&quot;Upon This Rock&quot;: an Exegetical and Patristic Examination of Matthew 16:18

1. The Exegetical Examination of Matthew 16:18

This chapter will focus solely upon the exegesis of the verse.³⁷ Of course, the primary exegetical problem of the verse is the identity of the πέτρα. Is Jesus referring to himself as the rock, or is he referring to Peter? Could the rock be Peter’s confession of faith? And what are the implications of each interpretation?

“You are Peter”: A Linguistic Study of Πέτρος (16:18a)

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω. “And I” (κἀγώ) follows the revelation that the Father made to Peter. According to Walter Bauer, the pronoun κἀγώ should be understood as “but I, for my part.”³⁸ In other words, Jesus is saying: “My Father has just revealed something to you, but I, for my part, will also reveal a truth to you.” Therefore, the και … δε combination essentially serves as an adversative conjunction.³⁹ Jesus uses the emphatic pronoun, which in light of Peter’s confession, means “I, the Messiah”; it marks the following words as important.⁴⁰ Peter has made an important statement about Jesus; Jesus, in turn will make an important statement to Peter.⁴¹

ὅτι σὺ ει Πέτρος. The ὅτι is a substantival conjunction of content.⁴² It introduces the direct object clause of λέγω. The σοι should then be taken as the indirect object of λέγω. The σύ here is being used emphatically. Jesus is therefore singling out Peter. He is essentially saying: “You, the man who has just made this important statement; you, to whom my Father has revealed this great truth.”⁴³ This parallels the emphatic σύ in Peter’s confession in v. 16. Here, Πέτρος functions as the predicate nominative to σύ.

The word Πέτρος means “stone”⁴⁴ and occurs 156 times in the New Testament.⁴⁵ Except at John 1:42, where it is used to clarify the Aramaic Κηφᾶς, Πέτρος) is only used in the NT as the nickname of Simon, one of the original twelve apostles of Jesus.⁴⁶ It occurs 29 times with Σίμων; of those 29 times, three occur in the Gospel of Matthew (4:18; 10:2; 16:16).⁴⁷ The original name of the apostle is either Symeon or Simon.⁴⁸ Symeon is a Hebrew name that was used quite commonly among Jews, but this Semitic form is only used of Peter in Acts 15:14 and 2 Peter 1:1.⁴⁹ In the New Testament, nine people, apart from Peter are called Simon, and two people, apart from Peter, the patriarch Simeon (Rev. 7:7), and an ancestor of Jesus (Luke 3:30) are called Simeon (Luke 2:25, 34; Acts 13:1).⁵⁰ It appears to have been the most prevalent Jewish name between the period of 100 B.C.-A.D. 200, no doubt because it was a patriarchal name that was readily assimilated into Greek.⁵¹ It should be noted that the use of the name “Simeon” in 2 Peter 1:1 has been met with some controversy.⁵² The Gospels, though, consistently use the Greek name of Simon.⁵³ Since there is a similarity of sound between the Greek and Hebrew names, the former probably replaced the latter.⁵⁴ It is possible that Peter bore both names from the very beginning, especially if he came from Bethsaida, which was under heavy Greek influence.⁵⁵

Moreover, Simon also bears another name, Κηφᾶς. This name is a Greek transcription of the Aramaic wordֵֹכיפָא .⁵⁶ The word ֵֹכיפָא means “rock”.⁵⁷ The Hebrew noun kēph is found in Jer 4:29, Job 30:6, and Sir 40:14⁵⁸; the common noun kephā appears twice in the Targum of Job from Qumran Cave 11 and several times in the texts of Aramaic Enoch from Qumran Cave 4.⁵⁹ In the Qumran passages, the word has the sense of “rock” or “crag,” a part of a mountainous or hilly area.⁶⁰ For years it was thought that Κηφᾶς was not used as a proper name. However, Fitzmeyer has shown that kp  does occur as a proper name in a Aramaic text from Elephantine that dates to the eighth year of the reign of Darius II, hence to 416 B.C.⁶¹ Thus Peter was not the first person to have had the name, and the existence of Κηφᾶς as a proper name at least makes more plausible the suggestion that a wordplay in Aramaic was involved.⁶² Κηφᾶς is used to reference Simon most often in the writings of Paul.⁶³ It seems highly unlikely that Paul would simply choose to give Peter an Aramaic name, so it can be safely assumed that Paul knew that Peter was also called Κηφᾶς when he wrote his epistles.⁶⁴ This would indicate a very early use of Κηφᾶς as a proper name, certainly prior to the composition of Matthew.⁶⁵ This too would lend credence to the arguments that Jesus probably spoke to his disciples in both Aramaic and Greek.⁶⁶

As previously stated, Πέτρος is used to clarify Κηφᾶς in John 1:42. As a rule, Semitic names of the New Testament period were far more subject to Hellenization than those of the OT.⁶⁷ Often the same name, if it belongs to a NT person, is Grecized⁶⁸; grammatically, this Hellenization could take place through a variety of ways, but Κηφᾶς-Πέτρος serves as a great example of Hellenization taking place through translation.⁶⁹ While some have argued that the Κηφᾶς of Galatians is not the apostle Peter⁷⁰, this is probably not the case.⁷¹

“Upon this Rock”: A Linguistic Study of πέτρα (16:18b)

καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃͅ τῇ πέτρᾳ. The καί merely serves as a connective conjunction, so it should simply be translated as “and.” When used with the dative, ἐπί can be understood in a spatial, temporal, or causal sense.⁷² Here, a spatial understanding works best, and the word may be understood as “on, upon”.⁷³ The object of ἐπί should be understood as πέτρα.

The ταύτη (“this”) also refers to πέτρα. The use of the article τῇ with the demonstrative pronoun ταύτη, which is in the predicate position, indicates attributive function.⁷⁴ So, the phrase may be translated as such: “and upon this rock.” The word πέτρα means “rock, stone”; literally, it refers to the rock out of which a tomb is hewn.⁷⁵ According to Cullman, in the LXX, πέτρα can be used to signify the following: a. “rock or cliff” (Exod 17:6; Ps 80:16); b. place-name or geographical note, (1 Βar 23:28); c. fig. (Isa 8:14), of an unbending character (Isa 50:7) or the hardened mind (Jer 5:3); d. occasionally a name for God (2 Βar 22:2).⁷⁶ The word occurs fifteen times in the New Testament⁷⁷; nine of those fifteen occurrences are in the Gospels⁷⁸; five of the fifteen are in Matthew.⁷⁹ Only in Matt 16:18 are πέτρα and Πέτρος used in the same verse.

Possible Interpretations of πέτρα

While the argument from Aramaic would work well in proving that the πέτρα in question is Peter, it is by no means certain that Jesus spoke Aramaic here.⁸⁰ Given the distinct possibility that Jesus may have spoken Greek here, and given the fact that Matthew’s verses are in the Greek, one might do well to stick to a Greek understanding of the πέτρα-Πέτρος word-play. If this is done, a wide variety of interpretations may be obtained. Gundry, for example, argues that the πέτρα is the teachings of Jesus. He argues that Matthew essentially quotes 7:24, so the πέτρα consists of Jesus’ teaching (i.e., the law of Christ).⁸¹ But other interpretations are offered as well. Caragounis argues that πέτρα refers to Peter’s confession of faith. He states the following:

It is obvious that if the reference were intended to [be] Peter there were only two alternatives available – which would have put the matter beyond reasonable doubt. The first alternative would be: Σὺ εἷ Πέτροςκαὶ ἐπὶ σὲ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. There would still be a word-play here, in as much as Πέτρος would have been understood to refer to the well-known disciple, while at the same time the thought of building would have reflected on the meaning of Peter’s name, i.e., the idea of a bedrock on which to erect the ἐκκλησία. The other alternative, which is still better, would be: Σὺ εἷ ὁ Πέτρος ἐφ= ᾧ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. Ηere, the word Πέτρος would have been understood doubly as the personal name of Jesus’ interlocutor and as the rock-foundation of the Church. In this case, there would have been no doubt that the rock was Peter. That Matthew chose to use Πέτρος and πέτρα, two different words, whose very collocation marks a conscious juxtaposition, indicates clearly his intention to contradistinguish the two terms… . It is this confession of Jesus as God’s anointed Messiah, a confession that sets Peter and the other disciples apart from unbelieving Jews, a confession which in Matthew’s context exercises a constraining influence on Jesus to come to terms with his hard calling, to direct his steps to the place of duty, seeing behind Peter’s words his Father’s affirmation of his mission and office, that lies at the basis of Jesus’ words to Peter. Peter’s words are not merely an honorific title; they are a challenge, the challenge of Messianic calling, of Messianic suffering, of Messianic community, of God’s kingdom, of reward and glory… . The πέτρα is the content of Peter’s insight, i.e., that Jesus is the Messiah.⁸²

First, Caragounis places a great deal of emphasis on the fact that Matthew chose to use both Πέτρος and πέτρα in v. 18; for him, this proves that Matthew was not equating the “rock” with the apostle. Second, Caragounis argues that Matthew 16 centers largely upon the fact that Jesus is the Messiah. The “unbelieving Jews” (e.g., the Pharisees and the Sadducees) could not see that truth, and though they previously proclaimed him as the Son of God previously (14:33), even his disciples did not openly affirm Jesus as the Messiah at Caesarea Philippi. While Peter accurately identifies Jesus as the divine Son-Christ (and receives a blessing for doing so), the apostle does not stand at the center of Matt 16:18; what is important is Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ. Other commentators, such McNeile, Allen, and Ryle also support a πέτρα = faith reading of the text. Theologian John Ryle, for example, states the following about the identity of the πέτρα: “To speak of an erring, fallible child of Adam as the foundation of the spiritual temple is very unlike the ordinary language of Scripture… . The true meaning of the “rock” appears to be the truth of the Lord’s messiahship and divinity.”⁸³ It should be noted that this view also had the support of some notable Reformers, including John Calvin.⁸⁴

However, other theologians assert that rock is Jesus himself. This trend started with Augustine, and this was the dominant view dominant throughout the Middle Ages. During the Reformation, both Zwingli and Luther held a Christological interpretation of the verse. In his treatise On True and False Religion, Ulrich Zwingli states the following:

[It] is as though Christ were saying, ‘I was right to give thee the name Peter; for thou art Peter. For staunchly and clearly and unwaveringly [Peter] confesseth that which has saving power for all. I, too, will build my church upon this rock, not upon thee; for thou art not a rock (petra). God alone is the rock on which every building shall be built… . So, thou, Peter, art not a rock.’ For how would the Church have collapsed when he, trembling at the feeble voice of her who kept the door [John 18:17] began to make denial! … That the divine Apostle so understood the words of Christ he himself bears witness, 1 Pet 2:4-5: ‘Unto whom’ – Christ, that is – ‘coming, a living stone, rejected indeed of man, but with God elect and precious, ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house.’ ‘Behold as Christ is a rock,’ you say, ‘so are we rocks,’ But see in what sense Christ is a rock, and in what sense we are rocks. Christ is the rock upon which the building rises, we are the common stones in the building which has its foundations in Christ. Christ alone, therefore, not Peter nor any creature is the rock, built upon which the Church stands fast against all the vicious fury of all the storms.⁸⁵

Here, Zwingli argues that even in spite of his profession of faith, the apostle Peter cannot be the sturdy “rock” of the Church because he later denies his Lord. If the Church is built upon Peter the man, then it would have surely collapsed when he betrayed Jesus. Zwingli also argues that Peter’s own writings prove that he saw Jesus, not himself, as the “rock” of the Church. For the apostle, Christians are living stones that are used to build up the body of Christ, but Jesus is the living stone upon which the Church rests.

Interestingly, theologian George A. F. Knight holds a similar understanding of the verse. With Zwingli, he argues that Peter never would have understood himself to be the “rock” in question. As a first-century Jew, he would have automatically connected the “rock” with God.⁸⁶ Throughout the Old Testament, the God of Israel is often called “rock” (Deut 32: 4, 15, 18, 30; 1 Sam 2:2, 22:32, 47; Ps 18:31, 19:14, 28:1, 42:9, 89:26; Isa 30:29). In the whole story of God’s self-revelation through His relationship with Israel, He proved that He was their provider and caretaker – the rock of their faith.⁸⁷ Like Zwingli, Knight maintains that the rock cannot be either the apostle or his faith because “[in] a matter of only weeks Peter’s faith failed him wholly, and his so-called rock-like qualities became in the High Priest’s courtyard nought but sinking sand.”⁸⁸ For Knight, then, it is not Peter’s faith that becomes the rock upon which the Church rests; instead, the Church rests on the faithfulness, the reliability, and the rocklike trustworthiness of God.⁸⁹ Thus, according to Knight, “the rock is none other than God-in-Christ.”⁹⁰

However, other scholars (such as Keener, Carson, and Ridderbos) argue that the πέτρα is Peter. Against Caragounis, Ridderbos argues that the difference between πέτρα and Πέτρος is rather insignificant. He asserts:

The most likely explanation for the change from petros (“Peter”) to petra is that petra was the normal word for “rock.” Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man’s name, however, Simon was not called petra but Petros. The word Petros was not an exact synonym of petra, as it literally meant “stone.” Jesus therefore had to switch to the word petra when He turned from Peter’s name to what it meant for the church. There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the church. The words “on this rock [petra]” indeed refer to Peter. Because of the revelation that he had received and the confession that it motivated in him, Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future church. Only Peter is mentioned in this verse, and the pun on his name of course applied to him alone.⁹¹

Cullman agrees with Ridderbos’ assessment. He also maintains that since the word πέτρα is feminine in the Greek and has a feminine ending (-α), the New Testament chose a less usual Greek word which had the masculine ending (-ος) for the apostle: Πέτρος.⁹² Cullman goes on to state that there is no essential difference between πέτρα and Πέτρος, for even though πέτρα denoted a “live rock” and Πέτρος meant a “detached stone," the distinction was not strictly observed.⁹³ In several instances, πέτρα is used with the meaning “piece of rock” or “stone.”⁹⁴

Exegetically, it seems least probable that Jesus is referring to himself as theπέτρα. Carson maintains that if Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was the stone while Jesus was the rock, then the more common word to use would have been lithos (which denotes a “stone” of almost any size) and no pun would have existed.⁹⁵ It is true that there are numerous instances of God the Father being described as “rock” in the OT (see above) and Jesus being described as “rock” or “foundation” in the NT (1 Cor 3:11, 10:4); however, that does not necessarily mean that Jesus is referring to himself (or the Father) as the “rock” of Matt 16:18.⁹⁶ As a chapter, Matthew 16 does concentrate heavily on the theme of Jesus’ identity, but vv. 17-19 seem to focus particularly on Peter and his statements regarding Jesus’ identity. Therefore, it would seem likely that the πέτρα of v. 18 either refers to the man or to his confession of faith.

If Peter’s confession of faith is the “rock,” then why did Jesus not say “upon this faith” or “upon your words” I will build my Church? According to R. T. France, it is overreaction against the papal claims of the Roman Catholic Church that has inspired some Protestants to view the “rock” as Peter’s faith rather than the man.⁹⁷ It seems that the word-play and the whole structure of the logion demands that v. 18 is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as v. 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus.⁹⁸

It should also be noted that in v. 17, Jesus refers to the apostle as “Simon”. In v. 18, though, Jesus specifically refers to Simon as Peter, the nickname that he had previously given the apostle. If Peter is not in view, why would Jesus deliberately use a word that almost mirrored the apostle’s name? Considering that this is the only place in the entire New Testament corpus in which πέτρα and Πέτρος are used in the same verse, it is difficult to imagine that Jesus was not in some way referring to Peter. This could very well be a case of paronomasia, which is common in the Bible and should not be belittled.⁹⁹ The only logical explanation is that there is some relationship between the two, and Jesus wanted to make that connection known.

Furthermore, Keener asserts that Jesus does not say, “You are Peter, but on this rock I will build my church”; the adversative δε sometimes means “and” but the copulative και almost always means “and” (with a few exceptions).¹⁰⁰ It is true that 16:18 is quite reminiscent of 7:24-27 and ultimately, Jesus’ teaching is the foundation for disciples (1 Cor 3:11), but in this verse, Peter functions as the foundation rock as the apostles and prophets do in Eph 2:20-21.¹⁰¹ If all the apostles and prophets are seen as rocks, does that diminish the unique blessing to Peter? Not at all. Although the apostles may be “rocks” in one sense, Peter is “the rock” in special sense.

In v. 15, Jesus specifically asked his disciples who were present: “But who do you say that I am?” (The term μαθητάς in v. 13 and the plural forms ὑμεις and λέγετε make it clear that he was speaking to more than one disciple.) Only one person responded, namely Peter, and he answered by correctly confessing that Jesus is the Christ. Just as Peter singled out Jesus and unveiled his identity, Jesus now singles out Peter and uncovers his true identity.¹⁰² However, Jesus does not assign the role of “rock” to Peter in an arbitrary manner: Peter is the rock because he is the one who confessed Jesus as the Christ here.¹⁰³ Furthermore, Peter is not given the title because he is inherently worthy to receive it; he is not more righteous than any of the other disciples. Certainly Peter had his failings and shortcomings, as indicated in 16:22-23. But his failures and vacillations do not detract from his preeminence; in fact, his inadequacies probably highlight it.¹⁰⁴ Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior probably would have been of far less consequence.¹⁰⁵ In any case, Peter was able to rise above his shortcomings here and make a profession about the true identity of Jesus; on that basis is his preeminence established.

It has been argued that there may be a Jewish tradition behind the title given to Peter. There is a personal tradition that is connected to Isa 51:1-2, in which Abraham is said to be the rock out of which Israel was broken.¹⁰⁶ Davies-Allison notes that there are parallels between Gen 17 and Matt 16: in both cases, the reader sees the birth of the people of God (the Jews in one case; the church in the other); in both instances, the birth is associated with one particular individual (Abraham, then Peter); in both texts, the individual has a name change that symbolizes his crucial function (Abraham is the “father of a multitude” while Peter is the “rock” upon which the Church is built).¹⁰⁷ While this idea is interesting, it faces the very different metaphor of being hewn from a rock and being built upon a rock.¹⁰⁸ Most likely, then, Peter, is probably not meant to be seen as the new Abraham.¹⁰⁹ It should also be noted that the Qumran sect was founded upon a “rock”.¹¹⁰ Tractate 1QH 6.25-28 reads: “For Thou wilt set the foundation on rock and the framework by the measuring-cord of justice; and the tried stones [Thou wilt lay] by the plumb-line [of truth], to [build] a mighty [wall] which shall not sway; and no man entering there shall stagger.”¹¹¹ So, the idea of a community being founded upon a “rock” is present in the Jewish milieu of Jesus’ day.

Certainly, though, questions have been raised regarding this interpretation. After all, if Peter is the “rock” in question, and if he is given a position of preeminence, the question of the disciples as to who would have that place (18:1) seems inexplicable.¹¹² Moreover, in 16:19, Peter is given “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” and the authority to loose and bind things on earth; this would seem to imply preeminence, but in 18:18, this authority is given to all the apostles. Surely, Jesus has not forgotten his own words! If such an authority is given to all of the apostles, then it would seem unlikely that Jesus is referring to Peter as the πέτρᾳ. In light of these factors, does the argument hold that the πέτρᾳ is pointing to Peter?

These questions do bring up valid points. It is true that the other disciples were also given the “keys,” and it is true that the disciples later inquire about “who is the greatest.” Despite the fact that Peter was probably voicing the belief of all of the disciples, it was still he who so emphatically declared their conviction.¹¹³ However, some theologians, such as Leon Morris¹¹⁴, point to the fact that it was James, not Peter, who became the head of the Jerusalem Church. If anyone were to be assigned a place of preeminence, then, it would seem to be James and not Peter. Even if it is conceded that James was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem, that still does not necessarily diminish the primacy of Peter among the apostolic band; this is made evident within the Gospels themselves. In all of the Synoptic Gospels, Peter is named first in the lists of the apostles (Matt 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16); the same is true for the book of Acts (see 1:13). Peter, along with James and John, is included among the innermost circle of Jesus’ apostles; even among this band, though, Peter is listed first (Matt 17: 1-8; 26:37; Mark 5: 37; 9:2-8; Luke 9: 28-26; 13:3). Peter asks questions for the disciples (15:15: 18:21), and on one occasion, outsiders addressed him instead of Jesus (17:24).¹¹⁵ It is Peter who is the leading character in the story of the miraculous catch (Luke 5: 1-11).¹¹⁶ It is Peter who tries to imitate Jesus by walking on water (Matt 14:28).¹¹⁷ It is Peter who is called “blessed” for confessing that Jesus is the Christ (Matt 16:17), and it is Peter who is reprimanded for rebuking Jesus when the latter spoke of his impending death (Matt 16:23). It is Peter who cuts off Malchus’ ear in order to defend Jesus (John 18:10); it is Peter who is rebuked for doing so (John 18:11). It is Peter who denies Jesus three times (Matt 26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:55-62; John 18:16-18, 25-27); it is Peter who receives a special commission from the post-resurrected Jesus (John 21:15-18). The occurrence of phrases such as “Peter and those who were with him” (see Mark 1:36 and Luke 9:32) is worth noting.¹¹⁸ On the morning of the resurrection, even the angel singled out Peter by saying: “Go and tell the disciples and Peter” that Jesus had risen from the dead. All four of the gospel writers, then, seem to attribute a unique position to Peter.¹¹⁹

Peter is also featured prominently in the first half of Acts. He guides the process of choosing Matthias as a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:15-26); he functions as a preacher within the Jerusalem Church and as a missionary to those who are outside (Acts 2:14-36; 3:12-26; 4:8-12; 5:29-32; 10:34-43); he is a miracle worker and (as in the case of Paul) some of his miracles resemble that of Jesus (Acts 3:1-10; 5:1-11, 15; 9:32-42); he is the object of divine care and receives visionary or heavenly guidance (Acts 5:17-21; 10:9-48; 12:6-11); and he is a spokesperson for the Jerusalem community (Acts 8:14-25; 11:1-18; 15:7-11).¹²⁰ Despite the fact that it is James who becomes the leader of the Jerusalem Church, he is not consistently singled out like Simon Peter. Even with James’ eminent position in Jerusalem, it appears that Peter was the leader of the “apostolic band” that is, of the Twelve. It should also be noted that James’ rise in the Jerusalem Church did not occur until after Peter began his missionary work.¹²¹ Whether the interactions were positive or negative, it appears that Peter became a central apostolic figure because of his close and unique relationship to Jesus.¹²² Even though the position has its weaknesses, the interpretation of πέτρα as Peter the apostle still seems most likely.

However, the fact that this exegesis points to Peter as the πέτρα in no way endorses a Roman Catholic understanding of Peter’s successors. In fact, the text states nothing about Peter’s successor, papal infallibility, or exclusive authority over the Church.¹²³ Peter’s privilege of being the “rock” is historically unrepeatable.¹²⁴ Understood in its original sense, Jesus assigns the apostle a unique and unrepeatable position in the spiritual edifice of God.¹²⁵ On the one hand, the verse speaks of the ἐκκλησία, a fellowship that is to be built in the future, without any time limit being given; on the other hand, the verse speaks about Peter, a human person, whose earthly activity will necessarily be limited by his death.¹²⁶ Just as Peter’s feeding of the lambs in John 21:16ff is limited by his martyrdom, so is Peter’s status as “rock” of the Church limited by his earthly demise.¹²⁷ According to Luz, “the rock, the foundation, is fundamentally different from what is built on it, that is, the house.”¹²⁸ The rock remains, but the house built on it gets higher and higher.¹²⁹ Even though Peter and the other apostles died, their ministry certainly continued, but in the post-apostolic age it was the apostolic traditions and the writings of the New Testament that “assumed” this ministry.¹³⁰ Certainly, the apostles appointed elders, deacons, and bishops in the local churches that they founded; this is clear from the New Testament writings themselves (1 Tim 1:1-5, 3:1-13, 5: 17-21, 2 Tim 4:1-5; Titus 1:5-9). However, there is no evidence for the succession of the apostles in their apostolic office that is valid for the whole church.¹³¹ For instance, the Pastoral Epistles in no way indicate that Timothy or Titus, students of Paul, assumed his role as apostle and giver of tradition. What this seems to mean is that Matthew knows nothing of a perpetual office of Peter; instead, he knows Peter the disciple of Jesus, whose image he preserves for his community.¹³²

“I will Build My Church”: The Role of ἐκκλησία (16:18b cont.)

οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. Οἰκοδομέω occurs 40 times in the New Testament, and 8 times in the Gospel of Matthew.¹³³ Οἰκοδομήσω is in the future tense, so Jesus is looking forward to building a community on the rock of Peter.¹³⁴ The theme of “building” a people springs from the Old Testament (Ruth 4:11; 2 Sam 7:13-14; 1 Chr 17: 12-13: Jer 1:10, 24:6, 31:4, 33:7; Amos 9:11).¹³⁵ The metaphorical use of “build” here is appropriate for a community conceived of as a spiritual “house” or “temple” (note the description of the church as God’s building in 1 Cor 3:9; Eph 2:19-21).¹³⁶

The word ἐκκλησία is used 114 times in the New Testament but only twice in the gospels. Both occurrences are in Matthew (16:18; 18:17). According to Walter Bauer, the term can be use to mean the following: 1) “assembly” such as a regularly summoned political body (cf. Josephus, Ant., 12, 164; Acts 19:39); 2) “assemblage, gathering, meeting” (1 Macc 3:13; Acts 19:32); 3) the congregation of the Israelites, especially when gathered for religious purposes (Deut 31:30; Judg 20:2; Josephus, Ant., 4, 309); 4) of the Christian church or community.¹³⁷ With regard to definition #4, the term ἐκκλησία may be categorized even further; Bauer asserts that in this verse, ἐκκλησία is best understood as “the universal church to which all believers belong.”¹³⁸ The word ἐκκλησία often appears in the LXX, usually as the translation of קָהָל.¹³⁹ The possessive pronoun μου essentially functions as an adjective and identifies the owner of the church, namely Jesus himself. Peter may be the “rock,” but the church does not belong to Peter, his successors, or to any other church leader; she belongs to Jesus, exclusively and entirely.¹⁴⁰

“The Gates of Hell”: The Strength of the Church in the Face of πύλαι ᾅδου (16:18c)

καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς. Πύλη means “gate or door”¹⁴¹and occurs 10 times in the New Testament, with four of those occurrences in Matthew (7:13, 7:14, and 16:18).¹⁴² Here, ᾅδης refers to the “nether world, the place of the dead”¹⁴³; the word appears 10 times in the New Testament, with two occurrences in Matthew (11:23 and 16:18).¹⁴⁴ The phrase πύλαι ᾅδου occurs only here in the New Testament, withᾅδου functioning as an attributive genitive to<ι> <ͅι>πύλαι .¹⁴⁵ The phrase “gates of Hades” is a common Semitic expression for the threshold of the realm of death (11:23; Rev 1:18).¹⁴⁶ The phrase can be found in the both the Old Testament and apocryphal writings (Job 38:17; Isa 38:10; Wis 16:13; 3 Macc 5:51), and in later Jewish literature (1QH 6.24).¹⁴⁷ Here, though, the interpretation is a bit more dubious. Gundry argues that given the prominence of persecution in the gospel, Matthew is probably using the phrase to represent death by martyrdom.¹⁴⁸ Even in the face of the apostles’ bloody deaths, then, the church will still remain victorious. Other commentators, such as Jeremias, lean towards the πύλαι ᾅδου serving as the forces of the underworld.¹⁴⁹ Given the usual understanding of the phrase, it is probably best taken as meaning “the power of death” or simply “death.”¹⁵⁰

The word κατισχύσουσιν occurs only three times in the New Testament (Matt 16:18; Luke 21:36, 23:23),¹⁵¹ and it is derived from κατισχύω, which means “to win a victory over.”¹⁵² In other words, the power of death will not win a victory over the church. It makes sense that the antecedent for αὐτῆς refers to ἐκκλησία rather than πέτρα since “church” is closer in proximity.¹⁵³ Therefore, the church, as an eschatological community, will never die or come to an end.¹⁵⁴ As Keener states: “The church will endure until Jesus’ return, and no opposition, even the widespread martyrdom of Christians … can prevent the ultimate triumph of God’s purposes in history.¹⁵⁵

Summary

While some exegetes and theologians assert that the πέτρα of this verse points to Jesus or the confession of Peter, the deliberate use of the πέτρα-Πέτρος pun in 16:18, the only verse in the entire NT that contains both words, seems to indicate the Jesus specifically singled out the apostle Simon Peter as the “rock” in question. Peter is not given this position because he is inherently worthy; instead, he receives this title because he confessed his faith in the Messiah. Under the leadership of Peter, Jesus will build his own community (as seen in Acts), and nothing, not even death itself, will overcome the establishment of this body throughout history. Despite the fact that this exegesis points to Peter as the πέτρα, the verse states nothing about Peter’s apostleship being passed down to future successors. It is the historical Peter who remains the “rock” of the Church¹⁵⁶, and the exegesis of Matt 16:18 gives no indication that Jesus was establishing a permanent apostolic see for future Bishops of Rome.

³⁷For information on the form, structure, and authenticity of Matt 16:17-19, see Appendix A.

³⁸William Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG), 3rd ed., rev. and ed. by Frederick Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 487. See 3b.

³⁹Friedrich Blass and Albert Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDF), rev. and trans. by Robert Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 232. See 447.9.

⁴⁰Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishers, 1992), 422.

⁴¹Ibid.

⁴²Categorizations are taken from Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 678.

⁴³Morris, Gospel according to Matthew, 422.

⁴⁴BDAG, 809.

⁴⁵John R. Kohlenberger, Edward W. Goodrick, and James A. Swanson, The Exhaustive Concordance to the Greek New Testament (ECGNT) (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishers, 1995), 794.

⁴⁶O. Cullman, “Πέτρος Κηφᾶς,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), ed. by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 6 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 100.

⁴⁷Ibid.

⁴⁸Oscar Cullman, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr: A Historical and Theological Study (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1958), 19.

⁴⁹Ibid.

⁵⁰Richard Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker, vol. 50 (Waco: Word Books, 1983), 166.

⁵¹Ibid.

⁵²According to Bauckham, the use of the name “Simeon” in 2 Pet 1:1 has generally been regarded as either a mark of authenticity or as a deliberate, archaizing mark of a anonymous writer who used a pseudonym to make his work look authentic (ibid., 166-67).

⁵³Cullman, Peter, 19.

⁵⁴Cullman, “Πέτρος Κηφᾶς,” 100.

⁵⁵Ibid.

⁵⁶Ibid.

⁵⁷BDAG, 809.

⁵⁸Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, “Aramaic Kepha and Peter’s Name in the New Testament,” in To Advance the Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1981), 115.

⁵⁹Ibid.

⁶⁰Ibid.

⁶¹Ibid., 116.

⁶²Ibid., 118. However, it should be noted that while it is certainly possible that Jesus spoke Aramaic here, it also possible that Jesus could have spoken Greek as well. See the section of Appendix A entitled “Should the Pun be Understood in Aramaic or Greek?”

⁶³Ibid. See Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14; 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5.

⁶⁴Furthermore, it is also possible that Paul was aware of what transpired in Matt 16:17-19. For more information on Paul’s possible knowledge of Peter’s status as “rock” of the Church, see the section of Appendix A entitled “Considerations on Source, Redaction, and Authenticity: Pauline Testimony.”

⁶⁵Ibid., 116. For more information on the dating of Galatians, see ff. 96 of Appendix A.

⁶⁶See ff. 25 above.

⁶⁷BDF 53, 2e.

⁶⁸Ibid.

⁶⁹Ibid.

⁷⁰This theory can be traced back to the writings of Eusebius. In his Ecclesiastical History, the church historian writes: “This is the account of Clement, in the fifth book of his Hypotyposes, in which he also says that Cephas was one of the seventy disciples,a man who bore the same name as the apostle Peter, and the one concerning whom Paul says, ‘When Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his face’” (1.12.2, 1.12.3. See Eusebius: Church History from A.D. 1-324, Life of Constantine the Great, Oration in Praise of Constantine, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (NPNF), Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 1 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971], 100. See also Histoire Ecclsiastique, Sources Chrtiennes (SC), ed. Gustav Bardy, vol. 31 [Paris: Cerf, 1984], 39.) According to Eusebius, then, the Cephas of Galatians 1-2 was not the Apostle Peter. Moreover, the New Testament Apocryphal text The Epistle of the Apostles also states that Peter and Cephas are two different people. This document lists the apostles in the following manner: “(We,) John and Thomas and Peter and Andrew and James and Philip and Bartholomew and Matthew and Nathanael and Judas Zelotes and Cephas, we have written to the churches of the East and the West, towards the North and the South, recounting and proclaiming to you concerning our Lord Jesus Christ” (See J. K. Elliott, ed., Epistle of the Apostles, in The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993], 558). Thus, Cephas and Peter are listed as two different apostles. The Epistle of the Apostles was probably written between A.D. 175-200, so the idea that Peter ≠ Cephas was still circulating by the end of the second century.

The hypothesis has persisted in modern exegesis as well. Throughout most of his writings, Paul consistently refers to Peter as Cephas (see ff. 25 above); in Gal 2:7-8, though, Paul uses the name Peter rather than Cephas. This has led some commentators to conclude that the “Peter” of Gal 2:7-8 is not the same as the “Cephas” of Gal 1-2. Kirsopp Lake, for example states: “The apostle Peter is only mentioned once in the Pauline Epistles; Cephas is mentioned eight times. Did Paul mean that they were the same person? … We are influenced, and probably ought to be influenced, by a combination of the fact that Gospel of Mark, when it breaks off, seems to be leading up to an appearance of Jesus to Peter, and that Paul says that the first appearance of Jesus was to Cephas; ergo, Peter is Cephas. This is no doubt a reasonable proposition, but it is just as well to understand that it does not rest on the strongest possible authority, for Paul nowhere says that Peter is Cephas, though commentators have the bad habit (to which I plead guilty myself) of constantly talking of Peter when he says Cephas, and Mark never speaks of Cephas at all” (Kirsopp Lake, “Simon, Cephas, Peter,” Harvard Theological Review 14 [1921]: 96-97. See also Bart Ehrman, “Cephas and Peter,” Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL) 109 [1990]: 463-474).

However, most modern commentators do agree that Cephas of Gal 1-2 is the Apostle Peter. According to J. K. Elliott, Paul’s preference for the Semitic name Cephas highlights the rivalry between Peter (the apostle to the Jews) and Paul (the apostle to the Gentiles). By using the name Cephas, Paul emphasizes Peter’s pro-Jewish sympathies and his connection to the Jerusalem establishment (See “Kephas: Simon Petros: O Petros: An Examination of New Testament Usage," Novum Testamentum (NT) 14 [1972]: 249). According to Elliott, Peter and the Jerusalem pillars are against Paul’s efforts at making converts among the Gentiles; for that reason, Paul is against them (ibid.). Elliott states that in Gal 2 and 1 Cor 5, Paul speaks disparagingly of Cephas and the other Jerusalem pillars; only in Gal 2:7-8 is Cephas commended for his missionary work to the Gentiles, and for this reason Paul calls him Πέτρος (ibid.). Cullman, however, has a different theory: Paul simply uses Petros in Gal 2:7-8 because he is quoting an official document in which the Greek translation Petros is used (Peter, 18). Thus, the shift in name does not necessarily indicate a rivalry between the two apostles, nor does it show that anyone other than the Apostle Peter is in view.

⁷¹Cullman, “Πέτρος Κηφᾶς,” 100.

⁷²Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 376.

⁷³Ibid. See also BDF 235.1 and C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 2^nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 50.

⁷⁴Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 241.

⁷⁵BDAG, 809.

⁷⁶O. Cullman, “Πέτρα,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 6 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 95.

⁷⁷ECGNT, 794.

⁷⁸Ibid.

⁷⁹Ibid. In 7:24, the wise man built his house upon the “rock” (πέτραν); in 7:25, the house founded upon the “rock” (πέτραν) did not fall; in 16:18, Jesus will build his Church upon a “rock” (πέτρα); in 27:51, the “rocks” (πέτραι) were split at Jesus’ death; in 27:60, Joseph of Arimathea places Jesus’ body in a tomb, which he had hewn out in the “rock” (πέτρα).

⁸⁰See Section of Appendix A entitled “Should the Pun be Understood in Aramaic or Greek?”

⁸¹Robert Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 334.

⁸²Chrys C. Caragounis, Peter and the Rock (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1990), 89-107.

⁸³J. C. Ryle, Matthew (Wheaton: Crossway, 1993), 139.

⁸⁴In his exegesis of the verse, Calvin writes the following: “Hence it is evident how the name Peter comes to be applied both to Simon individually, and to other believers. It is because they are founded on the faith of Christ, and joined together, by a holy consent, into a spiritual building, that God may dwell in the midst of them (Ezra 43:7). For Christ, by announcing that this would be the common foundation of the whole Church, intended to associate with Peter all the godly that would ever exist in the world. ‘You are now,’ said he, ‘a very small number of men, and therefore, the confession which you have now made is not at present supposed to have much weight; but ere long a time will arrive when that confession shall assume a lofty character, and shall be much more widely spread’ ” (Jean Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, vol. 16, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke, trans. John Owen [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999], 291). Here, then, the great Reformer seems to imply that the πέτρα is none other than the faith of Peter. This faith in Jesus is shared universally by the church, and it is on that faith in Jesus that the church rests.

⁸⁵Ulrich Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 2^nd ed., ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson and Clarence Nevin Heller (Durham: Labyrinth Press, 1981), 161.

⁸⁶G. A. F. Knight, “Thou Art Peter,” Theology Today 17 (1960): 168.

⁸⁷Ibid.

⁸⁸Ibid.

⁸⁹Ibid., 178.

⁹⁰Ibid., 179.

⁹¹H. N. Ridderbos, Matthew, trans. by Ray Togtman (Grand Rapids: Regency Reference Library, 1987), 303.

⁹²Cullman, Peter, 19.

⁹³Ibid.

⁹⁴Ibid. (See also Homer, Od., 243; Hesiod, Theo., 675.)

⁹⁵Ibid.

⁹⁶In fact, Carson states the following regarding the use of repeated metaphors: “The objection that Peter considers Jesus the rock is insubstantial because metaphors are commonly used variously, till they become stereotyped, and sometimes event then. Here, Jesus builds the church; in 1 Corinthians 3:10, Paul is the ‘expert builder.’ In 1 Corinthians 3:11, Jesus is the church’s foundation; in Ephesians 2:19-20, the apostles and prophets are the foundation (cf. also Rev 21:14), and Jesus is the ‘cornerstone.’ Here Peter has the keys; in Revelation 1:18; 3:7, Jesus has the keys. In John 9:5, Jesus is the light of the world’; in Matthew 5:14, his disciples are. None of these pairs threatens Jesus’ uniqueness. They simply show how metaphors must be interpreted primarily with reference to their immediate contexts” (D. A. Carson, "Matthew," in Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, J. D. Douglas, and Walter Kaiser, vol. 8 [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], 368).

⁹⁷R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 254.

⁹⁸Ibid.

⁹⁹Carson, Matthew, 368. See also BDF 488.

¹⁰⁰Craig Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), 427.

¹⁰¹Ibid.

¹⁰²Donald Hagner, Matthew 14-28, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce Metzger, David Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker, vol. 33B (Dallas: Word Publishers, 1995), 469-70.

¹⁰³Ibid.

¹⁰⁴W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew, Anchor Bible, vol. 26 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1971), 195.

¹⁰⁵Ibid.

¹⁰⁶Ulrich Luz, Matthew: 8-20, trans. by James E. Crouch (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishers, 1989), 362.

¹⁰⁷W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Commentary on Matthew VIII-XVIII, New International Critical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. F. F. Bruce, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991), 624.

¹⁰⁸Hagner, Matthew, 470.

¹⁰⁹Luz, Matthew, 362.

¹¹⁰Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 427.

¹¹¹Geza Vermes, ed., The Thanksgiving Hymns, in The Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Penguin Books, 1995), 209.

¹¹²Morris, Gospel according to Matthew, 423.

¹¹³Ridderbos, Matthew, 303.

¹¹⁴See Morris, Matthew, 424, ff. 32.

¹¹⁵Luz, Matthew, 366.

¹¹⁶Cullman, “Πέτρος Κηφᾶς 101.

¹¹⁷Ibid.

¹¹⁸Ibid.

¹¹⁹Some may conclude that this “singling out” of Peter may be due, in large part, to his personality. To this, Cullman writes: “One might indeed be tempted to go further and ask how this preeminence is to be explained. Is it due to the fact that by giving the name mentioned, Jesus strengthened greatly Peter’s consciousness of being a disciple? Or on the contrary, is it, together with the giving of the name, to be explained on psychological grounds by the character of Peter? The latter possibility has often been considered. It takes its clue from the fact that during the lifetime of Jesus, Peter did not show himself a “rock” at all; in the contrary, his human weakness is very striking… . He is impulsive and enthusiastic; in the first burst of enthusiasm, he does not hesitate to throw himself into the sea when Jesus calls him, but his courage soon fades and fear grips him. So, too, he is the first to confess loudly to his Master, but he is the first one who will deny him in the hour of danger. And yet, so one assumes, precisely this character, with its notable contradictions, makes Peter appear as the disciple with special psychological fitness to be the “rock” among the other disciples. The exuberant enthusiasm, the fiery zeal of this disciple are said to be in fact the human qualities that are necessary to deserve such a title of honor… . Nevertheless, it is hardly possible to give a psychological basis for the unique position of Peter and for the giving of the name” (Cullman, Peter, 31). Perhaps Peter’s forceful personality did give him the courage to proclaim boldly that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God”; however, it was Peter’s confession, not his zealous (and flawed) character which prompted Jesus to make him the “rock” of the Church.

¹²⁰Karl Donfried, “Peter in the Book of Acts,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman, vol. 5 (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 253.

¹²¹Davies-Allison states: “What matters most is that, according to Acts, James came to power only after Peter had begun to travel abroad. Before that, Peter was the central figure in the church. Galatians confirms this picture. Paul spoke of his first visit to Jerusalem in this way: ‘Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to consult with Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none other of the apostles except James the Lord’s brother’ (Gal 1:18-19). This seemingly presupposes that Peter was then the leading man among the disciples. But when writing about his second trip to Jerusalem, Paul used the phrase, ‘James, Cephas, and John’ (Gal 2:9). This points to James’ ascendancy. It does appear to us, in any case, that Peter’s place in the early church, as attested to in Acts and the Pauline epistles, is more than consistent with his having been given by Jesus a very special function” (Commentary on Matthew, 615).

¹²²Ulrich Luz, Matthew in History: Interpretation, Influence, and Effects (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 69.

¹²³Carson, Matthew, 368.

¹²⁴Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary (Dallas: Word Publishers, 1990), 581.

¹²⁵K. L. Schmidt, “ἐκκλησία,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 523.

¹²⁶Cullman, Peter, 213.

¹²⁷Ibid., 214.

¹²⁸Luz, Matthew, 369.

¹²⁹Ibid.

¹³⁰Ibid.

¹³¹Ibid. For more information on the nature of the apostolic office, see chapter six.

¹³²Ibid.

¹³³ECGNT, 678. In 7:24, the wise man “built” (ᾠκοδόμησεν) his house upon the rock; in 7:26, the foolish man “built” (ᾠκοδόμησεν) his house upon the sand; in 16:18, Jesus “will build” (οἰκοδομήσω) his church upon a rock; in 21:33, the landowner “built” (ᾠκοδόμησεν) a tower; in 21:42, the stone that “the builders” (οἱ οἱκοδομοῦντες) rejected became the cornerstone; in 23:29, the scribes and Pharisees “build” (οἰκοδομεῖτε) the tombs of the prophets; in 26:61, Jesus is accused of saying that he was able to destroy the temple and “to rebuild” (οἰκοδομῆσαι) it in three days; in 27:40 Jesus is once again accused of being able to “rebuild” (οἰκοδομῶν) the temple in three days.

¹³⁴For more information on the use of οἰκοδομήσω, see the section of Appendix A entitled “Considerations on Source, Redaction, and Authenticity: The Problem of οἰκοδομήσω.”

¹³⁵Carson, Matthew, 369.

¹³⁶Hagner, Matthew, 471.

¹³⁷BDAG, 303-04.

¹³⁸Ibid., 4d, 241.

¹³⁹Hagner, Matthew, 471. For additional information on the phrase μου τήν ἐκκλησία, see the section of Appendix A entitled “Considerations on Source, Redaction, and Authenticity: The Problem of μου τήν ἐκκλησίαν.”

¹⁴⁰Bruner, Matthew, 574.

¹⁴¹BDAG, 897.

¹⁴²ECGNT, 870. In 7:13, Jesus commands his listeners to enter through the narrow “gate” (πύλης); in the same verse, Jesus also states that the “gate” (πύλη) is wide that leads to destruction; in 7:14, Jesus declares that the “gate” (πύλη) is small that leads to life; in 16:18, the “gates” (πύλαι) of hell will not overcome the Church.

¹⁴³BDAG, 19.

¹⁴⁴ECGNT, 22. In 11:23, Capernaum will descend into “Hades” (ᾅδου); in 16:18, the gates of “Hades” (ᾅδου) will not conquer the Church.

¹⁴⁵A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4^th ed. (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 780.

¹⁴⁶Hagner, Matthew, 471.

¹⁴⁷Ibid.

¹⁴⁸Gundry, Commentary, 335.

¹⁴⁹Joachm Jeremias, “Πλη,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 6 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 926.

¹⁵⁰Hagner, Matthew, 472.

¹⁵¹ECGNT, 523.

¹⁵²BDAG, 534.

¹⁵³Hagner, Matthew, 474.

¹⁵⁴Ibid.

¹⁵⁵Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 429.

¹⁵⁶Cullman, Peter, 224

Biblical Topics:

Passage:

2. The Petrine School of Interpretation

Having completed an exegesis of Matt 16:18, the focus of attention now turns to the writings of the patristic fathers. This chapter will survey the writings of the fathers who hold to a Petrine interpretation of Matt 16:18. As stated in the introduction, the goal of this thesis is to examine the verse on two levels: the exegetical and theological. Since the identity of the “rock” is already established for these writers, most of the emphasis in the next three chapters will rest upon the fathers’ understanding of Petrine succession. Since these theologians affirm that the rock is Peter, does the verse also affirm that Peter’s full, spiritual authority is given to a succeeding line of bishops? As stated in the introduction, the theologians examined will span from the early third century to the mid-fifth century.¹⁵⁷ Since Tertullian was the first father to openly challenge a pope’s claim to Petrine authority, the patristic examination will begin with him. The final writer to be examined is the last great pope of the early church, Leo I.

Tertullian, c. A.D. 150-220¹⁵⁸

Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus was born at Carthage to pagan parents, with his father serving as a proconsular centurion.¹⁵⁹ Tertullian was born about sixty years after the death of the Apostle John.¹⁶⁰ Although he seems to have been a native of Carthage, he converted to Christianity in Rome when he was about forty years old.¹⁶¹ For reasons still unknown, Tertullian later became a member of the heretical sect known as the Montanists.¹⁶² It is believed that he joined the group around 207.¹⁶³ One of his more significant works is the piece Against Praxeas; the work decries modalism, and some believe that Tertullian actually wrote the treatise for Callistus (see below), with Praxeus serving as a false name.¹⁶⁴

In many of his writings, Tertullian affirms that Peter is the “rock” of Matt 16:18. For example, Tertullian writes the following in his Prescription Against Heretics: “Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the church should be built’ … ?”¹⁶⁵ Tertullian wrote the Prescription c. A.D. 199, during the orthodox period of his life.¹⁶⁶ Here, he clearly equates the “rock” in question to the Apostle Peter. In another treatise, On Monogamy, Tertullian writes: “Peter alone do I find married, and through mention of his mother-in-law. I presume he was a monogamist; for the church, built upon him, would for the future appoint to every degree of orders none but monogamists. As for the rest, since I do not find them married, I must presume that they were eunuchs or continent.”¹⁶⁷ Interestingly, this text was written c. A.D. 208, shortly after Tertullian converted to Montanism.¹⁶⁸ Even though he remains associated with a heretical sect, Tertullian still affirms a Petrine interpretation of Matt 16:18. Like many of the other patristic writers, Tertullian believed in both apostolic succession¹⁶⁹ and the primacy of Roman teaching.¹⁷⁰ However, Tertullian does not seem to imply that Peter’s status as the “rock” is conferred to any successors. What seems to concern Tertullian is the preservation of the truth of the gospel, not the establishment of a permanent Roman see with all the authority of an apostolic office. For example, according to Tertullian, Peter ordained Clement to succeed him as bishop of Rome (see ff. 13 below), but that does not appear to mean that Clement inherits Peter’s apostolic office, let alone the position as “rock”; instead, it means that the teachings of Clement may be trusted because he received his teaching from the Apostle Peter himself. Here, then, lies a subtle but important point: the apostle’s teaching flourishes in the words of the disciples who come after him, but the apostolic office and the privileges that come with it appear to remain with the apostle himself. Thus, the teaching of the apostles, not the transfer of an office, concerns Tertullian. Tertullian even seems to distinguish between the two: on one hand, there is the “apostle” (Peter or John, for instance); on the other hand, there is the “apostolic man,” the one trained by the apostle (Clement and Polycarp, respectively). But Tertullian does not indicate that the apostolic man becomes an apostle upon the death of his teacher. Rather, the apostolic man is charged with disseminating the teaching that he has received from the apostle. So, even if it were granted that Clement is the legitimate successor of Peter, and therefore the rightful bishop of Rome, that does not mean that Clement should be viewed as an “apostle” or “rock” in the same manner as Peter. What matters is that Clement is teaching others what he has learned from Peter. With the papacy of Callistus I, however (see below), a claim is made that the bishop of Rome inherits all the rights and privileges afforded to Peter, and that claim stirs great controversy within the Church, particularly in the writings of Tertullian.

