Posted on 09/25/2008 3:35:53 PM PDT by guitarplayer1953
The question as to whether the rock of Matthew 16:18 on which the Lord Jesus Christ declares He will build His Church is to be identified with Saint Peter the Apostle has certainly generated a great deal of debate, disagreement, and argumentation. There are three fundamental perspectives: (1) the rock is Saint Peter the Apostle, (2) the rock is the Lord Jesus Christ, Saint Peter being a 'stone', and (3) the rock is the confession of Saint Peter. It is doubtful whether anything new can be added to any discussion of this issue, but it is hoped that an historical overview of the issue will be beneficial.
In the opinion of this writer, the discussion is frequently focused too narrowly on verse 18 and sometimes on verse 19. The narrow focus is probably advantageous to papal apologists seeking to prove the importance of Saint Peter. However, based upon the principle that unclear passages of Holy Scripture should be clarified and illumined by other passages of Holy Scripture — that the larger context should be used — let us examine the entire pericope, verses 13-23:
13 And Jesus coming into the parts of Caesarea of Philippi, He was questioning His disciples saying, Who do men say that I be, the Son of Man? 14 And they said, Some, on the one hand, John the Baptist, but others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the Prophets.
15 He to them, But who do you say Me to be? 16 And answering, Simon Πέτρος said, You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
17 And answering, Jesus said to him, Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in the Heavens. 18 And I also to you say that you are Πέτρος and on this πέτρᾳ I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades will not have power over it. 19 And I will give you (singular) the keys of the Reign of the Heavens, and whatever you bind on the earth must have been bound in the Heavens, and whatever you loose on the earth must have been loosed in the Heavens. 20 Then He ordered His disciples that no one should they tell that He is Jesus the Christ.
21 From then began Jesus to show to His disciples that it is necessary for Him to go off to Jerusalem and many things to suffer from the elders and chief priests and scribes and to be killed and on the third day to be raised.
22 And taking Him aside, Πέτρος began to rebuke Him, saying, Grace to You, Lord, this shall not happen to You.
23 But He turning said to Πέτρῳ Go away behind Me, Satan! A scandal to Me you are, because you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.
When one considers the entire passage, the synonymous parallelism so common to Jewish writings becomes apparent. The most obvious parallels are verses 13 & 15 (Who do men say that I be? versus But who do you say Me to be?)and verses 14 & 16 (Some ... John the Baptist ... Elijah ... Jeremiah or one of the Prophets versus the Christ, the Son of the Living God). But there is another important parallel present: verses 17 & 23. The former is the Lord Jesus Christ's declaration that Saint Peter's recognition that He was the Christ, the Son of the Living God came from God the Father. Saint Peter is declared blessed because he was turned towards God. This orientation towards God was what permitted his spiritual senses (his nous) to receive this revelation since he who is of God hears God's words [John 8:47]. This verse is paralleled by the Lord Jesus Christ's declaration that Saint Peter is Satan and a scandal because he was turned away from God. It was Saint Peter's orientation away from God that caused him to rebuke the Lord Jesus Christ. This is reinforced by the next verse: Then Jesus said to His disciples, If anyone desires to follow Me, let him deny himself and let him take up his cross and let him follow me.
It seems clear from this last parallelism that Saint Peter's status is dependent upon whether his orientation is towards, or away from, God. Whilst oriented towards God, he is blessed, but when oriented away from God, he is Satan and a scandal. It also seems clear that if Saint Peter's status is that of Satan and a scandal he cannot be the foundation upon which the Church is built. This parallelism thus provides strong support for the perspective that the rock of Matthew 16:18 is Saint Peter's confession.
Let us now proceed to an examination of the text itself. We will limit this to verses 18 and 19, the verses on which papal apologists focus.
Matthew 16:18
|
κἀγὼ |
δέ |
σοι |
λέγω |
ὅτι |
οὺ |
εἶ |
Πέτρος |
καὶ |
ἐπὶ |
ταύτῃ |
τῇ |
πέτρᾳ |
|
and-I |
and |
to you |
I-say |
that |
you |
you-are |
Peter |
and |
on |
this |
— |
rock |
|
οἰκοδομήσω |
μου |
τὴν |
ἐκκλησίαν |
καὶ |
ᾄδου |
καὶ |
πύοὐ |
κατισχύσουσιν |
αὐτῆς |
|
I will build |
my |
— |
Church |
and |
gates |
of Hades |
not |
they-will-be-stronger |
than-her |
Matthew 16:19
|
καὶ |
δώσω |
σοι |
τὰς |
κλεῖς |
τῆς |
βασιλείας |
τῶν |
οὐρανῶν |
καὶ |
ὅ ἐὰν |
|
and |
I-will-give |
to-you |
the |
keys |
of-the |
reign |
of-the |
of-heavens |
and |
what ever |
|
δήσῃς |
ἐπὶ |
τῆς |
γῆς |
ἔσται |
δεδεμένον |
ἐν |
τοῖς |
οὐρανοῖς |
καὶ |
|
you-might-bind |
on |
on-the |
earth |
it-will |
have-been-bound |
in |
in-the |
in-heavens |
and |
|
ὅ ἐὰν |
λὺσῃς |
ἐπὶ |
τῆς |
γῆς |
ἔσται |
λελυμένον |
ἐν |
τοῖς |
οὐρανοῖς |
|
what ever |
you-release |
on |
on-the |
earth |
it-will |
have-been-released |
in |
in-the |
in-heavens |
The combination of the future tense ἔσται with the perfect passive participles δεδεμένον and λελυμένον creates a grammatical context called periphrasis which conveys a sense of requirement or necessity. A more direct expression, using a future-perfect-passive form does not convey the indispensable necessity for a preceding action to have taken place in order for the subsequent action to occur.
St. Jerome, when translating the Greek to Latin, rendered the verbal form word by word rather than as a periphrasis. Rather than translating it as erit ligandum (which would have been more accurate), he used erit ligatum. Thus, the Latin translation used by papal Christians has been the equivalent of whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in Heaven. The Greek is more forceful, more like whatever you bind on earth must have been bound in Heaven. (The same construction applies to Matthew 18:18 and to the Our Father which asks us to pray that the Father's will be done, as in Heaven, so also on earth.) It is important to remember that, according to the principle of the ancients, the higher determines the lower, not vice versa. Thus, Heaven does not follow the earth, rather the earth should follow Heaven.
A more subtle point of grammar and vocabulary which pertains to the above passage is that in Greek, the use of the demonstrative pronoun this ( ταύτῃ ) refers to the object closest to the speaker rather than the object previously referenced by the speaker as is common in English. In other words, the Greek ( ταύτῃ ) means this (here) rather than this (which was previously referenced).
(My thanks to the linguist Fr. James [Silver] of Drew University for his work which underlies the above explanation.) Fr. James's proposed translation with special care for the contextual nuances of the Hebraic waw which underlies the καὶ, for Matthew 16:18-19 is
So I tell you, then, that you are a stone, but I will build My Church on this rock, and the gates of Haides will not overpower it. Still, I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, but whatever you might bind on earth must have been bound in Heaven, and whatever you might release on earth must have been released in Heaven.
The stone versus rock difference is, of course, frequently cited against papal apologists. The latter counter with the claim that the Lord Jesus Christ spoke Aramaic and that the same word — ke'pha' — would have been spoken by the Lord for both Πέτρος and πέτρᾳ. This writer is uncomfortable with such a claim, believing it to be the equivalent of those who, through speculative reasoning, assume there must be a Q (short for quelle, meaning source) document behind the Gospels of Saint Matthew and Saint Luke and attempt to re-create the assumed document, and then proceed to give it precedence because of the original assumption that it is more ancient. Although tradition maintains that the Gospel of Saint Matthew was originally written in a Hebraic language, we have no other evidence, just as we have no evidence of the existence of a Q document. Just as those who would give precedence to a Q document must ignore the fact that it is the Gospels of Saint Matthew and Saint Luke which came to be recognised as canonical Scripture, so too, those who would give precedence to an assumed Aramaic text must ignore the fact that it is in Greek that the Gospel of Saint Matthew was recognised to be Holy Scripture.
The papal apologists' argument that ke'pha' underlies both Πέτρος and πέτρᾳ also ignores the fact that Aramaic has words other than ke'pha' to refer to rocks and stones (e.g. shu'a' ) and it ignores the fact that if Saint Matthew had desired to write that the Church would be built on the Apostle Peter, he could have phrased it more explicitly. The papal apologists' argument also misapplies English's use of the demonstrative pronoun to the Greek language, assuming that this refers to the noun previously referenced (Peter) when it refers to the subject closest to the speaker (in this case the Lord Jesus Himself) — it is quite possible that as the Lord Jesus Christ spoken the words, on this rock, He gestured to Himself.
If Saint Matthew had written and on you, Peter, I will build, or and on your confession, Peter, I will build, or on the Rock which is Me, I will build with you the stone there would be no grounds for debate. But since he did not, we need to rely on other passages from Holy Scripture to help us understand this passage.
Throughout the Old Testament, most references to rock or stone simply refer to the common object studied by geologists. The Septuagint text rarely uses rock or stone in any other way, however the Masoretic text frequently calls God a rock or the rock. Almost every place the Masoretic uses rock in this way, the Septuagint explicitly refers to God. The following table examines these passages.
