Excerpted from my upcoming book on the Papacy, here are my thoughts on why Matthew 23:9's "Call no man father" is not in any way a problem for Catholicism.
I have today posted two youtube videos with regards to this, the text of which is given below. Here are the links to the two youtube videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07L9G7X3O_E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB2nr5_
Enjoy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.) Call No Man Father?
It is often asserted that we should call no man father, at all. This charge essentially always comes from Protestants who have read Matthew 23:9, where Jesus says:
“Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven.”
While I can appreciate that many individuals may read this verse on their own, it seems to me that the majority of people who take this to mean that the practice of calling priest “Father” have first been told that by others upon being introduced to the verse, effectively being told, “Did you know that while Catholics call priests “father” Jesus says to call no man father?” The seeds of misinterpretation have already been sowed. As is the case with many other verses, like 1 Timothy 2:5, this verse alone is memorized by a huge number of people, recited from memory, and used as a proof text. The problem with this approach is that it fails to take the Bible in context; it fails to recognize that individual verses must be read within their context, and that without doing so, the proper meaning of those verses becomes obscured. So, let’s take a look at the context:
Matthew 23:5-12, “All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels. They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues, greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation 'Rabbi.' As for you, do not be called 'Rabbi.' You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers. Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven. Do not be called 'Master'; you have but one master, the Messiah. The greatest among you must be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.”
Is Jesus saying that we must not call anyone other than God the Father by the title of “Father”? No, the answer to that question is absolutely not for Jesus provides an entire list of titles which, if literally forbidden, would make nonsense out of the rest of the New Testament where all of those titles are used to refer to individuals other than God. Jesus doesn’t just forbid “father,” but He forbids master and teacher as well. I will not take up much of the reader’s time in delving into all of the relevant examples, but a few will suffice:
"For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11)
“And he [Stephen] replied, "My brothers and fathers, listen. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was in Mesopotamia, before he had settled in Haran,” (Acts 7:2)
Are we to assume that Paul and Stephen never bothered to listen to what Jesus says in Matthew 23:9?
The problem is that Jesus often spoke using the form of expression known as hyperbole, in which radical exaggeration is used to stress a particular point. If I tell my friend, “You should have gone to this party, everyone was there,” I am making use of hyperbole in order to point out that there were many people there. Hyperbole is alive and well in today’s culture, and it was certainly quite prevalent in first century Palestine amongst the Jews.
This typically does not make much sense to many fundamentalists, and this is not altogether surprising, for when one is accustomed to reading the Bible as a legal document containing explicit instructions and regulations, nuance is completely lost and some verses cannot be interpreted correctly, leaving one with a bizarre reading. Some parts of the Bible are like that. However, many parts are not, because, quite frankly, that is not the genre of most of the Bible. Jesus was often prone to make hyperbolic statements, statements of radical exaggeration in order to make a point. Sometimes, they can still be taken literally without resulting in the complete loss of their meaning; Jesus’ instruction to sell everything and give it to the poor is not an absolute requirement, but greater holiness results from doing so; one can understand it as subordinating the earthly pleasures and goods in one’s life to obedience to God and love of others, and one can understand this being perfectly achieved for some through the complete renunciation of wealth. However, there are other times when a completely literal interpretation totally destroys the meaning, like in Matthew 5:29-30:
If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna.
Precious few Christians, particularly fundamentalists, interpret Jesus’ words here in Matthew as an absolute, literal command. Jesus was not encouraging mutilation, and if He was, then the majority of Christians on the planet would probably be obligated to become blind amputees. No, Jesus is saying something different. In order to emphasize the effort we should make in avoiding sin, He speaks about what is “better” to do. One is better off as a blind amputee, because the current physical state of our body is not as important as the current spiritual state of our soul. Jesus is using hyperbole, bringing up examples of clearly immoral actions against our body to emphasize the need to remove from one’s life those things which cause one to sin.
Now, for another point – I myself have heard atheist debaters try to argue that Jesus was speaking literally when He said that if your hand causes you to sin, you should cut it off, for the purposes of taking a stance against Christianity on the basis of incredulity at the straw man that has been created and propped up. If this is the manner that hostile non-Christians approach the Bible, taking things out of context, oversimplifying what is written, and taking things with an extreme literalism so that the Christian position is ridiculed and viewed as unpalatable, as untenable…then why should any Christians choose to adopt the same approach???
Did John Calvin believe that we should call no man father? Let’s take a look:
Wicked magistrates are indeed appointed by God, but it is in his anger, and because we do not deserve to be placed under his government. He gives a loose rein to tyrants and wicked men, in order to punish our ingratitude, as if he had forsaken or ceased to govern us. But when good magistrates rule, we see God, as it were, near us, and governing us by means of those whom he hath appointed. The Prophet means that Eliakim will perform the part of a father, because he has been endued with the Spirit of God. At the same time he reminds all godly persons that they will have good reasons for wishing the government of Eliakim, because it tends to the general advantage of the Church.
By the appellation father, he shews what is the duty of a good magistrate. The same thing has been taught by heathen writers, that “a good king holds the place of a father;” and when they wished to flatter those who crushed the commonwealth by the exercise of tyranny, nature suggested to them to call the tyrants by the honorable title of “fathers of their country.” In like manner, philosophers, when they say that a family is the picture of a kingdom, shew that a king ought to hold the place of a father. This is also proved by the ancient titles given to kings, such as “Abimelech,” (Gen. 20:2, 8,) that is, “my father the king,” and others of the same kind, which shew that royal authority cannot be separated from the feelings of a father. Those who wish to be regarded as lawful princes, and to prove that they are God’s servants, must therefore shew that they are fathers to their people.
