In Matthew 16:13-18, Matthew describes a landmark interaction between the Apostle Peter and Jesus Christ:

¹³Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” ¹⁴And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” ¹⁵He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” ¹⁶Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” ¹⁷And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. ¹⁸And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.¹

Simon Peter’s startling confession of the Christ and Jesus’ subsequent promises for the Church have become a major flashpoint for Roman Catholic apologetics; in particular, Roman Catholic writers will argue that Jesus names Peter the Rock upon which the Church is built.(Mitch and Sri 2010, 207) This is seen as a major mark in favor of papal claims.(Catholic Church 1997, par. 881) Historically, non-Roman interpreters have preferred alternatives, but in recent years, even some Protestant and Evangelical scholars have begun to accept the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18.² As we will discuss later, this is a marked shift from a long tradition of interpretation. Many Protestant scholars today have attempted to backpedal away from traditional interpretations; instead, claiming that this interpretations are a “Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic position.”(Yang 2010, 15) D.A. Carson argues: “[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.”(Carson 2017, v. A.11.a) While I respect Carson’s work, I am concerned that this kind of interpretation will cause problems down the line; therefore, it is important to consider whether this view holds up under scrutiny.

Thus, the purpose of this article is to reconsider and defend the traditional view, namely, that interpreting Jesus in Matthew 16 to refer to Peter as the rock upon which the Church is built is untenable. It is out of step with historical interpretations, it is inconsistent with the Bible’s use of the rock motif, and it fails to properly exegete the passage as we have received it.

Clarifications

Before we embark on an attempt to challenge a particular view of Matthew 16, it is perhaps advisable to first lay out the options. Because the central point of debate is the antecedent of the phrase ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ (“this rock”), we can look at the possible answers to define the various options.

First, the rock to which Jesus refers could be the disciple Peter. This is the view of most Roman Catholic interpreters and an increasing number of Evangelical and Protestant interpreters. Hereafter, this view is referred to as the Petrine view.

The two remaining possibilities are that Jesus is either referring to Peter’s confession or himself. For the purposes of this article, we will consider these views together as the Messianic view. These two views are exegetically distinct because they claim mutually exclusive antecedents of ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ, but they are theologically similar because they both ultimately point to Christ as the foundation of the Church. Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” is nothing less than a declaration of faith in the person of Jesus Christ. The content of Peter’s confession and the object of his faith is Jesus Christ himself.³ Peter’s confession is Christ, so, theologically, it matters little whether Jesus is referring to himself directly or by way of Peter’s confession. In either case, he is the ultimate referent.⁴

Historical Problems

A key element of our discussion surrounding Matthew 16:18 that is often underdeveloped is the role of historical interpretation. Even just a cursory review of the early church fathers reveals that the Petrine view of Matthew 16 was nearly unheard of in the first centuries of the church. Consider the catalog of witnesses from Thomas Aquinas’ catena on Matthew. In Thomas’ compilation, the Messianic view is exclusive, with all interpreters preferring to identify either Christ or Peter’s confession as the rock.⁵

1. Jerome holds that Christ is the Rock after which Peter is named.

2. John Chrysostom (whose work on Matthew 16 is no longer extant) identifies the rock as “this faith and confession” of Peter.

3. In Augustine’s Retractions, he changes his opinion on Matthew 16, explicitly denying his former Petrine view in favor of a Messianic view which identifies Christ as the Rock per 1 Corinthians 10:4.

4. Origen’s view is not clear, but he does exclude a view wherein Peter is the singular foundation rock of the church: “Wherefore if we, by the revelation of our Father who is in heaven, shall confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, having also our conversation in heaven, to us also shall be said, ‘Thou art Peter;’ for every one is a Rock who is an imitator of Christ.”

Augustine’s perspective is particularly interesting because he actually changed his view. Although he had previously taught a Petrine view, he switches over to a Messianic view later in life: “For, ’Thou art Peter’ and not ’Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ’the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter.”(Augustine 1999, 90) This makes clear that the Petrine view was not unheard of by the fourth century, but Augustine seems happy to submit the consensus of the Church on proper interpretation.

