Authority Claims of Rome - Matthew 16:18, part 39

I’m not sure I ever intended to write about this verse, mainly because I never saw it as necessarily related to Sola Scriptura. But as I finished up on a couple of other topics, I decided to see what else was left to discuss, and this was the next topic in the book series I’ve been following. For William Webster’s book, Holy Scripture, the Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume II, this topic was one aspect of a much larger issue introduced. I found the same point being made in James White’s book, The Roman Catholic Controversy with greater detail, which got me looking at two additional books on my shelf.

That next topic, which is now number 39 in the Sola Scriptura series, was dealing with the authority claims of the Catholic Church, which seems to have its root in Matthew 16:18. Church authority can be a difficult topic to discuss and even more difficult to challenge because there has to be authority structures in nearly everything humans do, even churches, otherwise you have chaos and unfortunately, far too many of our current societies seem to love and encourage chaos. I would venture to say though, that most people do not.

For the Protestant, we see the source of authority comes from Scripture and entrusted to the Church, which has been the point throughout the series. But for the Catholic Church, their source of authority comes from the Magisterium of the Church, which leads directly to the pope. As we have seen through my Sola Scriptura series, the Magisterium was entrusted with interpreting the Word of God (i.e., Scripture), even if they very rarely do that. That trust has been placed in the pope and his bishops.

This has become a ‘sacred cow’ and a hill that Catholics are willing to die upon when one understands the anathemas attached to rejecting this authority structure. This leads us to Matthew 16:18 which is the apparent source of the pontiff's authority. I’m not trying to be mellow dramatic, but this is another topic for which Catholics will pontificate endlessly, yet with seemingly little understanding of what the passage they quote is really saying. They simply parrot their church’s teaching and act as if that answers the question. Unfortunately, they are in good company with far too many Protestants, who seem to have as little understanding of the passage as Catholics. So, my goal here will be to attempt to make a clear case for what I believe and demonstrate from Scripture and early church history why the majority Protestant view is correct and the Catholic Church’s view is not.

Rome’s Position

The Roman Catholic Church’s position is a well known view to most. The ‘rock’ mentioned in verse 18 is Peter and Jesus in this passage is said to be giving Peter primacy among the apostles and it is this primacy that creates the apostolic leadership succession at Rome. Their claim is that this succession is the institution of the office of the ‘pope,’ or the bishop of Rome, for the Church throughout the history of the church. They also claim that in John 21:15-17 Jesus’ exhortation to ‘feed my sheep’ sets Peter apart from the other apostles as the supreme pastor of all Christians. This view is said to be the ‘ancient and constant faith of the Church,’ (i.e., unanimous content) which simply means that the church has always believed this to be true.

As William Webster summarized, these were the rights of the papal rule and infallibility established by Vatican I in 1870,

Christ gave Peter the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church as well as the entire world.
Inherent in the primacy of jurisdiction is also an infallible teaching authority over the entire Church.
This right of jurisdiction is passed down to Peter's successors, the bishops of Rome, for all time.
When speaking ex cathedra, that is, when speaking in his official capacity as pope, and defining a doctrine on a matter of faith or morals, the Roman pontiff teaches infallibly.
The Roman pontiff has absolute authority in himself; possesses authority over all councils; his judgment cannot be questioned; he, himself, can be judged by no human tribunal.
The Roman Church has ever remained free from all blemish of error and the doctrines of the Catholic faith have always been kept undefiled by her.
If any questions of faith arise within the Church universal they must be defined by the judgment of the Roman pontiff.
It has at all times in the history of the Church been necessary that every Church throughout the world should agree with the Roman Church.
These teachings have always been held by the entire Church through all ages and can be validated by the Scriptures, the canons of general councils and the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
It is necessary for salvation that everyone who professes to be a Christian must be submitted to the authority of the Roman pontiff in all areas of faith, morals and discipline, and if anyone disagrees with these teachings of Vatican I they are anathematized. [1]

If you have never read these beliefs before that all Christians, regardless of whether they are Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant, I would encourage you to read them again. That way, when I lay out the evidence against these views, you will understand why Protestants, in particular, disagree with Catholicism and its claims of absolute authority.

