Matthew 16:18

“And I also say to you, that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church (congregation/assembly), and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.”

And He then declares that Peter is the Rock-man, and that on ‘this Rock', the rock of the words that he has spoken (compare Matthew 7:24 where building on a rock signifies building on Jesus' words) will be built the new congregation that He has come to establish. Just as each man was to build his own life on the rock of Jesus' words so now His new congregation was to be built on the foundation of the words, and the truth that lay behind them, of Peter in his confession. And it will be such that the gates of ‘the world of the dead' (Hades) will not prevail against it. This may signify either that ‘the world of the dead' will not be able to bring His congregation down to the grave because He has given them life. Death therefore has no power over them. Or it may mean that, if some die, it will be unable to prevent their resurrection. Compare here Isaiah 26:19, ‘the earth shall cast forth her dead', which only applied to the righteous dead. Thus the grave-world (Sheol, Hades) could hold on to them no longer.

The latter half of His words are thus a picturesque way of saying that His congregation will be so endued with eternal life that nothing will be able to hold it back from its sure destiny. The powers of death will be broken. For them death will have been swallowed up for ever (Isaiah 25:8). Those who truly belong to that congregation will thus be freed from the fear and chains of death. When they have died the gates of the grave-world will be unable to prevent their resurrection (compare the ideas in Isaiah 26:19 and Revelation 1:18). And for others who live until His coming there will be no death (1 Thessalonians 4:13; 1 Corinthians 15:52). Death has no power over them. To them the Gates of Hades, which keep in the dead, are irrelevant. Those gates of the grave-world, which once like mighty bastions held in for ever all who had died, will prevail no longer when it comes to the true people of God.

Note that just as ‘You are the Christ' parallels ‘you are Peter', so ‘The gates of Hades will not prevail against it' parallels ‘the Son of the living God'. It is because He is the Lord of life to all who will become true members of His congregation, His new community, that they will thus be freed from the grip and fear of death (compare Hebrews 2:15). The Messianic feast was from the beginning associated with freedom from the fear of death (see Isaiah 25:6; Isaiah 26:19), and Jesus here makes clear that it is central to the whole concept of the Messiah.

The interpretation of ‘the rock' as being ‘the words that Peter had spoken' was by far the majority view among the early fathers long before Rome tried to claim the words for itself. Of the references by the early fathers over forty held this view, in contrast with eighteen who saw the Rock as Peter, and seventeen who saw the Rock as Christ Himself. Thus those who in the first five hundred years of the early church saw Peter himself as the Rock were very much in the minority (Augustine of Hippo initially did, but later changed his mind and espoused the majority view). This makes rather foolish the suggestion made by some that it is basically a Protestant interpretation to suggest that ‘this rock' refers to Peter's words of confession.

And this view is confirmed by the Greek text itself, in that ‘you are petros' deliberately contrasts with ‘on this petra', and however the case is argued there can be no doubt that Matthew could have used petros twice had he wished to indicate Peter (we know from external literature that petros was in use for a rock). This is so regardless of what the Aramaic might have been, and the Aramaic can only anyway be the result of guesswork. Besides being outside Jewish territory Jesus may well have spoken in Greek. This play on words in different genders favours the view that whilst a connection is to be made between the two, there is no specific identification, thus indicating Jesus as meaning, ‘You rocklike man, I will use the rock that you have just provided as the foundation of My new community'. For words being seen as such a foundation see Matthew 7:25 and 2 Timothy 2:19.

This is also confirmed by the description ‘ this  rock'. Along with the change in gender it does not fit well with it referring to ‘Peter'. Nor in fact would the play on words be necessary for that purpose. ‘On  you as the rock I will build my congregation' would have been more than sufficient and would have had more impact. But most importantly making the play of words apply to Peter actually  takes all the attention away from the vital statement that he had made  and concentrates it on Peter, and that does not tie in with the following words which demand a reference back to ‘the living God' as a comparison with the gates of Hades. Nor does it tie in with the fact that Mark and Luke do place all the attention on Jesus as the Christ and ignore the words to Peter altogether. On the other hand, as a reference back to the words that Peter had spoken, with ‘this' and the slight change of gender indicating it, the words fit admirably, and the word play is perfect.

Others, of course, see it differently, and are entitled to do so. As so often it is a matter of how we see it. Thus many have actually argued that referring the word play to Peter is ‘the only possible interpretation', a very odd and rather arrogant conclusion. And it is, of course, going much too far as the consensus against it among the majority of the early fathers makes clear. Any such dogmatism is therefore unwarranted. The truth is that both interpretations are possible. It is a question of deciding which fits the facts better, and of what Jesus intended. (Either way there is not the slightest suggestion that Peter's position will be passed on to 'successors'. When Peter died many of the Apostles were still living. Had there been a passing on of authority it would have been to one of them).

