By Liaf
This is going to rile up the Catholic Church, I know. First of all, I want you to know that I hold nothing personally against any Catholic. I have family and friends that are Catholic. Where a Catholic goes after death, or anyone else for that matter, depends on what they have done with the Lord Jesus Christ regarding accepting Him as their sin sacrifice by faith. Therefore, I will not make this message a heaven or hell issue, which unfortunately those who debate this issue with me do not think the same (or in other words, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ AND the Pope and thou shalt be saved). When I say "Catholic" or "Catholic Church" I am merely asserting a hypothetical person or persons from the Church debating this. I had no actual person in mind when I wrote this message, only various discourses regarding this subject--- so keep that in your thoughts.
As the title suggests, this verse from Matthew 16:18 justifies the Catholic Church's position that Peter was called a "Rock" by the Lord Jesus himself, and upon this same rock (i.e., Peter himself) Jesus would build His church. From that they get the idea that Peter had to name a successor (Pope) for every generation as God's representative here on this Earth. First of all, let me point out the Greek genders--- Petros (masculine) for Peter and petra (feminine) for the rock. That's two different things but using wordplay because of the similarities. That does not faze a Catholic. For starters, we are told Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic and the word for both Peter AND the rock was the same. Well, what of it? Yet the New Testament was translated out of the original Greek according to the KJV. What if Jesus did not speak to them in Greek? Actually, that does not bother me. You see, Greek is a very precise language and as such that is the language God wanted the NT Scriptures to be written so that we could be certain of the precision. After all, that's how it came to us. Do you really believe God could not see His word to fruition regarding its precision? What gave the writers and translators the idea to use two different words if this was not important? Take the phenomenon of gematria for example. If the Greek did not matter, then why pray tell, do words and phrases oftentimes have a mathematical significance relating to the Scripture? This would not happen "if the language was wrong or did not matter". (Actually, this mathematical phenomenon in the Bible is one important reason I have a certain faith in it as God's inspired Word due to its improbable occurrence by mere chance). So, some Catholic out there would rather I dump tons of miraculous mathematical evidence and forget the precise translation just so that I can esteem some Pope. That's right; let's sweep it all under the rug. And I'm just getting started. There's more.
The words Petros v.s. petra are very significant to me. Nobody got the idea to use these very precise words out of nowhere, nor would God (to put it bluntly) screw up His word to have it come to us this way--- no way. The differences are there for a reason. "Well," retorts a debater, "Maybe there are two genders, but the word for rock is feminine whereas Peter is masculine. Jesus would not have given Peter a girl's name!" I agree. Let's remember that for a future point I want to make. If Peter=rock and you would not make the rock feminine because he is masculine, then they must have the same gender. Therefore, why did Jesus have to change it to a masculine (from a feminine form) if Peter is the rock from which Jesus is referencing? In other words, if Peter were the focus as the rock, then Jesus would not have used petra, but rather a masculine form of the rock. And if not the same word, then surely some descriptive in the masculine form.
Here is my "future" point I wanted to make about the gender. The gender is the same basis for the argument in Ezekiel 17:22 that the "tender twig" is NOT Christ. The twig represented a PERSON, but because it was FEMININE it did not represent Christ because the masculine word for twig could have been used instead. Of course we teach here on this site that this tender twig was the King's Daughter in whom the Davidic throne would be perpetuated. My KJV Bible has comments from scholars who do not believe in the perpetual nature of the Davidic throne as we teach here. They place a star at every prophecy regarding Christ. Yet, there is NO STAR next to this verse. They at least had sense enough to realize this was not speaking of Christ (even though they do not believe in the King's daughter theory). That, my friend, is the power of gender. That twig is NOT Christ because it is feminine and for the same reason Peter is not the rock Jesus would build his church because petra is in the feminine form. Don't give me any crap that the gender does not matter. They were not put there for a scholarly exercise.
Indeed, Jesus asked Peter, "Who do you say that I am?" "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God," replied Peter. Because of this, Jesus called Peter a Rock (more on that shortly). "And upon this (and using a different word) rock (the foundation and truth of Peter's confession), I will build my church." Now it does not take a rocket scientist to see that Jesus Christ Himself, and the truth He taught was the rock or foundation to which every Christian must build their faith.
Matthew 7:24-25: Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
"But that's two different subjects", retorts an angry Catholic. Oh? Really? In this passage, a man must build his house on the truth that Jesus taught, indeed personified by Christ Himself. Do you really think that a person who builds this "house" is any different than the collective people of the church? I'd say the church is built up the same way, i.e., "upon this rock". I'd say this guy had a foundation that was sure---he built his house on a rock. What else does the Bible say about this foundation that we should build on?
