Orthodox: Was Peter Jesus' Royal Steward?

[Randy_Carson]

No they don’t agree Randy.

I can quote boatloads of scholars from all three traditions who all say that Peter is the rock.

How is it that they are not in agreement about what is meant in Matthew 16:18-19 when Jesus says, "You are Peter (Aramaic kepha) and upon this rock (kepha) I will build my church?

Either way the only reason this is even a topic of discussion is the fact that Rome has used this verse to twist doctrine.

Or the only reason that Orthodox priests tell you that Peter is NOT the rock is because THEY have twisted the verse to avoid admitting the truth.

Whether or not Peter is the rock has no bearing on doctrine at all.

No bearing at all? Well, that makes everything else we may need to discuss easier.

Silly me. I thought Matthew 16:18-19 is at the center of the East-West controversy.

 

[Seraphim73]

I can quote boatloads of scholars from all three traditions who all say that Peter is the rock.

And I can quote boatloads who say Peter’s confession is the rock. So what?

Or the only reason that Orthodox priests tell you that Peter is NOT the rock is because THEY have twisted the verse to avoid admitting the truth.

No Orthodox priest I know or have heard would teach Peter isn’t the rock. Where did you get that idea?

 

[Randy_Carson]

And I can quote boatloads who say Peter’s confession is the rock. So what?

Because once it is admitted that Catholics aren’t the only ones making that argument that he is, then all the wind goes out of your sails.

No Orthodox priest I know or have heard would teach Peter isn’t the rock. Where did you get that idea?

Are you a convert?

Fr. John Morris, an Orthodox priest from Mississippi, was adamant about this very point in this forum just last year. And believe me, when a few more Orthodox log on later tonight, you’ll see what I mean.

In the meantime, take a look at what this Orthodox priest has to say:

orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/maxwell_peter.htm

And this from the Orthodox Church in America:

oca.org/questions/history/on-this-rock-i-will-build-my-church

And this:

Orthodox Study Bible pg. 1299 says that Jesus’ statement "You are peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church (Mat 16:18) was not of Peter himself, but of the faith of his confession.

But hey, if you agree Peter is the rock, that’s fine by me.

Now, let’s discuss the Royal Steward.

 

[Seraphim73]

Because once it is admitted that Catholics aren’t the only ones making that argument that he is, then all the wind goes out of your sails.

Only in your Vatican I mind.

Are you a convert?

Fr. John Morris, an Orthodox priest from Mississippi, was adamant about this very point in this forum just last year. And believe me, when a few more Orthodox log on later tonight, you’ll see what I mean.

In the meantime, take a look at what this Orthodox priest has to say:

orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/maxwell_peter.htm

And this from the Orthodox Church in America:

oca.org/questions/history/on-this-rock-i-will-build-my-church

And this:

Orthodox Study Bible pg. 1299 says that Jesus’ statement "You are peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church (Mat 16:18) was not of Peter himself, but of the faith of his confession.

There was a variety of patristic opinions and they are all valid. I do agree that ultimately the rock is the confession but that is not to say there is no sense in which Peter was the rock. Anyone who confesses that Christ is God is a rock.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There was a variety of patristic opinions and they are all valid. I do agree that ultimately the rock is the confession but that is not to say there is no sense in which Peter was the rock. Anyone who confesses that Christ is God is a rock.

I agree that there are multiple senses, but I disagree about which takes precedent…especially since you can look at the verse yourself and see what it plainly says.

BTW, have you noticed that Jesus calls Simon “Cephas” (from Aramaic kepha) in John 1:42, and Paul calls Simon “Cephas” in Corinthians and Galatians.

Doesn’t this lend further weight to the argument that Jesus said, “You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build…”?

So, the PRIMARY understanding of Mt. 16:18 is that Peter is the rock.

This has enormous implications for the EO.

 

[Seraphim73]

I agree that there are multiple senses, but I disagree about which takes precedent…especially since you can look at the verse yourself and see what it plainly says.

BTW, have you noticed that Jesus calls Simon “Cephas” (from Aramaic kepha) in John 1:42, and Paul calls Simon “Cephas” in Corinthians and Galatians.

Doesn’t this lend further weight to the argument that Jesus said, “You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build…”?

So, the PRIMARY understanding of Mt. 16:18 is that Peter is the rock.

This has enormous implications for the EO.

I don’t think that’s the primary understanding at all. Either way the only implication is one Church has built an entire dogmatic system around an ephemeral man and that still effects all of us today.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t think that’s the primary understanding at all. Either way the only implication is one Church has built an entire dogmatic system around an ephemeral man and that still effects all of us today.

