Upon This Rock I Will Build My Church:

Matthew 16:13-20 in Protestant-Roman Catholic Dialogue

DIZON, Jose Luis

Student No. <DELETED>
Instructor: Daniel Donovan
0

In the debate over whether or not the papacy is valid, no other passage has been as
discussed or debated as Mat. 16:13-20. This passage is central to the Roman Catholic view of
authority, and its significance can be readily seen in how it is oft-quoted by Roman Catholic
theologians, as well as by how the words are prominently displayed in Latin on the ceiling of St.
Peter's Basilica. It is also quoted in the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus (1870), which
defines the doctrine of Papal Primacy.1 At the same time, however, Protestant exegetes have
examined the grammar and context of the passage, and in doing so have challenged the standard
Roman Catholic usage of it as a prooftext for the Papacy. The purpose of this essay is to give a
short survey of how both camps have interpreted this passage, and what are the specific
arguments both sides have advanced in favour of their view of this passage. Arguments will be
taken from various scholarly and apologetical works produced by both camps, and the validity of
these arguments will be scrutinized to see whether or not they do justice to the passage in
Matthew.
In order to begin understanding this passage, it is important to first recognize the context of
the passage. As verse 13 indicates, the discussion between Jesus and His disciples takes place in
the district of Caesarea Philippi, located at the northern part of Israel near Mt. Hermon,2 at a base
of which was a large rock formation that was 200 feet high and 500 hundred feet wide. The
significance of this is highlighted by Roman Catholic authors such as Salza, who state that Jesus
deliberately chose this metaphorical backdrop to rename Simon rock.3 Thus, this fact is
usually placed at the beginning of most Roman Catholic discussions of the passage.
Another important thing to note regarding the passage is its main focus: The identity of
Jesus as the divine Son of God. It begins with Jesus asking His disciples Who do people say that
1

The Dogmatic Constitution from Vatican I Pastor Aeternus, Fish Eaters, Accessed March 12, 2012,
http://www.fisheaters.com/pastoraeternus.html, 1:2 and 4:2.
2
Senior, Donald. Matthew (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), 189.
3
Salza, John. The Biblical Basis for the Papacy. (Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor, 2006), 25.
1

the Son of Man is? (v. 13) and ends with Jesus ordering the disciples not to tell anyone that He
is the Messiah (v. 20). It has been rightly pointed out that everything that takes place in the
pericope is connected to this main theme, including the changing of Simon's name to Peter and
Jesus' declaration that upon this Rock He will build His Church, which is why it should be
understood in that light. This is the main contention of White, who states: The central theme is
the Messiahship of Jesus Christ. Any interpretation that takes the focus off of Jesus as Messiah is
missing the point.4
Thus, the words of vv. 18-19 are thus to be understood in light of what comes immediately
before it in vv. 16-17. Here, Jesus asks His disciples who they say that He is. When this question
is asked, Simon comes forward and says You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God. This
is one of many instances in scripture where Simon speaks on behalf of all the apostles. On this
verse, Salza writes: Simons ability to receive divine theological insights from God (here, a
Christological truth) and communicate them without error forms the basis for the Catholic
understanding of papal infallibility.5 And although he is far from the only character in the Bible
who receives special revelation, Roman Catholic apologists argue that Peters revelation is in
some way incredibly unique, stating that no other apostle had been given the gift. God initiates
the heavenly decree by penetrating the mind of Simon, and moving him to make the infallible
declaration.6
Following this, Jesus replies, Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood
has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven (v. 17). In saying this, Jesus confirms the
divine origin of Peters confession of faith. After this comes the section of the pericope that is
most hotly debated, which is when Jesus says to Peter:
4

James R. White, The Roman Catholic Controversy: Catholics & ProtestantsDo the Differences Still Matter
(Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1996), 117.
5
Salza, The Biblical Basis for the Papacy, 26.
6
Ibid.
2

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of
Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and
whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth
will be loosed in heaven (vv. 18-19).
Much is made about the fact that when God changes a persons name, something significant
is taking place. Keating points out that nobody questioned the name change, and Simon continues
to be referred to as Peter throughout the New Testament, as contrasted with James and John, who
continued to be named as such, rather than as Boanerges,7 while Salza argues that the name
change carries as much significance as Abrams name change to Abraham, or Jacobs name
change to Israel.8 The main Protestant interpretation of this passage, however, is that Simon is
named Peter after Jesus, by who is elsewhere called such titles as Rock or Chief Cornerstone,
by virtue of the formers confession of the latter. This interpretation can be traced back to
Augustine, who is oft-quoted by Protestants as saying in his Retractations:
I also say unto thee, Thou art Peter. For before he was called Simon. Now this
name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the
Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the
rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the
rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian
from Christ.9
This leads to another major issue that is relevant to this discussion, which is the identity of
the Rock upon which the church is built. There are many grammatical questions that go into how
7

Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on Romanism by Bible Christians (San
Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), 207.
8
Salza, The Biblical Basis for the Papacy, 27-28.
9
William Webster, The Church Fathers' Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18, Christian Resources,
Accessed March 13, 2012, http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/mt16.html.
3

to interpret this passage. For example, are Petros and petra equivalent terms? Does the shift from
the second to the third person make any difference? Unfortunately, space does not allow for a
thorough examination of all these issues. Historically, however, there have been four answers to
the question of the identity of the Rock: It may either refer to 1) Peter himself, 2) Peters faith, 3)
Christ, and 4) all the Apostles. French Roman Catholic Launoy is quoted in many Protestant
apologetical works as providing the following statistic: Among the early church fathers, 17
interpreted the Rock as being Peter, 44 interpreted it as being Peters faith, 16 interpreted it as
being Christ and 8 interpreted it as being the entire Apostolic college.10 As Hudson notes,
however, even though some Patristic and Protestant exegetes interpret the Rock as being Peter,
this does not mean they accepted Papal views of power.11 One prominent example is
Hendricksens commentary on Matthew, which interprets the Rock as referring to Peter, but
explicitly rejects the view that this makes him the first pope, saying that this passage does not
support any such bestowal of well-nigh absolute authority on a mere man or on his successors.12
Finally, there is the issue of the keys that are given to Peter. In recent decades, Roman
Catholics have attempted to connect the keys with the key that is given to Eliakim in Isa. 22. The
argument, so it goes, is that just as Eliakim acted as the prime minister of the king of Israel, Peter
(and his successors) acted as prime minister of Jesus, the king of Heaven.13 However, White notes
that this is a novel attempt and that nobody interpreted Isa. 22 as being relevant to Mat. 16
before the 8th century. He further points out that this interpretation is contradicted by the

10

Henry T. Hudson, Papal Power: Its Origins and Development (Hertfordshire: Evangelical Press, 1981), 11. The
same statistic is also cited in White, The Roman Catholic Controversy, 120.
11
Ibid.
12
William Hendricksen, William. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 645.
13
This connection is made in Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, 207, Salza, The Biblical Basis for the
Papacy, 55-61, and Senior, Matthew, 191-192.
4

scriptures itself: In Rev. 3:7, Jesus is described as holding the key to the House of David, using
language that directly parallels Isa. 22:22.14
So what exactly do the keys in v. 19 signify? Protestant and Roman Catholic authors
agree that this passage refers to the exercise of doctrinal judgments (which is what binding and
loosing means; i.e. forbidding and permitting).15 The Roman Catholic position claims that this
gives Peter (and his successors) the authority to render the judgment of God, and that this power
is unique to Peter because only he receives the keys.16 Protestants such as Hudson, however, point
out that each 2nd instance of the verbs for binding and loosing are in the perfect tense. Thus, the
passage could better be understood as saying whatever you forbid on earth must be already
forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth must be already permitted in heaven.
Rather than making judgments, binding and loosing refers to confirming a decision that was
already made in heaven, and making it known on earth.17 Also, it is pointed out that Jesus says
will give (future tense) the keys, so the giving takes place at another point. This is identified as
Matthew 18:18, where all the apostles are given the authority to bind and loose. Roman Catholic
apologists counter this by pointing out that the keys are not mentioned in Matthew 18,18 although
this can be explained by the fact that the connection between the keys and binding and loosing
was already established two chapters earlier,. This means that it was not necessary for them to be
mentioned again, since the connection should already be established in the readers mind.
There are many other questions that concern the issue of Mat. 16 relates to papal claims, but
it is hoped that this essay provides a basic outline of some of the issues involved, and that it has
done justice to the arguments presented by both sides.
14

White, The Roman Catholic Controversy, 249.

Hudson, Papal Power, 103-104, and Salza, The Biblical Basis for the Papacy, 73.
16
Salza, The Biblical Basis for the Papacy, 73-77.
17
Hudson, Papal Power, 103-104.
18
Salza, The Biblical Basis for the Papacy 97.
15

Bibliography
The Dogmatic Constitution from Vatican I Pastor Aeternus. Fish Eaters. Accessed March 12,
2012. http://www.fisheaters.com/pastoraeternus.html. (Roman Catholic)
Hendricksen, William. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to
Matthew. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984. (Protestant)
Hudson, Henry. Papal Power: Its Origins and Development. Hertfordshire: Evangelical Press,
1981. (Protestant)
Keating, Karl. Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on Romanism by Bible
Christians. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988. (Roman Catholic)
Salza, John. The Biblical Basis for the Papacy. Our Sunday Visitor, 2006. (Roman Catholic)
Senior, Donald. Matthew (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries). Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1998. (Roman Catholic)
Webster, William. The Church Fathers' Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18. Christian
Resources. Accessed March 13, 2012. http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/mt16.html.
(Protestant)
White, James R. The Roman Catholic Controversy: Catholics & ProtestantsDo the Differences
Still Matter? Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1996. (Protestant)