|
MASORETIC |
Verse |
SEPTUAGINT |
|
|
He is the Rock, His work is perfect; For all His ways are justice, A God of truth and without injustice; Righteous and upright is He. |
Deut 32:4 |
He is God, His works are true; And all His ways are justice, A faithful God and without injustice; Righteous and holy is the Lord. |
|
|
...Then he forsook God who made him, and scornfully esteemed to Rock of his salvation. |
Deut 32:15 |
... then he forsook God who made him, and stood back from God his Saviour. |
|
|
Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful, And have forgotten the God who fathered you. |
Deut 32:18 |
You abandoned the God who begot you, and have forgotten the God who nourished you. |
|
|
How could one chase a thousand, And two put ten thousand to flight, Unless their Rock had sold them, And the LORD had surrendered them? |
Deut 32:30 |
How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousands to flight, Unless God had sold them, And the Lord had surrendered them? |
|
|
For their rock is not like our Rock, Even our enemies themselves being judges. |
Deut 32:31 |
For our God is not like their gods, But our enemies are foolish. |
|
|
He will say: 'Where are their gods, The rock in which they sought refuge? |
Deut 32:37 |
The Lord said, Where are their gods in which they trusted? |
|
|
No one is holy like the LORD, For there is none besides You, Nor is there any rock like our God. |
1 Samuel |
1 Kingdom |
Because no one is holy like the Lord, No one is righteous like our God; No one is holy but You. |
|
And he said: "The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; |
2 Samuel |
2 Kingdom |
And the song was thus: O Lord, my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer, |
|
For who is God, except the LORD? And who is a rock, except our God? |
2 Samuel |
2 Kingdom |
Who is strong, but the Lord? and who will be a Creator except our God? |
|
"The LORD lives! Blessed be my Rock! Let God be exalted, The Rock of my salvation! |
2 Samuel |
2 Kingdom |
The Lord lives, and blessed be my guardian, and my God, my strong keeper, shall be exalted. |
|
The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spoke to me: He who rules over man must be just, Ruling in the fear of God. |
2 Samuel |
2 Kingdom |
The God of Israel says, A watchman out of Israel spoke to me a parable; I said among men, How will ye strengthen the fear of the anointed? |
|
The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; My God, my strength, in whom I will trust; My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold |
Ps 18:2 |
Ps 17:1 |
I will love Thee, O Lord, my strength; the Lord is my foundation, and my refuge, and my deliverer. |
|
For who is God, except the LORD? And who is a rock, except our God? |
Ps 18:31 |
Ps 17:31 |
For who is god, save the Lord? And who is god, save our God? |
|
The LORD lives! Blessed be my Rock! Let the God of my salvation be exalted. |
Ps 18:46 |
Ps 17:47 |
The Lord liveth, and blessed is my God, and let the God of my salvation be exalted. |
|
To You I will cry, O LORD my Rock: Do not be silent to me, Lest, if You are silent to me, I become like those who go down to the pit. |
Ps 28:1 |
Ps 27:1 |
Unto Thee, O Lord, will I cry; O my God, be not silent unto me, lest, if Thou be silent to me, I become like them that go down into the pit. |
|
Bow down Your ear to me, Deliver me speedily; Be my rock of refuge, A fortress of defense to save me. |
Ps 31:2 |
Ps 30:2 |
Bow down Thine ear unto me, make haste to rescue me, be Thou unto me a God to defend me and a house of refuge to save me. |
|
For You are my rock and my fortress; Therefore, for Your name's sake, Lead me and guide me. |
Ps 31:3 |
Ps 30:3 |
For my strength and my refuge art Thou, and for Thy name's sake wilt Thou guide me and nourish me. |
|
I will say to God my Rock, "Why have You forgotten me? Why do I go mourning because of the oppression of the enemy? |
Ps 42:9 |
Ps 41:10 |
I will say unto God: Thou art my helper. Why hast Thou forgotten me? And wherefore go I with downcast face whilst mine enemy afflicteth me? |
|
He only is my rock and my salvation; He is my defense; I shall not be greatly moved. |
Ps 62:2 |
Ps 61:2 |
For He is my God, my saviour and my helper, and I shall be shaken no more. |
|
He only is my rock and my salvation; He is my defense; I shall not be moved. |
Ps 62:6 |
Ps 61:6 |
For He is my God, my saviour and my helper, and I shall not be moved from hence. |
|
God is my salvation and my glory; The rock of my strength, And my refuge, is in God. |
Ps 62:7 |
Ps 61:7 |
In God is my salvation and my glory; He is the God of my help, and my hope is in God. |
|
Be my strong refuge, To which I may resort continually; You have given the commandment to save me, For You are my rock and my fortress |
Ps 71:3 |
Ps 70:2 |
Be Thou unto me a God that is my defender and a place of strength that Thou mayest save me, for Thou art my foundation and refuge. |
|
Then they remembered that God was their rock, And the Most High God their Redeemer |
Ps 78:35 |
Ps 77:38 |
And they remembered that God is their helper, and that God the Most High is their redeemer. |
|
He shall cry to Me, You are my Father, My God, and the rock of my salvation. |
Ps 89:26 |
Ps 88:25 |
He shall call upon Me and shall say: My Father art Thou, my God, and the helper of my salvation. |
|
To declare that the LORD is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him. |
Ps 92:15 |
Ps 91:13 |
They shall still increase in a ripe old age, and happy shall they be to proclaim that upright is the Lord our God, and there is no unrighteousness in Him. |
|
But the LORD has been my defense, And my God the rock of my refuge. |
Ps 94:22 |
Ps 93:22 |
Yea, the Lord is become my refuge, and my God the helper of my hope. |
|
O come, let us sing to the LORD! Let us shout joyfully to the Rock of our salvation. |
Ps 95:1 |
Ps 94:1 |
Come let us rejoice in the Lord, let us shout with jubilation unto God our Saviour. |
|
Blessed be the LORD my Rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle |
Ps 144:1 |
Ps 143:1 |
Blessed is the Lord my God, Who teacheth my hands for battle and my fingers for war. |
|
He will be as a sanctuary, But a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense To both the houses of Israel, As a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. |
Isa 8:14 |
And if thou shalt trust in him, he shall be to thee for a sanctuary; and ye shall not come against him as against a stumbling-stone, neither as against the falling of a rock; but the houses of Jacob are in a snare, and the dwellers in Jerusalem in a pit. |
|
|
Because you have forgotten the God of your salvation, And have not been mindful of the Rock of your stronghold, Therefore you will plant pleasant plants And set out foreign seedlings; |
Isa 17:10 |
Because thou hast forsaken God thy Saviour, and hast not been mindful of the Lord thy helper; therefore shalt thou plant a false plant, and a false seed. |
|
|
Do not fear, nor be afraid; Have I not told you from that time, and declared it? You are My witnesses. Is there a God beside Me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one. |
Isa 44:7 |
Hide not yourselves, nor go astray: have ye not heard from the beginning, and have not I told you? ye are witnesses if there is a God beside me. |
|
|
Listen to Me, you who follow after righteousness, You who seek the LORD: Look to the rock from which you were hewn, And to the hole of the pit from which you were dug. |
Isa 51:1 |
Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, and seek the Lord: look to the solid rock, which ye have hewn, and to the hole of the pit which ye have dug. |
|
From this examination of Old Testament passages, we can see the label rock is never applied to any person other than God. Indeed, there seems to be a consensus amongst Orthodox Christians, Protestants, and Papal Christians that there are no instances in the Old Testament where a human person is labelled Rock. With the exception of Matt 16:18, there is also consensus that there are no New Testament passages where a human person is named Rock. Therefore, the principle of interpreting unclear passages by other passages provides no support for the idea that the rock of Matt 16:18 is the Apostle Peter.