But what about Matthew 23:9? Clearly, Calvin must have ignored that verse in favor of the traditions of men, just like Catholics…or not. Let’s see what Calvin has to say:
9. And call no man on earth your Father. He claims for God alone the honor of Father, in nearly the same sense as he lately asserted that he himself is the only Master; for this name was not assumed by men for themselves, but was given to them by God. And therefore it is not only lawful to call men on earth fathers, but it would be wicked to deprive them of that honor. Nor is there any importance in the distinction which some have brought forward, that men, by whom children have been begotten, are fathers according to the flesh, but that God alone is the Father of spirits. I readily acknowledge that in this manner God is sometimes distinguished from men, as in Heb 12:5, but as Paul more than once calls himself a spiritual father, (1 Cor. 4:15, Phil. 2:22,) we must see how this agrees with the words of Christ. The true meaning therefore is, that the honor of a father is falsely ascribed to men, when it obscures the glory of God. Now this is done, whenever a mortal man, viewed apart from God, is accounted a father, since all the degrees of relationship depend on God alone through Christ, and are held together in such a manner that, strictly speaking, God alone is the Father of all. (Calvin's Commentaries, Vol. 33: Matthew, Mark and Luke, Part III: Matthew 23:1-12; Mark 12:38-39;
Luke 11:43, 45-46; 20:45-46)
I could hardly make this argument better. Calvin rightly acknowledges the context of Matthew 23; Jesus is effectively using hyperbole in order to emphasize that one must not forget or try to replace the role of God as Spiritual Father of all, as He saw the Pharisees and Sadducees doing. They were supplanting God’s role of Father, and Christ’s role as teacher and master, not realizing that their particular roles were from the Father, and from Christ. Such is made evidently clear in Hebrews 12:9:
Besides this, we have had our earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them. Should we not (then) submit all the more to the Father of spirits and live?
So we see how God’s fatherhood in this chapter is related to earthly fatherhood. God being the ultimate Father does not involve a rejection of human fatherhood; rather, it is the source of human fatherhood, both physical and spiritual. If withholding the role of “father” is required, and using that term as a title is forbidden, than numerous verses of the Bible need to be thrown out. The problem is not with those others verses; the problem is when we take “call no man father” as something other than hyperbole.
Calvin even touches upon the fallback of those who hold to the more-literal view, that titles related to spiritual fatherhood are what Jesus is prohibiting. Such is not the case, otherwise Paul violated that command time and time again, calling the Corinthians his “children” and referring to Timothy as his child and son, when we know that the celibate, and Jewish, Paul was most certainly not Timothy’s father (see Acts 16:1-3). The Apostle Peter refers to Mark as his son, and the Johannine Epistles abound in reference to “fathers and children” – rather awkwardly, if a spiritual fatherhood is not being referred to.
1 John 2:12-13, “I am writing to you, children, because your sins have been forgiven for his name's sake. I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have conquered the evil one.”
And
3 John 4, “Nothing gives me greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth.”
It’s likely that John was referring to his spiritual children, as well as to his fellow spiritual fathers – fellow priests. Only if one has a prior bias against spiritual fatherhood will they insist that these references must be to biological children. We already know Paul used the same kind of terminology in his letters, so there is already a biblical precedent for how the Johannine author speaks.
- Sean
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Matthew 16:18-19, Yet Again...
You replied to Dennis's post on Feb 6, 2008 at 2:54 PM.
Dennis,
"Leaving that aside though, it is audacious for the Catholic church to claim it is the "one true church" when it didn't even come into existance until some one to two hundred years after Christ. (See the quote and link below)"
The link seriously oversimplifies the history and passes over a great deal of it.
"Until that time "true Christianity" existed without any head save Christ himself, as opposed to a pope, and there was no formal organization called the "Catholic Church." Not only that but the first official declaration came from the writtings of St. Ignasious (sorry if I spelled it wrong) in a letter considered apocrypha by so called protestant churches today. "
The main letters of Ignatius are not regarded as Scripture by anyone, but most scholars accept them as authentic, particularly Protestant ones. Aversion to those letters comes about because Ignatius was clearly a Catholic and not a Protestant.
There is a plethora of patristic and early Christian evidence in favor of great authority exercised by the bishop of Rome as a result of his claiming to be the successor of Peter and regarded as such. Have you looked into this?
Care to tell me why Novatian got away with deposing so many people in the eastern churches? (If you are not familiar with this I could give you an overview).
"That being the case I have to disagree with you that all "protestant" churches are break aways from the Catholic church which did even exist when Christianity first began. Evidence of this can be found in the book of Acts which was written between 63 AD and 70 AD. In the chapter eleven verse twenty six the Apostle Luke records that the term "Christian" was first coined with reference to believers and followers of Christ."
The only qualification is that many Protestant churches broke off from other Protestant churches. We also shouldn't consider Protestantism as "non-Catholicism." You can't say the early Christians were "just Christian" and think that possibly gives a historical claim to nondenominational Protestants. Protestant imputational theology was completely absent in the early period, as was sola scriptura and a host of other beliefs. Historically speaking, Protestantism did indeed come out of Catholicism.
You haven't exactly shown that the Catholic Church did not exist very early on - indeed, from the very outset.
"We have also had this discussion before regarding the authority of Peter. Scripture does not indicate that he was the head of the church or that Jesus gave him power above the rest of the Apostles. In Matthew 16:17-18 Jesus said you are the rock [petos in the Greek meaning "detached rock"] which referred to Peter's confession. Then Jesus continues by stating that "upon this rock [petra in the Greek meaning "bedrock"] I will build my church." The first form of the word is feminin while the second is in the masculine voice. Quite clearly Christ was not stating that he would build his church on Peter but rather that he would build it on Peter's confession. "
The confession is not the focus at all.
In first century Koine Greek, there is NO DISTINCTION IN MEANING between petros and petra. If you would like, I can copy and paste quotes from various Protestant sources and scholars that concur that there is no real difference between the two terms in Matthew 16:18. Plus Jesus spoke in Aramaic, and it would have been "cepha" and "cepha" - the same word used for rock in both places. The "detached stone" or "pebbles" argument has been conclusively dismantled and destroyed.
Christ wasn't speaking in GREEK. Rather, Cepha is translated as "Petros" because to call Simon "Petra" would be to give a man a feminine name. Simply put, you don't call the Apostle Paul "Paula" so why would you call Peter "Petra"?
You are assuming that "petra" refers to Peter's confession when there is absolutely no evidence to suggest this - you assume this, and you have not provided anyone in this topic discussion with an exegetical basis for this assumption.
