Is "The Rock" of Matthew 16:18 St. Peter? Or His Confession of Faith? [Ecumenical]

Catholic Defense ^ | October 8, 2013 | Joe Heschmeyer

[NYer]

One of the most hotly-contested passages in Catholic-Protestant dialogues is the “Upon This Rock” passage in Matthew 16:18. After the Apostle Simon confesses faith in Jesus as the Messiah (the Christ), Jesus says to him “And I tell you, you are Peter, [Petros] and on this rock [petra] I will build my church, and the powers of death [Hades] shall not prevail against it.” So is Jesus founding His Church upon Peter, the first pope, as Catholics say? Or is He just saying that the Church will be built off of those who confess faith in Jesus as the Christ, as many Protestants claim?
The Protestant website GotQuestions? does a good job of presenting the basic argument on both sides:

Peter Paul Rubens, Delivery of the Keys (1616)

The debate rages over whether “the rock” on which Christ will build His church is Peter, or Peter’s confession that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Matthew 16:16). In all honesty, there is no way for us to be 100% sure which view is correct. The grammatical construction allows for either view. The first view is that Jesus was declaring that Peter would be the “rock” on which He would build His church. Jesus appears to be using a play on words. “You are Peter (petros) and on this rock (petra) I will build my church.” Since Peter’s name means rock, and Jesus is going to build His church on a rock – it appears that Christ is linking the two together. God used Peter greatly in the foundation of the church. It was Peter who first proclaimed the Gospel on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-47). Peter was also the first to take the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48). In a sense, Peter was the rock “foundation” of the church. 

The other popular interpretation of the rock is that Jesus was referring not to Peter, but to Peter’s confession of faith in verse 16: “You are the Christ, the son of the living God.” Jesus had never explicitly taught Peter and the other disciples the fullness of His identity, and He recognized that God had sovereignly opened Peter’s eyes and revealed to him who Jesus really was. His confession of Christ as Messiah poured forth from him, a heart-felt declaration of Peter’s personal faith in Jesus. It is this personal faith in Christ which is the hallmark of the true Christian. Those who have placed their faith in Christ, as Peter did, are the church.

I’ve previously presented the case for the Catholic interpretation before, but that’s not what I’m going to do today. In this post, I want to show why the popular Protestant interpretation doesn't work.

First, let's examine the Scriptural passage in context (Matthew 16:13-19):

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare′a Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli′jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

In the span of just three of those verses, Jesus addresses Peter personally ten times. Yet under the Protestant interpretation, we’re supposed to believe that this passage wasn’t meant to apply to Peter personally. It’s allegedly addressed to any Christian making such a profession like the one that Peter makes: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 

There are a couple glaring problems with this theory. First, we hear Martha making this exact declaration in John 11:27, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world.” And you know what Christ doesn’t do? Change her name to Petra, and promise to build the Church upon her. Nor do we see any of the other Christians in the New Testament renamed Peter. The only person in Scripture ever referred to as “Peter” is the Apostle Simon. This looks a lot like Jesus meant to build the Church upon Peter, and not just anyone willing to declare Him the Messiah.

But okay, we don’t know whether Martha or Peter’s confession of faith came first. So maybe Jesus addresses Matthew 16:18 to Peter because Peter got there first?

Well, this raises the other, even more-glaring problem: Peter didn’t get there first. John 1:32-49 eliminates any room for the Protestant interpretation of the “Upon This Rock” passage. Here it is:

Mathis Gothart Grünewald, Isenheim Altarpiece (1516)
(detail - John the Baptist)

And John bore witness, “I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”

The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples; and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus. Jesus turned, and saw them following, and said to them, “What do you seek?” And they said to him, “Rabbi” (which means Teacher), “where are you staying?” He said to them, “Come and see.” They came and saw where he was staying; and they stayed with him that day, for it was about the tenth hour. One of the two who heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which means Christ). He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).

The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. And he found Philip and said to him, “Follow me.” Now Philip was from Beth-sa′ida, the city of Andrew and Peter. Philip found Nathan′a-el, and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” Nathan′a-el said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.” Jesus saw Nathan′a-el coming to him, and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!” Nathan′a-el said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” Nathan′a-el answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”

This passage is fantastic. We hear a series of proclamations of the faith:

1. John the Baptist proclaims Jesus as the Son of God (John 1:34) and the Lamb of God (John 1:36). 
2. The Apostle Andrew, Simon’s brother, proclaims Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ (John 1:41). 
3. The Apostle Philip proclaims Jesus as “him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote,” which is to say, the Messiah (John 1:45). 
4. The Apostle Nathaniel proclaims Jesus as “the Son of God” and “the King of Israel” (John 1:49).

In fact, the only person named in this passage who doesn’t profess faith in Christ is Simon Peter. He’s not recorded as saying anything. And yet right in the midst of this flurry of Messianic proclamations, Jesus does something astounding. He turns to Simon, and as if He has been waiting for him, says “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas.” It’s remarkable that Jesus should do this: He calls Simon by name, including his family name (so to speak). He does the exact same thing in Matthew 16:18. This is as personal as it gets. And as St. John notes, Cephas is the Aramaic word for rock, and is translated into Greek as Petros, and into English as “Peter.”

So John 1 basically shows us that: (1) everyone but Simon proclaimed that Jesus is the Messiah; (2) Jesus then announced that Simon, Son of John, was the one He would choose as the Rock; and (3) Protestants are left spending five hundred years trying to explain why this passage doesn't mean that Simon is really the Rock, or is personally the Rock, etc.

Bear in mind, this event happens at the very start of Jesus’ public ministry, long before the events of Matthew 16. This eliminates any chance that Simon is named Peter because he’s the first to declare Jesus the Christ. Jesus was being declared as Messiah before Peter had even met Him. Instead, Jesus has made it abundantly clear that He, the Sovereign God, specifically chose Peter as the Rock.

Peter is hand-picked from among the crowd, even when he is surrounded by men who seem like they would be better candidates. It is another reminder that “the LORD sees not as man sees; man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7). And Peter alone is renamed. We may all be rocks (Peter calls us “living stones” in 1 Peter 2:5) but Jesus (the “Living Stone” in the fullest sense, 1 Peter 2:4) chose one from among of us, the Apostle Peter, to be the Rock upon which He built the Church.

Update: Two additional points, worth mentioning, were raised in the comments:

1. Many Protestants base their rejection of the Catholic view off of the supposed difference in meaning between Petros and Petra. That difference in meaning doesn’t really exist in the Greek spoken at the time of Christ. But in any case, as John 1:43 shows, Jesus named Peter “Cephas” in Aramaic, which is the exact same word as “Rock.” In Aramaic it’s Cephas and cephas; literally translating that to Greek would give you Petra and petra, which is a problem, since Petra is feminine, and can’t be used as a man’s name. So St. Matthew renders it as the male Petros instead.
   
2. Even if Protestants were right about the proper interpretation of “the Rock” in Matthew 16, the broader passage still supports the papacy, since it shows the foundation of an institutional Church, and the giving of specific powers (the Keys, and the powers of binding/loosening) to Peter individually. For this reason, you can have Fathers like St. Augustine, who aren’t sure on the proper interpretation of “the Rock,” but are steadfast in their belief in the papacy, based upon Petrine authority.
   
   In fact, even if Matthew 16 didn’t exist, there would still be abundant support for the papacy throughout the rest of Scripture and in the testimony of the early Christians.

[verga]

I am a protestant but I have never heard protestants doubting that St. Peter was the Rock.

If you stick around this thread long enough you will see just that.

There is a group of around 10 or so that will come out of the woodwork making quite a few bizarre comments.

Pull up a chair get some popcorn, soda, maybe even some milk duds and enjoy the show.

[NYer]

1 Cor 10:4 and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.

Greek and Aramaic translations, please. Thank you.

[NYer]

Jesus: You are Peter (petros in original Greek - small rock - common name Peter) and upon this rock (petra - large rock - Peter’s statement of faith) I will build my church.

That difference in meaning doesn’t really exist in the Greek spoken at the time of Christ. But in any case, as John 1:43 shows, Jesus named Peter “Cephas” in Aramaic, which is the exact same word as “Rock.” In Aramaic it’s Cephas and cephas; literally translating that to Greek would give you Petra and petra, which is a problem, since Petra is feminine, and can’t be used as a man’s name. So St. Matthew renders it as the male Petros instead.

[Paisan]

Yes.

Best answer yet.

One must always consider the ‘typological’ when reflecting upon Scripture & Miracles etc.

[Paisan]

Yes.

Best answer yet.

One must always consider the ‘typological’ when reflecting upon Scripture & Miracles etc.

[NYer]

The issue is whether the Pope is the only rightful and infallible successor to St. Peter.

Through the laying on of hands, the "Chair of Peter" has been passed down for 2000 years. Here is the list, from Wikipedia, an independent source.

[tanknetter]

I am a protestant but I have never heard protestants doubting that St. Peter was the Rock.

I'm protestant too, and concur. Of course I'm Episcopal, so still (technically) within the Apostolic line and keeping to a lot of the Roman Catholic doctrine and traditions that other protestant faiths disposed of during the Reformation (and afterwards).

I will say this, I recently read an argument somewhere that claimed an interpretation from the early Greek version where Jesus was actually referring to Himself. I hadn't heard that one before, either.

But then the writer went on to present the additional claim that there was no way the Romans would have allowed a crucified troublemaker to be taken down from the cross and buried in a proper tomb. To much value in leaving the corpse up there on display, pour encourager les autres. Which, to me anyways, represents a denial of His resurrection.

So I take a lot of this with a grain of salt - people presenting interpretations that fit their own views (and also taunt those who hold different ones) rather than advancing the discussion.

[Uri’el-2012]

If you take a verse out of context and torture
it sufficiently. it will yield to one's eisegesis.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[NYer]

One item so many forget. God wanted the scripture written the way it was for the specific purpose of showing the two different "rocks" Jesus had in mind.