Burden of Proof

If the above claims are true, then the Roman Catholic Church should be able to demonstrate how their beliefs are based in fact and backed up by Scripture. I make that point because the 38 blogs that preceded this one demonstrated that Scripture is the only infallible source the Church currently has. So, in the words of James White, Rome must be able to demonstrate that:

Jesus is without question speaking to Peter in Matthew 16, and in so doing is identifying him as the rock upon which the Church is built.
The words the Lord Jesus speaks establish Peter as the “prince of the Apostles,” the very first pope, the head of the Christian Church.
These words of Jesus necessarily indicate the creation of an office of Pope, replete with successors and associated powers.
And finally, that the Christian Church has always held this to be her constant and unchanging faith.

We must note that defenders of the Roman Catholic Papacy cannot merely demonstrate that the Roman position is probably true, or that it is likely to be true, but that it is true beyond question. Rome claims absolute authority in spiritual matters over all believers in Jesus Christ. She claims infallible teaching authority. [2] [emphasis added]

And why did White say this? One reason is because of Pope Boniface’s papal bull, Unam Sanctam, in September 1302 stated,

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

(CATHOLIC LIBRARY: Unam Sanctam (1302) )

So, according to the Catholic Church, if you do not believe everything that the Catholic Church professes to be true, you are not a believer. And furthermore, you must submit to the Roman Pope to be considered a Christian. So, all Eastern Orthodox and Protestants are considered unbelievers by the Catholic Church.

Even though it is the responsibility of Catholicism to defend their claims, the remainder of this blog will focus on how their claim cannot possibly be true.

Matthew 16:13-20

Likely the most important verse to justify Rome’s claims about their authority is tied to Matthew 16:18. But to understand this verse properly, one has to keep the verse in its natural context, which is verses 13 through 20. I happen to use the NASB95 version, but this will say the same in your version as well. So, let’s read the passage together:

(13) Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” (14) And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” (15) He *said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” (16) Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (17) And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. (18) I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. (19) I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” (20) Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ. (Mat 16:13-20)

So, if we look at the entire passage instead of just verse 18, what we see is that it is not about Peter, but about Jesus. And we can state this boldly because the entire Bible, from Genesis through the Revelation, is about Jesus. There are a lot of characters interspersed throughout the Bible, but everything about them ultimately is focused on the salvation that can only be found is Christ. Not the pope and what he says, but what Jesus and His apostles say.

Starting in verse 13, Jesus asks His disciples who people say that the Son of man is. His disciples answer that question in verse 14, and Jesus refocuses His disciples by asking them who they say that He is in verse 15. Verse 16 is where Peter speaks up and answers with, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And in verse 17, Jesus responds to Simon, or right before He changes his name to Peter, with, “flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” And in verse 18, Jesus changes Peter’s name from Simon to Peter and says, “upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” And the question becomes, what does ‘upon this rock’ refer to: Peter’s confession about who Jesus is, or Peter?

Since this entire passage is about Jesus and who Jesus is, the focus cannot be randomly changed to Peter, simply because Jesus changes Simon’s name to Peter. Who was Jesus talking to in this passage? Not just Peter, but all of His disciples. Just because Peter spoke up and answered Jesus does not mean the focus of the conversation changes from Jesus to Peter.

The Rock in Scripture

Then there is the fact that Matthew’s Gospel was written to a Jewish audience and the reader would have understood the Old Testament imagery of the ‘rock.’ Jesus said, “Upon this rock” and who is the rock in the Old Testament? Let’s examine a few examples.

For I proclaim the name of the LORD; Ascribe greatness to our God! The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; A God of faithfulness and without injustice, Righteous and upright is He. (Deut 32:4)
He said, “The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold and my refuge; My savior, You save me from violence. (2 Sam 22:2-3)
The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer, My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge; My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold. (Ps 18:2)
Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none. (Isa 44:8)

These verses make it abundantly clear that the ‘rock’ in Scripture is God. Not Peter; God. There are quite a few examples; so these are just a few more to reinforce the point: Deut 32:31; 1 Sam 2:2; 2 Sam 23:3; Ps 18:31; Ps 62:6-7; Ps 78:35; Ps 71:3; Ps 144:1; 1 Pet 2:6-8.

