Peter the Rock???
This is not an invitation for a discussion, nor for
an attack. This is simply a study of this issue.
If you do respond, I would suggest that you
read it all first, since you will probably end up
looking foolish, since your objection is probably
covered later in the text. And no, skimming it
is not the same as studying it! The question is,
what is your motivation? To learn? Or to place
your doctrine above all else, even truth? That
is for you to decide, but here it is...
Many today believe that Jesus called Peter the Rock
that He was going to build His church on. But is this
really the case? Let's examine the issue and see
what we can learn from the Bible.
"And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus
looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son
of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas (which is
translated, "A STONE")." - John 1:42
Just so you know, "Cephas" means, "a piece of rock"
and not "a mass of rock", as the word translated as
"rock" means in Matthew 16:18.
One of the two main arguments that people make,
is that Jesus called Peter the rock, giving him this
new name. The problem with this argument, is
that it does not tell us what the actual meaning is,
from the original Koine Greek. You see, there are
actually two different Greek words used there,
one of which is translated to "Peter" and the other,
which is translated to "rock". And in reality, the word
that is translated into Peter is "petros", which means,
"a piece of rock" (a stone, not a huge mass of rock)
and the word translated into "rock" is "petra" and
means, "a mass of rock".
Therefore, Jesus actually renamed Peter to a piece
of rock, that would be part of the massive rock that
He was building His church on. This alone should
be enough to convince us that Jesus was not
referring to Peter as the rock He was going to build
His church on. But of course, people are stubborn
when it comes to their doctrines and frankly, hardly
any of them care about what the Bible says and
take their own word, or some religion's word over
the Bible! This may sound mean, but this is the way
it is and if that were not true, then this type of debate
would not still be around after many centuries!
And so, those who want to believe that Peter is
the rock that Jesus was referring to, will always,
always, next say; "But in Hebrew, it is "Kephas",
which does mean a large rock!".
Now let's say that is true (I believe that is correct).
What difference does that make? None at all!
None whatsoever! And I will prove this to you,
if you're willing to believe the Bible over men.
But for now, we will tem****arily put this ****tion
of the debate to rest until later in this chapter.
Now since most of the people that believe that
Peter himself is the Rock are Roman Catholic,
since they base their whole supposedly Biblical
authority for having a Pope on this one thing,
since without it, their whole argument would
crumble, we really need to take a look at the
Roman Catholic view and apply some common
sense (reason).
Now while many will say (because they don't like
what they're seeing) that; "We go by God's word!
Common sense is man's logic and to base your
view on that is the Devil's work!", I will respond
by quoting the Bible to them, since to apply
common sense to a situation, is simply to reason
it out, but for Christians, it is to do it in a Biblical
fa****on. But to say that common sense itself is
the Devil's work, is to say that God, who gave us
this reasoning ability, intentionally created man
for the purpose of doing the Devil's work, since
God created man with this ability to reason!
Think about it. Without common sense, we
couldn't even function! Try driving a car without
any common sense and see if anyone wants to
ride with you as a passenger. I think you see
what I mean. So anyway, what does the Bible
have to say about common sense/reason (those
two terms are interchangeable here)?
"Come now, and let us reason together,
says the Lord. Though your sins are
like scarlet, they shall be as white as
snow; Though they are red like crimson,
they shall be as wool." - Isaiah 1:18
Now note that we are told by the Lord to come
and reason with Him. And not only that, but
He goes on to say that it is through reasoning
it out that our sins become white as snow!
You see, this is saying that the Gospel message
itself is common sense! You have sin! You
need a Savior!
And let us not stick our noses up in the air!
There are those who acknowledge that the Bible
was written for the common man to be able to
read and understand and in fact, for example,
the Greek that New Testament was written in,
was Koine Greek, which was the common man's
"street Greek". Something you would write
a grocery list with. And this is all fine, except
when those same people who acknowledge this
see something that proves something that they
believe to be in error, then, all of the sudden,
"That's just your interpretation and who says
you're qualified to interpret it anyway?!".
Of course, the problem with this argument, is that
it has a boomerang effect. Furthermore, at that
point, they are being hypocrites. And the truth is,
while there are indeed parts of the Bible that do
require spiritual discernment, is that were true
throughout it, then no one who just started reading
it could understand any of it! And the passages in
question here, simply do not take some great spiritual
wisdom to understand! They are quite plain and
simple, with the possible exception of Mat 16:19!