Papal apologists often argue that their belief that Peter was renamed Rock by the Lord Jesus Christ was so important that it was a unique event — found only in Matt 16:18. Although this argument begs the question, it must be allowed as a possibility — but history needs to be examined to find if such an interpretation has universality, antiquity, and consent in the Church. In other words, can it be established that such a belief existed in all regions (not limited to a particular area), can be found extant from the earliest years (not something invented centuries after Pentecost), and not attacked as inconsistent with the Apostolic Faith?
Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians
[Chapter 9] The Comforter is holy, and the Word is holy, the Son of the Father, by whom He made all things, and exercises a providence over them all. This is the Way which leads to the Father, the Rock, the Defence, the Key, the Shepherd, the Sacrifice, the Door of knowledge, through which have entered Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, Moses and all the company of the prophets, and these pillars of the world, the apostles, and the spouse of Christ, on whose account He poured out His own blood, as her marriage portion, that He might redeem her.
Clearly the Lord Jesus Christ is here identified as the Rock.
Saint Justin Martyr, Second Apology
[Chapter 113] For I have shown that Christ was proclaimed by the prophets in parables a Stone and a Rock.
[Chapter 114] And our hearts are thus circumcised from evil, so that we are happy to die for the name of the good Rock, which causes living water to burst forth for the hearts of those who by Him have loved the Father of all, and which gives those who are willing to drink of the water of life.
Saint Justin Martyr also identifies Rock as representing the Lord Jesus Christ.
Shepherd of Hermas:
[Parable 9, Chapter 12] First of all, sir, I said, explain this to me: What is the meaning of the rock and the gate? This rock, he answered, and this gate are the Son of God.
The author of this work clearly identifies the Lord Jesus Christ as rock.
Tertullian: An Answer to the Jews
[Chapter 9] For, because Jesus Christ was to introduce the second people (which is composed of us nations, lingering deserted in the world aforetime into the land of promise, flowing with milk and honey (that is, into the possession of eternal life, than which nought is sweeter); and this had to come about, not through Moses (that is, not through the Law's discipline), but through Joshua (that is, through the new law's grace), after our circumcision with a knife of rock (that is, with Christ's precepts, for Christ is in many ways and figures predicted as a rock; therefore the man who was being prepared to act as images of this sacrament was inaugurated under the figure of the Lord's name, even so as to be named Jesus.
Tertullian: The Prescription Against Heretics
Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the rock on which the church should be built, who also obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven, with the power of loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?
Tertullian: Five Books Against Marcion
[Book 4, Chapter 13] Again, He changes the name of Simon to Peter, inasmuch as the Creator also altered the names of Abram, and Sarai, and Oshea, by calling the latter Joshua, and adding a syllable to each of the former. But why Peter? If it was because of the vigour of his faith, there were many solid materials which might lend a name from their strength. Was it because Christ was both a rock and a stone? For we read of His being placed for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence. I omit the rest of the passage. Therefore He would fain impart to the dearest of His disciples a name which was suggested by one of His own especial designations in figure; because it was, I suppose, more peculiarly fit than a name which might have been derived from no figurative description of Himself.
[Book 5, Chapter 5] The very stumbling-block which he declares Christ to be to the Jews, points unmistakeably to the Creator's prophecy respecting Him, when by Isaiah He says: Behold I lay in Sion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence. This rock or stone is Christ. This stumbling-stone Marcion retains still.
Tertullian: On Modesty
[Chapter 21] If, because the Lord has said to Peter, Upon this rock will I build My Church, to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom; or, Whatsoever thou shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens, you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? On thee, He says, will I build My Church; and, I will give to thee the keys, not to the Church; and, Whatsoever thou shall have based or bound, not what they shall have loosed or bound.
The first two extracts are from works written during Tertullian's Orthodox Catholic period (i.e. before joining the Montanist heresy). The knife of rock refers to Joshua 5:3 and 24:30 (LXX). His statement that the Lord Jesus Christ was in many ways and figures predicted as a rock is quite explicit. Yet, he does identify the rock as Peter. The third and fourth extracts are taken from a work written during Tertullian's so-called semi-Montanist period. One suggests that the Apostle is given his name change because of his faith, the other clearly identifies Christ as the rock. The final extract, taken from a work written when he was a Montanist, explicitly identifies rock and Peter, yet also explicitly denies that the promise is conveyed to the successors of Peter. In all, because of his heresy and lack of a clear and definitive statement on the meaning of rock, Tertullian is not a useful source.
