Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Unsystematic Theology

Home
Progressive Christian
Four Ways to Interpret the “Rock,” the Foundation of Jesus’ Church

Four Ways to Interpret the “Rock,” the Foundation of Jesus’ Church

Last updated on: April 6, 2017 at 9:09 am by Kyle Roberts

Four Ways to Interpret the “Rock,” the Foundation of Jesus’ Church 2017-04-06T09:09:10-05:00 Kyle Roberts

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

In Matthew 16, Simon (soon to be renamed “Peter”) makes his famous declaration that Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.” As is often pointed out with Peter, this is one of the few times he gets something right.

CC 2.0 image by Vessel Wenter, via Flickr (Peter holding the keys)

Jesus’ response is more famous yet:

“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. 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.” (Matt 16:17-19)

Ulrich Luz calls Matt. 16:18 (the text in bold above) a “storm center of exegesis.” That storm swirls around the referent of “rock” in the sentence.

What is this “rock” that Jesus is talking about? What does Jesus say he will build his church upon?

Is the rock Peter’s faith, universally speaking–that is, the faith of all disciples, of which Peter is only one example?

Is the rock the confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah–or as the divine Son of God?

Is the rock Jesus ? (the person in whom Peter confesses faith)

Is the rock Peter? (the one who draws the right conclusion about Jesus). But will Jesus really build his church upon Peter?

Luz names these four historic interpretive options this way:

1. The “typological” or “democratic” option (Faith).

The church father Origen took this position. “A rock is every disciple…who drank of the spiritual rock [Christ], who followed them.” The implication is that Peter is not unique above all disciples, but that Jesus is pointing out that faith and obedience of all disciples is the basis for the vitality of the church. Peter stands as an example of how we all should respond to Jesus.

2. The Eastern Interpretation (Confession of Faith)

Luz points out that this position, a favorite among the Greek and Syrian churches, extended the democratic impulse of Origen’s view (Peter stands for all disciples) but interpreted the “rock” to refer to something more concrete: the confession of faith in Christ. Theodore of Mopsuestia says, “When Jesus called [Peter’s] confession a rock, he clarified that upon this [confession] he wanted to build his church.” So it was confession that Jesus was and is the divine Son of God that would be the foundation of the true church (against heretical opinions).

3. The Christological Interpretation (Jesus)

Augustine interpreted the rock to refer to Jesus Christ himself–the object of Peter’s exclamation. Luz explains that “Peter is the not the rock, but, as a believer in Christ and as the first apostle, he represents the church. It is not, he could say, that the rock took its name from Peter, but Peter had his name from the petra, the “rock” (60). Luz points out that this “christological interpretation” became the “dominant interpretation of the Western church in the Middle Ages.”

This might surprise some, because Augustine is the most important theologian for Roman Catholicism, perhaps apart from Aquinas. But Augustine’s christological interpretation (the rock is Christ, not Peter) was used by the Protestant Reformers as evidence against the Roman Catholic interpretation, which is the next one to mention:

4. The Roman interpretation (Peter himself).

This view takes the “rock” to be a reference to Peter and sees the play on words (petra = rock; Petros = Peter) as support for that interpretation. While there were a few scattered references to Peter as the bishop of Rome and as the “first pope,” throughout the early centuries of the church and the Middle Ages, it wasn’t until the counter-Reformation that this “Roman interpretation” of Matthew 16:18 became a major interpretive option, when it became fixed in the Catholic church’s interpretation. This interpretation was utilized as a “secondary legitimization” of the Roman papacy against Protestant criticism, as it was seen to support other stronger arguments on behalf of the papacy and apostolic succession.

So which interpretation is the “right one?

Luz suggests that neither of the four options gets it exactly right. There are probably elements of truth, more or less, in each of them. But of the four, the Roman interpretation clearly has the less interpretive legitimacy for Luz, from a biblical studies point of view. I agree.

Luz suggests we should see Peter functioning in the passage both in a typological, or democratic, sense and in a historic and unique sense for being in such proximity to Jesus. The uniqueness of Peter suggests that he “cannot be succeeded by anybody.” And the historical record suggests that “apostolic succession” did not actually occur in the way often suggested, since authority was far more diffuse and localized: “only local elders and bishops” (70).

Democratically, Peter represents “concretely the essence of discipleship for everybody” (70).

This makes the “rock,” upon which Christ founds his church, accessible to all disciples. Faith in Christ, the confession of faith, Christ himself — it is all the basis of the church’s vitality and endurance, from its inception until now.

Source: Ulrich Luz, Matthew in History: Interpretation, Influence, and Effects (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1994)

Previous Post

April 3, 2017

The Problem with Seminary? Seven Big Tensions in Curriculum Revision

Next Post

April 14, 2017 Did Christ Die for Non-Human Animals?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month December 2020 November 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 December 2018 July 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz