Does God Lead Us Into Temptation?

Posted by Clark Bates
January 9, 2019




Recently, it has been reported that the Pope Francis has been considering an official change to the “Lord’s Prayer” found in Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:1-4.  This is not a new proposal, as it was discussed earlier in 2017.  The statement being considered for revision is found in Matthew 6:13/Luke 1:4,

---

“And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”

---

The proposed change to the reading would render the verse,

---

“do not let us fall into temptation…”

---

Why the change?  The Pope has said that it leads individuals to believe that God leads us into sin, which He does not do.  He told an Italian reporter, “Do not let me fall into temptation because it is I who fall, it is not God who throws me into temptation and then sees how I fell…A father does not do that.  He helps you get up immediately.”[1]

Many Christians around the world, Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox, would likely agree with the pontiff’s statements, as this is a sentiment shared in much of Christianity.  But the question that presses upon me more than the papal theology is whether or not the change is legitimate?  The most important aspect of translation is a fidelity to the message of the original wording, therefore any change made to the wording, must not be made on theological grounds, but primarily on grammatical grounds.

Before I state my position, it must be stated that I am a Reformed Baptist, confessing the London Baptist Confession of 1689.  I stand in line with the Protestant Reformers in my belief that the Bible and the Bible alone is the sole, infallible rule and authority for the church.  Because of this, I do not recognize any authority of the Pope.  That being said, any objections I may have with the Pope or with a decision being made by the Roman Catholic Church does not extend to individual Roman Catholics.  If you are reading this and are a Catholic, I am not against you personally; I am for the Word of God.

“Lead us” or “Let us”

In both Matthew and Luke, the verse contains the same Greek phraseology, however Luke lacks the second half contained in Matthew.  In Greek, Matthew 6:13 reads,

---

“καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκης ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ρῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.”

---

The first clause, “καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκης ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν” currently reads in most English translations, “and do not lead is into temptation.”  Two preliminary points to make regarding this clause is firstly, that the use of μὴ (mā) is an emphatic negative particle often translated as “no” but with a more intensive force than its counterpart οὐ (ōō).  Therefore, the entreaty to the Lord is emphatic “please do not…”   Secondly, the word εἰσενέγκης is an Aorist Active Subjunctive 2nd person singular from the word εἰσφέρω which generally means “to lead into” or “to bring/carry in”.   There is no aorist form in English, so it becomes difficult to understand initially, but is best understood as an action that has occurred at some time in the past.[2]  The aorist tense only deals with the action having occurred not the duration of the event.  As a result, it is often rendered as a simple past tense.

However, there is another caveat to this word.  While it is an Aorist, it is Aorist Subjunctive.  The subjunctive mood is often defined as the mood of possibility or potentiality, leading many to interpret subjunctives as something that “might” happen.  This is not entirely accurate.  The subjunctive mood does deal with an indefinite action, but a probable one, therefore it is more the mood of probability.[3]  An example of the use of the subjunctive in another context is 1 John 2:28, where it reads,

---

“And now, little children, abide in him so that when he appears, we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming.” (ESV)

---

John uses the subjunctive here, not because he is uncertain if Christ will appear, but because he is uncertain when he will appear.  In many cases the English translation of a subjunctive is accompanied with the English gloss “might”.  At other times, especially if the subject is plural, it can be glossed with “let us”.  Given that the key term being changed in the Lord’s prayer is an aorist subjunctive and the proposed change is “let us not fall into temptation”, this is likely the grammatical reasoning behind the change.

With all this information (assuming you’re still reading) it would appear that there is grammatical justification for the change.  After all, the Pope has even argued that the modern French translations of this passage have made this exact change.[4]  However, there is one caveat that should give us reason to pause. It’s known as a Prohibitory Subjunctive.  A Prohibitory Subjunctive has two features: 1.  It is a subjunctive in the aorist-tense form and 2.  It is negated with the emphatic μὴ.  As we have already seen, both features are present in this passage.  When a Prohibitory Subjunctive is used, the proper English translation should be an Imperative, or for lack of better terminology, it should be rendered as a command without any of the glosses that typically accompany a subjunctive. 

Examples of the Prohibitory Subjunctive are,

---

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets…” (Matt. 5:17)

---

---

“Do not be amazed that I told you that you must be born again…” (John 3:7)

---

and

---

 

“Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch…” (Col. 2:21)

---

Therefore, if we are to be consistent with our translation, the same should be true of Matthew 6:13.  In which case the proposed “let us not fall into temptation” is more accurately rendered as it is currently,

---

“Do not lead us into temptation.”

---

Theology or Methodology

This conclusion brings us to another point: if the reason for the change cannot be defended
grammatically or syntactically, it must be that it is being determined theologically.  In fact, the most [5]  An important point must now be made: when it comes to translation, an individual’s theology should not be their primary methodology.  Translation from one language into another is never exact, but the determinative factors for proper word choices should be the context of the passage itself and the semantic range of the Greek word(s) being translated.  This can be determined from the word’s usage in other Greek texts and the use of forms such as the prohibitive subjunctive in other Greek texts.  As Christians, our theology must come from the Scripture, not be imported into it, therefore the method by which we properly translate that Scripture should be the means by which our theology is shaped, not the other way around.
recent report on this discussion comes from the Daily Express wherein the council advising the Pope is quoted saying that the reason for the change is “theological, pastoral and stylistic.”

But….Does God “Lead” us into Temptation?

Having established that a proper translation of this section of the Lord’s prayer is how it has always been, we now have to answer the theological question behind the proposed change, “Does God lead us into temptation?”  For many, the immediate response is “no.”  After all, the epistle of James says as much,

---

“Let no one say that when he is tempted, I am being tempted by God, for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he, himself, tempts no one.”  (James 1:13 ESV)

---

In this case, how do we understand this section of the prayer?  Unfortunately, there is no, clear consensus of interpretation through the years of Christendom, leaving us today still struggling in many ways with what we are praying for, exactly.  I do not believe that I have the only answer to this question, but I would like to offer, what I feel are some clarifying thoughts:

1. The passage in James is specifically referring to temptation to sin. In such a case, were a man or woman to sin in the face of temptation, they alone bear the responsibility for this sin.  Because of this, it can rightly be said that God does not tempt anyone to sin in such a way that alleviates them from personal responsibility.
2. The word used in both passages translated “temptation” (πειρασμόν) can also mean “testing”. This is the same word used in the LXX reading of Genesis 22:1 where it clearly states that God “tested” Abraham.

What we are left with is a difficult position.  Namely, that God does “test/tempt” individuals, but not in such a way as to alleviate their responsibility if they sin.  Certainly, most Christians would not object to saying that God “tests” His people, for many of us have faced times of trial wherein our faith has been tested.  So, perhaps the struggle for English speakers really is a semantic one.