Pope Callistus [Calixtus] I, A.D. 217-222¹⁷¹

Callistus is one of the earliest popes listed as a martyr in the oldest martyrology of the Roman church, the Depositio Martyrum.¹⁷² His history is one of intrigue. He was raised as a slave to a Christian who wanted to set him up in banking, but when the business failed, Callistus fled the city of Rome.¹⁷³ After one day being charged with fighting in a synagogue on the Sabbath and sentenced to hard labor in the mines of Sardinia, Callistus was freed with other slaves and inmates at the behest of the emperor’s Christian mistress, Marcia, and Pope Victor I (189-98).¹⁷⁴ Victor’s successor, Zephyrnus, eventually appointed Callistus as his deacon and chose the former inmate to succeed him.¹⁷⁵ The pontificate of Callistus lasted for five years. While none of the pope’s writings are extant, the writings of Tertullian are, and an excerpt of his aforementioned letter to the bishop of Rome (De Pudicitia) is presented below.¹⁷⁶ Tertullian opens the treatise by addressing the reader as Pontifex Maximus– that is, the bishop of bishops, so it is clear that he is writing to the Roman pontiff.¹⁷⁷

‘But,’ you say ‘the Church has the power of forgiving sins.’ This I acknowledge and adjure more (than you; I) who have the Paraclete Himself in the persons of the new prophets… . I now inquire into your opinion, (to see) from what source you usurp this right to ‘the Church.’ If, because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock will I build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,’ you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? ‘On thee,’ He says, ‘will I build My Church; ‘and I will give to thee the keys,’ not to the Church; and, ‘Whatsoever thou shall have loosed or bound,’ not what they shall have loosed or bound. For so withal the result teaches. In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key… . For in accordance with the person of Peter, it is to spiritual men that this power will certainly appertain, either to an apostle or else to a prophet… . and thus from that time forward, every number (of persons) who may have combined together into this faith is accounted ‘a Church’ from the Author and Consecrator (of the Church). And accordingly ‘the Church,’ it is true, will forgive sins: but (it will be) the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops.¹⁷⁸

Apparently, Tertullian is accusing Callistus of using Matt 16 to affirm his own authority. Again, these are Tertullian’s words, not Callistus’. But if Tertullian’s words accurately reflect the beliefs of Callistus, then the pope viewed himself as a leader who not only succeeded Peter but who also exercised authority in the same manner as Peter. Tertullian clearly rejects Callistus’ claim to such authority. Moreover, it appears that Tertullian takes issue with the application of Matt 16:18 to later bishops, not only to those of Rome, but to bishops generally.¹⁷⁹ Essentially, there is no real difference between the clergy and the laity for Tertullian at this point, since authority belongs to those who possess the Spirit, not to bishops.¹⁸⁰ It should be noted that these remarks were probably written between A.D. 217-222, after Tertullian’s conversion to Montanism. According to Tertullian, Jesus made Peter the rock of the church because Peter was a true, spiritual Christian. For this same reason, Jesus gave Peter control of the “keys of the Church” (an allusion to Matt 16:19). In this text, Tertullian seems to imply that through Peter the “power of the keys” is passed to the Church as a whole, meaning to every Christian.¹⁸¹ This has led some theologians to read Tertullian as having a “typological” interpretation of Matt 16:18.¹⁸² In other words, while it is true that Peter is the “rock” in question, he remains the type of every true and spiritual Christian.¹⁸³ In some sense, then, all Christians can be called “rocks” if they affirm spiritual truth (although in this case, “spiritual truth” might be referring to Montanist teaching). Callistus’ actions, though, have proven to Tertullian that this pope is not a spiritual man.

Again, it is worth noting that during the orthodox period of Tertullian’s life (and even in the time shortly following his conversion), he seemed to have a much more “singular” notion of Petrine authority; that is, Tertullian readily affirmed that Peter alone was the “rock” of Matt 16:18. Furthermore, prior to his conversion, Tertullian maintained that true teaching could be trusted to come from Rome because of the nature of apostolic succession. After his prolonged affiliation with Montanism, though, Tertullian did begin to view the Peter of Matt 16:18-19 as “representative of the entire church or at least its spiritual members.”¹⁸⁴ Certainly, then, the claim cannot be made that the Montanist Tertullian affirmed the supremacy papal office and its use of Petrine authority.

Gregory of Nyssa, c. A.D. 330-395 ¹⁸⁵

Gregory of Nyssa was the younger brother of Basil the Great, and the third son to his parents.¹⁸⁶ Whereas Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus readily took up monastic life, Gregory did marry.¹⁸⁷ After the death of his wife, he took up the monastic order¹⁸⁸ and became consecrated as the bishop of Nyssa c. 371.¹⁸⁹ He, like his brother, was an ardent defender of the Nicene faith in the struggle against Apollinarianism and Arianism, and their zeal (combined with the efforts of Gregory of Nazianzus) contributed greatly to Nicea’s acceptance in the East.¹⁹⁰

Like his elder brother¹⁹¹, Gregory also had a Petrine interpretation of Matt 16:18. His position can be seen in his Panegyric on St. Stephen. There he writes:

“We celebrate the memory of Peter, who is the chief of the apostles, and together with him the other members of the Church are glorified; for upon him the Church of God is established. Indeed this man, in accordance with the title conferred upon him by the Lord, is the firm and very solid rock upon which the Saviour has built his Church.”¹⁹² Because of his faith, Peter became the rock of the church. Nothing in Gregory’s remarks leads the reader to the conclusion that anyone other than Peter is the “rock” in question. Gregory does not link Matt 16:18 with any idea of Petrine succession. While Gregory holds Peter in high regard, his writings show no indication that Peter has passed along his apostolic office to the Bishop of Rome.

Pope Damasus I, October 1, 366 – December 11, 384¹⁹³

Seven days after the death of Liberius (September, A.D. 366), Damasus was proclaimed pope.¹⁹⁴ As one of the most aggressive advocates of the primacy of Rome in the early church, Damasus not only promoted the cult of martyrs by restoring their tombs and decorating them with his own inscriptions, but he also authorized his secretary, St. Jerome, to compose a Latin translation of the Bible, known as the Vulgate.¹⁹⁵ He relentlessly opposed the heresies of Apollinarianism (which denied that Jesus had a human soul) and Macedonainism (which denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit).¹⁹⁶ He tirelessly promoted the primacy of Rome, frequently referring to it as the “Apostolic See” and insisting that a creed’s test of orthodoxy be papal approval.¹⁹⁷ He unabashedly writes the following in a decree:

Although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decision of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it’ … The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. The second see, however is Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of blessed Peter by Mark … The third honorable see, indeed, is that at Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Apostle Peter, where he first dwelt before he came to Rome, and where the name Christians was first applied, as to a new people.¹⁹⁸

For the first time in this examination, we have the actual words of the pope himself. First, he affirms the primacy of Rome. He maintains that the Roman church has not been singled out for primacy by man, but by Jesus himself. When Jesus turned to Peter and told him that he was the “rock,” that title was not only meant for Peter but for the whole Roman church as well. This effectively answers the question of whether Damasus uses Matt 16:18 to defend his status as successor to Peter. The pontiff uses Eph. 6:27 to describe the superiority of the Roman church: she is a church without “stain or blemish or anything like it.” Her teachings are therefore beyond reproach. Although he recognizes two other sees in Alexandria and Antioch, he clearly places them below Rome in terms of authority. Thus, Damasus unflinchingly uses Matt 16:18 to affirm Petrine succession and authority for the bishop of Rome.

Jerome, c. A.D. 342-420¹⁹⁹

Eusebius Hieronymus was born at Stridon, a town near Aquileia, of Catholic parents.²⁰⁰ Jerome studied at Rome, where he was baptized, and then traveled to Gaul, where he devoted himself to an ascetic life with friends at Aquileia.²⁰¹ He later decided that he was not made for a hermit’s life and went to Antioch, where he became a presbyter.²⁰² Next, Jerome spent some time in Constantinople, and from 382-385, he was back in Rome, where he served as secretary to Pope Damasus.²⁰³ At the request of Damasus, he began a translation of the Bible into Latin. After many years, Jerome completed his magnum opus, the Vulgate, which eventually became the standard Bible of the entire Latin-speaking church.²⁰⁴

Like the other theologians examined thus far, Jerome has a Petrine understanding of Matt 16:18. Other than the popes themselves, he is the first church father to readily grant the pope full Petrine authority from Matt 16:18. In a letter to Pope Damasus, Jerome states the following:

I think it is my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ … Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!²⁰⁵

Clearly, Jerome not only associates Peter with the “rock” of Matt 16, but he also goes so far as to call the “chair of Peter” the “rock” of the church. For Jerome, then, the papacy is a permanent see instituted by Christ. Therefore, the bishop who succeeds Peter inherits his chair and his authority. Jerome affirms his conclusions in another work, Against Jovinianus. In that work, he states: “The Church was founded upon Peter; although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism.”²⁰⁶ Again, Jerome understands “rock” to be Peter. Although all the apostles later received keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt 18:18), the church was founded upon one man in order that it might be shown to be a unified body. So, in some ways, the church is grounded in “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:5) and founded upon one apostle, Peter.

In his treatise Against the Pelagians, Jerome states: “What has Paul to do with Aristotle? Or Peter with Plato? For as the latter was the price of the philosophers, so was the former chief of the Apostles: on him the Lord’s Church was firmly founded …”²⁰⁷ Again, Jerome affirms a Petrine reading of the text. Other than the popes, Jerome is the most outspoken advocate for the transfer of Petrine authority to the bishops of Rome. He frequently links the “rock” of Matt 16:18 with both Peter and those who occupy “his chair.”

Pope Leo I, also known as Leo the Great, A.D. 440-461²⁰⁸

Leo was elected to the papacy while only a deacon, and he is one of two popes in Christendom to be called “the Great” (the other being Gregory I).²⁰⁹ So forcefully did Leo argue for the pope’s universal and supreme authority over the church, that his own pontificate constitutes a major turning point in the history of the papacy.²¹⁰ He remained convinced that Jesus had made Peter and his successors the rock upon which the church was to be built; therefore, the bishop of Rome, the heir to the chair of Peter, must be the head of the universal Christian church.²¹¹ In 452, Italy was invaded by Attila and the Huns, who sacked the city of Aquileia; the road to Rome stood open to them because them was no army between them and the capital city.²¹² Leo the Great left Rome and marched to meet Attila, who was known as the “Scourge of God.”²¹³ According to the legend, when Leo confronted Attila, Peter and Paul marched with him, daring the Hun to attack; no one knows what was said, but Attila decided not to retreat.²¹⁴

The excerpt that follows is from a sermon that Leo gave on the anniversary of his fifth year in the pontificate. He expresses the manner in which Peter is still at work through the Roman see. He states:

The dispensation of truth therefore abides and the blessed Peter persevering in the strength of the rock, which he has received has not abandoned the helm of the church, which he undertook. For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called the rock … we might know the nature of his association with Christ. And still today he more fully and effectively performs what is entrusted to him and carries out every part of his duty and charge in Him and with him, and through whom he has been glorified. And so if anything is rightly done and is rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplication, it is his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in the See.²¹⁵

For Leo, when Jesus gave Peter the title “rock”, that was not a title or office that only remained during the course of Peter’s lifetime. The “rock” of the church has a perpetual ministry. As long as there is a church, there will be a ministry of Peter. Therefore, Peter and the church are cosmically linked. When the church functions, Peter is functioning. If the church issues a decree, then the decree has come from Peter. Peter is still spiritually active within the church. This is how Leo can assert that Peter is still carrying out his duty as rock. Previous popes had simply made claims to be the heirs of Peter, but with the influence of Leo, popes would increasingly regard themselves as standing in the place of Peter, exercising unique and unparalleled authority over all Christendom.²¹⁶

Summary

From the time of Callistus I to the time of Leo the Great, Roman pontiffs were formulating their own ideas about what it meant to be a successor of Peter. Some bishops, such as Callistus, seemed to view themselves as heirs to the throne of Peter. Since he was the rock of the church, and they were his successors, they believed that they could exercise the rights and privileges that came with the apostolic office. With Damasus, though, the Roman See is beginning to assert its authority over all other churches, and Roman primacy is clearly on the rise. But it is in Pope Leo I that the bishop of Rome truly clarifies the church’s relationship to Peter. The title of “rock” for the church is not merely an office that was given to Peter for the remainder of his earthly ministry; for Leo, the office of Peter is permanent, and all of his successors not only have the right to exercise Petrine authority over all of Christendom, but they, in fact, serve as the living voices of Peter as they work and perform the daily tasks of ministry.

Though the popes unflinchingly claimed Petrine authority, writers such Tertullian and Gregory of Nyssa did not go that far. Though he affirmed that Peter was the rock of Matt 16:18, Tertullian decried the fact that Callistus is trying to exercise Petrine authority from his office. Similarly, Gregory of Nyssa upholds a Petrine interpretation of the verse, but he does not use that fact to establish papal succession. In the end, it can be safely said that the popes from the early third century to the mid-fifth century were fairly comfortable seeing themselves as heirs to Peter’s office and authority; on the other hand, the patristic writers (with the exception of Jerome) cannot be said to wholeheartedly concur with the position of their popes.

¹⁵⁷For additional writings of the fathers who held a Petrine understanding of Matt 16:18, please see Appendix B.

¹⁵⁸Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3rd ed., vol. 2, Ante-Nicene Christianity A.D. 100-325 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), 819-21.

¹⁵⁹Henry Wace and William Piercy, eds., A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies, 2^nd ed. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), 940.

¹⁶⁰Stephen Ray, Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999), 168.

¹⁶¹Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, vol. 1, The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco Publishers, 1984), 74.

¹⁶²Louis Berkhof describes Montanism in the following manner: “Montanus appeared in Phyrgia about the year A.D. 150, and therefore his teaching is often called the Phrygian heresy. He and two women, Prisca and Maximilla, announced themselves as prophets. On the basis of the Gospel of John, they held that the last and high stage of revelation had been reached. The age of the Paraclete had come, and the Paraclete spoke through Montanus now that the end of the world was at hand. The revelations given through Montanus were mainly concerned with those things in which it seemed that the Scriptures were not sufficiently ascetic… . They unduly exalted martyrdom and absolutely forbade flight from persecution. Moreover, they revealed a tendency to exalt the special charisms in the Church at the expense of the offices and officers” (The History of the Christian Doctrines, 6^th ed. [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1997], 54).

¹⁶³Ibid., 76.

¹⁶⁴Ibid., 77.

¹⁶⁵Tertullian of Carthage, Prescription Against Heretics, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Early Fathers Down to A.D. 325 (ANF), eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 253. See also De Praescriptione Haereticorum, Corpus Christianorium: Series Latina (CIL), ed. R. F. Refoul, vol. 1 (Turnholti: Typographi Brepols, 1953), 203.

¹⁶⁶Wace and Piercy, Dictionary of Early Christian Biography, 941.

¹⁶⁷On Monogamy 8. ANF 4:65; CIL 2:1239.

¹⁶⁸ANF 4:59. See ff. 1.

¹⁶⁹Tertullian writes the following in his Prescriptions: “But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original recordsof their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,— a man, moreover, who continued stedfast [sic] with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmittheir registers:as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter… . For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man.” Prescription Against Heretics 32. ANF 3:258; CIL 1:212-213.

¹⁷⁰See ff. 33 of the Introduction

¹⁷¹Richard P. McBrien, The Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to John Paul II (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco Publishers, 1997), 43.

¹⁷²Ibid, 43.

¹⁷³Ibid.

¹⁷⁴Ibid.

¹⁷⁵Ibid., 44.

¹⁷⁶It is conceded that the claims of Callistus are not coming directly from the pope himself but through the writings of Tertullian. The information, then, is second-hand. At the very least it can be said that Tertullian believes that Callistus is using the Petrine claim to substantiate his authority.

¹⁷⁷On Modesty 21. ANF 4:99; CIL 2:1326-27.

¹⁷⁸Ibid.

¹⁷⁹Oscar Cullman, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr: A Historical and Theological Study (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1958), 166.

¹⁸⁰J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 4^th ed. (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco Publishers, 1978), 200.

¹⁸¹Michael W. Winter, St. Peter and the Popes (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1960), 43.

¹⁸²Ulrich Luz, Matthew in History: Interpretation, Influence, and Effects (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 57-58.

¹⁸³Ibid.

¹⁸⁴Karlfried Frhlich, “Saint Peter, Papal Primacy and the Exegetical Tradition, 1150-1300,” in The Religious Roles of the Papacy, ed. Christopher Ryan (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1989), 15.

¹⁸⁵F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingston, eds., Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1974), 588.

¹⁸⁶Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3:904.

¹⁸⁷Gonzalez, The Early Church, 185.

¹⁸⁸Ibid.

¹⁸⁹Cross and Livingston, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 588.

¹⁹⁰Wace and Piercy, Dictionary of Early Christian Biography, 417.

¹⁹¹See the writings of Basil the Great in Appendix B.

¹⁹²English translation from Joseph Berington and John Kirk, eds., The Faith of Catholics: Confirmed by Scripture and Attested by the Fathers of the First Five Centuries of the Church, vol. 2 (New York: Fr. Pustet, 1885), 21. See also Gregorius Nyssenus, Encomium in Sanctum Stephanum Protomartyrem, ed. O. Lendle, vol. 2 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990), 104.

¹⁹³McBrien, Lives of the Popes, 62.

¹⁹⁴Wace and Piercy, Dictionary of Early Christian Biography, 246.

¹⁹⁵Ibid.

¹⁹⁶Ibid.

¹⁹⁷Ibid.

¹⁹⁸Decree of Damasus 3. English translation taken from William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 1 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1970), 406-407. See also Damasus, Decretum De Libria Recipiendis et Non Recipiendis, Patrologiae cursus Completus: Series Latina (PL), ed. J. P. Minge, vol. 19 (Paris: Garnier Freres, 1846), 787-793.

¹⁹⁹Cross and Livingston, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 717.

²⁰⁰Wace and Piercy, Dictionary of Early Christian Biography, 460.

²⁰¹Cross and Livingston, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 717.

²⁰²Gonzalez, The Early Church, 202.

²⁰³Cross and Livingston, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 717.

²⁰⁴Ibid.

²⁰⁵Letter 15.2. See NPNF 2, 6:18. See also Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi: Epistulae 1-LXX, ed. Isodorus Hilberg, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinarum (CSEL), vol. 54 (Vindobonae: F. Tempsky, 1910), 63-64.

²⁰⁶Against Jovinianus 1.16. NPNF 2, 6:366.

²⁰⁷Against the Pelagians 1.14a.C. NPNF 2, 6:455. CIL 80:18.

²⁰⁸Wace and Piercy, Dictionary of Early Christian Biography, 644.

²⁰⁹McBrien, Lives of the Popes, 75.

²¹⁰Ibid.

²¹¹Gonzalez, The Early Church, 243.

²¹²Ibid.

²¹³Ibid.

²¹⁴Ibid.

²¹⁵Sermon 3. NPNF 2, 12:117. See also CIL 138:12-13.

²¹⁶McBrien, Lives of the Popes, 75.

Biblical Topics:

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

3. The Christological School of Interpretation

The examination will now focus upon the patristic writers who have a Christological interpretation of Matt 16:18. Unlike the writers in the previous chapter, these church fathers believe that the “rock” in question refers to Jesus. These fathers would not use Matt 16:18 to affirm a permanent Roman see with Petrine authority because in their understanding, Jesus, not Peter, lies at the heart of the verse. The writings of Paul (particularly 1 Corinthians) were a great influence on the Christological school. Thanks to Paul, the theology of some of the writers was so Christocentric that it was difficult for them to envisage a foundation other than Jesus²¹⁷; therefore, when these authors approach Matt 16:18, they may find a degree of primacy being bestowed to Peter, but the real “rock” in question is Jesus. This interpretation would dominate the Western exegesis of the Middle Ages, and it would greatly influence the writings of the Reformers as well.²¹⁸ Between the third and fifth centuries, this view can be seen in the writings of three major fathers: Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Augustine.

Eusebius of Caesarea, also known as Eusebius Pamphili, c. A.D. 260-340²¹⁹

Eusebius was most likely born in Palestine, where he spent most of his early years.²²⁰ Even though it is not certain that Eusebius was born in the city of Caesarea, he did spend a number of years there and later became bishop of that city.²²¹ Eusebius was in the middle of his life when fierce persecution broke out against the Church under the reigns of both Diocletian and Maximinus Daia.²²² During the years of persecution, Eusebius was hard at work on what would come to be known as his magnum opus, the Ecclesiastical History.²²³ This work would prove to be of great importance to later historians, for much of the information that is now known of the people, places, and episodes in the life of the early church were recorded by Eusebius.²²⁴

A definitive judgment on Eusebius’ interpretation of Matt 16:18 is somewhat difficult to ascertain because he expresses different views.²²⁵ First, in his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius states: “Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which (Church) the gates of hell shall not prevail, has left one acknowledged epistle; perhaps also a second, but this is doubtful.²²⁶ Here, the historian clearly states that the Church of Christ is built upon the apostle Peter, but he does not mention any successors of the apostle or the transfer of apostolic authority.²²⁷ However, in his Commentary on Psalms, Eusebius identifies the “rock” with Jesus. There he writes: As Scripture says: 'Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it'; and elsewhere: 'The rock, moreover, was Christ.' For, as the Apostle indicates with these words: 'No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' Then, too, after the Savior himself, you may rightly judge the foundations of the Church to be the words of the prophets and apostles.²²⁸ In this text, the reference to the foundations of the earth in Ps 17 leads Eusebius to consider the foundations of the church.²²⁹ The church, he states, is founded upon a rock, and that rock is Jesus. Here, Eusebius is clearly allowing 1 Cor 10:4 and 1 Cor 3:11 to influence his reading of Matt 16. While the words of the apostles and prophets are also viewed as “the foundations of the Church,” they hold that position “after the Savior Himself”. For Eusebius, then, Jesus lies at the center of the verse, not Peter. Again, in his work Preparation of the Gospel, Eusebius writes:

For instance, when He prophesied that His doctrine should be preached throughout the whole world inhabited by man for a testimony to all nations, and by divine foreknowledge declared that the Church, which was afterwards gathered by His own power out of all nations, though not yet seen nor established in the times when He was living as man among men, should be invincible and undismayed, and should never be conquered by death, but stands and abides unshaken, settled, and rooted upon His own power as upon a rock that cannot be shaken or broken …”²³⁰

Here, Eusebius states that the Church is rooted upon the power of Jesus. This power is likened to a “rock that cannot be shaken or broken.” Again, he does not even mention successors of Peter or the authority that comes from such an office. In fact, he speaks of Christ as the foundation of the Church in such a way that almost seems to exclude the primacy of Peter.²³¹ Therefore, it seems highly unlikely that Eusebius used Matt 16:18 to support an argument for the apostolic authority of the papacy.

