|
Rock and Keys
When Jesus
came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his
disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some,
Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith
unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered
and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And
Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona:
for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my
Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That
thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my
church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth
shall be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 16:13-19)
In the
borders of Caesarea Philippi, in the north of the land,
Jesus elicited from his disciples a confession of faith
concerning himself. He enquired first what others were
saying, and then asked the disciples what they thought.
Peter spoke on behalf of the company when he said:
"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living
God". It was a remarkable statement for one man to
make to another far more difficult to state then than
when the subject has been crystallized in creeds and
Statements of Faith after the subject of the confession
has been raised from the dead. The answer was gratifying
to the Teacher, who replied: "Blessed art thou,
Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it
unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say
unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the
kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on
earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose
on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt.
16:16-19).
These verses have been the subject of controversy for
centuries because of the meaning attached to them by the
church of Rome, and the tremendous claims based thereon.
They form the basis of the pretensions which have led the
Roman Catholic Church to demand the submission of men to
her teaching and to enforce her claims with all the
cruelties that have been inflicted upon so-called
heretics. Around the cupola of St. Peter's at Rome the words
glitter in golden letters cut in the stone, each twelve
feet deep. They encircle the vast building ; and are
easily read from below. If, however, the meaning which is
attached to Christ's words by the Roman Church is the
obvious and correct one, it is strange that the writers
of the early centuries knew nothing of it. This is common
knowledge to all who have read anything of the controversy
with Rome; the following extracts give a summary of the
facts. In the book, The Pope and the Council, bearing the pen-name
of Janus, but written it is said by two of the most capable
historians of the Church of Rome, Acton and Dollinger, at the
time of the Council which declared the doctrine of Papal Infallibility,
occurs the following:
"Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in
the Gospels (Matt. 16: 18; John 21:17) not a single one
applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter's successors.
How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts,
yet not one of them whose commentaries we possess -
Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret,
and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas
- has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome
is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter
! Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on
which Christ would build his Church of the office given
to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood
by it either Christ Himself, or Peter's confession of faith
in Christ; often both together. Or else they thought
Peter was the foundation equally with all the other
Apostles, the Twelve being together the foundation-stones
of the Church (Rev. 21:14). The Fathers could the less
recognize in the power of the keys, and the power of
binding and loosing, any special prerogative or lordship
of the Roman bishop, inasmuch as - what is obvious to any
one at first sight - they did not regard a power first
given to Peter, and afterwards conferred in precisely the
same words on all the Apostles, as anything peculiar to
him, or hereditary in the line of Roman bishops, and they
held the symbol of the keys as meaning just the same as
the figurative expression of binding and loosing."
In Littledale's Plain Reasons against joining the Church
of Rome, we read:
"Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis, in his speech
prepared for, but not delivered in, the Vatican Council,
and published at Naples in 1870, declares that Roman
Catholics cannot establish the Petrine privilege from
Scripture, because of the clause in the Creed of Pius IV,
binding them to interpret Scripture only according to the unanimous
consent of the Fathers. And he adds that there are five
different patristic interpretations of St. Matt. 16:18:
(1) That St. Peter is the Rock, taught by seventeen
Fathers; (2) that the whole Apostolic College is the
Rock, represented by Peter as its chief, taught by eight;
(3) that St. Peter's faith is the Rock, taught by
forty-four; (4) that Christ is the Rock, taught by
sixteen; (5) that the Rock is the whole body of the
faithful. Several who teach (x) and (2) also teach (3)
and (4), and so the Archbishop sums up thus: "If we
are bound to follow the greater number of Fathers in this
matter, then we must hold for certain that the word Petra means
not Peter professing the faith, but the faith professed
by Peter". - Friedrich, Docum. ad illust. Conc. Vat.
I. pp. 185-246."
It is not sufficient to show that the significance
attached to the words of Jesus by Rome is not
historically well founded; we desire to know as
accurately as we can what Jesus himself intended by his
words. The extracts given indicate a choice of meanings,
and finality in interpretation may not be possible.
There is an evident play upon the meaning of the name
Peter - a stone. The name had been given to Simon by
Jesus as a token of certain qualities he possessed: and
Peter's position in the apostolic band is indicated by
the fact that in all enumerations of their names, his
comes first. It was characteristic of the man that he
should answer for the rest. "Thou art Peter
(petros)", said Jesus, "and upon this rock
(petra) I will build my church." The importance that
should be attached to the change in the word, and the
exact distinction between the two words, has been much discussed.
