Standing on the Promises: Why Catholics believe Peter is the Rock

Standing on the Promises: Why Catholics believe Peter is the Rock August 23, 2020

During my 19 years of being an Episcopalian, this particular Sunday in the church year was always  uncomfortable for me. Every three years Matthew 16 would roll around and the priest would explain why “we” didn’t read this passage the way the “Roman Catholics” did. And almost invariably, the explanation would strike me as rather feeble. It was part of my general sense that as an Episcopalian (and as a Protestant generally) I wasn’t signing on to full-throated, unequivocal Christianity but to a somewhat watered-down, cautious version.

I’m speaking specifically of my experience as a mainline, ecumenical Protestant. While obviously I have my disagreements with conservative Protestant interpretations of this passage too, my objection to those versions is not so much that they are watered down (though in some ways they are) but that they are too narrow. It’s a different conversation.

The many possibilities of Matthew 16

Also, I’m not arguing that exegetically the “Rock” must be Peter. And still less am I arguing that the passage must mean that Peter (if he is the “Rock”) must have successors and that the bishops of Rome are, uniquely, those successors. Like much of Scripture, this passage can mean a lot of things. Catholic apologetic arguments claiming that Protestants must believe that “Jesus lied” are, like most apologetic arguments, pretty silly.

Indeed, many of the Fathers commenting on this passage interpret the “Rock” as Peter’s faith, or as Christ. And furthermore, many of them speak of all bishops, not just the bishop of Rome, as successors of Peter.

Furthermore, the entire “You are Peter” speech is unique to Matthew. In Mark–probably the earliest version of the story–Jesus simply warns the disciples not to tell other people about him and the story moves on.

Of course it’s possible that Matthew had additional information Mark didn’t record. (And it is possible that Matthew was actually written first. That’s a minority view among scholars but there are some arguments for it.) But Matthew on the whole seems more interested in theological meaning than in historical detail. He often seems to add theological “glosses” to the story.

So it seems more likely, on the whole, that the entire passage on which Catholics build so much is a theological “midrash” by the author of the First Gospel. Matthew is telling us how the significance of Peter’s confession was understood by his community. That is one of the many reasons why the “spiral argument” popularized by Karl Keating doesn’t work. We can’t be sure, by purely historical means, that the historical Jesus said these words or intended to “found a Church.” (Many people would confidently assert that Jesus intended no such thing, but I think that’s going too far on the other side.)

Seeing this passage as a later first-century theological “gloss” rather than a direct account of something the historical Jesus said actually strengthens the Catholic case. It would seem that Christians began to see Peter’s confession as the basis for some kind of institutional leadership position very early indeed.

A hermeneutic of plenitude

But the key principle for me is what could be called the exegetical “principle of plenitude,” which is foundational to traditional Catholic (i.e., traditional Christian) exegesis. Modern exegetical methods seek to determine the one correct meaning and treat various alternatives as mutually exclusive. A good exegete is expected to approach a proposed interpretation with a hermeneutic of suspicion. One needs to have a good reason to believe that this particular interpretation is in fact the one intended by the author and/or understood by the original audience.

Traditional Christian Biblical interpretation and theology, on the other hand, proceed on the assumption that divine revelation is manifold and reveals greater depth and richness the more we explore it. The “development of doctrine” is a never-ending journey into those depths. (For a succinct Protestant defense of the traditional approach to Scripture, see my doctoral advisor David Steinmetz’ essay “On the Superiority of Pre-critical Exegesis,” unfortunately not freely available online.)

Or, to use an apologetics cliche that I actually like, the Catholic approach is both/and, not either/or. Once one has begun to think about the Bible and theology in this way, the either/or approach is going to seem like very thin porridge indeed.

Several rocks or one?

Thus, the varying possible interpretations of Jesus’ statement “on this rock I will build my church” are not necessarily mutually incompatible.

Jesus is, of course, the Rock. That’s an obvious starting point, given passages such as 1 Cor. 3:11, 1 Cor. 10:4, Ephesians 2:20, Romans 9:33, and 1 Peter 2:6, drawing on Old Testament references to “cornerstones” and “stumbling stones” in Psalms and Isaiah.