Cyprian: Epistles
[15:4] For what do you ask from the Lord's mercy which you do not deserve to obtain? — you who have thus observed the Lord's commands, who have maintained the Gospel discipline with the simple vigour of your faith, who, with the glory of your virtue uncorrupted, have stood bravely by the Lord's commands, and by His apostles, and have confirmed the wavering faith of many by the truth of your martyrdom? Truly, Gospel witnesses, and truly, Christ's martyrs, resting upon His roots, founded with strong foundation upon the Rock, you have joined discipline with virtue, you have brought others to the fear of God, you have made your martyrdoms, examples.
[26:1] Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I 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 shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.
[62:8] If they shall thirst, he says, He shall lead them through the deserts, shall bring forth water for them out of the rock; the rock shall be cloven, and the water shall flow, and my people shall drink; which is fulfilled in the Gospel, when Christ, who is the Rock, is cloven by a stroke of the spear in His passion; who also, admonishing what was before announced by the prophet, cries and says, If any man thirst, let him come and drink. He that believeth on me, as the Scripture saith, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
The first and third of these passages clearly identify the rock as the Lord Jesus Christ. The middle passage, quoting the passage from Matthew, appears to identify all bishops as the rock inasmuch as it declares that the Church is founded upon the bishops.
The next passage to consider is Saint Cyprian's The Unity of the Catholic Church. Often cited by papal apologists, this work exists in two versions. Here is papal scholar William A. Jurgens' comment on Saint Cyprian's work in his three-volume compendium The Faith of the Early Fathers:
Chapter four of the work is extant in two recensions, the one with so-called additions having generally been regarded as an interpolated version until in 1902 Dom Chapman established the fact that both are from the pen of Cyprian himself. In Chapman's view the edition having the word <primacy> and other expressions interpretable as referring to Roman primacy was a re-working of the original, made by Cyprian himself, rather than a maliciously interpolated version. His theory is now very generally accepted, with one important difference, however, that the version with the so-called primacy additions is to be regarded as Cyprian's original, while the version without those phrases is regarded as Cyprian's own re-casting of the work. Cyprian's revised version, his second edition, is actually the longer; but it has omitted those phrases of the original version which were extremely favorable to the Roman claims of primacy.
According to this latter view, Cyprian's choice of words in the original form of the work would have been read in Rome as recognition of the universal authority over the whole Church, which Rome claimed. Cyprian, indeed, recognized that the Bishop of Rome held some kind of a special and primatial position; but he had not thought of it as implying a universal jurisdiction. Bévenot puts the matter very succinctly in the introduction to his translation of the work in question, Vol. 25 of the series Ancient Christian Writers, pp. 7-8:
At Rome, where there were no doubts about its Bishop's authority over the whole Church, Cyprian's original text could not fail to be read as recognition of that fact. If in the course of the baptismal controversy this was, as it were, thrown in his teeth, he will have exclaimed, quite truthfully: But I never meant that! — and so he toned it down in his revised version. He did not, then, repudiate what he had formerly held. He had never held that the Pope possessed universal jurisdiction. But he had never denied it either; in truth he had never asked himself the question where the final authority in the Church might be . . . If the foregoing reconstruction is correct, we have in Cyprian's De ecclesiae catholicae unitate a good example of what a dogma can look like while still in an early stage of development. The reality (in this case, the Primacy of Rome) is there all the time: it may be recognized by some; by others it may even be denied, and that though much of what they say or do unconsciously implies it. . . . Cyprian is a standing example of what we mean when we speak of the Papal Primacy being implicit in the early Church.
In the opinion of this writer, the claim by the translator in Ancient Christian Writers that Saint Cyprian never asked himself the question where the final authority in the Church might be is ridiculous. The supposition that Cyprian revised the work in response to having the first version thrown in his teeth is quite reasonable. But it seems more reasonable to interpret the revision as correcting a text that had proven itself capable of being abused by those who wished to increase the authority and prestige of the bishop of Old Rome. Cyprian's revised version clearly states Indeed, the other Apostles were that also which Peter was, being endowed with an equal portion of dignity and power. In this writer's opinion, when an author revises an earlier text, it is the later version which is to be preferred since it is based upon greater maturity and perspective.
So as to keep this essay from becoming excruciatingly lengthy, we will refrain from providing additional citations from patristic sources. The truth is that there are no interpretations from the earliest centuries that support the modern Papal Christian interpretation. In the judgement of Henry Chadwick in his definitive text The Early Church:
But before the third century there was no call for a sustained, theoretical justification of this leadership. All were brethren, but the church in Rome was accepted as first among equals. The Petrine text of Matthew 16:18, Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, cannot be seen to have played any part in the story of Roman leadership and authority before the middle of the third century when the passionate disagreement between Cyprian of Carthage and Stephen of Rome about baptism apparently led Stephen to invoke the text as part of his defence against Cyprian. But it was not until Damasus in 382 that this Petrine text seriously began to become important as providing a theological and scriptural foundation on which claims to Primacy were based.