But there is one more point to consider, the second part of the verse, “but deliver us from evil/the evil one.”  Many, such as John Chrysostom and John Calvin, recognized that these were not two separate thoughts, but one and the same, merely stated in two ways.  If this is the case, “Lead us not into temptation = Deliver us from evil.”  Wherein it may be that the point of this prayer is that God, through His daily guidance and direction of our lives, would spare us from the attack of evil and sin.  In essence, it is a request for sanctification.

Conclusion

I will point out that the Vatican has not made this change official, and it has been met with a great deal of resistance, mostly from Protestant circles.  Even if the Vatican decides on the change, it is unlikely it will be implemented in any translation other than that used in the Roman Catholic Church.  The Pope’s exegetical council has yet to release their reasoning for such a change, so, as yet, my opposition to the change is based on knowledge of the grammar without being able to respond directly to their position.  While this passage is a difficult one for many of us, it must be allowed to remain difficult, for if our theology determines how we translate God’s Word, then it ceases to be God’s Word and becomes nothing more than our own.  I will leave you to ruminate on this passage for yourself, as it stands, but also leave you with the words of Charles Spurgeon in his elucidation of what is meant here:

---

“In the course of providence, the Lord tests our graces and the sincerity of our profession;and for this purpose, he does ‘leads us into temptation.’We entreat him not to try us too severely.Lord, let not my joys or my sorrows become temptations to me.As I would not run into temptation of myself, I pray thee, do not lead me where I must inevitably meet it.But if I must be tried,Lord, deliver me from falling into evil,and specially preserve me from that evil one,who, above all, seeks my soul, to destroy it.Temptation or trial may be for my good, if I am delivered from evil.Lord, do this for me, for I cannot preserve myself.”[6]

---

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42279427

[2] Andreas J. Kostenberger, Benjamin L. Merkle and Robert J. Plummer, Going Deeper with New Testament Greek: An Intermediate Study of the Grammar and Syntax of the New Testament, (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016), 289.

[3] Kostenberger, et al., Going Deeper, 202.

[4] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42279427

[5] https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1056839/pope-francis-lords-prayer-bible-translation-christianity-prayer-pater-noster

[6]Charles H. Spurgeon, Exposition to the Gospel of Matthew.

Why Does My New Testament Quote the Old Testament Incorrectly?

Posted by Clark Bates
October 27, 2017




Have you ever been reading in the New Testament and read a passage where Paul or Matthew, or another writer, quotes from the Old Testament, and you turn to the passage in your Old Testament only to find that it doesn't sound anything like that?  I certainly have.  For many years that puzzled me, and I have little doubt that it might puzzle you too.  Perhaps you've just been told that it's because they used the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) in Jesus' day.  While this is certainly true, a little more information might help you come to terms with some of the differences you find and how you can explain them to others.

How the Septuagint came to be

It’s an established fact that the Old Testament in use during the time of Jesus and his apostles was the Greek Old Testament, commonly referred to, today, as the Septuagint or LXX.  The advent of the Greek Old Testament is surrounded largely with mythology, the most popular account coming from a 2^nd Century BC, Jewish pseudepigraphical work called “The Letter of Aristeas”.  In the “Letter” the story is told that 72 Jewish elders came from Palestine to Alexandria to translate the Torah (first five books) into Greek.  It’s said that they completed the work in 72 days and all did so separately without collaboration resulting in a miraculous unanimity between each text.

Now this story is, of course, rejected on historical grounds, but it’s likely that it still contains a kernel of historical truth.  It would be likely that, under the patronage of the 2^nd century ruler Ptolemy II, Jewish scribes would have been tapped, due to their knowledge of Hebrew, to translate the Torah into Greek.  A large portion of the Israelite community was Hellenized at this stage of history and growing increasingly illiterate of their original Hebrew dialect.  The need for a “Hebrew” Bible in the language of the people was evident.  In keeping with the myth, it does also seem accurate that the initial translation into Greek was the Torah.

As time went on, other books were translated, the Prophets being the next most likely candidate, in keeping with synagogue custom of reading a section of each during service.  As the synagogues became increasingly Hellenistic, they would have needed readings translated into Greek for their Greek speaking congregation.  The next group of books to be translated would have been the Writings (Psalms, Proverbs, Eccl…) although it’s largely thought that the Writings weren’t quite complete by the time of Jesus, which could give some credence to his references to the OT in a bifurcated way (law and prophets) rather than a threefold division (law, prophets and writings) common in later records.

It was around this time that some of the work that we call the Apocrypha were also translated: 1

Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, Tobit, Judith, 1-2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, additions to Jeremiah, Daniel and Esther.  While some of these works were found in Palestine and even found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (notably Ben Sira and Tobit), they were not regarded with the same degree of sacredness as the other books of the Old Testament.

The difference between the Hebrew canon of Palestine and the Greek canon of Alexandria was largely complete by the time of the second century and the first Christian church, which is why many Christians simply received the LXX as the accepted OT, not knowing of the variation and being unfamiliar with the Hebrew language.  In fact, those church fathers who became increasingly familiar with the Hebrew language and text, were quick to disregard the Apocrypha as inspired text, just as the Jewish people before them.  As far as the other variations, they went unrecognized by most in the first few centuries of Christianity.[1]

At this point I must also note that the term “Septuagint”, which simply means seventy, was foreign to the text.  The title, "Septuagint" is a late attribution to refer to what was essentially a large body of various Old Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament.  It wasn’t a bound book, or even a centralized collection, this is often the misconception when it’s mentioned in common discussion.  Just as the Hebrew text of the Old Testament existed in several different recensions, the Greek Old Testament today cannot be easily nailed down to a single text.  So, it’s inappropriate to simply say “The LXX reads…” without knowing which LXX one is talking about, or whether such a reading was a part of the original LXX or came about during one of the recensional processes. It must be understood that what counts today as being the LXX may not be the same LXX that was used by the Apostles.

How all this effects the NT

With all of that in mind, what impact does this have on the New Testament quotations of the Old?  It’s common knowledge that the Apostles often quote the Old Testament in ways that don’t always agree with our English OT.  A key reason for this, is that the English translation of the OT in most circulated Bibles, uses the Masoretic (Hebrew) Text rather than the LXX.  In several places, these texts differ.  The reason for the differentiation can vary, but many are reducible to scribal mistakes or vocalization difficulties.  Here are two such examples:


The first involves Zechariah 12:10.

In the MT it reads

והביטו אלי את אשר דקרו

(wǝhibbīṭū ˀǝlay ˀeṯ ˀašer dāqārū)

It reads in English,

“And they shall look upon me whom they have pierced.”