And Peter’s faith and confession, by resting on that rock, become part of it, so that the Church can be said to rest on the confession of faith first made by Peter.

But in a traditional method of interpretation that doesn’t rule out the possibility that Peter is also, in some personal and covenantal sense, the Rock. The pun on Peter’s name is almost certainly not a contrast (“pebble” vs. “rock”) as some Protestants claim, but an identification. Peter is called “Rocky” because of his faith and confession in Christ the Rock.

St. Augustine, drawing on the work of the Donatist Tychonius, articulated the exegetical principle “head/body/members.” That is to say, often what Scripture says about Christ may also be said about the Church and about individual members of the Church. Again, this is an approach to interpretation that looks for plenitude and harmony rather than exclusion and sharp alternatives.

Protestants understandably worry that this kind of interpretation deifies Peter and his alleged successors, equating them with Christ. But the point is precisely that it’s Christ’s promise that makes Peter the Rock, based on Peter’s confession of faith. The three “rocks” are three aspects of the same thing–what Karl Adam would call Jesus’ “redeeming might” at work in the Church. Jesus, who is the one foundation of our faith, builds his Church on his sovereign and gracious promise received by faith, and received by a particular person. This person receives a new name, as the key figures in earlier stages of the covenant (such as Abraham) had done. The consistent Biblical pattern is that God works in the world through specific people who then become the foundation for the new stage of God’s revelation and the new manifestation of the people of God in the world. This to my mind is the most satisfying and reasonable interpretation of Matthew 16, one that accounts for all the possibilities instead of setting them against each other.

And the same is true of the further question of whether Peter has successors and who they are. All of us who share his confession are, fundamentally, his successors. But in a more specific way, those who have been entrusted with the pastoral care of the Church–the bishops standing in succession from the apostles–exercise Peter’s ministry with regard to the rest of us (as the Fathers said). And most specifically, the bishop of Rome, the city where both Peter and Paul were martyred, exercises this ministry with regard to other bishops, to the rest of the Church, and to the world. Again, the principle is “both/and”: concentric circles rather than mutually exclusive alternatives.

None of this is proof. I’m not trying to prove the Catholic view. I’m trying to explain its coherence and imaginative appeal.

Papal probabilities

The most powerful objection is not an exegetical one but a historical and experiential one. If the Popes are successors of Peter, why haven’t they acted like it more often? Why has the office of the Papacy often been a source of division? Why have so many Popes used their office to claim power and control over both Church and society rather than truly acting as the “servants of the servants of God” they claim to be?

Catholics are wrong, I think, to dismiss this objection. Yes, it’s true that we don’t claim that the office of the Papacy will always be held by holy people. But why don’t we? If what we claim is true, wouldn’t we expect that the Popes would on the whole have set a better example?

Jerry Walls, a Protestant philosopher and a friend of mine, has made this argument in his co-authored book Roman but not Catholic. I’m going to address Walls’ argument–and the book as a whole–in more detail in later posts. The basic argument from probability is that one would expect that if Catholicism were true, Popes would be better than they have been. I think that’s clearly true.

It’s also true that we would expect that if God were real, then there would be no evil in the world, or at least less than there is. We would expect that if Christianity were true, then Christians as a whole (not just Popes and not just Catholics for that matter) would be better examples than they are. In other words, as Newman pointed out (though I confess I don’t remember exactly where), this kind of argument against Catholicism is a subset of the problem of evil.

That doesn’t make it negligible. The problem of evil is the strongest reason to disbelieve in God. And its analogs are the strongest reasons to disbelieve both in Christianity as a whole and in Catholicism in particular. Nor is it necessarily true that each more specific version of this argument is no stronger than the preceding one. But in each case we have to look at the other reasons we have for believing in God/Christianity/Catholicism and whether we can make a reasonable case for why, in fact, God might allow evil that we would have expected He would prevent.

