Thread: Matthew 16:18 (Peter as the rock?)

Every time I've read through the gospel according to Matthew, I always struggle with this verse and just push it to the back of my mind for the time being. As such, I end up forgetting about it until the next time I read it, when I do the same thing again...

So the question is: What does this verse really mean? Is Christ building His church upon Peter? Is there a significance to the use of Petros for Peter and petra for the rock Christ is referring to?

I'm genuinely confused about this verse because of the way some people have ran with it, like the Catholics, and I feel like I'm just forcing myself to interpret it in such a way as to distance myself from them as far as I can rather than interpreting it as it should be interpreted.

Joel:

I think the natural way to read it is that Peter is the rock upon which the Lord will build His church. Peter is blessed by God to have the knowledge of the Christ revealed to Him as well as the authority given to him by Christ. Many Protestants (such as Lorraine Boettner) will disagree since they believe this gives too much 'room' for the papist to build his arguments, but the one does not necessarily (if at all) imply the other.

Please note however that this interpretation does not establish exclusive or even primary importance to Peter's work as an apostle (over the others). Jesus after all imparts the same authority to him (in the following verse -19) as He does to the other apostles (Matthew 18:18). Indeed being the 'foundation' (rock if you will) of the NT church is an honor held with the others and not in a superior or greater capacity (Ephesians 2:20).

Furthermore it is a long and divergent path(way) to argue from this passage to papal infallibility and Roman supremacy over the universal church.

Would you be interested on how the church fathers interpreted this passage?

The Church Fathers' Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18

Thanks! To every post before this one. They covered the three very important aspects of this passage;

the correlation to all the prophets and apostles being rocks,

the fact that interpreting the passage in a papal manner cannot be anywhere deduced from the passage,

the early church did not see it this way.

Good stuff.

This was very helpful. Like WaywardNowHome, I've always looked at this verse as being either one of two ways instead of seeing the true interpretation.

I once wrote a paper on this (which needs some heavy revision). Several things point to the Peter=rock position. First, according to John 1:42, Jesus actually named Peter "Kepha" (transliterated from Aramaic through Greek into English as "Cephas"). This is confirmed by the fact that Paul refers to Peter as Cephas in 2 epistles to strongly Gentile audiences, which would be very odd if that is not the name by which he went. On the other hand, the writers of the NT generally translate Kepha into Πετρος in order to make the word-play accessible for a wider reading audience. Thus, one should not try to explain a passage using a possible nuance in πετρος that would not be in Kepha.

Second, other interpretations need to draw a distinction between Πετρος and πετρα. In classical Greeks, πετρος referred to a "rock," a moveable-sized object, whereas πετρα meant rocky terrain. However, both words had considerable room for overlap, and the distinction was only strictly maintained in poetic literature written prior to hellenistic period. In the NT, the word πετρος is never used to signify a rock - λιθος is uniformly used for that. So, it seems that πετρος passed out of use as a noun. Therefore, Πετρος should be taken as a masculinization of the noun πετρα. Same word, therefore no disjunction in meaning.

Third, only three times in Scripture does God give someone a new name. The first is Genesis 17:5, where God reveals His plan to make Abraham a “father of many nations.” The second is Genesis 32:28, where God blesses Jacob. As He did with Abraham’s name, God used the phrase “children of Israel” to denote Jacob’s role as the father of a nation. The fact that Christ gave Simon a name means that it must have significance. The only passage in which any detailed explanation is offered is Matthew 16:18. Therefore, it is right to expect Christ to reveal something significant about Peter in this passage, and even to suspect that it might deal with his role in forming the people of God.