Cyril of Jerusalem, c. A.D. 315 – March 18, 386²³²

Cyrillus was probably born in Jerusalem or its immediate vicinity around A.D. 315.²³³ Much of Cyril’s public life involved the controversy over Arianism; for example, Acacius of Caesarea, an Arian, who had elevated Cyril to the episcopal chair, took issue with him over the Nicene faith and on a jurisdictional question, and subsequently deposed him at a council in 357.²³⁴ After the death of Emperor Constantius, he was restored to his bishopric in 361; ironically, in 363 his former adversary, Acacius, was converted to the orthodox faith.²³⁵ He attended the ecumenical council of Constantinople in 381, which confirmed him in his office praised him for suffering much from the Arians for the orthodox faith.²³⁶

Like Eusebius, Cyril also understood Jesus to be the “rock” of Matt 16:18. In his Catechetical Lectures, he writes: “Of old the Psalmist sang, Bless ye God in the congregations, even the Lord, (ye that are) from the fountains of Israel. But after the Jews for the plots which they made against the Saviour were cast away from His grace, the Saviour built out of the Gentiles a second Holy Church, the Church of us Christians, concerning which he said to Peter, ‘And upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’”²³⁷ For Cyril, the Church is a spiritual society that God called into existence to replace the Jews, who conspired against their Messiah.²³⁸ For him, the Jews were cast away from God’s grace due to their rejection of Jesus and the gospel. Because of their unbelief, the Gentiles became the new people of God, the Church. The quotation does not specifically identify the “rock” in question, but the context again focuses upon Jesus and his work, not Peter; not surprisingly, many theologians understand this passage to affirm a Christological interpretation of the verse. While he attributes primacy to Peter in other passages²³⁹, he failure to identify Peter as the “rock” might come from a desire to safeguard those being catechized in the faith from any misunderstandings about Christ’s unique role and position in the Church.²⁴⁰ Even if the passage were understood to reference Peter (which seems unlikely given the context), it says nothing about the apostle’s successors or any authority that they might inherit.

Augustine of Hippo, A.D. 354-430²⁴¹

Few scholars would argue the monumental impact of Augustine on Western theology. He was one of the most prolific writers in the history of the Church, and his abiding importance rests upon his keen, penetrating understanding into Christian truth.²⁴² Aurelius Augustinus was born in Thagaste of a pagan father and a Christian mother, Monica.²⁴³ When Augustine was seventeen years old, his parents sent him to Carthage, a city that had been the political, economic, and cultural center of Latin-speaking Africa.²⁴⁴ He soon became involved with the Manicheans, and he practiced the religion for roughly nine years.²⁴⁵ Augustine later migrated to Rome, where he opened a school of rhetoric.²⁴⁶ He soon became disgusted by the behavior of his students there, and he left for a professorship at Milan shortly thereafter.²⁴⁷ At the urging of his mother, Augustine attended the sermons of Ambrose, bishop of Milan – these sermons would change the course of Augustine’s life.²⁴⁸ Ambrose was able to answer many of the questions that Augustine held about the Bible and Christianity,²⁴⁹ and he received baptism on the eve of Easter in 368.²⁵⁰ Augustine became a priest in 391, and from 396 until his death, he served as the bishop of Hippo.²⁵¹ He is best known for his Confessions, City of God, and his numerous theological treatises (many of which were against heresies, such as Manicheanism and Pelagianism).

Like many others before him, Augustine strongly believed in apostolic succession. He did believe that the bishop of Rome was the rightful successor of Peter. In his writings, Augustine clearly affirmed his high view of Rome. In a letter against the Donatists, Augustine writes:

For if the lineal succession of bishops is taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: - Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiads, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found.²⁵²

Here, Augustine is arguing much like Tertullian in his treatise Prescription Against Heretics. Augustine is challenging the Donatists to prove their credentials. He is basically stating that the church of Rome has apostolic roots; he can trace the current bishop of Rome all the way back to Peter himself. Therefore, the doctrine of the church can be trusted, for it is an apostolic gospel that is being preached. By arguing in this manner, it is clear that Augustine views the popes as Peter’s legitimate heirs. Moreover, Augustine quoted Matt 16:18 as a proof-text for this succession list. However, it is important to note that in the text, Augustine is not referring to Peter as the “rock”; instead, he refers to Peter as “a figure [representative] of the whole Church”. This is an important distinction that is prevalent in Augustine’s writings on the subject. Although he has a very high view of both Rome and Peter, the apostle basically serves as the character who is representative of the universal Church of Christ; he is not the “rock” that sustains the Church. That position belongs to Jesus alone. This is confirmed in many of Augustine’s sermons. In The Retractations, he states the following:

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’… But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received the ‘keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For ‘Thou art Peter’ and ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is more probable. ²⁵³

Although Augustine leaves the final decision to the reader, his preference regarding the rock seems clear. According to Augustine, Peter represents the Church and Jesus is the “rock” of the Church. Peter is chief among the apostles because he serves as the figure of the church, but he is not the “rock” in question. That “rock” is Jesus. This is seen yet again in Augustine’s Tractate on the Gospel of John. There, he writes:

And this Church, symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. … For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' because Peter had said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus.²⁵⁴

Again, Peter is representative of the universal Church and Jesus himself, as rock, supports that Church. The rock did not take its name from Peter, but Peter had his name taken from the “rock”; this interpretation expressed Augustine’s doctrine of grace, because Peter, and in him the whole church, is built upon Christ alone.²⁵⁵ The “foundation” reference clearly echoes the writings of Paul. It appears that Augustine is using 1 Cor 3:11 to substantiate his reading of Matt 16. Church historian Karlfried Frhlich adds:

In harmony with his ecclesiology, but against the meaning of the text, Augustine rigorously separated the name-giving from its explanation: Christ did not say to Peter: ‘you are the rock,’ but ‘you are Peter.’ The church is not built upon Peter but upon the only true rock, Christ. Augustine and the medieval exegetes after him found the warrant for this interpretation in 1 Cor. 10:4. The allegorical key of this verse had already been applied to numerous biblical rock passages in the earlier African testimonia tradition. Matt. 16:18 was no exception. If the metaphor of the rock did not refer to a negative category of ‘hard’ rocks, it had to be read christologically.²⁵⁶

Therefore, Peter served as a great prototype for the Church because in many ways, he was representative of the everyday Christian: sometimes he is strong (confessing that Jesus is the Christ); at other times he is weak (rebuking Jesus about his imminent death). Like everyone else, he is fallible, and needs to be grounded upon something stronger than himself, namely Jesus.

Summary

For Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Augustine the rock of Matt 16:18 was neither Peter nor his confession, but Jesus himself. It appears that the Pauline epistles, particularly 1 Corinthians, greatly influenced the writings of these fathers. The rock metaphor of Matt 16:18 stressed the strength of the Church’s foundation, but the foundation image itself was seen in 1 Corinthians 3, and that foundation is Jesus.²⁵⁷ Thus Jesus builds the church upon the firm rock, himself.²⁵⁸ Augustine, Cyril, and Eusebius all held a very high view of Peter, but they interpret the rock of Matt 16 to be Jesus, not the apostle. For Augustine, in particular, Peter and the popes are representatives of the entire Church; Jesus, though, is the firm rock upon which that Church rests, and it is he who supports and sustains the Christian body.

²¹⁷Michael W. Winter, St. Peter and the Popes (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1960), 53.

²¹⁸Ibid.

²¹⁹Henry Wace and William Piercy, eds., A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principle Sects and Heresies, 2^nd ed. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), 318.

²²⁰Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, vol. 1, The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco Publishers, 1984), 129.

²²¹Ibid.

²²²Ibid., 130.

²²³Ibid.

²²⁴Ibid.

²²⁵Winter, St. Peter and the Popes, 53.

²²⁶Ecclesiastical History 6.25. NPNF 2, 6:25; SC 41:127.

²²⁷Eusebius, does, though affirm apostolic succession. In book three of his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius writes the following: “So Timothy is recorded as the first to receive the bishopric of the diocese of Ephesus, as was Titus of the churches in Crete … Of the rest of Paul’s followers, there is no evidence from Paul himself that Cresens was sent to Gaul, and Linus, whom he mentioned in the second epistle to Timothy as being with him in Rome, has already been shown to have been the first after Peter to have been appointed to the episcopacy of the Church of Rome. And of Clement, also, who was himself appointed the third Bishop of the Church at Rome, there is evidence from Paul that he was his co-worker and fellow soldier” (3.4.5-3.4.9. See Ecclesiastical History, ed. and trans. by Roy J. Deferrari, Fathers of the Church (FOC), vol. 19 (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1965), 142-43. See also SC 31:100-101). He does not state, however, that the succession of bishops is derived from Matt 16:18, nor does he imply that Peter’s successors inherit the apostolic office.

²²⁸Eusebius, “Commentary on Psalm 17,” in The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, ed. and trans. by William Webster (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), 176. See also Eusebius Caesariensis, Commentarii in Psalmos, Patrologiae cursus Completus: Series Graeca (PG), ed. J. P. Minge, vol. 23 (Paris: Garnier Freres, 1857), 176.

²²⁹Winter, St. Peter and the Popes, 53.

²³⁰Eusebius, “Preparation of the Gospel 1.3.8,” in A Commentary by Writers of the First Five Centuries on the Place of St. Peter in the New Testament and that of St. Peter's Successors in the Church, ed. and trans. by James A. Waterworth (London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), 34-35. See also Eusebius Caesariensis, Praeparatio Euangelica, ed. by Karl Mras, Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller (GCS), vol. 43 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1982), 11-12.

²³¹Winter, St. Peter and the Popes, 53.

²³²Wace and Piercy, Dictionary of Early Christian Biography, 234.

²³³Ibid.

²³⁴Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3rd ed., vol. 3, Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity A.D. 311-600 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), 927.

²³⁵Ibid.

²³⁶Ibid.

²³⁷Catechetical Lectures 18.25. NPNF 2, 7:140. See also Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, “Catecheses ad Illuminandos,” in S. Patris nosti Cyrilli Hierosolymorum archiepiscopi opera quae superrunt omnia, 2^nd ed., ed. J. Rupp, vol. 2 (Hildesheim: H. A. Gerstenberg, 1967), 326.

²³⁸J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 4^th ed. (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco Publishers, 1978), 401.

²³⁹See Catechetical Lectures 11.3. NPNF 7:64; PG vol. 33, col. 693. See also Catechetical Lectures 17:17. NPNF 7:128; PG vol. 33, col. 997.

²⁴⁰Winter, St. Peter and the Popes, 54.

²⁴¹Wace and Piercy, Dictionary of Early Christian Biography, 71.

²⁴²F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingston, eds., Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2^nd ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1974), 106.

²⁴³Ibid.

²⁴⁴Gonzalez, The Early Church, 208.

²⁴⁵Ibid.

²⁴⁶Cross and Livingston, Dictionary of the Christian Church, 106.

²⁴⁷Ibid.

²⁴⁸Ibid.

²⁴⁹Ibid.

²⁵⁰Ibid.

²⁵¹Ibid.

²⁵²Letters of St. Augustine 53.2. NPNF 1, 1:298; CSEL 34:153-154

²⁵³Retractations 20. FOC 60:90-91. CSEL 36:97-98.

²⁵⁴On The Gospel of John Tractate 124.5. NPNF 7:450; CIL 36:684-85.

²⁵⁵Ulrich Luz, Matthew in History: Interpretation, Influence, and Effects (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 60.

²⁵⁶Karlfried Frhlich, “Saint Peter, Papal Primacy, and The Exegetical Tradition, 1150-1300,” in The Religious Roles of the Papacy, ed. Christopher Ryan (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1989), 8-9.

²⁵⁷Ibid., 9.

²⁵⁸Ibid

Biblical Topics:

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

4. The PETRA = Fide School of Interpretation

This chapter will examine the fathers who asserted that the “rock” in question was neither Peter nor Christ, but Peter’s confession of faith. For these writers, the Church rests upon the firm belief that Jesus is the Christ. One of the reasons for the popularity of this interpretation may have been that it enabled an easy identification of the believer with Peter; he is a human being, weak, unstable, and not perfect.²⁵⁹ Instead of the apostle Peter, these theologians believed that the church needed to rest on something sturdier, something that could and would withstand the test of time. For these writers, that “rock” was faith in Jesus.²⁶⁰

Origen, c. A.D. 185-254²⁶¹

Origen was probably born in Alexandria, Egypt, but whether he was of Egyptian, Greek, or mixed heritage is not known.²⁶² He was born to Christian parents in the year 185, and he probably received baptism in early childhood, according to Egyptian custom.²⁶³ His father suffered martyrdom under the reign of Septimius Severus, and shortly after the persecutions, the bishop of Alexandria, Demetrius, entrusted Origen with the task of teaching catechumens.²⁶⁴ During the persecutions under Decius, Origen was arrested and tortured; he was not put to death, but his wounds were so severe that he died shortly after release.²⁶⁵ He is best known for his compilation of the Hexapla (an Old Testament translation, including the Hebrew text, the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew, and four different Greek translations), his apology Against Celsus, and his systematic theology De Principiis (On First Principles).²⁶⁶

On one hand, it appears as though Origen clearly states that the “rock” of Matt 16:18 is the Apostle Peter. In a homily on Exodus, Origen writes the following words: “Look at the great the foundation of the church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church! And what does the Lord say to him? 'O you of little faith he says, why have you doubted?'”²⁶⁷ Here, the “solid rock” seems to be referencing Peter, whom Jesus later rebuked for his lack of faith. This is affirmed again in his Commentary on John, where he writes: “Peter, upon whom the Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, left only one Epistle of acknowledged genuinity.”²⁶⁸ In his Commentary on Matthew, though, Origen seems to indicate the “rock” is actually the profession of faith. Here, he states:

And if we too have said like Peter, “Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” not as if flesh and blood had revealed it to us, but by the light of the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said the Word, “Thou art Peter,” etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank from the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accord with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.²⁶⁹

Here, Origen states that everyone who has confessed that Jesus is the Christ "becomes a Peter”; therefore, all disciples of Christ are “rocks”. It is not a title that Peter possesses alone. He later adds the following in his Matthew commentary:

But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but they shall prevail against the other apostles and the perfect? … For all bear the surname of “rock” who are the imitators of Christ, that is of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him, they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.²⁷⁰

Again, Origen confirms that the “rock” of the church is anyone who is an imitator of Jesus. Peter is a rock, but he is no more of a rock than any other true believer. What makes Peter a rock is the same thing that makes every believer a rock, namely, his/her faith. For Origen, that faith is shown by being an imitator of Jesus. It seems best, then, to classify Origen as a father who places the faith of Peter above the man himself. Origen’s writings on the verse do not shed any light on a succession of bishops to the office of Peter. Again, faith is lying at the center of Origen’s argument; therefore, it is not likely that Origen understood this verse as a basis for a permanent Roman see with Petrine authority.

Ambrose, c. A.D. 339-397²⁷¹

Ambrose was born at Trier, the son of a Praetorian prefect at Gaul.²⁷² He practiced at the court of the praetorian prefect of Italy, Probus, who appointed him magistrate of the provinces of Liguria and Aemilia.²⁷³ The episcopal chair of Milan, the second capital of Italy, was occupied by the Cappadocian Auxentius, the head of the Arian party in the West, but soon after the arrival of Ambrose, Auxentius died.²⁷⁴ The election of the next bishop could have easily turned violent because both the Arians and the orthodox wanted a member of their group to become the next bishop.²⁷⁵ Ambrose appeared at Auxentius’ church and spoke to the crowd.²⁷⁶ Tradition holds that while he was speaking to the people, the voice of a child suddenly rang out: "Let Ambrose be bishop!"²⁷⁷ Both Arians and Catholics cried, “Amen.”²⁷⁸ At the time, Ambrose was a catechumen and not even baptized, but he was obliged to submit and receive baptism.²⁷⁹ Eight days later, in 374, Ambrose was consecrated bishop of Milan.²⁸⁰ With Jerome, Augustine, and Gregory the Great, Ambrose is listed as one of the four traditional Doctors of the Latin Church.²⁸¹

In his writings, Ambrose continually maintained that the “rock” of Matt 16:18 referred to Peter’s faith. In his work The Incarnation of Our Lord, Ambrose states the following: “He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard: 'But who do you say I am,' immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank… . Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter's flesh, but of his faith, that 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' But his confession of faith conquered hell.”²⁸² Here, Ambrose clearly states that it is not Peter’s flesh (meaning Peter, the man) but Peter’s faith that is the foundation of the Church. It is the confession of faith that will shield the Church from all heresies. Ambrose affirms this interpretation in his Commentary on Luke. There he states:

And therefore, Peter did not await the verdict of the people, but proffered his own, saying, “Thou art the Christ, the son of the Living God.’ … Christ is a rock – for they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ. He did not deny that grace of even this title to his disciple, so that he is a true Peter because from the Rock he has the firmness of constancy, the steadfastness of faith. Then strive that ye too may be a rock. Therefore, seek the rock, not outside you, but within you. Your action is a rock, your mind is a rock. Your house is built upon this rock, so that it cannot be shaken by any storms of spiritual wickedness. Your faith is a rock, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If ye will be a rock, ye will be in the Church.²⁸³

Again, Ambrose upholds the “rock-faith” interpretation of the verse. It is true that Peter is held in high regard, but he has that place of eminence on account of his faith.²⁸⁴ Ambrose places the apostle’s faith, not the man, at the center of his exegesis. Thus Peter’s primacy appears to be a primacy of confession, not of honor; a primacy of faith, not rank.²⁸⁵ While it is true that Ambrose had a high view of Rome²⁸⁶, he does not link his understanding of this verse to Peter’s successors.²⁸⁷ In fact, Ambrose encourages his readers to become “rocks.” Anyone who shares in the faith of Peter can call himself a “rock upon which the Church is built.” It seems unlikely, then, that Ambrose understood this verse to lend full Petrine authority to later bishops of Rome.

Epiphanius, c. 310/320-403²⁸⁸

Epiphanius was born near Eleutheropolis in Palestine, between 310 and 320, and he died at sea, at a very advanced age, on his way back from Constantinople to Cyprus, in 403.²⁸⁹ Much of his early life was spent with the monks in Egypt, and there he learned not only a zeal for ecclesiastical orthodoxy but also an appreciation for the ascetic life.²⁹⁰ In 367, he was elected to the bishopric of Constantia (the ancient Salamis, in Cyprus) where he served for 36 years.²⁹¹ He is known for his works, The Anchor, a defense of Christian doctrine, and the Panarion, a book that addresses heresies.²⁹²

Like many of the patristic fathers, Epiphanius appears to vacillate in his interpretation of Matt 16:18. In his Anocoratus (Anchor) he states the following about Peter: [Peter] is the first of the Apostles, that firm rock upon which the church of God is built, so that the gates of hell … will not prevail against it. For in every way was the faith confirmed in him who received the keys of he kingdom of heaven …”²⁹³ In this text, Epiphanius indicates that the “rock” in question is none other than the apostle himself. However, in his Panarion, Epiphanius states that the “rock” is the confession of faith. It reads:

Thus the Lord and his church accept the penitent, as Manasseh the son of Hezekiah returned and was accepted by the Lord – and the chief of the apostles, St. Peter, who denied for a time and still became our truly solid rock which supports the Lord’s faith, and on which the church is in every way founded. This is, first of all, because he confessed that “Christ” is the “Son of the living God,” and was told, “On this rock of sure faith will I build my Church” – for he plainly confessed that Christ is true Son. For when he said, “Son of the living God,” with the additional phrase, “the living” he showed that Christ is God’s true Son, as I have said in nearly every Sect.²⁹⁴

Here, Epiphanius links the rock to both Peter and his faith. On one hand, he states that Peter “still became our truly solid rock which supports the Lord’s faith.” On the other hand, Epiphanius declares that it was “on the rock of sure faith” that Jesus built his Church. Again in his Panarion, Epiphanius appears to hold the pevtra = fide interpretation: “All the sects are truly ‘gates of hell’ but ‘They will not prevail against the rock,’ that is, the truth.”²⁹⁵ Once again, Epiphanius leans toward the apostle’s true faith, not the man himself, as the “rock” of Matt 16:18.

John Chrysostom, c. A.D. 347-407²⁹⁶

John Chrysostom was born at Antioch probably in A.D. 347.²⁹⁷ His mother, Anthusa, was left a widow at age 20, but she refused all other offers of marriage and devoted herself completely to the education of her son.²⁹⁸ He chose to study law, and when he was eighteen years old, he began to attend the lectures of the well-known sophist Libanius.²⁹⁹ Three years later, he was baptized by Bishop Meletius of Antioch, and began to learn the discipline of the monastic life.³⁰⁰ His reputation as a great preacher soon became known throughout the Greek-speaking church, and he was later named “the golden-mouthed.”³⁰¹ In 397, the bishopric of Constantinople was vacant, and the emperor ordered that Chrysostom fill the position.³⁰² The fact that he often helped the persecuted Origenistic monks of Egypt pitted him against the empress Eudoxia, and she eventually ousted Chrysostom from his bishopric.³⁰³ He died in banishment on September 14, 407.³⁰⁴

Like the aforementioned writers, Chrysostom consistently argues that the “rock” in question is Peter’s confession of faith. He states the following in his Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew: “ ‘And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’; that is, on the faith of his confession.”³⁰⁵ In this case, Chrysostom clearly identifies the confession, not the apostle, as the “rock”. He does the same in Homily 82 on Matthew. In that work he states: “[Christ] speaks from this time lowly things … that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His church upon Peter’s confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it.”³⁰⁶ Yet again, it is Peter’s faith that is being praised. Once more, Chrysostom writes: “For Christ added nothing more to Peter, but as though his faith were perfect, said, upon this confession He would build the Church …”³⁰⁷ For Chrysostom, then, the rock on which the Church is built is regularly taken to be the confession of Peter, or the faith which prompted this confession.³⁰⁸ His interpretation of the verse yields no mention of an “office” of Peter. Therefore, it seems unlikely that Chrysostom would have understood this verse to provide the bishop of Rome with the authority of Peter.

Summary

For Origen, Ambrose, Epiphanius, and Chrysostom, the “rock” of Matt 16:18 was neither Jesus nor the apostle Peter. Instead, the “rock” is Peter’s confession of faith. In other words, the Church rests upon the firm conviction that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Though Origen has a high view of Peter, he does not see Jesus give Peter any particular authority that is not given to the other apostles. In fact, Peter serves as a representative for all Christians. Whenever any believer imitates Christ, he becomes a “rock.” This view is echoed by Ambrose, who challenges all believers to become “rocks” by exercising their faith in Jesus. Finally, both Epiphanius and Chrysostom recognize the leadership of Peter, yet both men affirm that Peter’s faith trumps Peter the man in Matt 16:18. Though Chrysostom lists Peter as the chief of the apostles, it must be conceded that there is little or nothing in his writings which explicitly affirms that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter in his primacy.³⁰⁹ For these fathers, then, the confession of faith, not papal authority, is at issue in Matt 16:18.

²⁵⁹Ulrich Luz, Matthew in History: Interpretation, Influence, and Effects (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 61.

²⁶⁰For more writings of the fathers who held to a pevtra = faith interpretation, see Appendix C.

²⁶¹F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingston, eds., Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2^nd ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1974), 991.

²⁶²Henry Wace and William Piercy, eds., A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principle Sects and Heresies, 2^nd ed. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), 770.

²⁶³Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3rd ed., vol. 2, Ante-Nicene Christianity A.D. 100-325 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), 786.

²⁶⁴Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, vol. 1, The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco Publishers, 1984), 78.

²⁶⁵Ibid.

²⁶⁶Ibid.

²⁶⁷Homily 5.4. For English translation, see William Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 1 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1970), 205. See also GCS 29:188.

²⁶⁸Commentary on John 5.3. ANF 10:384. GCS 10:101.

²⁶⁹Commentary on Matthew 12:10. ANF 10:456; GCS 40:85-86.

²⁷⁰Commentary on Matthew 12:11. ANF 10:456; GCS 40:86-89.

²⁷¹Cross and Livingston, Dictionary of the Christian Church, 41.

²⁷²Ibid.