Furthermore if there is one thing that is clear in Scripture, it is that ‘the church' was built on Christ (1 Corinthians 3:10; Ephesians 2:20) and not on Peter. When the Apostles are mentioned in connection with being the foundation it is specifically all the Apostles as ‘the Apostolate' who are in mind (Ephesians 2:20; Revelation 21:12; Revelation 21:14), with Jesus Christ Himself as the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20). While Peter must be given credit for his ‘leadership' we do wrong to overrate it. The New Testament is careful not to do so. While describing Peter as the first stone in the erection of the whole construction (as the first to recognise and acknowledge the Messiah, but see John 1:41), would not necessarily conflict with this, doing so does take away the emphasis from what is really being presented as the true foundation, the Messiahship and Sonship of Jesus, which is the emphasis of this passage. It is because He is the Son of the ‘living' God that the gates of Hades have lost their power.

We may summarise the position as follows;

1) When Jesus speaks of ‘building' on a ‘rock' (same Greek words) it indicates building on words that have been spoken (Matthew 7:24). This is unquestionable in the case of Matthew 7:24 and therefore strongly supports such an interpretation in cases of doubt when the same idea is used. And this is supported by 2 Timothy 2:19 where the foundation described is also a twofold saying. This thus supports the idea that Jesus was here talking of building His congregation (His house) on the rock of true teaching, that is, on Peter's confession and its significance, which provided a foundation that could not fail, with due credit being given to Peter as the rock-producer.

The idea of ‘building' the congregation of Israel is perfectly scriptural. See especially Jeremiah 31:2, which fits in perfectly with the themes in Matthew, ‘the people who survived the sword found grace in the wilderness, when Israel sought for rest, the Lord appeared to him from afar, I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore have I continued my faithfulness to you, again I will build you, and you shall be built O virgin Israel'. Note the wilderness motif (Matthew 2:15; Matthew 3:1; Matthew 4:1; Matthew 14:13; Matthew 15:33), the seeking for rest (Matthew 5:3; Matthew 11:28), the One Who came from afar (Matthew 3:17; Matthew 11:3; Matthew 11:25; Matthew 16:16), the compassion (Matthew 9:36; Matthew 14:14), and finally the building of ‘virgin Israel', the pure Israel. (For ‘building' used in such a way compare also Jeremiah 33:7; Amos 9:11). This might almost have been a blueprint for Matthew.

2) The contrast of petros with petra suggests a play on words but not an identification. Had Jesus wanted to make an identification He could so easily have said ‘on you' or have used petros. Furthermore ‘this rock' is a strange and indirect way of identifying with a name, especially with a change of gender, whereas it is a very sensible way of identifying with a saying just recently spoken by that person.

3) Peter is never elsewhere seen as the foundation. When applied to the Apostles the idea is always of all the Apostles (Ephesians 2:20; Revelation 21:14). But Scripture just as often identifies Christ as the foundation (1 Corinthians 3:10; Ephesians 2:20), and His words (Matthew 7:25), and in fact states that there can be no other foundation (1 Corinthians 3:11). Thus the church could hardly be built on Peter as the foundation (as opposed to the first stone).

4) The large majority of the early fathers saw the ‘petra' as the statement of Peter, and they at least were unaffected by later controversies.

5) The reason that ‘the gates of Hades (the grave-world)' could not prevail against the new ‘ekklesia' is precisely because it is founded on ‘the Christ, the son of the  living  God'. Death was defeated by the living One. There is absolutely no way in which such a statement could be said to directly connect to the idea of a church founded ‘on Peter'. There is no parallelism in the ideas. For the reason that the gates of Hades will in fact not prevail is precisely because it is being founded on the Son of the living God Who is present and at work, thus the emphasis is clearly being kept on the saying not on Peter.

So in our view everything points to the words as signifying that the church will be built on the truth that Peter has proclaimed. It should also be noted that this is not a question of denouncing the Roman church (except in this interpretation). That should not come into the question. The Roman interpretation is a fantasy whichever way we take it, building up huge dogma out of nothing. For even if Jesus was somewhat misleading in the way He spoke and did mean Peter, it would still justify nothing more than seeing it as a happy play on words. There would be no grounds at all for reading from it any more than a commendation for being the first to say what he did, and an indication that he was, as it were, the first stone laid of the new congregation. For whatever way we interpret it the truth is that the whole of the rest of the New Testament is against seeing Peter as other than  one  of a number of leading Apostles, for Paul puts James the Lord's brother first in Galatians 2:9, and significantly it is James the brother of John whom in Acts 12 the king selects as his first target, not Peter. Furthermore, Peter is called to account by the church in Acts 11 and has to explain himself there, and the same thing happens in Galatians 2 when he is called to account by Paul. Nor does he ever cite himself as having any special authority other than that of an Apostle, even in his letters. So his prominence is well balanced by counter-factors, revealing that his prominence rather arises as a result of his being an outstanding character among equals. Note especially the continual stress in Acts 1-5 on ‘the Apostles' as working together (often underestimated).