Fourth, the greater flow of the chapter seems to demand some emphasis on Peter. Matthew 16:13-28 breaks into two major units. The first is vv. 13-20. The second is vv. 21-28, which continues the themes found in the first unit. The first unit can be divided by major speakers:

(1) Jesus questions the disciples about His identity (vv. 13-15)
(2) Peter understands and responds by acknowledging His Messiahship (v. 16)
(3a) Jesus confirms Peter’s assessment of Him and explains Peter’s identity (v. 17-19)
(3b) Jesus gives a command to His disciples based on their understanding of Him (v.20)

The second unit is introduced by “from that time” (v. 21) and can also be divided by speaker:

(1) Jesus explains to His disciples the course necessitated by His identity (v. 21)
(2) Peter misunderstands and responds by rebuking Jesus (v. 22)
(3a) Jesus sharply rebukes Peter for his assessment of Him and explains the course necessitated by Peter’s identity (v. 23)
(3b) Jesus gives a command to His disciples based on their more complete understanding of Him (vv. 24-28)

Happy exegetical pondering!

I think it's interesting that the verse doesn't say "on YOU I will build my Church"...but rather "on THIS rock..."

In v.19 Jesus specifically speaks to Peter by using the word "YOU" (singular)...
"I will give YOU the keys"
"whatever YOU will bind"
"whatever YOU will loose"

So i tend to think that when Christ says "on this rock" He is referring back to Peter's confession of faith and not to Peter himself.

Jesus was engaging in a play on words.

Recall that he makes two statements:

In the first one he refers to his natural name Simon (which means "heard") bar-Jona and then says that flesh and blood did not reveal this to him. He didn't hear it from his father Jona.

In the second statement he contrasts with the first, declaring that instead he heard it from the Father. To this Jesus attaches that Simon is called Peter (by relation to the Rock - just as he is called bar-Jona by relation to Jona) and that it is on this Rock - on Christ and faith in Him - that Jesus will build his church.

We do, as one person above already pointed, find this interpretation in the fathers. Folks like William Webster have provided some amazing research work in that area.

There is also a great Biblical argument to be made from the fact that Peter refers to Christ (in one of Peter's epistles) as the Rock and from the fact that the Scriptures repeatedly symbolize Christ through the type of a rock.

But there is a much more simple grammatical point: it would be extremely awkward (as someone has already noted above) for Jesus to say "upon this Rock" instead of just saying "upon thee" if he had wanted to indicate that the church was going to be founded on Peter. After all, he doesn't say that he will give the keys of the kingdom either to "the Rock" or even in third person "to Peter" but "to thee."

Finally, there is the argument from the enemy's premises. Even if one buys the idea (promoted heavily by the Romanists) that Jesus was speaking Aramaic on this occasion (for which there is no evidence at all), the inspired text of Matthew is Greek (not Aramaic). Matthew could have written "Thou art Cephas and upon this Cephas (which is, being interpreted, Rock) I will build my church ...". Recall that Matthew provides the interpretation of Emmanuel in Matthew 1:23, and we see the other Gospel writers doing the same thing (Mark in Mark 5:41, 15:22, and 15:34 - John in John 1:38, 41, 42, and 9:7 - Luke in Acts 4:36, 9:36, 13:8). Instead, Matthew (at least - by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, whether or not Jesus spoke Greek, Aramaic, or Hindi on this occasion) does make a verbal distinction between Petra (the Rock) and Petros (Peter).

Why does he do so? Because Peter is not the Rock - he is named after the Rock in whom he trusted, after the spiritual relationship he had with the Rock by faith - thus he is often called "Simon Peter" and only occasionally "Simon bar-Jona." The most important relationship that Simon had was not his flesh and blood relationship with Jonas his father who taught him to be a fisher of fish but with the triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who taught him to be a fisher of men.

If the Catholic Church is built on Peter they should probably read vs 23 and see that Peter is refered to as Satan and a stumbling block to our Lord. I think Poimen hit it pretty well though.

Originally Posted by larryjf

I think it's interesting that the verse doesn't say "on YOU I will build my Church"...but rather "on THIS rock..."

In v.19 Jesus specifically speaks to Peter by using the word "YOU" (singular)...
"I will give YOU the keys"
"whatever YOU will bind"
"whatever YOU will loose"

So i tend to think that when Christ says "on this rock" He is referring back to Peter's confession of faith and not to Peter himself.