The promise of God

Fundamentally, to believe in Catholicism is to believe in Christ’s unequivocal and unalterable promise. That doesn’t mean that Protestants think “Jesus lied,” as silly apologists claim. But it does mean that they hold to a somewhat weaker version of the promise. They hold to a view in which we must sort through various Christian communities to see which of them best matches our vision of the true Church. (Or, which I find much more defensible, we must just stick with the one we started in and work for unity with the others.)

Catholics believe in the Papacy not because we think the Papacy is so awesome but because it is the most concrete and personal embodiment of Christ’s faithfulness.

As was the case last week, the Epistle reading strengthens the message of the Gospel reading. It’s the end of Paul’s complex discussion of divine election and the relationship between Israel and the emerging Christian church. Paul has affirmed that “the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.” God is, in some sense, “stuck” with Israel even if Israel is not always faithful. God will always find a way to overcome our unfaithfulness with His faithfulness. And as the great closing doxology says, God does this in ways  that are unfathomable to us.

As Catholics, we believe that God expresses His faithfulness to the Church in tying Himself to a particular flawed human being (Peter) and his even more flawed successors, and being faithful to the community gathered around them. He shows this faithfulness by not allowing us to reject the Faith even as, through our own sinful use of free will, we so often fail to live up to it.

Is this the only way God could have acted? No. Is it how we might expect, in the abstract, God to act? Quite possibly not.

But is it in keeping with God’s constant pattern of action revealed in Scripture? Yes, I think it clearly is.
Does it make richer and fuller sense of the available Scriptural (and patristic) evidence than the alternatives? Yes, I believe it does.

We believe not so much in the Pope, whether person or office, as in the promise of God. The Pope is the living sign of that promise.  The Papacy exists not to draw attention to itself but to hold together a community that rests on the death and resurrection of Jesus and Jesus’ promise that he would never abandon those who believe in him.


Browse Our Archives



TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

27 responses to “Standing on the Promises: Why Catholics believe Peter is the Rock”

  1. Hello There. I found your blog using msn. This is an extremely well written article. I’ll be sure to bookmark it and come back to read more of your useful info. Thank you for the post. I will definitely comeback.

  2. Hey! Do you know if they make any plugins to assist with Search Engine Optimization? I’m trying to get my blog to rank for some targeted keywords but I’m not seeing very good results. If you know of any please share. Appreciate it!

  3. What i do not realize is actually how you’re no longer really a lot more smartly-liked than you may be now. You’re so intelligent. You know thus considerably relating to this matter, made me for my part consider it from numerous varied angles. Its like women and men are not involved until it’s something to do with Woman gaga! Your personal stuffs outstanding. All the time take care of it up!

  4. Great post. I was checking continuously this blog and I am impressed! Very helpful info specifically the last part 🙂 I care for such information a lot. I was seeking this certain information for a very long time. Thank you and best of luck.

  5. We’re a gaggle of volunteers and starting a new scheme in our community. Your website provided us with helpful info to work on. You’ve performed an impressive process and our whole group shall be thankful to you.

  6. Thanks , I’ve just been searching for info about this subject for ages and yours is the best I have discovered till now. But, what about the bottom line? Are you sure about the source?

  7. When I originally commented I clicked the -Notify me when new comments are added- checkbox and now each time a comment is added I get four emails with the same comment. Is there any way you can remove me from that service? Thanks!

  8. Howdy would you mind sharing which blog platform you’re using? I’m looking to start my own blog soon but I’m having a tough time deciding between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal. The reason I ask is because your design seems different then most blogs and I’m looking for something unique. P.S Sorry for getting off-topic but I had to ask!

  9. I simply desired to say thanks again. I am not sure what I might have made to happen without the entire recommendations shown by you directly on that topic. It had been a fearsome condition in my opinion, but finding out this specialised technique you resolved that made me to jump with gladness. I will be happier for this help and in addition have high hopes you recognize what a powerful job your are getting into teaching the mediocre ones by way of your blog. I am certain you’ve never come across any of us.

