Systematic Theology - Church

The Foundation Rock

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Systematic Theology

Lesson: Government

Genre: Speech

Track: 23

Dictation Name: 23 The Foundation Rock

Year: 1960’s – 1970’s

O Lord our God, who art the author of all things in heaven and on earth, we come to thee knowing that we need thee every hour, that we need thee the whole earth needs thee, our whole country needs thee. We pray, our Father, for this sin-sick nation. Cleanse it, O Lord, of its iniquity and make it again a God-fearing people. We pray, our Father, that by thy grace, we may be made more than conquerors through Christ Jesus. Bless us this day as we study thy word. Grant that we may grow in thy grace, and serve thee more faithfully. In Jesus name. Amen.

Our scripture this morning is from Matthew 16:13-19. Our subject: The Foundation Rock. Matthew 16:13-19, continuing our study in the doctrine of the church. “When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

We come here to a central text in the doctrine of the church. In this passage, our Lord himself speaks concerning the nature and the power of his church. This is a text that has been a source of controversy over the centuries, but I believe the controversy has been very much exaggerated in that there has been more agreement here than all too many are ready to recognize. As a matter of fact, there has been a remarkable unanimity of interpretation concerning this text.

When we go back to the early church and to some of the thinkers which followed, we find that they, very clearly, understood the meaning of this text, and spoke concerning its implications. For example, St. Augustine has this to say concerning this passage in his tractate on the Gospel of John. He says, “Peter, in this instance, personifies the church on account of the primacy of his apostleship.” Then, he goes on to say about Peter, “He represented the universal church which, in this world, is shaken by diverse temptations that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods, and tempests, and falleth not because it is founded upon a rock, Petra, from which Peter received his name. For Petra, rock, is not derived from Peter, but Peter from Petra. Just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account, the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my church,’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God.’” “On this rock, therefore,” he said, “which thou hast confessed, I will build my church. For the rock, Petra, was Christ, and on this foundation was Peter himself also built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid which is Christ Jesus. The church, therefore, which is founded in Christ, received from him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter. That is to say the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock, Petra, and in this representation, Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the church. This church, accordingly, which Peter represented, so long as it lives amidst evil, by loving and following Christ, is delivered from evil.”

Now, this statement by Bannerman is not unlike that of Reformed scholars. In fact, one would have to say that a Reformed scholar such as Bannerman, writing early in the last century, gave even more stress to the role of Peter than did St. Augustine.

Moreover, as we go through the centuries, we find, for example, interpretations that are thoroughly the same as that of Augustine. Bede, the venerable Bede, in the history of England, stands out as a distinguished figure in the life of the church, and his interpretation was quite similar. Then shortly before the Norman Conquest, we find AElfric, one of the greatest of the churchmen of that century, saying in one of his sermons, “Jesus then said, ‘What say ye that I am?’ Peter answered him, ‘Thou art Christ, the living God’s son.’ The Lord to him said for answer, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon doves{?} child.’” Bede, the expounder, unveils to us the deepness of this lesson. The Lord said to Peter, “Thou art rocken, literally, stonen, having the same relation to stone as rocken to rock, golden to gold, earthen to earth. For the strength of his faith and the firmness of his confession, he received that name, because he joined himself with steadfast mind to Christ, who is called a rock by the apostle Paul. And I will build my church upon this rock. That is, upon the faith which thou confesses. All God’s convocation is built upon the rock, that is, upon Christ, because he is the ground wall of all the structures of his own church. All God’s church’s are accounted as one convocation, and this is built with chosen men, not with dead stones, and all the building of those lively stones is laid upon Christ, because we are, through faith, accounted his members, and he our awler of all of us, head. Whosoever builds off the ground wall, his work shall fall to his great loss. Jesus said the gates of hell shall not have power against my church. Sins and erroneous doctrine are hell’s gates, because they lead the sinful man, as it were, through a gate into hell’s torment. Many are those gates, but none of them shall have power against the holy convocation, which is built upon the firm rock, Christ, because the believer, through Christ’s protection, escapes the perils of the devilish temptation.”

