883) The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Hendrickson.
- Guthrie, Donald (1970). New Testament Introduction. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press.
- Jackson, Wayne. (2002). Was Peter the “˜Rock?’ Christian Courier. Retrieved Dec. 1, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/peterRock.htm.
- McGarvey, J.W. (1875). New Testament Commentary on Matthew and Mark. Des Moines, Iowa: Eugene Smith.
- Mounce, Robert. (1991). New International Bible Commentary ““ Matthew. Peabody, ME: Hendrickson.
- Turner, R.A. Sr. (1989). Systematic Theology. Montgomery, AL: Alabama Christian School of Religion.
RELATED POSTS:
Underground, but heaven bound
The ‘un-denominational’ church
Consider yourself served!
1 Peter
2 Peter
Comments
Leave a Reply
Polls
Loading ...-
