Protestant Scholarship on Peter as the Rock
- samshmn
- 16 hours ago
- 26 min read
In this post I will be citing from a variety of reputable Protestant commentaries on Matthew 16:18 in regards to Peter being the rock upon which Christ will be building his Church. These commentators utterly reject the Roman Catholic interpretation that Jesus was establishing Peter as the first Pope, leading to the institution of the Papacy and Papal Primacy. This makes their exegesis all that more relevant and important since, despite their rejection of the Catholic view, they still acknowledge that Peter is in fact the rock of the Church.
In fact, their position can be taken as a hostile witness that actually confirms the Catholic view of Peter being the rock, since it shows that this interpretation is not special pleading or eisegesis on the part of the Catholic Church. It demonstrates that Peter being the rock is based on sound hermeneutical principles, and that it is actually the denial by those reacting against the Catholic view that is unfaithful to the accurate meaning of the verse.
With the foregoing in view, I now proceed to the commentaries themselves. All emphasis will be mine.
16:18 you are Peter (which means “rock”), and upon this rock I will build my church. Jesus’ response to Peter’s resounding confession continued with a pronouncement of Peter’s foundational authority in the church that Jesus would build. The word “church” occurs only twice in the Gospels, here and in Matthew 18:17. Though many Protestants think otherwise, Jesus played on the name of Peter in order to speak of him (as spokesman for the disciples) as the foundation of the nascent church (cf. Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14). This is the more natural understanding of Jesus’ words, much to be preferred over reactionary views that take the rock to be Jesus himself or Peter’s confession of Jesus. (The NLT’s parenthetical “which means ‘rock’” supports this interpretation, although the Gr. text does not contain the clause as noted in NLT mg.) (David Turner and Darrell L. Bock, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Vol 11: Matthew and Mark [Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2005], p. 220)
A Foundational Revelation (16:17–18) Peter did not receive his revelation from man, literally “flesh and blood” (compare Gal 1:16), a common expression for “mortals” or “humans” (as in 1 Cor 15:50; Eph 6:12; Heb 2:14; 1 Enoch 15:4; Mek. Pisḥa 1.120). Peter’s understanding of Jesus’ identity came by divine revelation (Mt 16:17; 11:25), undoubtedly including God’s revelation through Jesus’ miraculous acts (14:33; compare 15:22). This revelation of Jesus’ identity was foundational for God’s purposes in history.
Jesus then plays on Simon’s nickname, Peter, which would be roughly the English “Rocky”: Peter is rocky, and on this rock Jesus will build his church (16:18). Scholars have debated precisely what Jesus means by rock. Protestants, following Augustine and Luther, have sometimes contended that the rock in this passage is only Jesus himself (references in Cullmann 1953:162 n. 13). But by Jesus’ day the Greek terms petros (Peter) and petra (rock) were interchangeable, and the original Aramaic form of Peter’s nickname that Jesus probably used (kēphas) means simply “rock” (Cullmann 1953:18–19; Ladd 1974b:110; Carson 1984:368; France 1985:254; Blomberg 1992:252).
Further, Jesus does not say, “You are Peter, but on this rock I will build my church”; he says, And on this rock I will build my church. Jesus’ teaching is the ultimate foundation for our lives (7:24–27; compare 1 Cor 3:11), but here Peter functions as the foundation rock like the apostles and prophets in Ephesians 2:20–21. Jesus does not simply assign this role to Peter arbitrarily, however; Peter is the “rock” because in this context he is the one who confesses Jesus as the Christ (Mt 16:15–16; Cullmann 1953:162; Ladd 1974b:110; C. Brown 1978:386). Others who share his proclamation also share his authority in building the church (18:18 with 16:19).
The Community Built on This Foundation Will Prevail (16:18) Ancient teachers from Greek philosophers to Qumran’s founding teacher established communities of followers to perpetuate their teachings (as in Culpepper 1975:123; compare Albright and Mann 1971:195; Flusser 1988:35). The Qumran community described themselves as the qāhāl, the Hebrew word for God’s congregation in the exodus narrative, which the Greek versions sometimes translate as ekklēsia or “church.” Jesus thus depicts his followers, his church, as the true, faithful remnant of God’s people in continuity with the Old Testament covenant community (Ridderbos 1975:328; F. Bruce 1963:84). What marked it as new, however, was Jesus’ specific designation “my community” (Ladd 1974b:110; France 1985:255).