I’m citing these at length and I’ll give one more citation in a little while, because this passage has so often been the subject of controversy, but the agreement has been far greater than all too many scholars have been ready to acknowledge. AElfric went on to say, in another sermon, that the power of the keys belong to the successors of Peter, all apostles, bishops, presbyters, only if they carefully hold it after the evangelical constitution, he declared. Only faith makes us members of Christ.

When we jump to the 20th century, we find one of the great evangelical leaders of the first half of this century. G. Campbell Morgan, who said very much the same thing in his book, Peter and the Church, as did Augustine and AElfric, and countless others. Calvin himself, in writing on this text, referred to Augustine and to others, and said, in part, “Thou art Peter. By these words our Lord assures him that it was not without a good reason that he had formerly given him this name. Because as a living stone in the temple of God, he retains his steadfastness. This extends, no doubt, to all believers, each of whom is a temple of God, and who, united to each other by faith, make together one temple, but it denotes also the distinguished excellence of Peter above the rest, as each in his own order receives more or less, according to the measure of the gift of Christ, and on this rock, hence it is evidence how the name Peter comes to be applied, both to Simon individually, and to other believers. It is because they are founded on the faith of Christ and joined together by a holy consent into a spiritual building, that God may dwell in the midst of them. For Christ, by announcing that this would be the common foundation of the whole church, intended to associate with Peter all the godly that would ever exist in the world.”

This has been the common faith of the church over the centuries. In recent times, there have been disagreements with this. On the one hand, by modernists, and I have not bothered to cite Catholic modernists like Hans Kuhn{?} or Protestant modernists on this doctrine. The other area of disagreement has been from Vatican I to at least Vatican II, in such a position as that of Kirsch, as stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia, “By the word Rock, the savior could not have meant himself, but only Peter.” This was an opinion that preceded, of course, Vatican I. It had arisen in the generation before, and Pelachea{?}, early in the century, voiced a like opinion. However, in the English translation of Pelachea{?} 1829, the Catholic translators dissented with his opinion and voiced a more Augustinian one.

Now, I’m not going to spend any more time with this, except to note that the term “rock” is repeatedly used in the Bible as an image, always meaning God. Moses, in his farewell address, again and again speaks of “our rock.” The only time it is not applied to God is when Moses once speaks of the false gods of the nations round about, and he says, “Their rocks are not like unto our rock.” So that very definitely, rock is an ancient symbol of God. Moses’ reference you can find in Deuteronomy 32 in several passages. This is why, of course, we have the hymn, “Rock of Ages.” It appeals to the same symbol.

Now, turning more specifically to the text of Matthew 16:13-19, when our Lord asks the question, “Whom do men say that I, the son of man, am?” the answer is, “Some say thou art John the Baptist, some Elias (or Elijah), and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” This answer is very interesting and it’s a mistake to pass over it and say these people were wrong and therefore, that answer is irrelevant. This answer tells us something about the impact our Lord made upon the people, upon unbelievers, because the one thing that comes through in that answer is that when they saw Jesus, they were sure that, “Here was somebody from the other world, someone come back from the dead, someone with supernatural powers. It was John the Baptist risen from the dead, or Elijah, or Jeremiah, or one of the other prophets. Even Herod.” We are very clearly told in Matthew 14:1, when he heard about Jesus, was terrified, because having had John the Baptist executed, he said fearfully, “It is John the Baptist come back from the dead.” Very plainly, the impact that Jesus made upon all who heard him and saw him, or even heard about him, was that, here is someone who had come from the world beyond the grave, from heaven, a supernatural figure. This is most significant. It tells us about the impact of our Lord upon one and all.

