Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 16:18 - 16:18
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_16:18. But I again say to thee. The point of the comparison in κἀγώ is, that Peter having made a certain declaration in reference to Jesus, Jesus also, in His turn, now does the same in reference to Peter.
πέτρος ] as an appellative: thou art a rock, Aram. ëÌÅéôÈà . The form ὁ πέτρος [455] is likewise common among classical writers, and that not merely in the sense of a stone, as everywhere in Homer in contradistinction to πέτρα (see Duncan, p. 937, ed. Rost, and Buttmann, Lexil. II. p. 179), but also as meaning a rock (Plat. Ax. p. 371 E: Σισύφου πέτρος ; Soph. Phil. 272, O. C. 19, 1591; Pind. Nem. iv. 46, x. 126). Jesus declares Peter to be a rock on account of that strong and stedfast faith in himself to which, under the influence of a special revelation from God, he had just given expression. According to Joh_1:43, however, Jesus conferred the name Cephas upon him at their very first interview (according to Mar_3:16, somewhat later); but our passage is not to be understood as simply recording the giving of the name, or the giving of it for the second time. It is rather intended to be taken as a record of the declaration made by Jesus, to the effect that Simon was in reality all that the name conferred upon him implied. Consequently our passage is in no way inconsistent with that of John just referred to, which could only have been the case if the words used had been σὺ κληθήσῃ Πέτρος .
καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ ] The emphasis is on ΤΑΎΤῌ , which points to Peter (not to Jesus, as Augustine would have us suppose), and to be understood thus: on no other than on this rock,—hence the feminine form in this instance, because it is not so much a question of the name as of the thing which it indicates, i.e. of that rocky element in the apostle’s character which furnished so solid a foundation for the superstructure of the church that was to be built upon it.
οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ] will I build for myself ( μου , as in Mat_8:3, and frequently; see note on Joh_11:32) the church. The ἐκκλησία —in the Old Testament ÷ÈäÈì , Deu_18:16; Deu_23:1, Jdg_21:8, the whole assembly of the Jewish people (Act_7:38), the theocratic national assembly (comp. Sir_24:1, and Grimm’s note)—is used in the New Testament to denote the community of believers, the Christian church, which, according to a common figure (1Co_3:10 f.; Eph_2:19 ff.; Gal_2:9; 1Pe_2:4 f.), is represented as a building, of which Christ here speaks of Himself as the architect, and of Peter as the foundation on which a building is to be raised (Mat_7:24 f.) that will defy every effort to destroy it. But the term ἘΚΚΛ . was in such current use in its theocratic sense, that it is not necessary to suppose, especially in the case of a saying so prophetic as this, that it has been borrowed from a later order of things and put into Jesus’ mouth (Weisse, Bleek, Holtzmann). Besides, there can be no doubt whatever that the primacy among the apostles is here assigned to Peter, inasmuch as Christ singles him out as that one in particular whose apostolic labours will, in virtue of the stedfast faith for which he is peculiarly distinguished, be the means of securing, so far as human effort can do so (comp. Rev_21:4; Gal_2:9), the permanence and stability of the church which Jesus is about to found, and to extend more and more in the world. As in accordance with this, we may also mention the precedence given to this disciple in the catalogues of the apostles, and likewise the fact that the New Testament uniformly represents him as being, in point of fact, superior to all the others (Act_15:7; Act_2:14; Gal_1:18; Gal_2:7-8). This primacy must be impartially conceded, though without involving those inferences which Romanists have founded upon it; for Peter’s successors are not for a moment thought of by Jesus, neither can the popes claim to be his successors, nor was Peter himself ever bishop of Rome, nor had he any more to do with the founding the church at Rome than the Apostle Paul (for the false reasoning on this subject, see Döllinger, Christenth. u. Kirche, p. 315 ff.). The explanation frequently had recourse to in anti-popish controversies, to the effect that the rock does not mean Peter himself, but his stedfast faith and the confession he made of it[456] (Calovius, Ewald, Lange, Wieseler), is incorrect, because the demonstrative expression: ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ , coming immediately after the ΣῪ ΕἾ ΠΈΤΡΟς , can only point to the apostle himself, as does also the καὶ δώσω , etc., which follows, it being understood, of course, that it was in consideration of Peter’s faith that the Lord declared him to be a foundation of rock. It is this circumstance also that underlies the reference to the apostle’s faith on the part of the Fathers (Ambrose: “non de carne Petri, sed de fide;” comp. Origen, Cyril, Chrysostom, Augustine).