But as I said, the Roman Catholic view needs to be
addressed and so, let us take a moment or two to
look at their view and as I said, apply some common
sense and see if it holds water, before getting into
the more technical arguments. This is a very im****tant
thing that we must do, since if they are correct, then
we should all become Roman Catholics and believe in
the office of the Pope, or we will be headed for Hell,
since if Jesus did name Peter as the rock that He would
build His church on, then we would have to convert!
The Roman Catholics will claim that the torch is
passed on through the line of Popes. But what
are the common sense arguments against this
concept? Here are seven of them:
1) If Christ was saying that the Rock was Peter,
then where do we find Christ saying... "You
are Peter and upon YOU I will build My church!
Oh and by the way, Peter when you die, you
must pass the torch on to the next guy, okay?".
2) To say that Peter is the Rock, would be to have
Jesus referring to Peter as an object and not as
a person. In other words, Jesus says, "upon
THIS rock….", instead of, "upon YOU as the rock…".
But Peter is not a"this", which is how one refers
to an object, or a statement and not a person.
Therefore, Jesus must have been speaking of
either an object He was holding or pointing to,
which is not sup****ted by the text, or He was
referring to Peter's confession of Him (Jesus)
as the Christ.
Note that Jesus said, "YOU are Peter and upon
THIS rock I will build My church.". If He was
referring to Peter as the rock, then He would have
used proper language skills and said, "You are
Peter and upon YOU I will build My church.".
Unless we wish to claim that Jesus didn't know how
to speak and that we are smarter today than He was,
which is the same as saying that we are smarter than
Jesus? We would be saying that we need to make up
for Jesus' lack of speaking skills and His bad use of
language.
Now of course, this also means that what Christ
was referring to could not have just been Himself
either, since He also is not an object, but a Person
and therefore, it must be the confession of Him as
the Christ that He was referring to, which of course,
would indeed include Him as Lord, but as I said,
He, even while on Earth, was a Person and not
an object ("this")!
Some might argue; "But He was on Earth and so
He didn't know everything!".
a) Those people are truly desperate to hang onto
their doctrine and don't much care what they
say about Jesus!
b) The only thing that Jesus actually said that
He didn't know, was exactly what hour of which
exact day He would return.
c) This is till the same, "I'm smarter than Jesus was!"
argument. Think about it. These people would
still be saying that Jesus couldn't speak properly
and that Jesus, God walking Earth, got it wrong,
but they got it right today?! And if Jesus did not
speak properly when He made the statement,
then guess what people? That means that the
Bible has errors!
Is that the position you wish to be in, if indeed
you do believe that Jesus was calling Peter the
Rock? One of saying that the Bible that you
normally claim to be inerrant, actually has errors
and/or that Jesus couldn't speak properly and/or
that you are smarter than He was, because you
can't stand it that your doctrine is not holding
water? You'd better think about that carefully!
3) Where does Peter teach that he (Peter) is the Pope
and the head of the church?
4) Where is there any instruction whatsoever about
there being a Pope and what his office entails
and about passing the torch on to the next guy?
Where does it say that there would be a next guy?
I mean, are we really to believe that the central
office in the entire church is not even discussed
once in the entire NT?! Not even to pass on the
torch?! Please! This strains credulity and it surely
insults the intelligence to know this and still believe
that we should have Popes!
Oh, but wait, don't worry! Those same people
that invented the office of Pope will tell you that
they also get to set the rules and will claim that
these rules were passed down from the Apostles
and throughout the history of the church! And
where is this proved? Nowhere! And the reality
is, that Jesus didn't say;
"And the guys who come after you will also have
this authority, because they will take their turn
being the Rock that I am continuing to build
My church on."
After all, that's what would have to happen! Yet,
even if Jesus was talking about Peter, the reality is,
that it would mean that once Peter died, the church
would have to cease to exist, because the person
that Jesus supposedly built His church on is dead
and there isn't one word about passing on the torch!
And contrary to the process by Cardinals voting that
the Roman Catholic Church goes through, it would
had to have been Peter who passed it on! But again,
that isn't mentioned by Jesus, nor by any Apostle and
so, as I said, once Peter died, if he was "the rock",
that would have been the end of the church!
5) Why is it that all of the Apostles are not found
checking with Peter to see if what they have
his permission to do something?