Having looked at the writings of the Pre-Nicene Fathers, we can now ask if the Papal Christian interpretation that identifies the Apostle Peter with the rock on which the Church is built withstands the test of universality and antiquity and consent. Was such an identification found throughout the world? Based upon the above, it does not appear that such an identification was widespread. Was such an identification extant from the earliest years? Again, it appears that such a belief was not present. The judgement of Chadwick is clear that Matthew 16:18 was not understood in the Pre-Nicene Church as it is now interpreted by Papal Christianity. Was such an identification attacked as inconsistent with the Apostolic Faith? It appears that because this view was not proposed in the early Church, no Father had a need to compose a refutation. However, we know that once Rome began to claim an identification between the Apostle Peter and the rock on which the Church was built, there were refutations. Thus, the identification of the Apostle Peter with the rock on which the Church is built does not seem to withstand the test of consent (although in the earliest times no explicit rejection may be found), but it clearly fails the tests of universality and antiquity. For this reason it cannot be claimed that the belief that the Church is founded on the Apostle Peter (as claimed by Papal Christianity) is catholic truth. In other words, it is not the faith of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Author Thomas Ross Valentine.
Site http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/rock.html
Thank you for the feeedback.
this is a very "un Diego-like" post, my friend. We may disagree, but you are crossing the line by implying we must "dance around" or "shore up hopeless theology" or "worry about our motives". I am beginning to sense you think Catholics are devilish as a group. This does not bode well for future conversations.
Whether Peter spoke Hebrew or Aramaic or both, it is inconsequential to the fact that Peter had primacy among the Apostles. We see clues of this throughout the Scriptures - and we note he had the name "Cephas" - ROCK. The whole article above is ridiculous because it cannot recognize that Paul recognizes that Simon is ROCK.
The language issue is your pet-peeve that you have not proven - nor have you made any link between it and the importance in this thread. It really says nothing about who is the Rock, which is the topic of this thread. It is beyond argument that Simon was called ROCK. Jesus is not called Cephas. End of story.
Regards
Jesus, of course, did not name Simon, “Peter” at all. “Peter” is a translation of Simon’s new name, “Cephas.” Whatever distinction between Petros and Petra the Protestant apologists’ imagination would invent is an artifact of translation.
There are instance in Attick Greek where poets used “Petra” as a “mother lode”, and “Petros” as the child, but there is no such distinction in Koine (biblical) Greek. Throughout the Greek bible, including the Greek versions of the Old Testament, “Petra” is the word used for “rock,” and “lithos” for “a stone.” Matthew used “Petros” instead of “Petra” as a means of giving Cephas a masculine first name, since “Petra” is a feminine name.
This is yet another case where Protestant apologists state, “it means A, so it cannot mean B.” This is false. Clearly Peter is Cephas. But faith in Christ, as all those verses do properly attest is also Cephas. Peter became the living embodiment of faith. I’ve seen Protestants cite Church Fathers as if they were providing proof that the Rock was faith in Christ, and therefore not Peter, whereas those authors were frequently making the point that to know the truth about Jesus, one must look to the teaching of the Church, of which Peter was the regent.
Wow, you know the thing is it doesn’t matter whether Jesus spoke in Hebrew or Aramaic (for the purposes of this discussion). The difference is almost like the difference between King James English and modern spoken English. The point is that Jesus called Simon, “Cephas.”
When Jesus quoted the scripture, he used Hebrew. I don’t think anyone said otherwise. When Jesus spoke otherwise, he probably usually spoke in the common language of the people, which would have been Aramaic. It’s even possible he knew Latin or Greek. (I recall some scholarly debate over whether “The Passion of the Christ” was reasonable when it depicted Jesus answering Pilate in Latin.) But again: the point is that Simon’s new name was Cephas, and Cephas does not possibly imply a smaller stone.
Hebrew and Aramaic were both Semitic languages with many similarities....but the scripture you quoted was written by Matthew himself.....and he wrote it in the Hebrew (later translated to Greek).....just like the Hebrew Psalmist wrote it.
It is unknown for certain whether Matthew wrote his original Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic, the languages are similar enough, with enough similarities in their idiomatic usage, that it is unclear which one is being translated into Greek. "Hebraicisms" and "Aramaicisms" cannot easily be distinguished when the translation is being made into a non-Semitic language. But we do know this: the words of Jesus in Matthew 27:46 are clearly in Aramaic, and that is because Jesus spoke Aramaic in His everyday speech with the Apostles and those around Him.
There are a number of other quotes, as I alluded to yesterday, of Aramaic in the Greek New Testament. Anyone referred to as "son of," as, for example, Simon bar Jonah, or Bartholomew, or even Barsabbas (from Acts 1:23) always has the Aramaic "bar," rather than the Hebrew "ben." "Ephphatha (Be opened) from Mark 7:34, "mammon" from Matthew 6;24, Akeldama (field of blood), "raca" (idiot, fool) from Matthew 5:22, and so on and so forth; all of these are Aramaic words.
The point: Jesus undoubtedly understood Hebrew, but all of His everyday discourse was in Aramaic. there is no reason to suppose that any of the Apostles, who were generally uneducated men, spoke any other Semitic language than Aramaic, there being no real reason to. They would have had more day-to-day motivation to pick up some Koine Greek first, as it would have been useful with any foreigners they interacted with.
