A man called Cephas . . .

A man called Cephas . . . 

Question: Pray tell me what does Matthew 16:18 mean?

Answer: To answer this, I shall leave this up primarily to one who is revered by Catholics and Protestants as well, St. Augustine (A.D. 354—A.D. 430) Bishop of Hippo is without a doubt, in my opinion, the greatest theologian since the Apostle Paul. The renowned church historian William Jurgens makes these laudatory comments about his importance— 

If we were faced with the unlikely proposition of having to destroy completely either the works of Augustine or the works of all the other Fathers and Writers, I have little doubt that all the others would have to be sacrificed. Augustine must remain. Of all the Fathers it is Augustine who is the most erudite, who has the most remarkable theological insights, and who is effectively most prolific (William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1979), Vol. 3, p. 1). 

Fortunately, however, we do not have to make that choice. Had we, it is doubtful that the erudite luster which surrounds his contribution to theology would have been possible. The truth is that much of his of his theology rest on the shoulders of his predecessors, as well as that of many of his contemporaries. This is not, however, the time or place to discuss or defend that assertion, although I feel certain of the conclusion. Therefore, let us continue to think of the unity that must rest upon the foundation of the pillar and foundation of truth the church of the living God. 

In that regards Christ’s reference to Peter as the petra or rock upon which he was to build his church is a hotly debated passage of Scripture; albeit, central to our discussion. In his interpretation of this passage of Scripture — which is found in Matthew 16:18 and repeated in The Gospel of John 1:42 that St. Augustine had this to say—

"Because thou hast said unto me, 'thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;' I also say unto thee, 'Thou art Peter.' For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore, Peter is also called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. Therefore he saith, 'Thou art Peter and upon this rock' which thou hast confessed, upon this rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God' will I build my Church' that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, 'will I build My Church.' I will build thee upon me, not myself upon thee . . . For men who wished to be built upon men, said 'I am of Paul; and I am of Apollos; and I of Cephas,' who is Peter. But others did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, ‘But I am of Christ.' And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, 'Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?' And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ.; that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter." (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956, Volume VI, St. Augustine, Sermon XXVI.1-2, p. 340)

The primary consideration of St. Augustine’s interpretation is found in the phrase,

“Therefore, Peter is also called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. Therefore he saith, 'Thou art Peter and upon this rock' which thou hast confessed, upon this rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God' will I build my Church' that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, 'will I build My Church.' I will build thee upon me, not myself upon thee …”

Now, let's use a little commonsense here. What if Simon Peter had answered: "Thou art a French bull dog." Would that have made any difference? Well, certainly not in who Christ is, but a world of difference in what Peter thought he was. So, the strength of Christ's assertion rest in the revelation, that is the confession, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Therefore, it is an inconvertible truth that the truth lay in Peter's confession, and the Rock of that confession was Christ. 

The claims of the papacy must, therefore, rest on something else and not Matthew 16:18, in my opinion. 

 JimR_/