The Rock

Wayne Jackson wrote this article which deals with what I believe is one of the most misinterpreted passages of the New Testament. This appeared in the January, 1977 edition of The Christian Courier which was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Jackson.

Several months prior to His death, Jesus asked His disciples, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man am?" They supplied Him with some popular opinions, then Peter confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus responded, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, buy My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church..." (Matthew 16:13-18).

From the early days of the church, there has been great controversy as to the meaning of the expression "this rock." The Catholic Church urges that this passage supports the notion of the "primacy of Peter." Since the name Peter (Greek: petros) means "rock" it is argued that the Lord intended to build the church upon "this rock" (petra), which was none other than Peter himself. The Roman Catholic edition of the New Testament footnotes this verse declaring, "The rock was Peter." And some loose, modern day paraphrases have certainly suggested the foregoing view by such renditions as: "...you are a rock Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." (Today's English Version; Cf. The Living Bible Paraphrased.) This opinion goes back at least to the time of Origin (225 A.D.), who suggested that the rock referred primarily though not exclusively to Peter.

Whatever else the word "rock" may mean, it is positively certain that this verse provides no support whatsoever for the concept of the "primacy of Peter" and the doctrine that he was the first Pope of Rome. In the first place, numerous Biblical verses stand directly opposed to the idea that Peter was a pope. For example: (1) Peter was married (I Corinthians 9:5) but a pope can't be. (2) Peter refused the worship of men (Acts 10:25-26) but popes do not. (3) Rather than controlling the church, that apostle was "sent" by the church (Acts 8:14). (4) Paul's letter to the church in Rome mentions neither Peter nor a pope; a circumstance remarkably strange if Peter occupied the papal throne in that city. (5) Peter was even rebuked by another apostle (Galatians 2:11). (6) It is clear that Christ is THE head of the church (Colossians 1:18), having ALL authority in Heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). Moreover, a careful analysis of Matthew 16:18 will reveal that the rock was not the apostle Peter. Note the following:

(1) While it is true that the name Peter (petros) means rock, the term is used in Koine Greek of a stone small enough to be thrown by hand or used as a boundary marker, whereas petra is used of a mass of rock (e.g., a cliff or boulder). The claim is sometimes made that Jesus spoke Aramaic which made no distinction between the two terms. First of all, who can prove that Jesus spoke this statement originally in Aramaic? R.H. Gundry says, "A common but probably erroneous opinion is that Jesus spoke almost exclusively in Aramaic. But archaeological and literary evidence points to trilingualism." (Survey of the New Testament, p. 21.). Secondly, R.C. Foster has shown that Jesus apparently Hellenized the Aramaic form Kepha to Kephas (John 1:42), "So that the same difference in the Greek words petros and petra is seen in the kephas and kepha" (Studies in the Life of Christ, p.715). At any rate, the inspired Matthew wrote in Greek and he made a clear distinction!

(2) Petros is a noun of masculine gender, while petra is a noun of feminine gender. While obviously making a play upon these words, the text nonetheless clearly indicates that the Lord was making a distinction between Peter and the rock. While some have ridiculed this argument, Dr. Boice Blackwelder states, "The different genders (petros, masculine and petra, feminine) emphasize a distinction in the references." (Light from the Greek New Testament, p.39). R.H.C. Lenski observes, "If by 'this rock' Jesus had Peter himself in mind, He could easily have said, 'epi sou', 'on thee' will I build my church; or 'on thee, Peter' adding his name." (Commentary on Matthew, p. 625). Additionally, the pronouns employed reveal a distinction between Peter and the rock. Jesus said, "You (second person) are Peter, and on this (third person) rock..." Plainly, Christ was NOT indicating that the rock was Peter.

(3) Within this context Jesus uses a graphic illustration containing the following elements: a builder, a building, a foundation, keys and a doorman. Christ is the builder and the building is the church. Peter is viewed as the doorman (not the foundation) with the keys, which symbolized the privilege which the apostle would have of preaching the gospel first to both Jews (Acts 2) and Gentiles (Acts 10). By what kind of exegetical manipulation can Peter be made to be both the doorman and the foundation at the same time?

The most reasonable view of the passage is that the rock was an allusion to Peter's confession that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. This is the very foundation upon which the early church was erected. And this is borne out in the subsequent record. Observe: (a) The apostle Paul started the church of the Lord in the city of Corinth (Acts 18:8; I Corinthians 4:15). (b) His message had consisted solely of preaching Christ crucified (I Corinthians 2:2). (c) Thus, through the preaching of Christ Paul had established the Corinthian congregation. (d) In referring to the organization of this church, the apostle declares, "I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it." And he emphatically adds, "for no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (I Corinthians 3:10-11). Thus, the gospel preached by the early apostles, which had as its basis the rock like truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, was the foundation on which the church of Christ was built.