Did Jesus really make Peter Pope? | Catholic-Pages.com
Did Jesus really make Peter Pope? Catholic-Pages.com
It is amazing to think that the Catholic Church still holds that Peter was the first pope ordained by Jesus. Traditionally, the Catholic Church has supported this thesis with the dialogue between Jesus and Simon Peter in Matthew 16:13-20. I find Fr. William Saunders' premise to this passage to be somewhat skewed. My problem is with verse 18 which reads, "And I tell you [Jesus speaking] that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. (NIV)" The name "Peter" means "rock" but is transliterated Petros. The direct object is literally "rock", transliterated petra(i). It doesn't take a Greek scholar to see the difference in the ending of these two words. Verse 18 does literally read, "And I tell you that you are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church...", but these are not the same words. The first has a masculine singular ending, which was the nickname (proper name) of Simon. The second has a feminine, dative, singular ending which Rogers & Rogers translates as "rock, cliff, ledge"- "Used by Josephus to describe the massive fitted stone blocks in the towers of Jerusalem, as contrasted with the ordinary rocks that men carry around; also used of huge rocks suited for the foundation of buildings. (The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament. Zondervan Publishing House, 1998)" Therefore, Peter is not the foundation of the church, rather his response, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." is the foundation (rock) of the church. Furthermore, it is Jesus Christ who the "gates of Hades" cannot stand against. I don't mean to demean the person of Peter, and it is fine with me that he is considered the first pope, but where in Scripture is he ordained by Jesus as the first pope? Fr. William Saunders seems to build his case from this passage before going on to other Scripture. It is this premise I find as faulty.
It is amazing to think that the Catholic Church still holds that Peter was the first pope ordained by Jesus. Traditionally, the Catholic Church has supported this thesis with the dialogue between Jesus and Simon Peter in Matthew 16:13-20. I find Fr. William Saunders' premise to this passage to be somewhat skewed. My problem is with verse 18 which reads, "And I tell you [Jesus speaking] that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. (NIV)" The name "Peter" means "rock" but is transliterated Petros. The direct object is literally "rock", transliterated petra(i). It doesn't take a Greek scholar to see the difference in the ending of these two words. Verse 18 does literally read, "And I tell you that you are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church...", but these are not the same words. The first has a masculine singular ending, which was the nickname (proper name) of Simon. The second has a feminine, dative, singular ending which Rogers & Rogers translates as "rock, cliff, ledge"- "Used by Josephus to describe the massive fitted stone blocks in the towers of Jerusalem, as contrasted with the ordinary rocks that men carry around; also used of huge rocks suited for the foundation of buildings. (The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament. Zondervan Publishing House, 1998)" Therefore, Peter is not the foundation of the church, rather his response, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." is the foundation (rock) of the church. Furthermore, it is Jesus Christ who the "gates of Hades" cannot stand against. I don't mean to demean the person of Peter, and it is fine with me that he is considered the first pope, but where in Scripture is he ordained by Jesus as the first pope? Fr. William Saunders seems to build his case from this passage before going on to other Scripture. It is this premise I find as faulty.
16 Comments:
While I can't read Greek, yet, I have looked this verse up in some literal translations. Like you said, Ron, it translates to,
"And I tell you that you are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church..."
Maybe Peter is buried under the first church ever built?
Sorry I couldn't dialogue more on this, but I totally agree with the original post.
-Matt
I agree with you Ron. However, in defense of the Catholics, you know as well as I how important it was to show the church's orthodoxy during the centuries following Jesus' death. Eusebius of Caesarea went to painstaking efforts to establish an unbroken line of bishops in Rome, showing their orthodox beliefs in the face of many heresies--heresies that had their own "secret" lineage. The line of reasoning of the Catholic church may be faulty, but in order to show a historical record of true teachings, a historical tracing back to the disciples may have been needed in the fourth and fifth centuries. Perhaps the Petrine doctrine of the papacy was necessary propaganda in the face of unorthodoxy.
Did any of that make sense? I am not arguing for the Roman Catholic view, but I guess I can see why it may have been necessary to establish an unbroken line of correct teachings back to the disciples, and ultimately to Christ
beavs007, what you are refering to is what is called the "apostolic succession", and it is import, especially during the early years of the Church. The only thing that I am arguing here is that it (Peter as Pope) was built on falty exegesis of the Scripture.
As to matt gaiser's comment: That is a humurous attempt at extreme literalism of the text. I honestly had to stop and laugh. I'm glad to see that someone has a sense of humor while discussing "truth". We do allow room for humor on this blog-site. Keep dialoguing...this is good.
-Ron
beavs007,
We repeat the orthodox creeds that affirm our belief in an "apostolic church." Catholics interpret apostolic succession as a long chain of ordination that goes all the way back to Peter. A modern day Catholic was ordained by a bishop "laying his hands on him" who had hands layed on him, etc, etc, all the way back to Peter. I, as a Protestant, understand the apostolic church having more to do with staying true to the gospel that the appostles preached. Martin Luther may have broken the chain of the laying on of hands, but I believe he was actually calling the church to return to its apostolic message.