The general attitude today is to discount any difference.
This is in part due to a constant effort to turn back the language
of the New Testament into Aramaic, which was generally
spoken by Jesus, and in which no distinction is possible.
But that leaves unanswered why, granted that Jesus spoke
in Aramaic, Matthew should use two words. That the necessities
of grammar simply required it, is not admitted by all; and
that in classical Greek at any rate the distinction was preserved,
is not questioned.
Bullinger in Figures of Speech, illustrating the
repetition of words derived from the same root, comments
thus:
"Here note (1) that Petros is not merely Simon's
name given by our Lord, but given because of its meaning.
'Petros' means a stone, a piece of rock, a moving stone
which can be thrown by the hand. While "petra"
means a rock or cliff or crag, immovable, firm, and sure.
Both words are from the same root, both have the same
derivation, but though similar in origin and sound they
are thus different in meaning. This difference is
preserved in the Latin.
(2) In the case of petros, we have another figure: for
the word is used in two senses, though used only once.
There is a repetition, not of the word but of the thought
which is not expressed: "Thou art petros" where
it is used as a proper name Peter, and there is no
figure: but the sense of the word is there as well,
though not repeated in words: "Thou art a
stone". Thus there is a metaphor implied.
(3) While petros is used for Peter, petra is used of
Christ: for so Peter himself understood it (see 1 Pet.
2:4,5,6 and Acts 4:11,12); and so the Holy Spirit asserts
in 1 Cor. 10:4. "And that rock was Christ"
where we have a pure metaphor. So that petros represents
Peter's instability and uselessness as a foundation, while
petra represents Christ's stability as the foundation
which God Himself has laid (1 Cor. 2:11; Isa.
28:16)".
It is important to remember the Old Testament use of the
word Rock. Reference was made to this in considering the
parable of the Two Builders (Matt. 7:24-28). God was the
Rock of Israel, and Jesus was that God in manifestation.
This Peter had confessed. The answer of Jesus then can
be, "Upon this rock, the fact that I am the Son of
God, will I build my church" ; or "upon myself
- the rock, will I build my church" - in which case
Jesus is builder and foundation; or, the answer may mean:
"Upon this confession" - although this differs
little, for on this meaning it is not so much the confession
as what is confessed that really matters.
What then of the unprevailing "gates of hell"?
This is simply a figure of the grave which closes its
doors upon all placed therein. Prisoners there have no
power to break their bonds; and friends without can do
nothing to release the imprisoned. This Hezekiah recognized,
saying: "The grave cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate
thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth"
(Isa. 38:18). The Psalmist speaks of afflicted men whose "soul
abhorreth all manner of meat; and they draw near unto the gates
of death (Psa. 107: 18). But men of faith in God's
promises are not without hope. The Messianic Psalms speak
of a lifting up of the Messiah "from the gates of
death; that I may show forth all thy praise in the gates
of the daughter of Zion" (9:13, 14; for Messianic
reference see verse 8). The gates of the citadel of death
are not therefore invincible. The church of the Messiah, because
it is his church, will be delivered therefrom and be victorious.
If Jesus has "the keys of the grave and of
death" (Rev. 1:18), he will use them to deliver his
people. They have to be subjects of another release,
however, before the Lord uses those keys. All need a
deliverance from ignorance; all need the way of life to
be opened to them. So Jesus speaks of other keys given to
Peter - the keys of the Kingdom. "The key of
knowledge" had been taken away by the scribes, Jesus
said (Luke 11:52). But Peter made use of the keys of
knowledge for opening the understanding of men, by the
preaching of the gospel. This he did when at Pentecost he
told the Jews how they might be saved; this he did when
he told Cornelius "what he ought to do to be
saved". As a teacher, guided by God's Spirit, Peter
unfolded authoritatively God's purpose: and as this
authority as a teacher was idiomatically referred to as
"binding and loosing", so Jesus said that in
the use of the keys, Peter would, with heaven's endorsement,
speak with authority as he instructed men in the gospel.
From:
Parables of the Messiah by John Carter
|
|