Who or What Is The Rock In Matthew 16:18?
In this post, I want to examine a popular Christian apologetic site, Compelling Truth. Compelling Truth is a network site of the popular “Got Questions” ministry. I was recently researching rebuttals to who or what the rock is Matt 16:18, and I had come across this explanation. I found it to be one of the most disingenuous and overreaching articles I’ve seen in a while, so I thought it would be worth addressing.
To start the passage in question is Matt 16:18, It reads as such in the NIV,
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”
This is a very important passage in all of Christendom but also in a lot of denominational apologetics. So I want to start by just addressing the answer given to this passage by Compelling Truth and analyzing their response. I will respond in black , and their responses will be in red. You can find their article here titled, What is the rock in Matthew 16:18 upon which Jesus will build His church?
Compelling Truth’s Answer
The article says the following:
“According to the interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church, this rock refers to Peter. The word “Peter” is the Greek word for rock. Therefore, the connection is made between Peter as a rock and the use of rock in verse 18. This has become very important for Catholic theology because Peter is then seen as the foundation of the church and the first pope among the line of popes in the Catholic tradition.”
This is generally true but requires some nuance.
First, the Greek text of the New Testament uses two different words in this passage. The first word is derived from the name “Peter,” and the second is the word for “rock.” The passage reads:
“18 And I tell you that you are Peter (Πέτρος, Petros), and on this rock (πέτρᾳ, petra) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”
Here, we encounter two terms: “Petros” and “petra.” Some Protestants argue that “Petros” means “big rock” while “petra” means “small rock.” (For a more detailed explanation of why this argument doesn’t hold much weight, feel free to refer to this blog Here.)
Let’s break this claim down more clearly.
If we only examine the Greek text (I’ll explain why this is a flawed approach later), we immediately notice an important fact:
1. Peter’s name in Greek is Petros, not Petra. The reason for this is simple…petra is a feminine noun, while Peter is a man. Greek grammar requires masculine endings for male names, so Peter was called Petros. By the time the Gospels were written, Petros had been his established Greek name for decades.
2. There is no distinction between petros and petra in Koine Greek in the way some Protestants claim. As Protestant Scholar D.A Carson notes,
“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 is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepii’was used in both clauses (“you are kepii’and on this kepa”‘), since the word was used both fo 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.” (D.A Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, volume 8, page 368).
If Matthew had intended to emphasize that Peter was a “small stone,” he could have used the Greek word λίθος (lithos), which is commonly used in Scripture to mean “stone” (e.g., John 1:42, 1 Peter 2:5).
Even if we grant the Protestant argument that petros and petra had different meanings in Koine Greek, the argument still collapses when we consider the language that Jesus actually spoke.
What Name Does Jesus Give Peter?
To maintain the view that “Petros” refers to Peter as the rock in Matthew 16:18, one would have to argue that either the author of Matthew’s Gospel or even Christ Himself gave Peter the name “Petros.” However, this is not the case. A more accurate understanding involves considering the language that Christ and the apostles spoke-Aramaic. When we look at this linguistic background, it becomes clear that Peter’s name is not “Petros”; rather, it is “Cephas.” In fact, Peter is referred to as “Cephas” many times throughout the Bible, with one prominent example found in John 1:42:
“And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas’ (which, when translated, is Peter).”
This is clearly explained by John in Chapter 1, and Peter is referred to as “Cephas” in several other verses as well (c.f. 1 Cor 1:12, 1 Cor 3:22, 1 Cor 9:5, 1 Cor 15:5, Gal 1:18, Gal 2:9, Gal 2:11).
“Cephas” is simply the Aramaic word for “rock.” In Aramaic, there is no distinction between a “big rock” and a “little rock.” With this linguistic background in mind, the verse can be literally read as: “You are Cephas, and on this Cephas I will build my church.”
Let’s continue on.
“However, Protestants understand the “rock” to be Jesus. Jesus could be referring back to Peter’s confession that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16) or perhaps He was pointing to Himself when He made the statement. Why do Protestants believe this? First, Jesus would not build His church upon any person other than Himself. Second, Jesus immediately follows with, “I will build my church.” While Peter was an important part of the church’s beginning, Jesus is the builder of the church. Third, Jesus said, “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Death would eventually come to Peter, but Christ would resurrect from the dead, proving death could not prevail.”