"I have a car, and it is blue." What's blue? The car. The most immediate antecedent for the demonstrative pronoun "taute" is PETROS...so "and upon this rock" (kai taute petra) would refer to the previous noun, Petros. Peter is the rock.
Notice also that Jesus doesn't dwell on the CONTENT of the confession. Verse 17 isn't about the confession; it is about the revelatory process by which Peter received the confession. You seem to have overlooked this.
You also appear to have overlooked verse 19, in which Peter, (you, SINGULAR) is given the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.
So here is the picture of what is going on in this passage:
Jesus asks the Apostles a question, about who others say He is. Then He asks them. And Peter, the usual spokesperson, speaks up and makes his confession in verse 16. Then Jesus calls him blessed because he received that confession from a REVELATION FROM THE FATHER - that is what Jesus focuses on.
Next, Jesus changes Peter's name to Cepha, or "Rock" and since we know biblical name changes involve a person receiving a new role and authority dependent upon the meaning of their new name, we know that Peter's new role was to be "the Rock."
Contextually, then, it is RIDICULOUS to insist that "taute petra" is not referring to the exact same person that Jesus, for the first time, just RENAMED rock and bestowed upon the ROLE of Rock.
Jesus even then gives Peter the keys (says He will give) of the kingdom of Heaven and the authority to bind and loose. While in Matthew 18:18 we read that all of them could bind and loose, ONLY Peter receives the keys. Why? Because of the typological involved.
See Isaiah 22:20-22. Just as Eliakim functioned as the prime minister or "master of the palace" for the king in the Old Testament, Peter was to serve that role in the early Church.
Doctrinally speaking, is the Church built upon Peter's confession? Absolutely.
Doctrinally speaking, is the Church built upon Christ (the other usual preferred referrent of Protestants for this verse)? Absolutely.
Doctrinally speaking, is the Church built upon the faith of Peter? Absolutely.
Yet are ANY of these things, according to a full-out contextually-minded exegesis of Matthew 16, the primary referrent of "taute petra"?
No.
The contextual and grammatical evidence favors the Catholic interpretation, and as many Protestant scholars have admitted, the primary motivation among Protestants for denying the Catholic interpretation has been anticatholic bias.
"we non-Catholics do not believe in this teaching because it is not founded in Scripture"
Well, where does Scripture say to not believe in any particular teaching because it is not founded in Scripture? It doesn't say that; Sola Scriptura is unbiblical, yet another invention of the Protestant Reformers.
- Sean
Dennis,
"Leaving that aside though, it is audacious for the Catholic church to claim it is the "one true church" when it didn't even come into existance until some one to two hundred years after Christ. (See the quote and link below)"
The link seriously oversimplifies the history and passes over a great deal of it.
"Until that time "true Christianity" existed without any head save Christ himself, as opposed to a pope, and there was no formal organization called the "Catholic Church." Not only that but the first official declaration came from the writtings of St. Ignasious (sorry if I spelled it wrong) in a letter considered apocrypha by so called protestant churches today. "
The main letters of Ignatius are not regarded as Scripture by anyone, but most scholars accept them as authentic, particularly Protestant ones. Aversion to those letters comes about because Ignatius was clearly a Catholic and not a Protestant.
There is a plethora of patristic and early Christian evidence in favor of great authority exercised by the bishop of Rome as a result of his claiming to be the successor of Peter and regarded as such. Have you looked into this?
Care to tell me why Novatian got away with deposing so many people in the eastern churches? (If you are not familiar with this I could give you an overview).
"That being the case I have to disagree with you that all "protestant" churches are break aways from the Catholic church which did even exist when Christianity first began. Evidence of this can be found in the book of Acts which was written between 63 AD and 70 AD. In the chapter eleven verse twenty six the Apostle Luke records that the term "Christian" was first coined with reference to believers and followers of Christ."
The only qualification is that many Protestant churches broke off from other Protestant churches. We also shouldn't consider Protestantism as "non-Catholicism." You can't say the early Christians were "just Christian" and think that possibly gives a historical claim to nondenominational Protestants. Protestant imputational theology was completely absent in the early period, as was sola scriptura and a host of other beliefs. Historically speaking, Protestantism did indeed come out of Catholicism.
You haven't exactly shown that the Catholic Church did not exist very early on - indeed, from the very outset.
"We have also had this discussion before regarding the authority of Peter. Scripture does not indicate that he was the head of the church or that Jesus gave him power above the rest of the Apostles. In Matthew 16:17-18 Jesus said you are the rock [petos in the Greek meaning "detached rock"] which referred to Peter's confession. Then Jesus continues by stating that "upon this rock [petra in the Greek meaning "bedrock"] I will build my church." The first form of the word is feminin while the second is in the masculine voice. Quite clearly Christ was not stating that he would build his church on Peter but rather that he would build it on Peter's confession. "
The confession is not the focus at all.
In first century Koine Greek, there is NO DISTINCTION IN MEANING between petros and petra. If you would like, I can copy and paste quotes from various Protestant sources and scholars that concur that there is no real difference between the two terms in Matthew 16:18. Plus Jesus spoke in Aramaic, and it would have been "cepha" and "cepha" - the same word used for rock in both places. The "detached stone" or "pebbles" argument has been conclusively dismantled and destroyed.
Christ wasn't speaking in GREEK. Rather, Cepha is translated as "Petros" because to call Simon "Petra" would be to give a man a feminine name. Simply put, you don't call the Apostle Paul "Paula" so why would you call Peter "Petra"?
You are assuming that "petra" refers to Peter's confession when there is absolutely no evidence to suggest this - you assume this, and you have not provided anyone in this topic discussion with an exegetical basis for this assumption.
"I have a car, and it is blue." What's blue? The car. The most immediate antecedent for the demonstrative pronoun "taute" is PETROS...so "and upon this rock" (kai taute petra) would refer to the previous noun, Petros. Peter is the rock.
Notice also that Jesus doesn't dwell on the CONTENT of the confession. Verse 17 isn't about the confession; it is about the revelatory process by which Peter received the confession. You seem to have overlooked this.
