As I have readily admitted, I am not a Greek or Aramaic scholar. I am relying on the information gleaned from other sources and then explained to me by my friends AB and PW, who are actual scholars.

The primary exegetical problem of the verse is the identity of the “pevtra.” Is Jesus referring to Himself or Peter as the rock? Could the rock be Peter’s confession of faith? And what are the implications of each interpretation?

According to my friend AB’s very complicated explanation of the underlying meaning of the Greek in Matthew 16:18, the sentence we read should really be translated “My Father has just revealed something to you, but I, for my part, will also reveal a truth to you.” AB writes, “Therefore, the kai … de combination is an adversative conjunction. Jesus used the emphatic pronoun, which considering Peter’s confession, means “I, the Messiah”, giving the following words great import. Peter has made an important statement about Jesus; Jesus, in turn would make an important statement to Peter.”

The word “Pevtro" means “stone” and occurs 156 times in the New Testament. Except at John 1:42, where it is used to clarify the Aramaic Khfa' "Pevtro" it is only used in the NT as the nickname of Simon, one of the original 12 apostles of Jesus. It occurs 29 times with Sivmwn, three of those occur in the Gospel of Matthew (4:18; 10:2; 16:16). The original name of the apostle is either Symeon or Simon, a Hebrew name that was used quite commonly among Jews, but this Semitic form is only used of Peter in Acts 15:14 and 2 Peter 1:1.  It appears to have been the most prevalent Jewish name between the period of 100 B.C.-A.D. 200; it was a patriarchal name that was readily assimilated into Greek. Since there is a similarity of sound between the Greek and Hebrew names, the former probably replaced the latter. It is possible that Peter, who may have come from the Hellenistic town of Bethsaida, bore both names from the very beginning.

Moreover, Simon also bears another name, “Khfa'". This name is a Greek transcription of an Aramaic word that means “rock”. It was used often in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic texts and it has been shown that it was used as a proper name, dating back to the 3^rd century BC. Peter was not the first person to have had the name, and its use as a proper name at least makes more plausible the suggestion that Jesus was employing an Aramaic wordplay. “Khfa'" is used to reference Simon most often in the writings of Paul. It seems highly unlikely that Paul would simply choose to give Peter an Aramaic name, so it can be safely assumed that Paul knew that Peter was also called “Khfa'" when he wrote his epistles, indicating a very early use of “Khfa'" as a proper name, certainly prior to the composition of Matthew. Scholars believe that Jesus probably spoke to his disciples in both Aramaic and Greek.

As previously stated, “Pevtro" is used to clarify “Khfa'" in John 1:42. AB explained “Semitic names of the New Testament period were far more subject to Hellenization than those of the OT. Often the same name, if it belongs to a NT person, is Grecized; grammatically, this Hellenization could take place through a variety of ways, but Khfa'"-Pevtro" serves as a great example of Hellenization taking place through translation.”

AB, as a Greek Bible translator, also reads Aramaic, and he agrees that the Aramaic would support the theory that pevtra is referring to Peter, but he points out that it is not at all certain that Jesus was speaking Aramaic here. Greek was the common language of the day and Matthew wrote in Greek, so one might easily stick to a Greek understanding of the pevtra-Pevtro" word-play. This introduces a variety of interpretations.  Matthew chose to use Pevtro" and pevtra, two different words, creating a conscious juxtaposition and indicating an intention to distinguish the two terms from one another. Peter’s confession that Jesus is God’s anointed Messiah set Peter and the other disciples apart from unbelieving Jews. AB insists that Peter’s words were not merely an honorific title, but a challenge of Messianic calling. For AB, as a translator, Matthew’s use of two separate words indicates clearly that he was not equating the “rock” with the apostle. As New Testament scholars, both AB and PW note that the emphasis of the chapter is largely upon Jesus as the Messiah. The unbelieving Jews couldn’t see the truth before their eyes and even the disciples did not openly affirm Jesus as the Messiah at Caesarea Philippi. Yes, Peter accurately identified Jesus as the divine Son-Christ (Jesus blessed him for it), but the apostle does not stand at the center of Matt 16:18. The crucial point is Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ. My friend PW wrote “pevtra = faith and quoted theologian John Ryle as stating the following about the identity of the pevtra: “To speak of an erring, fallible child of Adam as the foundation of the spiritual temple is very unlike the ordinary language of Scripture… . The true meaning of the “rock” appears to be the truth of the Lord’s messiahship and divinity.” This view was supported by John Calvin as well.