Then second, the disciples held to the belief that he was the son of the living God. Peter voiced the opinion of all, or most of them, but he voiced it most clearly and unequivocally, and our Lord said, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona (Simon, son of Jonah): for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” So that, very plainly, our Lord says that, “Simon, you know this because my Father has revealed it unto thee by the Holy Spirit, so that your knowledge of it is supernatural. It is a blessing, and you are indeed blessed, not because you, by your own power or strength, or anything else, have come to this conclusion, but because God has given it to you.” So, his blessing is not a self-generated one. It is of God. However, a little later we read that our Lord cursed Peter. In verses 21-23 we read, “From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him (literally laid hands on him, as though to change his direction), and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” Thus, in a matter of minutes, our Lord pronounced Peter to be blessed of God, and also cursed.

This means that no church, no leader of a church, bishop or pastor member, can stand outside of God and be other than cursed. That in Christ, we are blessed, and the blessing upon Peter is a blessing upon all of us, from the highest to the lowest in the church. When we are in the Lord, and when we are in the Lord, then the Lord blesses us, he inspires us so that we testify, and the words are given to us to speak, but when we step out of God and his word, then even as our Lord turned upon Peter whom he had just blessed, we are cursed. The blessing and the cursing go hand in hand. We stand in grace alone, in faithfulness, or as AElfric said, “in the evangelical constitution alone.”

When the authority of the apostles was debated, and each sought a chief seat in the kingdom of heaven, in the kingdom that our Lord was to establish in the church, our Lord said unto them, “Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them, but it shall not be so among you. But whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister, and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant. Even as the son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister and to give his life a ransom for many.” This is from Matthew 20:25-28.

Now, our Lord here uses two words. In verses 26 and 28, the word translated as “minister” is our word, deacon, diakonos, servant, one who takes care of needs. So our Lord says authority in the kingdom, authority within the church is not in terms of the exercise of power after the Gentiles, but ministering to needs, needs in terms of Christ, the needs of his kingdom, the needs of his members, the needs of the proclamation of the Gospel, and “whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.” Here, he uses another word than diakonos. It is doulos, the word which means bondman or bondservant. Now, bondservants existed in Bible times. They existed in Colonial America. People who could not afford to come to this country, could not pay ship’s passage, came over as bondservants. They would be a bondservant for a given number of years to someone, and at the end of that time, they would have their release plus a small sum of money. They would have thereby gained their passage, plus having a small capital to enable them to begin. Thus, a bondservant was someone who was in the employ of another, as a kind of temporary slave almost, and our Lord says, “whosoever will be chief among you let him be your bondservant.” So that not preeminence after the manner of the Gentiles, but a concern that Christ’s dominion be established, that Christ’s will be done. We become bondservants to the dominion mandate, to the King of kings and to his cause, and this is how, he says, I came, to give my life a ransom for many.

But then third, our Lord does not intend that church to be powerless. He says rather that this is the way to power. He says if the church is faithful to him, if it is a Peter, confessing Christ and faithful to him, blessed of God, then the gates of hell cannot prevail, or very literally in the Greek, hold out, against the church. The faithful church will overwhelm, overcome, the opposition. So the image here is not of the world attacking the church, but the world and hell itself holed up in a city behind walls, hiding from Christ’s church, and Christ’s church overwhelming those walls, and conquering and triumphing. This is what the apostle John also says in 1 John 5:4, that “This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.”

Then fourth, our Lord speaks of the keys of the kingdom, “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom.” What do the keys mean? Well, the keys again are an ancient symbol, used for generations both before and after our Lord, and in fact, we have them surviving to our time, with still something of the same meaning. After all, if you go to a university and do exceptionally well as a student, you will become a Phi Beta Kappa, and you will have the privilege of wearing a Phi Beta Kappa key. What does this mean? Simply, that you have, in effect, the level of competence that enables you to unlock the keys of knowledge. Well, in Bible times, it meant someone who understood the scriptures and could interpret and expound them. Our Lord, in fact, in Matthew 23:13, accuses the leaders of the people saying that they who are the possessors of the keys shut up the kingdom, neither entering nor allowing others to enter therein. This is a judgment which must be made unhappily of the church in our time, all too often, because there are too many, instead of interpreting the word, get up and give inspirational fluff, which has no relationship to the word of God.