Actually, there are very clear reasons why "this" must refer to Peter. The word "this" indicates that the concept of its head noun has already been introduced. Now, in spoken conversation, we would expect the referent to be very close at hand. Peter's confession is several clauses remote.

Second, it is extremely jarring to expect the disciples to understand that the noun "rock" refers to the concept embodied in a verbal confession, which does not include the concept of rock. So, the disciples would have had to simultaneously take the "this" back several clauses and understand rock to mean "statement." It is inconceivable that they would have been able to infer all this at the speed of spoken conversation.

Third and most importantly, "this rock" means that the idea of rock has already been introduced. Where is that? Probably in Πετρος, which means rock and is in close proximity to the demonstrative.

Also, saying "upon you I will build my church" would be completely against the point of the passage. Assuming that Jesus is explaining the name that He gave Simon, the passage needs to make clear Simon (you) = Πετρος = πετρα. That is exactly what it says. Interjecting συ for Πετρος would not clearly make that link. I find it inconceivable that Jesus would say, "I say to you that you are a rock (Πετρος), and upon this rock (πετρα) I will build my church" and not understand the pronoun "this" to refer back to the first instance of "rock" in the passage.

The way I've always heard it interpreted is that the "rock" Jesus speaks of refers to Peter's confession of faith, not Peter himself. Upon the confession of faith He builds His church.

EDIT: I recommend listening to a couple of James White vs. Roman Catholic debates. It comes up pretty frequently and I think he explains it pretty well.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Originally Posted by larryjf

I think it's interesting that the verse doesn't say "on YOU I will build my Church"...but rather "on THIS rock..."

In v.19 Jesus specifically speaks to Peter by using the word "YOU" (singular)...
"I will give YOU the keys"
"whatever YOU will bind"
"whatever YOU will loose"

So i tend to think that when Christ says "on this rock" He is referring back to Peter's confession of faith and not to Peter himself.

Actually, there are very clear reasons why "this" must refer to Peter. The word "this" indicates that the concept of its head noun has already been introduced. Now, in spoken conversation, we would expect the referent to be very close at hand. Peter's confession is several clauses remote.

Second, it is extremely jarring to expect the disciples to understand that the noun "rock" refers to the concept embodied in a verbal confession, which does not include the concept of rock. So, the disciples would have had to simultaneously take the "this" back several clauses and understand rock to mean "statement." It is inconceivable that they would have been able to infer all this at the speed of spoken conversation.

Third and most importantly, "this rock" means that the idea of rock has already been introduced. Where is that? Probably in Πετρος, which means rock and is in close proximity to the demonstrative.

Also, saying "upon you I will build my church" would be completely against the point of the passage. Assuming that Jesus is explaining the name that He gave Simon, the passage needs to make clear Simon (you) = Πετρος = πετρα. That is exactly what it says. Interjecting συ for Πετρος would not clearly make that link. I find it inconceivable that Jesus would say, "I say to you that you are a rock (Πετρος), and upon this rock (πετρα) I will build my church" and not understand the pronoun "this" to refer back to the first instance of "rock" in the passage.

The apostles may have understood much more clearly than we if Christ used body language as well as words.

If He pointed to Peter and said "you are a rock" and then pointed to Himself and said "upon this bedrock."

Therefore Christ may have clearly communicated to them that He was the foundation and bedrock of the Church, which would also explain the different words used in the verse "rock" versus "bedrock"

However, i still see it as being a statement of "upon this great confession of faith i build my Church"
The immediate context is clearly regarding Peter's confession of faith.

Whether or not the apostles would have easily understood it is another issue, as they didn't understand many things Jesus taught them...like the fact that just a few verses later Peter is harshly rebuked by Christ for not understanding that He must be crucified.

Also consider the fact that without Peter there would still be a Church, but without faith in and confession of Christ there would not be a Church.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Originally Posted by larryjf

I think it's interesting that the verse doesn't say "on YOU I will build my Church"...but rather "on THIS rock..."