Biblical tradition had often spoken of “building up” the community of God (as in Ps 51:18; 69:35; Jer 24:6; 31:4, 28). The gates of Hades* is a familiar Semitic expression for the threshold of the realm of death. The words used here suggest that death itself assaults Christ’s church, but death cannot crush us (Ladd 1974b:116). The church will endure until Christ’s return, and no opposition, even widespread martyrdom of Christians or the oppression of the final antichrist (compare Jeremias 1968:927), can prevent the ultimate triumph of God’s purposes in history.
Jesus Authorizes His Agents to Admit People to the Kingdom (16:19) The authority belongs not only to Peter (v. 19) but to all who share his proclamation of Jesus’ identity (18:18). The realm of heaven here contrasts strikingly with the powers of Hades, or “Sheol,” the realm of the dead thought to lie beneath the earth (16:18; compare Heb 2:14; Rev 1:18). Keys* opened locked doors or gates, but the carrying of keys especially symbolized the authority of the person who bore them. One who carried keys to a royal palace was the majordomo, as in Isaiah 22:22 and Revelation 3:7. Supervisors held the keys to the temple courts among Jesus’ contemporaries (as in ARN 7, §21B), and in Jewish lore prominent angels carried certain keys (for example, 3 Baruch 1:2; compare b. Ta˓anit 2a).
Whether Peter thus acts as “prime minister” for the kingdom (see Brown, Donfried and Reumann 1973:96–97) or perhaps as a “chief rabbi” making halakhic rulings based on Jesus’ teachings (Meier in Brown and Meier 1983:67), he clearly acts with enough delegated authority (compare Acts 10:44; Gal 2:7). Whereas Israel’s religious elite was shutting people out of the kingdom (23:13; compare Lk 11:52), those who confessed Jesus’ identity along with Peter were authorized to usher people into God’s kingdom.
Scholars have proposed many interpretations of “binding and loosing,” but in Jewish texts these terms (˒āsar and hittɩ̂r or sra˒) could refer to authority to interpret the law, hence to evaluate individuals’ fidelity to the law as in 18:18 (see comment there). In this context, however, the nuance may be somewhat different from 18:18: Peter and those who share his role (others share it in 18:18) evaluate not those who are in the community, but those who would enter it (10:14–15, 40; this is a role assigned to overseers in the Qumran community—compare 1QS 5.20-21; 6:13–14). In both functions—evaluating entrants and evaluating those already within the church—God’s people must evaluate on the authority of the heavenly court. The verb tenses allow (and according to some scholars even suggest) that they merely ratify the heavenly decree (see comment on 18:18; compare Mantey 1973 and 1981; Keener 1987).
Peter must thus accept into the church only those who share his confession of Jesus’ true identity (16:16). Of course the church should emulate Jesus’ practice of welcoming the unconverted (9:10), but this is not the same as acting as if all comers were true disciples of Christ regardless of their commitment. Today some churches both admit into membership the unconverted and fail to take the message of Jesus’ identity to the unconverted outside their walls. The danger of building a church on those not committed to Christ’s agendas is that in time the church will reflect more of the world’s values than Christ’s; this was one way some originally abolitionist churches compromised with the slave trade (Usry and Keener 1996:102–5). (Craig S. Keener, Matthew, vol. 1, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997], Mt 16:17–19)
16:18 Acknowledging Jesus as the Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname, “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter,” parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ,” as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.
It is often alleged, however, that the “rock” must be Christ or Peter’s confession of Christ, especially since the days of Luther and the Protestant Reformation. These alternatives understandably react against traditional Roman Catholic equation of Peter with the first pope and against an elaborate ecclesiology built on this verse. But a legitimate interpretation of vv. 18b–19, as below, predicates nothing of this, so there should be no theological objections to taking Peter as “this rock.” A distinction between “Peter” and “this rock” is also often affirmed on the basis of the two different Greek words, but grammar requires this variation because the ending of petra (“rock”) is feminine and could not be used for a man’s name. The underlying Aramaic would have used kepha in both instances, in which case the problem disappears altogether.