‘I will build my church/congregation/assembly (ekklesia).' The word ekklesia is regularly used in LXX to translate qahal where it refers to ‘the congregation' of Israel. The use here of ekklesia is therefore firmly based on the Greek Old Testament. Whatever the Aramaic behind it (if Jesus was speaking in Aramaic) we have here the continuation of the idea that Jesus is forming a new community, a new ‘congregation' of Israel, an idea which, as we have seen, comes often in Matthew's Gospel (note Matthew 21:43) and is the common idea lying behind both miraculous feedings of the crowds. They are the new Israel in the wilderness, feeding of the bread of Heaven. In fact a Jewish Messiah without such a Messianic community would have been an enigma. The whole idea of Israel was that it was ‘the congregation of Israel' who gathered around the earthly Dwellingplace of God and the Law. The New Testament ‘congregation of Israel' would therefore gather around Christ and His teaching, as epitomised in Peter's confession. This is another ground for seeing ‘the rock' as Peter's confession.

This connection of ‘the congregation' with the Kingly Rule of Heaven is confirmed in the Psalms. The Kingly Rule over all who are His, is clearly declared in Psalms 103:19, where it says, ‘YHWH has established His Name in the Heavens, and His Kingly Rule (Psalms 102:19 LXX he basileia autou) reigns over all'. Here God is seen as King in the Heavens, with His Kingly Rule established as He reigns over all in Heaven and earth. The ‘all' here could signify ‘all people' or ‘all things', but the principle is the same, He is Lord over all.

The same is true in the parallel passage in Psalms 22:28 which similarly declares ‘of YHWH is the Kingly Rule (Psalm 21:29 LXX tou kuriou he basileia), and He reigns over the nations'. Here the Kingly Rule is specifically seen as ‘over the people'. Thus in the Psalms the Kingly Rule of YHWH over all things and especially ‘over the nations', that is, over all people, is made clear. Neither Psalmist has any doubts about Who is sovereign over the Universe. That is indeed why He is the Judge of all the earth (Genesis 18:25).

The only problem is that that Kingly Rule is not accepted by the people. The nations are seen as in rebellion against that Kingly Rule (e.g. Psalms 2:1; Psalms 5:10; Psalms 110:2), and as having taken the Rule out of His hands. But this is not a problem to the Psalmist, for he knows that in the end God will firmly establish His Kingly Rule. Nothing can prevent Him for man is but as grass, and when the wind blows he is gone (Psalms 103:15). And in contrast those who are oppressed will receive justice and be vindicated, and those who fear Him and keep His covenant and obey His commands will experience His covenant love (Psalms 103:6; Psalms 103:17), and they will do it ‘in the midst of the ekklesia' (LXX of Psalms 22:22 MT) as the ‘great congregation' (Psalms 22:25 MT - LXX ‘en ekklesia megale'). So the Psalmists clearly see that YHWH will re-exert His Kingly Rule, destroying those who continue in rebellion, while delivering those who respond to Him, submit to His covenant and walk in obedience to Him as ‘the congregation' (ekklesia).

This whole idea is again emphasised in Psalms 22, and here as we have seen it is closely connected with ‘the congregation'. Here also the triumph of God's Kingly Rule is assured, and it is especially the poor and the meek who will benefit. He has ‘not despised the affliction of the poor' (Psalms 22:24 MT; Psalms 22:25 LXX ptowchou), where ‘the poor' is a description of the Psalmist, (and it is a Psalm of David, and it is thus not speaking of abject poverty). Thus it is to the poor (ptowchoi) in spirit that the Kingly Rule of Heaven belongs (Matthew 5:3). Moreover it also tells us that ‘the meek will eat and be satisfied' (Matthew 5:5; Psalms 22:26; Psalms 37:11). And the poor and the meek will praise Him in the ekklesia (‘the congregation' - Psalms 22:22; Psalms 22:25)). And the result will be that ‘all the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord' (Psalms 22:27). Here then is a description of what Jesus has come to bring about, blessing on the poor and the meek (Matthew 5:3; Matthew 5:5) through His Kingly Rule, so that they praise Him in ‘the congregation', with the ends of the earth recognising that Kingly Rule (Matthew 22:22), and it is noteworthy that in the Psalm it follows hard on the description of the sufferings of the son of David in Psalms 22:12.

As a result His Name is to be declared to ‘my brethren' and in the midst of ‘the congregation' (LXX ekklesia ‘church') He is to be praised. Thus those who will finally submit to the Kingly Rule of YHWH are here clearly described as ‘the church' or ‘the congregation', and Jesus may well have had this Psalm in mind here. We see therefore in these Psalms the basis of theses two central themes in Matthew, the ‘Kingly Rule' of Heaven which will benefit the poor and meek, and the ‘congregation' who will praise YHWH (Matthew 16:18; Matthew 18:17).