1 Corinthians 3:11: For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
"But he called Peter a rock! C'mon now, don't deny that!" screams the same, angry Catholic. I say, "Yeah. That's right." "See! See! You cannot get out of that one, Liaf! That proves Peter is the rock from which the church is built!" No it does not. Peter is a rock because of his confession (because he was the first convert), but what does he call other believers later on because of their faith?
1 Peter 2:5: Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
"But the word used is 'lithos' not 'Petros'". I don't give a hoot. Peter obviously did not have an axe to grind and did not even mention anything that he was "the" stone. The idea is that all believers were stones and Christ was the Chief corner stone. Besides, in this text, Peter used lithos for Christ as well as believers. So if both believers and Christ are "lithos" what makes Peter a superior "Petros"?
Now we can go around and around. I will not convince a Catholic and they will not convince me. "Petra" is NOT Peter. I'm sorry. "Well, if it's feminine, then it can't be Christ either. Aha! We got ol' Liaf now!" they exclaim. Not really. The rock is the foundation, the truth that Jesus is the Son of the living God, and by extension truth is personified in Christ. But what if the rock which Jesus built his church had a physical counterpart representing Christ? Could that indeed be referred to as feminine? In other words, an object can be referenced in the feminine, if that object is an actual existing object symbolic of a person. That's because the object is normally referenced that way. Don't confuse this idea with the "tender twig" riddle in Ezekiel. This story is an allegory. There was a person in God's mind that he then compared to a tender twig (although no real twig was there). Likewise, Peter was a person first that Jesus then called 'Petros", yet we probably can safely assume there was no actual rock there with Peter at the time of his confession. No. I'm talking about an actual rock first, of which later was realized as a physical forerunner of Christ. Indeed, one may ask, "What is that? A rock (petra)?" "Yes, and you know what it means? That rock (petra) is Christ."
I like to hypothesize by asking "what if?" Since my Petros-petras argument still will not faze a Catholic, I want to create another hypothetical situation that sounds even stronger than Petros-petras. In I Corinthians 10:4 Paul called Jesus Christ the rock:
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Paul was referencing a legend where an ACTUAL rock (petras) accompanied the Israelites and gave them water. Again, I have no problem with the feminine form if he was referencing an actual rock, symbolic of Christ as he later revealed. Now, I want to make this wager. This is hypothetical. Had this SAME rock been in the presence of Jesus and the disciples, and Jesus made the same claim of that rock as in Matthew 16:18, I'd bet any money that the Catholic Church today would esteem it as a relic. Think of it! Instead of Peter being called the rock, imagine this rock of Israel being in their presence instead. Perhaps Peter was next to it implying he could be appointed guardian of it. If Jesus had revealed the meaning of this rock by saying, "This is the Rock (petra, the same address Paul used), and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church." then these two words would have unquestionably been the same--- more closely related than Petros and petra. So what's my point? My point is that had this really happened and if Jesus had used the same words, I still would not believe that this rock was the literal foundation to build the church. I could throw it into the ocean for all I cared and I would not be any less of a Christian for doing so!
This would not be so with the Catholic Church. They would elevate that rock, perhaps with a succession of guardians over it. I could just imagine pilgrimages to it and women kissing it. Since the Scripture says it WAS Christ, probably this would be considered part of his actual body as in communion. They would angrily retort to the likes of me, "That Rock WAS Christ. It says so in the Scriptures. On this rock he would build his church. Jesus said that rock was petra and upon this petra I will build my church! They are one and the same word and thing! The grammar commands you believe that, so you'd better get down on your knees and starting kissing it too!" No. It does not mean that. You and I know (and have the sense) that even if that event occurred, Jesus would not expect men to venerate a rock, but would expect men to understand his words symbolically and also expected men to realize that this rock was a foreshadowing of Christ. The context of Paul's writings expects the same understanding also. So if we can safely assume that with the hypothetical petras-petras, then the same goes for Petros-petras, which is not as closely related. Now I am not bringing up the idea of an actual rock just to justify the "petras" position and to make things fit. Get this--- I really believe that when Jesus used the 'rock' comparison, he had an actual rock in mind. The disciples had the same rock in mind. The Bible throughout the Old Testament constantly spoke of this rock. This was Jacob's Pillar--- familiar to Jesus and His people. Regular viewers of this site know what I say about this actual existing "Christ" rock--- and it was around loooong before Peter. I can only thank God above that the Catholic Church does not possess it. But even at that, I never in a thousand years would expect men to venerate this rock even though Paul called it "Christ". That would be senseless.