So what does Jesus promise Peter? He will be the foundation on which Christ will build his “church.” Here is the first use of ekklēsia in the Gospels. It occurs only three times, all in Matthew, and the other two references are both in 18:17. Many hold that Jesus did not conceive of establishing a church and that these verses are later Matthean insertions. But the nature of Jesus’ instruction to his community of followers certainly implied their continued existence in some form, even if there is little of an “institution” yet in view. Moreover, the word ekklēsia in Hellenistic Greek often simply meant an assembly, as is also true of the underlying Aramaic qāhāl—a gathering of people for a particular purpose. In the Old Testament these gatherings normally involved the Israelites at worship, so that precisely such a community surrounding the Messiah had become a standard Jewish expectation. Jesus, however, implies nothing here of any particular church structure or government; he merely promises that he will establish a gathered community of his followers and help them to grow. (Craig Blomberg, Matthew, vol. 22, The New American Commentary [Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992], pp. 251–253)
18 And I tell you ...: Bernhard Weiss (Das Matthäus-Evangelium [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1898]) sees a contrast between Jesus and his Father, as if Jesus were saying, “Just as the Father revealed something to you and thereby honored you, so now I do the same.” But the formula is common enough in places without such a contrast, and this may be an unwarranted refinement. The words simply point to what is coming.
that you are Peter ...: The underlying Aramaic kêpā ʾ (“Cephas” in Jn 1:42; 1Co 15:5; Gal 1:18; et al.) was an accepted name in Jesus’ day (see comments at 4:18). Though Ben F. Meyer (pp. 186–87) insists that Jesus gave the name “Cephas” to Simon at this point, Jesus merely made a pun on the name (4:18; 10:2; Mk 3:16; Jn 1:42). Yet Meyer is right to draw attention to the “rock” motifs on which the name Cephas is based (pp. 85–86, 194– 95), motifs related to the netherworld and the temple (and so connoting images of “gates of Hades” and “church”; see below). The Greek Kēphas (Eng. “Cephas”) transliterates the Aramaic, and Petros (“Peter”) is the closest Greek translation. P. Lampe’s argument (“Das Spiel mit dem Petrusnamen— Matt. xvi.18,” NTS 25 [1979]: 227–45) that both kêpā ʾ and petros originally referred to a small “stone,” but not a “rock” (on which something could be built), until Christians extended the term to explain the riddle of Simon’s name, is baseless. True, petros commonly means “stone” in pre-Christian literature, but the Aramaic kêpā ʾ, which underlies the Greek, means “(massive) rock” (cf. H. Clavier, “Πέτρος καὶ πέτρα,” Neutestamentliche Studien [ed. W. Eltester; Berlin: Topelmann, 1957], 101–3).
and on this rock ...: “Rock” now becomes petra (feminine), and on the basis of the distinction between petros (above) and petra (here), many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere “stone,” it is alleged, but Jesus himself is the “rock,” as Peter attests (1Pe 2:5–8) (so, among others, Lenski, Walvoord). Others adopt some other distinction; e.g., “upon this rock of revealed truth—the truth you have just confessed—I will build my church” (Allen). Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.
1. Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry.
Moreover, the underlying Aramaic in this case is unquestionable, and most probably kêpā ʾ was used in both clauses (“you are kêpā ʾ, and on this kêpā ʾ”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name. For a full discussion of the linguistic issues, see Chrys C. Caragounis, Peter and the Rock (BZNW 58; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989), 9–16.
2. Paronomasia of various kinds is very common in the Bible and should not be belittled (cf. Barry J. Beitzel, “Exodus 3:14 and the Divine Name: A Case of Biblical Paronomasia,” TJ 1 [1980]: 5–20; BDF, para. 488).
3. Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been lithos (“stone” of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun—and that is just the point!
4. The objection that Peter considers Jesus the rock is insubstantial because metaphors are commonly used variously, until they become stereotyped, and sometimes even then. Here Jesus builds his church; in 1 Corinthians 3:10, Paul is “an expert builder.” In 1 Corinthians 3:11, Jesus is the church’s foundation; in Ephesians 2:19–20, the apostles and prophets are the foundation (cf. Rev 21:14), and Jesus is the “cornerstone.” Here Peter has the keys; in Revelation 1:18; 3:7, Jesus has the keys. In John 9:5, Jesus is “the light of the world”; in Matthew 5:14, his disciples are. None of these pairs threatens Jesus’ uniqueness. They simply show how metaphors must be interpreted primarily with reference to their immediate contexts.
