Tell me more ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The verses reads like this:

13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. NIV

I am familiar with how Catholics interpret this passage and often quote it as the reason the Papacy exists and is ordained by Jesus himself.

However, the verse is perplexing to me because it does seem to imply some sort or emphasis on Peter being special to the Church, but Protestants reject the Papal authority, so how would they interpret this passage? I am looking for the answer that speaks from most Protestants, since I think most Protestants agree that the Papacy does not have the authority it claims. Perhaps if Martin Luther or another famous reformer had anything to say on it would be good.

share|improve this question
1  
Apostle Paul once rebuked Peter in front of the whole member. Peter was not treated as the Pope or something like that. – Mawia Mar 7 at 5:30
@Mawia What do you mean "treated as the Pope"? The Pope is the leader of the Roman Catholic Church on earth. Why would he be treated as the Pope when there would be no Papal position at the time? – Drew Mar 13 at 2:55

4 Answers

up vote 7 down vote accepted

It is worth pointing out that even if you take the stance that the verse is saying that Peter had some kind of special stance. There is nothing that indicates that that authority is continued in his line. Every other place I can think of where a lineage related authority is granted, it is pretty clearly laid out by God in scripture. (For example the establishment of the Levitical priests.) In this passage, there is no such establishment of authority through lineage.

share|improve this answer
I think your answer is better suited as a comment, but thank you for the insight. – fredsbend Mar 7 at 1:16
@Fredsbend - Perhaps I was too indirect. I believe that either the interpretation as having some special meaning for Peter or simply referencing the rock of the truth of what Peter said could be valid from a protestant stance. I was simply highlighting that unlike the Catholic church which uses it to establish a core doctrine, Protestants do not use it to establish core doctrine so it is far more flexible in how it is interpreted. – AJ Henderson Mar 7 at 4:02
3  
I agree with @AJHenderson. Most protestants would not argue against Peter having a special role (just read Acts). But there is no continuing liniage setup here - it's just one man and that one mans job – Greg Mar 7 at 4:53

One claim is that it's a translation issue. "Peter" means "rock", so when Jesus says, "you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church" there's a bit of a play of words going on. Pretty much everyone agrees on at least that much.

However, depending on which manuscript set you trust and your interpretation, it's a different word for rock for Peter's name than it is for the later use, and the passage can read more, "I tell you that you are Peter <small pebble>, and on this rock <great boulder> I will build my church." Those who take this interpretation will then go on to say that Jesus is referring to the confession of faith as the foundation of the Church, and the purpose of the passage is to intentionally minimize Peter's personal role. I can't find a reference, but if my recollection is correct, this was complicated further because the early Latin translation used by early Romans either supposedly used the same word in both places, or the difference was merely a gender distinction that would have been appropriate without the word play.

share|improve this answer

Protestants typically interpret this verse to be referring to Christ, the Chief Cornerstone, when he speaks of the rock upon which the church will be built.

The reason for this is that Peter as a proper name for Simon is masculine in form -- petros (Strong's G4074). When Jesus says "on this rock", the word for "rock" is feminine -- petra (Strong's G4073).

The distinction according to Strong's is as follows:

G4073 — Strong

πέτρα

petra

pet'-ra

Feminine of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): - rock.

G4074 — Strong

Πέτρος

Petros

pet'-ros

Apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than G3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle: - Peter, rock. Compare G2786.

So, there does seem to be a difference used in the words for rock:

You are **Peter**, **a piece of rock**, and upon this **mass of rock** I will build my church.

The verse is understood, then, to exalt Jesus, then, as the Chief Cornerstone, rather than Peter as the head of the church (pope).

share|improve this answer
But they likely had this conversation in Aramaic or Hebrew, although I concede that we don't know. Is this interpretation possible with those other languages? – fredsbend Mar 7 at 19:39
Matthew apparently understood that this distinction had been made in whatever language it had been spoken and thus identified that distinction in Greek. – Narnian Mar 7 at 19:40
Wait. I think I had a brain fart. Wasn't Matthew written in Hebrew for the Jew, according to most scholars? Maybe that's a new question. But actually, I have heard this before and I think it is a widely accepted interpretation. Just playing Devil's advocate. – fredsbend Mar 7 at 19:44
@fredsbend Thought you might mention that. There is some who have made that claim. However, there is no Hebrew copy of it anywhere--only Greek. If it were originally in Hebrew, then whatever the Hebrew words were may have been distinguished enough to prompt the distinction in the Greek translation. (This would be a good question regarding the original language of Matthew) – Narnian Mar 7 at 19:51

There is debate on the actual meaning of verse 18, particularly what "his rock" is. Is it Peter? Or is it the Truth that Peter told in verse 16?

Many Protestants believe that it is referring to the thing Peter said - that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God. Jesus will build His Church based on who He is.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

And upon this rock ... - This passage has given rise to many different interpretations. Some have supposed that the word "rock" refers to Peter's confession, and that Jesus meant to say, upon this rock, this truth that thou hast confessed, that I am the Messiah and upon confessions of this from all believers, I will build my church. Confessions like this shall be the test of piety, and in such confessions shall my church stand amid the flames of persecution, the fury of the gates of hell. Others have thought that Jesus referred to himself. Christ is called a rock, Isaiah 28:16; 1 Peter 2:8. And it has been thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said, "Upon this rock, this truth that I am the Messiah - upon myself as the Messiah, I will build my church." Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it. Another interpretation is, that the word "rock" refers to Peter himself.

And another perspective:

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

Upon this very rock, επι ταυτη τη πετρα - this true confession of thine - that I am The Messiah, that am come to reveal and communicate The Living God, that the dead, lost world may be saved - upon this very rock, myself, thus confessed (alluding probably to Psalm 118:22, The Stone which the builders rejected is become the Head-Stone of the Corner: and to Isaiah 28:16, Behold I lay a Stone in Zion for a Foundation) - will I build my Church, μου την εκκλησιαν, my assembly, or congregation, i.e. of persons who are made partakers of this precious faith. That Peter is not designed in our Lord's words must be evident to all who are not blinded by prejudice. Peter was only one of the builders in this sacred edifice, Ephesians 2:20 who himself tells us, (with the rest of the believers), was built on this living foundation stone: 1 Peter 2:4, 1 Peter 2:5, therefore Jesus Christ did not say, on thee, Peter, will I build my Church, but changes immediately the expression, and says, upon that very rock, επι ταυτη τη πετρα, to show that he neither addressed Peter, nor any other of the apostles. So, the supremacy of Peter, and the infallibility of the Church of Rome, must be sought in some other scripture, for they certainly are not to be found in this. On the meaning of the word Church, see at the conclusion of this chapter.

As a Baptist, this view that the Church has been built upon Christ, not Peter, is the common teaching that I'm familiar with. But that's not necessarily true in all Protestant denominations.

Unfortunately, the answer seems to be "it depends on who you ask".

share|improve this answer
It depends whom you ask. That's it. I think we should leave it there and that is the right track to choose. – jayyeshu Mar 8 at 15:40

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.