I see several problems with this interpretation of scripture.
Firstly, to assume that Jesus was pointing to Himself when He made the statement to Peter is a clear example of mental gymnastics. This is simply a speculative reading of the text, suggesting physical gestures or body language where none are explicitly mentioned. If we were to apply this same assumption of body language to other passages in the Bible, it could drastically distort narratives and misrepresent key theological concepts. Such an interpretive method is deeply flawed and problematic, as it relies on reading details into the text that aren’t present. This opens the door for all sorts of misinterpretations and undermines the integrity of Scripture by replacing its intended message with unfounded assumptions.
D.A. Casron acknowledges that the only reason many Protestants interpret “rock” as something other than Peter, is to avoid Catholic teaching. In regards to “and on this rock” he notes the following,
“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 himself attests (1 Peter 2:5–8) (so, among others, Lenski, Gander, Walvoord). Others adopt some other distinction: e. g., “upon this rock of revealed truth-the truth you have just confessed-! 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.” (D.A Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, volume 8, page 368).
Secondly, let’s just analyze the context of this passage, look to the beginning of the passage as we read Matt 16: 13-20. The context never shifts from being specifically about Peter. Notice how many times Jesus speaks directly to Peter, using “you” in reference to him. The passage remains consistently focused on Peter, reinforcing the fact that he is the central figure in this exchange. The text reads as follows, bold emphasis mine.
“13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.”
The author of the The Lonely Pilgrim blog, points out in his article on Mathew 16:18, that when we look directly at the Greek here, we see Jesus speaking to Peter in the singular. He notes the following as the Greek form of verse 18:
“Let’s look at the Greek, especially of the critical verse 18 (Greek text from NA27; see also, in English, BibleGateway, Bible.CC, New Advent):
κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ἅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.”
He continues on translating the Greek into English.
“κἀγὼ [I, emphatically, in response to Peter’s delaration] δέ [and, also, postpositive: together with first word, and I or I also] σοι [2nd person singular dative pronoun, to you] λέγω [(I) say] ὅτι [that] σὺ [2nd person singular nominative pronoun, you, emphatically] εἶ [2nd person singular present active, are] Πέτρος [Peter], καὶ [and] ἐπὶ [preposition on, upon] ταύτῃ [this] τῇ πέτρᾳ [rock] οἰκοδομήσω [first person singular future active I will build, as in building a house] μου [my (lit. of me)] τὴν ἐκκλησίαν [church (lit. a calling out, a meeting, an assembly — but concretely and universally in Christian lit. refers to the Church)], καὶ [and] πύλαι [(the) gates] ἅδου [of hades] οὐ [negative particle, not] κατισχύσουσιν [3rd person plural future active, will overpower] αὐτῆς [it].”
Notice that Jesus is speaking to Peter here in the singular and not to all the Apostles.
Furthermore, other verses highlight Peters’s primacy, one being the very fact that Paul goes out of his way to include a passage about him correcting Peter in the letter to the Galatians. (Gal 2:11-14). Also see Luke 22:32 where Jesus switches from the plural to the singular and directly prays for Peter, to not lead his brothers astray.
The debate over what Jesus meant has been long. But a look at the rest of Scripture points toward the view that Peter’s confession regarding Jesus’ identity – so Jesus Himself – as the rock is the best understanding of the passage.
For example, 1 Corinthians 3:6-7 notes, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.” Jesus is the builder of the church from Paul’s perspective.
Notice the author of the post avoids the reference to Cephas later in the same passage in verse 22:
“whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours”.
By not acknowledging the use of Cephas it makes this post even weaker. Peter is named definitionally as the rock.
Of great importance are Peter’s own words in 1 Peter 2:4-7. He writes, “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.'” If Peter called Jesus the cornerstone and Paul called Jesus the One who grows the church, then the most accurate understanding of the rock upon whom the church is built is Jesus Christ. No human could accomplish this goal; but Jesus, God in human form, fully accomplished His work and continues to build a prevailing church today.