²⁷³Ibid.

²⁷⁴Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3:962.

²⁷⁵Gonzalez, The Early Church, 189.

²⁷⁶Ibid.

²⁷⁷Schaff, The History of the Christian Church, 3:962.

²⁷⁸Ibid.

²⁷⁹Ibid.

²⁸⁰Ibid.

²⁸¹Cross and Livingston, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 42.

²⁸²The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord 4.32-5.35. FOC 44:230-1; CSEL 79: 239-240.

²⁸³St. Ambrose, “Commentary in Luke 6.98,” in Exposition of the Holy Gospel According to St. Luke with Fragments on the Prophecy of Isaias, ed. and trans. by Theodosia Tomkinson (Etna: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1998), 229. See also CIL 14:209.

²⁸⁴Michael W. Winter, St. Peter and the Popes (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1960), 61.

²⁸⁵Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1990), 83.

²⁸⁶See Ep. 42.5, 11.4.

²⁸⁷J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 4^th ed. (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco Publishers, 1978), 418.

²⁸⁸Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3:926.

²⁸⁹Ibid.

²⁹⁰Wace and Piercy, Dictionary of Early Christian Biography, 300.

²⁹¹Ibid.

²⁹²Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3:928-29.

²⁹³Ancoratus 9:6. For English Translation, see Winter, St. Peter and the Popes, 57. See also GCS 1:16.

²⁹⁴Epiphanius, “Cathari 59,” in The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, trans. by Frank Williams, Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, vol. 35 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987), 109. See also GCS 31: 373.

²⁹⁵Against Pneumatomachi 74. For English, see Williams, Panarion, 490. See also GCS 37:332.

²⁹⁶Cross and Livingston, Dictionary of the Christian Church, 282.

²⁹⁷Wade and Piercy, Dictionary of Early Church Biography, 158.

²⁹⁸Ibid.

²⁹⁹Ibid.

³⁰⁰Gonzalez, The Early Church, 195.

³⁰¹Ibid.

³⁰²Ibid.

³⁰³Ibid.

³⁰⁴Ibid.

³⁰⁵Homily 54.3. NPNF 1, 10:333; PG 58:535.

³⁰⁶Homily 82.3. NPNF 1, 10:494; PG 58:741.

³⁰⁷Homily on the Gospel of John 21.1. NPNF 14:72-73; PG 59:428.

³⁰⁸Dom John Chapman, Studies in the Early Papacy (London: Sheed & Ward, 1928), 77.

³⁰⁹Herbert Scott, The Eastern Churches and the Papacy (London: Sheed & Ward, 1928), 133.

Biblical Topics:

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

Issues in Church Leadership/Ministry

5. The Nature of the Apostolic Office

“Just as the office which the Lord confided to Peter alone, as first of the apostles, destined to be transmitted to his successors, is a permanent one, so also endures the office, which the apostles received, of shepherding the Church, a charge destined to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops. Hence the Church teaches that the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ”.³¹⁰

“It was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said You shall be called Cephas, that the Lord, after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God, spoke these words: Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’… Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as the prince of the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our Lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema. That which our Lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ’s authority, in the church, which founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time… . Blessed Peter … received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race; and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood. Therefore, whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains, by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received… . Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself, (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.”³¹¹

To this point, Matt 16:18 has been examined from an exegetical and historical point of view. On an exegetical level, scholars have largely fallen into three camps regarding the identity of the pevtra of v. 18. Some theologians, such as Luther and Zwingli, stated that the “rock” is Jesus. Others, such as Caragounis and McNeile, maintain that the “rock” is Peter’s confession of faith. However, the majority of modern exegetes, both Catholic and Protestant, affirm that the “rock” is the apostle Peter. At a time in which audiences were questioning his identity, Jesus asked his own disciples: “Who do you say that I am?” (Matt 16:15). Only one apostle, Peter, answered and declared Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matt 16:16). Just as Peter singled out his Lord, Jesus now singles out his apostle and explains his name. For the staunch expression of his faith, Peter was to become the “rock” of the Church. Given the intentional use of the pevtra-Pevtro" pun in Matt 16:18, the only verse in the entire NT corpus that contains both words, it seems unlikely that Jesus was referring to anyone/anything other than the apostle Simon Peter. Peter was not made the “rock” because he was inherently more worthy than the other disciples; his later condemnation by Jesus affirms this (16:23); instead, Peter was made the “rock” because he boldly proclaimed the truth about his Lord.³¹² However, nothing in the exegesis, leads one to conclude that the office was meant for anyone other than the apostle Peter. The findings have indicated no real basis to assume that the text is outlining the basis for a succession of supreme pontiffs who claim their authority from Peter.

Furthermore, a survey of the major patristic writers, from both the east and the west, has proven that there is no real consensus on the identity of the “rock” of Matt 16:18. It is true that from the third to the mid-fifth century, many theologians held a Petrine interpretation of the verse; however, many other notable scholars (such as Augustine, Ambrose, Hilary, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and Origen) did not even believe that the rock in question was Peter. For them, the rock was either Jesus or Peter’s confession of faith. Clearly, they did not use this verse as the foundation for a permanent Roman See with Petrine authority – Peter isn’t even the rock! It should be noted that Augustine’s Christological position would largely hold the day throughout the Middle Ages. This is important because the Catholic Church maintains that the institution of the papacy is of divine, not human, origin.³¹³ Matt 16:18 is used to substantiate this. If this claim is true, then one would certainly expect to find the “doctors of the church” referring to the institution of the papacy and linking it to this verse. For the most part, though, (with the exception of Jerome and the bishops of Rome), such references are not present in the writings of the fathers. Yes, it is true that Rome possessed a position of pre-eminence in the early Church; no historian or theologian would dispute this³¹⁴. However, the question is whether the primacy promised to Peter in Matt 16:17-19 and actually exercised by him is to be transferred to bishops of the Roman Church.³¹⁵ That a church occupies a position of pre-eminence still does not prove that it stands in such a relation to Matt 16:17-19 as to give it a divine right to that superior position for all time to come, yet the Catholic Church has claimed exactly that.³¹⁶ Granted, Rome was the center of the Empire at the time and therefore wielded a considerable amount of authority. Even if it were also granted that both Peter and Paul taught, established churches, and died in the city (as tradition holds), that would certainly add to the city’s ecclesiastical authority, but it would not mean that the Roman church then becomes the primary and best spokesman for the Christian faith for all time.³¹⁷ Moreover, it should be noted that the popes did not even begin to make a claim to Peter’s office and authority until the beginning of the third century.³¹⁸ How is this to be explained if the papacy is a perpetual institution? Why do more than one hundred years pass before the primacy of Rome is linked to Jesus’ promise to Peter?³¹⁹ Did Peter not know that those who were to succeed him (such as Linus and Clement, according to tradition) were to inherit his office as apostle and therefore his authority? If he does know of succession to his office, he does not mention it in his epistles³²⁰, and such knowledge does not appear to be attributed to him in the Gospels either.

Quite simply, there is nothing in Matt 16:18 that even mentions successors of Peter. The fathers who held to a Petrine interpretation almost universally maintain that the “rock” was Peter alone (only Jerome seems to agree with the papal reading of the verse). When the church fathers did discuss others becoming “rocks” (such as Origen and to some extent, Tertullian), they were not referring to the successors of Peter becoming “rocks”; instead, they maintained that Peter was the representative for all Christians, not just the bishops of Rome. Again, it must be conceded here that many of the church fathers affirmed the idea of apostolic succession. In fact, many (such as Firmilian and even Augustine) believed that the popes were the legitimate successors of Peter. However, their writings do not indicate that they used this verse to substantiate that claim. They believed that historically (for Peter’s successors are not named within Scripture) Peter chose leaders in the church to take his place as shepherd and teacher after his death in order to preserve right teaching. This was the chief function of apostolic succession: the preservation of true doctrine. In other words, information by Clement could be trusted because he received that information from Linus, who received his information from Peter, who received his information from the God-man, Jesus. Truth, not an office, seemed to be the primary concern of the fathers. To take the apostle’s place as shepherd-teacher, though, does not mean that his “successors” inherit his apostolic office. Except for Jerome, not one of the church fathers reviewed referred to the bishop of Rome as anything other than that – a bishop; they did not refer to him as an apostle, let alone an apostle like the original Twelve. Surely, the pope had authority, even considerable authority as one in the line of Peter (if that were to be conceded), but the writings of the fathers do not give the impression that they viewed the pope as the “rock” in the same way that Peter was the “rock.” Moreover, before Leo, there does not seem to be any indication that Peter was somehow mystically present with the pope.

The exegetical examination in chapter one concluded that the pevtra was the apostle Peter, and Jesus’ charge to the apostle established his role as leader among the Twelve. The import of that apostolic office cannot be overestimated. According to the entire witness of the New Testament, the apostolic office, particularly that of the Twelve, is unique office that can never be repeated; the church may have elders, bishops, and deacons, but it can never again have apostles like that seen in Scripture.³²¹ After Jesus’ resurrection, Peter himself outlines the parameters for the apostolic office (Acts 2:21-22): the man must have been with the original twelve while Jesus interacted with them, beginning with Jesus’ baptism until his Ascension, and he must be a witness to the resurrection. No matter how righteous the bishop, deacon, or elder, no one today may claim such a position. Paul substantiated his role as an apostle by affirming that he had seen and interacted with the Risen Lord (Acts 10:41).

While the church is ultimately grounded on Jesus (1 Cor 10:4), there is a sense in which it is also grounded upon the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20). Their ministry and work helped to establish the church after Jesus’ resurrection and ascension. Moreover, he mandated that his apostles go out and make disciples, and thereby create a body of followers (Matt 28:19-20). Matt 16:18 states that of that apostolic group, Peter was simply chief. He is no way trumps Jesus, who is also His head, but Jesus does leave the leadership of the apostolic fellowship to Peter. So just as Eph 2:20 (and Romans 15:20) is understood in a chronological way, the same is true of Matt 16:18.³²²

Essentially, nowhere does Scripture state that a saying or charge given to an apostle is simply conferred onto future bishops.³²³ Other church offices are important and necessary for the life and function of the church, but they do not have the authority of the apostolic office. Even Paul recognizes this in his spiritual gifts inventory; without fail the office of apostle is listed first (Rom 12:28; Eph 4:11). This office had a place of primacy, and when a new church was established the Twelve did not command others to be apostles but bishops and elders.³²⁴ Theologically, then, the Roman church cannot adequately justify a succession of popes with the authority of Peter.

If Matt 16:18 does not provide either an exegetical or theological basis for the papacy, the next logical question is: Where did it come from? Most Protestant scholars believe that the first reference to a pope claiming Petrine authority is either Callistus (217-22) or Stephanus (254-57)³²⁵; Frhlich, though, offers Leo I and Gelasius I as the first rulers to claim the office.³²⁶ As seen in Tertullian’s comments above, it does appear that the man to whom he is writing (most likely Callistus) is claiming some kind of Petrine authority, but this claim that is unabashedly assailed by Tertullian. Interestingly, the Catholic Church has used this verse to substantiate the claim that Jesus instituted the papacy. As this thesis has shown, nothing from the text of Scripture or the tradition of the patristic writers substantiates this. Even those fathers who have a high view of Peter give no indication that a successor is implied in the text, let alone that the successor will have the same authority as Peter. Based upon the evidence presented, the following conclusion can be made: While it is true that the “rock” of Matt 16:18 points to the apostle Peter, neither the exegesis nor a historical examination of the patristic writers affirms a continuation of his apostolic office.

³¹⁰“Paragraph 862,” Catechism of the Catholic Church with Modifications from the Editio Typica, 5^th Ed. (New York and London: Doubleday, 1997), 249.

³¹¹“Session 4, July 18, 1870 of the First Vatican Council: 1869-1870,” in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman P. Tanner, vol. 2, Trent to Vatican II (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 812-813.

³¹²See Catechism of the Catholic Church, 552

³¹³See paragraph 862 above from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

³¹⁴Oscar Cullman, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr: A Historical and Theological Study (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1958), 237.

³¹⁵Ibid.

³¹⁶Ibid.

³¹⁷Ibid., 238.

³¹⁸Ibid.

³¹⁹Ibid.

³²⁰Here, the author is assuming that the apostle Peter wrote 1 and 2 Peter.

³²¹Cullman, Peter, 220.

³²²Ibid., 222.

³²³Ibid., 223.

³²⁴Ibid, 224.

³²⁵Ibid, 238.

³²⁶Karlfried Frhlich, “Saint Peter, Papal Primacy, and The Exegetical Tradition, 1150-1300,” in The Religious Roles of the Papacy, ed. Christopher Ryan (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1989), 3

Biblical Topics:

Leadership

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

6. Additional Considerations on the Exegesis of Matt 16:18

(Appendix A)

Even though Peter’s confession is generally taken to be authentic, the same cannot be said of Matt 16:17-19, and many scholars deem the verses to be questionable. Some commentators, such as Luz and Bultmann, view the phrase mou thVn ejkklhsivan (“my church”) to be too anachronistic to be genuine. Others, such as Cullman, maintain that the verses are authentic but not in chronological order. On a linguistic level, many commentators (such as Hagner and Cullman) argue that the pevtra-Pevtro" pun indicates that Jesus was speaking Aramaic to his disciples; however, other commentators (such as Gundry and Porter) maintain that Jesus could very well have spoken Greek on that occasion. This appendix will briefly examine issues regarding form, structure, source/redaction concerns, questions of authenticity, and linguistics.

Form/Structure

Peter’s confession is found in all three synoptic gospels (Matt 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-21) with a possible parallel in John 6:67-71.³²⁷ As is the case in Mark and Luke, the pericope in Matthew is clearly the climax of the first central part of the Gospel, namely the Galilean ministry (4:17-16:20).³²⁸ Matthew has generally followed Mark’s order of events since the beginning of chapter 14, with the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida as an obvious exception.³²⁹ The three synoptic gospels each have Jesus’ question to the disciples concerning his identity (Matt 16:13; Mark 8:27; Luke 9:18); the disciples’ response to Jesus’ question (Matt 16:14; Mark 8:28; Luke 9:19); Jesus’ question to Peter and Peter’s response (Matt 16:15-16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20); and the charge to keep silent (Matt 16:20; Mark 8:30; Luke 9:21). Matt 16:17-19 are wholly unique to his gospel.³³⁰ With regard to form, Matt 16:17-19 can generally be classified as a brief discourse of Jesus.³³¹ Structurally, Matthew has given the entire pericope a certain parallelism. The structure of the two questions (in v. 13, 15) is parallel, and the answer to the first question presents the various options in a parallel manner as well.³³² Moreover, verses 17-19 also have an obvious parallelism – each of the three verses contains a leading statement followed by a couplet³³³:

(17b) Blessed are you, Simon Barjona,

(17c) because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you,

(17d) but my Father in heaven [has revealed this to you].

(18a) And I say to you that you are Peter,

(18b) and on this rock I will build my church,

(18c) and [the] gates of Hades will not overpower it.

(19a) I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,

(19b) and whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven

(19c) and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in
heaven.³³⁴

The entire pericope calls to mind 14:2, 5 (v. 14), 14:33 (v. 16), and 13:16-17 (v. 17), but particularly the text on the Son’s revelation in 11:25-27.³³⁵ The passage serves as a prelude not only to 18:18 (v. 19b, c) but also to the critical revelatory scene in 26:61-64, when Jesus is before the Sanhedrin.³³⁶

Considerations on Source, Redaction, and Authenticity

For the purpose of this examination, Marcan priority will be assumed. Thus, Mark is assumed to be a source for both Luke 9:18-21 and Matthew 16:13-16, 20. Jesus’ question to the disciples is identical in all three synoptic gospels: uJmei'" deV tivna me levgete ei ai. Minor differences between Mark and Matthew include the following: Matthew includes the name Sivmwn with Pevtro" in verse 16; Matthew substitutes the levgei aujtw'/ found in Mark for eipen in verse 16; Matthew adds oJ uiJoV" tou' qeou' tou' zw'nto" to Peter’s response in verse 16 (cf. Luke’s toVn CristoVn tou' qeou', “the Christ of God” [Luke 9:20] and John’s oJ a)gio" tou' qeou, “the Holy One of God” [John 6:69]); and while the overall meaning of the “charge to silence” is the same in the two gospels (16:20 in Matt and 8:30 in Mark), Matthew does change the wording (from kaiV ejpetivmhsen aujtoi'" i{na mhdeniV levgwsin periV aujtou', which is found in Mark, to tovte diesteivlato toi" maqhtai'" i{na mhdeniV ei[pwsin o{ti aujtov" ejstin oJ Cristov") in order to add theological emphasis to the point that he is trying to make: Jesus is the Christ, the unique Son of God.³³⁷ Of course, the central question is this: Is the unique Matthean material authentic? In other words, are the verses really the original words that Jesus uttered in response to Peter’s confession, or did Matthew insert the material into the pericope? Is it possible that these words were a later addition by the church? Even if Jesus did speak these words to Peter, was it in response to Peter’s confession here in Caesarea Philippi or did Jesus speak these words at a different time?

If Mark’s sequence is followed, then Matthew’s unique material may seem intrusive, perhaps to the point that one may argue that the writer inserted the material into the narrative.³³⁸ It is possible, though, that Luke simply followed Mark in omitting it, and Mark’s emphasis on the theme of discipleship failure would be served by omitting these verses.³³⁹ It should also be noted that Matthew was one of the original Twelve³⁴⁰; therefore, he would have had intimate knowledge of this event. However, tradition holds that Mark received his information from the apostle Peter himself.³⁴¹ Given the thrust of this passage, one would assume that certainly he of all people would have wanted to present this interchange with Jesus. Perhaps that’s not the case, though. Maybe Peter, out of humility, chose not to share this information with Mark.³⁴² Perhaps he did not want others to view him as the “rock of the church” or the “prince of the apostles”; these titles would certainly be given to him if he is the so-called “rock” in question. Even if this explains the insertion of the verses into the narrative, other significant problems still remain.

The Problem of mou thvn ejkklhsivan

There are certainly elements in vv. 17-19 that make Matthean authorship look questionable. Luz, for example, maintains that the words mou thVn ejkklhsivan all but prove the inauthenticity of the passage.³⁴³ He asserts that the term ejkklhsiva occurs on only one other instance in the gospels (in 18:17), and there it is used in the sense of an individual community; so the use of the word is probably not a part of the language of Jesus.³⁴⁴ He also notes that the possessive pronoun mou is hardly Matthean.³⁴⁵ In Matthew, it appears 7 times before the noun and 66 times after the noun; in Mark, the ratio is 1:29, and in Luke 10:71.³⁴⁶ Moreover, Luz states that one should expect to find “assembly of God” rather than “church” since Jesus assembled God’s people and not a holy remnant.³⁴⁷ Rudolph Bultmann largely concurs with the assessment of Luz on this point. While he affirms the antiquity of the logion,³⁴⁸ Bultmann maintains that “it seems quite impossible for Matt 16:17-19 to be a genuine saying of Jesus” because the term ejkklhsiva is deprived of its eschatological character.³⁴⁹ Hagner counters by pointing out that the word ejkklhsivan should not be viewed as a problem since Jesus was probably speaking Aramaic rather than Greek³⁵⁰, so he probably would have used a word like lh*q* or hd*u@ ( = ejkklhsiva).³⁵¹ Israel can be called the lh*q* hwhy, or the ejkklhsiva tou kurivou, “community of the Lord.”³⁵²

However, even if Jesus was not speaking Aramaic, the word ejkklhsiva was still known to a Jewish audience. In the LXX, the word is used about a hundred times, and in these cases it usually translates to the Hebrew word lh*q*, which, when connected to the genitive of YHWH, always designated the people of God with a reference to redemptive history.³⁵³ So, Jesus did not need to speak the word lh*q*, in order for it to be understood that way. Cullman asserts that this line of thinking was so common in Jewish circles that the verse could easily be seen as: “Upon this rock I will build my people of God” and all the Jewish listeners would have known exactly what was meant.³⁵⁴ While Luz argues that the mou is non-Matthean, he may be missing the greater theological point: it may very well be that the calling of God’s people demanded a decision for God as announced by and embodied in Jesus himself.³⁵⁵ In this perspective, to become a member of the community of God is to become a member of the community of Jesus.³⁵⁶Acknowledged as the Messiah, Jesus states that he will build his ejkklhsiva, his community, his church – this is classic messianism.³⁵⁷ According to Albright and Mann, “it is hard to know what kind of thinking, other than confessional presupposition justifies the tendency of some commentators to dismiss this verse as inauthentic. A Messiah without a community would have been unthinkable to any Jew.”³⁵⁸ Thus, it should not be regarded as wholly unthinkable that Jesus might have referred to “his community.”³⁵⁹

The Problem of Oijkodomhvsw

The use of oijkodomhvsw also seems problematic. It implies that Jesus was prepared to build a future community, and while many assume that Jesus had an imminent eschatological expectation, this may not necessarily be the case.³⁶⁰ However, there is a sense in which the kingdom of God can be understood to be present with the coming of the Jesus. It is true that the final kingdom of God will not be ushered in until the end of the age, but it can be said that if Jesus is the Christ, then the kingdom of God has already arrived. In his answer to John the Baptist, Jesus states that the time of redemption has already come: the blind see, the lame walk, and the dead are raised.³⁶¹ Furthermore, Jesus’ interactions with his disciples strongly suggest that he was making plans for the future. The choice of twelve disciples, the trouble taken to teach them, and the commission given to them all point to the fact that Jesus was making preparations for the future.³⁶² Moreover, it is clear to Jesus that the work of the disciples already indicates that the time of redemption has come because the same deeds that he himself does they are also to accomplish, and this serves as proof that the prophecy has been fulfilled.³⁶³ Of course, the apostolic fellowship points to the future, for only after Jesus’ death will the church develop in the full sense of the word.³⁶⁴ That Jesus would consider himself to be involved in the building up of this body is not impossible if he was able to anticipate and therefore speak of his resurrection (cf. v. 21) and promise to be with his disciples spiritually in the future (28:20; cf. 18:20).³⁶⁵ If understood in this manner, Jesus’ use of the future tense here does not automatically negate historicity of the verses.

The Problem of Chronology

For the sake of argument, if the verses are assumed to be authentic words of Jesus, do they make sense in this pericope? In other words, is it possible that the event of vv. 17-19 occurred at a different time and Matthew simply included it here?³⁶⁶ It is important to ascertain whether Matthew, who alone included the verses, has put them in their chronological setting or whether he connected them with Peter’s declaration at Caesarea Philippi because its content seemed to fit there.³⁶⁷ It must be said that nowhere does Matthew argue that he is presenting the events of Jesus’ life and ministry in chronological order; that would seem to be Luke’s assertion (Luke 1:1-4). That the events of Matthew’s gospel are not recorded in order does not do damage to the historicity of the work. In fact, Matthew most likely uses anthologies in many places. He likes to group many stories that seem to belong together in their theological significance: miracle stories, sayings concerning the Law (Sermon on the Mount), sayings concerning John the Baptist (Matt 11), parables (Matt 13), sayings against the Pharisees (Matt 23).³⁶⁸ Given the fact that the theological thrust of the section (16:13-20) concerns the role of Jesus as divine Son-Messiah, Matthew may very well have wanted to included the logion here and preserve some continuity with regard to this theological emphasis.