OK. I started this message with the idea that the Greek was legitimate to use. I then brought out the gender issue (i.e., there were two different words used for rock). After all, I reasoned, if the starting point was with Peter and he was a rock, then the rock for the building of the church should have been masculine. However, if we are talking about an actual rock first, then the feminine is OK to use if that very real rock (unknown in its significance until later as Paul pointed out) was then symbolic of Christ. Makes logical sense to me. Lastly, I created a hypothetical situation claiming that even if the two words were identical with an actual rock there, that Jesus' statement must still be understood symbolically (i.e., the rock foreshadowed Christ and the foundation of one's faith). And had it really happened this way, that would be a stronger argument that they were one and the same (when indeed they still were not): at least this would be more in likeness than what the Bible really says now.
In the true spirit of mathematics, I will state in a few formulas what this whole discourse was about. Like they say, a picture tells a thousand words; in this case, a few formulas state this whole long message.
We'll use the mathematical laws that state if a=b and b=c, then a=c. The problem is that the Catholic Church sees that a=b and c=d and they want to get the end result a=d. So they make b=c when they really are different.
If Peter(a)=Petros(b), and the Catholic Church wants the result [upon Peter(a)=build my church(d)], then [upon Petros(b)=build my church(d)] is what the script should say. However, Jesus said "petra" instead (c=d).
Again, If petra=rock, and rock=Christ, then petra=Christ. If [upon petra=build my church], and petra=Christ, then [upon Christ=build my church]. Q.E.D.
This mathematical conclusion agrees perfectly with the previous Scriptures about the man building his house on a rock and Jesus Christ as being the foundation to build upon.
Now the next thing a Catholic may badger me with is the issue about the keys of the Kingdom and the binding and loosing. Well, I have much more (even though I feel I presented enough already). Let us continue on regarding what Jesus said to Peter in Matthew 16:19:
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.
Where did we see this key business before? Hmmm. Maybe in Isaiah 22? I saw in one hypothetical debate of a Catholic with a Protestant, the Catholic elaborated on that passage of Scripture as if he knew something deep about it and the Protestant knew nothing (thus missing a revelatory 'key' if you must). I must agree with the Catholics on one thing here. Most Protestants do not know much about that chapter which gives the Catholics the appearance they know some deeper revelation and have one-upmanship over Protestants that proves their position with Peter. I will comment more on that chapter shortly because we have dealt very specifically with that chapter in our end-times series. Back to the 'key' issue first. Suppose we were to ask Catholics, "What is the point of having the keys?" The Catholics would say that the person who has the keys has a position of authority as Eliakim did in Isaiah 22. "Oh yeah? Well, what do the keys do?" "Well," say the Catholics, "it says he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. This is the same authority he gave to Peter." Of course they believe that Peter had to appoint successors to hold these keys (infallibility doctrine) in the Popes. So, The keys open and close things, eh? The thing is, they say only Peter has those keys, yet in Matthew 18:18 Jesus said of his disciples, " Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." So they must have had the keys, too? Or do you think they asked Peter every time for the keys? Perhaps Peter just left the keys there for all to freely open or shut. You may think I'm being smart here, but I'm dead serious. Let's look at this logically. If all other apostles were given the same power to bind and loose, then they 1) had the keys also, 2) had to come to Peter each time to open or shut, or 3) Peter left the keys for others to use as well. I don't see any other possibilities. After all, that's what keys are for--- opening and shutting doors. The Catholic Church would opt for position #2 extended in the Pope. But back when Peter was alive yet, did the others come to him for any authority or approval? Well, I can think of at least one who did not--- his name was Paul. As a matter of fact, he challenged Peter to his face when he was in error (so much for Peter's infallibility). See Galatians 2:11. Just think of it! This first arrogant Pope-challenger even had the gall to write most of the NT epistles, too! Yet, in spite of Paul's arrogance, I'd say he opened doors quite well for the Gentiles without Peter's approval, thank you. Seriously, that blows position #2 to hell. What about position #1? I have no problem with that, although that supports what I have been saying all along. I'll be a little more kindly to Catholics and say that I really do not have a problem with Peter. I don't. So I could maybe go for position #3, at least initially as the gospel was launched. Because of Peter's confession, Jesus gave him the right to open the first door on that day of Pentecost. That was his reward and position of honor for being the one who confessed that Jesus was the Son of the Living God. And for that, he was given the keys to open the door of the gospel. But the keys stayed there for all to use--- this was a free-for-all once it was opened and that explains Matthew 18:18 which involves all apostles, including Peter. Once that door was opened, then all would have a right to opening and closing; there would be no need for any successor. God has the ability and wisdom to call mighty preachers in each generation. This position does not pass down from man-to-man. Each and every person must be born of God and called of God. Man-to-man lineage only worked with Israel's birthright, the right to rule, and the promises applied to the race of people. But as we've clearly taught here, this does not mean this race has spiritual salvation, only Earthly blessings. Man-to-man is Earthly, but a spiritual leader is appointed from above.