Doesn’t my OP suggest that this is what Jesus intended all along?

If not, why not?

 

[Seraphim73]

Doesn’t my OP suggest that this is what Jesus intended all along?

If not, why not?

I would rely on what the Church has taught as to what Jesus intended. Either way there is no reason to move the merry-go-round from the other thread to this one. You have fun.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I would rely on what the Church has taught as to what Jesus intended. Either way there is no reason to move the merry-go-round from the other thread to this one. You have fun.

Your choice.

This thread is specifically intended to discuss the topic as it relates to Orthodoxy.

 

[truthseeker32]

I bet you would. Jimmy has a fine mind, but why did you not choose Pope Benedict or Von Balthasar or any of OUR top theologians for that debate?

Well, based on how simplistic your arguments have been I just assumed you hadn’t actually read the best theology Catholicism has to offer.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, based on how simplistic your arguments have been I just assumed you hadn’t actually read the best theology Catholicism has to offer.

I look forward to your point-by-point refutation of my OP.

Please, open your scriptures and show me my error.

Or perhaps you could quote an Early Church Father who specifically denies that Peter was the Royal Steward with exegesis of showing how Is. 22:20-22 cannot be applied to Mt. 16:18-19.

That would be great. Thanks.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Please, open your scriptures and show me my error.

Oh my, this interpretation is yours? So it was absent until the 21st century?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Oh my, this interpretation is yours? So it was absent until the 21st century?

Nope.

Protestant Adam Clark wrote about this in a commentary first published in the 1800’s.

I’m still researching exactly when the first mention was made, but it is significant that Protestants see it, too.

 

[Cavaradossi]

According to one of the most ancient liturgies, the rock is the rock of faith.

That they may be to all that partake of them for remission of sins, and for life everlasting, for the sanctification of souls and of bodies, for bearing the fruit of good works, for the establishing of Your Holy Catholic Church, which You have founded on the Rock of Faith, that the gates of hell may not prevail against it; delivering it from all heresy and scandals, and from those who work iniquity, keeping it till the fullness of the time. (from the anaphora of St. James)

There are also literally dozens of patristic passages on how the rock is faith which one might find with a simple Google search. I don’t disagree that Peter also a rock, but that status is derivative of his life-giving confession, not a sort of personal donum (a personal gift cannot be passed on from holder to successor). The nature then of Peter’s primacy must be something communally held, in fact, or else the suburbicarian synod could never have transmitted it to the next bishop of Rome to be ordained.

 

[A_Lurker]

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I do appreciate that.

To the best of my knowledge, no ECF spoke of Peter as the Royal Steward in Jesus’ kingdom. I do have one Protestant scholar making the reference in the 1800’s, and I’m still digging to see when the earliest connection was made.

That said, why are you, an Orthodox, unable to consider the material presented and arrive at your own conclusion? Specifically, do you think that you, personally, with a reasonable amount of intelligence and a decent Internet connection, cannot discover something that may not have been seen by others in the past?

You would never make such a claim if we were discussing the field of medicine or physics or even political science.

So, why is it that by standing on the shoulders of giants, you cannot see further in the study of theology?

And more pointedly, why do you, as an Orthodox Christian, refuse to even try?

A Protestant Scholar from the 19th Century is very thin as an argument.

Christ is the Truth. Do you honestly think that I could see something that St. John Chrysostom or St. John of Damascus could not see? The arrogance and pride I would have to muster to make such an assumption would be off the charts.

In seeing your posts, I have come to one Conclusion:

You don’t understand us at all.

You can speak about and to Protestantism, because you were of that fold once and they share a common patrimony with the Latin Church. You try to approach us with the same mentality, and you are visibly frustrated in your repeated “rebuttals” and attempts to “debunk” us.

How do you get closer to God? Ascetic struggle…Prayer and Fasting. The spirit of the Desert Fathers informs Orthodox praxis, Randy.

The fact that you view Theology as you would a Science shows just how far apart we really are. We don’t view Theology that way…you can’t approach God the same way you would approach Physics. You approach God the same way St. Anthony the Great or any of the saints did…Prayer, Fasting and the Struggle. If you want to see how the Orthodox “further” our education, visit our monasteries…Mt. Athos or anywhere else.

You say I refuse to try…you couldn’t be more wrong. I try everyday…failing more often than succeeding…THEOSIS, Randy…to have a really fruitful dialogue would require you to understand where we are coming from. Your posts betray the fact that you do not. whether that is willful or not I won’t judge, but I would encourage you to look at our actual Spiritual life as opposed to abstract internet arguments.