On the one hand, Jesus’ words would seem to fit nicely in a post-resurrection setting.³⁶⁹ By the time that Paul wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians, it was already established tradition that the risen Jesus had personally appeared to Peter (1 Cor 15:5)³⁷⁰; interestingly, none of the Synoptic writers appear to give a description of this appearance.³⁷¹ However, some commentators, such as Oscar Seitz, argue that this “missing appearance narrative” is actually recorded in Matt 16:17-19. According to Seitz, when one considers that “Jesus was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead” (Rom 1:4), then it is highly probable that the risen Jesus appeared to Peter, and the apostle proclaimed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God,” exactly as in Matt 16:16.³⁷² Then it would be particularly appropriate for the resurrected Jesus to respond that “flesh and blood” had not revealed this truth to Peter, but “his Father in heaven” (Matt 16:17), the same Father who had raised him from the dead (1 Cor 15:15).³⁷³ Seitz argues that it is in this post-resurrection context that Jesus tells Peter that he will build his church upon the “rock” of Peter’s confession.³⁷⁴ Seitz goes on to state that the “gates of hell” statement also works well in a post-resurrection setting. He states: “As God had raised [Jesus] up, having loosed the cords of death that he could not be held captive by it (cf. Acts 2:24), so the congregation of those who confess him as Messiah shall not be imprisoned within the gates of Sheol.”³⁷⁵ Donfried agrees that reference to the “gates of hell” also indicates the post-resurrectional setting of the logion. He maintains that while one should not exclude the possibility that Jesus might have thought about building a church in the sense of organizing a people for an imminent end, the reference to the “gates of hell” not prevailing over the church suggests a permanence that would probably go beyond the intentions of an earthly Jesus.³⁷⁶

Like Seitz and Donfried, Rudolph Bultmann also believes that vv. 17-19 fit nicely in a post-resurrection setting. According to Bultmann, this “missing narrative” may very fit very well into the exchange between Jesus and Peter in John 21:15. After the resurrection, Jesus and Peter have an interchange in which the apostle is given the commanded to feed and shepherd Jesus’ people. Bultmann argues that John 20:22ff. parallels Matt 16:19 so that “the whole story of the Confession has a clear parallel in the Easter story in John 21:15-19.³⁷⁷ If the pevtra is taken to be the apostle, then the logion works well in the setting of John 21, where Peter is given the responsibility to shepherd and to lead God’s people. Thus, vv. 17-19 are a part of a post-resurrection narrative that has been carried back into the earthly ministry of Jesus.³⁷⁸

Like Seitz and Bultmann, Oscar Cullman also believes that the setting of the logion has been changed. Given Peter’s rebuke of Jesus in 16:22, Cullman argues that it is highly unlikely that “such a diabolical conception of the Messiah” would have gained the apostle the title of “rock.”³⁷⁹ However, it is possible that another perception of Jesus, given to Peter by God on a very different occasion, may well have resulted in Jesus changing the apostle’s name to “Rock.”³⁸⁰ For Cullman, that occasion was the Last Supper.

According to Cullman, Matt 16:17-19 has an exact parallel in Luke 22:31-34.³⁸¹ The Luke passage contains three things: 1) Peter’s vow that he will go with Jesus to prison and even to death; 2) the prediction of Peter’s denial; 3) Jesus’ command to Peter to strengthen his brothers after his conversion.³⁸² Interestingly, Cullman argues that John 21:15-23 is also a direct parallel to Matt 16:17-19, and the John passage presupposes an incident in the earthly ministry of Jesus, such as Luke 22:31-34 depicts.³⁸³ Instead of a threefold denial (Luke 22:34), John presents a threefold affirmation: “Yes, Lord, You know that I love you” (21:15-17).³⁸⁴ Peter’s promise to follow Jesus to death (Luke 22:33) corresponds with Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s martyrdom (John 21:18).³⁸⁵ The command to strengthen the others (22:32) is replaced by the command to feed Christ’s sheep (John 21:17).³⁸⁶ According to Cullman, the link between the three passages lies in the fact that John 21:15-23 bears witness to acquaintance with a story from the passion.³⁸⁷ When Peter promises to follow Jesus even to death, both his denial and his conversion are predicted, and so is his founding upon the rock³⁸⁸; this combination is seen in Luke 22:31-34.³⁸⁹

However, Robert Gundry argues that Cullman’s hypothesis is deficient on a few key points. First, Gundry maintains that Luke 22:31-34 is probably not a direct parallel to Matt 16:17-19, as Cullman asserted. The Matthean passage pronounces a blessing upon Peter for having received spiritual truth from the Father; on the basis of that revelation, Peter rightly identifies Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God.”³⁹⁰ However, the Lucan passage contains no confession of Jesus’ messiahship³⁹¹; in fact, Peter says nothing in Luke 22:31-34 that can be said to have come from the direct revelation of the Father.³⁹² Furthermore, the Matthew passage presents a blessing to Peter for receiving this divine revelation while the Lucan narrative states that Peter will deny his Lord three times.³⁹³ Moreover, Jesus’ statement, “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church” and “I will give you the keys you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, etc.” do not seem to fit into a Lucan narrative in which Jesus foretells of Peter’s upcoming disloyalty.³⁹⁴ Finally, Gundry states the following regarding Peter’s confession and his subsequent rebuke:

The major objection by Cullman against Matthew’s narrative framework fails to recognize that Jesus’ congratulatory words refer to the bare confession of Jesus’ messiahship – apart from misconceptions, which were not erased until after the resurrection anyway – and that Jesus’ rebuke refers only to Peter’s subsequent protest against Jesus’ death. Furthermore, although he doubtlessly intended the apostles to make a connection between suffering and Messiahship, Jesus did not connect the two concepts here. … The congratulations and the rebuke, then, are not incompatible when the two parts of the narrative are properly distinguished and viewed in chronological sequence.³⁹⁵

For Gundry, then, the fact that Peter is blessed by Jesus in one verse and then rebuked by him in another does not necessarily indicate that the former event has been displaced by Matthew. Recognizing the fact that Jesus is the Messiah was a crucial first step (16:13-20), but it was not very helpful when the disciples’ concept of Jesus’ messiahship differed so greatly from his own.³⁹⁶ Jesus’ Messiahship entailed suffering and death³⁹⁷, but the disciples were probably unprepared to understand the cross until after the resurrection (17:9).³⁹⁸ The blessing and the rebuke, then, can make sense in Matthew’s chronology, and given the differences between Matt 16:17-19 and Luke 22:31-34, Cullman’s argument in favor of a Last Supper setting may not be as strong as it seems.

Furthermore, it can be argued that the verses fit nicely where they are. Keener argues that the verses naturally flow in the order in which Matthew has recorded them. He states: “But no other suitable place for commending a Petrine revelation exists in the tradition; certainly after the resurrection commendations on such a revelation would be beside the point.”³⁹⁹ In other words, the resurrection has already proven that Jesus is the Holy One of God. Thus, there is no need for Jesus to question his disciples about his identity. Furthermore, there is also the difficulty that Matt 16:17 states that the Father revealed (ajpekavluyevn) the truth of Jesus’ identity to Peter, yet this is not reminiscent of any of the NT appearance stories⁴⁰⁰; it should also be noted that ajpokaluvptw, a verb attested in Q (10.26 = Luke 12.2; 11:25-27 = Luke 10.21-22), plays no part in the resurrection traditions of the New Testament.⁴⁰¹ In addition, none of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus show a confession followed by an investiture.⁴⁰² Finally, when one considers the fact that so much that would be expected from a resurrection appearance is missing (no crisis situation, no unexpected appearances of Jesus, no failure to recognize Jesus), then there are grounds for rejecting vv. 17-19 as a post-resurrection occurrence.

The Use of Semitisms/Mattheanisms

There is evidence to suggest not only that that the verses come from an old tradition, but also that Matthew himself wrote vv. 17-19. While Semitisms do not prove authenticity, they are consistent with the claim that the material is early and probably not an invention of the later church.⁴⁰³ Peter is designated as makavrio", “blessed” or “happy” (dva{) and is referred to as bar-Jonah, “Son of Jonah.”⁴⁰⁴ The reference to humans as “flesh and blood” was a common expression for many Jews (1 Cor 15:50; Eph 6:12; 1 Enoch 15:4; Mek. Pisha 1.120).⁴⁰⁵ Pagans often used the phrase puvlai a)/dou to symbolize the realm of death (see Homer, Il., 5.646, 15.251, 20.336, 21.48; Orphic Hymn 18.15; Euripides, Electra, 142-143), but the words are characteristically Semitic in nature.⁴⁰⁶ Furthermore, that the logion is Palestinian in nature is supported by certain parallel texts at Qumran. For example, scroll 1QH 7.8-9 reads: “Thou hast made me like strong tower, a high wall, and hast established my edifice upon rock; eternal foundations serve for my ground, and all my ramparts are a tried wall which shall not sway.”⁴⁰⁷ Here, a new, eschatological community is established upon a rock foundation and remains safe from the ravages of evil.⁴⁰⁸ This does appear to be parallel to Jesus’ new community, the church, being firmly grounded upon a rock that remains safe from the “gates of hell.” While Semitisms and possible allusions to Qumran literature do not prove the logion’s authenticity, it does seem to reduce the likelihood of a redactional genesis.⁴⁰⁹

Moreover, it should be noted that diction and theological motifs that are typical of Matthew (also known as Mattheanisms) run throughout vv. 17-19.⁴¹⁰ Matthew used “blessed” seven times in beatitudes (5:4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10; 16:17).⁴¹¹ Furthermore, outside of Matthew, the use of the phrase “my Father in heaven” appears nowhere else in the gospels or in the rest of the New Testament.⁴¹² Also, the only other occurrence of the word ejkklhsiva in the gospels is found in Matthew (18:17). Moreover, the image of building upon a rock is employed earlier in the gospel (7:24-25).⁴¹³ It should also be noted that there are partial parallels in the content of vv. 17-19 in many NT texts, including Mark 3:16 (where Jesus is said to have given Peter his surname), John 1:42 (where Jesus says to Peter: “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas”), and John 20:23 (“If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained”; cf. Matt 16:19).⁴¹⁴ While this does not prove the case, the use of such Semitisms and Mattheanisms do lend weight to an argument for authenticity.

Pauline Testimony

The writings of Paul may also provide an additional piece of evidence in favor of the logion’s authenticity. Even though Paul refers to his dealings with the three “pillars” of the Jerusalem Church (Peter, James, and John) both he and they acknowledge that in a special way, Peter has been entrusted with the “gospel to the circumcision” and an “apostleship to the circumcision.”⁴¹⁵ As he argues for his own apostleship, Paul takes Peter’s apostleship as his point of departure and claims that his position is comparable to that of Peter (2:7-9).⁴¹⁶ In Gal 1:11-1:21, it appears that Paul relates his own commission as an apostle in terms reminiscent of Matt 16:13-20.⁴¹⁷ In fact, there appears to be a deliberate parallelism between the two commissions. Compare⁴¹⁸:

Matt 16:15 “You are the Christ Gal 1:12, 15-16 “A revelation of

the Son of the Jesus Christ … he

living God” (the was pleased to

content of the reveal his Son in me”

revelation)

16:17 “Blessed are you …” 1:15-16“He was pleased …

through His grace …”

“because flesh and 1:1, 12, 16“Not from men, nor

blood has not …” through man … I did

not consult with flesh

and blood …”

“revealed” 1:12, 16“But through

revelation … to

reveal His Son …”

“by my Father in 1:16 “to reveal his Son

heaven” in me” (cf. 1:1)

Matt 16:18“On this rock I 1:16 “that I might proclaim

will build …” him”

While exact verbal parallels are only the references to “flesh and blood” (which is not a frequent phrase in Paul, cf. 1 Cor 15:50 and Eph 6:12) and to “revelation,” considerable parallelism still exists between the two commissions.⁴¹⁹ Davies-Allison states:

If one takes into consideration the additional facts that Paul shows knowledge of Peter’s special commissioning to the Jews (Gal 2:7-8), that Paul nowhere else speaks either speaks of ‘flesh and blood’ with the meaning ‘human’ or ‘man as such’ (cf. Gal 1:1, 12), that the designation of James and Cephas and John as ‘pillars’ is conceptually close to Peter being the community’s foundation rock, and that only in Gal 2:7-8 does Paul call Cephas ‘Peter’ (which would make plain to Greek readers the meaning of his name), one must entertain the possibility that Gal 1-2 evinces some knowledge of the tradition embedded in Matt 16:17-19. Proof, to be sure, is lacking. But one cannot overlook Gal 1-2 as a possible witness to the very early circulation of something very much like Matt 16:17-19.⁴²⁰

If Galatians was written as early as many commentators believe⁴²¹, then this would indicate that the tradition behind the logion is quite old. Whether Paul knew of the tradition within the context of Caesarea Philippi is uncertain, although it appears possible that he did; however, whatever the truth may be on that issue, the possibility that Paul might have known about this unique Matthean commission suggests that it is very primitive and not a Matthean redactional creation.⁴²²

The Giving of the Name Cephas

According to Davies-Allison, the tradition that Jesus gave Simon the name Cephas is worthy of credence.⁴²³ The name-giving tradition corresponds to Jewish custom to choose as titles words that point to the promise of a specific situation (Gen 17:5, 32:28; Is 62:2).⁴²⁴ Indeed, rabbis sometimes praised their disciples by giving them epithets (cf., m. Abot 2:8; Abot R. Nat. 18.3).⁴²⁵ Since birthparents normally gave names to their children, only a person of much higher status had the authority to rename another person (cf., Sent. Sext. 28).⁴²⁶ The fact the Peter bore this Aramaic nickname not only has multiple attestation (Matt 16:17; Mark 3:16; John 1:42), but there is also a tradition that Jesus gave a new name to the sons of Zebedee, the “sons of thunder.”⁴²⁷ Clearly someone gave Simon this name⁴²⁸, and in light of the Gospel tradition, the name-giving cannot be traced back to Peter’s fellow disciples or to the later Church, but to Jesus himself.⁴²⁹

While none of the arguments/explanations above have proven the authenticity of Matt 17-19, they have hopefully shown that it is not unreasonable to hold to the verses as authentic words of Jesus. There’s no convincing and unassailable reason to doubt that Jesus the Messiah could have contemplated and founded a messianic community (“church”) and spoken of its security.⁴³⁰

Should the Pun be Understood in Aramaic or Greek?

The word-play between pevtra-Pevtro" lies at the heart of this exegesis. What is the relationship between the two words? Who/What is the pevtra/? Many scholars, such as Cullman and Hagner, appeal to the Aramaic for the word-play. They maintain that while the word-play is clear in the Greek (Pevtro" for Peter and pevtra for rock), it is even more evident in the Aramaic, where the name ap`yk{}, is exactly the same as the word “rock”.⁴³¹ According to Cullman, the verse might as well read: “You are Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my church.⁴³² Thus, the name and the thing would be identical, leading one to believe that Peter is indeed the “rock” in question.⁴³³ This assumes, of course, that Jesus primarily spoke Aramaic to his disciples. But is this a safe assumption? Since an Aramaic interpretation affects the exegesis of the verse, a brief examination of the language in question is in order.

It has long been agreed by many scholars that Aramaic was the primary language of Jesus and the predominant language of the native Jewish population of Palestine.⁴³⁴ This belief rests on the fact that Greek, the lingua franca of the time, never fully replaced Aramaic in Palestine. ⁴³⁵ For example, H. Mudie Draper states the following in response to the claim that Greek may have been the primary language of Jesus: “As far back as the seventh century B.C. Aramaic was the language of communication for commerce and diplomacy between the nations of Mespotamia, Asia Minor, and Palestine. The phrase ‘Greek-speaking Gentiles’ does not mean that these people spoke only Greek, but that in the midst of a population where the everyday language was Aramaic, these Gentiles were bilingual … [Aramaic] was widespread and popular at least from the fourth century B.C. to the ninth century A.D.”⁴³⁶ Other scholars, however, argue that Hebrew could very well have been the primary language of Jesus. For instance, J. A. Emerton states the following:

Jesus was brought up in Galilee, and it is inherently likely that he normally spoke Aramaic, and that he used it when teaching crowds in Galilee or talking to his disciples, who were also Galileans. Aramaic would have also served his purpose when he visited Jerusalem, for it was understood there even by people whose vernacular was Hebrew… . However, if Hebrew was normally spoken by many people in Judea, then Jesus perhaps used it more frequently than was supposed by many New Testament scholars. It is also possible that Hebrew was Jesus’ primary language, nothwithstanding his Galilean upbringing and the probability that he taught in Aramaic in Galilee.⁴³⁷

While it is true that probably by the first century CE, Aramaic was the primary tongue of many Jewish regions, it is doubtful that it was the primary language for all Jews in Palestine, particularly those from the province of Galilee.⁴³⁸ There may be good evidence to support the fact that Greek was the predominant language of the area. Stanley Porter states the following:

Other scholars have argued strongly for the predominant role of Greek in 1^st-century Palestine and, hence, in the ministry of Jesus. Their arguments rest firmly on, among other facts, the role of Greek as the lingua franca of the Roman Empire, the trilingual nature of the Judean Desert material, including Greek Bar Kokhba letters … inscriptional, ostraca, and ossuary evidence … literary evidence (e.g. Josephus’ writings), and most importantly, the linguistic fact that the NT has been transmitted in Greek from its earliest documents (Sevenster [Know Greek] discusses the evidence.) Abbott, Argyle, Smith, Sevenster, N. Turner, Lieberman, Mussies, Treu and Hengel, among others, have argues in various ways that Greek was in widespread use in the multilingual society of 1^st-cent. Palestine. There seems to be nothing to have prevented any Palestinian resident from learning Greek, certainly as a second and often as a first language, though the ability of the average resident is still an unquantifiable factor.⁴³⁹

Grammarian Nigel Turner also agrees that it is possible that Jesus spoke Greek; he maintains that Greek was probably the language that Jesus spoke to the Syrophoenician woman, the Roman centurion, and Pontius Pilate.⁴⁴⁰ Robert Gundry argues that all three languages were in use in first century Palestine. In his article “The Language Milieu of First-Century Palestine”, he argues the following:

Proof now exists that all three languages in question – Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek – were commonly used by Jews in first century Palestine. We are not dealing with an either/or but a both/and… . Excavations by the Franciscans on Mt. Olivet have unearthed ossuaries predating the Jewish war (A.D. 66-73). On seven of these ossuaries the language is Hebrew, on eleven, it is Aramaic, and on eleven it is Greek… . It is striking to make such finds in Southern Palestine. Scholars have always recognized that Galilean Jews, farther removed from the center of Judaism, closer to Gentile areas like the Decapolis, and located on the Via Maris route, were more hellenized than Judean Jews. Yet the archeological discoveries show that even in the South, Greek was commonly used. How much more likely it is, then, that Jesus the Galilean and the apostles, who were predominantly, if not exclusively Galilean, commonly used Greek in addition to the Semitic tongues. If so, much of the gospel tradition may have been originally cast into Greek as well as Aramaic and Hebrew molds… . We cannot navely work on the assumption that everything was originally in Aramaic, that we should seek Aramaic equivalents when possible, and that wherever Aramaic equiavalents cannot be traced, we must reject authenticity.⁴⁴¹

It is therefore likely that Greek was used more often than traditionally thought. Philip Edgcumbe Hughes states it this way: “The trilingual pattern [Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew] that is emerging means, of course, that the situation is linguistically more complicate, and no doubt more tantalizing than many have so long and so confidently imagined.”⁴⁴² The archaeological, linguistic, and sociological evidence indicates that Palestine was largely multilingual, with Aramaic and Greek in widespread use, Hebrew as a written language (and possibly as a vernacular), and Latin as the language of politics and administrative affairs.⁴⁴³ Moreover, Moulton argues that in spite of Matthew’s use of Semitisms, it is unlikely that vv. 17-19 (or any other verses for that matter) were translated from Aramaic. He maintains that Matthew’s style is too smooth and too much interspersed with subordinate clauses and genitive absolutes for it to be a translation.⁴⁴⁴

However, even if Jesus was trilingual, does that necessarily mean that Jesus spoke Greek in Matt 16:17-19? According to Porter, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that Jesus did speak Greek on this occasion. First, Porter argues that while the plural form of oujranov" is common in Semitic usage, it should also be remembered that the plural form of the word is used by a number of extra-biblical Greek authors, including Aristotle, and that Matthew himself uses both the singular and the plural forms of the word (5:34-35; 6:10; 6:19-20; 18:18)⁴⁴⁵; this makes it difficult to establish clear patterns of usage that point to an Aramaic substratum.⁴⁴⁶ Second, Porter states that the use of a|/dh" may also suggest that Jesus spoke Greek here. Although there are numerous parallels to this phrase in the Old Testament (such as Job 17:16 and Isa 38:10) and noncanonical literature (Pss. Sol. 16:13), there are also plenty of parallels in secular Greek literature, since the image of Hades is traditionally a classical one (e.g., Homer, Il. 9.312; Od. 11.277; Euripides, Hec. 1).⁴⁴⁷ Third, if Peter’s confession did occur at Caesarea Philippi⁴⁴⁸, then it is altogether possible that Jesus spoke Greek here. Caesarea Philippi was a Gentile city long before Herod the Great refounded it or before Herod Philip renamed it.⁴⁴⁹ Thus, this city would have been as likely a location for the use of Greek as almost any other in Palestine.⁴⁵⁰

Again, these arguments do not prove that Jesus spoke the logion in Greek, but at the very least, they raise the possibility that Greek, not Aramaic, may have been spoken here and at other times during Jesus’ ministry.

³²⁷Kurt Aland, ed., Synopsis of the Four Gospels: Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, 11th ed. (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2000), 150.

³²⁸Donald Hagner, Matthew 14-28, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce Metzger, David Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker, vol. 33B (Dallas: Word Publishers, 1995), 463

³²⁹Ibid. According to Hagner, Matthew probably omitted this pericope for a couple of reasons. First, he was not impressed by the fact the Jesus used his saliva, rather than the spoken word to heal. Two, the healing took more than one attempt. Since this didn’t fit well with Matthew’s Christology, the author probably chose to omit this pericope, which occurs right before Peter’s confession (Matthew, 463-64).

³³⁰Of course, this has led many to question the authenticity of the verses. For more information, see the following section entitled “Considerations on Source, Redaction, and Authenticity.”

³³¹Ulrich Luz, Matthew: 8-20, trans. by James E. Crouch (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishers, 1989), 354.

³³²Hagner, Matthew, 464.

³³³Robert Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 331.

³³⁴Ibid.

³³⁵Luz, Matthew, 355.

³³⁶Ibid.

³³⁷Hagner, Matthew, 464.

³³⁸Craig Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), 425.

³³⁹Ibid.

³⁴⁰Of course, this assumes that the apostle Matthew is the author of the Gospel, and this is debated. In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius quotes Papias as saying the following: “ ‘So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able’” (3.39.16. See NPNF 2, 1:173; SC 41:157). Eusebius also quotes Irenaeus as stating that Matthew was written prior to Mark (see Ecc. His., 5.8.2, 5.8.3; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1). However, the existing copy of Matthew’s Gospel is in Greek, not Hebrew (or Aramaic). Furthermore, it does not seem that the present Gospel of Matthew is a translation from Hebrew into Greek; in fact, is appears to be dependent upon the Greek version of Mark and Q, which would suggest that Mark wrote his Gospel first (see Robert Stein, Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Books, 2001], 220). There is no evidence to suggest that Papias ever saw the Aramaic (which he calls Hebrew) Gospel of Matthew, and there are no citations of an Aramaic version of the text in early church literature (J. L. McKenzie, “The Gospel According to Matthew,” in Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, and Roland E. Murphy [Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1968], 65). Moreover, Matthew’s Greek is superior to that of Mark, and it seems highly unlikely that a Jewish tax collector wrote it (ibid.) Is Papias’ information mistaken? And if so, how does that affect the authorship of the existing Gospel of Matthew?

It should be noted that Papias’ tradition probably dates to within half a century of Matthew’s publication, and no one in the years surrounding Papias’ testimony challenged Matthean authorship (Keener, Matthew, 39). Superscripts that accompany manuscripts of the Gospel uniformly attribute authorship to Matthew, and the roots for these superscripts go back to the early-to-mid-second century (Darrell Bock, Jesus according to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Publishers, 2002], 29). For the most part, the Gospels were esteemed differently in different areas of the Church (e.g., John’s Gospel was more popular in Egypt than it was in Rome), but Matthew enjoyed a high reputation almost everywhere (Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985], 82). It is likely, then, that its roots were well-known (Bock, Jesus according to Scripture, 29). Furthermore, traditions about the authorship of many Christian works are probably correct given the fact that travelers networked early Christian assemblies throughout the Empire and word traveled quickly among them (David Edward Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983], 215-16. See also Keener, Matthew, 38). Finally, it is possible that a tax collector in a highly Hellenistic region would very likely have been bilingual (Bock, Jesus according to Scripture, 29). Given the quick, widespread acceptance of the Gospel, an argument can be made that its roots go back to the apostle (Ibid.) In any case, it must be conceded that all four of the New Testament Gospels are anonymous, so Matthean authorship cannot be proven definitively. Even though the position has its weaknesses, Matthean authorship will be assumed for this thesis.