On the other hand, Oscar Cullmann contends for quite an early date for the adoption of the Petrine view. In the third century, we see figures like Tertullian and Cyprian arguing for the Messianic view over against the Petrine view. The implication for Cullmann is that, in order for these church fathers to deny the Petrine view, there must have been a Petrine view to deny. Ultimately, Cullman discards the witness of Tertullian and Cyprian because they were entangled in church politics while writing, but he goes on to admit that other writers, independent of political motivations, consistently argue for a Messianic view:

“Thus Chrysostom explains that the rock on which Christ will build his Church means the faith of confession. According to Augustine, Jesus meant by the rock not Peter but himself... A similar embarrassment is to be observed in other writers, for example Cyril of Alexandria. We thus see that the exegesis that the Reformers gave–though, as we shall see, it is questionable–was not first invented for their struggle against the papacy; it rests upon an older patristic tradition.”(Cullmann 1958, 162)

There are several major problems with Cullman’s assessment. As one interested in Lutheran-Roman Catholic, Cullman is attempting to defend the apostolic origins of the papal claims of Vatican I, or, at least, he is attempting to show the doctrines of Vatican I appeared in “seed form” and developed from that seed. But this approach to the fathers is inherently flawed.

First, in Cullman’s citations of the fathers, he fails to show any extant textual evidence defending a Petrine view of Matthew 16. The Messianic view of Matthew 16 is one of the few areas where there actually may be unanimous consent of the fathers.⁶ So, secondly, this places ecumenist Cullman in the interesting position of having to reject the interpretation that the fathers give. And not only is the Petrine view roundly rejected by the fathers, but also it is the Messianic view that is wholly embraced by the fathers. Thus, in order to defend the Petrine view of Matthew 16, there are several major historical obstacles to overcome.

Of course, many evangelicals have now begun to defend the Petrine view, but evangelicals do not make the same extraordinary claims that Rome does. For example, as noted above, D.A. Carson defends a Petrine view, but as a Baptist, he does not need to account for his major departure from historical sources. In other words, Carson does not need to account for his being decidedly un-Catholic on this issue. But Roman Catholics have planted their feet against catholicity in laying down an authoritative interpretation of Matthew 16 which runs directly against the consensus of the universal church.

One final but significant source to consider is The Shepherd of Hermas. Hermas represents a very early witness to the theological milieu of the post-apostolic Roman church. There are various hypotheses on the identity of Hermas, but it seems clear that he was a member of the Roman church, but not a leader. However, he may have been a close associate of Rome’s church leaders. For example, the Muratorian Canon lists Hermas as the brother of a Roman bishop.⁷

In Parable 9 of Hermas, we get a description of a tower which seemingly represents the church. The Shepherd shows Hermas a “great white rock” upon which six men are commanded to build a tower.(Hermas 2008, 9.2–3) There are striking parallels between this passage and Matthew 16. Key terms are repeated (πέτρα, οἰκοδομέω), and it may even be the case that Hermas is intentionally alluding to Matthew’s gospel. Later on, Hermas explicitly says that the great white rock is the Son of God and that the tower is the church.(Hermas 2008, 9.12–13) There are many other stones that are placed in the tower’s structure, but the tower is built upon the great white petra, Jesus Christ. Notably, Peter does not appear by name; rather, as Seitz summarizes well:

“[If] the numbers of the stones in these tiers have any symbolic meaning it is significant that the number twelve is not mentioned and that the apostles together with the teachers form not the first but the fourth tier. In all this there is no indication that one apostle occupies a place of special prominence.”(Seitz 1950, 333)

Thus, we have a very early witness to Christian theology of “the Rock” that does not place special emphasis on Peter, but rather locates the foundation of the Church in Christ. This comports well with the general biblical-theological thrust of Scripture on this theme.

Biblical-Theological Problems

When we consider the biblical-theological data related the Rock, it becomes clear that to refer to Peter as the Rock would be an anomaly. Consistently throughout Scripture, Jesus Christ himself is described as the Rock and foundation of the people of God.