Now, everyone is familiar with this passage, because it serves as a prophecy of the crucifixion of Christ.  The apostle John uses it in exactly this way in John 19:37.  However in the LXX it reads,

 και επιβλεψονται προς με ανθ ων κατωρχησαντο

(kai epiblepsontai pros me anth’ (h)ōn katōrḵēsanto)

Translated into English, it reads,

“And they shall look at me against whom they have mockingly danced.”

This is a rather significant difference in translation!  I should acknowledge that, from other translations like the Latin Vulgate and Syriac Peshitta we can confirm that the MT reading is the authentic reading, so the question isn’t which is right, but how did the LXX get it so wrong?

The source of the error becomes clear when the variant is realized.  The variant concerns the word דקרן (dāqārū).  The Hebrew letters ד (dalet) and ר (reish) look very similar to the untrained eye.  So similar that they are often mistaken for one another in translation.  When you make that mistake, the word דקרו (dāqārū), which means “pierce” becomes רקדו (rāqādū), which means "dance".  Thus, the scribe, while familiar with Hebrew, made a simple, visual error, resulting a large gap in translation.
Another example involves Psalm 120:5 (119:5 in the LXX).
In the MT, it reads:

אויה לי כי גרתי משך / שכנתי עם אהלי קדר

(ˀōyā lī kī gartī mešeḵ / šāḵantī ˁim ˀohǝlē qēḏār)

Translated into English, we get,

“Woe is me that I have sojourned (in) Meshek / I have dwelt among the tents of Qedar.”

But, in the LXX it reads:

οἴμμοι ὅτι ἡ παροικία μου ἐμακρύθη / κατεσκήνωσα μετὰ τῶν σκηνωμάτων Κηδαρ

(oimmoi  (h)oti (h)ē paroikia mou emakrythē / kateskēnōsa meta tōn skēnōmatōn kedar)

Translated into English, reading,

“Woe is me, for my sojourn has been prolonged / I have dwelt among the tents of Kedar.”

The variant here is triggered by the omission of the preposition “in” in the first colon, which is common in Hebrew poetry.  Nonetheless the LXX translator vocalized the text differently, reading gǝrāṯī  “my sojourn” instead of gartī “I have sojourned” and mašāḵ “I have prolonged, drawn out” instead of mešeḵ Meshek. Now, the MT vocalization must be the original, because it fits with the parallelism of the second colon – sojourned/dwelt, Meshek/Qeda. In this case, while the MT is clearly correct, the LXX version does create a good sentence, one which, frankly, may allow for better theologizing than the MT.

Conclusion

In any case, the reason behind these two examples can account for a great many of the variant readings between the two Testaments.  For those cases that don’t fall into this defense, there is also the possibility of the author using an older Hebrew text not found in either the MT or the LXX.[2]  An interesting effect this “dual OT” usage has on the field of interpretation and inspiration is the question of which version should be considered inspired when uttered by an Apostle?  Do the quotations of the NT mean that the LXX is the inspired OT?  This is the conclusion of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

While this debate will continue regardless, my position on the matter is that the text delivered to God’s people at the time of its first implementation retains the inspiration of God.  Therefore, the Hebrew text, as close as we may come to re-creating the original, and not the Greek, is the inspired Old Testament.  In the case of the NT citations of the Old, where they differ, they are inspired only in so far as they serve the purpose of the Apostle in furthering the theological point being made.
I hope that in some way this brief (very brief) explanation of the LXX and its effect on the Bible will help assuage any uncertainty you may have faced when finding these differences.





[1] Origen, Melito of Sardis, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzen, Hilary of Poitiers, Epiphanius, Basil the Great, Jerome to name a few.

[2] One such case is very possible in Paul’s use of Psalm 68 in Ephesians 4:8, as his quotation doesn’t correspond with either textual tradition but does have an affinity with the Syriac version.

Upon This Rock: Matthew 16:18 in Church History

Posted on June 12, 2017
by Clark Bates



In the previous article on Matthew 16:18-19, I discussed the exegetical approach to the passage and the resulting interpretation.  A consequence of that brief discussion led me to conclude that the Apostle Peter was, in fact, the “rock” in question, but that this did not necessarily lead to papal succession.  There is nothing within the text of the New Testament that suggest or encourages the succession of the apostolic title, nor is there any exegetical basis for the administration of a universal bishopric.  Today’s article serves as a follow-up to that piece and will discuss the historical interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 by the early church.
For Rome, papal authority rests upon two pillars:

1. The scriptural support of Matthew 16:18-19, and
2. The consensus of the church fathers from the 1^st century forward, that Peter was the first pope, or that his successors in Rome held universal jurisdiction over the Christian church.

The argument was presented in the last article that the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 does not comport to the greater testimony of Scripture, nor does it even agree with the writings within the Gospel of Matthew.  The question before us today, is the meaning of the early church fathers, when they wrote of the seat of Peter.  It must be said from the outset that a cursory reading of the church fathers without historical context can be confusing for some.  There are multiple references to the “catholic church”, and to the "chair of Peter".  Given the overwhelming control of this language by the Roman Catholic Church, it is natural to read their definition back into the earliest writings.  It is not enough to merely assert that such a reading is false, but if we are to be faithful historians as well as theologians, it must at least be asked if it is accurate to read Roman Catholic definitions into the terms of the earliest writings.

The Argument of the Catholic Apologist

It is most often asserted unequivocally, and occasionally without any reference, that the church fathers unanimously agreed with the ruling of Vatican I.  That is to say that the seat of Peter, or the papal throne has always been considered the highest authority over the entire Christian church.  It is argued that the language of the fathers places Peter in a lofty position of praise, the bishops of Rome are often referred to as his successors, and the unanimous interpretation of Matthew 16 indicates that Peter is the “rock”.


In response to this last point, I have already identified how the interpretation of Peter as “the rock” of Matthew 16 is clearly valid, but not in the way it is stretched by Rome.  I have addressed the writings of some church fathers already on this website, but the men most often cited by the Catholic Church are Ignatius of Antioch (AD 107); Tertullian (AD 240); Cyprian of Carthage (AD 258); Ambrose (AD 397); and Augustine (AD400).  We will now turn our attention to each of these fathers in kind and assess what they have written.

Ignatius of Antioch

The most frequently cited reference to Roman pre-eminence from Ignatius is found in his Letter to the Romans.  While he does not specifically cite Matthew 16, the suggestion of papal authority is perceived from his description:

“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father:”[1]


It is argued that Rome’s “presidency” is an indication of its universal jurisdiction over the churches.  A great deal must be read into this phrase to support such an assertion.  To begin, there is no mention to a particular Roman bishop as being the “president”, likely because there was no singular bishop in Rome at this time, but an eldership.[2]  This introduction by Ignatius is similar to the introductions used elsewhere by him and the apostles before him.  On its own, there is no reference to papal authority here.