6) They claim that Peter eventually ended up
in Rome and while that probably is true,
if he was the Pope and Rome is the place to
be, then why didn't he go there right away?
And why don't we see any writings about
Rome being the central church that all churches
must bow to? Do you read anywhere in Paul's
letters, for example, where Paul says this? No!
But we do see Paul blasting Peter!:
"Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood
him to his face, because he was to be blamed."
- Galatians 2:11
Is this how we see subordinates treating the Pope;
the leader of Christ's church? I think not!
7) There have been Popes that were later called,
"Anti-Popes" and their so called "infallible decrees"
were wiped away and so, holes were left in the
time line without these Popes, which could only
mean (if we hold them to their doctrine) that
the church didn't actually exist during those times!
Now what? Hello???
It is these seven points that alone should cause people
to reject the idea of a Pope and Peter being the Rock
that Christ said that He would build His church on!
But I know that most will not find it to be enough and
so, let's move on and address the other parts of this
issue and I hope that you will find this information
a blessing and edifying to you! But first, let us quote
the relevant Scripture:
Matthew 16:13-19
13) When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi,
He asked His disciples, saying, Who do men say that I,
the Son of Man, am?
14) So they said, Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah,
and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.
15) He said to them, But who do you say that I am?
16) Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ,
the Son of the living God.
17) Jesus answered and said to him, Blessed are you,
Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed
this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
18) And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this
rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades
shall not prevail against it.
19) And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of
Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be
bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth
will be loosed in Heaven.
Now before we begin, as a side note, I would like to
note that the proper word here is "Hades", not "Hell".
Hades is defined as "the place or state of the dead",
or sometimes can mean "the grave", or simply "death".
There were two parts of Hades. One was "Hades
Paradise" and the other was "Hades Tartarus".
This is seen in Luke 16:19-31, which most people think
is speaking of Heaven and Hell, but it isn't. You do
not see Heaven from Hell folks. Remember that the
resurrection had not happened yet and so, this is
about Hades, which was "the state of the dead".
This would not even be the definition of Hades,
if everyone was simply out and had no clue what
was going on.
So the point is, that the rich man was in Hades Tartarus,
which was a state of torment and the beggar Lazarus
was in Hades Paradise, which is also where Abraham
was (again, remember, the resurrection had not
happened yet).
As to Jesus' point, He was saying that just like death
would not be able to hold Him…
"(Jesus) whom God raised up, having loosed the pains
of death, because it was not possible that He should
be held by it." - Acts 2:24
…neither would death be able to hold those who died
in the faith!
We must understand what a great message of hope
this was, that Jesus was giving here! He was telling
them that even death would not be able to hold them,
through their faith in Him, which they displayed by
their confession of Him as the Christ! And when we
remember that in the '60's A.D., people went to their
death if they refused to reject Him as the Christ and
that before that, it was the Jews up until at least the
'50's A.D. that persecuted the church and had Christians
crucified (this is historical fact), then we can see what
a great message of hope it was that Jesus was giving
them here!
"Have no fear! Even if they kill you, death will
not be able to hold you!"
"And do not fear those who kill the body but
cannot kill the soul." - Matthew 10:28a
And this also should tell us that it was not Peter
that Christ was talking about as being the Rock
that He would build His church on, since they
died by confessing Christ in many cases and
why else would Jesus tie this in here, knowing
what He knew was coming for them, that He
did indeed tell them was coming upon them?
The truth is, that this ties in perfectly with the
idea that Christ was talking about Himself and
the confession of Him as the Christ, being
"the Rock" that He would build His church on!
And now, to get on with the subject at hand, I ask
that you please forget about anything you know
and read it without any bias whatsoever, regardless
of how it *seems* to read to you and I thank you
for doing that!
And remember as you read it in context, that Jesus
asked *all* of them who He was, not just Peter.
Now Peter is the one who responded, but to say
that Jesus was saying that He would build His church
on Peter, is to say that He would build His infallible
church on a fallible man and it is also to say that the
others would never have confessed Jesus as the Christ.
I mean, otherwise, it wouldn't make sense that He
would say that to Peter and not the others, unless that
is being implied! But we know that didn't turn out to
be the case, since they did believe! So really, that theory
would have Jesus saying...
"Well, Peter said it first, so he gets the golden ticket
and the rest of you guys are just out of luck! Now
Peter gets to be the boss of every single person in
the church, people! You should've spoken up guys!