You also appear to have overlooked verse 19, in which Peter, (you, SINGULAR) is given the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.
So here is the picture of what is going on in this passage:
Jesus asks the Apostles a question, about who others say He is. Then He asks them. And Peter, the usual spokesperson, speaks up and makes his confession in verse 16. Then Jesus calls him blessed because he received that confession from a REVELATION FROM THE FATHER - that is what Jesus focuses on.
Next, Jesus changes Peter's name to Cepha, or "Rock" and since we know biblical name changes involve a person receiving a new role and authority dependent upon the meaning of their new name, we know that Peter's new role was to be "the Rock."
Contextually, then, it is RIDICULOUS to insist that "taute petra" is not referring to the exact same person that Jesus, for the first time, just RENAMED rock and bestowed upon the ROLE of Rock.
Jesus even then gives Peter the keys (says He will give) of the kingdom of Heaven and the authority to bind and loose. While in Matthew 18:18 we read that all of them could bind and loose, ONLY Peter receives the keys. Why? Because of the typological involved.
See Isaiah 22:20-22. Just as Eliakim functioned as the prime minister or "master of the palace" for the king in the Old Testament, Peter was to serve that role in the early Church.
Doctrinally speaking, is the Church built upon Peter's confession? Absolutely.
Doctrinally speaking, is the Church built upon Christ (the other usual preferred referrent of Protestants for this verse)? Absolutely.
Doctrinally speaking, is the Church built upon the faith of Peter? Absolutely.
Yet are ANY of these things, according to a full-out contextually-minded exegesis of Matthew 16, the primary referrent of "taute petra"?
No.
The contextual and grammatical evidence favors the Catholic interpretation, and as many Protestant scholars have admitted, the primary motivation among Protestants for denying the Catholic interpretation has been anticatholic bias.
"we non-Catholics do not believe in this teaching because it is not founded in Scripture"
Well, where does Scripture say to not believe in any particular teaching because it is not founded in Scripture? It doesn't say that; Sola Scriptura is unbiblical, yet another invention of the Protestant Reformers.
- Sean
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Extensive Biblical Argument for the Papacy
Originally posted here:
http://syr.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=5731&post=67034&uid=5584629838#post67034
You replied to Ben's post 5 minutes ago.
Ben,
Well, it IS sufficient to establish the Petrine basis upon which the Papacy rests. Obviously, if Peter didn't have a "Pope-like" role, then it would be rather inane to suggest that his successors, were he to have any, possessed such a role.
What I'll do is I'll provide a very extensive biblical argument in favor of the Petrine Primacy and the role of the Bishops of Rome as Peter's successors in that said office.
Peter received a new name as a result of the revelation he received, as indicated by verse 17 - not primarily due to the confession, but due to the fact that he RECEIVED the confession directly from God, and not from "flesh and blood" (semitism for "human beings").
A new name, biblically, designates a new role for the individual in question; Peter received a new name, and his new role or new authority was what his new name meant. Just as Abram became Abraham and thus "Father of a multitude" Simon became Peter and thus "The Rock."
Contextually, how does this fit? Because Jesus had been warning His Apostles about the danger of the leaven of the Pharisees. The importance of Peter's revelation was that it bypassed the danger of such "leaven" that came solely from "flesh and blood." Peter's role as the "Rock" of the Church was such that he would be a bulwark for the faith and would protect it from "leaven" or heretical error by virtue of a charism of infallibility. Peter spoke infallibly in Matthew 16:16, and he likewise spoke infallibliy in the Acts 15 Council of Jerusalem, ending the debate over the need for circumcision. Through HIS MOUTH the issue was ended, because he was the "Rock," the ultimate protection, within Christ's post-resurrection Church, against heresy.
Now, Jesus had used this rock metaphor before, in the very same Gospel:
Matthew 7:24-27, "Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock. And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined."
The importance of setting a foundation upon a "Rock" was thus quite paramount. The REASON Peter was renamed "Rock" and the REASON the Church was built upon Him was because, due to the grace of God and the gift of the Holy Spirit, Peter, as the first Pope, was "preserved from doctrinal error." He was preserved from leaven, and THAT is why he was a suitable foundation for the Church to be built upon - because Peter would be safeguarded from the meager opinions of "flesh and blood."
It is this sort of understanding that forms the basis of passages such as Luke 22:31-32, "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers."
So here's the scenario - Satan demanded to have ALL of them (all the Apostles) but Jesus prayed that the faith of PETER would not fail. Once Peter turned back after denying the Lord, his role would be to strengthen or confirm his brethren; in other words, what was protecting the other Apostles from the efforts of Satan was Jesus, the Rock upon which they were based.
Nicholas Russo and St. Francis de Sales:
"Infallibility is nothing else but a supernatural gift by which the recipient is shielded from all error against faith. But this is clearly expressed in “that thy faith fail not,” implied in the command to confirm his brethren, and supposed in the very failure of Satan’s attempts to destroy the Church, which is personified in the Apostles…. [T]he prayer was offered for Peter alone. By strengthening the head, Jesus wished to prevent the rest from staggering. Peter abides always in his successors. For it would be strange to confer infallibility to Peter only to have it die with him and to leave the rest of his successors vulnerable in times of greater danger. By charging Peter to confirm his brothers, Jesus does nothing less than declare him their head once again. If he has the task of feeding the pastors, must he not be sovereign pastor himself?"
The word for strengthen or confirm here is from sterizo, to “fix firmly” - his brothers in the faith. The Greek verb, used 13 times in the N.T., means to prop up, strengthen, confirm, establish.
Further evidence is found in John 21:15-17, "When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep."
It should be first noted that this "interrogation" by Jesus involves giving Peter the chance to atone for his triple-denial of Christ with a triple-affirmation of love for Christ.
Secondly, we must pay attention to the Greek of the commands Jesus gives Peter - boskein, poimanein, boskein. Boskein effectively means to feed. But poimanein has a little bit broader usage. It can mean to "tend" but also "to govern."