Tertullian

Tertullian was born in Carthage in North Africa and practiced law before his conversion to Christianity. He had a great influence upon the Church fathers of subsequent generations, especially Cyprian, and he is the first of the Western fathers to comment on Matthew 16. In one of his writings Tertullian identifies the rock with the person of Peter on which the Church would be built:


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 earth?[3] 


I will admit that it is a pet peeve of mine to see writings such as this removed from their context and submitted as proof of a particular viewpoint.  Protestant apologists are as guilty of this as Catholics, so consider this a rebuff of both.  It would be preferable and more ethical for apologists who have not read the actual writings for themselves, in their entirety, to refrain from enlisting portions of the writer's words from the internet to support their position, than from defending an argument from a standpoint of historical ignorance.  While space does not permit me to paste the entirety of the writing discussed in this article, footnotes are attached to each, and I invite all readers to visit those links and read the entire writings for themselves.


Regarding this particular section of Tertullian, the greater point being made is in refutation of the Gnostics, claiming that they possessed “special knowledge” not given to the apostles.

He wrote,


What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, “when they were alone, He used to expound” all things which were obscure, telling them that “to them it was given to know those mysteries,” which it was not permitted the people to understand? 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?” Was anything, again, concealed from John, the Lord’s most beloved disciple, who used to lean on His breast to whom alone the Lord pointed Judas out as the traitor, whom He commended to Mary as a son in His own stead? Of what could He have meant those to be ignorant, to whom He even exhibited His own glory with Moses and Elias, and the Father’s voice moreover, from heaven? Not as if He thus disapproved of all the rest, but because “by three witnesses must every word be established.” After the same fashion, too, (I suppose,) were they ignorant to whom, after His resurrection also, He vouchsafed, as they were journeying together, “to expound all the Scriptures.” No doubt He had once said, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot hear them now;” but even then He added, “When He, the Spirit of truth, shall come, He will lead you into all truth.” He (thus) shows that there was nothing of which they were ignorant, to whom He had promised the future attainment of all truth by help of the Spirit of truth.[4]


While more will be said regarding the mention of Peter, the intention of Tertullian in this writing is not to illustrate a Petrine papacy but to argue that the apostles, all of them, were not lacking in any knowledge as it related to Christ or the faith as a whole.  Regarding the position held by Peter and the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 directly, Tertullian also wrote,


If, because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt 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 thee the keys’...and, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound’...In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what key: ‘Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,’ and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which kingdom are ‘loosed’ the sins that were beforetime ‘bound;’ and those which have not been ‘loosed’ are ‘bound,’ in accordance with true salvation..[5]


Still arguing against the claims of Gnosticism, Tertullian clarifies that his understanding of the “rock” of Matthew 16:18, while referring to Peter, is not referring to any succession that would follow him.  The power and unique authority bestowed upon Peter, according to Tertullian, was his alone, and no one else’s.  Peter is the “Rock” because he is the one given the privilege of opening the kingdom of God to men.

Cyprian of Carthage

Cyprian was clearly influenced by Tertullian in his writings and is often cited, in tandem, as affirming the papacy of Peter and the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16.  A reference found frequently comes from his letter On the Unity of the Church, where it reads,


The Lord saith unto Peter, I say unto thee, (saith He,) 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 (Matt. 16:18–19). To him again, after His resurrection, He says, Feed My sheep. Upon him being one He builds His Church; and although He gives to all the Apostles an equal power, and says, As My Father sent Me, even so I send you; receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted to him, and whosoever sins ye shall retain, they shall be retained (John 20:21);—yet in order to manifest unity, He has by His own authority so placed the source of the same unity, as to begin from one.[6]

Being influenced by Tertullian, and having seen how Tertullian understood the teaching of Matthew 16, it would seem odd that Cyprian would hold such a divergent opinion.  When read in the full context, Cyprian’s view is no different than his predecessor,


“The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say 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 also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”  And again, to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep.”  And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whosesoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whosoever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;” yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.[7]


For Cyprian, the apostles existed on equal footing.  Peter, as has been acknowledged here and by others before him, held a special prominence in being the first to open the kingdom and as such, existed in the mind of Cyprian as a symbol unity in the church.  In other writings, he states that the ordination of Bishops in all the churches, not a singular bishop, is the embodiment of the unity found in Peter.[8]  Contrary to the Roman Catholic teaching that Peter begins the line of papacy, Cyprian viewed Peter as the beginning of all elders, in all churches, in all the world.

Ambrose of Milan

Ambrose served as bishop of Milan and acted as the mentor to the great Augustine of Hippo.  He is considered by many to be one of the greatest fathers of the Western Church.  He is often cited as supporting the papal tradition in Matthew 16, most succinctly by writing,


“It is to Peter himself that He says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.’ Where Peter is, there is the Church.”[9] 


As with the others, this quote, taken as it is, certainly seems to imply that Ambrose viewed the seat of Peter as the source of the church.  But Ambrose wrote many things regarding Matthew 16:18, and these writings help to clarify his position.  For instance,


He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so, he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation...Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies.[10]


For Ambrose, the rock is not Peter, but Faith.  Peter being the first to utter the statement of faith, holds the unique and honored position of being first among men to see the truth, and in all writings in which Ambrose refers back to the relationship of Peter and the church it is upon the foundation of Peter’s faith that he is referring.

Augustine of Hippo

For those in the church, Augustine needs no introduction.  Considered to be one of the greatest minds of the Christian faith, his influence has reached farther than any other figure in the church following the apostles.  He served as the bishop of North Africa until his death in 430, having been a writer par excellence in the community of faith.  While his writings have often been claimed by both the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant church, it is his Retractations that bear upon the discussion of Matthew 16,


In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.[11]


I have noted in other articles that not only does Augustine re-state that his interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:18 is Christ, not the apostle, but even more, he allows for the reader to discern for themselves, what the proper interpretation is.  This is clearly not the position of Vatican I, reaffirmed by Vatican II, that anyone who does not agree with the Roman interpretation of these verses is anathema.

While various other sermons of Augustine can be drawn upon for greater clarification, it is perhaps this quote that rejects the Roman Catholic position most certainly,


Before his passion the Lord Jesus, as you know, chose those disciples of his, whom he called apostles.

