Upon this Rock.... Enter the lists

[po18guy]

I find it very curious that there is endless debate over dictionary usage regarding a language that our Lord apparently did not speak. Where did our Lord teach that we should run to the dictionary to solve disputes?

Didn’t.

What did Saint Paul teach as the pillar and foundation of truth?

Hint: NOT the scriptures.

In both cases: the Church. As in Acts 15, the Church considers, argues, debates, prays, invokes the Holy Spirit, speaks in finality and the case is closed.

Others may very well miss the parousia because they will be in heated debate over sentence structure and grammatical usage.

God is pure simplicity. He makes things simple for us simpletons. When His Church speaks, the matter is settled. The evil one incites endless debate and division over semantics - oh so very subtle is that old serpent…

 

[SetInMotion]

Where did our Lord teach that we should run to the dictionary to solve disputes?

Of course, he did not. Jesus’ own example was, “It is written …” in Matthew 4 and Luke 4. When asked about other matters, He said, “Search the scriptures …”, and also referred to the entire TaNaKh when speaking about the oracles of God, saying, “were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms”, which would be following the words of the prophets:

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Jesus being “that Prophet” spoken of by Moses:

1Co_14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

 

[MiserereMei]

When asked about other matters, He said, “Search the scriptures …”,

“…because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” (Jn 5:39-47 RSV)

Is this the verse you were refrencing with

and also referred to the entire TaNaKh when speaking about the oracles of God, saying, “were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms”

He said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and in the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled. (Luke 24:44 NABRE)

And Matthew and Luke 4 are both in the context of the temptation in the wilderness, where Satan is trying to tempt Jesus by twisting Scripture.

It almost seems like Jesus is using the Scriptures not to construct theological systems or to even settle disputes, but to point to himself, who is the Word (John 1:1), in the passages you referenced.

 

[SetInMotion]

It almost seems like …

That about sums up a certain theological system.

 

[po18guy]

Very carefully cherry-picked verses. But His response to all of the “You have heard (it read)…” was: “But I say to you…”

That was a command. It changed everything. All they had in the Old Testament was the scrolls. The Ark was lost, but Temple sacrifice remained. But Jesus fulfilled all of the scrolls and ushered in a new covenant with a higher standard than the old.

Since the scrolls were fulfilled, He established a Church that was a light to the Gentiles - Judaism also being fulfilled in Christ. Sealed with the destruction of the Temple.

“Go and make disciples of all nations” The word for nations was essentially a pejorative term in Israel - for those were the hordes who regularly attacked and captured Israel.

So, His Church exceeds the scrolls and Temple sacrifice. If one but reads the oldest extant document (the Didache), written during the life of the Apostle John, we see a complex teaching and liturgy, clear rules for baptism and zero scripture.

 

[MiserereMei]

Uhm… @po18guy, You have no major disagreement from me, I hope you know. I was trying to point out how @SetInMotion used the phrases was not in accord with the direction or purpose of the statements that were mentioned, but not quoted fully, in his post. I simply provided the full sentence or the narrative context to show that Jesus was not saying in those passages that doctrinal disputes are to be settled by reference to Scripture.

If I failed in that endeavor, I am sorry. I was running up on the last few moments before I had to run out the door for work, So I may not have been as clear as I should have been.

 

[SetInMotion]

Another consideration, is the disciples/apostles continual argument about who the “greatest” was among them, even unto the very last moments, even as the Lord’s supper.

So, a question to ask is, why then would they further argue “which of them should be accounted the greatest” [Luke 22:24] at the Table of the LORD’s Passover? as they had elsewhere [Mark 9:34; Luke 9:46] Yet, Jesus said who the greatest was in [Matthew 23:10-11]. He did not pick any of the Apostles.

As for the “keys”, that is more interesting to consider, and what those “keys of the kingdom of Heaven” (not “the keys to Heaven”) are, and we can ask, were such only given to Peter, or did the other Apostles also have these?

