But this afternoon I want us to focus on verse 18. “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. As I have said, this is an extremely important declaration. But just for this afternoon, I want you to try to forget everything that you have been taught about this verse. It’s not that I want to change your interpretation or understanding, but it is always good to leave the door open for the leadership of the Holy Spirit. If your current opinion is wrong, and you are not willing to listen, then you may forever be wrong. But if your interpretation is correct, then listening to another interpretation will not only not change you, but may in fact strengthen your position. For just a few minutes erase from your mind anything and everything that you have heard and read about verse 18. Let’s begin at square one and rebuild our interpretation of the verse.
Beginning with Christ’s statement “I will build my church.”
This is the first time that the word “church” is found in our Bibles. But obviously, Jesus and the disciples knew what the word meant, because no explanation was forthcoming. There is no argument from anyone today that the word in the “Textus Receptus,” the Greek New Testament, was “ecclesia.” And as I said last week, there is also no argument that the word means “assembly.” More specifically it refers to a “called out assembly” – an assembled group of people who have been called out of a larger body of people. The United States Senate might be called an “ecclesia,” but the way that it is called out doesn’t exactly fit the definition. A town counsel might be called an “ecclesia.” In fact that is what we see in Acts 19. A riot had arisen in Ephesus because the gospel was being preached, and people were turning to Christ. A great crowd of idolaters gathered and began chanting, “Great is Diana; great is Diana of the Ephesians.” This went on for two hours until the town clerk – a city official – finally got the people to calm. Eventually he told the mob to bring the matter to the city government. “If ye inquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a a lawful assembly (ecclesia).”
There were several types of “ecclesias” in Jesus’ day, but He referred to only one – “my ecclesia.” “I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Most linguists say that the word “church” should not apply to anything but “religious” assemblies. Checking two of my dictionaries, the etymology of “church” is explained this way – It comes from Old English “cirice,” and Scottish “kirk,” which came from Medieval Greek “kurikon.” And “kurikon” is related to “kurios” the New Testament word for “Lord” – (a synonym for “Jehovah.”) Etymologically, a “church” is one of the Lord’s “called out assembly.”
Here Christ Jesus said, “I will build my church.” That, to some people, means that He would begin building it sometime in the future – at Pentecost. But it doesn’t necessarily refer to starting sometime in the future. I plan to build my stamp collection until I’m too old and blind to enjoy it. I will build my collection and only the gates of hell shall prevail against it. But I started building that collection thirty years ago.
I think that this part of the verse is pretty easy to understand.
But I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that many people are confused about the last part of the verse.
“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. I say that people might be confused about “the gates of hell,” because for years I was mistaken about it. I don’t know where I came up with the idea – whether it was from sermons, Bible school, reading, or if it was just a part of my own depraved imagination. But somewhere along the line I got the idea that this meant that Satan was not going to defeat Christ’s church. I thought this meant that Satan was not going to be able to storm the gates of the church and destroy it. I looked at this verse as more proof for the perpetuity of the Lord’s church. I believe yet today, by way of many scriptures, that Christ’s church will exist in this world until the Day of the Lord’s return. I believe by faith, and by history, and because of the scriptures, that Christ has had His saints and His churches in this world from before Matthew 16, down through the dark ages and up until this day. Years ago I thought that this verse was one of the scriptures which proved it.
And then at some point I realized that the verse didn’t say that the “gates of the church” would withstand Satan’s attack. This verse is talking about the “gates of hell.” So at that point I decided that the church was the attacking army and that Satan would eventually fall. Again, the idea is clearly Biblical, but it’s not so clear that this verse teaches it. Where in Matthew 16:18 do we read of Satan?
The word “hell” is “hades” – the Greek equivalent of the Old Testament “sheol.” “Hades” and “sheol” speak of “the place of the dead,” and in so doing they refer to the people who are dead. Hell isn’t the abode of Satan. Hell isn’t property of the Devil. In Luke 16 a man died, “And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.” Hades is the place of the dead. The disciples understood this, because we can listen to Peter on the Day of Pentecost referring to David and even to the Lord Jesus while talking about Hell. He quoted David’s 16th Psalm, but applied it to Christ Jesus – “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” And a few verses later he made things crystal clear – “He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.” Christ Jesus visited hell for a while after His death – because that is where the dead go. In one section of hell Lazarus rested in peace; but in another section the rich man was in torment. Christ entered hades when He died, but it was not to be tormented. Paul says in Ephesians that before Christ ascended into Heaven, He descended – referring to hades.
It seems to me that if we are going to be consistent in our definition of “hell,” then the promise of Christ is that His church will prevail over death. Evangelism, one of the basic ministries of the Lord’s churches, is an attack upon death. When the Holy Spirit – through the Lord’s “ecclesia” – rescues and saves a hell-bound sinner, in essence he is moved from future torment in hell, to Paradise with Lazarus. In this way, “whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (I expect that will be my theme for next Sunday morning.) The only difference with today and what the Lord revealed in Luke 16 is that today Lazarus and Paradise are with Christ in Glory – those who had been happily captive in Paradise have been carried to Heaven. “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of (death) – that is – hell shall not be able to stand against it.