Oh well, sucks to be you!"
And the disciples respond with...
"Awww, man!!! I never get nothin' 'cause I'm never
quick enough to call it first!"
Is this really what we wish to ****tray about
the discussion they had?
So no offense, but basically what this doctrine of
Peter being the Rock says, is that whoever calls it
first, gets the whole ball of wax and it just plain
sucks for everyone else! Do you really believe that
Jesus said His church would be built on something
that we used to do as little whiny brats ("Hey, I called
it first!")? And remember that they are not saying
that Peter was "A" rock, but that he was "THE" rock
that the whole church was built on!
Huh?!? The whole church built on one disciple???
I'm sorry, but that just makes no sense at all! (:
Look at it through the eyes of the original Greek
and you will see that it basically reads as follows,
when you remember (Very im****tant!) that Peter
just confessed Jesus as the Christ and it is in that
context that Jesus RESPONDS TO that very
CONFESSION! And I have replaced the words in
v18 with their actual definitions, to show you how it
actually reads in the original Koine Greek language):
Matthew 16:15-18
15) He said to THEM, But who do you say that I am?
16) Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ,
the Son of the living God.
17) Jesus answered and said to him, Blessed are you,
Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not
revealed this to you, but My Father who is in
Heaven.
18) And I also say to you that you are A PIECE OF ROCK
and on this MASS OF ROCK I will build My church,
and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
And so the question is not about Peter's name, since
it does not mean "a mass of rock" and I'm not even
going to entertain the idea that you're right anyway,
which would mean that Jesus didn't know how to say
what He wanted to say and just made a mistake, or
they wrote it down wrong, or in Hebrew it would mean
this and so on.
1) The Bible is without error.
2) The NT was written in Koine Greek,
not Hebrew and see #1 above.
3) I question YOU, *not* the Bible.
And so the question is not "WHO", but rather, "WHAT".
I.e, "WHAT mass of rock is Jesus referring to?"
It cannot be Peter, because according to Jesus,
he is a "a piece of rock" and not a "mass of rock".
And we must also remember that the church is
about Jesus, not Peter! It is all through the Bible
that we see this! Everywhere we look, especially
in the New Testament, we see that "Christ is the
Chief Cornerstone", for example and when the
Apostles taught about this in the New Testament,
they were actually referring to prophecies from
the Old Testament. What people don't seem to
get, is that the New Testament is not some brand
new doctrine. Rather, it is expounding of the
Old Testament to the church. And both Jesus
and the Apostles taught from what we now call
the Old Testament.
And ask yourself… What is a building built upon?
Don't say a cement platform, because that doesn't
determine what the building itself is and we are
talking about the building, not the cement under it.
One can pick up a house with equipment and move
that building and the cement platform would stay
right where it is!
So again, what is a building built upon? Simple!
It is built upon the chief cornerstone, which simply
means the starting corner. That is how a building
made of stones is started. And as I said, in the Bible,
we see that Christ is "the Chief Cornerstone", which
as I said, means the starting corner and also the
main and larger stone.
And even Jesus Himself said about Himself that
He is the Chief Cornerstone, but when He said it,
He asked those that He was telling a parable to;
"HAVE YOU NEVER READ....". So this is about
things that were prophesied about long before
and that is what Jesus was asking them if they
had read and this particular prophecy is found
in a Psalm.
"The stone which the builders rejected has
become the Chief Cornerstone." - Psalm 118:22
AND NOTE THE WORDING OF THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY!!!
"Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious;
but to those who are disobedient; The stone
which the builders rejected has become the
Chief Cornerstone... A ROCK OF OFFENSE..."
- 1 Peter 2:7-8
And yes, the Greek word there is also "a mass of rock"
and is the same word that Jesus used to describe what
He would build His church on, which as we can now see,
is He Himself and our confession of Him as the Christ!
And to carry on further what Peter was saying there,
we need only to back up a little bit in that chapter
and read the following:
"You also, as living STONES, are being built up
a spiritual HOUSE..." - 1 Peter 2:5
So here we have PETER HIMSELF saying that what
the church is built on, is Christ as the Chief Cornerstone
and that people are added to the building as living stones
and yes, the Greek word behind that word "stones"
is the very SAME word that Jesus renamed Peter to!
Peter was also one of the "lively stones"!
