The Pulpit Commentary — Matthew — Volume 2 — Section 132

gospel mystery. My Father which ia in Matthew nlone records tl1e promill'l to heaven. Christ thus aooopte Peter'e defi- Peter; Mark and Luke give hie coufossion, nition of him as "the Son of the living which was the ono point which Christ God." None but the Father oould have desired to elicit, and omit thnt which is revealed to thee the Son. considered to concern bis privileges. This Ver. 18.-And I say also (I al.80 say) unto looks as though, in tboir view, tbo oliief aim thee. As thou hRSt se,id unto me," Thou e,rt of the passage was not Peter, but Obrist· the Christ," eo I say unto thee, eto. Thou not Peter's pre-eminence, but Christ's natur; art Peter (nerpos, Petrus), and upon t'iis and offioo. At the same time, to deny all rock (rerpf/-, petra) I will build my Church. allusion to Peter in the "rock" ie quite In ole.seical Greek, the distinction between contrary to the genius of tho language and .-hpa and 1rfrpos is well known-the former to New Testament usage, and would not meaning "a rock," the latter "a piece of have been so pressed in modern .times rock," or "11 stone." But probably no such except for polemical purposes. Three views distinction is intended here, as there would have been held on the intorprcta.tion of this be none in Arame,ic. There is plainly a passage. (1) That Christ himself is the paronomaeia here in the Geeek ; e.nd, if our Ruck on which the Church should be bnilt. Lord spoke in Aramaic, the same play of (2) That Peter's confession of Jesus Christ a.s words we.s exhibited in Kephas or lrepha. Son of God, or God incarnate, is the.Rock. When Jesus first oolled Pet.er to be a dis- (8) That St. Peter is the rock. (1) The first ciple, he imposed upon him the name Cephas, explanation is supported by passages where- which the evangelist explains to be Peter in Christ speaks of himself in the. third (John i. 42). The name was bestowed in person, e.g. " Destroy this temple ; " " If anticipation of Peter's great oonfession: any man eat of this bread;" " Whoso "Thou sualt be called." Thfa preannou.nce- falleth on this stone," etc. In the ea.me ment was here fulfilled and confirmed. sense a.ro cited the words of Isaiah (xxviii Upon this passage chiefly the claims of the 16), "Behold, I lay in Zion.for a. foundation Roman Church, which for fifteen centuries a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner- have been the subject of acrimonious con- stone, a sure foundation." Almighty God troversy, are fonnded. It is hence assumed is continually called "a Rock " in the 0111 that the Christian Church is founded upon Testament (see 2 Sam. :x:xii. 32; Pa. xviii; Peter and his successors, and that these 31 ; lvii. 2, 6, 7, etc.), so that it might be BUccessors are the Bishops of Rome. The deemed natural and intelligible for Christ latter assertion may be left to the decision to call himself " this Rock," in accordance vf hist.ory, which fails to pr<YDe that Peter with the words of St. Paul (I Cor. iii 11), was ever at ROine, or that he transmitted "Other foundation oon no man lay than his supposed supremacy to the episcopate. that which is laid (r«1Tcu), which is Jesus of that city. We have in this place to deal Christ." But then the reference to Peter with the former assertion. Who or what becomes unmeaning: "Thou a.rt Peter, and is the roc7, on wLich Christ says that he upon myself I will build my Church." It will hereafter bnild his Church? French is true that some few eminent authorities Romanists consider it a providential coin- have ta.ken this vie;w. Thus St. Augustine cidence that they can translate the passage, writes, "It wa.8 not said to him,'' Thou art a " J e te dis qne, Tu ee Pierre ; et snr cette rock (petra),' but,' Tho9 art Peter,' and the pierre je batira.i," etc. ; but persona ontside Rock was Christ 11 (•Retract.,' i, 21), A.nd the papal communion are not satisfied to comment.a.tom have ime,gined that Christ hang their faith on e. play of words. The pointed to himself as he spoke. In suoh early Fathers are by no means at one in surmises there is a.n inherent improbability, their explanations of the p..ra.gra.ph. Living and they do not explain the commencement before Rome had laid claim to the tremen- of the address. In saying, "Thou a.rt Peter," doUB privileges which it afterwards affected., Christ, if he ma.de any gesture at all, would they did not regard the statement in lhe have touched or turned to that apostle. light of later controversies; and even those Immediately after this to have directed w.tio held Peter to be the rock would Lave attention to himself wcnlil have been most indignnntly repelled tLe assumptions which unnatural and contradictory. We may have been built on that interpretation. The safely surrender tho interpretation which apostolic Fathers seem to have mentioned regards Christ himself as the Rook. (2) The the pe.saage in none of their writings ; and explanation which finds the rook in Peter'1 they could 11carcely have failed to refer to great confession has boon widely adopted it Lad they been aware of the tremendous by commentators ancient and modern. 'l'hu.~ issues dependent thereou. It wae embodied St. Chrysostom," Upon this rock, that is, on i.u. no Catholic Creed, and never ma.de an the faith of his confession. Hereby be article of the Christian faith. We may signifies that many were now on the point remark also that of the evangelists St. of believing, and raise1 his apirit, and on. xvr. 1-28.] THE GOSPF..L .A.CCOilDING TO ST. MATTUEW. 135