Then there is this from Peter himself in Acts 4, responding to the Jews after his arrest,

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone. And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:8,11-12)

Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, quotes Psalms 118:22 in testifying that Jesus is that stone, or the rock, that was rejected by the Jews and it is the stone that has become the cornerstone of everything the Jews thought they knew. And this would have been a considerable time after Jesus supposedly called Peter the ‘rock’ in Matthew 16:18. So again, like the verses above, this is another example that indicates that the ‘rock’ in Matthew 16:18 is Jesus, or Peter’s confession about who Jesus is. If Peter was the rock, one would have expected him to have referred to himself. The fact that Peter refers to Jesus here in Acts 4, means that he understood Matthew 16 much better than the Catholics do today.

Petra vs Petros

While the Catholic Church states that they have infallibly interpreted these verses, most Protestant scholars see a conflict between the gender of the words ‘Peter’ and ‘rock’ in verse 18 and the interpretation that Roman Catholicism gives this verse, especially within the larger context of the passage. The Greek word for Peter in this passage is, ‘Petros,’ which is masculine, while ‘rock’ is ‘petra’ and is feminine. Worse is the phrase, ‘this rock,’ which is in the third person, making this an awkward way for Jesus to reply to Peter, when He said,

“I also say to you that you are Peter (‘Petros’, masculine), and upon this rock (‘petra’, feminine) I will build My church (Mat 16:18)

Since Jesus was speaking to all of His disciples and the first part of this sentence is speaking directly to Peter, would Jesus not have said something more personal in the second part of the verse, like, “upon you, Peter, I will build my church”? This would make a lot more sense, given the current Catholic interpretation. But that is not how the verse reads and makes the Catholic interpretation very awkward for an infallible Gospel of Matthew, don’t you think? Instead, the Protestant interpretation makes much more sense if ‘this rock’ is referring to the confession that Peter just made before Jesus.

It seems more than a bit curious that Catholicism seems to have shifted their approach in response to this information by now believing that this Gospel was originally written in Aramaic, not Greek, which might leave the non-Catholic a bit dumbfounded on how to reply. But there is a huge problem with that line of reasoning – there are no Aramaic manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew nor is there any indication that the original language of this gospel was Aramaic. Their excuse is that the Gospel was translated to Greek early on and the Aramaic manuscript was lost. Catholic apologist, Jimmy Akin, goes so far as to say that the Aramaic did not use the two words for ‘rock’ we see in the Greek (Peter - ‘Petros’ and rock - ‘petra’) but the Aramaic word, ‘kepha,’ in both instances. His explanation as to why the Greek has two words is that it could have been accidentally translated incorrectly. Let that sink in. Akin is saying your Bible might possibly have a known error in it, and that’s ok. But that possibility by its very definition means that, at a minimum, the Gospel of Matthew may NOT be infallible, because any book of the Bible with known errors in it cannot be infallible! Please understand, I’m not talking about variants in the manuscripts due to copyist errors centuries after the originals were penned, Akin is saying that this error is NOT a copyist error at all, but a purposeful misrepresentation in every single Greek copy that was ever made from the original Aramaic manuscript!

Now, he believes that it was just a “stylistic variation to avoid a redundancy.” But that means the translator – whoever that might have been – took it upon themselves to modify Scripture to fit their desired viewpoint. I thought that was ‘eisegesis,’ or reading a meaning into Scripture that wasn’t actually there. And it leaves us with a bigger question - what other stylistic changes did the translator modify from the original? Do you see the proverbial ‘can of worms’ this type of speculation creates? And this is needed so that someone can claim the original manuscript was in Aramaic to fit the narrative about Matthew 16:18 to bolster the claim that this verse is about Peter being the rock because the scriptural and historical evidence is so shaky.