Matthew 16:19 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. Matthew 16:19

“thee” (singular, ‘I will give’ (future tense)), then “ye” (plural, in connection to “the church”, vs 17):

Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Notice “the Church’s” statement on this passage:

“… But, as regards the minister of this sacrament, the holy Synod declares all these doctrines to be false, and utterly alien from the truth of the Gospel, which perniciously extend the ministry of the keys to any others soever besides bishops and priests; imagining, contrary to the institution of this sacrament, that those words of our Lord, Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven …” - THE BULL OF INDICTION OF THE SACRED OECUMENICAL AND GENERAL COUNCIL OF TRENT UNDER THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF, PAUL III - The Complete Text - Papal Encyclicals

“… In favor of which is the definition of the “key”, which is given by the doctors [ of theology ]: “The key is the special power of binding and loosing, with which the ecclesiatic as judge should receive the worthy into the Kingdom, and exclude the unworthy .” …” - Quia quorundam - Quia quorundam - Papal Encyclicals

Ligouri says the same:

“… With regard to the mystic body of Christ, that is, all the faithful, the priest has the power of the keys, or the power of delivering sinners from Hell, of making them worthy of Paradise …” - Dignity and Duties - PRIESTS

So even, “the Church’s” clerical order of "“bishops” and “priests” have such “keys”.

The statement by Jesus is about church discipline and order, or accepting into and rejecting from its member-hood in Christ Jesus (see 2 Cor. 2:10 in context for example), without giving license to any one individual mind.

 

[MiserereMei]

Another consideration, is the disciples/apostles continual argument about who the “greatest” was among them, even unto the very last moments, even as the Lord’s supper.

And the bishops and other theologians of the Church argued about the Trinity for centuries, but the fact of their argument has no bearing on the truth of the dogma.

Yet, Jesus said who the greatest was in [Matthew 23:10-11] . He did not pick any of the Apostles.

Uhhh… The verses, in context, are a general statement to contrast his followers with the Pharisees. Perhaps I am missing something, but I fail to see how that passage contradicts the Catholic understanding. … Or an Orthodox understanding. The best leaders in any context are first servants of those in their care.

As for the rest, while I do not know the specific Catholic understanding, am Orthodox priest once told me “a bishop is a bishop is a bishop. The ordination is the same, though the particular responsibilities, honors, and powers might differ.” The priest, in any tradition with priests as far as I know, gets his ordination and faculties from the bishop, as an extension of the bishop’s own faculties for the purpose of better serving the people of God.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

The previous subject IS the previous noun, which is Peter. We have the same rule in English as in “I have a car and a truck, it is red”. The subject is the preceding noun, the truck, the truck being the “it” declared red.

Again, that is in English. Greek has different rules of grammar & diction. The specific meaning of “this” in Greek means “previous subject MORE REMOTE, NOT previous noun.” That is how it’s used in the Septuagint when “this rock” is used, which is how we know it’s not referring to Peter (the previous noun), but the previous subject (Peter’s confession in the previous verse).

 

[po18guy]

I should have been clearer that the post you were replying to was cherry picking. My bad.

 

[Bithynian]

New user, please be gentle!

Again, that is in English. Greek has different rules of grammar & diction. The specific meaning of “this” in Greek means “previous subject MORE REMOTE, NOT previous noun.” That is how it’s used in the Septuagint when “this rock” is used, which is how we know it’s not referring to Peter (the previous noun), but the previous subject (Peter’s confession in the previous verse).

The demonstratives οὗτος, αὗτη and ταῦτα can sometimes be quite difficult to interpret as their usages vary widely: I think a good portion of my frustration during undergraduate Classical Greek was attempting to remember even a fifth of their possible applications.

They can refer to a wide variety of things: nouns, verbs, arguments, concepts, etc. Sometimes in Classical Greek there does not even need to be gender agreement between the the demonstrative and its predicate.