In v.19 Jesus specifically speaks to Peter by using the word "YOU" (singular)...
"I will give YOU the keys"
"whatever YOU will bind"
"whatever YOU will loose"

So i tend to think that when Christ says "on this rock" He is referring back to Peter's confession of faith and not to Peter himself.

Actually, there are very clear reasons why "this" must refer to Peter. The word "this" indicates that the concept of its head noun has already been introduced. Now, in spoken conversation, we would expect the referent to be very close at hand. Peter's confession is several clauses remote.

Second, it is extremely jarring to expect the disciples to understand that the noun "rock" refers to the concept embodied in a verbal confession, which does not include the concept of rock. So, the disciples would have had to simultaneously take the "this" back several clauses and understand rock to mean "statement." It is inconceivable that they would have been able to infer all this at the speed of spoken conversation.

Third and most importantly, "this rock" means that the idea of rock has already been introduced. Where is that? Probably in Πετρος, which means rock and is in close proximity to the demonstrative.

Also, saying "upon you I will build my church" would be completely against the point of the passage. Assuming that Jesus is explaining the name that He gave Simon, the passage needs to make clear Simon (you) = Πετρος = πετρα. That is exactly what it says. Interjecting συ for Πετρος would not clearly make that link. I find it inconceivable that Jesus would say, "I say to you that you are a rock (Πετρος), and upon this rock (πετρα) I will build my church" and not understand the pronoun "this" to refer back to the first instance of "rock" in the passage.

Originally Posted by larryjf

The apostles may have understood much more clearly than we if Christ used body language as well as words.

If He pointed to Peter and said "you are a rock" and then pointed to Himself and said "upon this bedrock."

Therefore Christ may have clearly communicated to them that He was the foundation and bedrock of the Church, which would also explain the different words used in the verse "rock" versus "bedrock"

I disagree. There is no indication of this in the passage; this is reading your interpretation into the passage. Whether it's a correct doctrine or not, we needn't engage in eisegesis to prove our point.

However, i still see it as being a statement of "upon this great confession of faith i build my Church"
The immediate context is clearly regarding Peter's confession of faith.

This is as I recall the position both of the early Church and the reformers.

Whether or not the apostles would have easily understood it is another issue, as they didn't understand many things Jesus taught them...like the fact that just a few verses later Peter is harshly rebuked by Christ for not understanding that He must be crucified.

Also consider the fact that without Peter there would still be a Church, but without faith in and confession of Christ there would not be a Church.

That depends on whether you're RC or not.

Originally Posted by Skyler

Originally Posted by larryjf

The apostles may have understood much more clearly than we if Christ used body language as well as words.

If He pointed to Peter and said "you are a rock" and then pointed to Himself and said "upon this bedrock."

Therefore Christ may have clearly communicated to them that He was the foundation and bedrock of the Church, which would also explain the different words used in the verse "rock" versus "bedrock"

I disagree. There is no indication of this in the passage; this is reading your interpretation into the passage. Whether it's a correct doctrine or not, we needn't engage in eisegesis to prove our point.

I don't think Larry's engaging in eisegesis, but rather simply speculating that in the presence of Christ Himself he can see how it might have been clearer.

That being said, I wouldn't bother with that speculation at all, since Scripture is sufficient in itself. Whatever we are to derive from Scripture we are able to derive from it itself - if body language were needed to properly understand this passage, then that principle would be broken. Hence body language is not needed - we can derive this truth from the words itself (as Larry also argues).

Originally Posted by Skyler

Originally Posted by larryjf

The apostles may have understood much more clearly than we if Christ used body language as well as words.

If He pointed to Peter and said "you are a rock" and then pointed to Himself and said "upon this bedrock."

Therefore Christ may have clearly communicated to them that He was the foundation and bedrock of the Church, which would also explain the different words used in the verse "rock" versus "bedrock"

I disagree. There is no indication of this in the passage; this is reading your interpretation into the passage. Whether it's a correct doctrine or not, we needn't engage in eisegesis to prove our point.