³⁴¹The Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Mark states: “Mark declared, who is called stump-fingered because he had short fingers in comparison to the rest of his body. He was Peter’s interpreter. After the death of Peter himself he wrote down this same gospel in the regions of Italy” (Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 3). See also Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.15, 3.39; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1.

³⁴²Ibid. ff. 75.

³⁴³Luz, Matthew, 356.

³⁴⁴Ibid., 357.

³⁴⁵Ibid., 356. See ff. 19.

³⁴⁶Ibid.

³⁴⁷Ibid., 357-58.

³⁴⁸Rudolph Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans. John Marsh (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963), 138-39.

³⁴⁹Ibid., 140.

³⁵⁰Hagner, Matthew, 465. This assumption may be too hasty. See the section of Appendix A entitled “Should the Pun be Understood in Aramaic or Greek?”.

³⁵¹Hagner, Matthew, 471.

³⁵²Ibid, 471.

³⁵³Oscar Cullman, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr: A Historical and Theological Study (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1958), 195.

³⁵⁴Ibid.

³⁵⁵Hagner, Matthew, 465.

³⁵⁶Ibid.

³⁵⁷D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, J. D. Douglas and Walter Kaiser, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 369.

³⁵⁸W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew, Anchor Bible, vol. 26 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1971), 195.

³⁵⁹Hagner, Matthew, 465.

³⁶⁰Carson, Matthew, 369.

³⁶¹Cullman, Peter, 202.

³⁶²Hagner, Matthew, 465.

³⁶³Cullman, Peter, 202.

³⁶⁴Ibid., 204.

³⁶⁵Hagner, Matthew, 465.

³⁶⁶Cullman, Peter, 217.

³⁶⁷Ibid., 181-182

³⁶⁸Ibid., 181.

³⁶⁹This is debated. Brown, Schweitzer, Bornkamm, Sietz, and Bultmann are among those who support such a view. Cullman, though, argues that the logion probably occurred during the events of the Last Supper (see above). Still others, such as Carson, Keener, and Gundry, affirm that the verses do make sense in the setting of Caesarea Philippi.

³⁷⁰O. J. F. Seitz, “Upon This Rock: A Critical Re-examination of Matt 16:17-19,” JBL 69 (1950): 335.

³⁷¹Ibid.

³⁷²Ibid., 336.

³⁷³Ibid.

³⁷⁴Ibid.

³⁷⁵Ibid., 337.

³⁷⁶Karl Donfried, “Peter in the Book of Acts,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman, vol. 5 (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 92.

³⁷⁷Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 259.

³⁷⁸Ibid.

³⁷⁹Ibid., 182.

³⁸⁰Ibid.

³⁸¹Oscar Cullman, “Pevtro" Khfa'",” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 6 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 105.

³⁸²Cullman, Peter, 189.

³⁸³Cullman, “Pevtro" Khfa'",” 105.

³⁸⁴Ibid.

³⁸⁵Ibid.

³⁸⁶Ibid.

³⁸⁷Ibid.

³⁸⁸Ibid.

³⁸⁹Ibid.

³⁹⁰Robert Gundry, “The Narrative Framework of Matthew xvi.17-19: A Critique of Professor Cullman's Hypothesis,” NT 7 (1964): 3.

³⁹¹Ibid.

³⁹²Ibid.

³⁹³Ibid., 4.

³⁹⁴Ibid.

³⁹⁵Ibid., 4-5.

³⁹⁶Keener, Commentary on Matthew, 431.

³⁹⁷Ibid.

³⁹⁸Ibid., 430.

³⁹⁹Ibid., 425.

⁴⁰⁰W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Commentary on Matthew VIII-XVIII, New International Critical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. F. F. Bruce, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991), 609.

⁴⁰¹Ibid.

⁴⁰²Bernard P. Robinson, “Peter and His Successors: Tradition and Redaction in Matthew 16.17-19,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 21 (1984): 87-88. He states: “I would wish to observe that I can give no credence to the oft-encountered view of Bultmann and others that Matt 16.17-19, or parts of it at least, derive from a lost account of the first appearance of the Risen Christ, namely to Peter (cf. 1 Cor 15.5). The evidence adduced suffices certainly to show that the passage contains post-resurrection perspectives (as in its ecclesiology and in the reference to the gates of Sheol; possibly too the divine revelation of Jesus’ sonship should be associated, as it is in Rom 1.4, with the resurrection), but there is no parallel in the accounts of the appearance of the Risen Christ for the pattern of confession followed by investiture. John 21 contains an investiture, but it is preceded only by a recognition (v. 7) and by an assertion about the speaker (Peter) (vv. 15-17), not by a confession about Jesus. John 20 contains a confession (v. 28) but no investiture. Matt 28 has an investiture (vv. 18-20) but it is preceded only by an act of homage (v. 17) not by a confession” (ibid.)

⁴⁰³Hagner, Matthew, 466.

⁴⁰⁴Ibid.

⁴⁰⁵Keener, Commentary on Matthew, 426.

⁴⁰⁶Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 139.

⁴⁰⁷Geza Vermes, ed., “The Thanksgiving Hymns,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London: Penguin Books, 1995), 211.

⁴⁰⁸Davies-Alison, Commentary on Matthew, 611.

⁴⁰⁹Ibid., 605.

⁴¹⁰Gundry, Matthew, 331.

⁴¹¹Ibid.

⁴¹²Ibid.

⁴¹³Hagner, Matthew, 466.

⁴¹⁴Davies-Allison, Commentary on Matthew, 605.

⁴¹⁵R. T. France and David Wendam, eds., Gospel Perspectives, vol. 5 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 24.

⁴¹⁶Ibid.

⁴¹⁷Davies-Allison, Commentary on Matthew, 609-610.

⁴¹⁸France and Wendam, Gospel Perspectives, 26-27

⁴¹⁹Ibid., 27.

⁴²⁰Davies-Allison, Commentary on Matthew, 610.

⁴²¹Regarding the dating of Galatians, Longenecker writes: “It is impossible to discuss the date of Galatians without taking into account the question of the letter’s destination… . Yet destination does not necessarily determine date. Most North Galatianists posit that the letter was written on Paul’s third missionary journey (if the framework of Acts is accepted), sometime between A.D. 53… . Most South Galatianists view it as having been written either during the early part of Paul’s second missionary journey, sometime around A.D. 49-50, or after Paul’s first missionary journey, but before the Jerusalem Council in A.D. 49” (Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker, vol. 41 [Dallas: Word Publishers, 1990], lxxiii). Dating does vary among commentators. Betz dates Galatians between A.D. 53-54 (see Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979], 12). Meeks dates it from A.D. 53-55 (see Wayne Meeks, ed., The Writings of St. Paul [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1972], 10). Robinson dates it at A.D. 56 (John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976], 57). At the very least it can be said that Paul may have known about the name-giving event as early as A.D. 49 (roughly sixteen years after the death of Jesus) or A.D. 58 (twenty-five years after the death of Jesus). Either date indicates an old tradition for the name of Cephas.

⁴²²France and Wendam, Gospel Perspectives, 28. See also Dom John Chapman, “St. Paul and the Revelation to St. Peter,” Revue Benedictine 29 (1912): 133-147.

⁴²³Davies-Allison, Commentary on Matthew, 611.

⁴²⁴Cullman, Peter, 19.

⁴²⁵Craig Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, vol. 2 (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003), 478. For example, the text of Abot R. Nat. 18.3 reads: “Isi b. Judah would assign nicknames to sages. R. Meir he called ‘sage and scribe.’ R. Judah: ‘a sage when he wants to be.’ R. Eliezer b. Jacob: ‘little but unblemished.’ R. Yose: ‘his reasoning goes with him.’ R. Yohana b. Nuri: ‘a basket of laws.’ R. Yose the Galilean: ‘one who gathers well, without arogance.’ R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: ‘a store of good purple yarn.’ R. Simon: ‘learns much and forgets little’” (Jacob Neusner, The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan: An Analytical Translation and Explanation [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986], 129).

⁴²⁶Ibid., 479.

⁴²⁷Cullman, Peter, 19.

⁴²⁸Keener, Gospel of John, 479.

⁴²⁹Ibid.

⁴³⁰Hagner, Matthew, 466.

⁴³¹Ibid., 467.

⁴³²Cullman, Peter, 193.

⁴³³Ibid.

⁴³⁴H. Mudie Draper, “Did Jesus Speak Greek?,” The Expository Times 67 (1995-1996): 317.

⁴³⁵Ibid.

⁴³⁶Ibid.

⁴³⁷J. A. Emerton, “Problem of Vernacular Hebrew in the First Century A.D. and the Language of Jesus,” Journal of Theological Studies 24 (1973): 17.

⁴³⁸Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 24.

⁴³⁹Stanley Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood (Bern and New York: Peter Lang, 1989), 113.

⁴⁴⁰Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: Clark Publishers, 1965), 176.

⁴⁴¹Robert Gundry, “The Language Milieu in First-Century Palestine,” JBL 83 (1964): 405-408.

⁴⁴²Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, “The Languages Spoken by Jesus,” in New Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed. Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974), 142.

⁴⁴³Porter, Verbal Aspect, 113.

⁴⁴⁴James Moulton, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament , vol. 4, Style, ed. Nigel Turner (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1906), 37.

⁴⁴⁵Stanley Porter, “Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?,” 234

⁴⁴⁶Ibid.

⁴⁴⁷Ibid.

⁴⁴⁸This is debated. See the section entitled “The Problem of Chronology.”

⁴⁴⁹Ibid.

⁴⁵⁰Ibid

Biblical Topics:

Grammar

Passage:

7. More Writings from the Fathers of the Petrine School

Appendix B

Cyprian, d. A.D. 258⁴⁵¹

Cyprian personally dominated the African church during the short period that he was a Christian, from 249 until 258.⁴⁵² His full name was Thascius Caecilianus Cyprianus.⁴⁵³ Cyprian probably converted to Christianity c. 246 and within two years, he was elected bishop of Carthage.⁴⁵⁴ During the imperial reign of Decius (249-251)⁴⁵⁵, persecution broke out against the church. Church historian Justo Gonzalez describes the time in this manner:

[To Decius] when all adored the gods things went better, and the glory and power of Rome were on the increase. By neglecting the gods, Rome had provoked their displeasure, and had been itself neglected by them. Therefore, if Rome’s ancient glory was to be restored, it was necessary to restore ancient religion… . Although Decius’ edict has been lost, it is clear that what he ordered was not that Christians as such ought to be persecuted, but rather that the worship of the gods are now mandatory throughout the Empire. Following the imperial decree, everyone had to offer sacrifice to the gods and to burn incense before a statue of Decius. Those who complied would be given a certificate attesting to that fact. Those who did not have such a certificate would then be considered outlaws who had disobeyed an imperial command… . Some ran to obey the imperial command. Others stood firm for a while, but when brought before the imperial authorities offered the required sacrifice to the gods. Still others obtained fraudulent certificates without actually worshipping the gods. And there was a significant number who resolved to stand firm and refused to obey the edict.⁴⁵⁶

During the persecutions under Decius, Cyprian thought that it was his duty to flee to a secure place with other church leaders; that way, he could continue to guide the church through extensive correspondence.⁴⁵⁷ However, many interpreted this decision to be an act of cowardice, and the clergy of Rome wrote to him to inquire about his decision to flee; Cyprian said that he decided to leave for the good of his congregation, not out of fear for his life.⁴⁵⁸ Many others fled during this time, and some even renounced their faith. When the persecutions were over, many leaders wanted to know how to handle those who had “lapsed” during the time of crisis. Cyprian called a synod and it decided that those who had purchased certificates without sacrificing would immediately be readmitted into the church; those who had sacrificed would only be admitted on their deathbeds; those who had sacrificed and showed no repentance would never be readmitted.⁴⁵⁹ The question of the “lapsed” would also give rise to the “rebaptism” issue, which would put Cyprian at odds with Pope Stephen I.⁴⁶⁰

Cyprian’s attitude regarding Peter and the church can be judged from his constant references to the subjects in his letters.⁴⁶¹ He writes the following in one his epistles:

Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honor of a bishop and the order of His church, speaks in the gospel and says to Peter: “I say unto thee that Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the church flow onwards; so that the church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the church is controlled by these same rulers.⁴⁶²

Thus, it is clear that for Cyprian, Peter is the “rock” of Matt 16:18. In another letter, he writes: “There is but one baptism, and one Holy Spirit, and one church founded by our Lord upon Peter to be the source and ground of oneness.”⁴⁶³ However, it is important to note that one of the driving themes of Cyprian’s writings was that of unity. In all of his discussions, his unquestioned premise is the assumption that the Catholic church not only ought to be, but is, in fact, one.⁴⁶⁴ The bishops stand in the place of the apostles, not only in the sense that they are successors, but that like them they have been chosen and established in their offices by special decree.⁴⁶⁵ So the bishops form a college, an Episcopal college, that is one and indivisible, and bishops act as shareholders of joint property.⁴⁶⁶ Yes, Peter is the “rock” in question, but for Cyprian he is just one among many bishops. He holds a certain place of primacy because the church was founded upon him, but he is essentially the “first among equals”. An excerpt from his treatise On the Unity of the Church makes this clear. The text reads:

I say to thee that thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not overcome it. I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And what thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven’ (M. 16:18, 19). It is on one man that he builds the church and although he assigns a like power to all his apostles after the resurrection, saying: ‘As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. Receive ye the Holy Spirit: if you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven him; if you retain any man’s sins, they shall be retained (J. 20:21), yet in order that the oneness might be unmistakable, he established by his own authority a source for that oneness having its origin in one man alone. No doubt the other apostles were all that Peter was, endowed with equal dignity and power, but the start comes from him alone, in order to show that the church of Christ is unique. Indeed, this oneness of the church is figured in the canticle of Canticles when the Holy Spirit, speaking in Our Lord’s name says: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one: to her mother she is the only one, the darkling of her womb (Cant. 6:8). If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of the church, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he resists and withstands the church, has he still confidence that he is in the church, when the blessed apostle Paul gives us this very teaching and points to the mystery of ones saying: ‘One body and one spirit, one hope in your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God’ (Eph. 4:4)?⁴⁶⁷

For Cyprian, then, the authority of the apostles was equal. Here, he is supporting the collegiate conception of the episcopate, only adding that Peter was the starting point and symbol of unity.⁴⁶⁸ In other words, Cyprian would have used Matt 16 to defend the authority of any bishop, not just the bishop of Rome.⁴⁶⁹ According to Catholic theologian Michael Winter, Cyprian’s ecclesiology of unity is secured by two means: the authority of bishops (general) and the role of Peter.⁴⁷⁰ With Matt 16, Cyprian defends the oneness of government even at a local level; since the local church is a microcosm of the universal church, the safeguarding of unity in one will guard the other.⁴⁷¹ Therefore, based on this text, Cyprian’s platform cannot be used to indicate the primacy of the Roman see over another; all bishops are equal, as all apostles are equal.

However, there is a major problem with the aforementioned excerpt from “On the Unity of the Church” – another version of the letter exists, and it does seem to affirm the primacy of the bishop of Rome. For the sake of convenience, both letters will be reproduced side-by-side below.⁴⁷²

First Edition

Second Edition

And He says to him again after the resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that He builds the church, and to him that He entrusts the sheep to feed. And although He assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet He founded a single chair, thus establishing by His own authority the source and hallmark of the [Church’s] oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is [thus] made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, even if they are all shepherds, we are shown but one flock which is to be fed by all the Apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds to the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?

It is on one man that He builds the Church, and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles after His resurrection, saying: ‘As the Father hath sent me, I do send you … Received ye the Holy Spirit: if you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven him; if you retain any man’s, they shall be retained, yet in order that the oneness might be unmistakable, he established by His own authority a source for that oneness having its origin in one man alone. No doubt the other Apostles were all that Peter was, endowed with equal dignity and power, but the start comes from him alone, in order to show that the Church of Christ is unique. Indeed this oneness of the Church is figured in the Canticles when the Holy Spirit, speaking in Our Lord’s name, says: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one: to her mother she is the only one, the darling of her womb. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of the Church, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he resists and withstands the church, has he still Confidence that he is in the Church, when the blessed Apostle Paul gives us this very teaching and points to the mystery of Oneness saying: ‘One body and one Spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God’? Now to this oneness we must hold to firmly and insist on – especially we who are bishops and exercise authority in the Church – so as to demonstrate that the Episcopal power is one and undivided too. Let none mislead the brethren with a lie, let none corrupt the true content of the faith by a faithless perversion of the truth.

Clearly, there is a major shift between the two versions. The first version does appear to assert Roman primacy. This primacy text goes on to state that Peter was the chief of the apostles, and there is only “one chair” of Peter. This would seem to indicate at Cyprian might, at the very least, be sympathetic to a papal claim to the chair of Peter. If Peter has primacy over the other apostles, and the pope has assumed the apostle’s chair and his authority, then the pope is in a position to wield considerable power over the Church. Many scholars assumed that the primacy text (later to be referred to as the P. T.) was a later interpolation that was made in the interest of the papacy, and the widely diffused non-primacy text (known as the Textus Receptus or T. R.) was actually first.⁴⁷³ Dom John Chapman showed that the interpolations were actually a part of a complete alternate version of the letter; on the heels of Chapman, D. Van den Eynde pointed out that the Scripture passages in the text were never used by Cyprian until the baptismal controversy, and he suggested that the T. R. was a revision that Cyprian made to his original text, the P. T.⁴⁷⁴ In his “Introduction” to De Unitate in the Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, G. F. Dierks states the following about the letters: “The only alternative is that the T. R. is a revision of P. T., in which case P. T. was the original, dating from 251, and so was probably revised by Cyprian himself in the heat of his controversy with Stephen of Rome. This would explain not only the appeal for unity so closely connected with ‘unum baptisma’ [one baptism] in T. R., but also the elimination of the apparently papalist phrases which occur in P. T. As we know, it was Episcopal authority that Cyprian derived from the ‘Tu es Petrus’ text.”⁴⁷⁵ Historian Maurice Bvonot agrees with Diercks’ assessment. He states:

The truth seems to be that though aimed chiefly at Novatian, the intruded Bishop of Rome, the treatise was not meant as a defence [sic] of he Papacy as we understand it, but as a defence [sic] of the rightful bishop there. In speaking of the ‘primacy of Peter’ or of ‘the Chair of Peter,’ Cyprian was not thinking specifically of Rome, but literally of Peter and of the unity which Christ intended for His Church when he founded it on Peter, and which Novatain was destrying. That unity, in his theory, was constituted simply by the union of the bishops among themselves. Actually, Cyprian recognized the Bishop of Rome’s special position in the Church in many practical ways. But he never formulated this to himself as implying a real authority over the whole Church. Hence, through his practice repeatedly went further than his theory, it is not surprising that, at a moment of crisis, he should have refused to accept the ruling on heretical baptism notified to him by Stephen of Rome… . If he altered he text of chapter 4 (as he seems to have done precisely at this juncture) this will have been not because he had changed his mind about the Papacy, but because Rome was reading more into it than he had intended. At Rome, where there were no doubts about the Bishop’s authority over the whole Church, Cyprian’s original text could not fail to be read as a recognition of that fact. If in the course of the baptismal controversy this was, as it were, thrown in his teeth, he will have exclaimed, quite truthfully: ‘But I never meant that!’ – and so he ‘toned it down’ in his revised version.⁴⁷⁶

Thus it appears that Cyprian’s understanding of church government leaned in favor of an episcopate. Peter was the “rock” of Matt 16:18, but for Cyprian, all bishops stood on equal footing. Cyprian’s primary concern was that of church unity, not the primacy of the Roman see. His refusal to recognize the superior authority of St. Peter had the effect of provoking a firm clarification by the next pope to be examined, namely, Stephen I.⁴⁷⁷

Pope Stephen I, May 12, 254 – August 2, 257⁴⁷⁸

According to papal historian Richard McBrien, Stephen I is best known for his disputes with Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, over the question of whether those who had been baptized by heretics had to be rebaptized upon entrance/return to the church; Cyprian maintained that the people had to be rebaptized, but Stephen said that they did not.⁴⁷⁹ The pope had written to the churches in Asia Minor warning that he would not remain in Christian communion with them if they insisted on rebaptizing.⁴⁸⁰ Cyprian’s Epistle 74 to Pompeius outlines the pope’s instructions on the matter of reconciling heretics.⁴⁸¹ Cyprian sent envoys to notify that pope that two North African synods agreed with his position, but Stephen refused to accept the envoys.⁴⁸² On September 1, 256 a third council affirmed the position of Cyprian; Cyprian then wrote a letter to his friend Firmilian of Caesarea about the decision.⁴⁸³ Cyprian’s letter is no longer extant, but Firmilian’s reply is, and he, much like Tertullian, outlines some of his own charges against Pope Stephen. He writes:

But what is the greatness of his error, and what the depth of his blindness, who says that remission of sins can be granted in the synagogues of heretics, and does not abide on the foundation of the one Church which was once based by Christ upon the rock, may be perceived from this, that Christ said to Peter alone, ‘Whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ And again, in the Gospel, when Christ breathed on the apostles alone, saying, ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye shall remit they are remitted unto them, and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained.’ Therefore, the power the power of remitting sins was given to the apostles, and to the churches which they, sent by Christ, established, and to the bishops who succeed them by vicarious ordination. But the enemies of the one Catholic Church in which we are, and the adversaries of us who have succeeded the apostles, asserting for themselves, in opposition to us, unlawful priesthoods, and setting up profane altars, what else are they than Korah, Dathan and Abirsm, profane with a like wickedness, and about to suffer the same punishment which they did, as well as those who agree with them, just as their partners and abettors perished with a like death to theirs? And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundation of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks [heretics and schismatics] and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. For they who are baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the Church. But he who approves their baptism, maintains, for those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity … Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter is stirred with no zeal against heretics when he concedes to them not a moderate, but the very greatest power of grace: so far as to say and assert that, by the sacrament of baptism, the filth of the old man is washed away by them …⁴⁸⁴

Again, this information is received through second-hand sources. Firmilian’s anger at the bishop of Rome is quite clear, so is his interpretation of the bishop’s actions. First, Firmilian openly states that Peter is the “rock” of Matt 16:18; it was to “Peter alone” that Christ gave the authority to bind and loose (see above).⁴⁸⁵ Second, Firmilian is implying that Stephen is using Matt 16:18 to defend his position and authority. According to Firmilian, Stephen is “boasting of the place of his episcopate” and “claiming to be the successor of Peter”. If this is true, then Stephen no doubt thought that as Peter’s successor in Rome, the church had an obligation to submit to his teaching. Nowhere in the letter, though, does Firmilian give credence to the idea that Matt 16:18 automatically confers Peter’s authority to a bishop of Rome. However, it is clear that Firmilian, like Tertullian, affirmed the notion of apostolic succession. Thus, all true successors of the apostles will have right doctrine and openly proclaim it to the church. In fact, his use of the word “us” (see above) seems to indicate that he views himself, as bishop of Caesarea, as a legitimate successor to the apostles. In Firmilian’s mind, though, Stephen I is proving that he is not the true successor of Peter with his position on rebaptism. Here is a third, important point: Firmilian is indicating that although a bishop of Rome may claim to be Peter’s successor, that may not necessarily be the case. Even if Stephen can pull out a list and demonstrate that he is the rightful successor of Peter, this would mean nothing to Firmilian. Stephen’s teaching has shown him to be unorthodox. Firmilian states that Stephen I is establishing “profane altars” and “introducing new rocks” and “establishing new buildings of many churches.” Firmilian goes so far as to write that Stephen’s actions not only undermine but to some extent “abolish” the truth of the Christian Rock upon which the Church rests. For Firmilian, no one who openly sympathizes with heretics can be a true successor to the apostles, and Stephen should not be using Matt 16:18 to give himself (and his teachings) undue authority.

Basil the Great, A.D. 330-379⁴⁸⁶

Everywhere, in the East as well as the West, Rome enjoyed a position of privilege, and during the fourth and fifth centuries, its only possible rival was the new, rapidly expanding See of Constantinople.⁴⁸⁷ In fact, in Canon Three of the Council of Constantinople’s declarations states that “the bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the bishop of Rome because Constantinople is the New Rome.”⁴⁸⁸ While the Eastern Church showed deference to Rome and placed great significance on its pronouncements, the Eastern churches never placed Rome as the constitutional head of the church, much less the unassailable center of faith and morals.⁴⁸⁹ Given this fact, one might expect to find non-Petrine interpretations of Matt 16:18 throughout the writings of the Eastern church fathers. Interestingly, three of the most important Eastern fathers, the Cappodocians, actually do affirm a Petrine interpretation of the verse. Their writings shall be examined next.