As to all the quotes talking about the "Hebrews,' it should be clear that the Jews were a Hebrew people, and they were called Hebrews accordingly. Their language may have been referred to as "Hebrew" as well, but this is either due to misinformation or streamlining what were considered to be insignificant differences. A contemporary example of our time might be the fact that, in border states with Mexico, all white people are habitually referred to as "Anglos," whether they have a drop of English blood in them or not. It might not be "accurate," but people know what is meant.
You can quote the Fathers all you want on this, they were not necessarily in their element categorizing languages they generally did not understand, and couldn't tell the difference between. Linguists, on the other hand, can distinguish these two languages one from the other, and their verdict is certainly clear enough.
Peter and the rest from Galilee, did not speak Hebrew with a Galilean accent, as you allege. They Spoke Aramaic with a Galilean accent. Again, all of the "son of" names are Aramaic, and all of the untranslated quotes of Jesus while speaking with people up north in Galilee were also Aramaic. All of the internal Scriptural evidence, therefore, points to Aramaic being the common tongue up north, and general linguistic analysis, from unbiased, secular sources, bears this out. But, where does this all lead for you? None of this even matters in the passage that is at issue in this thread. Whether the word was Aramaic (Kepha) or Hebrew (Keph), it is still translated as "rock," and is grammatically the same in both of the places where it is used in the verse. And the "little stone" vs. "giant rock" meaning therefore has no bearing, since those come in only by way of the Greek translation, and, in any event, the type of Greek the New Testament uses did not make that distinction between "petros" and "petra" by the First Century anyway. Jesus said: "You are Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my Church." No difference in words there. "You are Rock, and on this rock I will build my Church."
Finally, the argument that God is the Rock is a false lead. It is true, as people say, that God is referred to as a Rock in several places in Scripture. But, even if Peter was only supposed to be a "small stone" (and, again, that was not the real meaning of the word anyway), Jesus still makes an allusion that is clearly akin to "rock.", does He not? This would still have signified that He intended to confer on Simon bar Jonah a share of His divine prerogatives to lead His Church. He could have changed Simon's name to "Key" or "Fisher of Men" or "Honcho" or "Apple Turnover," but, even according to the "little stone" argument, He still gave Simon a name that is "related" to the "rock" of God. That is significant! And that should give you pause when you seek to undermine the clear will of Jesus Christ for the role He desired to give to Simon Peter.
You're right about the "son of" being Aramaic -- bar is Aramaic for "son." The Hebrew is ben. Yes, I've heard of "bar mitzvah" too, but bar is nevertheless Aramaic; from the earliest rabbinic Hebrew, Hebrew has included a lot of Aramaic borrowings, probably -- at least in the beginning of rabbinic Hebrew -- the result of people who spoke Aramaic as their mother tongue writing in Hebrew, cf. the rapid influx of French words into English after England lost Normandy and the French-speaking nobility in England started speaking English.
Abba is also Aramaic -- the Hebrew is av (I transliterate with the Israeli pronunciation) -- even though little Israeli kids call their daddies "abba."
Possibly the wrong premise. I prefer the question, 'WHAT is the Rock?'
To answer that question requires only a minimum of words and a much clearer path of logic.
I don’t even bother arguing anything but scripture with the Protestants, and prefer open threads.
I need to update my profile. Will be done in a minute. Is the database back?
Jesus, His Blessed Mother and His apostles all spoke Aramaic. Hebrew was the liturgical language of the Temple at that time.
Source?
St. Hegessipus in the 2nd century of the Church had already compiled a list of the popes, listing the current one at the time (Pope Anacletus) as the eleventh successor to St. Peter.
The fact the the Catholic Church was very anti Semitic in certain era gone by is not a debatable issue. It is absolute history. Therefore, the motives for removing anything Jewish from Our Lord's persona is obvious. I'm sure you have....but maybe some folks have not..... read... John Chrysostom. Tell me that this is not full of hatred and prejudice for the Jews. Tell me that the changing of the Sabbath to Sunday was not for hatred of the Jews. It sure isn't scriptural! Tell me that the abolishing of the Festivals and Holy Days was not inspired by hatred of the Jews. Tell me that the ignoring of God's dietary laws were not anti Semitic in nature. You cannot find any scripture evidence to support your position! These motives were all undertaken out of hatred for anything that smacked of Judaism.
As far as your theology being hopeless....it is! It is not Biblical....it is contradictory to scripture....and is a false system. I've never claimed differently. If it were the true church.....I would join it! But.....so is the theology of your Protestant daughter churches! I don't plan on joining them any day soon....either!
And you folks do dance around this issue about the name of Peter....."Cephas". You continue to ignore the fact that the New Testament is a Greek Translation.....and the word Cephas means "A Stone" (in Greek)! [John 1:42] And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas (4074. Petros (pet'-ros)apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than lithos); as a name, Petrus, an apostle), which is by interpretation, A stone. If the Apostle John wanted Peter to have the persona of a massive rock he would have written "Petra". Instead he wrote "Petros". And....you've got to dance around, claiming that Our Lord spoke Aramaic, to try and make this silly point!
The Greek in [Matthew 16:18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter 4074. Petros (pet'-ros) apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than lithos); as a name, Petrus, an apostle , and upon this rock (4073. petra (pet'-ra)feminine of the same as Petros; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
When Matthew speaks of The Lord being the "Rock"....he says Petra. When John speaks of Peter being the "stone"....he says Petros.....and you folks dance and dance and dance. Matthew even uses both words (Petros & Petra) in his scripture. If you cannot see the obvious difference here you are not being sincere.
