Monday 11 August 2014

The New Testament Foundation for Petrine Supremacy

Published in the Southern Cross, Sept/Oct 1991

            In the gospel of Matthew, Jesus said to the twelve apostles:   “whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven;  whatever you loose on earth shall be considered loosed in heaven”. (Matt 18:18)

            This extraordinary power conferred on the Twelve in Matthew chapter 18 is addressed to Peter alone in Matthew 16.  In this essay I will try to show that Peter had a special position in the early church, and that this is made explicitly clear in the New Testament.

            Peter was one of the Twelve, it is true, but he was also in a sense above them in position.  He is given the special commission to ‘strengthen his brethren’ (Lk 22:32) and to feed Christ’s sheep (Jn 21:15-17).  Three times our Lord said to him, ‘Feed my sheep”.  To say something three times in the Old Testament meant to confirm it with the greatest possible force.  (1)  The power of ‘binding and loosing’, entrusted to the apostles generally, is granted to Peter specifically in Matthew 16.

            There can be no doubt about the prominence and pre-eminence of Peter in the gospels.  He is named 114 times.  John, the next most frequently mentioned, occurs 38 times.  Peter is the first-named in the lists of the apostles. (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14)  He speaks and acts for the Twelve as their acknowledged representative at Caesarea Philippi (Mt 16:16), at the Transfiguration (Mt 17:4), and on other occasions his reactions are mentioned as though they were interesting in themselves.

            There is nothing specifically ‘catholic’ in stressing the importance of Peter.  The Protestant writer, Oscar Cullmann, reaches the following conclusion  in his controversial work on Peter:
            “Thus according to all three synoptic gospels, Peter indubitably played the role of spokesman of the Twelve disciples.  Furthermore, according to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Jesus appointed him specifically to carry out later the mission of strengthening his brothers.  So the knowledge of a special distinction given to Peter within the circle of disciples is common to the entire ancient tradition behind the synoptic gospels”.  (2)

            However, this undeniable, but rather vague assertion of a special role played by Peter in the gospels is insufficient without an examination of the famous passage in Matthew 16 which is probably one of the most hotly disputed passages in the New Testament, and has given rise to literary and doctrinal problems.

            However, one undeniable fact is that the famous passage is studded with phrases that are typically Semitic:
            “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!  Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my father who is in heaven.  And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of Hades shall not prevail against it.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”. (Mt 16:17-19)

            These words of Jesus have sometimes been regarded as an interpolation, on the grounds that he could not possibly have said them.  But modern scholarship has shown that they are to be found in all the manuscripts, even the most ancient ones.  And the language itself, highly charged with metaphor, is so full of Semitic elements that there are few texts in Matthew that are so surely part of the gospel as this one.  Thus, for instance, the play on the words ‘Peter’ and ‘rock’ is only complete in the basic Aramaic text:  Kepha-kepha (as it is accidentally, in the French Pierre-pierre).  The Greek translation showed the pun as Petros-petra.  This was preferred to the other possible translation, Petros-petros, because petra means the live, unquarried rock or bed-rock, which was what Jesus meant, whereas petros would normally mean stone or  boulder, something that could be thrown.  For the proper name, however, Petros was chosen, since it would have been awkward to call a man Petra, the word for rock being feminine in Greek.  (3)

            The word ‘Rock’, petros, kepha, was not a personal name at all until used by Jesus.  It expresses a vocation, just as Abram’s vocation was expressed by his new name (Gen.17:5)

            Older Protestant exegetes used to maintain that the ‘rock’ on which the Church was built was not the person of Peter, but rather his faith, a faith he shares with the whole Church and thus all notion of succession would be eliminated.  But this exegesis is discredited today and condemned by many Protestant exegetes who criticize Luther’s famous interpretation on philological grounds.  (4)  In the Old Testament ‘rock’ is frequently used of the Lord himself (Deut 32:4) and it is also applied to Abraham (Is 51:1).  In the New Testament ‘rock’ or ‘stone’ is regularly applied to Christ (cf Mk 12:10; Lk 20:18) and elsewhere  the stone figure is developed on the basis of these texts (1 Pet 2:4-8)  (5)

            The well-known Protestant exegete, Gunther Bornkamm, writes:
            “In the interpretation of the saying about Peter and the Church, Roman Catholic and Reformed theologians are much closer to each other than they were in former times.  The “Rock” is not Christ, as was held long ago by Augustine, followed by Luther, nor the faith of Peter or the preaching office, as the Reformers held, but Peter himself as leader of the Church”.  (6)