However, other theologians, dating back to Augustine, have asserted that rock is Jesus himself. It was the dominant view throughout the Middle Ages. During the Reformation, both Zwingli and Luther held this interpretation of the verse. In his treatise On True and False Religion, Ulrich Zwingli states the following:

“[It] is as though Christ were saying, ‘I was right to give thee the name Peter; for thou art Peter. For staunchly and clearly and unwaveringly [Peter] confesseth that which has saving power for all. I, too, will build my church upon this rock, not upon thee; for thou art not a rock (petra). God alone is the rock on which every building shall be built… . So, thou, Peter, art not a rock.’ For how would the Church have collapsed when he, trembling at the feeble voice of her who kept the door [John 18:17] began to make denial! … That the divine Apostle so understood the words of Christ he himself bears witness, 1 Pet 2:4-5: ‘Unto whom’ – Christ, that is – ‘coming, a living stone, rejected indeed of man, but with God elect and precious, ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house.’ ‘Behold as Christ is a rock,’ you say, ‘so are we rocks,’ But see in what sense Christ is a rock, and in what sense we are rocks. Christ is the rock upon which the building rises, we are the common stones in the building which has its foundations in Christ. Christ alone, therefore, not Peter nor any creature is the rock, built upon which the Church stands fast against all the vicious fury of all the storms.”

Zwingli argued that despite of his profession of faith, Peter cannot be the sturdy “rock” of the Church because he later denied his Lord. If the Church is built upon Peter the man, then it would have surely collapsed when he betrayed Jesus. Zwingli also argued that Peter’s own writings prove that he saw Jesus, not himself, as the “rock” of the Church. For the apostle, Christians are living stones that are used to build up the body of Christ, but Jesus is the living stone upon which the Church rests. In fact, some scholars have pointed out that a first-century Jew never would have understood himself to be the “rock” in question. Peter would have automatically connected the “rock” with God because throughout the Old Testament, the God of Israel is often called “rock” (Deut 32: 4, 15, 18, 30; 1 Sam 2:2, 22:32, 47; Ps 18:31, 19:14, 28:1, 42:9, 89:26; Isa 30:29). As God revealed Himself through His relationship with Israel, He proved that He was their provider and caretaker – the rock of their faith. Alan maintains that the rock cannot be the apostle or his faith because only weeks later, Peter’s faith “fled into the hills” as his so-called rock-like qualities became nothing but “shifting sand.” It is not Peter’s faith that becomes the rock upon which the Church rests; instead, the Church rests on the faithfulness, the reliability, and the rocklike trustworthiness of God. “The rock is none other than God-in-Christ” as one scholar wrote.

My friend PW who is a New Testament historian who also reads NT Greek, says that exegetically, it seems at least probable that Jesus is referring to himself as the pevtra. It is true that there are numerous instances of God the Father being described as “rock” in the OT (see above) and Jesus being described as “rock” or “foundation” in the NT (1 Cor 3:11, 10:4); however, that does not necessarily mean that Jesus is referring to himself (or the Father) as the “rock” of Matt 16:18.  As a chapter, Matthew 16 does concentrate heavily on the theme of Jesus’ identity, but verses 17-19 seem to focus particularly on Peter and his statements regarding Jesus’ identity. Therefore, it would seem likely that the “pevtra” of v. 18 either refers to the man or to his confession of faith.