The Catholic Church also responds that Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History states that the original version of Matthew was written in Aramaic. However, that is not exactly what it says. This is what Eusebius actually wrote,

6. For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence. (Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter 24.6) [emphasis added]

Does that mean he wrote it in Hebrew (i.e., Aramaic) or in Greek, since the native language they spoke in that area of the world was Greek? I would suspect this means the gospel was written in Greek and not Aramaic. Why? Because the rest of the Gospels and letters of Paul and Peter and James and John were in Greek. And, we have no original manuscripts of Matthew that were written in Aramaic, nor did anyone else ever quote from one of those supposed originals. In addition to that, there are no Church fathers that state Matthew was originally written in Aramaic. Paul was a Pharisee before his Damascus road encounter with Christ, and he wrote in Greek. This is nothing more than ridiculous speculation and conjecture. Someone like Akin can speculate all they want, but they should never create a doctrinal viewpoint around that speculation, which is exactly what Catholicism is doing.

New Testament on Peter’s Position

Catholicism likes to consider Peter the first infallible pope, but what happens immediately after Jesus supposedly makes Peter the rock of the Christian faith and gives him the keys to the kingdom in Matthew 16:21-23? Jesus tells the disciples that He is going to be killed and rise again on the third day, and what is Peter’s response?

Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.” (Mat 16:22)

And Jesus has to rebuke Peter in the very next verse.

Then in Matthew 17 at the Transfiguration, Peter offers to make 3 tabernacles before God speaks commanding the three disciples, Peter, James and John, to listen to Jesus, shaking Peter back to his senses. No thinking Protestant disputes Peter’s prominent role in the Gospels and even in the first part of Acts, but does this sound like Peter was the primary disciple, the ‘rock’ of Matthew 16:18?

Could not someone have made a case for Johannine primacy? Think about Luke 22:24-30, when the disciples got into an argument about who was the greatest. Was this because John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, had been leaning on Jesus right before they headed to Gethsemane? Was it John that was the ‘primary’ disciple? And think about this concerning their argument about who was the greatest, if, according to Matthew 16, Peter was in fact the primary disciple, why didn’t Jesus interject that Peter had already been selected as the ‘foundation of the church,’ the first Pope, the Vicar of Christ? Should not have Jesus rebuked the other disciples? This right here, is a powerful case that Jesus was talking to all of the disciples in Matthew 16, not just Peter. Jesus was giving the keys to the kingdom to all of the disciples, not just Peter. [3]

Next, the rest of the New Testament gives no hint of Peter’s prominence or supremacy. No other epistles of Paul, John, James or Jude give any indication of the supremacy of Peter. There is no indication of the need for the office of ‘pope’. In fact, the offices laid out in Scripture are just two: elder / overseer / bishop and deacon. Of course, there is an apostle as well, but that was reserved only for the 12 disciples plus Paul.

So, let’s look at Peter’s own words. Take 1 Peter 5:1-2:

Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; (1 Pet 5:1-2)

What does Peter call himself in this passage? A ‘fellow elder.’ He does not call himself a pope, or reference Rome, or call himself the chief pastor, or stress his supremacy in any way. Just like Paul and John, he is an apostle, yet does not even stress that about himself. This short passage is Peter exhorting fellow elders to shepherd the people of God and to exercise voluntary oversight over the people of God. He does not tell them what to say or how to shepherd those bodies. So, does this not sound just like Paul’s epistles?

How about Acts 11 where Peter goes to uncircumcised gentiles and when he went to Jerusalem, the circumcised Jewish Christians complained to Peter about what he did. Did Peter point out that he was the pope and had every right to do as he felt was proper as the primary disciple/apostle, in other words, exercise his papal prerogatives? Did he mention that he was the Vicar of Christ? Tell them that the foundation of the Church was given to him to build? No, he did not. Even as an apostle of Christ, he did not even rebuke them for their judgment of him.

And how about Acts 15, at the Jerusalem council. Verse 6 says,

The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. (Acts 15:6)

Since this was written by Luke, it seems odd that he did not state that “the pope, apostles and elders came together.” Was Peter the only one that knew he was the Vicar of Christ? And then one has to ask why James was the one that gave the judgment on what would be done (Acts 15:13). If Peter was the leader of the Church, should it not have been left up to him? All we see is that in verses 7 through 11 Peter explains to the people that the gentiles are “saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus” just like those that were of Jewish descent. But that wasn’t the deciding factor. Next Paul and Barnabas testify about all that had happened with the gentiles through them. But their testimony wasn’t the deciding factor either. After listening to all that was presented by the apostles and elders, James stands and gives the judgment in verse 19,

“Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, (Acts 15:19)

If Peter is the Vicar of Christ on earth, then this judgment by James for the entire Church makes no sense. And what’s more, Peter is never mentioned in Acts after verse 11 again.