Ron,
I agree with your exigetical interpretation, but I'm not sure I have a problem with the development of the papacy based somewhat on questionable exegesis. It may not be a clear Biblical development (and Catholics should be more honest about this), but Peter's leadership of the early church is quite clear. Also, the importance of the Bishop of Rome is universal in the early church.
The major problems I have with the papacy have developed over the course of church history. It is the moral corruption, abuses, and over-elevated power of the office that offend me. I think Catholics would have a harder time defending these accusations than their misguided interpretation of the peter/rock passage.
Tristan, I agree with your comment concerning Church History completely, but the article that I was responding to was not addressing that issue. Yes, there has been some troubling sinful issues from the papacy throughout church history, but the article was defending Peter as the first Pope. There again I say, "fine", but based on the author's exegesis along with other Catholics, I find it just a little troubling.
Thank you for the response and please keep posting challenging and thoughtfull comments.
-Ron
Tristan,
Peter may have been a (only one of) leader in the early church, but so were many others. As you know, James was the leader of the Jerusalem church, John of the Ephesus. Paul was a large influence on the church at Rome as well. I agree totally with Ron when he says the biblical support for a petrine papacy is weak at best, but I also agree with you that the apostolic succession was necessary (especially when concerning the fight against heresy).
Tristan,
Thanks for your original post to me. Where you disagreeing with me or agreeing, because I thought I wrote exactly what you did?
I want to reiterate that the apostolic succession is important and I'm sorry that we Protestants (Church in Protest) have lost that vital link to our past.
...this dialogue would not be complete without a comment from Sean :)
I agree with everyone.....
Just kidding.
Ron, I'm glad that you think so highly of my opinion. Or maybe you are just observing the fact that I have something to say about everything?
I am not the church historian here. However, I can readily agree with Ron concerning his exegesis of the Greek in the Matthew 16 text given my two, very adequate, years of Biblical Greek :) But one does not necessarily need to know Biblical Greek to understand what Jesus is saying here when viewed within the context of the rest of Scripture. Jesus is repeatedly referred to as the "corner stone" or "rock" or "head stone" that not only pulls all the law and prophets together but serves as the foundation of all faith and authority as well. The New testament picture of Peter given to us is not one of absolute authority on church matters. Correct me if I am wrong, but was it not Paul who corrected Peter and not the other way around?
Once again, I am not a church historian. And while I am quick to respond to faulty exegesis I believe that our exegesis needs to be tempered by the work of Christians throughout church history. Maybe one who is versed in the works of our church fathers can illuminate us as to the classic interpretation of Matthew 16:13-20. Any takers??? Ron?
Thank you Sean. It was Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428) (Matthaus-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche. Edited by Joseph Reuss. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1957) (Fragment 92) who said, concerning this passage, "This is not the property of Peter alone, but it came about on behalf of every human being. Having said this confession is a rock, he stated that upon this rock I will build my church. This means he will build his church upon this same confession and faith. For this reason, addressing the one who first confessed him with this title, on account of his confession he applied to him this authority, too, as something that would become his, speaking of the common and special good of the church as pertaing to him alone. It was from this confession, which was going to become the common property of all believers, that he bestowed upon him this name, the rock. In the same way also Jesus attributes to him the special character of the church, as though it existed before hand in him on account of his confession. By this he shows, in consequence, that this is the common food of the church, since also the common element of the confession was to come to be first in Peter. This then is where he says, that in the church would be the key of the kingdom of heaven. If anyone holds the key to this, to the church, in the same way he will also hold it for all heavenly things. He who is counted as belonging to the church and is recognized as its member is a partaker and an inheritor of heaven. He who is a stranger to it, whatever his status may be, will have no communion in heavenly things. To this very day the priests of the church have expelled those who are unworthy by this saying and admitted those who have become worthy by repentance."
beavs007,
I wasn't really disagreeing or agreeing. Just adding my two cents to Ron's comment on Apostolic succession. I have, however, thought seriously about disagreeing with everything Sean writes on this blog, just to give him a hard time.
Ron,
Good comments. Sorry, I didn't take the time to read the article yet.
Tristan, you have not changed a lick since getting married to your imaginary wife.
First off... nice Blog!
I just got wind of it and finally had the time to peruse a bit.
Great dialogue so far on this topic. Don't know that I have great enlightenment on the subject, but I am gaining quite a South American perspective. Living in an 80% catholic dominated society (Brazil) I definitely had a different environment around me for the passing of JP II and the instillation of Ben.
I have to preface my comments with the disclaimer that my pastoral heart pervades everything... often wanting to reduce thoughts to the overly practical so as to be digestible by the masses. Pardon that.
Ron... Thanks for the reminder that we ALL are charged with correctly dividing the Word. Faithfully allowing the Spirit to teach us how to rightly interpret is critical. I agree with your comments and view on the Matt. passage.