Jesus is giving Peter a pastoral role over the rest of the flock - over his fellow Apostles and the rest of the Church. He is to feed and tend/govern Christ's sheep on behalf of Christ.
1 Peter 5:1-3, "So I exhort the presbyters among you, as a fellow presbyter and witness to the sufferings of Christ and one who has a share in the glory to be revealed. Tend the flock of God in your midst, (overseeing) not by constraint but willingly, as God would have it, not for shameful profit but eagerly. Do not lord it over those assigned to you, but be examples to the flock."
Contrary to the exegesis of some fundamentalists, Peter is not here suggesting that pastoral leaders should not exert authority over those in their care. Rather, Peter is here directly appealing to what Christ said about the Gentiles lording their authority over those under them. Ultimately, Christian leadership and authority must be tempered by SERVICE for others. This is a very strong reason why the Pope is considered the "servant of the servants of God."
Here Peter is insightfully understanding what Jesus had spoken to him, and he is telling the presbyters to tend/govern THEIR flocks rightly, doing so through service and not lordship. And the very fact that Peter is doing this, telling them to perform pastoral care in this manner, is demonstrative of HIS ROLE as an overseer, as a bishop. He is "tending Christ's sheep" as he was told to do in John 21 by instructing them on how they are to tend Christ's sheep among them.
What a hierarchical picture this gives! In fact, 1 Peter could even be understood as a papal encyclical, given its wide circulation to the "chosen sojourners of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Peter 1:1) - namely, the Christians in those areas.
This is a huge geographical expanse in which Peter is effectively instructing all the presbyters in the churches there on how to tend or govern THEIR flocks - and, in doing so, he tends/governs HIS flock, the flock given to him by Jesus Christ, the Chief Shepherd.
It is interesting that the letters of Paul were always letters to specific city-churches; none of them were such widespread encyclical-style letters. Peter is addressing 5 provinces in Asia Minor, a huge expanse.
I don't know what your stance is on traditional authorship of the New Testament material - some would dispute whether or not 1 Peter was even written by Peter, primarily on the grounds of the refined Greek of the epistle. But J. R. Michaels writes: "The notion that Peter had help in the composition of this letter does not stand or fall with the theory about Silvanus. If 1 Peter is, as it appears to be, an encyclical on behalf of the church at Rome ('Babylon') to a wide circle of churches on the frontiers of the Roman Empire in five provinces of Asia Minor ('Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,' 1 Pet 1:2), then the author would likely have had scribal help with vocabulary and style, and his helpers would likely have remained anonymous." (Dictionary of the Later New Testament and its Developments, art. "1 Peter")
Now, as for further biblical support:
Luke 12:41: "Then Peter said, "Lord, is this parable meant for us or for everyone?" And the Lord replied, "Who, then, is the faithful and prudent steward whom the master will put in charge of his servants to distribute (the) food allowance at the proper time?"
This is extremely interesting. OBVIOUSLY, contextually, this parable IS meant for both "us" AND "everyone." And it is especially meant for Peter, given Jesus' reference to the "faithful and prudent steward" whom the master will "put in charge of his servants."
Peter is that faithful and prudent steward that Christ put in charge of his servants - in Matthew 16:18-19, in Luke 22:31-32, and especially in John 21:15-17. In fact, Jesus encouraging Peter to "feed" the sheep in John 21 would seem to parallel with Jesus speaking of the chief steward being in charge of the other servants to distribute the food allowance at the proper time.
Jesus goes on to say, in the passage:
"Blessed is that servant whom his master on arrival finds doing so. Truly, I say to you, he will put him in charge of all his property. But if that servant says to himself, 'My master is delayed in coming,' and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, to eat and drink and get drunk, then that servant's master will come on an unexpected day and at an unknown hour and will punish him severely and assign him a place with the unfaithful. That servant who knew his master's will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely; and the servant who was ignorant of his master's will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more."
This could be seen as a warning particularly to Peter, although all Christians are obviously referrents as well.
Consider that Jesus was speaking of the "Chief Steward" and is speaking about how that one will be put in charge of all his property. What is Jesus alluding to?
Genesis 41:39-44, "So Pharaoh said to Joseph: "Since God has made all this known to you, no one can be as wise and discerning as you are. You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people shall dart at your command. Only in respect to the throne shall I outrank you. Herewith," Pharaoh told Joseph, "I place you in charge of the whole land of Egypt." With that, Pharaoh took off his signet ring and put it on Joseph's finger. He had him dressed in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain about his neck. He then had him ride in the chariot of his vizier, and they shouted "Abrek!" before him. Thus was Joseph installed over the whole land of Egypt. "I, Pharaoh, proclaim," he told Joseph, "that without your approval no one shall move hand or foot in all the land of Egypt."
The office of Chief Steward, here depicted as being held by Joseph in Egypt, was a common office in the ancient world. The person in question effectively played the role of second-in-command to the King (in this case, Pharaoah) and was in charge over what the King was in charge of, given authority over it, to rule on behalf of the King.
Now, you may ask why the Papacy should be deemed legitimate if it is based on an office found in ancient Egypt. That would be a fair question. And here is a fair answer - this office was ALSO found in ancient Israel.
Isaiah 22:20-22, "On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open."
In ancient Israel, you had a King (at the time of Eliakim, King Hezekiah) and the King had as his right-hand-man a Prime Minister, a Chief Steward, also known as the "Master of the Palace."
Isaiah 36:3, "there came out to him the master of the palace, Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, and Shebna the scribe, and the herald Joah, son of Asaph."
As we see in Isaiah 22:20-22, this office would be transferred to Eliakim, symbolized by the giving of the key of the house of David to Eliakim. In the ancient Middle-eastern world, keys symbolized authority, so to speak of giving someone "keys" was to speak of giving them authority. This went so far to the point where some of these individuals in various kingdoms wore literal keys on their bodies to symbolize their authority.
Eliakim had the power to "open and shut" via his royal authority, and was a "father" to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. He was in charge, especially, in the case of the physical absence of the King.
