On This Rock
Matthew 16:17 ff.

St. Chrysostom, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine were key figures at the end of the fourth century and beginning of the fifth. A theological dispute arose among them that almost became a disaster. Chrysostom began things innocently enough with a sermon he preached on Galatians chapter two. In Galatians 2:11, St. Paul reports how Peter arrived in Antioch and got himself into trouble. Peter mixed freely with the Gentile believers, until James, the leader of the Church at Jerusalem sent his Jewish friends to visit the Antioch Church. As soon as they appeared, Peter abandoned the Gentiles to socialize with the Jews. Paul claims that Peter, motivated by fear of what the Jewish believers would think, had committed rank hypocrisy. Paul states, "I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed" (v. 11).

The Church in Antioch highly esteemed Peter as their first bishop. Preaching there, Chrysostom thought it inconceivable that Paul should ever have seriously charged Peter with such scandalous behavior. People therefore searched for other solutions. One popular idea was that the man St. Paul rebuked in Antioch was not Peter the Apostle after all but rather some inferior man who happened to have the same name. That explanation had obvious problems.

Therefore, Jerome and Chrysostom came up with another theory. They insisted that Peter and Paul staged the event. Peter and Paul planned out beforehand that Peter would blend with the Gentiles, then immediately run off to the Jews when they arrived. Paul would rebuke him in front of everyone, and Peter would accept the rebuke in silence. What was the purpose? To give an object lesson to the newer converts. By receiving Paul's tongue-lashing in silence, Peter would be instructing the recent believers what kind of submission to authority they were to emulate.

Chrysostom expounded this approach in his sermon to the Church in Antioch. Jerome, writing in Palestine, also promoted this view. Eventually, the young Augustine in far-off Africa heard about it. He began opposing it in his correspondence with Jerome. The elder Jerome felt taken aback by the young man's brash questioning. But Augustine, the most candid of the Fathers, had a strong argument. Augustine pointed out that a rigged rebuke actually smeared the characters of the two apostles. It would be better to simply admit that Peter had fallen into error. Fortunately for the Church, the young Augustine convinced the elderly Jerome of his argument, and the two died at peace with one another.

In spite of his mistake, the patriarchal Church in the city of Antioch recognizes Peter as its first Bishop. So does Rome. Though this incident at Antioch casts Peter in poor light, he showed numerous flashes of brilliance: he was the first Apostle to see the Risen Christ, he was the first to preach after the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, he guided the church at Jerusalem through a spectacular period of growth, he led missionary efforts, and much more. The Gospels are full of Peter. No other disciple is mentioned so often, or has so much to say. He had a deep, personal commitment to the Savior. Yet his discipleship was damaged by persistent immaturity. His actions present to us a jumble of contradictions ­ a man boastful and humble, cowardly and courageous. Above all, he comes across as an intensely human figure. Of the Twelve Apostles he is the one who stands out, and he is the one most people identify with in both his strengths and his weaknesses.

On this Feast of St. Peter let us examine the Lord's promise to him: "you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church." Those words come from Matthew 16:18. Is it true, based on this passage, that only the bishop who stands in the chain of succession from Peter may lead the entire Church? Does this verse establish the supremacy of the pope? How do we answer these claims? We'll attempt it by searching out the key Scripture passages and delving into some history.

There have been several interpretations of Matthew 16 that we should be familiar with. The first is what could be called the ultra-Protestant view. (Some Eastern Orthodox hold this one as well.) They wish the Lord had not said, "you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church" The saying seems to support the Roman Catholic assertions. The way they evade this focus on Peter is by saying the "this" in "this rock" refers to Peter's prior confession that Jesus is divine. Backing up a couple verses makes this clear. In verse 13 Jesus asks His disciples, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?" It was Peter who responded, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus was asking His band of followers this question and Peter was giving the opinion of all the Twelve. They knew that they were not disciples of just any old rabbi. Jesus was more than a great teacher. He was God incarnate, the Lord and Savior of the world. "Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."

So on what person or thing would Jesus build His church? On Peter? No! According to the ultra-Protestant view, Jesus would build His church on the truth that Christ is divine. Peter's confession is thus the rock on which Jesus would build His church. What are the objections to this view? It's a forced reading. The word "this" in "on this rock" can hardly refer to something so remote as Peter's confession that Jesus is God. If we accept this stance, the phrase "You are Peter" comes to mean nothing. Another problem: verses 18 and 19 don't fit together. Verse 18, "You are Peter, and on this Rock I shall build My church" is followed by verse 19 "And I will give you the keys." Both the rock and the keys pertain to Peter personally. Yanking the rock from Peter and giving it to his confession does not mesh with what follows, "And 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." Lastly, it seems more logical for Jesus to establish the Church on living persons, not on abstract doctrines and confessions. For all these reasons the ultra-Protestant position appears weak. Consequently, most recent Protestant commentators have abandoned this opinion.