5. In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church, and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation.
None of this requires that conservative Roman Catholic views be endorsed (for examples of such views, cf. Lagrange, Sabourin). The text says nothing about Peter’s successors, infallibility, or exclusive authority. These late interpretations entail insuperable exegetical and historical problems—e.g., after Peter’s death, his “successor” would have authority over a surviving apostle, John. What the NT does show is that Peter is the first to make this formal confession and that his prominence continues in the earliest years of the church (Ac 1–12). But he, along with John, can be sent by other apostles (Ac 8:14), and he is held accountable for his actions by the Jerusalem church (Ac 11:1–18) and rebuked by Paul (Gal 2:11–14). He is, in short, primus inter pares (“first among equals”), and on the foundation of such men (Eph 2:20), Jesus built his church. That is precisely why Jesus, toward the close of his earthly ministry, spent so much time with them. The honor was not earned but stemmed from divine revelation (v.17) and Jesus’ building work (v.18). (Donald A. Carson, Matthew (The Expositor's Bible Commentary), published by Zondervan Academic in 2017)
Matthew 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. כֵּיפָא. 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 John 1:43, however, Jesus conferred the name Cephas upon him at their very first interview (according to Mark 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 Matthew 8:3, and frequently; see note on John 11:32) the church. The ἐκκλησία—in the Old Testament קָהָל, Deuteronomy 18:16; Deuteronomy 23:1, Jdg 21:8, the whole assembly of the Jewish people (Acts 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 (1 Corinthians 3:10 f.; Ephesians 2:19 ff.; Galatians 2:9; 1 Peter 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 (Matthew 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. Revelation 21:4; Galatians 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 (Acts 15:7; Acts 2:14; Galatians 1:18; Galatians 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).
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter - The word "Peter," in Greek, means "a rock." It was given to Simon by Christ when he called him to be a disciple, John 1:42
Cephas is a Syriac word, meaning the same as Peter - a rock, or stone. The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: "Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock, denoting firmness, solidity, stability, and your confession has shown that the name is appropriate. I see that you are worthy of the name, and will be a distinguished support of my religion."
And upon this rock ... - This passage has given rise to many different interpretations. Some have supposed that the word "rock" refers to Peter's confession, and that Jesus meant to say, upon this rock, this truth that thou hast confessed, that I am the Messiah and upon confessions of this from all believers, I will build my church. Confessions like this shall be the test of piety, and in such confessions shall my church stand amid the flames of persecution, the fury of the gates of hell. Others have thought that Jesus referred to himself. Christ is called a rock, Isaiah 28:16; 1 Peter 2:8. And it has been thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said, "Upon this rock, this truth that I am the Messiah - upon myself as the Messiah, I will build my church." Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it. Another interpretation is, that the word "rock" refers to Peter himself.
This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the Church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other interpretation would have been sought for. "Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm, and suitable for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honored; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles." This was accomplished. See Acts 2:14-36, where he first preached to the Jews, and Acts 10, where he preached the gospel to Cornelius and his neighbors, who were Gentiles. Peter had thus the honor of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles; and this is the plain meaning of this passage. See also Galatians 2:9. But Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one upon whom he would rear his church. See Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not that of Peter, was followed. See also Galatians 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed - a thing which could not have happened if Christ (as the Roman Catholics say) meant that Peter was absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here, or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter would have infallible successors who would be the vicegerents of Christ and the head of the church. The whole meaning of the passage is this: "I will make you the honored instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and I will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church."