The expression: πύλαι ᾅδου (which does not require the article, Winer, p. 118 f. [E. T. 147 ff.]), is to be explained by the circumstance that because Hades is a place from which there is no possibility of getting out again (Eustathius, ad Od. xi. 276; Blomfield, Gloss. in Aesch. Pers. p. 164), it is represented under the figure of a palace with strong gates (Son_8:6 f.; Job_38:17; Isa_38:10; Psa_9:14; Psa_107:18; Wis_16:13; 3Ma_5:51; Ev. Nicod. xxi., and Thilo’s note, p. 718; more frequently also in Homer, as Il. viii. 15; Aesch. Agam. 1291; Eur. Hipp. 56).
οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς ] So securely will I build my church upon this rock, that the gates of Hades will not he able to resist it, will not prove stronger than it; indicating, by means of a comparison, the great strength and stability of the edifice of the church, even when confronted with so powerful a structure as that of Hades, the gates of which, strong as they are, will yet not prove to be stronger than the building of the church; for when the latter becomes perfected in the Messianic kingdom at the second coming, then those gates will be burst open, in order that the souls of the dead may come forth from the subterranean world to participate in the resurrection and the glory of the kingdom (comp. note on 1Co_15:54 f.), when death (who takes away the souls of men to imprison them in Hades), the last enemy, has been destroyed (1Co_15:26). So far the victory of the church over Hades is, of course, affirmed, yet not in such a way as to imply that there had been an attack made by the one upon the other, but so as to convey the idea that when the church reaches her perfected condition, then, as a matter of course, the power of the nether world, which snatches away the dead and retains them in its grasp, will also be subdued. This victory presupposes faith on the part of the καταχθονίοι (Php_2:10), and consequently the previous descensus Christi ad inferos. Moreover, had He chosen, Christ might have expressed Himself thus: καὶ πυλῶν ᾅδου κατισχύσει ; but, keeping in view the comparative idea which underlies the statement, He prefers to give prominence to “the gates of Hades” by making them the subject, which circumstance, combined with the use of the negative form of expression (Rev_12:8), tends to produce a somewhat solemn effect. κατισχύειν τινος : praevalere adversus aliquem (Jer_15:18; Ael. N. A. v. 19; comp. ἀντισχύειν τινος , Wis_7:30, and ἸΣΧΎΕΙΝ ΚΑΤΆ ΤΙΝΟς , Act_19:16). If we adopt the no less grammatical interpretation of: to overpower, to subdue (Luther and the majority of commentators), a most incongruous idea emerges in reference to the gates, and that whether we understand the victory as one over the devil (Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Maldonatus, Michaelis, Keim) or over death (Grotius); for the gates of Hades would thus be represented as the attacking side, which would hardly be appropriate, and we would have to suppose what, on the other hand, would be foreign to the sense, that all the monsters of hell would rush out through the opened gates (Ewald, comp. also Weizsäcker, p. 494). The point of the comparison lies simply in the strength that distinguishes such solid gates as those of Hades, and not also in the Oriental use of the gates as a place of meeting for deliberation (Glöckler, Arnoldi), as though the hostile designs of hell were what was meant. Notwithstanding the progressive nature of the discourse and the immediate subject, Wetstein and Clericus refer αὐτῆς to Peter ( ταύτῃ τ . πέτρᾳ ), and suppose the meaning to be: “eum in discrimen vitae venturum, nec tamen eo absterritum iri,” etc.
Notice, besides, the grandeur of the expression: “grandes res etiam grandia verba postulant,” Dissen, ad Pind. p. 715.
[455] Among the later poets ἡ πέτρος is likewise to be met with. See Jacobs, ad Anthol. XIII. p. 22.—The name Πέτρος is also to be found in Greek writers of a, later age (Leont. Schol. 18); more frequently in the form Πετραῖος (Lobeck, Paral. p. 342).
[456] Comp. Luther’s gloss: “All Christians are Peters on account of the confession here made by Peter, which confession is the rock on which he and all Peters are built.” Melanchthon, generalizing the πέτρα , understands it in the sense of the verum ministerium. Comp. Art. Smalc. p. 345.