Understood. I wasn't trying to prove my point as i don't believe Christ was referring to Himself, but to the confession of Peter. I was simply trying to demonstrate that presuming the apostles could only understand the discourse in one narrow way is presuming too much.

Thanks for clarifying that, Larry.

Originally Posted by Skyler

The way I've always heard it interpreted is that the "rock" Jesus speaks of refers to Peter's confession of faith, not Peter himself. Upon the confession of faith He builds His church.

EDIT: I recommend listening to a couple of James White vs. Roman Catholic debates. It comes up pretty frequently and I think he explains it pretty well.

I believe, Peter is answering Christ's question about who he is (Matthew 16:15). Christ is confirming this to Peter, that not only is Peter right, He is the son of the living God, and the Messiah, but the New Covenant is founded on this truth.
Jesus is the Head of the new church. The New Church is founded on the truth revealed to Peter, that Christ is the Messiah.

Thanks in advance I googled eisegesis. The more you know.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Third, only three times in Scripture does God give someone a new name. The first is Genesis 17:5, where God reveals His plan to make Abraham a “father of many nations.” The second is Genesis 32:28, where God blesses Jacob. As He did with Abraham’s name, God used the phrase “children of Israel” to denote Jacob’s role as the father of a nation. The fact that Christ gave Simon a name means that it must have significance. The only passage in which any detailed explanation is offered is Matthew 16:18. Therefore, it is right to expect Christ to reveal something significant about Peter in this passage, and even to suspect that it might deal with his role in forming the people of God.

What about Sarai/Sarah?

maybe he meant men. Wonder why He didn't change Adam's name after the fall??

Adummy or .... Ri'shownAdam - Gk - MiaAdam

Originally Posted by larryjf

I think it's interesting that the verse doesn't say "on YOU I will build my Church"...but rather "on THIS rock..."

In v.19 Jesus specifically speaks to Peter by using the word "YOU" (singular)...
"I will give YOU the keys"
"whatever YOU will bind"
"whatever YOU will loose"

So i tend to think that when Christ says "on this rock" He is referring back to Peter's confession of faith and not to Peter himself.

Originally Posted by Re4mdant

Originally Posted by larryjf

I think it's interesting that the verse doesn't say "on YOU I will build my Church"...but rather "on THIS rock..."

In v.19 Jesus specifically speaks to Peter by using the word "YOU" (singular)...
"I will give YOU the keys"
"whatever YOU will bind"
"whatever YOU will loose"

So i tend to think that when Christ says "on this rock" He is referring back to Peter's confession of faith and not to Peter himself.

Isn't Christ The ROCK?

And Peter is little stone?

I don't see god building a church on the back of one man.
Except Christ. The Rock, the Cornerstone.

I think that is the Rock the church is built on.

Maybe this article will be of some help, linguistically:

SOME THOUGHTS ON MATTHEW 16:18

I just preached on this passage last night for the evening worship service. There are of course three main interpretations that have been advanced for the referent of "this rock" in verse 18: Peter, his confession, or Christ. My personal opinion is that there is some truth to all three views. If one views Peter as the referent, then it must be seen to be the confessing Peter. If the confession is meant, then we cannot forget who made the confession. Both views, in turn, point us to the object of Peter's confession, which is Jesus Christ. Certainly, the office of pope and the succession from Peter is complete eisegesis. However, I do think Protestants have tended to over-react to the Catholic position on this. The fact that there is a play on words effectively nixes the objection that Jesus did not say "on you I build my church." Jesus wouldn't have said "And on you rock I build my church." The only proper pronoun to complete the play on words is "this." However, I still think that the precise referent for the rock is Peter's confession, the confession of an apostle, the correct definition of Christ's identity. The main reason that swayed me was that the context is concerned with the main question, "Who is Jesus?" Jesus asks first for the word on the street, and then He asks for the disciples' opinion (the "you" in verse 15 is quite emphatic). People often lose sight of this contextual concern in their preoccupation with the meaning of "this rock." The main point of the passage is the identity of Jesus, not the identity of Peter. Nevertheless, Peter's confession makes no sense without the object of that confession, and so we cannot draw a hard and fast line between Christ and Peter's confession. Other passages must help us out here (especially Ephesians 2).