Among these it was only Peter who almost everywhere was given the privilege of representing the whole Church. It was in the person of the whole Church, which he alone represented, that he was privileged to hear, ‘To you will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 16:19). After all, it isn’t just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity. So this is the reason for Peter’s acknowledged pre–eminence, that he stood for the Church’s universality and unity, when he was told, ‘To you I am entrusting,’ what has in fact been entrusted to all.
I mean, to show you that it is the Church which has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, listen to what the Lord says in another place to all his apostles: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit;’ and straightway, ‘Whose sins you forgive, they will be forgiven them; whose sins you retain, they will be retained’ (Jn 20:22-23). This refers to the keys, about which it is said, ‘whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven’ (Mt 16:19). But that was said to Peter. To show you that Peter at that time stood for the universal Church, listen to what is said to him, what is said to all the faithful, the saints: ‘If your brother sins against you, correct him between you and himself alone’.[12]


For Augustine, especially near the end of his life, the apostle Peter was figurative of the entire church.  The keys of the kingdom of heaven were given to all the church so that all possess the chair of Peter.  Yes Augustine, much like the men cited before him, spoke of Peter in lofty and exalted terms, but it requires a Roman Catholic presupposition to interpret such speech as being indicative of the papacy.  Peter is rightly placed in a position of honor due to his pre-eminence among the twelve, but this is not the equivalent of teaching papal succession, infallibility, or Roman primacy.

Conclusion

Why does this matter?  In his book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating states that the reformers had invented a novel exegesis of Matthew 16 in order to aid them in their rebellion against the papacy. This is a complete misrepresentation. As historian Oscar Cullmann points out, the view of the Reformers was not a novel interpretation invented by them but hearkened back to the patristic tradition: ‘We thus see that the exegesis that the Reformers gave...was not first invented for their struggle against the papacy; it rests upon an older patristic tradition’[13]


It is not my goal, nor that of any other protestant, to turn the early church fathers into Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, or the like.  The simple fact is, they are not.  Neither were they Roman Catholic.  They were men of the Spirit, beholden to the teachings of the Apostles, seeking to understand and codify the faith that had been entrusted to them.  In the days of the early church there was only one church and the very concept of denominations was as foreign as the teaching of transubstantiation.  The Protestant Reformation was not a progressive movement trying to change thousands of years of the church function, but a call to return to the teachings of the apostolic church; the true catholic church; the church of the anti-Nicene fathers and the apostles who led them.
It is not Protestantism that places its reliability and authority on the shoulders of history.  It is not Protestantism that requires a consistency in teaching throughout successive generations of the church.  Protestantism stands on the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone.  If a dogma cannot be defended from Scripture than it cannot be defended elsewhere.  The Roman Catholic Church requires all of Christendom to affirm an authority at the ignorance of church history.  If they were willing to admit that the Church of Rome that exists today has no comparison with the church founded by the Apostles, they would be more credible and their position more defensible, but this is not their position.  This is why the Reformation is not over.  For Protestants, it is a call to cast off the yoke of slavery to tradition and man-centered dogma and embrace the freedom found in Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone, to the glory of God alone.


I do not bear any animosity toward individual Roman Catholics, only against the false gospel being taught by its hierarchy.  I know that the dividing line between the teaching of the Church and the identity of the believer can become easily intertwined, but please hear this, “If you are a Roman Catholic, that does not make you Rome.  It only makes you a student of Rome.  You are not to blame for false teaching.  The debate is not against you, it is against your taskmasters.  I pray that you find freedom in Christ, and peace to your souls.”





[1] Ignatius, Letter to the Romans: Introduction, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.v.html.


[2] This is evidenced by the Letter to the Corinthians attributed to Clement of Rome in which greetings and admonition are given in the name of the “church” in Rome and the repeated use of plural personal pronouns.  Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, I. v.


[3] Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics: Attempt to Invalidate This Rule of Faith Rebutted…,


[4] Ibid.


[5] Tertullian, On Modesty: Of the Difference Between Discipline and Power, the Power of the Keys, 99.


[6] Cyprian of Carthage, On the Unity of the Church, 423.


[7] Ibid.


[8] Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 33: To the Clergy and people, About the Ordination of Celerinus as Reader, 1.


[9] Ambrose of Milan, On Twelve Psalms, 440, 30.


[10] Ambrose of Milan, The Sacraments of the Incarnation of Our Lord, IV.32-V.34.


[11] Augustine, The Retractations, 20.1.


[12] Augustine, On the Saints, Sermon 295. 1-3.


[13] Oscar Cullmann, Peter:Disciple–Apostle–Martyr (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953), p. 162).

Rock of Ages: Was Peter the First Pope?

Posted by Clark Bates
June 1, 2017


Continuing this series of articles and videos in honor of the 500^th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, we turn our attention to the papacy and Matthew 16:18-19.  To best understand the importance of this passage of Scripture to the Roman Catholic Church and papal authority let us return to the edict of the First Vatican Council:


Chapter 1 On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter

1. We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord.
2. It was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said you shall be called Cephas, that the Lord, after his confession, you are the Christ, the son of the living God, spoke these words:

“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.”


“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of supreme pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying: “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep.”

4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.
5. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.
6. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself:  let him be anathema.

Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain forever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time.
2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and forever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood.
3. Therefore, whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So, what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received.
4. For this reason, it has always been necessary for every church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body.
5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:let him be anathema.[1]

As can be seen through the dogmatic decree of the Roman Catholic Church, the entirety of papal authority rests on two pillars:

1. The teaching of Scripture, particularly Matthew 16:18-19, and
2. That this interpretation was the historical interpretation of the church from its inception

In order to properly assess these claims, we must address each individually and on its own merits.  Beginning with Scripture, we read in Matthew 16:18-19:


¹⁸ And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. ¹⁹ I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”


It should at least be acknowledged that even among Protestants, this passage of Scripture has garnered multiple interpretations.  Before conceding the need for a magisterial proclamation however, we must examine the passage in light of both its context and the greater teaching of Scripture.

Context

If we allow the context of Matthew 16 to teach us anything about the verses in question it can reveal some insight into the focal point of chapter.  The Scripture opens with the Jewish leaders demanding that Jesus show them a sign to prove both his authority and identity (1-4), followed by a brief rebuke by the Lord against his disciples, reminding them of the miraculous things he has already done (5-12), suggesting that they already know who he is.  This then opens the door to the discourse between Jesus, Peter, and the other disciples regarding “whom do others say that I am” (13-20).


Clearly, what creates the difficulty with this portion of Scripture is how to identify the “rock” of v.18 upon which the church would be built.  Some have posited the rock as being the confession made by Peter, namely that Jesus is the Messiah.[2]  Others find it more reasonable to see the rock as Jesus himself.[3]  While others still, view the rock as Peter himself, but without the Roman Catholic succession.[4]

So What is the Rock?

In defense of the viewpoint identifying the “rock” of Matthew 16 as Jesus, is Matthew 7:24 in which the author uses the parallel phraseology:


²⁴ “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.”