Likewise, the proximity (both conceptually and physically) suggested by οὗτος, αὗτη and ταῦτα can be very oblique (how near is “near”?), especially contrasted with the other demonstrates ὃδε and ἐκεῖνος.

In respect to Mark 16:18 when Jesus says “σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν”, most historical-critical scholars generally agree that αὗτη ἡ πέτρα refers to Πέτρος. As an example, the Hermeneia commentary on Matthew 1-20 by Ulrich Luz (himself a Swiss Reformed scholar) sees this as a given and does not contest it.

From my reading across both Catholic and non-Catholic scholarship, the substantive difficulty relates to the meaning of Peter being equated with αὗτη ἡ πέτρα. It is clear that Jesus is attributing some manner of significance to Peter as a foundational figure of the church, but what does this entail exactly? And therein lies much of the disagreement between Catholic and Orthodox and Protestant.

 

[Mishakel]

What did Saint Paul teach as the pillar and foundation of truth?

Hint: NOT the scriptures.

This isn’t related to the topic but Paul certainly maintained scripture is divine and authoritative. I won’t dive into your theology that the Roman Catholic church is the one mentioned by Paul in 1 Timothy because it would deserve it’s own topic.

I will point out Paul refers to Old Testament in Romans and Hebrews a total of 167 times. In 2 Timothy Paul writes

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Paul isn’t mincing words here. Through scripture, a person of God has everything needed for salvation.

One of my all time favorite lessons from scripture is Paul talking in Hebrews 4

12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Again very powerful words from Paul concerning scripture. He concludes by saying come boldly to the throne of grace. As believers this is the new covenant. There is no more system by which 1 high priest entered into the temple to cover the sins of the people once a year. Our high priest is Christ himself who makes direct intercession to God and if we but believe and ask for forgiveness all our sins are blotted out, not just covered. Praise be to God.

 

[speculator]

You take Peter’s statement without the preceding words and deed of Jesus (3 years of teaching) and it is near nonsense.

 

[speculator]

Peter was speaking for the disciples.
But he was speaking somehow privately,

 

[SetInMotion]

Let’s see an overview of the material presented so far, from context, word use, beginning with the very definition Jesus gave of “Petros” by the Holy Spirit through inspiration:

Joh 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone G4074.

Holy Scripture just defined the word.

Jesus answered Peter, saying, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.”

The truth which Peter had confessed is the foundation of the believer’s faith. It is that which Christ Himself has declared to be eternal life. But the possession of this knowledge was no ground for self-glorification. Through no wisdom or goodness of his own had it been revealed to Peter. Never can humanity, of itself, attain to a knowledge of the divine. “It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know?” Job 11:8. Only the spirit of adoption can reveal to us the deep things of God, which “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man.” “God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.” 1 Corinthians 2:9, 10. “The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him;” and the fact that Peter discerned the glory of Christ was an evidence that he had been “taught of God.” Psalm 25:14; John 6:45. Ah, indeed, “blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee.”

Jesus continued: “I say also 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.” The word Peter signifies a stone,–a rolling stone. Peter was not the rock upon which the church was founded. The gates of hell did prevail against him when he denied his Lord with cursing and swearing. The church was built upon One against whom the gates of hell could not prevail.

Centuries before the Saviour’s advent Moses had pointed to the Rock of Israel’s salvation. The psalmist had sung of “the Rock of my strength.” Isaiah had written, “Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation.” Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 62:7; Isaiah 28:16. Peter himself, writing by inspiration, applies this prophecy to Jesus. He says, “If ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious: unto whom coming, a living stone, rejected indeed of men, but with God elect, precious, ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house.” 1 Peter 2:3-5, R. V.

“Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” 1 Corinthians 3:11. “Upon this rock,” said Jesus, “I will build My church.” In the presence of God, and all the heavenly intelligences, in the presence of the unseen army of hell, Christ founded His church upon the living Rock. That Rock is Himself,–His own body, for us broken and bruised. Against the church built upon this foundation, the gates of hell shall not prevail.