In the Old Testament, the key Hebrew term to consider is tsur. This word appears in the Old Testament seventy-eight times. Its simple meaning is “rock” or “cliff,” but its Old Testament usage implies significant biblical-theological meaning.(Koehler, Baumgartner, and Stamm 2002, s.v.) This word is particularly interesting in that it almost exclusively appears in relation to God’s presence. Sometimes God is using a rock to relate to his people (Ex. 33:21-22, Jdgs. 6:21, etc.), but far more often God is the tsur (Deut. 32, 1 Sam. 2:2, Ps. 18:2, etc.). The word actually first appears in Exodus 17:6, and it is taking both functions. God is using the rock to relate to his people, but he is also identifying with the rock; 1 Corinthians 10:4 attests to this. Furthermore, tsur is often used to point to Christ. Paul identifies Exodus 17 as one instance, but Isaiah 8:14 ("the rock of offense") is a common source the New Testament points to in affirming Jesus as Christ.(VanGemeren 2012, 3.793)

In short, tsur functions as a term loaded with divine associations that establishes the rock as God theme in biblical theology (as opposed to the more common eben which has a much broader range of meaning in the Old Testament).(Koehler, Baumgartner, and Stamm 2002, s.v.) At the same time, eben is explicitly connected to tsur in some specific instances, most notably, Isaiah 8:14: “And he will become a sanctuary and a stone (eben) of offense and a rock (tsur) of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” Significantly, eben is more frequently used to refer to God’s promised seed (see for example, Psalm 118:22). There are many reasons for this, but perhaps the simplest reason is that eben provides an easy source of wordplay with the Hebrew word for son, ben.

Psalm 118:22

Psalm 118 is a psalm of praise extolling the covenant faithfulness of God. One element of that faithfulness is God’s reclamation of the rejected stone: “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.” (Psalm 118:22)⁸ This verse is quoted or alluded to six times in the New Testament.⁹

Psalm 118:22 is used by Jesus himself following the parable of the tenants (Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17). In this parable, Jesus describes unrighteous tenants who reject and kill the landlord’s son. Clearly, Jesus is referring to himself as ”the Son,” and he draws an explicit connection between the son and the stone. In the mind of Jesus, the rejected son is the rejected stone.

Peter himself then repeats this assertion twice in the New Testament. In Acts 4:10, he clearly identifies the rejected stone with Jesus: “This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone.” Again, he repeats the theme in his first epistle:

“As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: ‘Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.’ So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,’ and ‘A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.’ They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.” (1 Peter 2:4-8)

Notice that Peter not only connects Jesus to the stone in Psalm 118, but he also connects Jesus to the stone of Isaiah 8. Thus, Peter himself, who advocates of the Petrine view insist is the rock, heavily leans toward a Messianic view. Of course, humility may have prevented Peter from claiming to be the foundation of the church, but it would be quite odd for an apostle of Jesus Christ to make claims in complete contradiction with his Lord. For those who hold to biblical authority, we cannot simply say that Peter is contradicting Jesus; rather, we must affirm that the apostle is in harmony with Jesus. The Petrine view requires such a disjunction is therefore untenable for orthodox interpreters of the Bible.

It is worth noting that the term used in all these citations of Psalm 118:22 is not πέτρα but λίθος. The main reason for this is simply that this is the word used in the Septuagint’s translation of the Psalm. However, this does not pose a problem for the Messianic view of Matthew 16. As has already been demonstrated, the two Hebrew terms for rock are closely associated, and it seems that this kind of coherence carries over into the Greek terms. In the Septuagint, tsur and eben are both translated in various ways, and the New Testament writers seem to have no trouble picking up this translation practice.