And now we come full circle when we return to Matthew 16:18-19:
"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
We now know exactly which OT passage Jesus is alluding to here, AND the OT office He is alluding to - the OT office of "Master of the Palace." It is entirely historically likely, and many historians can attest to this, that following Israel's time in the land of Egypt, it included this office in the monarchy that it was to establish.
Jesus, as we well know, is a Davidic King, establishing a heavenly, yet STILL DAVIDIC, Kingdom:
Luke 1:32-33, "He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."
If Jesus is enthroned in a new, Davidic Kingdom - the Spiritual Israel - then it makes typological sense for his Kingdom to be structured rather similarly to the Kingdom of Old. Thus, that is why Jesus appoints Peter as the new "Master of the Palace" over the others in the Church.
Eliakim had the power to open and shut; Peter had the power to bind and loose.
Eliakim was a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem; Peter was a father to the inhabitants of the spiritual Jerusalem, the Church - hence the title of Papa, or "Pope."
Eliakim was in charge in the case of the physical absence of the King; likewise, Peter was in charge of the Church immediately upon the Ascension of Christ and the beginning of His physical absence - which explains why Peter immediately "gets to work" in the first half of Acts, including his actions of calling for a replacement for Judas, his role of spokesman and leader at Pentecost, and his prominent and deciding role in the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council.
Now, the issue of successors is also explained by our typological basis. Was Eliakim the sole Master of the Palace, for all time? Absolutely not. He received an office of dynastic succession, an office that was intended to continue past him - the office being greater than the man in the office.
Likewise, Peter received an office that was to continue past HIM - an office that was also one of succession. After all, the primary importance of the Master of the Palace was to rule the kingdom on behalf of the King in the PHYSICAL ABSENCE OF THE KING. And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Jesus STILL physically absent? Has the Parousia come yet? ; )
Therefore, the NEED for the succession of the Petrine office remains. The Tradition of the Church is also absolutely unanimous that the Bishops of Rome were the successors of Peter, from Linus to Anacletus to Clement and so on and so forth.
Thus, the importance of papal infalliblity is INTRINSICALLY related to the nature and office of the Papacy itself.
- Sean
http://syr.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=5731&post=67034&uid=5584629838#post67034
You replied to Ben's post 5 minutes ago.
Ben,
Well, it IS sufficient to establish the Petrine basis upon which the Papacy rests. Obviously, if Peter didn't have a "Pope-like" role, then it would be rather inane to suggest that his successors, were he to have any, possessed such a role.
What I'll do is I'll provide a very extensive biblical argument in favor of the Petrine Primacy and the role of the Bishops of Rome as Peter's successors in that said office.
Peter received a new name as a result of the revelation he received, as indicated by verse 17 - not primarily due to the confession, but due to the fact that he RECEIVED the confession directly from God, and not from "flesh and blood" (semitism for "human beings").
A new name, biblically, designates a new role for the individual in question; Peter received a new name, and his new role or new authority was what his new name meant. Just as Abram became Abraham and thus "Father of a multitude" Simon became Peter and thus "The Rock."
Contextually, how does this fit? Because Jesus had been warning His Apostles about the danger of the leaven of the Pharisees. The importance of Peter's revelation was that it bypassed the danger of such "leaven" that came solely from "flesh and blood." Peter's role as the "Rock" of the Church was such that he would be a bulwark for the faith and would protect it from "leaven" or heretical error by virtue of a charism of infallibility. Peter spoke infallibly in Matthew 16:16, and he likewise spoke infallibliy in the Acts 15 Council of Jerusalem, ending the debate over the need for circumcision. Through HIS MOUTH the issue was ended, because he was the "Rock," the ultimate protection, within Christ's post-resurrection Church, against heresy.
Now, Jesus had used this rock metaphor before, in the very same Gospel:
Matthew 7:24-27, "Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock. And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined."
The importance of setting a foundation upon a "Rock" was thus quite paramount. The REASON Peter was renamed "Rock" and the REASON the Church was built upon Him was because, due to the grace of God and the gift of the Holy Spirit, Peter, as the first Pope, was "preserved from doctrinal error." He was preserved from leaven, and THAT is why he was a suitable foundation for the Church to be built upon - because Peter would be safeguarded from the meager opinions of "flesh and blood."
It is this sort of understanding that forms the basis of passages such as Luke 22:31-32, "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers."
So here's the scenario - Satan demanded to have ALL of them (all the Apostles) but Jesus prayed that the faith of PETER would not fail. Once Peter turned back after denying the Lord, his role would be to strengthen or confirm his brethren; in other words, what was protecting the other Apostles from the efforts of Satan was Jesus, the Rock upon which they were based.
Nicholas Russo and St. Francis de Sales:
"Infallibility is nothing else but a supernatural gift by which the recipient is shielded from all error against faith. But this is clearly expressed in “that thy faith fail not,” implied in the command to confirm his brethren, and supposed in the very failure of Satan’s attempts to destroy the Church, which is personified in the Apostles…. [T]he prayer was offered for Peter alone. By strengthening the head, Jesus wished to prevent the rest from staggering. Peter abides always in his successors. For it would be strange to confer infallibility to Peter only to have it die with him and to leave the rest of his successors vulnerable in times of greater danger. By charging Peter to confirm his brothers, Jesus does nothing less than declare him their head once again. If he has the task of feeding the pastors, must he not be sovereign pastor himself?"
The word for strengthen or confirm here is from sterizo, to “fix firmly” - his brothers in the faith. The Greek verb, used 13 times in the N.T., means to prop up, strengthen, confirm, establish.
Further evidence is found in John 21:15-17, "When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep."
It should be first noted that this "interrogation" by Jesus involves giving Peter the chance to atone for his triple-denial of Christ with a triple-affirmation of love for Christ.
Secondly, we must pay attention to the Greek of the commands Jesus gives Peter - boskein, poimanein, boskein. Boskein effectively means to feed. But poimanein has a little bit broader usage. It can mean to "tend" but also "to govern."
Jesus is giving Peter a pastoral role over the rest of the flock - over his fellow Apostles and the rest of the Church. He is to feed and tend/govern Christ's sheep on behalf of Christ.
