The Rock

David Hill (9 Sep 2003) "The Rock"

Mat 16 "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art you, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood have not revealed it unto you, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto you, That you 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 you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and what ever you shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and what ever you shalt loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Many have a mistaken view of authority in the Word of God, and in embracing these wrong views, they inadvertantly undermine their own authority for ministry in God's Kingdom. God's authority is transfered in the Spiritual realm by public ceremonies and with physical contact between the giver and receiver of this authority. This is true of blessings (Jacob to Joseph's sons), annointing of Kings and Priests (Moses to Aaron and Samuel to David) and in one case amoung the prophets (Elijah to Elisha). This public ceremony was consistantly carried into the NT, with the "laying on of hands" to commission people to the ministry (note the breathing of Y'shua to the Apostles and the ordination of Paul and Barnabus).  God does everything decently and in order and this transferral of Authority is also carried over into the Atoning Sacrifices in which the "authority" or "power" of our sins were transferred, originally, to the animals and then perfectly to Y'shua. It is not our position, in the Church or Kingdom to deny this principle or reject it or ridicule this, for it is a principle of transferal of authority that God ordained and commanded.

Now the incorrect doctrine that I was referring to is that of the position of authority that Y'shua gave to Peter. This position is misapplied by the R.C. Church and, in reaction to this, the protestants take the opposite extreme. The R.C. overemphasises this into the doctrine of Apostalic succession, and eventually led to the "infallibility of the Pope" speaking ex-cathedra, and to the establishment of the "vicar" of Christ. This latter was established with the aid of the Church Kingdom (Covenant) Theology, which believed that the Church is susposed to subdue the world and reign over it and thus this view requires a vicorship during Y'shua's absence. Plenty of books have been written on the fallacy of these points, so I will not spend the time on it here. However, the Protestants, in refuting these teachings, utilized an argument that is not Scriptural, that led to Theological error and, in the process, undermines Ecclesitical Authority.

Their exegesis of Mt 16:18 is founded solely upon their hostility to the Romanish Doctrine and, because of this, is unreliable especially when, to accomplish this, they break several well known principles of Hermenutics. For instance, one well known and acknowledged rule of interpretation is to understand how the hearers understood his words. Thus, the Protestants make much of the Greek, and totally disregard the fact that these words were spoken in Aramaic in which there is no difference between Rock (Petros) and rock (petra). There is no stone and Rock (or boulder), but all is simply rock.

Second, they totally disregard the Scriptural interpretation of types and supply their own. The typology of stones is almost everywhere in Scripture (if not everywhere), used of people that God is building into a spiritual temple (see use of "bar" in Hebrew with its suffixes). They then lay aside this Scripturally supplied typlogy and apply it, not to Peter, but to his Confession.

They totally ignore the principle of not forming a major Doctrine from one verse, and brush aside the Scripturally recorded fulfillment of Y'shua's words that Peter was used by Him to build the Church among the Apostles (Acts 1), upon the Ten Tribes (Acts 2), upon the Samaritions (Acts 8) and among the Gentiles (Acts 10) before He sent Paul to them. And even the ordination of Barnabus and Paul (Acts 13) can be traced back to Peter (Acts 4:36).

They even misunderstand the Greek which many of them claim to be Masters of, for, the only reason for the difference between Petra (feminine) and Petros (masculine) is solely to take a noun and make it into a name. The exact same process is fulfilled in Pauo and Paulos.

They throw out the original Church teaching on this, which recognized no such difference in these two words because, as the first rule of interpretation (which they also break) which led to the original Church Doctrine is that the simpliest (contextual and literal) interpretation is assuredly the correct one. They spiritually apply the rock to a concept and not to Peter, as our Lord obviously did - as the description of the New Jerusalem will easily verify.

So, in forcing their interpretation from one verse, they must break six major principles of sound Biblical interpretation solely in reaction to the Romanish Doctrine. The proof of this latter statement is simply seen in the fact that this teaching (Peter is just a pebble and his confession is the Rock) was not recorded anywhere in Church History until the times of the Reformation.

So, like it or not, regardless of the errors of some in this regard, there is an Ecclesiastical Succession, if you will, where Authority from God flows out to His people in direct succession. The position of the Apostolate was solely for the founding of the Church as Y'shua specified, but the Authority that he gave them subsequently passed to all the Church.

And thus, when we undermine the Rock or Foundation of the Church, we weaken our own positions of Authority. And this actually explains the "dysfunctional" condition of the Church today. And until this condition is dealt with in the Church, most ministries and individuals will remain impotent in their commission.

I repeat: If we all strived to be more like Peter instead of belittling him and the other Saints, perhaps, one day, we also might walk on water...

Editor's Note : December 21, 2009 :

Now that I have converted to Catholicism I realize some of the mistakes in the information above.  First off is that, in fact, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches can both claim Apostalic Authority for they have continued the direct laying on of hands at the Ordination of Bishops in a direct and unbroken lineage back to the Apostles.  No other Churches - nor any of the many Christian Cults - on the planet can make this claim and it is proven by the Incorruptibles - bodies of the saints that do not corrupt upon death - which both Churches manifest and which is assuredly a result of the Real Presense in the Eucharist.

I have also shown, at the least, that if God wants to speak through the Pope Ex Cathedra He certainly can if he wants to for there is one case of Ex Cathedra in the Scriptures and that is when Caiaphas stated, while decked out in his priestly robes to minister during Passover, that it was necessary for one man to die for the people.  Thus the Holy Spirit stepped in while the priest was speaking Ex Cathedra from the Seat of Moses to insure that the statement was, in fact, infallible.