All of this shows that the New Testament is completely silent on Peter being the head of the Church, or being the pope, or the Vicar of Christ. There is no appeal in Acts to the bishop of Rome for his opinion or that the bishop of Rome is the head of all Christians.

John 21:15-17

(15) So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus *said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He *said to him, “Tend My lambs.” (16) He *said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He *said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.” (17) He *said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus *said to him, “Tend My sheep.” (John 21:15-17)

The above passage is used by the Catholic Church to support their Petrine supremacy view of Matthew 16:18. Unfortunately, there aren’t any early Church fathers that share their view. This passage, as Cyril of Alexandria stated, is about the restoration of Peter after denying Jesus three times before His crucifixion. For each of the three times Peter denied Him, Jesus asked him, “Do you love Me?” Each time Peter replied, Jesus said, “Tend My lambs,” “Shepherd My sheep,” and “Tend My sheep.”

The Catholic goal seems to be to state, without any real corroboration on their part, that Jesus’ statement to “Shepherd My sheep,” is calling Peter to be the supreme pastor, a pastor of pastors. And somehow this statement infers a succession from one bishop of Rome to the next down through history. Unfortunately, reading the entire chapter in context seems to mitigate against this view, especially verses 20 through 23, where one could almost see some envy or jealousy coming from Peter. However you read the passage, it seems to make it hard to see verse 16 as setting Peter up as the shepherd of shepherds. Even more so after we factor in what was said above about 1 Peter 5:1-2.

We must also look at the historical view of this passage and for that we can look to Cyril of Alexandria (376-444 AD) who commented on it,

If anyone for what cause he asked Simon only, though the other disciples were present, and what he means by “Feed my lambs” and the like, we answer that St. Peter, with the other disciples, had been already chosen to the Apostleship, but because meanwhile Peter had fallen (for under great fear he had thrice denied the Lord), he now heals him that was sick, and exacts a threefold confession in place of his triple denial, contrasting the former with the latter, and compensating the fault with correction. [4] [emphasis added]

Cyril is not the only one to have ever commented on this passage, since later Church fathers gave comments supporting Peter as the supreme shepherd in what appears to be support of the existing papal office, but Cyril is the first and much earlier to do so and it does not line up with Rome’s interpretation.

The Testimony of Early Church Fathers

Rome seems to enjoy stating that their interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is the ‘ancient and constant faith of the Church’ but there are a lot of Church fathers that did not agree with Rome’s understanding. Here are just a few.

Tertullian (150/160-240/250 AD)

Let’s start with Tertullian. William Webster documents that Roman Catholicism uses Tertullian as an example of someone that believed that Peter was the ‘rock’ in Matthew 16. Unfortunately, Catholic apologists don’t always represent what he said accurately. Webster states that he is the first western father to comment on the passage and states,

Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the ‘rock on which the church should be built’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and earth?

The Prescription Against Heretics 22 — Tertullian

If this was all he said, the case for Peter as the rock would be much more solid, but there is more.

For so withal the result teaches. In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what (key): "Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you," and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ's baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which (kingdom) are "loosed" the sins that were beforetime "bound; "and those which have not been "loosed" are "bound," in accordance with true salvation;

Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV : On Modesty 21 [emphasis added]

As patristic scholar, Karlfried Froehlich, stated,

‘Tertullian regarded the Peter of Matthew 16:18–19 as the representative of the entire church or at least its ‘spiritual’ members.’

The Church Fathers’ Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18 – Christian Resources [emphasis added]

Tertullian is not promoting Peter’s papal primacy but that, as Webster said,

Christ built his church on Peter by building it through him as he preached the gospel. … Peter is the rock because he is the one given the privilege of being the first to open the kingdom of God to men.