  10. Aw, this was a really nice post. In idea I would like to put in writing like this moreover – taking time and actual effort to make a very good article… however what can I say… I procrastinate alot and in no way appear to get something done.

  11. I precisely had to appreciate you once again. I’m not certain the things I could possibly have undertaken without the entire suggestions discussed by you about that field. Certainly was the alarming matter for me, however , noticing the expert approach you solved it forced me to cry over contentment. Now i’m thankful for this work and as well , pray you know what an amazing job that you are putting in educating many others thru a web site. Probably you haven’t come across any of us.

  12. What’s up?

    I found this article very interesting…please read!

    Do you remember the blockbuster hit film The Matrix that was released in 1999? You may not know this, but it has deep spiritual implications concerning the times we are living in and Bible prophecy.

    It tells a story of how these “agents” are trying to turn us into machines. We are closer then ever before for this to become a reality when they cause us to receive an implantable microchip in our body during a time when physical money will be no more.

    You may have seen on NBC news concerning the implantable RFID microchip that some people are getting put in their hand to make purchases, but did you know this microchip matches perfectly with prophecy in the Bible?

    “He (the false prophet who deceives many by his miracles) causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name…

    You also may have heard of the legendary number “666” that people have been speculating for possibly thousands of years on what it actually means. This article shares something I haven’t seen before, and I don’t think there could be any better explanation for what it means to calculate 666. This is no hoax. Very fascinating stuff!

    …Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666″ (Revelation 13:16-18 NKJV).

    To see all the details showing why the Bible foretold of all these things, check out this article!

    Article: https://biblewoke.com/rfid-mark-of-the-beast-666-revealed

    GOD is sending out His end time warning:

    “Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, ‘If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name'” (Revelation 14:9-11).

    In the Islamic religion they have man called the Mahdi who is known as their messiah of whom they are waiting to take the stage. There are many testimonies from people online who believe this man will be Barack Obama who is to be the biblical Antichrist based off dreams they have received. I myself have had strange dreams about him like no other person. So much so that I decided to share this information.

    He came on stage claiming to be a Christian with no affiliation to the Muslim faith…

    “In our lives, Michelle and I have been strengthened by our Christian faith. But there have been times where my faith has been questioned — by people who don’t know me — or they’ve said that I adhere to a different religion, as if that were somehow a bad thing,” – Barack Obama

    …but was later revealed by his own family members that he indeed is a devout Muslim.

    So what’s in the name? The meaning of someones name can say a lot about a person. God throughout history has given names to people that have a specific meaning tied to their lives. How about the name Barack Obama? Let us take a look at what may be hiding beneath the surface…

    “And He (Jesus) said to them (His disciples), ‘I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven'” (Luke 10:18).

    In the Hebrew language we can uncover the meaning behind the name Barack Obama.

    Barack, also transliterated as Baraq, in Hebrew is: lightning

    baraq – Biblical definition:

    From Strongs H1299; lightning; by analogy a gleam; concretely a flashing sword: – bright, glitter (-ing, sword), lightning. (Strongs Hebrew word H1300 baraq baw-rawk’)

    Barak ‘O’bamah, The use of bamah is used to refer to the “heights” of Heaven.

    bamah – Biblical definition:

    From an unused root (meaning to be high); an elevation: – height, high place, wave. (Strongs Hebrew word H1116 bamah baw-maw’)

    The day following the election of Barack Obama (11/04/08), the winning pick 3 lotto numbers in Illinois (Obama’s home state) for 11/5/08 were 666.

    Obama was a U.S. senator for Illinois, and his zip code was 60606.

    Seek Jesus while He may be found…repent, confess and forsake your sins and trust in the savior! Jesus says we must be born again by His Holy Spirit to enter the kingdom of God…God bless!

  13. I’m planning to begin my blog site quickly, yet I’m a little lost on every little thing. Would you recommend starting with a cost-free platform like WordPress or opt for a paid option? There are numerous platforms out there that I’m totally puzzled. Any type of recommendations? Thanks a great deal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.