Please show me the scriptural passage where Jesus orders his words to be recorded in a specific language for future generations.

[aumrl]

Reluctant to speak on this because I thought the Roman church acknowledged its errors at VaticanII. Excuse spelling but Tellhard de Jardine’s beliefs were pretty much accepted and Protestant dogma as a consequence. The priest was removed from being in the middle between G-d and man. Indeed the rites for treatment of the host have withered and congregants now can take the bread and pass the cup.
Peter’s name means rock but.... that whole ship has sailed.

[CynicalBear]

It’s interesting to me that all scripture refers to God as the Rock and one even declaring that God knows of no other Rock yet in one small verse the RCC has declared that Peter is the Rock the church is built on.

[Rodamala]

I am a protestant but I have never heard protestants doubting that St. Peter was the Rock.

             Can you smell what The Rock is cookin'?

[NYer]

If you take a verse out of context and torture it sufficiently. it will yield to one's eisegesis.

Totally agree, that is why I posted this thread. Again, the topic is God choosing Simon to lead His Church. Your comment was scripturally unrelated since Moses was NOT G-D.

Pax et Bonum

[NYer]

... yet in one small verse the RCC has declared that Peter is the Rock the church is built on.

Small verse? Show me another one from Scripture where Jesus singles out one individual and .... to cite the author ...

In the span of just three of those verses, Jesus addresses Peter personally ten times.

There is NOTHING small about that verse.

[smvoice]

Can I ask which to which Church you are referring? The Kingdom, Messianic Church, or the Church the Body of Christ?

[boatbums]

From where did you copy and paste this and why isn’t in a readable format?

[boatbums]

The issue is whether the Pope is the only rightful and infallible successor to St. Peter.

Through the laying on of hands, the "Chair of Peter" has been passed down for 2000 years. Here is the list, from Wikipedia, an independent source.

Even Roman Catholic scholars admit that a Roman papal primacy was unheard of for the first three centuries of the Christian church. This so-called "Chair of Peter", if it existed at all back then, would have been one of a succession of carrying on the truths as taught by Jesus and as revealed to Paul and the others as told in the New Testament epistles and gospels. The ONLY reason why Roman Catholics insist that Peter was the first Pope, and base that on the sole verse of Matthew 16:18, is because they consider their church as the ONLY true church established by Jesus Christ.

It doesn't matter that, through the ages many errors have developed within the church of Rome, they are ignored or brushed off as insignificant because of the promise they deem was made to Peter and by default ALL those who came after him. There is a haughty and exclusive elitism that gets justified because of this ONE falsely interpreted verse. IF Peter was the "rock" Jesus meant rather than Jesus being the rock and faith in Him the foundation of the Body of Christ, then there is NO Scriptural proof that this role could be passed down from Peter and those he may have laid hands upon and they laid hands upon ad infinitum. The Apostles and disciples of Jesus were personally endowed by Christ with the establishment of the ministry of the church and they handed down the rule of the faith not some mystical "gift" that automatically conferred a special power. This was their understanding from the start and it became perverted as the centuries passed into this exclusivity we see today by the Roman Catholic Church.

[CynicalBear]

First of all that “ten times” is really a stretch but actually immaterial. There is a Greek word that the Catholics, and many others for that matter, don’t include. The text really reads like this.

Matthew 16:18 I also moreover to you say That you are Peter and on this the rock I will build my church and [the]gates of hades not will prevail against it.

Jesus didn’t say “on this rock”, He said “on this the rock. Now what does the rest of scripture say is the rock? It’s God in every instance.

Deut. 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

2 Sam. 22:2 And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; 3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.

Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."

Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."

Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."

1 Cor. 3:11, "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,"

1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."

Scripture is pretty clear who the rock is. Even St Augustine made a statement.

St Augustine wrote: ‘For on this very account the Lord said, On this rock will I build my Church, because Peter had said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On this rock, therefore, He said, which you have confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself also built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus’ (Augustine, Tractate 124, 5).

Then this interesting tid bit hidden away in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church. "To preach. . . the unsearchable riches of Christ"

Catholics tell us all the time how the church is built on Peter but the RCC itself says it’s on the confession of Peter.

Are you sure you want to disagree with both scripture and what the RCC has in it’s Catechism?

[smvoice]

The reason I am asking is this:

"According to the GRACE of God which is GIVEN UNTO ME, as a wise MASTERBUILDER, I HAVE LAID THE FOUNDATION, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For OTHER FOUNDATION can NO MAN LAY than that IS LAID, WHICH IS JESUS CHRIST."1 Cor. 3:10,11.

Do you see what Paul is saying here? He says HE is the masterbuilder and has laid the foundation of grace, given to him by God. He goes on to say that NO MAN can lay any other foundation, the foundation being JESUS CHRIST. NOT PETER. So "the Rock" of Matt. 16:18 cannot POSSIBLY be Peter. It MUST be Jesus Christ.

[CynicalBear]

Even the RCC has in it’s Catachism that it’s not Peter that the church is built on. Get this.

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.9 "To preach. . . the unsearchable riches of Christ"