The Church Fathers’ Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18 – Christian Resources [emphasis added]

Origen (185-253/254 AD)

Another example of an early Church father who wrote in Matthew 16:18 is Origen. He too had an understanding of this verse that differs from the modern day Catholic view of the verse and passage, even though it is at times misrepresented by Catholicism.

And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.

But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? [5] [emphasis added]

Origen’s view is that we are all Peter’s.

Eusebius (263—340 AD)

Let’s see what this Church father had to say.

By ‘the foundations of the world,’ we shall understand the strength of God’s wisdom, by which, first, the order of the universe was established, and then, the world itself was founded—a world which will not be shaken. Yet you will not in any way err from the scope of the truth if you suppose that ‘the world’ is actually the Church of God, and that its ‘foundation’ is in the first place, that unspeakably solid rock on which it is founded, as Scripture says: ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’; and elsewhere: ‘The rock, moreover, was Christ.’ For, as the Apostle indicates with these words: ‘No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’ [1 Cor 3:11] Then, too, after the Savior himself, you may rightly judge the foundations of the Church to be the words of the prophets and apostles, in accordance with the statement of the Apostle: ‘Built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.’[Eph 2:20] [6]

Eusebius said the rock was Christ.

Jerome (347-420 AD)

Here are some quotes from him.

The one foundation which the apostolic architect laid is our Lord Jesus Christ. Upon this stable and firm foundation, which has itself been laid on solid ground, the Church of Christ is built ... For the Church was founded upon a rock ... upon this rock the Lord established his Church; and the apostle Peter received his name from this rock (Matt. 16:18).

She, that with a firm root is founded upon the rock, Christ, the Catholic Church, is the one dove; she stands the perfect one, and near to His right hand, and has nothing sinister in her.

The rock is Christ, Who gave to His apostles, that they also should be called rocks, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock l will build My Church.'

Was there no other province in the whole world to receive the gospel of pleasure, and into which the serpent might insinuate itself, except that which was founded by the teaching of Peter upon the rock Christ.' [7]

Again, in all of these quotes from Jerome, the rock is Christ.

And I could do the same with the following Church fathers: Aphraates (280-345 AD), Athanasius (295-375 AD), Hilary of Poitiers (315-367/368 AD), Gregory of Nazianzen (330-389 AD), Gregory of Nyssa (335-394 AD), Ambrosiaster (works dated 366-384 AD), Ambrose (ca. A.D. 333-397) , Epiphanius (315-403 AD), John Chrysostom (347-407 AD), Augustine (354-430 AD), Palladius of Helenopolis (363-431 AD), Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444 AD), Paul of Emesa (d. 445 AD), Theodoret (393-466 AD), Cassiodorus (490-583 AD), Basil of Seleucia (d. 468 AD), Gregory the Great (540-604 AD), Isidore of Seville (560-636 AD) and John of Damascus (645-749 AD). [8]

What I am demonstrating here is that the Church and its fathers did not all believe that Peter was the rock as Catholicism wants us to believe. The view became much more popular once the Roman papacy was created. But it was never the ‘unanimous content’ of the Church. Yes, there were fathers that believed Peter was the rock, but there were quite a few fathers who did not. To state that there was and then build unscriptural beliefs on top of that misrepresentation of the history is frankly shameful.

Conclusion

What was stated up front in this blog is that the burden of proof is upon Catholicism to conclusively prove that Jesus was referring to Peter as the ‘rock’ upon which the Church would be built. And what we have done in this blog is to step through the passage and look at the context in its entirety, which is about Jesus and Peter’s confession about who He is. We then looked at the overwhelming case of who Scripture says is that rock. After that we looked at the Greek words used in the passage for Peter and the rock and why a Catholic view seems unlikely. Next, we dissected the idea that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic and why this is a sloppy and absurd attempt to justify Peter as that rock. We even refuted an attempt to use an historical figure to promote the Aramaic manuscript idea.

Following those, we took a stroll through the New Testament to see how Scripture does not support the idea that Peter was the primary disciple or apostle. Peter himself never once talked like he was any more special than any other apostle. We took a quick look at John 21:16, which is said to have made Peter the shepherd of shepherds. Unfortunately, no other early Church fathers agreed with this view. And finally, we looked at what a few of the big name Church fathers said about Matthew 16:18 and how they differ with the current teaching from the Catholic Church. We ended with listing quite a few other Church fathers that disagreed as well.