Lane, it seems to me to wrangle over words somewhat to say that Peter is the rock, but only as he is a confessing apostle. That's just not how we generally use labels. Is Obama the President only when he is doing "Presidential business." Does he stop being the President when he plays with his children? Do we say that Abraham is the Father of those who believe only as he offered Isaac or left Ur? Surely, his faith is the reason for that designation, but it doesn't seem to me that the label is one that comes off one moment and goes back on the next.

Regarding Peter, God used him as the human instrument to play a unique role in the foundation of the New Covenant people of God. That historical-redemptive fact remains whether Peter is currently preaching at Pentecost or being rebuked by Peter.


Lane, what do you think of my breakdown of the passage, and is it relevant to the interpretive question?

The greater flow of the chapter seems to demand some emphasis on Peter. Matthew 16:13-28 breaks into two major units. The first is vv. 13-20. The second is vv. 21-28, which continues the themes found in the first unit. The first unit can be divided by major speakers:

(1) Jesus questions the disciples about His identity (vv. 13-15)
(2) Peter understands and responds by acknowledging His Messiahship (v. 16)
(3a) Jesus confirms Peter’s assessment of Him and explains Peter’s identity (v. 17-19)
(3b) Jesus gives a command to His disciples based on their understanding of Him (v.20)

The second unit is introduced by “from that time” (v. 21) and can also be divided by speaker:

(1) Jesus explains to His disciples the course necessitated by His identity (v. 21)
(2) Peter misunderstands and responds by rebuking Jesus (v. 22)
(3a) Jesus sharply rebukes Peter for his assessment of Him and explains the course necessitated by Peter’s identity (v. 23)
(3b) Jesus gives a command to His disciples based on their more complete understanding of Him (vv. 24-28)

Great observations, Lane.

We have to note the circumstances that surround the occasions when persons, places, and objects are named (or renamed). The name isn't only or always primarily for the purpose of drawing our attention to the named one, but that event or truth to which the name itself points supremely.

Jacob/Israel well serves to illustrate. The entire event, and all it meant for that present and for the future is condensed in the name. The name means "God Strives," which is precisely the confession of everyone who hopes in God for salvation.

[edit] And it must be affirmed, that Jacob the man so named, is significant (as Peter was) in a special way, for it is in his primogeniture that the seed for salvation is preserved.

Originally Posted by sastark

Maybe this article will be of some help, linguistically:

SOME THOUGHTS ON MATTHEW 16:18

Seth, I have to say this linguistic analysis seems a bit naive. Arguing that the Peshitta is wrong to use kepha is arguing from ignorance. The fact that it is used 6 times to translate petra shows that the Syrians perceived semantic overlap between petros, petra, kepha, shua, and lithos. It is by no means certain that the same distinction which occured in classical Greek between petros and petra existed in Aramaic between kepha and shua.

Normally, one would argue based on the ancient evidence that kepha was a rock of indeterminate size (or perhaps the material "rock") rather than concluding that the Peshitta messed up. The only way one can conclude that kepha is a mistranslation of petra is if one assumes that petros and petra are so distinct that the same word could not adequately represent both. Frankly, that is circular reasoning.

But most importantly, the author is assuming that petros is being used in connection with its classical Greek usage. I just want to point out that there is not a single reference to a "rock" or "stone" in the NT using the word petros. Every single time, without exception, the word is lithos. So, if Jesus wanted to name Simon something that communicated "rock" in opposition to petra, He could have easily used lithos. The fact that he did not leads me toward the conclusion that Jesus was masculinizing the noun petra, rather than employing the classical noun petros.

Why did Jesus Give Peter the new name?
What is the significance of it and timing of it?