Here in Brazil (and universally) I am reminded of the inherent need that we all have for leaders. Jesus was in no way amiss by likening us to sheep who need a shepherd. Thus Jesus' further comments to Peter. And history proves how men will scramble to install a leader, whether qualified or not! Human dictatorial leadership (not to be confused with the righteous Lordship of Jesus) goes hand in hand with legalism. Having one human head is "nice" and "comfortable." It has given the masses something tangible to look at (and thus proving our lack of faith). Long before Peter, people were stiving for a human figurehead. The Israelits plead with Moses to not have God speak directly to them (Ex. 20:19)but to have Moses assume all responsibility. Again, the Israelits demand a king from Samuel, against his counsel and the desire of God. History is repleat with examples of man hiding under the umbrella of "leadership" or "hierarchy" so that we can remain "blind" to the personal responsibility that God has placed on us to care for our eternal salvation. And sadly enough that attitude has permeated organized religion too. It's easier to follow rules, to live by ritual and liturgy, to pass all responsibility to the guy on top. A quick study of Catholicism around the world will teach us that.
I struggle day-in and day-out with so many people who have never been taught how to sudy the word. I dare say that in someplaces the papacy is almost regarded as the Head Warden with all of the parishoners being institutionalized inmates that have lost all ability to function out of FREE WILL or interact with the "outside world." Sad, harshly stated, but true. And so I yearn and strive to simply teach the Word, and to give the tools so that everyone can be blessed with Living Water and the Bread of Life.
We can never afford to deminish Jesus' dialogue and the place that Peter served in God's Kingdom, but I hardly think that he (Peter) serves as some appointed "Head". (That is, I agree with all you really smart guys!) If anything, we should go back to the Davidic promise of an eternal Kingdom... or (as our wonderful Blog Co-Host Dr. McGuire pounded into us in OT survey) Genesis 12 and God's promise of blessing to the world through the obedience and lineage of Abram.
Simply put, we like leaders; we like the touchable/tangible. And we want glory mingled into the story. The greater Jewish nation missed the Messiah because of their notion of what he "ought" to be. The world is no different today. Jesus wants our focus but we choose to focus on the vessels and not the source.
Ya know... I wonder what Peter thought when Christ told him that?...
I wonder if he ever peers down at the world (however theologically accurate that might be)... and is floored by the way we exalt men over God?
It shows me how much more work we have to do... loving and teaching our brothers how to THINK rightly and live acordingly.
This topic's been dead for a while, but the title drew me to comment...
in the constitutions of the apostles, in Book 3, article 20 (under section 3), the apostles decreed:
"We command that a bishop be ordained by three bishops, or at least by two; but it is not lawful that he be set over you by one; for the testimony of two or three witnesses is more firm and secure."
In book 7, article 46 (under section 4), there is no indication of a supremacy of Peter, but an equality among the apostles:
"Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these:-James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Caesarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchaeus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus' death, the second, ordained by me Peter. Of Ephesus, Timotheus, ordained by Paul; and John, by me John. Of Smyrna, Aristo the first; after whom Strataeas the son of Lois; and the third Aristo. Of Pergamus, Gains. Of Philadelphia, Demetrius, by me. Of Cenchrea, Lucius, by Paul. Of Crete, Titus. Of Athens, Dionysius. Of Tripoli in Phoenicia, Marathones. Of Laodicea in Phrygia, Archippus. Of Colossae, Philemon. Of Borea in Macedonia, Onesimus, once the servant of Philemon. Of the churches of Galatia, Crescens. Of the parishes of Asia, Aquila and Nicetas. Of the church of Aeginae, Crispus. These are the bishops who are entrusted by us with the parishes in the Lord; whose doctrine keep ye always in mind, and observe our words. And may the Lord be with you now, and to endless ages, as Himself said to us when He was about to be taken up to His own God and Father. For says He, "Lo, I am with you all the days, until the end of the world. Amen."
but, most importantly, they directly address the problem in article 46 of book 8 (section 5)
"Now this we all in common do charge you, that every one remain in that rank which is appointed him, and do not transgress his proper bounds; for they are not ours, but God's. For says the Lord: "He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that heareth me, heareth Him that sent me." And, "He that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth Him that sent me." For if those things that are without life do observe good order, as the night, the day, the sun, the moon, the stars, the elements, the seasons, the months, the weeks, the days, and the hours, and are subservient to the uses appointed them, according to that which is said, "Thou hast set them a bound which they shall not pass; " and again, concerning the sea, "I have set bounds thereto, and have encompassed it with bars and gates; and I said to it, Hitherto shalt thou come, and thou shalt go no farther; " how much more ought ye not to venture to remove those things which we, according to God's will, have determined for you! But because many think this a small matter, and venture to confound the orders, and to remove the ordination which belongs to them severally, snatching to themselves dignities which were never given them, and allowing themselves to bestow that authority in a tyrannical manner which they have not themselves, and thereby provoke God to anger ... and provoke Christ Jesus to anger, who has made this constitution; and also grieve the Holy Spirit, and make void His testimony: therefore, foreknowing the danger that hangs over those who do such things, and the neglect about the sacrifices and eucharistical offices which will arise from their being impiously offered by those who ought not to offer them; who think the
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
Back to Blog