ƒin sayi
Verse 18. - And I say also (I also say) unto thee. As thou hast said unto me, "Thou art the Christ," so I say unto thee, etc. Thou art Peter (Πέτρος, Petrus), and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build my Church. In classical Greek, the distinction between πέτρα and πέτρος is well known - the former meaning "a rock," the latter "a piece of rock," or "a stone." But probably no such distinction is intended here, as there would be none in Aramaic. There is plainly a paronomasia here in the Greek; and, if our Lord spoke in Aramaic, the same play of words was exhibited in Kephas or kepha. When Jesus first called Peter to be a disciple, he imposed upon him the name Cephas, which the evangelist explains to be Peter (John 1:42). The name was bestowed in anticipation of Peter's great confession: "Thou shalt be called." This preannouncement was here fulfilled and confirmed. Upon this passage chiefly the claims of the Roman Church, which for fifteen centuries have been the subject of acrimonious controversy, are founded. It is hence assumed that the Christian Church is founded upon Peter and his successors, and that these successors are the Bishops of Rome. The latter assertion may be left to the decision of history, which fails to prove that Peter was ever at Rome, or that he transmitted his supposed supremacy to the episcopate of that city. We have in this place to deal with the former assertion. Who or what is the rock on which Christ says that he will hereafter build his Church? French Romanists consider it a providential coincidence that they can translate the passage, "Je te disque, Tu es Pierre; et sur cette pierre je batirai," etc.; but persons outside the papal communion are not satisfied to hang their faith on a play of words. The early Fathers are by no means at one in their explanations of the paragraph. Living before Rome had laid claim to the tremendous privileges which it afterwards affected, they did not regard the statement in the light of later controversies; and even those who held Peter to be the rock would have indignantly repelled the assumptions which have been built on that interpretation. The apostolic Fathers seem to have mentioned the passage in none of their writings; and they could scarcely have failed to refer to it had they been aware of the tremendous issues dependent thereon. It was embodied in no Catholic Creed, and never made an article of the Christian faith. We may remark also that of the evangelists St. Matthew alone records the promise to Peter; Mark and Luke give his confession, which was the one point which Christ desired to elicit, and omit that which is considered to concern his privileges. This looks as though, in their view, the chief aim of the passage was not Peter, but Christ; not Peter's pre-eminence, but Christ's nature and office. At the same time, to deny all allusion to Peter in the "rock" is quite contrary to the genius of the language and to New Testament usage, and would not have been so pressed in modern times except for polemical purposes. Three views have been held on the interpretation of this passage.(1) That Christ himself is the Rock on which the Church should be built.(2) That Peter's confession of Jesus Christ as Son of God, or God incarnate, is the Rock.(3) That St. Peter is the rock.(1) The first explanation is supported by passages where in Christ speaks of himself in the third person, e.g. "Destroy this temple;" "If any man eat of this bread; Whoso falleth on this stone," etc. In the same sense are cited the words of Isaiah (Isaiah 28:16), "Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation." Almighty God is continually called "a Rock" in the Old Testament (see 2 Samuel 22:32; Psalm 18:31; Psalm 62:2, 6, 7, etc.), so that it might be deemed natural and intelligible for Christ to call himself "this Rock," in accordance, with the words of St. Paul (1 Corinthians 3:11), "Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid (κεῖται), which is Jesus Christ." But then the reference to Peter becomes unmeaning: "Thou art Peter, and upon myself I will build my Church." It is true that some few eminent authorities have taken this view. Thus St. Augustine writes, "It was not said to him, 'Thou art a rock (petra),' but, 'Thou art Peter,' and the Rock was Christ" ('Retract.,' 1:21). And commentators have imagined that Christ pointed to himself as he spoke. In such surmises there is an inherent improbability, and they do not explain the commencement of the address.