The context of Matthew 7 being the famous parable of the wise man building his house in contrast with the foolish man.  The rock upon which the wise man builds his house is clearly not the apostle Peter, but the Lord Jesus Christ.  In addition, it must be acknowledged that a first century Jew such as Peter would not see himself as the “rock” as Rome sees it.  A short survey of the Hebrew Scriptures testifies to this.   “Throughout the Old Testament, the God of Israel is often called “rock” (Deut 32: 4, 15, 18, 30; 1 Sam 2:2, 22:32, 47; Ps 18:31, 19:14, 28:1, 42:9, 89:26; Isa 30:29). In the whole story of God’s self-revelation through His relationship with Israel, He proved that He was their provider and caretaker – the rock of their faith.”[5]  In addition, as has already been mentioned, the thrust of Matthew 16 is not the identity of Peter, but of Jesus.


In defense of the rock being the confession made by Peter, is largely the interpretation of St. Augustine, discussed in a previous video.  According to Augustine,


“In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.”[6]


And while it is certainly difficult to be at odds with men of such stature, it is my position that the most faithful reading of Matthew is the identity of the “rock" with the apostle Peter himself.

Peter as the Rock

Now before anyone accuses me of blasphemy or swimming the Tiber you must allow me to explain.  It is an undeniable fact of grammar that there is a clear wordplay being utilized by our Lord.  In the Greek, it appears thus:


¹⁸ κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος (Peter), καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ (rock) οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς·


Simon’s nickname is a male derivative of the Greek word for rock.  There is no place here for silly diversions about there being a difference between “little pebble” and “big stone”, for such nuances are foreign to this text.  The simple truth is that were the Lord trying to distinguish the “rock” from the apostle he could have used the Greek word λιθος which also means “stone”.  The use of πετρα/Πετρος should not be ignored.  Another advantage to this understanding of Matthew is that it has been the consistent interpretation of the church for several centuries following the apostles.


Neither should it be ignored that Peter held a place of prominence within the apostolic twelve.  In all of the Synoptic Gospels, Peter is named first in the lists of the apostles (Matt 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16), and is included among the innermost circle of Jesus’ apostles; even among this band, though, Peter is listed first (Matt 17: 1-8; 26:37; Mark 5: 37; 9:2-8; Luke 9: 28-26; 13:3).  It is Peter who is the leading character in the story of the miraculous catch (Luke 5: 1-11).  It is Peter who tries to imitate Jesus by walking on water (Matt 14:28).  It is Peter who is called “blessed” for confessing that Jesus is the Christ (Matt 16:17), and it is Peter who is reprimanded for rebuking Jesus when the latter spoke of his impending death (Matt 16:23). It is Peter who cuts off Malchus’ ear in order to defend Jesus (John 18:10); it is Peter who is rebuked for doing so (John 18:11). It is Peter who denies Jesus three times (Matt 26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:55-62; John 18:16-18, 25-27); it is Peter who receives a special commission from the post-resurrected Jesus (John 21:15-18). All four of the gospel writers, then, seem to attribute a unique position to Peter.  What’s more, Peter is also featured prominently in the first half of Acts. He guides the process of choosing Matthias as a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:15-26); he functions as a preacher within the Jerusalem Church and as a missionary to those who are outside (Acts 2:14-36; 3:12-26; 4:8-12; 5:29-32; 10:34-43); he is a miracle worker and (as in the case of Paul) some of his miracles resemble that of Jesus (Acts 3:1-10; 5:1-11, 15; 9:32-42); he is the object of divine care and receives visionary or heavenly guidance (Acts 5:17-21; 10:9-48; 12:6-11); and he is a spokesperson for the Jerusalem community (Acts 8:14-25; 11:1-18; 15:7-11).


While it might be easy to dismiss this prominence as being directly contingent to the brashness of Peter’s character, this would be dismissive of the purposes of the Gospel authors as well.  If we examine the text objectively, and the story of the apostles that follows, it becomes quite clear that it is Peter who reveals the kingdom to the world (Acts 2:14-36).  It is Peter who first administers the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10), and it is Peter that becomes a key figure in the spread of the faith to the Diaspora (1/2 Peter).  However, the fact that this exegesis points to Peter as the πέτρα in no way endorses a Roman Catholic understanding of Peter’s successors. In fact, the text states nothing about Peter’s successor, papal infallibility, or exclusive authority over the Church.

What About Apostolic Succession?

In Matthew 16:19 our Lord tells Peter that he will give him the keys of the kingdom.  As we have seen from the First Vatican Council, Rome interprets this to mean the authority of the church, both for the apostle and for all his successors.  However, there is no clear answer as to when these keys are given.  In fact, the power of these keys (i.e. to bind and loose on earth and in heaven) is then given by the Lord to all the apostles in Matthew 18:18.  It does not follow that the Lord would give this singular authority to Peter in 16:19 and then reverse that decision to give it to all apostles in 18:18.  The equality of authority among the twelve relates completely with the teachings of Jesus that masters are not greater than their servants (John 13), and the words of the apostle Paul in Eph. 2:19-22:


¹⁹ So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, ²⁰ built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,²¹ in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. ²² In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.


While the teaching of Scripture clearly reveals a special role for the apostle, it says nothing of a perpetual monarchical bishopric to follow.  Certainly, the apostles appointed elders, deacons, and bishops in the local churches that they founded (1 Tim. 1:1-5; 3:1-13; 5:17-21; 2 Tim. 4:1-5; Tit. 1:5-9), but there is no evidence for the succession of the apostolic office.  No student of the apostle Paul is said to assume his apostolic office after his death, neither is there any indication of a singular, pre-eminent bishop in Rome in the century that follows.  What this suggests, quite forcefully, is that the author of Matthew knows nothing of a perpetual office of Peter.

Conclusion

According to the First Vatican Council (and reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council), papal authority finds its origin in the “gospel evidence” and it having “always been understood by the catholic church”.  In this article, we have seen that the gospel evidence in support of perpetual Petrine authority over the church is considerably lacking.  To suggest otherwise is to limit one’s understanding to the verses in isolation and to come to the text with a pre-determined solution.  When examined objectively, we see that Peter’s privilege of being the “rock” is historically unrepeatable. Understood in its original sense, Jesus assigns the apostle a unique and unrepeatable position in the spiritual edifice of God. On the one hand, the verse speaks of the ἐκκλησία, a fellowship that is to be built in the future, without any time limit being given; on the other hand, the verse speaks about Peter, a human person, whose earthly activity will necessarily be limited by his death.  Just as Peter’s feeding of the lambs in John 21:16ff is limited by his martyrdom, so is Peter’s status as “rock” of the Church limited by his earthly demise.
Having dealt with the gospel evidence of papal authority, the next article will address the historical testimony of the church in regards to Roman pre-eminance.





[1] http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter 1 On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter.


[2] Chrys C. Caragounis, Peter and the Rock (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1990), 89-107.  J. C. Ryle, Matthew (Wheaton: Crossway, 1993), 139.  John Calvin , Commentary on the Harmony of the Gospels, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom32.ii.lii.html


[3] Ulrich Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 2^nd ed., ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson and Clarence Nevin Heller (Durham: Labyrinth Press, 1981), 161.  G. A. F. Knight, “Thou Art Peter,” Theology Today 17 (1960): 168.