The more convincing interpretation makes Peter himself the rock. The other disciples standing around listening would have more naturally understood Jesus telling him: "You are Peter," that is "you are Petros." Petros means stone. "On this rock" = "on this petra I shall build My church." The Greek reveals a similarity between Petros and petra. Jesus gives Simon the title of "stone," and declares that He would build His church on that "rock." This is not the first time the Lord promised Peter this privilege. John 1:42 describes Jesus' first encounter with Simon Peter. It says, "Now when Jesus looked at [Simon Peter], He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is translated, A Stone)." So Petros and petra (Peter and rock) are similar, though not identical, and they should somehow be linked.

The Roman View. Now if we accept this view that Peter is the rock, does it necessarily follow that Peter is the official head of the Church in such a way that grace flows only through one channel? Does God limit His sacramental grace to the Church Peter supposedly established in Rome? No, there is no reason to limit the apostolic foundation to Peter alone. Peter is a representative of the Twelve, and serves as their spokesman. Notice Peter's confession. Jesus asks, "Who do you say that I am?" Peter answers for all Twelve when he responds, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." The other apostles are included in Peter's answer. Verse 19 reinforces this notion that all Twelve are involved. "And 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." Compare that to Matthew 18:18. This time Jesus is clearly speaking to all Twelve when he says, "Assuredly, I say to you (you plural), whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Mt. 18:18). Ephesians 2:20 reiterates the idea that the foundation of the Church belongs to all the apostles, it is not limited to Peter alone. It says, "you are members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone." Furthermore, St. John's vision of the New Jerusalem gives this detail: "Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (Rev. 21:14). All Twelve apostles are given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, all are included in the foundation and leadership of the Church, and Jesus gives all the apostles the authority to bind and loose.

Does history help clarify things? The Book of Acts shows that Peter takes charge of the Church of Jerusalem, but that leadership shifts quickly to James. James rules in such a fashion that Peter is subject to him. Peter has to give an account to James. Peter leaves Jerusalem, but it is for the purpose of heading up missionary efforts. After leaving Jerusalem we have no other evidence that Peter took a leadership position in any particular city. Roman Catholic commentators claim that Peter transferred his leadership from Jerusalem to Antioch, and then from Antioch to Rome, but there is not a shred of evidence to support that, either biblical or historical. [See Oscar Cullman's Peter for a thorough discussion of this point.]

What do we know for sure about Peter? During Christ's lifetime he held a preeminent position among the disciples. After Christ's death he presided over the church at Jerusalem for a short time. As a preacher Peter proclaimed the Gospel powerfully, performing many miracles. Soon after, James took over as bishop of the Jerusalem Church (Acts 15). Then, according to sketchy historical proofs, at the end of his life, Peter came to Rome. After a very short work in Rome, he died as a martyr under Nero. The Bible and history are completely silent about any Episcopal duty Peter ever performed in Rome. In fact, no Scripture text mentions Rome in connection with Peter. Peter was the leader of the entire Church at Jerusalem, but only for a brief period.

Moreover, until the beginning of the third century it never occurred to a single Bishop of Rome to refer the saying in Matthew 16:17 to himself in the sense of the leadership of the entire Church. When Pope Stephanus said it in A.D. 254 St. Cyprian immediately objected. He insisted that Matthew 16:17 refers to all later bishops and not to the Bishop of Rome alone. The visible church is multi-centralized. There have always been other legitimate hierarchal centers of the visible church: Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Canterbury are but a few. Houston, Texas and Blue Bell, Pennsylvania (headquarters for bishops of the R.E.C.) are a couple more authoritative centers of the visible, universal church. There are many more.

The Fourth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils spell out the position of Rome within the wider Church. Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon was formulated in A.D. 451. (Repeated in the Sixth Council of Constantinople in A.D. 680.). It stated, "The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city" In other words, the Church Fathers gave special privilege to the Roman province because Rome happened to be the imperial city. It was the capital. According to the Ecumenical Councils there is no biblical basis for Rome's position of honor. It was Rome's good fortune to be the center of the Empire, and for that reason alone the bishops there were regarded as the first among equals. Defenders for Rome have long protested that conclusion, but they run up against the facts.

What do the keys signify? Jesus promised in Matthew 18:18 that what His Church binds on earth will be bound in heaven, the very same promise He had made to Peter. The Church has been given the keys to the kingdom. The authority to bind and loose was given to Peter as the head of the apostolate, and it is given to the Church that is built upon the foundation of the apostles and administered by the bishops. [Peter Leithart's book The Kingdom and the Power has a helpful analysis of all this. pp. 104-106.]

Practically, our Gospel passage on this Feast of St. Peter has much to say about the importance of the Church. Christ's giving the keys to the apostles means that the pathway into the kingdom of God lies through the Church. The Church is the congregation that is permitted to enter God's kingdom, to feast in His throne room, and worship in His inner sanctuary. It is as the Church that people draw near to the covenant King, to feed at His table and to hear His Word. God grants salvation, life, and communion with Him by the Spirit in the Church. It is the Church that administers the keys of the kingdom. The sanctuary is locked to sons of Adam. If you want to get into the Holy Place, you need to see the people with the keys.

Return to Sermons