Daniel 2:31-45

Daniel 2:31-45 is Daniel’s interpretation of a dream that King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had. Daniel’s interpretation picks up on several key themes for our consideration, most notably the themes of kingdom and the rock. Daniel describes an image of a great king made of various materials ranging from gold to clay. For Daniel, these different materials represent different kingdoms which will break each other apart and supersede one another. Finally, the stone (eben, LXX λίθος) breaks apart the image and becomes a mountain (tsur, LXX ὄρος) that fills the whole earth. This mountain represents the kingdom of God. Notice the identity between eben and tsur.

The book of Daniel is particularly significant in the Gospel of Matthew. Jesus draws much of his language from Daniel (e.g., Son of Man, abomination of desolation), and the kingdom that Jesus describes is often cast in the apocalyptic language of Daniel.(Schreiner 2016, 102) Furthermore, in Jesus’ reference to Psalm 118 in Matthew 21, there is also an allusion to this rock of Daniel 2.(Schreiner 2016, 104) Given the preponderance of Daniel language in Matthew’s gospel, it is more than plausible that Jesus is using Daniel in his Matthew 16 proclamation.

To bolster this claim, we also observe that Jesus uses Daniel language in the immediate context of his Matthew 16 proclamation. Peter is answering Jesus’ question, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” (Matthew 16:13) The parallel passages in Mark and Luke do not use this term, and in their accounts, Jesus asks, “Who do people say that I am?” Without approaching questions of the Gospels’ interdependence, it is clear that Matthew is attempting to emphasize this phrase, probably as an allusion back to Daniel 7.(Schreiner 2016, 107) Thus, it is likely that Matthew is not only customarily referring back to Daniel, but he is in fact hoping to draw out the connection.

Finally, Schreiner points to at least one church father who makes the same connection between Daniel 2 and Matthew 16: Aphraates the Syrian. Aphraates says,

“And again Daniel also spoke concerning this stone which is Christ. For he said: The stone was cut out from the mountain, not by hands and it smote the image, and the whole earth was filled with it. This he showed beforehand with regard to Christ that the whole earth shall be filled with Him.”(Schreiner 2016, 110)

In addition to adding a data point for our historical discussion, Aphraates demonstrates a very early (3rd century) interpretative tradition of reading Matthew 16 in light of Daniel 2.

1 Corinthians 10:4

Perhaps the clearest New Testament identification between Christ and the Rock is in 1 Corinthians:

For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:1-4)

Here Paul is very explicit: the Rock was Christ.

In this instance, the Rock that Paul is primarily concerned with is the Rock of Exodus 17 which provided the people of Israel with water in the desert. Again, Exodus 17 is the first instance of the word tsur, and Paul uses the term πέτρᾳ. This is the same term used by the Septuagint in its translation of Exodus 17. Significantly, this term appears for the most part in the Synoptic gospels. The other references in the New Testament are either references to Isaiah 8 (1 Peter 2:4-8, Romans 9:33) or more general uses of the term (Revelation 6:15-16).

In Exodus 17, the Rock serves a substitutionary function. Moses strikes the Rock, representation of Yahweh, in place of the people. Israel has earned judgment for their unfaithfulness, but God places himself under the very judgment he pours out. In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul used the Rock in a slightly different way. For Paul, the Rock is a point of unification. In dealing with the disunity of the Corinthian church, Paul is arguing for their reconciliation and communion together. Thus, the Rock that tied Israel together in the wilderness is the same Christ who forms the basis for their communion together. He is the foundation upon which they are built.

There are many other passages to consider, but a simple review of these three key passages reveal a consistent theme. Foundation rocks, rocks which form the basis for communion, rocks upon which the kingdom are built are consistently identified with Christ throughout Scripture. Proponents of the Petrine view are running against the biblical flow of thought when they defend the Petrine view. If the Petrine view is correct, then the Gospel of Matthew is a major outlier from the rest of the biblical data.

Exegetical Problems

The main exegetical question at hand is the identity of the referent of ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ. The fact of the matter is that Jesus’ language is ambiguous. Certainly, it is possible that Jesus is referring back to Peter, but equally convincing arguments can be made in favor of the Petrine. In the face of this uncertainly, Petrine proponents turn to other sources.