1 Peter 5:1-3, "So I exhort the presbyters among you, as a fellow presbyter and witness to the sufferings of Christ and one who has a share in the glory to be revealed. Tend the flock of God in your midst, (overseeing) not by constraint but willingly, as God would have it, not for shameful profit but eagerly. Do not lord it over those assigned to you, but be examples to the flock."
Contrary to the exegesis of some fundamentalists, Peter is not here suggesting that pastoral leaders should not exert authority over those in their care. Rather, Peter is here directly appealing to what Christ said about the Gentiles lording their authority over those under them. Ultimately, Christian leadership and authority must be tempered by SERVICE for others. This is a very strong reason why the Pope is considered the "servant of the servants of God."
Here Peter is insightfully understanding what Jesus had spoken to him, and he is telling the presbyters to tend/govern THEIR flocks rightly, doing so through service and not lordship. And the very fact that Peter is doing this, telling them to perform pastoral care in this manner, is demonstrative of HIS ROLE as an overseer, as a bishop. He is "tending Christ's sheep" as he was told to do in John 21 by instructing them on how they are to tend Christ's sheep among them.
What a hierarchical picture this gives! In fact, 1 Peter could even be understood as a papal encyclical, given its wide circulation to the "chosen sojourners of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Peter 1:1) - namely, the Christians in those areas.
This is a huge geographical expanse in which Peter is effectively instructing all the presbyters in the churches there on how to tend or govern THEIR flocks - and, in doing so, he tends/governs HIS flock, the flock given to him by Jesus Christ, the Chief Shepherd.
It is interesting that the letters of Paul were always letters to specific city-churches; none of them were such widespread encyclical-style letters. Peter is addressing 5 provinces in Asia Minor, a huge expanse.
I don't know what your stance is on traditional authorship of the New Testament material - some would dispute whether or not 1 Peter was even written by Peter, primarily on the grounds of the refined Greek of the epistle. But J. R. Michaels writes: "The notion that Peter had help in the composition of this letter does not stand or fall with the theory about Silvanus. If 1 Peter is, as it appears to be, an encyclical on behalf of the church at Rome ('Babylon') to a wide circle of churches on the frontiers of the Roman Empire in five provinces of Asia Minor ('Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,' 1 Pet 1:2), then the author would likely have had scribal help with vocabulary and style, and his helpers would likely have remained anonymous." (Dictionary of the Later New Testament and its Developments, art. "1 Peter")
Now, as for further biblical support:
Luke 12:41: "Then Peter said, "Lord, is this parable meant for us or for everyone?" And the Lord replied, "Who, then, is the faithful and prudent steward whom the master will put in charge of his servants to distribute (the) food allowance at the proper time?"
This is extremely interesting. OBVIOUSLY, contextually, this parable IS meant for both "us" AND "everyone." And it is especially meant for Peter, given Jesus' reference to the "faithful and prudent steward" whom the master will "put in charge of his servants."
Peter is that faithful and prudent steward that Christ put in charge of his servants - in Matthew 16:18-19, in Luke 22:31-32, and especially in John 21:15-17. In fact, Jesus encouraging Peter to "feed" the sheep in John 21 would seem to parallel with Jesus speaking of the chief steward being in charge of the other servants to distribute the food allowance at the proper time.
Jesus goes on to say, in the passage:
"Blessed is that servant whom his master on arrival finds doing so. Truly, I say to you, he will put him in charge of all his property. But if that servant says to himself, 'My master is delayed in coming,' and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, to eat and drink and get drunk, then that servant's master will come on an unexpected day and at an unknown hour and will punish him severely and assign him a place with the unfaithful. That servant who knew his master's will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely; and the servant who was ignorant of his master's will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more."
This could be seen as a warning particularly to Peter, although all Christians are obviously referrents as well.
Consider that Jesus was speaking of the "Chief Steward" and is speaking about how that one will be put in charge of all his property. What is Jesus alluding to?
Genesis 41:39-44, "So Pharaoh said to Joseph: "Since God has made all this known to you, no one can be as wise and discerning as you are. You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people shall dart at your command. Only in respect to the throne shall I outrank you. Herewith," Pharaoh told Joseph, "I place you in charge of the whole land of Egypt." With that, Pharaoh took off his signet ring and put it on Joseph's finger. He had him dressed in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain about his neck. He then had him ride in the chariot of his vizier, and they shouted "Abrek!" before him. Thus was Joseph installed over the whole land of Egypt. "I, Pharaoh, proclaim," he told Joseph, "that without your approval no one shall move hand or foot in all the land of Egypt."
The office of Chief Steward, here depicted as being held by Joseph in Egypt, was a common office in the ancient world. The person in question effectively played the role of second-in-command to the King (in this case, Pharaoah) and was in charge over what the King was in charge of, given authority over it, to rule on behalf of the King.
Now, you may ask why the Papacy should be deemed legitimate if it is based on an office found in ancient Egypt. That would be a fair question. And here is a fair answer - this office was ALSO found in ancient Israel.
Isaiah 22:20-22, "On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open."
In ancient Israel, you had a King (at the time of Eliakim, King Hezekiah) and the King had as his right-hand-man a Prime Minister, a Chief Steward, also known as the "Master of the Palace."
Isaiah 36:3, "there came out to him the master of the palace, Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, and Shebna the scribe, and the herald Joah, son of Asaph."
As we see in Isaiah 22:20-22, this office would be transferred to Eliakim, symbolized by the giving of the key of the house of David to Eliakim. In the ancient Middle-eastern world, keys symbolized authority, so to speak of giving someone "keys" was to speak of giving them authority. This went so far to the point where some of these individuals in various kingdoms wore literal keys on their bodies to symbolize their authority.
Eliakim had the power to "open and shut" via his royal authority, and was a "father" to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. He was in charge, especially, in the case of the physical absence of the King.
And now we come full circle when we return to Matthew 16:18-19:
"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
We now know exactly which OT passage Jesus is alluding to here, AND the OT office He is alluding to - the OT office of "Master of the Palace." It is entirely historically likely, and many historians can attest to this, that following Israel's time in the land of Egypt, it included this office in the monarchy that it was to establish.
