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.

[CommerceComet]

Because that is the way it is done in the Greek.

What rule of Greek grammar would have Matthew refer to Peter with both masculine and feminine genders? It seems much more likely that Matthew is referring to two things, hence, the words of different genders.

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

Per my statement, I happen to be correct. Thanks.

[HarleyD]

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.

Wikipedia is hardly an independent source. People submit their information and Wikipedia's editors verify that it warrant posting. Wikipedia is a great tool for understanding different views and facts. However, the list posted on Wikipedia is a Catholic representation of the facts. In that list you will not find references to what Protestants often point to as broke parts of the linage. Some of these linage issues would include the reference to the infamous "Pope Joan" or how there were at least two popes reigning concurrently during the middle ages when the Church was split and the pope left Rome. You can find these issues talked about on Wikipedia as well. They just are not included in this list.

[CynicalBear]

The Holy Spirit put it in the text as a word by itself for a reason. And why is it that FRoman Catholics teach that it’s Peter and their own magesterium says it’s the confession of Peter and not Peter himself?

CCC 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"

I thought Catholics were supposed to believe what the RCC teaches.

[CynicalBear]

>> Thank you, but he has stated his position and the facts will not change his mind.<<

Interesting how you claim to know more than the RCC which you say you follow.

CCC 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"

[HarleyD]

The last living apostle was John, not Peter. The Catholic Encyclopedia lists four popes as succeeding Peter, St. Linus, St. Anacletus I, St. Clement I and St. Evaristus, the last of whom reigned about A.D. 99. The apostle John lived until about A.D. 100 or later. Yet John, in his writings, never once mentioned the name of any of these popes or even the fact that any pope existed. Why? Four popes supposedly succeeded Peter during the life span of the apostle John. Yet, if there was to be a successor, wouldn’t John, the beloved disciple of Jesus and apostle of the Lamb and one of the twelve foundation stones, be the most logical choice?

[dartuser]

And where is the church of Rome mentioned in Revelation 2 and 3? Seems like the letters to the existing churches at the time would include Rome if Rome was truly that important.

The fact that Christ does not address a church in Rome immediately proves that Rome had ... and continues to have ... NO claim to primacy ... whether ancient or modern.

[Iscool]

What rule of Greek grammar would have Matthew refer to Peter with both masculine and feminine genders? It seems much more likely that Matthew is referring to two things, hence, the words of different genders.

Of course Matthew is correct...

All one has to do is dump the fables and fallacies and ask Peter about it...

[count-your-change]

Greek grammar is the same no matter who reads it or for what reason. Catholics will teach what they teach but the grammar remains the same for everyone.

There is plenty of free information about Greek translation and grammar online.

[Elsie]

Careful there. “You” in verse 19 singular/second person, thus addressed to one person, Peter.

And the OTHER guys standing there didn't say a word, eh?

---

So there goes 'who shall be the greatest'...

[Elsie]

It’s as useful as one of his normal image postings; isn’t it!

[count-your-change]

The Greek says what it says. You may take it in any way you choose but it will still say the same thing.

Any argument is far more convincing when it is accurate, and I’m sure you want to be accurate in your quotes of Scripture.

[daniel1212]

If I was a popish type person, I'd follow Paul...He wins over Peter, hands down....

Well, Paul could state, "for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing." (2 Corinthians 12:11)

And Pope Francis is reported to have affirmed, when asked,

Can I ask you, Your Holiness, which saints you feel closest to in your soul, those who have shaped your religious experience?

“St. Paul is the one who laid down the cornerstones of our religion and our creed [the pope substitutes Paul for Peter. When did you see a TRC say that? Closet Prot?]. You cannot be a conscious Christian without St. Paul. He translated the teachings of Christ into a doctrinal structure that, even with the additions of a vast number of thinkers, theologians and pastors, has resisted and still exists after two thousand years. Then there are Augustine, Benedict and Thomas and Ignatius. Naturally Francis. Do I need to explain why?” - www.repubblica.it/cultura/2013/10/01/news/pope_s_conversation_with_scalfari_english-67643118/

But thank God, Jesus revealed to us (thru Paul and Peter) that there ain't no pope...

Not that of Rome for sure. Peter was the non-assertive brethren-type leader among the 12, (Jn. 21:15-17; Acts 1:15ff) and the first one to use the keys to the kingdom by preaching the gospel (Acts 2:14ff) by which souls are translated into it, (Col. 1:13) and first pastor of the first assembly, with almighty God affirming him and the apostles by over supernatural attestation. (Acts 5:1-16). And who can be seen exercising a general pastoral role. (1Pt. 1:1; 5:1)

But the Peter is Scripture is in stark contrast to the manner of men and their doctrines of Rome, while the NT does not substantiate a successor to Peter, and certainly not the Roman version.

Peter he never claimed to be more than "an elder," and a "servant and an apostle," nor claim assured infallibility as per Rome's pontifical formula, and instead he and the apostles established their truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39, 14:11; Acts 17:2,11; Rm. 15:19; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

He and other apostles preached to convict men of sin, and of righteousness and of judgment in such a way that conversions took place in the same hour as they were preached, based upon repentant faith, which baptism expresses. (Acts 2:38; 10:43-47)

In contrast is infant sprinkling upon proxy faith, which souls cannot obey the stated requirements for baptism, that of repentance and whole-hearted faith, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) and which is by immersion, or the weeks of indoctrination for converts to be baptized, about the power of the church, which saves one via the act of baptism, making one actually holy enough inside to be declared just, and who at the end (typically) must become good enough to enter Heaven thru an indeterminate time in purgatory, which Peter also did not preach on.

Nor did he or anyone ever teach or example praying to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord.

Or of a separate class of believers called “saints,” or the mention of the postmortem location of the saints being in purgatory versus with the Lord. (Lk. 24:43; 2Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23; 1Thes. 4:17) Or of indulgences.

Or of a clergy that differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) and also made distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7)

Nor did he teach or example popes enthroned like a Caesar, with his subjects bowing down to him and kissing his feet." for "as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man."

Or support required (with rare exceptions) clerical celibacy, which presumes all such have that gift.

Or of a church that conformed to this world in using papal sanctioned physical oppression and torture, burning and death to deal with theological dissent.

Or who, having lost that power, treats notorious manifestly impenitent public sinners as members in life and in death, in contrast to the NT means of disfellowship and spiritual discipline.

Or laws that greatly restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity, if able and available.

Or a church that sanctions teaching millions such things as that OT miraculous stories are fables or folktales, and that some historical accounts may not be literally accurate (sermon on the mount, etc.)

Being married and preaching a simple gospel message of repentance and faith, (Acts 10:34-43; 15:7-9) as a simple man, he was more evangelical than Catholic.

[Elsie]

Any argument is far more convincing when it is accurate, and I’m sure you want to be accurate in your quotes of Scripture.

Oh, sure.

But I was not the one who TRANSLATED the Greek into English, and seemingly LOST the 'true' meaning of the word.

[Elsie]

[count-your-change]

Then whose translation of vs. 19 were you using that they did not know the proper person of the verb? There was no lose of meaning if one takes advantage of the many resources freely available to us.

Do you know the difference? Thee, thou, you, you and you?
If I error explain where.

[smvoice]

Please check your FReepmail