Now, what is the meaning of the first part of the verse?
“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.” I confess to struggling for years with the logic of my early teachers. Their explanation of the verse seem forced and disjointed. And then I found good Baptist brethren and experts who offered a bit of explanation and sanity. You may disagree with me on some of these details; I don’t think that there is reason for us to divorce.
There are three basic interpretations of this statement. One is that Peter is the rock upon which the Lord will build His church. Another is that Peter’s confession is the rock – “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And the third is that Christ is the rock. One problem in deciding which is the true interpretation is that all three are plausible.
Take for example the third, which is the most common interpretation among Baptists. Without argument, one of the Biblical pictures or types of Christ is a rock. I Corinthians 10 – “Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.” One problem with that interpretation is that the name “Peter” also means “rock.” But there is a way to get around that little difficulty, to which I will return in just a minute. Another problem with that interpretation, and one with which I have struggled for years is that it makes the verse seem disjointed and illogical – the pieces don’t fit together very well in my imperfect mind. “And I say also unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon me I will build my church.” It would have been helpful if the Lord had used the word “but” but He didn’t. “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, but I will build my church upon myself.” Also, some people have problems with the idea that Christ builds His church upon Himself. Is He the builder or the building material? If we look at this allegorically, then this may not be a problem. But what does the verse actually say?
Another often accepted interpretation is that the Lord would build his church on Peter’s confession. “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” That confession is wonderful and important, as I have said over the last couple of weeks. But also, as I tried to say this morning, this confession isn’t even enough to save a soul from hell. The devils also believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, but that knowledge hasn’t saved them. The deity of Christ is certainly one of the foundational principles upon which all of Christ’s churches – Calvary Baptist Church included – has been built, but there are others just as essential.
I think that I have flashed this noble book before your eyes a couple times so far in our study of Matthew. It is called “Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew” by the good Baptist scholar, John A. Broadus. It was published in 1886, and this may be an original edition. Broadus was not just a Baptist preacher but a seminary professor and an highly respected Biblical scholar. He spends six pages discussing verse 18. And he begins his analysis of this part of the verse by saying that Roman Catholics interpret Jesus’ words to say that Peter is the rock upon which Christ built the Roman Catholic church. That is Catholic doctrine, so we aren’t surprised to see Broadus restating the obvious. But it’s what he says after that which is rather eye-catching.
My teachers used to point out that “Peter” means “rock” – but it is not exactly the same “rock” upon which Christ will build His church. Peter is “petros” while rock is “petra.” I have heard, and I have repeated that Peter refers to a small rock, while “petra” speaks of a massive monolith. These things are arguably true. But Broadus reminds us that although the Bible was written in Greek, Christ was speaking Aramaic. He says that as Jesus spoke there was no distinction between Peter’s name and the rock upon which Christ was building His church. Peter’s name is “Cephas” or “Kaphas” half a dozen times in the New Testament. And do you remember from where that name came? It was not from Simon’s parents. After Andrew brought Simon his brother to Christ. “Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone (petros).”
It is Broadus’ contention that just because the Catholics say Peter is the rock upon which Christ built His church, there is no reason to throw the idea away without considering it. Remember, we’ve already established that Peter was not speaking for himself, when he made that memorable confession. All the disciples had earlier confessed that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
The first of all Christ’s churches was that traveling church of Galilee, of which He was the pastor. And who were the first members of that church? Peter, Andrew, James, John and eight others. Isn’t it true that the Galilean church settled in Jerusalem, and to it were added about 3,000 souls? Can’t it also be proven that from that church were started several others, from Antioch to Samaria? Then from Antioch Paul, Silas and Barnabas started dozens of others. Might it not be said that upon Peter and the other disciples Christ has been building His church?
I know that I Peter 2 might be used for either the first or this third interpretation, but either way it needs to be considered. “As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 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. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. Notice that Peter refers to us as building blocks being added to the Lord – to the Lord’s church???
Do you believe that Christ’s church or the Lord’s churches will make up the Bride of Christ? If so listen to the words of Revelation 21:9-14 – “And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal; And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates. And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” If the Bride of Christ is also the church Christ, notice that her foundation is the twelve apostles – the very people to whom Christ was speaking here in Matthew 16. “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 be able to stand against it.
I am not going to say that my mind is fully and permanently made up. And I’m not going to break fellowship with someone whose mind is firmly made up – in any of these three opinions. But I’m saying that perhaps we should not throw out the idea that Christ built His church upon Peter and the disciples. That appears to me at this point to be the smoothest way to interpret Matthew 16:18.