One common line of argumentation in favor of the Petrine view of Matthew 16 is to say that, since Aramaic would have been Jesus’ native tongue, Jesus likely would have used the Aramaic term kepha’ to refer to both Peter and the rock:

“Thus we are not to distinguish between Peter and the rock but to identify them as one and same foundation. In any case, the question of a distinction between them is probably moot, since Jesus almost certainly spoke these words in Aramaic and would have used the same word, kepha’, meaning a massive rock, in both instances.”¹⁰

There are two major problems with this approach.

First, there is a major methodological problem with relying on a hypothetical Aramaic source to interpret Matthew 16. Any claim of an Aramaic substratum must ultimately rest on speculation and probability. For example, Finley notes that “it seems unlikely that such an intimate discussion would have been conducted in a language that was not [Jesus and the disciples] main language.”(Finley 2006, 135) Again, the speculative nature of this claim is notable. The fact is that we do not have any indication of whether Jesus was speaking Greek or Aramaic with his disciples in this moment. Certainly, there is clear evidence throughout the Gospels that Jesus commonly spoke Aramaic (examples in Matthew include 5:18, 22; 6:24; 27:6, 46), but this does not mean he only spoke Aramaic in his teaching.

Second, even if we grant the methodology of Petrine proponents, the very concept that kepha’ underlies both πέτρα is also almost entirely speculative.

“While we know that כיפא underlies Πέτρος, we have no way of knowing which Aramaic word underlies πέτρα. The evidence of the Aramaic Targums shows that מנרא is as probable a candidate as כיפא. I conclude therefore that in the absence of an actual Aramaic text of Mt 16:18 we cannot be sure which Aramaic word underlies πέτρα.”(Caragounis 1990, 30)

One must appreciate Caragounis’ candor here. We can have absolutely no certainty about the words Jesus spoke in this instance outside of the text of Scripture. Even if Jesus spoke Aramaic, there is no reliable way to determine whether Jesus actually used the same Aramaic term twice, and in fact, Finley demonstrates that there are multiple reasonable Aramaic candidates that Jesus may have used.(Finley 2006, 143–45)

Conclusion

In order to consistently hold to a Petrine view of Matthew 16, one must overcome several major objections. This article has outlined three major objections and considered a litany of evidence in favor of the Messianic view. In the final analysis, the Petrine view stands under a heavy burden of proof and must find a way to contend with the weight of evidence against it.

First, defenders of the Petrine view (particularly, Roman Catholics) must prove several spectacular historical claims. They must show that (a) the Petrine view is extant in the writings of the fathers, (b) that at least the majority of the fathers approve of their Petrine view, and (c) that the fathers had a generally negative opinion the Messianic view. As we have shown, these obstacles are currently insurmountable. The historical evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of the Messianic interpretation of Matthew 16.

Second, defenders of the Petrine view must demonstrate that the Petrine view comports with the other biblical data. As we have shown, the vast majority of biblical references to the Rock refer to Christ himself or more generally to God. Petrine proponents must then find a way to account for the anomalous nature of their interpretation. If the Petrine view is the correct view of Matthew 16, then numerous passages in both the Old and New Testaments must be completely reinterpreted, or it must be shown that Matthew 16’s incoherence with the rest of the Scriptures is tenable.

Third, defenders of the Petrine view must show that their view is exegetically sound. This requires arguing from the text itself, rather than from speculative assertions of a hypothetical Aramaic substratum. Many arguments in favor of the Petrine view routinely rely on sources from outside of our periscope for evidence, but these outside sources cannot determine definitely the meaning of the text. Furthermore, this is one case where an exegetical argument cannot stand on its own. Certainly, it would be convincing if the Petrine view could be demonstrated from the text, but as it stands, Jesus’ words are ambiguous, and we must turn to other sources, in particular, clearer Scriptures, to determine his meaning.

As this article has demonstrated, the barriers that Petrine view proponents must overcome are quite high. The burden of proof does not lie with the Messianic view, but with the Petrine view in the face a mountain of evidence against it.