When we started this blog, we laid out some expectations which Catholicism must meet for this passage to actually be understood as they contend. As James White said, the Catholic Church “cannot merely demonstrate that the Roman position is probably true, or that it is likely to be true, but that it is true beyond question.”

The alternative understandings laid out in this blog cast enough doubt so that Rome cannot, in good conscience, maintain that her view is ‘true beyond question.’ Rome would be hard pressed to even demonstrate their views are ‘probably true.’ Number 4 in James White’s list is literally the most devastating point of the four, as there are quite a few early Church fathers who view that passage differently than Rome, demonstrating that their view is NOT the ‘ancient and constant faith of the Church.’

In addition, William Webster summarized 10 points for which the Catholic Church states about its authority. But the same thing White said applies here as well. For #1, ‘Peter the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church,’ Catholicism cannot make either a conclusive biblical or historical case. Biblically, it makes little sense, and the historical position is split and has nowhere near ‘unanimous content’ of the fathers. That means #2, Peter’s supposed ‘infallible teaching authority over the entire Church,’ is questionable because of the failure of #1. Yes, Peter wrote his epistles infallibly and taught the Gospel infallibly, but he was not primary as it presumed, nor did he always act perfectly as Paul points out in Galatians. And #3, the ‘right of jurisdiction passed down to Peter's successors,’ has no support at all in John 21:15-17. Without a case for Peter being the supreme apostle, the shepherd of shepherds, #4 and #5 fail as well. And as this series has already shown, #6, ‘Roman Church has remained free from all blemish of error,’ is untrue. The split with Eastern Orthodoxy and setting the heretic Honorius in as Pope are proof the Catholic Church can error. #8, it is ‘necessary that every Church throughout the world should agree with the Roman Church’ is just arrogance masquerading as piety. #9, ‘These teachings have always been held by the entire Church through all ages’ has never been true, as a simple review of church history in this series has shown. And finally, #10, it is ‘necessary for salvation that everyone who professes to be a Christian must be submitted to the authority of the Roman pontiff,’ again, arrogance as piety. I must believe in concepts and beliefs that were unknown in the first 3 centuries of the church?

The Catholic Church can claim whatever it wants, but it cannot prove without a shadow of doubt the historicity of their claims, just like we saw in virtually every one of the previous 38 blogs for this series. And this is also why the Protestant Reformation flourished in the 16th century - their claims were easily debunked.

What we have are dubious claims of authority, and even worse claims that all Christians should believe, simply because the Catholic Church says so. Without the ability to conclusively prove that Peter is the rock and that he is the shepherd of shepherds, the Catholic Church’s dogmatic authority claims start to collapse. And we will see more about that in the next blog in this series.

We did not evade objections, but we endeavored as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures.

Dionysius of Alexandria (ca. 265)

Footnotes

Summarized from James R. White, The Roman Catholic Controversy (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishing © 1996), pp. 108-109.
George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church, pp. 345-346, as cited by James R. White, The Roman Catholic Controversy (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishing © 1996), pp. 113-114.
Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11, as quoted from The Church Fathers’ Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18 – Christian Resources. See also, William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust © 2003), pp. 174-175.
Commentary on the Psalms, M.P.G., Vol. 23, Col. 173, 176 , as quoted from The Church Fathers’ Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18 – Christian Resources. See also, William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust © 2003), pp. 175-176.
William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust © 2003), Appendix 5, pp. 174-183 and The Church Fathers’ Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18 – Christian Resources.

Source Material

William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001).
The Church Fathers’ Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18 – Christian Resources
The Patristic Exegesis of the Rock of Matthew 16:18 – Christian Resources
The Papacy and the Facts of History – Christian Resources
What Does ‘This Rock’ Refer to in Matthew 16:18?
What did Jesus mean by “upon this rock I will build my church” in Matthew 16:18? | GotQuestions.org
Is Peter the rock on which the Church is built? - CARM
Upon This Rock: Problems With Interpretation of Matthew 16:18 | R.W. Roberson

Search This Blog

shadmans Musings