At this point, I think I've said enough, but I have just a little more kicking to do! If the Catholics cite Isaiah 22 as the interpretation as to what the keys do, then that is OK. However, I sure hope that they are only using that chapter for nothing more than to explain the symbolism and relationship. For you see, that chapter is about the throne of David. But if they are claiming that Peter and the Popes have something to do with the throne of David, then the whole doctrine is far more twisted than a corkscrew. That is really a crock if anybody believes that they are related. The throne of David issue is about the Kingdom over Israel. It was passed down from father-to-son as the everlasting covenant claims. This chapter has end-time significance and you can see what this chapter really represented in my tribute to Queen Mum. I won't go over that again in this message. Besides, even if Popes had something to do with the throne of David as an "Eliakim" representative, you'd see them inseparably tied to the British Throne but in general they were opposed to this throne of God here on Earth.
Two other things I want to point out before I close this message--- one is an observation of the history of Popes and the other is personal experience. In spite of all that was said here, I realize that I cannot and will not faze a Catholic. However, I can look at the history and see what the Popes have done in the name of God. I've even had one person who vehemently argued the Catholic position agree with me on this one claiming that some of them are burning in the hottest hell. Well, what of it? If that's how God sees His Church through all this, then He is pretty impotent. What happened to the successors? If this is the case, they could be confronted as Paul confronted Peter. A persistent Catholic may retort, "Well, you believe in Kings of Judah and Lost Tribes. Do you think those Kings on the 'Lord's Throne' are any better?" No I do not. And neither the Bible nor I have said that the monarch would be. As a matter of fact, God stated very specific punishments to them if they forsook His ways. Again, this is an Earthly lineage that proved the faithfulness of God and carried out His purpose. Yet, in spite of many, many years of existence, the Catholic Church teaches heretical doctrines such as Christmas, Easter, and that Christ died on a Friday. They were basically hostile to Jews and their feast days, they have replaced feast days, there are tons of relics (some gross and skeletal), and until relatively recently they did not encourage the commoner to read the Bible. Even if this changed in recent times, one still gets the impression that the Bible should be interpreted in the context of the Church's viewpoint (no matter how wrong). And for sure, the Catholic Church does not believe in the eternal Davidic throne or the Lost Tribes as we teach here. They have openly and clearly poked fun at these topics in spite of Biblical prophecy, intellectual research, and archeology that supports it. They have been basically at odds with the position of these Western nations in favor of Rome. That's how it always was in the Bible. A substitute kingdom was always trying to squeeze Israel and her peoples out of what was rightfully theirs promised by God. It almost reminds me of a bunch of greedy family members trying to gain superiority by cheating the rightful recipient from his or her inheritance. I can go on and on. And if this is not all bad enough, you and I are supposed to dump all the substantiated teaching we have on this site, sweep it under the rug, and park our brains in favor of their utter nonsense. If this is what God calls his Church, then He is loonier than the day is long.
The last personal point I want to make is about my handle--- "LiaFail Rock". You see, this name goes over the heads of most Christians. They do not realize the "arrogance" in this name. This is the name of that same rock that Paul made reference to: the rock he called Christ. Now whether I named myself that, or God called me that is irrelevant. The point is that I claimed that name--- a name more prestigious than Petros by calling myself the petras rock LiaFail. That's why I used that as the petra-petras argument earlier. Besides Christ making that reference to an actual rock, I wanted to save the good part about my name for now. You all hear what I am saying? If Christ called me the rock, He could even build His church on it if He wanted! And you know what? Since I believe that I got the same title as Peter, I can tell you the Lord's intent even if (or since) He said the same to me--- He meant the truth I teach. I'm nobody nor will I have a successor nor did the Lord intend that--- that's the same "boat" Peter was in and I'm certain Peter would not have agreed more!
To conclude, the Scripture by Paul that said, "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." demonstrates that this rock of Israel was as important to the Israelites as the Rock that Jesus would build His Church is to the Church. The focus is the same. And if the Israelites had Christ, why would Peter (an inferior person) now become the rock? Don't give me any baloney that it is because Christ is away and Peter was to be His representative. Christ wasn't there in person with the Israelites either. So, I am in no uncertain terms saying that the rock that followed the Israelites (and thus the spiritual Rock) and the rock to build the Church are synonymous. If you must idolize any rock, then idolize LiaFail, not Peter. But as I stated before, I'm glad the Catholic Church does not have this rock to idolize it. Those who believe as we do know where it is at, and trust me, we would not do something so foolish.