“…You are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church (NIV)…” This is the words of Christ that was written in Matthew 16:18 that I mentioned in my previous post that has two different interpretations. Actually, there are three different interpretations but in my previous post, I mentioned only two interpretations.

The first interpretation is: Simon’s name was called by Christ Peter. Peter means rock or stone. And the rock that mentioned by Christ when He said, “…and on this rock, I will build my church…” is Simon Peter.

The second interpretation is: Simon’s name was called by Christ Peter. Peter means rock or stone. However, the rock that mentioned by Christ when He said, “…and on this rock, I will build my church…” is not Simon Peter but Christ Himself.

From these two different interpretations, Mr. Rico Morales chooses the first interpretation because of his reasons. Few of these reasons are:

1. The English Grammar
2. The Commentaries written by Catholic Scholars

The Commentaries of the Catholic Scholars

On the recent email of Mr. Rico Morales, he showed me some commentaries written by Catholic Scholars regarding the verse. Of course the commentaries are all in favor of the first interpretation because the Roman Catholic Church is upholding the first interpretation.

It only means that Mr. Rico Morales’ interpretation is based on the commentaries of the Catholic Scholars not based on the teachings of the real Apostle Peter and the real Apostle Paul.

But wait! Are these Catholic Scholars the witnesses of the incident when Christ talked Simon Peter? Of course not! These scholars started to exist long after the real apostles (witnesses) died.

It is, therefore, clear that Rico Morales chooses to believe those who are not witnesses of the incident.

The English Grammar

Mr. Rico Morales called me idiot in English Grammar. And I admit that. I was even called by fellow Filipino bloggers as idiot blogger because of the way I write articles in my blogs. But, although I am poor on earthly wisdom, but then I know how to understand English sentence like the one that was spoken by Christ, “…You are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church…”

While reading the context of the verse, I understand that Christ was talking to Simon. I didn’t witness the incident but the writer of the book of Matthew described that scenario.

Mr. Rico Morales told me that the second interpretation is wrong based on the construction of the sentence.

So, I reviewed the sentence several times, and I didn’t find any impossibility to interpret it as stated on the second interpretation. Both the first and the second interpretations are possible and correct based on the construction of the sentence, but only one is possible and correct regarding the truth about the real foundation of the church.

Well, because Mr. Rico Morales didn’t know how to consider the second interpretation based on the construction of the sentence, so I will show you here. Here’s how the second interpretation works:

On that verse, there are two rocks that were being mentioned. First is Simon because he was called by Christ Peter and Peter means rock. The second rock is the rock that would be the foundation of the church of Christ (remember this church is not the Roman Church but the church of Christ).

Now, according to the Bible, is Simon Peter a rock? Well, all the members of the church of Christ are considered rocks, including Simon Peter just like what Peter wrote on his first book in the Bible.

“you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (I Peter 2:5, NIV)”

And according to the Bible, is Christ rock? Yes! We already had talked about it on my old posts.

Just like what I said, there is no impossibility that Christ was referring two rocks on that verse. But of course, it’s not me who will decide which of the interpretations is correct based on the truth, because I didn’t witness the incident. And the same is true to Mr. Rico Morales because he is not one of the witnesses of the incident. However, the real Apostle Peter (not the Peter of the Roman Church but the Peter of the church of Christ) and the real Apostle Paul (not the Paul of the Roman Church but the Paul of the church of Christ) can guide us, which of these two interpretations is correct based on the truth.

The Only Foundation

The real Apostle Peter was teaching that Christ is the rock foundation or the cornerstone as written in his first book in the Bible:

“6For in Scripture it says:
1See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.’ 7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
‘The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone,’” (I Peter 2:6-7, NIV)

Mr. Rico Morales’ belief that Peter is the foundation of the church is impossible because according to the real Apostle Paul there is no other foundation that could be laid, except the one that has been laid already who is Christ.

For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. (I Corinthians 3:11, NIV)

Now, if I will to choose whom should I believe, then I will tell you that I will always believe the claims and teachings of the real Apostles than those of the scholars who didn’t witness the incident. Wise men will never believe those who are not witnesses of the incident, otherwise they are fool.

• Sign up for PayPal and start accepting credit card payments instantly.
  As the world's number one online payment service, PayPal is the fastest way to open your doors to over 150 million member accounts worldwide.
• Promote your product to high quality, targeted websites and blogs.
  Find effective, influential blogs and highly targeted audiences to advertise.Choose to display your ad across entire blog networks to maximize your exposure to a wide audience.