[4] Carson, Donald A. Matthew. HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2017.  Keener, Craig S. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1999.  Ridderbos, Herman N. Matthew. Regency Reference Library, 1987.


[5] G. A. F. Knight, “Thou Art Peter,” Theology Today 17 (1960): 168.


[6] John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).

A Roman Catholic Dialogue

Posted by Clark Bates
May 19, 2017


Recently, I engaged in a discussion on social media with a Roman Catholic regarding the historicity of the Pope and the nature of the New Testament Canon.  I found his response to be fairly well presented and would have been very convincing at face value, which has led me to want share the discussion with all of you.  Here is the response as it was sent to me:

The Roman Catholic Position

"The Bishop of Rome was given authority in A.D.33 when Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter. He left Peter in charge of his Church on earth and the Catholic Church still retains this authority through apostolic succession.  The Early Church Father's support this assertion.


'Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty'
(The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]). -Hermas


'Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father'
(Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]). - Ignatus of Antioch.


'The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?'


(The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).  - Cyprian of Carthage.


'With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source' (ibid., 59:14).
-Cyprian of Carthage.


Seems like the Bishop of Rome had authority before 1054 A.D according to early Christians.
And about Scripture... The canon of the bible does come from tradition. How do you know that twenty seven books are in the New Testament? Because it was the Church that chose which books were considered to be inspired. Why not add to it? Why not take out books? because we as individuals so not have that authority.  Christ established one physical and unified Church on Earth- all others have split from Her. By using the Bible as your foundation you are putting your faith in the Bishops of the Catholic Church (including the Bishop of Rome himself) which is something I don't think you would agree with.


Though collections of sacred writings, varying in extent, existed in the various local Churches of Christendom, the canon or official list of Scripture was only compiled by the Church toward the end of the fourth century—at Hippo in 393, Carthage in 397, whence it was sent to Rome for confirmation in 419. The Bible may be called the notebook of the Church, and she has always claimed to be the guardian, exponent, and interpreter of it. By these Councils, the Bible we see today came into be. These Councils are Catholic. How do we know? Well, St. Ignatius of Antioch called the Christian Church Catholic. Let me quote him, 'Where there is Jesus Christ, there is the Catholic Church.' "

A Protestant Response

This was my response:


As I mentioned, there are some errors in your response, and I have to say, not to be condescending or anything, that I have a sneaking suspicion that you haven’t actually read the full writings of the church fathers you’re citing.  The reason I say this, is that I’ve seen these same texts quoted before and they are the same quotes available on Catholic apologetics sites like The New Advent or Catholic Answers, and they always contain the same typo.  You see, Cyprian’s 59^th epistle doesn’t have 14 verses, it has 4.  The quote that claims to be from the 59^th epistle actually comes from the 54^th epistle.  This is a small error, but it’s rather telling when people continue to repeat it.


I’m going to address each of your points individually so that I don’t miss anything.  I’ve decided to leave the Shephard of Hermas quote for my response to your points about the Canon however, so we’ll begin with the quote from Ignatius.  You wrote,


"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]). - Ignatius of Antioch.


This is, of course, the introduction to Ignatius’ letter to the church at Rome, but it doesn’t actually read as you have it translated here.  This is how it actually reads,


“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father:”[1]


This may seem like a small matter but the attempt to change the translation to read “which holds the presidency” is improper.  For the church of Rome to preside over the region of Rome says nothing of any far-reaching supremacy over all churches.  This is nothing more than a standard greeting customary in epistles, including those of Ignatius.  If Ignatius were wishing to emphasize the primacy of the bishop of Rome over the Church why not write as he did to the church at Smyrna,


“It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil.   For if he that rises up against kings is justly held worthy of punishment, inasmuch as he dissolves public order, of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who presumes to do anything without the bishop, thus both destroying the [Church’s] unity, and throwing its order into confusion?. . . Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father.”[2]


Here, Ignatius is giving a primacy to the bishop of Smyrna, but clearly only in the sense that the Smyrnaeans are to submit to their church’s authority.  Why, if Ignatius felt, as you claim, that the Bishop of Rome was the head of the Church, would he not write this in his letter to the Romans, even more emphatically?  If you read Ignatius’ writings in their totality, you cannot come away with the impression that he viewed the universal church to be under the authority of Rome.


Next, you cite some fairly lengthy sections from Cyprian of Carthage:


"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).  - Cyprian of Carthage.


"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14). -Cyprian of Carthage.


The typo I mentioned, is in the second paragraph, but more importantly than that, is the context within which Cyprian is writing.  As with all church fathers, it is terribly easy to misunderstand much of what they say, if one is unfamiliar with why they were writing.  Briefly, the writings of Cyprian, in question here, are in response to the Schism of Novation that took place in the early third century of Rome.

The Novation Schism

At this time in church history, a great persecution had just ceased in which Christians were forced to offer sacrifices to the emperor.  Some Christians had succumbed to the threats and abuse, while others had obtained false documentation that they had sacrificed to the emperor when they had not.  The issue of the day regarded how churches should receive members back into the fold after, a.) sacrificing to false gods, or b.) lying about sacrificing to avoid persecution in the name of Christ.
Cyprian felt that they should be welcomed back into the fold only after performing various penitential acts, whereas Novation, a presbyter of the church of Rome, took a more extreme position, believing that they could never be restored to full communion.  Cyprian supported the more moderate Cornelius for Bishop of Rome, but Novation attempted to subvert the election of Cornelius by having himself ordained as Bishop of Rome at the same time.  This lead to a divide in Rome with two separate bishops.[3]  This is what led to the writing of Cyprian’s On the Unity of the Church.
Regarding the particular quote you have cited, there is quite a bit of important information contained in the ellipsis you have after the quote of Matthew 16.


Here is what Cyprian wrote in entirety,


“The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say 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 also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”  And again, to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep.”  And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whosesoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whosoever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;” yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.”[4]


Immediately, it is evident that Cyprian did not view the apostle Peter as superior to the other apostles.  In his writings, Cyprian uses the apostle Peter as the symbol of unity for the universal church, not as the seat from which the Bishop of Rome presides.  There is no mention in any of his writings that the bishops of Rome are endowed with divine authority over the Church.  Even in Cyprians 54^th epistle cited secondly, the mention of Rome as a “chief church” is indicative of the contemporary view that the Western church found its center at Rome, just as the Eastern church found its center in Jerusalem, not that the church in Rome was pre-eminent above all.
This understanding of Cyprian is not only mine, nor is it one held strictly by Protestants.  This is supported by Roman Catholic historians like Robert Eno, Fr. Maurice Bevenot, James McCue, Michael Winter, and others.  As an example, historian Karlfried Froehlich writes,


“Cyprian understood the biblical Peter as representative of the unified episcopate, not of the bishop of Rome . . .”[5]


More could be said regarding the ecclesiology of both Ignatius and Cyprian, but it is clear even in this short address that they did not hold the position espoused by many Roman Catholic apologists.