If Peter’s confession of faith is the “rock,” then why did Jesus not say “upon this faith” or “upon your words” I will build my Church? Some scholars view the Protestant claim that the “rock” is Peter’s faith rather than referring to the man as an overreaction to the papal claims of the Roman Catholic Church and I found it surprising that two staunchly Baptist scholars would agree. It should also be noted that in v. 17, Jesus refers to the apostle as “Simon”. In v. 18, though, Jesus specifically refers to Simon as Peter, the nickname that he had previously given the apostle. If Peter is not in view, why would Jesus deliberately use a word that almost mirrored the apostle’s name? Considering that this is the only place in the entire New Testament corpus in which pevtra and Pevtro" are used in the same verse, it is difficult to imagine that Jesus was not in some way referring to Peter. The logical explanation is that there is some relationship between the two, and Jesus wanted to make that connection known.

In v. 15, Jesus specifically asked his disciples who were present: “But who do you say that I am?” Only one person, Peter, responded by correctly confessing that Jesus is the Christ. Just as Peter singled out Jesus and unveiled his identity, Jesus now singled out Peter and uncovered his true identity, but not for arbitrary reasons. Peter is the rock because he confessed Jesus as the Christ here. Peter is not given the title because he is inherently worthy to receive it; he is not more righteous than any of the other disciples. Peter had his failings and shortcomings, as evidenced by his denial of Christ only verses later, but his failures do not detract from his preeminence; they probably highlight it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior probably would have been of far less consequence. Peter was able to rise above his shortcomings here and make a profession about the true identity of Jesus; this is the basis of his preeminence.

Again, you can’t take this verse out of context. If Peter is the “rock” in question, given a position of preeminence, why do the disciples argue over who would have that place several verses later? While in 16:19, Peter was apparently given “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” and the authority to loose and bind things on earth, implying preeminence, but, in 18:18, the same authority is given to all the apostles. Surely, Jesus did not forget his own words! If such authority was given to all of the apostles, it seems unlikely that Jesus was referring to Peter as the pevtra/. In light of these factors, does the argument hold that the pevtra/ is pointing to Peter?

It is true that the other disciples were also given the “keys,” and that the disciples later inquire about “who is the greatest.” Despite the fact that Peter was probably voicing the belief of all of the disciples, it was still he who so emphatically declared their conviction. However, some theologians point out that it was James, not Peter, who became the head of the Jerusalem Church. If anyone was assigned a place of preeminence, would seem to be James, not Peter. Other scholars, while conceding that James was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem, still see that this does not necessarily diminish the primacy of Peter among the apostolic band, noting that Peter was always named first in the lists of the apostles in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts. Peter, along with the brothers James and John, was among the innermost circle of Jesus’ apostles; even among this band, though, Peter is listed first. Peter is featured prominently throughout the Gospels and Acts as THE apostle, first among equals. Despite the fact that it was James who became the leader of the Jerusalem Church, he was not consistently singled out like Simon Peter. Even with James’ eminent position in Jerusalem, it appears that Peter was the leader of the “apostolic band” called the Twelve. It appears that Peter became a central apostolic figure because of his close and unique relationship to Jesus. The interpretation of pevtra as Peter the apostle still seems most likely.

