Prominent Baptist Exegete John Albert Broadus (1827-1895) on the Petrine Implications of Matthew 16:18 ("Rock")

[ source ]


From: Commentary on Matthew, 1886; reprinted by Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Classics, 1990 (see more on Broadus):

As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that 'upon this rock' means upon thee. No other explanation would probably at the present day be attempted, but for the fact that the obvious meaning has been abused by Papists to the support of their theory. But we must not allow the abuse of a truth to turn us away from its use; nor must the convenience of religious controversy determine our interpretation of Scripture teaching. . . .

Some hold that such a play upon words, "thou art Rock, and on this rock," is unworthy of our Lord. But there is a play upon words, understand as you may. It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ; and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter's confession. . . .

Late Jewish writings speak of Abraham as the rock, or of the patriarchs as the rocks, on which God laid the foundation of the world.

Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros, and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or a fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed (see Lid. and Scott). It is worthy of notice, too, that Jesus himself is called lithos in 1 Pet. 2:5 ff. Again if petros had been used both times in the Greek, it would have meant, "Thou art Peter, and on this Peter," without distinctly showing the play upon words; and it would not have been natural for Matthew to write, 'thou art petra' (feminine), when he has been constantly writing the apostle's name Simon Petros (masculine). But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction.

(p. 355)

Let it be observed that Jesus could not here mean himself by the rock, consistently with the image, because he is the builder. To say, "I will build . . . I am the rock on which I will build," would be a very confused image. The suggestion of some expositors that in saying 'thou art Peter and on this rock' he pointed at himself, involves an artificiality which to some minds is repulsive.

(p. 356)

The Protestant reluctance to admit that the rock means Peter really plays into the hands of the Romish controversialists. It favors the impression that conceding that point would be conceding all that the Romanist claims . . . Now to take Peter as the rock is certainly the most natural and obvious meaning. And to make this the life or death issue is to give the Romanist a serious polemical advantage. In general, it is a great principle of Biblical interpretation to take the most obvious meaning of any phrase, unless it would thus yield a sense hopelessly in conflict with the unambiguous teaching of other passages.

To understand that Peter is here the rock is not forbidden by the fact that other images are drawn from the same source. In 1 Cor. 3:10 ff., Paul speaks of himself as master-builder (architect), and other teachers also as builders, Christ being the only foundation. In Eph. 2:19 ff. he makes the apostles and prophets the foundation, with Christ as cornerstone. So in Rev. 21:14 the names of the twelve apostles are engraved on the twelve foundations of the city walls, which makes the apostles in one sense the entire foundation. In 1 Peter 2:4 ff. all Christians are living stones . . .

(p. 357)