In saying, "Thou art Peter," Christ, if he made any gesture at all, would have touched or turned to that apostle. Immediately after this to have directed attention to himself would have been most unnatural and contradictory. We may safely surrender the interpretation which regards Christ himself as the Rock.(2) The explanation which finds the rock in Peter's great confession has been widely adopted by commentators ancient and modern. Thus St. Chrysostom, "Upon this rock, that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby he signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd." To the same purport might be quoted Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory Nyss., Cyril, and others. It is remarkable that in the Collect from the Gregorian Sacramentary and in the Roman Missal on the Vigil of St. Peter and St. Paul are found the words, "Grant that thou wouldst not suffer us, whom thou hast established on the rock of the apostolic confession (quos in apostolicae confessionis petra solidasti) to be shaken by any commotions." Bishop Wordsworth, as many exegetes virtually do, combines the two interpretations, and we cite his exposition as a specimen of the view thus held: "What he says is this, 'I myself, now confessed by thee to be both God and Man, am the Rock of the Church. This is the foundation on which it is built.' And because St. Peter had confessed him as such, he says to St. Peter, 'Thou hast confessed me, and I will now confess thee; thou hast owned me, I will now own thee. Thou art Peter,' i.e. thou art a lively stone, hewn out of and built upon me, the living Rock. Thou art a genuine Petros of me, the Divine Petra. And whosoever would be a lively stone, a Peter, must imitate thee in this thy true confession of me, the living Rock; for upon this Rock, that is, on myself, believed and confessed to be both God and Man, I will build my Church." As the opinion that Christ means himself by "this rock" is untenable, so we consider that Peter's confession is equally debarred from being the foundation intended. Who does not see that the Church is to be built, not on confessions or dogmas, but on men - men inspired by God to teach the great truth? A confession implies a confessor; it was the person who made the confession that is meant, not the mere statement itself, however momentous and true. Thus elsewhere the Church is said to have been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:20), "Ye," says St. Peter (1 Peter 2:5), "as living stones are built up a spiritual house." "James and Cephas who were reputed to be pillars" (Galatians 2:9). In Revelation (Revelation 21:14) the foundationstones of the heavenly temple are "the twelve apostles of the Lamb."
Hence we gather that the rock is a person.(3) So we come to the explanation of the difficulty which naturally is deduced from the language if considered without regard to prejudice or the pernicious use to which it has been put. Looking at the matter in a straightforward way, we come to the conclusion that Christ is wishing to reward Peter for his outspoken profession of faith; and his commendation is couched in a form which was usual in Oriental addresses, and intelligible to his hearers. "Thou hast said to me, 'Thou art the Son of God;' I say to thee, 'Thou art Peter,' a rock man, 'and on thee,' as a rock, 'I will build my Church.' "As he was the first to acknowledge Christ's nature and office, so he was rewarded by being appointed as the apostle who should inaugurate the Christian Church and lay its first foundation. His name and his work were to coincide. This promise was fulfilled in Peter's acts. He it was who took the lead on the Day of Pentecost, when at his preaching, to the hundred and twenty disciples there were added three thousand souls (Acts 2:41); he it was who admitted the Gentiles to the Christian community (Acts 10.); he it was who in these early days stood forth prominently as a master builder, and was the first to open the kingdom of heaven to Jews and Gentiles. It is objected that, if Peter was a builder, he could not be the rock on which the building was raised. The expression, of course, is metaphorical. Christ builds the Church by employing Peter as the foundation of the spiritual house; Peter's zeal and activity and stable faith are indeed the living rock which forms the material element, so to speak, of this erection; he, as labouring in the holy cause beyond all others, at any rate in the early days of the gospel, is regarded as that solid basis on which the Church was raised. Christ, in one sense, builds on Peter; Peter builds on Christ. The Church, in so far as it was visible, had Peter for its rocky foundation; in so far as it was spiritual, it was founded on Christ. The distinction thus accorded in the future to Peter was personal, and carried with it none of the consequences which human ambition or mistaken pursuit of unity have elicited therefrom. There was no promise of present supremacy; there was no promise of the privilege being handed down to successors. The other apostles had no conception of any superiority being now conferred on Peter. It was not long after this that there was a strife among them who should be the greatest; James and John claimed the highest places in the heavenly kingdom; Paul resisted Peter to the face "because he stood condemned" (Galatians 2:11); the president of the first council was James, the Bishop of Jerusalem. It is plain that neither Peter himself nor his fellow apostles understood or acknowledged his supremacy; and that he transmitted, or was intended to transmit, such authority to successors, is a figment unknown to primitive Christianity, and which was gradually erected, to serve ambitious designs, on forged decretals and spurious writings. This is not the place for polemics, and these few apologetic hints are introduced merely with the view of showing that no one need be afraid of the obvious and straightforward interpretation of Christ's words, or suppose that papal claims are necessarily supported thereby.