However, the fact that this exegesis points to Peter as the pevtra in no way endorses a Roman Catholic understanding of Peter’s successors. In fact, the text states nothing about Peter’s successor, papal infallibility, or exclusive authority over the Church. Peter’s privilege of being the “rock” is historically unrepeatable. Understood in its original sense, Jesus assigned the apostle a unique and unrepeatable position in the spiritual edifice of God. On the one hand, the verse, understood in the Greek, speaks of a fellowship that is to be built in the future, without any time limit being given. It should be recognized the verse speaks about Peter, a human person, whose earthly activity was necessarily limited by his death. Just as Peter’s feeding of the lambs in John 21:16 was limited by his martyrdom, so is Peter’s status as “rock” of the Church limited by his earthly demise. AB wrote, quoting a scholar named Luz, “the rock, the foundation, is fundamentally different from what is built on it, that is, the house.” The rock remains, but the house built on it gets higher and higher. Even though Peter and the other apostles died, their ministry certainly continued, but in the post-apostolic age it was the apostolic traditions and the writings of the New Testament that “assumed” this ministry. Certainly, the apostles appointed elders, deacons, and bishops in the local churches that they founded; this is clear from the New Testament writings themselves (1 Tim 1:1-5, 3:1-13, 5: 17-21, 2 Tim 4:1-5; Titus 1:5-9). However, there is no evidence for the succession of the apostles in their apostolic office that is valid for the whole church. For example, the Pastoral Epistles in no way indicate that Timothy or Titus, students of Paul, assumed his role as apostle and giver of tradition. This indicates that Matthew knew nothing of a perpetual office of Peter; instead, he knew Peter the disciple of Jesus, whose image he preserved for his community.

From discussion of Peter, let’s turn our attention to the second half of the verse – I will build My Church.

The word translated “build” is in the future tense, indicating that Jesus was looking forward to building a community on the rock of Peter. The theme of “building” a people springs from the Old Testament (Ruth 4:11; 2 Sam 7:13-14; 1 Chr 17: 12-13: Jer 1:10, 24:6, 31:4, 33:7; Amos 9:11) and it is metaphorically appropriate for a community conceived as a spiritual “house” or “temple” (note the description of the church as God’s building in 1 Cor 3:9; Eph 2:19-21).

 The word translated “church” is only twice seen in the Gospels, both in Matthew (16:18; 18:17). According to Walter Bauer, the term can mean: 1) “assembly” such as a regularly summoned political body; 2) assemblage, gathering, meeting; 3) the congregation of the Israelites, especially when gathered for religious purposes (Deut 31:30; Judg 20:2; or, 4) of the Christian church or community. With regard to definition #4, the term ejkklhsiva may be categorized even further; Bauer asserted that in this verse, ejkklhsiva is best understood as “the universal church to which all believers belong.” The word ejkklhsiva often appears in the LXX, usually as the translation of lh*q*. The possessive pronoun mou essentially functions as an adjective and identifies the owner of the church, namely Jesus himself. Peter may be the “rock,” but the church does not belong to Peter, his successors, or to any other church leader; she belongs to Jesus, exclusively and entirely.

The third section of the verse talks about “the gates of hell.” The phrase “gates of Hades” was a common Semitic expression for the threshold of the realm of death, found in the Old Testament and apocryphal writings (Job 38:17; Isa 38:10; Wis 16:13; 3 Macc 5:51), and in later Jewish literature (1QH 6.24). AB asserts the interpretation is sort of dubious. With the prominence of persecution in the gospel, Matthew was probably using the phrase to represent death by martyrdom, saying that even in the face of the apostles’ bloody deaths, the church will remain victorious. Essentially the verse says the power of death will not win a victory over the church. The church, as an eschatological community, will never die or come to an end. The church will endure until Jesus’ return, and no opposition, even the widespread martyrdom of Christians, can prevent the ultimate triumph of God’s purposes in history.

While some exegetical theologians assert that the pevtra of this verse points to Jesus or the confession of Peter, the deliberate use of the pevtra-Pevtro" pun in 16:18 (the only verse in the entire NT that contains both words) logically indicates that Jesus specifically singled out the apostle Simon Peter as the “rock” in question. Peter was not given this position because he was inherently worthy; instead, he received this title because he confessed his faith in the Messiah. Under the leadership of Peter, Jesus built his own community (we see this in Acts), and nothing, not even death itself, will overcome the establishment of this body throughout history. Despite the fact that this exegesis points to Peter as the pevtra, the verse states nothing about Peter’s apostleship being passed down to future successors. It is the historical Peter who remains the “rock” of the Church. My study of the exegesis of Matt 16:18 gives no indication that Jesus was establishing a permanent apostolic see for future Bishops of Rome. More will be examined in a third article.