 

[SetInMotion]

…
Holy Scripture just defined the word.

How feeble the church appeared when Christ spoke these words! There was only a handful of believers, against whom all the power of demons and evil men would be directed; yet the followers of Christ were not to fear. Built upon the Rock of their strength, they could not be overthrown.

For six thousand years, faith has builded upon Christ. For six thousand years the floods and tempests of satanic wrath have beaten upon the Rock of our salvation; but it stands unmoved.

Peter had expressed the truth which is the foundation of the church’s faith, and Jesus now honored him as the representative of the whole body of believers. He said, “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.”

“The keys of the kingdom of heaven” are the words of Christ. All the words of Holy Scripture are His, and are here included. These words have power to open and to shut heaven. They declare the conditions upon which men are received or rejected. Thus the work of those who preach God’s word is a savor of life unto life or of death unto death. Theirs is a mission weighted with eternal results.

The Saviour did not commit the work of the gospel to Peter individually. At a later time, repeating the words that were spoken to Peter, He applied them directly to the church. And the same in substance was spoken also to the twelve as representatives of the body of believers. If Jesus had delegated any special authority to one of the disciples above the others, we should not find them so often contending as to who should be the greatest. They would have submitted to the wish of their Master, and honored the one whom He had chosen.

Instead of appointing one to be their head, Christ said to the disciples, “Be not ye called Rabbi;” “neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.” Matthew 23:8, 10.

“The head of every man is Christ.” God, who put all things under the Saviour’s feet, “gave Him to be the head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.” 1 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 1:22, 23. The church is built upon Christ as its foundation; it is to obey Christ as its head. It is not to depend upon man, or be controlled by man. Many claim that a position of trust in the church gives them authority to dictate what other men shall believe and what they shall do. This claim God does not sanction. The Saviour declares, “All ye are brethren.” All are exposed to temptation, and are liable to error. Upon no finite being can we depend for guidance. The Rock of faith is the living presence of Christ in the church. Upon this the weakest may depend, and those who think themselves the strongest will prove to be the weakest, unless they make Christ their efficiency. “Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm.” The Lord “is the Rock, His work is perfect.” “Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him.” Jeremiah 17:5; Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 2:12.

 

[SetInMotion]

most historical-critical scholars generally agree

Argumentum ad Majorem/Populum fallacy.

Secondly, the ‘historical-critical’ method denies much of the material in scripture, and places men’s fallen wisdom in the place of the unfallen divine and eternal wisdom. In effect, they pull God down to lift themselves up (to be right, etc). Satan did it in the Garden. “Yea, hath God said …”

As for “scholars” who do such:

Mal 2:12 The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.

The word of God is before us (Gen. 40:8; 2 Pet 1:20; Isa. 8:20).

Peter, is a part of the children of Israel, likened unto many small rocks gathered together, called “sand”, in scripture.

 

[Bithynian]

Argumentum ad Majorem/Populum fallacy.

I did not mean to say that I support any and all conclusions of historical-critical scholarship, and I encourage all Catholics to defer to the Magisterium.

The user whom I quoted was discussing an issue of linguistics and grammar, specifically the nature of demonstratives in Koine Greek. Often these issues are best addressed by scholars working in the historical-critical field due to their expertise in linguistics and ancient languages. Please note that the example I gave specifically supports our shared Catholic understanding that οὖτος ἡ πέτρα refers to Petros.

It would be beneficial to note also that Pope Benedict XVI spoke approvingly of historical-critical methods in his address to the Synod of Bishops in 2008:

“Working on my book on Jesus has provided ample occasion to see what good can come from modern exegesis, but also for recognizing the problems and risks. Dei Verbum, n. 12 offers two methodological guidelines for suitable exegetical work. Firstly, it confirms the necessity of using the historical-critical method, of which it briefly describes the essential elements. This necessity is the result of the Christian principle formulated in Jn 1: 14, “Verbum caro factum est”. Historical fact is a constituent dimension of the Christian faith. The history of salvation is not mythology but rather true history, and is therefore to be studied alongside serious historical research methods.”