Peter is and was correct to highlight Christ as the cornerstone. There could be no Church, without Jesus as the cornerstone of the New Covenant and its salvific worship. But yet it is abundantly clear Christ chooses Peter as the rock upon which to build his Church. The church is not solely built on Christ, but the apostles of Christ as well, see Ephesians 2:20: “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.” This verse would make no sense if we accept the protestant interpretation.
Simply put, Christ is the foundation of the church, but Peter is the first stone that Jesus used to build his church. Furthermore, the catechism of the church does not deny Christ is the cornerstone, CCC 424 and CCC 756.
In conclusion, for those who remain unconvinced by the previous arguments supporting Peter as the “rock” in Matthew 16:18, it is worth considering the perspectives of Protestant scholars.
A blogger from Theology, Reality, and the Logos has compiled an extensive list of Protestant scholars who affirm this interpretation, and I want to give full credit to them for their diligent work in gathering these sources. Their blog post, Settling the Question Concerning the Identity of the ‘petra’ in Matthew 16:18, provides valuable insights, and I highly recommend checking it out.
W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann (The Anchor Bible: Matthew, pg 195)
William Barclay (The Gospel of Matthew Vol 2, pg 139-141)
Francis Wright Beare (The Gospel According to Matthew, pg 345-55),
Craig L. Blomberg (The New American Commentary: Matthew, pg 251-252)
M. Eugene Boring (New Interp. Bible: Matthew and Mark, pg 344-46)
Gunther Bornkamm (Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, pg 45-47)
Frederick Dale Bruner (Matthew: A Commentary, pg 127)
Oscar Cullmann (Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, pg 185. Also in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 98-99, 108)
W.D. Davies and Dale Allison (Matthew Vol. 2, pg 627)
Karl P. Donfried(Peter in the New Testament, pg 92)
J.C. Fenton (Saint Matthew, pg 268-269)
Floyd V. Filson (A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, pg 187)
Newton R. Flew (Jesus and His Church, pg 93)
F.J. Foakes-Jackson (Peter: Prince of the Apostles, pg 66-67)
R.T. France (The Gospel of Matthew, pg 620-622)
Richard B. Gardner (Matthew, pg 247)
Donald A. Hagner (Word Biblical Commentary on Matthew, pg 470)
Douglas R.A. Hare (Matthew, pg 190)
Stanley Hauerwas (Matthew, pg 150)
William Hendriksen (Expostition on the Gospel According to Matthew, pg 645-647)
David Hill (The Gospel of Matthew,pg 260-261)
Alexander Jones (The Gospel According to Matthew, pg 189)
Craig S. Keener (A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, pg 425-428)
Ulrich Luz (Matthew 8-20, pg 357)
T.W. Manson (The Sayings of Jesus, pg 202-204)
R.J. McKelvey (The New Temple: The Church in the New Testament, Appendix B)
Philip A. Micklem (Westminster Commentaries: Matthew, pg 166-67)
Leon Morris (The Gospel According to Matthew, pg 423)
Arlo J. Nau (Peter in Matthew, pg 52)
John Nolland (New International Greek Testament Commentary, Matthew, pg 670)
Grant R. Osborne (Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Matthew, pg 627)
Daniel Patte (The Gospel According to Matthew: A Structural Commentary on Matthew’s Faith, pg 232-233)
Alfred Plummer (Exegetical Commentary on Matthew, pg 228-229)
E.P. Sanders (Jesus and Judaism, pg 146-147)
Anthony J. Saldarini (Eerdman’s Commentary on the Bible, pg 1037)
Rudolf Schnackenburg (The Gospel of Matthew, pg 159)
Eduard Schwerizer (The Good News According to Matthew, pg 341)
Donald Senior (Invitation to Matthew, pg 161)
David C. Sim (The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism, pg 198)
Peter Stuhlmach (The Messianic Son of Man: Jesus’ Claim to Deity, pg 333)
David L. Turner (Matthew, pg 406 )
J. Knox Chamblin (Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, pg 742)
Henry Alford (The New Testament for English Readers, pg 119)
John Broadus (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, pg 355)
Suzanne de Dietrich (The Layman’s Biblical Commentary: Matthew, pg 93)
Herman Ridderbos (Bible Student’s Commentary, pg 303)
