The Invincible Church, Part 4

When we come to verse 18, there is the temptation to bypass the controversy surrounding the first half of the verse and straightway proceed to the second half, since the main purpose of our discussion is Jesus' promise regarding the construction and perpetuation of the church, and an overemphasis on the debate on the first portion of verse 18 is likely to detract from it. Nevertheless, to not deal with the first part at all might permit doubt as to the proper application of the second part. Therefore, we will now direct our attention to the first part of verse 18, not to answer all questions regarding it, but only to establish a sufficient basis for the second part.

So, Jesus says, "I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." The general meaning is in fact clear enough, and the promise regarding the church is not obscured by the various interpretations given to the statement. The debate regarding the exact meaning of this verse would not have such significance attached to it if not for the abomination of Catholicism, which abuses the passage so as to attribute a supreme authority to Peter, and which invents the idea of an apostolic succession so that this authority might pass on, and which then claims for its pope the role of successor to the seat of Peter.

Protestants sometimes prefer to think that the "rock" refers to the confession that Peter has made, and that any believer should and would make, so that the foundation of the church is not Peter, but a true confession regarding Christ. In this view, the "rock" is a doctrine and not a person; or, even if it is a person, it is Christ and not Peter. This is an attractive interpretation, and it is true in the sense that it is supported by other portions of Scripture. However, our present concern has to do with the meaning of this passage in Matthew, and not just a general doctrine about the foundation of the church.

It is true that in this verse the Greek uses one word for "Peter" (petros) and another for "rock" (petra), and on this basis, some contend that Jesus distinguishes the two, so that in fact he does not say that he would build his church on Peter. This argument is convenient but inconclusive. This is because there are plausible reasons as to why the Greek words could differ even if Jesus is referring to the person in both instances. It is sometimes pointed out that, although Matthew writes in Greek, if Jesus is making the statement in Aramaic, then he would be using the same word for both "Peter" and "rock." But this is irrelevant since Matthew indeed writes in Greek, and we must derive our doctrine from the actual written revelation rather than our own speculation.

The common word for "stone" or "rock" is petra, and is in the feminine. As it must be changed to the masculine when applied as a name to the male person, Peter, this could explain why petros is used instead. Moreover, petros and petra do not always differ in meaning, but petra could also refer to a stone or rock, so we cannot conclude that two different words are used in the text because Jesus intends to distinguish between "Peter" and "this rock." And whether or not "Peter" and "rock" mean the same thing, it seems unnatural to distinguish the two when Jesus says, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build." In addition, the fact that Jesus uses the second person singular pronoun "you" throughout verses 17-19 reinforces the interpretation that he is addressing Peter in the entire passage, including his reference to "this rock."

That said, it remains that this passage does not provide any support to Catholicism. In the first place, it does not provide Peter with supreme or unique authority. Although Jesus employs the second person singular pronoun in verse 19 when he speaks of the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and to loose, when he repeats the authorization in 18:18, there he speaks to a number of disciples (18:1) and employs the plural pronoun. There the authority to bind and to loose is not even limited to the apostles, but is granted to "the church" (18:17). Also note John 20:23, where Jesus speaks to a group of disciples, and not just to Peter or any single apostle.

When Peter's behavior is challenged by believers in the Book of Acts, he does not appeal to apostolic infallibility, but provides a sound explanation (Acts 11:1-18). There he is in the right, and the matter is settled in peace. Does the pope defend his claims and his actions? And does his explanation prove him right? Then, when Peter plays the hypocrite among the Galatians and behaves in a manner contrary to the gospel, Paul rebukes him to his face and in public (Galatians 2:11-14). If the pope is only as good as Peter, then when he makes claims and performs actions that are contrary to the gospel, do we not have the right to rebuke him to his face and in public according to Paul's example? And if we consider the pope part of the church in the first place (although we do not), when he fails to repent, do we not have the right to excommunicate him in the name of Christ (Matthew 18:15-20)?

Even if "this rock" refers to Peter, the person cannot be considered apart from his confession. It is to the Peter who makes the confession of verse 16 that Jesus makes his statement. So when it comes to apostolic succession, what is there to succeed, and who is the successor? As we have shown, Peter never had a supreme and unique authority for the pope to receive and wield. And even if he had such an authority, does it properly belong to the pope?

To begin with, Scripture does not teach the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession. Even if it does, the entire New Testament stresses an inheritance that is transmitted and identified through common faith, and not through geography, ethnicity, heredity, or any natural or human connection. But the Catholic doctrine contradicts Peter in his teachings on the nature and makeup of the priesthood (1 Peter 2), the nature, extent, and effect of the atonement (1 Peter 2), the tasks and powers of elders (1 Peter 3), and the possibility and means to the attainment of assurance (2 Peter 1). Moreover, Peter's doctrine includes an endorsement of Paul's letters as well as the rest of Scripture (2 Peter 3:14-16), and this permits us to point out that Catholic theology contradicts Paul's doctrines on the atonement, justification, sanctification, glorification, the sacraments, marriage, and an almost endless list of other biblical doctrines.

No wonder many biblical commentators conclude that the pope is the anti-Christ, as he is also anti-Peter and anti-Paul. For this reason, although we deny the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession, even if there is such a thing, we deny that the pope is the proper and rightful successor to the seat of Peter, since he contradicts Peter's teachings, and contradicts the teachings of those whom Peter endorses. On the other hand, since my doctrine agrees with Peter and those whom he endorses, if anyone now fills Peter's seat and office, I do, and not the pope. Let all Catholics, then, bow their knees to me – or any believer who affirms Peter's faith – and not the pope. But unlike the pope, I would say with Peter, as would any Christian, "Stand up, I am only a man myself" (Acts 10:26). As it is, by their own standard, all Catholics are subject to us so-called Protestants, for we are the true heirs of Peter's confession and authority.

In any case, this verse is in the Bible not to fuel a debate on Catholicism, but it provides a positive contribution to our understanding of the faith. It is easy to see in what sense Christ builds his church on Peter. As the early chapters of Acts indicate, after the ascension of Christ, Peter assumes a leadership role in gaining a foothold for the Christian faith in the world and in breaking through to both the Jews and Gentiles with the gospel (Acts 2, 10, etc.). In this manner, what Jesus says to him in our passage – "on this rock I will build my church" and "I will give you the keys of the kingdom" – have been fulfilled.

We can safely regard Peter as the foundation of the church in this sense. But when speaking from a broader perspective, Paul writes that the church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone" (Ephesians 2:20). The statement hardly needs explanation, but it is devastating to Catholic doctrine. Jesus is the cornerstone, the point on which and from which the foundation is built. The apostles and prophets form the rest of the foundation because they have been sent to do his bidding, to establish the church through their words and deeds. As important as he is, Peter is considered only a part of the foundation along with the other apostles and prophets.

Again, even if the church is built on Peter in a sense, it is not built on just any Peter, but a Peter who makes the confession in verse 16, so that the confession is necessary for the promise that Jesus makes in verse 18. Of course Peter is also necessary, since he is one of the chosen instruments by which Jesus would build the church. And as Jesus builds the church, he perpetuates the fruit of Peter's labor. That is, he continues to establish and develop a worldwide community of believers who affirm the same thing as expressed by Peter's confession in verse 16 – but also by all other apostles and disciples in the rest of the New Testament – that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Therefore, even if we concede that "the rock" of verse 18 refers to Peter, the foundation of the church is still Christ, or the right confession about Christ (Ephesians 2:20; 1 Peter 2:7). And as Paul writes, "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:11). This is a sufficient basis for us to proceed.