A stone; a piece of rock and not the huge boulder/mass
of rock that the church is built on! And yes, the Chief
Cornerstone in a building is bigger than the rest of
the stones of the building. This is seen in older stone
buildings and it's the one with the date stamped or
chiseled into it.
So Peter himself DENIES the idea that he himself
is what the church is built on! He said right there,
that it is Christ that the church is built on, not him!
He talks about "the builders". Well, what do builders do?
They build! And what are they building, when they have
a chief cornerstone and other stones? Why, a building,
obviously!
And what is Peter using this "chief cornerstone"
metaphor that is found in the Psalm and the
"lively stones" metaphor for? What type of
"building" is he talking about that is being built?
THE CHURCH, OF COURSE!!!
Therefore, YES, indeed, Peter ABSOLUTELY DOES state
that the "Chief Cornerstone", the "rock of offense" (mass
of rock) is Christ and our confession of Him as such and
is what the "lively stones" (us) are being built up upon,
which also without question means that to be a part of
this building, we have confessed Jesus as the Christ!
And so, is it just coincidence that when Jesus said
what He said to Peter, that Peter had just finished
confessing Him as the Christ? I think not!
And so here we have another proof that Peter is not
the Rock that Christ was going to build His church on!
So everyone can just forget about their interpretations
of what Matthew 16:18 says! People are spending all
of this time arguing over this passage and they forget
that when they get to 1 Peter 2, we have Peter himself
teaching the opposite of what they are claiming about
Peter being the Rock that Jesus built his church on!
Was Peter just still mixed up then? Gee, what a crummy
first Pope then, huh?!
I mean think about it. If Jesus built his church on Peter,
then that means that once Peter is dead, there's no more
church! How can we go to Peter, if he's not here and
we can't pray to dead humans!
And besides this, it is sacrilege to claim it is Peter that
the church is built on, because in essence, it replaces
Christ with Peter, as the Roman Catholics do, claiming
that the Pope is "Christ on Earth"!
Does the Bible teach this about the building of the
church and the NT is actually in contradiction to what
Jesus taught, since according to them, Jesus said that
it was built upon Peter and not Him (Jesus)?!
No, it doesn't teach that and it is not in contradiction to
what Jesus said and so, it is upon Christ Himself and our
confession of Christ, that the church is built on!
So the only thing left, that Jesus could possibly be saying
to Peter is, "Blessed are you.... and upon this confession
of who I am that you just made, I will build My church!".
Now the Roman Catholics make a big deal out of the next
passage in Matthew 16, which says:
"And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,
and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven,
and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven."
- Matthew 16:19
…and they assume that this proves that it is talking about
Peter being the Rock that Jesus would build His church
on and the first Pope. However to claim that, is to ignore
everything else that was just said!
Furthermore, these same words are said to ALL of the
twelve disciples and not just Peter in Matthew 18 and
therefore, it applies to all who also confess Jesus as
the Christ!
Matthew 18:18-19
18) Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on
earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever
you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven.
19) Again I say to you that if two of you agree on
earth concerning anything that they ask, it will
be done for them by My Father in Heaven.
So no, no special power just for Peter here! People
simply get these ideas in their heads about what those
two passages mean and then they figure it has to be
some special, magical power for just Peter. But like
I said, Christ said to all of the twelve. Peter simply
was told this first, because he confessed Jesus as the
Christ first and later, it was extended to the rest also.
So is it limited to just the twelve then? How can it be?
What about Paul? He wasn't an Apostle yet!
Furthermore, Judas later betrayed Jesus! So obviously
it no longer applied to him!
So you see folks, when we use our reasoning abilities,
which is simply our God given common sense, we can
quite easily see that this is not some special thing
reserved for only Peter, nor for only the twelve!
The problem here is that people think that because of
their interpretation of what the "binding and loosing"
meant, that it means that Peter could have sent an
order up to Heaven and made laws up there. Huh?
Do you really believe that God is going to let Peter,
or even the twelve, make law in Heaven, trumping
the authority of God Himself?! C'mon folks! It obviously
cannot mean that!
But it doesn't matter what it means. In the context of
this issue, the only thing im****tant here, is that it was
not exclusive to Peter. One cannot claim exclusivity to
Peter based on this and nothing you say about this verse
will nullify all of the facts already presented here.
I hope this has been both edifying and a blessing to you!
In Jesus' name; Amen!
--
When you get tangled up in your problems, be still.
God wants us to be still, so he can untangle the knot.
|