Jesus, as we well know, is a Davidic King, establishing a heavenly, yet STILL DAVIDIC, Kingdom:
Luke 1:32-33, "He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."
If Jesus is enthroned in a new, Davidic Kingdom - the Spiritual Israel - then it makes typological sense for his Kingdom to be structured rather similarly to the Kingdom of Old. Thus, that is why Jesus appoints Peter as the new "Master of the Palace" over the others in the Church.
Eliakim had the power to open and shut; Peter had the power to bind and loose.
Eliakim was a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem; Peter was a father to the inhabitants of the spiritual Jerusalem, the Church - hence the title of Papa, or "Pope."
Eliakim was in charge in the case of the physical absence of the King; likewise, Peter was in charge of the Church immediately upon the Ascension of Christ and the beginning of His physical absence - which explains why Peter immediately "gets to work" in the first half of Acts, including his actions of calling for a replacement for Judas, his role of spokesman and leader at Pentecost, and his prominent and deciding role in the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council.
Now, the issue of successors is also explained by our typological basis. Was Eliakim the sole Master of the Palace, for all time? Absolutely not. He received an office of dynastic succession, an office that was intended to continue past him - the office being greater than the man in the office.
Likewise, Peter received an office that was to continue past HIM - an office that was also one of succession. After all, the primary importance of the Master of the Palace was to rule the kingdom on behalf of the King in the PHYSICAL ABSENCE OF THE KING. And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Jesus STILL physically absent? Has the Parousia come yet? ; )
Therefore, the NEED for the succession of the Petrine office remains. The Tradition of the Church is also absolutely unanimous that the Bishops of Rome were the successors of Peter, from Linus to Anacletus to Clement and so on and so forth.
Thus, the importance of papal infalliblity is INTRINSICALLY related to the nature and office of the Papacy itself.
- Sean
Christian Courier's Shoddy Scholarship
In a portion of their article with regards to Peter, christiancourier.com has seriously erred. Here is an excerpt of their article:
3.) Chrysostom (c. A.D. 347-407), a theologian who lived in Constantinople, referred to this passage as illustrative of Peter’s great weakness. He suggested that the apostle’s fall “was more grievous than that of the others” (Homily 82). That ancient scholar knew nothing of Peter’s primacy based upon this text.
The article in full can be found at the following location:
http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:ju0AgY7rNX8J:www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/simon_simon_+Peter+strengthens+his+brethren&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Now, it is QUITE a serious charge to make to insist that Luke 22:31-32 was never used by St. John Chrysostom to argue for Petrine Primacy.
It is also a charge that is not backed up by the historical record.
Now, it is true that Chrysostom begins his exegesis of Luke 22 considering the status of Peter's faith and his fall. But apparently, the author of this supposedly scholarly article did not CONTINUE READING. He would have read the following:
"For He Who built the Church upon his confession, and so fortified it that ten thousand dangers and deaths should not prevail against it, He Who gave him the keys of heaven, and made him lord (possessor) of so much authority, and Who needed not prayer for this (for He said not 'I have prayed' but with authority 'I will build' and 'I will give'), how did He need prayer that He might save the soul of one man?"
This is from the EXACT SAME EPISTLE! Apparently, the author of this article decided that he would play the risky game of selective quotation instead of read the ENTIRETY of Epistle 82. (Found here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200182.htm)
And elswhere:
"Again, that coryphaeus Peter, after a thousand wonders and signs and so much warning and counsel, did He not rebuke him when he had fallen this grave fall? Nay, He passed it over, and appointed him first of the apostles. Wherefore He said: 'Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to sift thee as wheat, and I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not'." (In Psalm 129, 2, vol V, 375[369])
"God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler of the whole world [Greek], that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying, 'Simon, Simon, how often hath Satan desired to sift thee as wheat, but I have prayed for thee that thy strength fail not, and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren'." (Hom quod frequenter conveniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[329])
John Chrysostom has spoken; the case is closed. Wayne Jackson, the author of this article, should make a much more serious effort to learn how a Church Father exegeted a passage.
- Sean Hutton
3.) Chrysostom (c. A.D. 347-407), a theologian who lived in Constantinople, referred to this passage as illustrative of Peter’s great weakness. He suggested that the apostle’s fall “was more grievous than that of the others” (Homily 82). That ancient scholar knew nothing of Peter’s primacy based upon this text.
The article in full can be found at the following location:
http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:ju0AgY7rNX8J:www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/simon_simon_+Peter+strengthens+his+brethren&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Now, it is QUITE a serious charge to make to insist that Luke 22:31-32 was never used by St. John Chrysostom to argue for Petrine Primacy.
It is also a charge that is not backed up by the historical record.
Now, it is true that Chrysostom begins his exegesis of Luke 22 considering the status of Peter's faith and his fall. But apparently, the author of this supposedly scholarly article did not CONTINUE READING. He would have read the following:
"For He Who built the Church upon his confession, and so fortified it that ten thousand dangers and deaths should not prevail against it, He Who gave him the keys of heaven, and made him lord (possessor) of so much authority, and Who needed not prayer for this (for He said not 'I have prayed' but with authority 'I will build' and 'I will give'), how did He need prayer that He might save the soul of one man?"
This is from the EXACT SAME EPISTLE! Apparently, the author of this article decided that he would play the risky game of selective quotation instead of read the ENTIRETY of Epistle 82. (Found here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200182.htm)
And elswhere:
"Again, that coryphaeus Peter, after a thousand wonders and signs and so much warning and counsel, did He not rebuke him when he had fallen this grave fall? Nay, He passed it over, and appointed him first of the apostles. Wherefore He said: 'Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to sift thee as wheat, and I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not'." (In Psalm 129, 2, vol V, 375[369])
"God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler of the whole world [Greek], that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying, 'Simon, Simon, how often hath Satan desired to sift thee as wheat, but I have prayed for thee that thy strength fail not, and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren'." (Hom quod frequenter conveniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[329])
John Chrysostom has spoken; the case is closed. Wayne Jackson, the author of this article, should make a much more serious effort to learn how a Church Father exegeted a passage.
- Sean Hutton
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
