In this passage, Jesus and Peter are identifying each other. Peter calls Jesus the Messiah and Son of the living God, and Jesus calls Peter the rock on which He would build His Church.
This is one of those "problematic" verses, since Catholics use it to justify papal supremacy, and Protestants, not believing in papal supremacy, violently reject that explanation, instead coming up with various interpretations of their own. One explanation often heard is the one you cite, that "the rock" is symbolic of Peter's confession of Christ in verse 16. The problem here is that if Jesus means "the rock" to be Peter's statement, it seems rather odd that He would preface that declaration with "You are Peter, etc." If Jesus meant that Peter's declaration was the subject of His next sentence, it would have made more sense to let Peter say, "You are the Messiah", and then for Jesus to say, "Just so; and upon
that rock," etc. But He doesn't. He says,
"You are Peter (the rock), and upon
this rock".
Another explanation often heard is that Jesus is talking about
two rocks; one being Peter, the other Himself. To read such a definition into the context of the passage from the English translation requires a certain amount of assumption, to be sure. Certainly, you can see it that way, but you can just as easily see it the other way, if you're being impartially fair. Some, however, fall back on the Greek and point out that there are two different nouns being used here----"Peter" is translated from "Petros", meaning "little rock", and "this rock" is translated from "petra", meaning "big rock". Therefore, according to this explanation, Jesus is meaning Peter "the little rock" in the first instance, and Himself "the big rock" in the second. This explanation falls apart, however, when one considers that Greek is gender-indicative, and we get into the masculine and feminine versions of "rock", and whether or not a feminine noun (petra) would be applied to Peter, and so on. (Why Jesus would apply a feminine noun to
Himself is one I've never heard anybody explain, yet. Any takers?
)
The bottom line here is, Jesus didn't speak Greek with His disciples, He spoke Aramaic. And in Aramaic, the word for
rock is "kephas". Paul specifically calls Peter this in his epistles---cf. 1 Cor. 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:5, and Galatians 2:9. So, transliterated into English from Aramaic, this passage would read, "You are rock, and upon this rock".
The early Patristic literature of the Church is loaded with references to Peter being the head of the Church, and to Peter's sucessors being the head of the Church; Clement, who was bishop of Rome from 91 AD to 101 AD, wrote to the church at Corinth, issuing instructions to them and clearly expecting such instructions to be obeyed. If every Christian church in the ancient world was an independant franchise, as some would have us believe, why would Clement, in Rome, be issuing orders to the Corinthians? Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian, Ignatius, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Hilary, and the 1st Council of Constantinople, as well as dozens of other early sources, all acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as being the head of the entire Church.
However, many Protestants refuse to agree that any source outside the Bible or the New Testament is authoritative. Which is fine. So, was Peter still considered the head of the Church after Jesus returned to the Father? Look at Acts. Peter is the first Apostle to:
---Act with authority in replacing Judas; 1:16 ff.
---Interpret the New Testamnt from the Old; 1:20, 2:17, 25, 34.
---Speak after receiveing the Holy Spirit; 2:14.
---Recieive new converts into the Church; 2:41.
---To heal someone; 4:1-3.
---To go to jail; 4:1-3.
---Defend the Faith in court; 4:8.
---To be whipped; 5:40.
---To go on a missionary journey; 8:14.
---To correct and rebuke heresy; 8:20-24.
---To raise someone from the dead; 9:36-42.
---To have a vision concerning clean and unclean; 10:9-16.
---To go to the Gentiles; 10:28ff.
---To convert Gentiles; 10:46ff.
---To speak at the Council of Jerusalem; 15:7-12.
---Also keep in mind that when Paul went to Jerusalem, he went specifically to confer with
Peter, and
not James, who was the Bishop of Jerusalem---in fact, he only mentions James in passing; Galatians 1:18-19.
---Peter is mentioned 195 times in the Bible, compared with 130 times for all other Apostles combined.
---Peter always speaks for the other Apostles in the Gospels; cf. Matt. 18:21, Luke 12:41, Mark 10:28 for examples.
There are more examples, of course, but you get the idea. For these and other reasons, Catholics believe that Jesus conferred upon Peter the responsibility for the entire Church----indeed, Jesus built His Church upon Peter. Jesus is the cornerstone and foundation, while Peter is the rock supporting the building itself. And we, as "living stones" (1 Peter 2:5), are all part of that building, which is the Church. And Peter's successors carry on his office, through the laying on of hands and appointent by existing authority; a New Testament example of this can be found in Titus 1:5, where Paul, after starting the Church in Crete, appoints Titus the Bishop there, instructing him to in turn appoint priests in every town, acting on the authority of Paul himself. Each Bishop is an appointee of the orginal Apostles through the laying on of hands in an unbroken succession, and the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter in the same way. That's how we see it, anyway.
And that's how we see Matthew 16:13-20. Questions?
Blessings,
----Wols.