This exchange has reminded me of the wisdom of St. Arsenius the Great:

“I have often regretted the words I have spoken, but I have never regretted my silence.”

This exchange was wholly unedifying. I found myself being pulled into controversy and allowing myself to get into tit for tats that are ultimately fruitless and made me recall Titus, Chapter 3. Perhaps lurkers are not getting a good bargain after all.

This will be my last Post to you, Randy. You can have the last word, or words. Whichever it may be.

Lord, have Mercy.

 

[randomusername]

I think they are speaking about the interpretation that Peter’s confession was the rock, not St Peter personally and that the keys are the power to bind and loose which was given to all of the Apostles.

Then He would have said “it” or “your confessions” instead of “you”

 

[randomusername]

Downplaying the papacy does not equal downplaying St Peter. And seriously it would help you if you would branch out and read something other than Catholic sources. Probably at least as many fathers interpreted Peter’s confession as the rock or Christ as the rock as interpreted it as Peter himself. Many of them interpreted it different ways at different times.

Neither of these make any sense though. Why would Jesus be saying “you” if He meant Himself? Why would He be saying you if you meant “your confessions”?

It’s you who is twisting a very simple verse to mean something that requires all the pronouns in the verse to be changed for whatever reason.

EDIT: I keep forgetting to make the H a capital when referring to Jesus as He. My instincts go against it.

 

[Seraphim73]

Neither of these make any sense though. Why would Jesus be saying “you” if He meant Himself? Why would He be saying you if you meant “your confessions”?

It’s you who is twisting a very simple verse to mean something that requires all the pronouns in the verse to be changed for whatever reason.

EDIT: I keep forgetting to make the H a capital when referring to Jesus as He. My instincts go against it.

Perhaps all of these fathers and doctors of the Church were twisting Scripture, although I would never be so presumptuous as to say that.

 

[Kosta]

I don’t know why the Apostle Peter and his statement can’t both be seen as the rock Christ referred to; that’s certainly what I was taught as a teenager. Why bother downplay both an Apostle of the Lord and his profound statement?

I just don’t think you understand that we Orthodox Christians have a great love for the Apostle Peter (and the other eleven), but just don’t see the need to make one bishop some kind of bishop to rule us all and in the shadows bind us. You might see it as evolving doctrine or whatever, but we don’t. That’s not changing anytime soon. Not to be rude or anything, but treating we Orthodox as these willfully blind, stupid future-converts is not going to change the minds of 270 million people or endear us to you. One person on the Internet quoting the Bible is nothing new, my friend.

 

[Randy_Carson]

According to one of the most ancient liturgies, the rock is the rock of faith.

That they may be to all that partake of them for remission of sins, and for life everlasting, for the sanctification of souls and of bodies, for bearing the fruit of good works, for the establishing of Your Holy Catholic Church, which You have founded on the Rock of Faith, that the gates of hell may not prevail against it; delivering it from all heresy and scandals, and from those who work iniquity, keeping it till the fullness of the time. (from the anaphora of St. James)

There are also literally dozens of patristic passages on how the rock is faith which one might find with a simple Google search. I don’t disagree that Peter also a rock, but that status is derivative of his life-giving confession, not a sort of personal donum (a personal gift cannot be passed on from holder to successor). The nature then of Peter’s primacy must be something communally held, in fact, or else the suburbicarian synod could never have transmitted it to the next bishop of Rome to be ordained.

Cav-

I agree with you that both scripture and the Fathers use the metaphor of “rock” to refer to God, Jesus, Peter, the apostles, even all of us in various contexts. However, in Mt. 16:18-19. Jesus is the builder. Consequently, in that passage, Peter is the rock, and I’ve just noticed that you agree in the words I highlighted above. That’s actually a HUGE deal, but because of your church membership, you downplay it. That’s a mistake, IMO.

Now, you and I would agree, I think, on the validity of apostolic succession. Consequently, the issue at hand for you and all Orthodox to consider is whether Jesus intentionally used language taken from Isaiah to re-establish the long-dormant office of the Royal Steward in His own household.

Either He did or He didn’t. If He didn’t, then that is one less thing you have to worry about. If He did, well, that is something you have to worry about, because the Royal Steward was second only to the king and above all other stewards.

Bottom line? If Peter was named Royal Steward above all others, then His successors who hold those same keys and that same office are above all other patriarchs. That is not primacy; that is supremacy.

Finally, I concede that no ECF’s have used this argument in support of Peter, but I have to ask: wouldn’t this be an argument from silence if any Orthodox dismiss my claims regarding the Royal Steward simply because no Fathers made the connection?