|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
When Protestants School Protestants on the Rock of Matthew 16:18
In debates over Matthew 16:18, many Protestants argue that the “rock” Jesus refers to is not Peter himself but rather Peter’s confession of faith, or possibly Jesus himself. They often point to the Greek text, noting that Petros (the name given to Peter) means “small stone” while petra (the word translated “rock”) means “large rock.” From this linguistic distinction, they conclude that Catholics have misinterpreted the passage to support papal authority.
However, this argument overlooks a significant problem: many leading Protestant biblical scholars themselves disagree with this interpretation. Across various Protestant traditions—Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist, Anglican, and Presbyterian—respected New Testament scholars have concluded that the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 refers to Peter himself, not to an abstract confession of faith. These scholars base their conclusion on the Aramaic context, the grammatical structure of the passage, and the immediate textual evidence. While they consistently reject later Catholic doctrines such as papal infallibility and universal papal jurisdiction, they nonetheless affirm that the text itself identifies Peter as the rock upon which Christ will build his church.
Oscar Cullmann, a prominent Lutheran scholar and contributor to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, provides one of the most forceful arguments for this position. In his influential study on Peter, Cullmann writes:
“The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable… For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art Rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock… To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.”¹
Cullmann argues that the parallel structure of the verse requires both instances of “rock” to refer to the same person. Jesus renames Simon as “Rock” and then immediately states that he will build his church on this rock. While Cullmann explicitly denies that this supports papal succession, he insists that the text clearly refers to Peter as the foundation.
William Hendriksen, a Reformed scholar who taught at Calvin Seminary, reaches the same conclusion by examining the Aramaic language Jesus would have spoken. Hendriksen explains:
“The meaning is: ‘You are Peter, that is, Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter, I will build my church.’ Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, ‘And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.’ Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.”²
According to Hendriksen, the Greek distinction between Petros and petra is merely a matter of grammar—Petros is the masculine form used for a proper name, while petra is the feminine form of the noun. In the Aramaic that Jesus actually spoke, the same word (kepha) would have been used in both instances. Therefore, the linguistic argument based on Greek word differences fails to account for the original language of the conversation.
Craig Blomberg, a Baptist scholar at Denver Seminary, makes a similar point in the New American Commentary series:
“The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 referred 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.”³
Blomberg notes that the structure of verse 18 mirrors verse 16. Just as “You are the Christ” directly identifies Jesus, “You are Peter, and on this rock” directly identifies Peter as the rock. The wordplay only works if both terms refer to the same person.
R. T. France, an Anglican scholar who wrote the New International Commentary on Matthew, is equally explicit:
“It is to Peter, not to his confession… or to Jesus himself, that the rock metaphor is applied… Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied.”⁴
France acknowledges that Peter’s confession is the basis for his role—he spoke the truth that the Father revealed (v. 17). However, the metaphor itself is applied to the person who made the confession, not to the confession as an abstract concept.
D. A. Carson, an evangelical Baptist scholar at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, suggests that Protestant interpretations have been influenced more by theological concerns than by careful exegesis:
“If it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter.”⁵
Carson argues that without the desire to avoid supporting Catholic ecclesiology, the natural reading of the passage would clearly identify Peter as the rock. He notes that in Koine Greek, petros and petra were often used interchangeably, and the Aramaic background eliminates any meaningful distinction between the two terms.
Donald Hagner, writing in the Word Biblical Commentary, makes the point even more directly:
“The natural reading of the passage … is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built. … Despite evangelical Protestant predispositions against this interpretation, it is, in fact, the most straightforward reading of the text.”⁶
Hagner acknowledges that Protestant interpreters have resisted this reading because of theological concerns, but he insists that the grammar and context of the passage point clearly to Peter as the referent.
Herman Ridderbos, a Dutch Reformed scholar, dismisses the Petros/petra distinction altogether:
“There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession. … The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter.”⁷
Similarly, J. Knox Chamblin, a Presbyterian scholar, systematically eliminates alternative interpretations:
“By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter.”⁸
Finally, Gerhard Maier, a Lutheran scholar, states simply in German: “Die katholische Exegese hat hier recht: Petrus ist der Felsen”—”Catholic exegesis is right here: Peter is the rock.”⁹
These scholars represent a wide range of Protestant traditions, yet they reach the same conclusion based on linguistic, grammatical, and contextual evidence. They consistently note that Peter’s role as the foundation is based on his divinely revealed confession (v. 16-17), that he represents the apostles collectively, and that this foundational role does not necessarily imply later developments such as papal infallibility or universal jurisdiction. However, on the question of what “this rock” refers to in Matthew 16:18, they agree that the text identifies Peter himself.
The Protestant argument that relies on the Petros/petra distinction fails to account for the Aramaic context and the parallel structure of the passage. When Jesus spoke these words, he would have used the same Aramaic word (kepha) in both instances. The Greek distinction reflects grammatical necessity, not theological significance. Furthermore, the immediate context of the passage—the direct address to Peter, the renaming of Simon as “Rock,” and the parallel with verse 16—all point to Peter as the referent.
In conclusion, Catholics defending the traditional interpretation of Matthew 16:18 do not need to rely solely on Catholic sources. Leading Protestant scholars across multiple traditions have conducted rigorous exegetical analysis and reached the conclusion that the “rock” refers to Peter himself. While these scholars reject certain Catholic doctrines that have developed from this passage, they affirm that the text itself clearly identifies Peter as the foundation upon which Christ builds his church. The debate, therefore, is not simply between Catholic and Protestant interpretations but involves significant internal disagreement among Protestant scholars themselves.
Footnotes
¹ Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr: A Historical and Theological Study, trans. Floyd V. Filson, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), 185, 206.
² William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973), 647.
³ Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, New American Commentary, vol. 22 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 252.
⁴ R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 623.
⁵ D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 368.
⁶ Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33B (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 470.
⁷ Herman N. Ridderbos, Matthew, Bible Student’s Commentary, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 303.
⁸ J. Knox Chamblin, “Matthew,” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989), 714.
⁹ Gerhard Maier, Matthäus-Evangelium, 2 vols. (Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hänssler, 1979–1980), 2:117.