I don't think Catholics are devilish at all. I number Catholics in my family and have many Catholic acquaintances whom I believe are good Christian folks. The problem is not them....it is the organization they belong to. The fact that it is not the Church of the New Testament can be proved by the simple fact you have to rely on tradition and the ability to change as you go..... to firm up your case. You cannot stand on existing scripture because your arguments then quickly evaporate.
Whether Peter spoke Hebrew or Aramaic or both, it is inconsequential to the fact that Peter had primacy among the Apostles. We see clues of this throughout the Scriptures - and we note he had the name "Cephas" - ROCK. The whole article above is ridiculous because it cannot recognize that Paul recognizes that Simon is ROCK.
If Peter had any primacy why in the world did he not just stand up here and tell everyone to be still? [Luke 22:24] And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. This is the Passover Preparation before the crucifixion....sometime after the incident in Matthew where you folks insist he receives some type of primacy. I realize you must teach this or your "House of Cards" comes tumbling down. It's still "Balderdash" .... irregardless!
The language issue is your pet peeve that you have not proved - nor have you made any link between it and the importance in this thread. It really says nothing about who is the Rock, which is the topic of this thread. It is beyond argument that Simon was called ROCK. Jesus is not called Cephas. End of story.
This was from the article: Christ spoke Aramaic and that the same word — ke'pha' — would have been spoken by the Lord for both Πέτρος and πέτρᾳ
Yup! He did.....but not around the house.
If you read the Greek {Matthew 16:18] Our Lord is referred to as "Petra". Peter is never called that. He is called "Petros" [John 1:42][I Corinthians 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5;][Galatians 2:9]. Based upon the authority of the original Greek New Testament.....Petros is the name given to Simon Bar Jona.....by the Lord [John 1:42]. The Greek text does not agree that Peter is the Rock.
This is a very "un Diego-like" post, my friend.
This is a very "un Joe like" thing to say.
Did he list Linus as the first Bishop of Rome?
You got some "scholarly" proof for this statement?
Eli and lama were the same in both languages (as you note, they are very similar, closely related Semitic languages). Sabachthani, on the other hand, is strictly Aramaic, the Hebrew equivalent being significantly different: azbatany.
Paragraph six. Modern Aramaic and Hebrew both come from Chaldee. The reason Sabachthani is spelled differently than what you see in [Psalms 22:1] in the Hebrew: ’ēlî ’ēlî lāmâ ‘ăzaḇətānî ......it doesn't have the inflections of a Galilean accent that Jesus, Peter and Matthew would all be speaking 1000 years later.
It is unknown for certain whether Matthew wrote his original Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic.
Let me help you out here:
Papias (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.) "Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could."
Irenaeus, (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1) "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the assembly."
Origen (Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.4) As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Assembly of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language."
Eusebius, (H.E. 3.24.6) Matthew had first preached to Hebrews, and when he was on the point of going to others he transmitted in writing in his native language the Gospel according to himself, and thus supplied by writing the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent."
Epiphanius (ca. 315-403), Bishop of Salamis, refers to a gospel used by the Ebionites (Panarion 30. 13.1-30.22.4). He says it is Matthew, called "According to the Hebrews" by them, but says it is corrupt and mutilated. He says Matthew issued his Gospel in Hebrew letters. He quotes from this Ebionite Gospel seven times. These quotations appear to come not from Matthew but from some harmonised account of the canonical Gospels.
Jerome Also asserts that Matthew wrote in the Hebrew language (Epist. 20.5), and he refers to a Hebrew Matthew and a Gospel of the Hebrews-unclear if they are the same. He also quotes from the Gospel used by the Nazoreans and the Ebionites, which he says he has recently translated from Hebrew to Greek (in Matth. 12.13).
But we do know this: the words of Jesus in Matthew 27:46 are clearly in Aramaic, and that is because Jesus spoke Aramaic in His everyday speech with the Apostles and those around Him.
We know nothing of the kind.....it is your assumption....and an incorrect one at that.
[Luke 23:38] And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
[John 5:2] Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.
[John 19:13] When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.
[John 19:17] And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:
[John 19:20] This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
[Acts 21:40] And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying
[Acts 22:2] (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith.
[Acts 26:14] And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
[Revelation 9:11] And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.
[Revelation 16:16] And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
Did you ever wonder why there are so many references to the Hebrew language in the New Testament? It's because everyone spoke Hebrew around Jerusalem....including Our Lord. Very few actually spoke Aramaic (that's why you don't see any Biblical references to it).....although....most could understand it.
The point: Jesus undoubtedly understood Hebrew, but all of His everyday discourse was in Aramaic. there is no reason to suppose that any of the Apostles, who were generally uneducated men, spoke any other Semitic language than Aramaic, there being no real reason to.
First of all....let me say "Balderdash"! Then let me say: The reason the Apostles spoke Hebrew on a day to day basis....was because everyone else in Judea did also. Try to find some references in the New Testament to the language of Aramaic. It's difficult....almost impossible.
I realize you folks have to dance around this issue to protect your mythical primacy of Peter. It's sad.
Not really. I don’t think we can do searches yet.
No ... he listed the first pope as St. Peter.
Sad that some men think more highly How will YHvH judge the Pride of men Amen !
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua
of the Traditions of man
then the Word of G-d.
who impugn the Holy Word of Elohim.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.