            The highly characteristic Semitic literary pattern which emerges from the texts is the following:  As Jesus, the Chief Shepherd, makes Simon chief shepherd in his place, so Jesus, the foundation-stone (1 Cor. 3:11) made Simon the ‘Rock’ for the building of the Church.  Further, throughout the Old Testament, ‘building‘ is a divine activity, especially where it is a matter of God rebuilding his people. (cf Jer. 31:4; Is. 54:11-12)   The  New Testament writers see the Church as a building, whether of a house, temple or city (cf Eph. 2:20-22), and Jesus is the chief corner-stone of the building, the apostles and prophets being its foundation.  The two combined images of ‘rock’ and ‘building’ indicate the strength, firmness and the stability and unity of the Church.  The Semitic background rules out any suggestion that this text is a late ‘Roman’ interpolation and also any view which asserts that Jesus could not have spoken in this way.  (7)

            ‘Flesh and blood’ in the Old Testament signifies the weak element in man       (Sir. 14:18; cf 1Cor. 15:50.)  The ‘gates of Hades’ is another Semitic expression, as is the entrusting to Peter of ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven’.  The first phrase probably means the powers of disorder and godlessness generally and suggests the Church shares in Christ’s victory.  The ‘keys of the kingdom’ imply stewardship and authority in the household, the power to open and close its doors.  The prophecy in Isaiah 22:19-23 “announces the appointment of a royal official, one who does exactly what his master wants and he is to receive the symbol of his powers on his shoulder, the key.  Jesus refers implicitly to this text when he gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven”.  (8)

            The phrase re the ‘keys of the kingdom’ complements the expression about ‘binding and loosing’ and is a reminder that Peter, however impressive his pre-eminence and primacy among the Twelve, should not be considered in isolation from them.  So although what is said in Matthew 18 about the authority of the Twelve in general, is addressed to Peter alone in Matthew 16, yet this must be seen in context.  Although at the Last Supper Christ prays for Peter ‘that his faith may not fail’ and entrusts him with the task of ‘strengthening the faith’ of his brethren, this promise is set in the context of a more general promise that the Twelve will ‘sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel’.  (Lk 22:30-32)

            The Semitic nature of the passage Matthew 16:17-19 is so clear that interpolation by a Romanising redactor is impossible.  “There are not many passages in the Gospels through which the Aramaic sub stratum of thought and form shines so surely as through this clearly-defined passage”  Adolf  Harnack said.  (9)  Otto Karrer maintained it is quite impossible to eliminate this passage from Matthew without doing violence to this Gospel.  “The passage certainly does not stand in isolation, but is an essential joint in the structure of Matthew, is in fact the pivot, the bridge by which evangelist connects the historical Jesus with the Church”.  (10)

            The rest of the New Testament evidence, far from being incompatible with a special position given to Peter, confirms the fact.  (11)  He dominates the first part of Acts:  he takes the lead in proposing the election of Matthias (1:15), he preaches on the day of Pentecost (2:14), he heals the man at the Beautiful Gate (3:1-9), and so on.

            More decisively still, he receives the pagan Cornelius; (Ch.10) when he is arrested, the whole church prays for his deliverance (12:1-17); and at the Council of Jerusalem it is he who provides the testimony in support of Paul and Barnabas which settles the issue (15:7f).  Paul, in defence of his apostolic status, describes how he ‘went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas (Peter)’ (Gal. 1:18).  The verb used means to collect information, to visit someone in order to consult him and implies a dignity and importance in the person visited. (12)  In 1 Cor. 9:5 Paul lists ‘the other apostles and brothers of the Lord and Cephas’:  this would make little sense unless the mention of Peter’s view added weight to the argument.  In the summary of the witnesses of the Resurrection, Paul mentions Cephas before the others (1 Cor. 15:5) as though his evidence had some special value.