 

[MiserereMei]

thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation , A stone.

Holy Scripture just defined the word.

Depends on your Greek New Testament. From Nestle-Aland: “σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς, ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος.”

“The keys of the kingdom of heaven” are the words of Christ. All the words of Holy Scripture are His, and are here included.

Jn 21:25 (KJV): “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”

We see here that Scripture, though entirely Christ’s, does not contain all that Christ did, so we cannot say that “All the words of Holy Scripture are His, and are here included.” Before the comma, the statement is correct and true and good. After the comma, we contradict Scripture. If I am understanding you aright.

Also, it has been a few years since my last debate class, but I do not believe Bithynian’s statement is

Argumentum ad Majorem/Populum fallacy.

because the historical-critical scholars are experts in the Biblical text. What we are talking about here is a matter of grammar. Even if they deny the reality of events depicted, they are experts who have studied the Greek more than you or I or most of this forum combined ever will. They are more than qualified to speak on the matter.

If Jesus had delegated any special authority … They would have submitted

This is an assumption with no ground in the text. This seems to assume the Apostles were not also fallen, sinful men with prides and impure motivations, who also could not perceive when their Master was sitting in front of them after the Resurrection. How often do we find Old Testament saints doing that which they should not and should know better?

The word Peter signifies a stone,–a rolling stone.

Which dictionary are you using for the significance of the name? I read the entries in Danker and LSJ. No luck.

Peter, is a part of the children of Israel, likened unto many small rocks gathered together, called “sand”, in scripture.

Where are rocks, even small rocks, ever called sand in Scripture? Where is any other Israelite likened to a rock? They are different words for a reason: “rock” has a different symbolic and linguistic meaning from “sand.”

Mal 2:12

Just as a note: The context and reason of this curse is found in vv. 10-11, which is, for reference (again, from the KJV):

Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.

 

[SetInMotion]

Depends on your Greek New Testament. From Nestle-Aland: “σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς, ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Π έτρος.”

What? (koine Greek) petros means (in English) ‘a stone’. Simply translating into “Peter” is not a real translation into English, but a transliteration of the koine Greek.

Cephas, itself means “stone”, see Thayer’s Lexicon if necessary. That’s why Jesus said he “shall be called”.

GNT TR

Joh 1:41 ευρισκει ουτος πρωτος τον αδελφον τον ιδιον σιμωνα και λεγει αυτω ευρηκαμεν τον μεσσιαν ο εστιν μεθερμηνευομενον ο χριστος

Joh 1:42 και ηγαγεν αυτον προς τον ιησουν εμβλεψας δε αυτω ο ιησους ειπεν συ ει σιμων ο υιος ιωνα συ κληθηση κηφας ο ερμηνευεται πετρος

Latin (Jerome’s Vulgate)

Joh 1:41 invenit hic primum fratrem suum Simonem et dicit ei invenimus Messiam quod est interpretatum Christus

Joh 1:42 et adduxit eum ad Iesum intuitus autem eum Iesus dixit tu es Simon filius Iohanna tu vocaberis Cephas quod interpretatur Petrus

This shows that the word “Cephas” was the Syriac/Aramaic, and the translation into koine Greek would be “petros” and Latin would be “Petrus” (a stone), even as Bishops Bible has it:

Joh 1:41 The same founde his brother Simon first, and sayth vnto hym: We haue founde Messias, which is by interpretation, the annoynted.

Joh 1:42 And brought hym to Iesus. And Iesus behelde hym, and sayde: Thou art Simon the sonne of Iona, thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a stone.

Genevans:

Joh 1:41 The same founde his brother Simon first, and said vnto him, We haue founde that Messias, which is by interpretation, that Christ.

Joh 1:42 And he brought him to Iesus; Iesus behelde him, and saide, Thou art Simon the sonne of Iona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a stone.