He is Peter or rock in this confession of Christ who is The Rock the Cornerstone the church will be built on.

So the reason Peter is rock, is because he recognizes Christ, which is the Rock the church is built on.

Yes Peter preaches and has a prominent place until Paul comes along. But can you really say in any way Peter himself as a person is the rock or foundation the church is built on. And how so?

To me it would be Peter's faith and recognition of Christ that could be the rock. Or another stone added to the Cornerstone to build the church just as each one who follows in Peter's Confession of Christ is also a lively stone added to the building of the church.
So Peter is not the cornerstone or the 1st stone or the base that the church is built on, Peter is just one more stone upon which Christ's church is built. He is a type of all who will confess and build the church.

Augustine, in his Retractationum I.21, writes "Non enim dictum illi est: "Tu es petra ", sed: Tu es Petrus. Petra autem erat Christus; quem confessus Simon, sicut eum tota Ecclesia confitetur, dictus est Petrus." (It was not said to him [Peter]: "You are the rock", but "You are Petrus." The rock instead was Christ, and for confessing this, Simon, as with him the whole Church confesses, was named Peter.")

It seems to me that the reference to Christ as the rock is the most coherent with the whole Scripture, especially in light of John 2:19,21 "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.... But he spake of the temple of his body." This temple was a reference to himself, as the Apostle explains. Similarly, when he said upon this rock, he meant himself. Simon was given the name Peter because he was the first disciple to confess the true nature of Christ.

I know that I'm the least qualified to dive into this discussion but I believe that it's significant that the who address starts with Christ's question about His identity, and as someone pointed out; everything is in direct address except the statement by Jesus which is in 3rd person and then Christ shifts right back to direct address.

From James White:

Then we run into the phrase at issue. kai. evpi. tau,th| th/| pe,tra is indeed singular; there is only one "rock" in view. The issue is, to what does tau,th| refer? As a pronoun, it has an antecedent, a referent that it is pointing back to. Rome insists the referent is Peter. But if it is, why use a demonstrative pronoun at all? Jesus has used two personal pronouns of Peter already in this sentence, soi and su,. He could have easily said, "and upon you the rock," (evpi. se, or evpi. soi, th/| pe,tra). But again, He didn’t.
Instead, he switches from direct address to the demonstrative "this." I have expressed this, in non-technical language, as going from second person, "you, Peter," to third person, "this rock." "This rock" is referring to something other than the person who was being addressed in the preceding phrase, something that we find in the immediate context. A natural reading of the passage (one that I truly believe would be nigh unto universal if history had not fallen out as it did, with only one "apostolic see" in the West, the continuance of the Empire in the East, etc.) makes it plain what must function as the antecedent of the demonstrative pronoun:

15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

The confession that Peter gives of the Messiahship of Jesus is the central thought of the entire passage. It is the reason for the trip to Caesarea Philippi. Jesus indicates that Peter has just been the recipient of divine revelation. God, in His grace, has given to Peter an insight that does not find its origin in the will of man, but in God the Father Himself. The content of that confession is, in fact, divine revelation, immediately impressed upon the soul of Peter. This is the immediate context of verse 18, and to divorce verse 18 from what came before leads to the errant shift of attention from the identity of Christ to the identity of Peter that is found in Roman Catholic exegesis.
Certainly we cannot accept the idea, presented in Roman theology, that immediately upon pronouncing the benediction upon Peter’s confession of faith, the focus shifts away from that confession and what it reveals to Peter himself and some office with successors based upon him! Not only does the preceding context argue against this, but the following context likewise picks up seemlessly with what came before: the identity of Jesus as Messiah. Hence, the logical antecedent for tau,th| is Peter’s confession. Such not only commands the most logical grammatical sense, but it also commands the obvious teaching of the rest of the New Testament itself!

While Peter falls out of view by Acts 15, the centrality of the Messiahship of Jesus continues in the forefront throughout the recorded history of the primitive Church.


Here is a link to the whole article.

Alpha and Omega Ministries, The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White