            The unity and fidelity of the early Church clearly depended on Peter and the Twelve.  Part of their commission was personal and in the nature of things could not be  handed on.  Those who came after them could not literally fulfil the qualifications of an apostle laid down in Acts:  having been with Jesus throughout his public life and being an eyewitness of his resurrection (1:21-22).  The Twelve were privileged.  But it is important to stress that the mandate they received was communicable and had to be.  This is where Cullmann, Bornkamm and other Protestant exegetes fall down badly and are so inadequate.  If this mandate was incommunicable, then the command to teach all nations would have been impossible.    Nor was the promise they received limited to them.  The continued presence of Christ is promised ‘to the close of the age’ and the scope of this promise is not affected by a short-term or a long-term view of when exactly the end might come, even though there was hesitation on this point for some time. (13)

            The pastoral office of Peter was transmitted to his successors.  Peter died in Rome under Nero in 64 or 67 A.D.  It is clear from the letters of both Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome writing about 100 A.D. that the Church of Rome already held a special position among the churches. (14)  This continued to be so.

            This is not an exhaustive examination of all the New Testament texts which point to Peter’s primacy, but just the main ones and they show that undoubtedly Peter held a primacy which is irrefutable.  I have not tried to answer all the mass of problems thrown up by Cullmann and other Protestant exegetes.  To give the Protestant view is impossible since there are as many interpretations as there are Protestants!  Even prominent ones like Baumann do not subscribe to Culllman’s well-known thesis on Peter. (15)  Their obvious disarray and lack of unanimity positively points to a need surely for an ultimate authority and for Petrine supremacy!

            Cardinal Newman showed in his exhaustive study of the history of the early Church how the doctrine of Petrine supremacy could be seen developing step by step from the first words spoken by Christ to St Peter through the Fathers of the second and third centuries to the great Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries, such as Athanasius, Jerome and Augustine.  It was true that the doctrine had not always been clear from the beginning, but neither had the doctrine of the Trinity, the Incarnation, of original sin and grace and so on.  The early Popes, far from resting their authority on any worldly power, regarded themselves as mystically identified with St Peter so that one could exclaim: “We bear the burden of all who are laden; yea rather the blessed Peter beareth them in us’. (16)  At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, Pope Leo was acclaimed in the historic words: ‘Peter has spoken through Leo’.

            Cardinal Newman also noticed in his study of the early Church that Popes has always seemed to act in disputed matters of faith as if they had the right to the last word.  ‘It seemed as if they too shared in Christ’s guarantee to his church that the Holy Spirit would protect it from error and guide it into truth.  So Newman accepted the infallibility of the pope – that the Bishop of Rome, as head of the church on earth, under very special circumstances, was protected from officially teaching religious error’. (17)

            The only hope for the world is Christ and the Church he founded on Peter to last to the end of time.  The famous atheistic philosopher, Bertrand Russell, said towards the end of his life: “The root of the matter, if we want a stable world, is a very simple and old-fashioned thing, a thing so simple that I am almost ashamed to mention it for fear of the derisive smile with which cynics will greet my words.  The thing I mean is love, Christian love or compassion”. (18)  The Bishop of Rome has for ages presided over the communion of love which has  produced so many outstanding figures noted for their holiness and charity.  Mother Teresa is a current example.  The Church has always emphasised the importance of being good rather than doing good, and of the need to exercise gifts in love, or face the danger of being merely a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. (Cor. 13:1)

            So many mainline Protestant churches in the West are going into a nosedive according to an article in Time magazine. This article states that “... few experts foresee mainline Protestantism regaining its former clout and prosperity.  Are the ballyhooed Evangelicals thus destined to constitute America’s new religious centre?  One shrewd analyst in that conservative camp, Fuller’s Mouw (viz. Richard Mouw of California’s evangelical Fuller Theological Seminary) has a surprising reply:  “If there is an Establishment voice today, it is that of Roman Catholicism.  The Catholics are the calm, dignified, authoritative voices, insofar as there are any at all’.  Lutheran, Richard John Neuhaus, even wrote a book claiming this to be THE CATHOLIC MOMENT for America”’ (19)

            Of course, the Protestant Pentecostal churches are burgeoning – and also fragmenting – at amazing speed.  The good of evangelisation is neutralised by the disgraceful proliferation of endless sects.  Satan’s policy of divide and rule?  If unity is strength, then fragmentation is miserable weakness in the battle for the souls of men.  The good is often the enemy of the best            - the good of the enthusiastic use of spiritual gifts is often the enemy of the best, that is - preserving the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace (cf Eph. 4:3).  Since charity is more important than anything and unity is an aspect of charity as it can’t be preserved without love, then it is the value to be sought above all else.  The great prophetic figure of St Catherine of Siena and other Catholic saints and martyrs, have made heroic sacrifices to preserve this unity in the bond of peace and love.