Thou art Peter (οὺ εἰ Πέτρος)
Christ responds to Peter's emphatic thou with another, equally emphatic. Peter says, "Thou art the Christ." Christ replies, "Thou art Peter." Πέτρος (Peter) is used as a proper name, but without losing its meaning as a common noun. The name was bestowed on Simon at his first interview with Jesus (John 1:42) under the form of its Aramaic equivalent, Cephas. In this passage attention is called, not to the giving of the name, but to its meaning. In classical Greek the word means a piece of rock, as in Homer, of Ajax throwing a stone at Hector ("Iliad," vii., 270), or of Patroclus grasping and hiding in his hand a jagged stone ("Iliad," xvi., 784).
On this rock (ἐπὶ ταύτη τη πέτρα)
The word is feminine, and means a rock, as distinguished from a stone or a fragment of rock (πέτρος, above). Used of a ledge of rocks or a rocky peak. In Homer ("Odyssey," ix., 243), the rock (πέτρην) which Polyphemus places at the door of his cavern, is a mass which two-and-twenty wagons could not remove; and the rock which he hurled at the retreating ships of Ulysses, created by its fall a wave in the sea which drove the ships back toward the land ("Odyssey," ix., 484). The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter's confession, but to Peter himself, in a sense defined by his previous confession, and as enlightened by the "Father in Heaven."
The reference of πέτρα to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: "On this rock will I build." Again, Christ is the great foundation, the "chief corner-stone," but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ's church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Peter 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and, in 1 Peter 2:5, addresses the church as living stones. In Revelation 21:14, the names of the twelve apostles appear in the twelve foundation-stones of the heavenly city; and in Ephesians 2:20, it is said, "Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (i.e., laid by the apostles and prophets), Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone."
Equally untenable is the explanation which refers πέτρα to Simon's confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men.
"The word πέτρα," says Edersheim, "was used in the same sense in Rabbinic language. According to the Rabbins, when God was about to build his world, he could not rear it on the generation of Enos, nor on that of the flood, who brought destruction upon the world; but when he beheld that Abraham would arise in the future, he said' 'Behold, I have found a rock to build on it, and to found the world,' whence, also, Abraham is called a rock, as it is said' 'Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn.' The parallel between Abraham and Peter might be carried even further. If, from a misunderstanding of the Lord's promise to Peter, later Christian legend represented the apostle as sitting at the gate of heaven, Jewish legend represents Abraham as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, so as to prevent all who had the seal of circumcision from falling into its abyss" ("Life and Times of Jesus").
The reference to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the early church, to the Jewish portion of which he was a foundation-stone. See Acts, Acts 1:15; Acts 2:14, Acts 2:37; Acts 3:12; Acts 4:8; Acts 5:15, Acts 5:29; Acts 9:34, Acts 9:40; Acts 10:25, Acts 10:26; Galatians 1:15.
Matthew 16:18. Σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, thou art Peter) This corresponds with great beauty to the words, Thou art the Christ.[740]—ΠΈΤΡΟς, ΠΈΤΡΑ, Peter—rock) πέτρος elsewhere signifies a stone; but in the case of Simon, a rock. It was not fitting that such a man should be called Πέτρα, with a feminine termination; on the other hand, St Matthew would gladly have written ἘΠῚ ΤΟΎΤῼ Τῷ ΠΈΤΡῼ, if the idiom would have allowed it; wherefore these two, ΠΈΤΡΑ and ΠΈΤΡΟς, stand for one name and thing, as both words are expressed in Syriac by the one noun, Kepha. Peter is here used as a proper name; for it is not said, Thou shalt be, but, Thou art; and yet the appellative is at the same time openly declared to denote a rock. The Church of Christ is certainly[741] (Revelation 21:14) built on the apostles, inasmuch as they were the first believers, and the rest have been added through their labours; in which matter a certain especial prerogative was conspicuous in the case of Peter, without damage to the equality of apostolic authority; for he first converted many Jews (Acts 2), he first admitted the Gentiles to the Gospel (Acts 10.[742]) He moreover was especially commanded to strengthen his brethren, and to feed the sheep and lambs of the Lord. Nor can we imagine that this illustrious surname, elsewhere commonly attributed to Christ Himself, who is also called the Rock, could without the most important meaning have been bestowed on Peter, who in the list of the apostles is called first, and always put in the first place; see Matthew 10:2; see also 1 Peter 2:4-7. All these things are said with safety, for what have they to do with Rome?[743] Let the Roman rock beware, lest it fall under the censure of Matthew 16:23.
Further Reading
Comments