Then finally, our Lord declares, “I give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Now, this binding and loosing is tied to the keys, so what does it mean? When we expound the word of God faithfully, we lay down the premises in terms of which men’s sins are bound to them, and in terms of which they can be loosed, forgiven. So that it is not a legislative power. It does not give the church the power at any time to say, “We met recently and we passed a resolution, and if you violate this resolution, you are a sinner and if you obey it, your sins are forgiven.” Not at all so. No legislative power is given to the church. The Canon of the church, its rule, its law, is the word of God, and so the binding and the loosing is ministerial. It is administered out of the word of God, and therefore, the function of the church is ministerial, not legislative. If we seek to legislate, then we commit the very sin of the tempter, pretending to be gods, but there is no binding, no loosening, apart from God’s law-word.

Thus, to confess Christ, to be of the rock, means to minister in his name, to be faithful to his law-word, and to further his kingdom and dominion as his bondservants. Thus church, therefore, must be the bondservant of Christ. He is the rock, and we are of the rock. Then, whatever our status, high or low, in the church, we are blessed and we are great indeed, because it is a blessing that is pronounced upon one and all, who are faithful to him, and the curse exempts no man, however great or small, in the eye of the world. The foundation rock stands firm, and our firmness comes from standing on the rock of ages. Let us pray.

Thy word is truth, O Lord, and we thank thee that our lives by thy grace are established upon the rock. Make us always faithful that we may move within the realm of thy blessing rather than of thy curse. That we may be faithful bondservants of Jesus Christ, that thy church everywhere may, as a faithful bondservant, do thy will, binding and loosing according to thy word, and through the use of the keys of the kingdom, opening unto men and nations, the meaning of thy law-word. Bless us to this purpose, we beseech thee. In Jesus name. Amen.

Are there any questions now? Yes?

[Audience] I’ve heard some argue with regard to the interpretation of Peter being the rock, that the Greek doesn’t allow, it would be very awkward not to interpret it as Peter being the rock.

[Rushdoony] If I understand your question correctly, some would argue that the Greek does not allow Peter to mean “of the rock,” but makes him the rock instead. That is sometimes said. Actually, the argument used by men like Kirsch, in the Catholic Encyclopedia, is rather that the Aramaic usage, which was the language our Lord spoke, would have made Peter be the rock. In other words, what he does is to posit an Aramaic original, and in terms of that original, say, “This would be the meaning.” I think there is a very good point there. However, I would say that in view of the fact that we have the scriptures as God gave them in the Greek, I don’t believe that God permitted a fundamental error to enter in as this was written in the Greek. Therefore, the Greek usage obviously must prevail. On top of that, when we go back to the early church, we find that the Augustinian interpretation is prevalent. Now, it came to the clearest focus in Augustine rather than in some of the earlier church fathers, but the closer we get to the originals, the more the interpretation that is associated with the name of Augustine seems to be the prevailing one.

It’s ironic that the position, for example, of Kirsch in the Catholic Encyclopedia, is sometimes often argued now by Protestants. As a matter of fact, it is ironic that in the medieval church, some of the best interpretations of the Protestant position were made. I don’t know how to explain that curious fact. Any other questions or comments?

Well, if not, let us bow our heads in prayer.

Our Lord and our God, thou hast established thy church upon the rock of ages, Jesus Christ, and by thy sovereign grace, thou hast called us to be members thereof. We give thanks unto thee, O Lord, that thy church is established upon thee who art unshakeable, and that we as members, as belonging to the rock, have the protection, the blessing, and the power of him who is King of kings and Lord of lords. Make us ever joyful in our privilege, confident in battle, and triumphant through Christ, in whose name we pray. Amen.

End of tape