            As the article above stated, this is the Catholic moment and Thomas Howard maintains that evangelical is not enough. (20)  The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsay, said that “without communion with the Bishop of Rome, there is no prospect of a united Christendom”.

            The latter remark is certainly substantiated by the research done by the Jewish philosopher, Will Herberg, who observed that no reform movement in the Church through 2000 years had lasting success if it was opposed to, or unsupported by, the Holy See.  “In other words”, Thomas Dubay maintains, “dissent may arrive flashily on the scene, but it eventually withers away or is splintered into pieces against the petrine rock”. (21)  This would probably also account for the decline of mainline Protestantism mentioned above, which separated itself from this Holy See at the time of the Reformation.

            The Catholic Church founded by Jesus on Peter the Rock has seen incredible storms in her history and survived, which surely indicates the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as lesser institutions would have collapsed ages ago.  No wonder the great Protestant historian, J.A. Froude, was forced to admit: “Yet the Roman Church, after all, is something.  It will survive all other forms of Christianity and without Christianity what is to become of us?” (22)  Another great Protestant historian who had no great love for the Catholic Church, but who could make an objective assessment – Lord Macaulay – said there was never an institution on earth like the Roman Catholic Church, which has seen the demise of so many historical institutions and may still exist in undiminished vigour when London is a heap of ruins! (23)

            Ralph Martin once pointed out that uniquely Western cultural values should not be presented as essential elements of Christian faith.  Unfortunately this has happened as regards the Vicar of Christ and the Roman world in which he lives.  Roman culture has been pushed when it has nothing to do with the Biblical doctrine of Papal primacy. For example, the use of Latin or hymns like “God Bless our Pope, the Great, the Good which alludes to the Roman ‘golden roofs’, and ‘marble halls’ etc.  These cultural trappings, emotional or effusive language forms should not detract us from the Biblical doctrine of Petrine supremacy and the fact that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ.  We can neglect the former, but not the latter!

            It was for the primacy of the Bishop of Rome that St Thomas More suffered and died for.  In our fidelity to truth and the Biblical doctrine of Petrine supremacy we too need to be prepared to be criticised and attacked, but that is in the nature of being a Christian.  Cardinal Ratzinger said:  “It is the hallmark of truth to be worth suffering for.  In the deepest sense of the word, the Evangelist must also be a martyr.  If he is unwilling to be so, he should not lay his hand to the plough”. (24)




 
1          Higher Catechetical Institute, Nijmegen, A New Catechism, Search Press, 1970, p.367.
2          Oscar Cullman, Peter, SCM Press, 2nd ed. 1962, p.28.
3          New Catechism, p.142.
4          Beda Rigaux, Peter in Contemporary Exegesis, in Concilium, Sept. 1967, p.79.
5          cf C.H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures, Collins, 1965, p.41f.
6          New Catechism, pp.142-143.
7          Peter Hebblethwaite, Theology of the Church, Mercier, Cork, 1969, p.49.
8          Gerard MacGinty, OSB, Editor, Glenstal Bible Missal, Brepols-Collins, 1983, p.484.
9          Otto Karrer, Peter and the Church: an examination of Cullmann’s thesis, Herder, 1963.
10         Karrer, Op, cit. p.11.
11         Jerome Biblical Commentary, Chapman, 1968, Vol II, p.92.
12         Ibid. P.239.
13         Hebblethwaite, op. Cit. p.51.
14         New Catechism, P.367.                                                  
15         Rigaux, loc. Cit. p.80.
16         B. Griffiths, Golden String, Collins, 1954, p.124.
17           Michael Austin, S.J. Newman, Southern Cross, 12/08/90, p.8.
18           Quoted in Pax Romana Journal,  1963:2, p.28.
19           R.N. Ostling, Those Mainline Blues: America’s Old Guard Protestant Churches confront an
                Unprecedented decline, Time, May 22, 1989, p.96.
20           Thomas Howard, Evangelical is not enough: Worship of God in liturgy and sacrament.
                Ignatius Press, New York.
21           Thomas Dubay, Catholic Dissent in America, Crisis, Summer, 1989.
22           cf J.A. Froude, quoted in Margaret Geffin, Objections to Roman Catholicism, M. de la Bedoyere,
                Editor, Pelican Books, 1966, p.20.
23           Lord Macaulay, reviewing von Ranke’s Political History of the Popes, 1840.

24           Cardinal  Ratzinger, 30 Days, April 1989, p.25.