Regarding the Canon

Moving to your next point regarding the New Testament Canon you write,


“How do you know that twenty seven books are in the New Testament? Because it was the Church that chose which books were considered to be inspired. Why not add to it? Why not take out books? because we as individuals do not have that authority.  Christ established one physical and unified Church on Earth- all others have split from Her. By using the Bible as your foundation you are putting your faith in the Bishops of the Catholic Church (including the Bishop of Rome himself) which is something I don't think you would agree with.


Though collections of sacred writings, varying in extent, existed in the various local Churches of Christendom, the canon or official list of Scripture was only compiled by the Church toward the end of the fourth century—at Hippo in 393, Carthage in 397, whence it was sent to Rome for confirmation in 419. The Bible may be called the notebook of the Church, and she has always claimed to be the guardian, exponent, and interpreter of it. By these Councils, the Bible we see today came into be. These Councils are Catholic. How do we know? Well, St. Ignatius of Antioch called the Christian Church Catholic. Let me quote him, ‘Where there is Jesus Christ, there is the Catholic Church.’”


In response, I’ll note at the outset that when Ignatius, much like Cyprian and their contemporaries, use the term Catholic Church they are speaking in the terminology of the Apostle’s Creed, not after the manner of Rome.  This has already been addressed above, but it must be re-stated that the universal (catholic) church of the first six centuries or more, was not a term applied to the Roman See, but to the entire Church of Christ.


The canonical model you use is commonly called the Community Model of Canon which states that the Canon of the NT did not exist until the community (i.e. the Church) accepts it.  Ironically, you cite the fourth century lists as the compilation of the Canon, but the Bishop of Rome made no formal affirmation of Canon until the Council of Trent in 1546.  According to Roman Catholic dogma, this means that you, as a Catholic cannot affirm that the NT Canon existed until this date.  In addition, the Roman Catholic Canon includes the writings of the apocrypha (including the Shepherd of Hermas you cited earlier) which are not listed as canonical by any 4^th century catalog.


These are not the earliest lists of the NT canon however, as lists can be found in both Origen’s Homily on Joshua and the Muratorian Fragment, both dating to the early third, possibly late second, century.  The fact that these lists circulated by the late second century indicates that the texts included within them were accepted as authoritative prior to their codification.  Interestingly enough, the Muratorian fragment, the list of Origen, and even the late fourth century list of Athanasius, all exclude the apocrypha as having canonical status, the Muratorian Fragment even citing the Shepherd of Hermas by name as being excluded.


This is one reason why I do not except a citation from the Shepherd of Hermas as supporting the papacy.  Even the church father Clement of Alexandria, often cited as quoting from the Apocrypha prevalently, only acknowledges apocryphal works 16 times in his writings, while quoting from the Gospels alone over 1,000 times.


Beyond that, a community model approach is not an attractive method of identifying Canon, as it allows for the entire period prior to formalized lists to be without clear instruction from the Lord.  For the Protestant that would be only about 300 years, but for the Roman Catholic, it would be nearly 1500 years!  Yet, this is not the case.  From the end of the first century onward the church has repeatedly utilized only the 27 books of the New Testament canon as authoritative.  This is not because the community chose them, but because they acknowledged the divine qualities within them that did not exist in other writings.  These books continued the theology of the Old Testament, and bore the authority of those who walked with Christ.  The Canon of Scripture was never decided by any church council, it was merely recognized and codified.


The irony is that to appeal to the Roman Catholic Church as the determiner of the Canon, one must ask the question, “How do we know the Roman Catholic Church has the authority to decide such things?”  The response would typically be that the Church has that authority because it holds the keys given to Peter.  But the only way to justify that position is to appeal to the New Testament Canon!  This reasoning becomes circular until one accepts that the Canon itself must serve as its own authority in which case circular reasoning is acceptable by way of an appeal to ultimate authority.  The Roman Catholic Church cannot establish its authority over the Canon without appealing to the Canon, therefore even under the Roman Catholic position, the Canon authenticates itself; it is not authenticated by any external agent.


To claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the sole interpreter or expositor of the Scriptures also leaves you at a disadvantage, given that the Pope has never interpreted a biblical text ex cathedra, leaving all other interpretations merely matters of opinion.  In the end, your support of the papacy comes down to a proper understanding of Scripture, which you paraphrased with the opening statement,


“The Bishop of Rome was given authority in A.D.33 when Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter. He left Peter in charge of his Church on earth and the Catholic Church still retains this authority through apostolic succession.  The Early Church Father's support this assertion.”


If I were nitpicking, I would note that the exchange you’re referring to happened several years prior to 33AD given that this is the accepted date of Jesus’ crucifixion, but I believe you simply mean that the authority of Rome was given to Peter after Christ’s death.  But was it?  Is there any point in the New Testament, after the death of Christ that demonstrably shows Peter as being the lead apostle?  Certainly, he was a key figure.  In Acts 1:12-26 it is Peter that instigates the voting in of a new apostle to replace Judas, but it is not clear if this was even an action that was approved by God.  Beyond this, the only other point in which it is argued that Peter holds primacy over the other apostles is Acts 15.  However, while Peter does make a grandiose pronouncement in vv.6-11, we read that in vv.13-21 it is James, the brother of the Lord, who makes the final decision on the matter, saying,


“Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God. . .”(v.19).


We also find that the apostle Peter is publicly rebuffed by the apostle Paul in Galatians 2:11-24 for acting in a hypocritical manner toward the Gentiles.  These are hardly characteristics of one who was supposed to be considered Pontifex Maximus.

Conclusion

While both issues addressed in this dialogue are separate, they both stem from a similar error.  The error of Sola Ecclesia or the belief that a singular human directs the doctrine of Christ’s church.  The belief that Peter held this position cannot be supported through the writings of the New Testament any more than it can be established from the writings of the first few centuries of the church fathers.  In the same way, the Canon of the New Testament was never determined by the church, merely discovered by it.  That is to say, the divine orchestration of the New Testament exists outside of any determinative council or choice of man.  It was communicated by the Holy Spirit to the self-same Spirit residing within His people.




[1] Ignatius, Letter to the Romans: Introduction, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.v.html.


[2] Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans: IX.I, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vii.ix.html.


[3] Everett Ferguson, Church History: From Christ to Pre-reformation, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005): 166-167.


[4] Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church, 4.


[5] Karlfried Froehlich, Saint Peter, Papal Primacy, and the Exegetical Tradition, 1150-1300, p.36, 13, n.28.