Basil was born in A.D. 330 at Caesarea, the capital of Cappadocia, into a wealthy and pious family, whose ancestors had distinguished themselves as martyrs.⁴⁹⁰ He had four brothers and five sisters, all of whom were very influential in the Church; two of his brothers, Gregory and Peter, were bishops (at Nyssa and Sebaste, respectively) and his sister, Macrina the Younger, is, like himself, among the saints of the Eastern church.⁴⁹¹ He received his literary education at first from his father, who was a rhetorician; later, he was educated at a school in Constantinople (347), where he enjoyed the instruction and personal esteem of the celebrated Libanius.⁴⁹² It was in Athens where Basil met Gregory, who would eventually become bishop of Nazianzus, as well as Julian, who would later be known as “the Apostate.”⁴⁹³ When the bishop of Caesarea died, the election of his successor became a focal point for the struggle between the Arians and the orthodox, and Basil was elected.⁴⁹⁴ Basil proved to be a strenuous champion of orthodoxy in the East and a promoter of unity between the East and the West.⁴⁹⁵ Although he was an Eastern father, Basil did hold to a Petrine interpretation of Matt 16:18. In his Commentary on Isaiah, he writes the following:

And the house of God, located on the peaks of the mountains, is the Church according to the opinion of the Apostle. For he says that one must know 'how to behave in the household of God.' Now the foundations of this Church are on the holy mountains, since it is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. One of these mountains was indeed Peter, upon which rock the Lord promised to build his Church. Truly indeed and by highest right are sublime and elevated souls, souls which raise themselves above earthly things, called 'mountains.' The soul of the blessed Peter was called a lofty rock because he had a strong mooring in the faith and bore constantly and bravely the blows inflicted by temptations. All, therefore, who have acquired an understanding of the godhead-on account of the breadth of mind and of those actions which proceed from it-are the peaks of mountains, and upon them the house of God is built.⁴⁹⁶

Here, Basil states that the “rock” in question is the apostle Peter. He is called the “rock” because of his strong faith, but it is clear that the apostle, not the confession, serves as the “rock” of Matt 16:18. However, nothing in the aforementioned statement indicates that Basil ever understood the verse to confer apostolic authority upon a successor of Peter. This is affirmed again in another work, Adversus Eunomius. In that treatise, Basil states: “For we at once, on hearing that name [Peter], think of the son that came from Bethsaida, Andrew’s brother … him on who on account of the pre-eminence of his faith received upon himself the building of the Church.⁴⁹⁷ Again, Basil states that due to his faith, Peter was named the “rock” of the Church. He does not appear to read Matt 16:18 in a way that allows for the “rock” to be anyone other than the apostle Peter.

Gregory of Nazianzen, A.D. 329-389⁴⁹⁸

Gregory Nazianzen was born about a year before the emperor Julian, either at Nazianzum, a market-town in the south-western part of Cappadocia, where his father was bishop, or in the neighboring village of Arianzus.⁴⁹⁹ Gregory’s father had been a heretic, but his wife, Nona, brought him to orthodoxy.⁵⁰⁰ As in the case of Basil and Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory’s family was very devout; in addition to Gregory himself, both of his parents, his brother Caesarius, his sister Gorgonia, and his cousin Amphilochius all received the title of “saint.”⁵⁰¹ After spending about ten years in Athens Gregory left for Constantinople about A.D. 356, and he was probably baptized during this time.⁵⁰² After his baptism, he resolved to live the strict life of an ascetic.⁵⁰³ Along with Basil and Gregory of Nyssa, he took up the cause of defending Trinitarian orthodoxy against Arianism. Late in the year of 380, Emperor Theodosius entered Constantinople; it was an overcast, gray day, broken only by sunlight that hit Gregory.⁵⁰⁴ Many of those present believed it to be a sign from heaven and began to shout, “Gregory, bishop, Gregory, bishop!”⁵⁰⁵ Theodosius gave his approval, but Gregory did not particularly want to become a bishop; he later assented, though, and was named patriarch of Constantinople.⁵⁰⁶ The following year, he had the honor of presiding over the third ecumenical council of Constantinople.⁵⁰⁷

Like Basil and Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus also affirmed a Petrine interpretation of Matt 16:18. In his Theological Discourses, Gregory states the following: “You observe that of Christ’s disciples, all of them outstanding and worthy of election, one is called the rock and entrusted with the foundation of the Church.”⁵⁰⁸ Again, Peter is called the “rock” on account of his faith. The apostle and his faith are closely linked, but it is Peter who is identified as the “rock”. This is affirmed again in another work, Carmina Theologica. There Gregory states: “Neither does a man know, though he be the parent of an evil like unto Judas, whether his offspring shall be called the godlike Paul, or be like unto Peter – Peter who became the unbroken rock, and who had the keys delivered to him.”⁵⁰⁹ Like his other Cappodocian brothers, Gregory of Nazianzus clearly identifies the “rock” of Matt 16 with the apostle Peter. Peter receives this gift on account of his faith. Thus, Gregory does not appear to link this verse with the establishment of a permanent see with Petrine authority.

Pope Julius I, c. A.D. 337-352⁵¹⁰

Julius I is known not only for his forceful defense of Nicea’s findings on the divinity of Jesus, but he is also remembered as a pope who vigorously supported Eastern bishops, particularly Athanasius of Alexandria.⁵¹¹ When Julius became pope, Athanasius was exiled at Trves after his deposition by the Council of Tyre, having been banished by Constantine in A.D. 336.⁵¹² When Constantine died in A.D. 337, many orthodox bishops were allowed to resume their posts⁵¹³; however, Arian bishops appealed to Julius and asked him to recognize the authority of Athanasius’ replacement.⁵¹⁴ Julius, though, rejected their request.⁵¹⁵ After Athanasius was exiled again in 339⁵¹⁶, Julius convened a council in the church of the presbyter Vito at Rome.⁵¹⁷ The council took place in A.D. 341, and it was attended by 50 bishops.⁵¹⁸ The council resulted in the complete acquittal of Athanasius and the confirmation of the Roman church’s communion with him.⁵¹⁹ After the council, Julius wrote a letter to the Eastern bishops, and he reproached them for their condemnation of other bishops of apostolic sees and for their dismissal of the historic prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome with regard to the Alexandrian See in particular.⁵²⁰ His letter is reserved in the writings of Athanasius. Julius states:

Why was nothing said to us [Pope Julius and the Roman Church] concerning the Church of the Alexandrians in particular? Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us [Rome], then for a just decision to be passed from this place? If then any such suspicion rested upon the Bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the Church of this place [Rome]; whereas, after neglecting to inform us, and proceeding on their own authority as they pleased, now they desire to obtain our concurrence in their decisions, though we never condemned him [Athanasius]… . For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings disturbed us.⁵²¹

Here, Julius confirms two things. First, he affirms the unique authority of the Bishop of Rome. Of the Church’s four patriarchs, the bishop of Rome ranks first, followed by the bishop of Alexandria.⁵²² Thus the Eastern bishops had no right to depose the leader of the Alexandrian See, especially without the approval of the Roman bishop. Second, Julius affirms that his authority has been received by the Apostle Peter. Thus, the Eastern bishops have not refused to submit to an ordinary bishop’s authority – they have refused to recognize the authority of Peter’s successor. Julius, then, certainly viewed himself as a bishop in the line of Peter and one who exercised Petrine authority over the Church.

Pope Siricius I, December 384-November 26, 399⁵²³

Like Damasus I, Siricius ardently defended the authority of the Bishop of Rome.⁵²⁴ Siricius was the first pope to issue decretals, legally binding church directives that are in the style of imperial edicts.⁵²⁵ The oldest surviving decretal is dated February 11, 385, and was addressed to Himerius, the bishop of Tarragona.⁵²⁶ The decretal is in response to fifteen questions on the matter of church discipline.⁵²⁷ The decretal commands Himerius to communicate its contents to all the bishops of Spain and its neighboring provinces, with a view to universal observance. Siricius writes:

In view of our office, we are not free to dissemble or keep silent, for our zeal for the Christian religion ought to be greater than anyone’s. We bare the burdens of all who are heavy laden, or rather the blessed apostle Peter bears them in us, who in all things, as we trust, protects and defends those who are heirs of his government. At the beginning of your page, you have observed that many who were baptized by the wicked Arians are hastening to the catholic faith, and that they wish to be rebaptized by one of our brethren: this is illegal … Up to now, there have been enough mistakes of this kind. In the future, all priests must keep the above rule who do not wish to be torn away form the solid apostolic rock upon which Christ built the universal Church. We have explained, as I think, dearest brother, all the matters of which you complained, and to every case which you have referred, by our son Bassian the presbyter, to the Roman Church, as to the head of your body, we have I believe returned adequate replies.⁵²⁸

Here, Siricius not only states that Peter bears the burdens of those in the church, but he also affirms that Peter bears those burdens through the office of the papacy. According to Siricius, the popes are the heirs of Peter’s office – they have been entrusted with the “government” of the universal Church. Moreover, if a priest wishes to remain “upon the rock of the apostolic Church,” then he must be sure that his actions are in line with the teachings that come out of Rome. It therefore appears that Siricius understands himself to be the shepherd of God’s people in much the same way as Peter, and he uses Peter’s authority to make universal claims that would affect all of Christendom (such as the rebaptizing of Arians, as seen above). Thus, the power and authority of the bishop of Rome is clearly advanced in the pontificate of Siricius I.

Pope Innocent I, c. A.D. 401-417 ⁵²⁹

Innocent was one of the early Church’s staunchest defenders of the prerogatives of the Roman See, and he was the first son to ever succeed his father to the papacy (his father being Anastasius I).⁵³⁰ As the Western empire suffered assaults from attacking Germanic tribes, Innocent asserted papal claims with greater frequency and emphasis.⁵³¹ He laid down laws for Western churches regarding the Eucharistic prayer (insisting on the Western custom as the norm), the sacraments of Penance (also known as Reconciliation), Extreme Unction (now the Anointing of the Sick), and Confirmation (only to be administered by bishops), and the canon of Scripture (he excluded several books).⁵³² Innocent was also a key factor in the battle between orthodox, African churches and Pelagianism. When the councils of Carthage and Mitevis reaffirmed their condemnation of Pelagius, the African bishops, out of deference to the pope, asked Innocent to add his own condemnation to theirs.⁵³³ In a reply, Innocent lauds their regard for the Roman See. He writes: “[We approve your action in following the principle of the Fathers] that nothing which was done even in the most remote and distant provinces should be taken as finally settled unless it came to the notice of this See, that any just pronouncement might be confirmed by all the authority of this See, and that the other churches might from thence gather what they should teach … ”⁵³⁴According to Innocent, no judgment is final until it comes from the See of Rome; this was affirmed by the traditions of the fathers. Although he does not state this explicitly, Innocent (like the other popes before him) undoubtedly linked Rome’s preeminent position with its affiliation with Paul and Peter. Thus, other churches should look to Rome to ascertain which doctrines should be taught and which teachings should be anathematized (like Pelagianism). It therefore appears that Innocent did not hesitate to use his authority to assert doctrinal claims over all Christendom, and under him the idea of a universal papal supremacy, though still shadowy, was already advancing on the previous claims of Siricius.⁵³⁵

Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431

By the time of the council of Ephesus, the authority of the Roman see was clearly on the rise. While many church fathers affirmed a Petrine interpretation of Matt 16:18, few specifically referenced the verse as the basis for a permanent Roman see with the authority of the apostle Peter. Even those who affirmed apostolic succession (such as the pre-Montanist Tertullian and Firmilian) did not state that the bishop of Rome automatically obtained the authority and privileges of Peter when he assumed the office. At Ephesus, though, the papal legate Philip opened he council with the following words:

There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins; who down even today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to his order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy Synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and human grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time.⁵³⁶

First, Philip states that Peter is the foundation of the Catholic Church (from Matt 16:19); then, he affirms that Peter received the keys of the kingdom from Christ (Matt 16:19). Second, and more importantly, the legate not only indicates that the pope is the legitimate successor to Peter, but he also maintains that Peter “even today and forever lives and judges in his successors.” If Philip’s remarks summarized the pontiff’s position, then by A.D. 431, then it is safe to assume that the pope (Celestine, who served from 422-432) believed that Peter spiritually lived and exercised judgment through his successors. According to the pope, then, the Roman see is a permanent, apostolic office, and when a decree comes from Rome, it is basically coming from Peter himself. This is certainly an important mark in the continual development of the papal office.

Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451

The council of Chalcedon marks an important turning point in the history of the Christian Church. At the behest of Leo I, the emperor Marcian called for the Fourth Ecumenical Council.⁵³⁷ This time, the fathers met to combat the heresy of Eutychianism, which maintained that Jesus only had one nature (a fusion of the divine and human) after the Incarnation. The council not only condemned Eutyches, but it also upheld the findings of the first three ecumenical councils as well. During the second session of the Council, the famous Tome of Leo was read. In the Tome, Leo affirms the divinity of Jesus (against Arianism), declares that Jesus had a rational spirit (against Apollinarianism), and upholds the fact that Jesus has two distinct natures that concur in one person (against Eutychianism and Nestorianism). In fact, the Chalcedonian Creed echoes much of the affirmations that are contained in the Tome. When the fathers heard Leo’s letter, this was their response: “After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverent bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Peter has spoken through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril… . Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox believe.”⁵³⁸ Of course, the most telling cry is this: “Peter has spoken through Leo.” On one hand, this would seem to affirm Pope Leo’s claim that Peter is spiritually present and working through the Bishop of Rome.⁵³⁹ After all, in this case, it is the bishops who are making the Peter-Leo comparison, not the pope himself. On the other hand, it should be noted that it appears to be Leo’s orthodox teaching about Jesus that is praised here, not necessarily the pope himself. Again, the bishops cried out: “This is the faith of the fathers; this is the faith of the Apostles.” Later, the bishops cry out that Leo and Cyril of Alexandria taught the same thing: both taught “the true faith.” Leo, then, certainly does not seem to have a monopoly on orthodox teaching within in the Church. This is confirmed again in session three of the Council. As the fathers are preparing to anathematize the heretic, Dioscorus, they reply: “Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties.”⁵⁴⁰ Two things should be noted here: 1) The fathers declare that Peter is the “rock and foundation of the Church”; 2) the fathers declare that Peter, the foundation of the orthodox faith, is not only working though Leo but also through the holy synod itself. In other words, the council seems to be stating that wherever there is orthodox teaching, there is the voice of Peter. So Peter’s voice of can come through the pope, but it can also come through the findings of the councils, or even through the teaching of other bishops, such as Cyril of Alexandria. The fact that the pope Leo did not have the sole, apostolic voice over Christendom is confirmed in Canon 28 of Chalcedon’s findings. It states:

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her.⁵⁴¹

Here, Constantinople is reaffirmed as the “New Rome” and is given “equal privileges” to the old Rome. It seems, then, that the fathers recognized the unique position of the Bishop of Rome, but his authority was to be used in conjunction with that of the other bishops, particularly the bishop of Constantinople. It comes as no surprise, then, that Leo later denounced this canon.⁵⁴²

For the fathers at Chalcedon, then, Leo did not have the sole voice of apostolic authority. While the fathers confirmed that Peter is the “rock” and proclaimed that Peter “spoke through Leo,” it appears that the apostle also spoke through anyone who had orthodox teachings about Jesus. Despite the fact that Rome was given a place of primacy, the fathers at Chalcedon maintained that the bishop of Constantinople should have equal privileges as the bishop of Rome. It does not appear, therefore, that the bishops at Chalcedon granted sole, Petrine authority to the Bishop of Rome.

⁴⁵¹F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingston, eds., Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1974), 363.

⁴⁵²Michael W. Winter, St. Peter and the Popes (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1960), 43

⁴⁵³Cross and Livingston, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 363.

⁴⁵⁴Ibid.

⁴⁵⁵Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, vol. 1, The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco Publishers, 1984), 5.

⁴⁵⁶Ibid., 86.

⁴⁵⁷Ibid., 89.

⁴⁵⁸Ibid.

⁴⁵⁹Ibid.

⁴⁶⁰See pp. 110-113.

⁴⁶¹Winter, St. Peter and the Popes, 43.

⁴⁶²Epistle 33.1. ANF 5:305. CIL 3B: 164.

⁴⁶³Cyprian, “Letter 70.3.1,” in The Letters of Cyprian of Carthage: Letters 67-82, trans. by G. W. Clarke, Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation (ACW), ed. Johannes Quasten and Joseph Plumpe, vol. 47 (New York: Newman Press, 1989), 47. See also CIL 3C: 511.

⁴⁶⁴J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 4^th ed. (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco Publishers, 1978), 204.

⁴⁶⁵Ibid.

⁴⁶⁶Ibid.

⁴⁶⁷On the Unity of the Church 4. ACW 25: 46-47. See also CIL 3: 251-52.

⁴⁶⁸Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 205.

⁴⁶⁹Winter, St. Peter and the Popes, 47.

⁴⁷⁰Ibid.

⁴⁷¹Ibid.

⁴⁷²ACW 25:46-47.

⁴⁷³See the “Introduction” to De Unitate in CIL 3B: 244.

⁴⁷⁴Ibid.

⁴⁷⁵Ibid.

⁴⁷⁶ACW 25: 6-7.

⁴⁷⁷Winter, St. Peter and the Popes, 50.

⁴⁷⁸Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to John Paul II (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco Publishers, 1997), 49.

⁴⁷⁹Ibid., 49

⁴⁸⁰Ibid., 50.

⁴⁸¹Ibid.

⁴⁸²Ibid

⁴⁸³Ibid.

⁴⁸⁴ANF 5:394; CIL 3:596.

⁴⁸⁵A footnote in the ANF reads: “The two texts here quoted [Matthew 16:19 and John 20: 22-23] lie at the base of Cyprian’s own theory: 1) to Peter alone this gift to signify its singleness, 2) then the same to all the apostles alone to signify their common and undivided partnership of the use of this gift. Note the two alones and the one therefore” (Ibid., ff. 9).

⁴⁸⁶Gonzalez, The Early Church, 185.

⁴⁸⁷Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 406.

⁴⁸⁸NPNF 2, 14:178.

⁴⁸⁹Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 407.

⁴⁹⁰Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3rd ed., vol. 3, Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity A.D. 311-600 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), 894.

⁴⁹¹Ibid.

⁴⁹²Ibid.

⁴⁹³Gonzalez, The Early Church, 178.

⁴⁹⁴Ibid., 184.

⁴⁹⁵Henry Wace and William Piercy, eds., A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principle Sects and Heresies, 2^nd ed. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), 116.

⁴⁹⁶Commentary on Easi 2.66. English translation taken from Joseph Berington and John Kirk, eds., Faith of Catholics: Confirmed by Scripture and Attested by the Fathers of the First Five Centuries of the Church, vol. 2 (New York: Fr. Pustet, 1885), 22. See also PG Vol. 30, Col. 233.

⁴⁹⁷Adversus Eumonius 4. For English translation, see Berington and Kirk, Faith of Catholics, 2:22; SC 299:708.

⁴⁹⁸Cross and Livingston, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 587.

⁴⁹⁹Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3:909.

⁵⁰⁰Gonzalez, The Early Church, 186.

⁵⁰¹Ibid.

⁵⁰²Wace and Piercy, Dictionary of Early Christian Biography, 408.

⁵⁰³Ibid.

⁵⁰⁴Gonzalez, The Early Church, 187.

⁵⁰⁵Ibid.

⁵⁰⁶Ibid.

⁵⁰⁷Ibid.

⁵⁰⁸Discourse 32.18. FOC 107:204; SC 318:122.

⁵⁰⁹Carmina Theologica, 2. For English translation, see Berington and Kirk, Faith of Catholics, 2:21; PG vol. 37, col. 559.

⁵¹⁰Henry Bettenson, ed., Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1963), 79.

⁵¹¹McBrien, Lives of the Popes, 59.

⁵¹²Wace and Piercy, Dictionary of Early Christian Biography, 602.

⁵¹³McBrien, Lives of the Popes, 59.

⁵¹⁴Ibid.

⁵¹⁵Ibid.

⁵¹⁶Ibid.

⁵¹⁷Wace and Piercey, Dictionary of Early Christian Biography, 602.

⁵¹⁸Ibid.

⁵¹⁹Ibid.

⁵²⁰McBrien, Lives of the Popes, 59.

⁵²¹Defense Against the Arians 2.35. NPNF 2, 4:118-119. PG vol. 25, col. 307.

⁵²²See above pp. 42-43.

⁵²³McBrien, Lives of the Popes, 64.

⁵²⁴Wace and Piercy, Dictionary of Early Christian Biography, 909.

⁵²⁵McBrien, Lives of the Popes, 64.

⁵²⁶Ibid.

⁵²⁷Ibid.

⁵²⁸Siricius, “To Himerius,” in Documents Illustrating Papal Authority, A.D. 96-454, ed. Edward Giles (London: S. P. C. K Publishers, 1952), 142-143. See also PL vol. 13, Col. 1132.

⁵²⁹Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, 81.

⁵³⁰McBrien, Lives of the Popes, 66.

⁵³¹Ibid.

⁵³²Ibid.

⁵³³Ibid.

⁵³⁴Ep. 29. For English translation, see Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, 81. See also PL vol. 20, col. 582.

⁵³⁵Wace and Piercy, Dictionary of Early Christian Biography, 516

⁵³⁶“Session Three of the Council of Ephesus.” NPNF 2, 10:223.

⁵³⁷Gonzalez, The Early Church, 256.

⁵³⁸“Session Two of the Council of Chalcedon.” NPNF 2, 14:259.

⁵³⁹See above, pp. 46-47.

⁵⁴⁰“Session Three of the Council of Chalcedon.” NPNF 2, 14:259-260

⁵⁴¹NPNF 2, 14:287.

⁵⁴²See Epistle 105 to Pulcheria. NPNF 2, 12:77; PL 54:1000

Biblical Topics:

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

8. More Writings from the "PETRA" = Fide School

Appendix C

Athanasius, c. 296-373⁵⁴³

Athanasius was born in Alexandria c. A.D. 296.⁵⁴⁴ In 312, bishop of Alexander of Alexandria caught sight of a group of boys imitating church services; one boy, Athanasius, played the part of the bishop and performed mock baptisms.⁵⁴⁵ Alexander immediately liked the boy and took him into his care.⁵⁴⁶ In fact, Alexander later appointed Athanasius to be his secretary and his archdeacon.⁵⁴⁷ In the year 325, Athanasius accompanied Alexander to the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea, and the young bishop distinguished himself for his ardent opposition to Arianism.⁵⁴⁸ On June 8, 326, Athanasius became the bishop of Alexandria.⁵⁴⁹ During his forty-six year bishopric, he was deposed and banished five times by members of the remaining Arian party.⁵⁵⁰ He died in year of 373.⁵⁵¹ In later years, Constantine the Younger would remember Athanasius as "the man of God”; Theodoret, would call him "the great enlightener"; and John of Damascus would hail him as “the corner-stone of the church of God."⁵⁵²

According to Athanasius, the “rock” of Matt 16:18 should be identified as Peter’s confession of faith. In one of his festal letters, Athanasius writes the following:

But ye are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from Apostolic tradition, and frequently has accursed envy wished to unsettle it, but has not been able. On the contrary, they have rather been cut off from their attempts to do so. For thus it is written, 'Thou art the Son of the Living God,' Peter confessing it by revelation of the Father, and being told, 'Blessed art thou Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood did not reveal it to thee, but My Father Who is in heaven,' and the rest. No one therefore will ever prevail against your Faith, most beloved brethren.⁵⁵³

Here, Athanasius states that no one will ever be able to prevail against the faith, which he seems to be equating with the “rock” of the Church. This is confirmed in one of his homilies on Psalm 11. There he writes: “In Thy saints, who in every age have been well pleasing to Thee, is truly Thy faith; for Thou hast founded the world on Thy faith, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”⁵⁵⁴ Thus, the “rock” for Athanasius appears to be a believer’s faith in the fact that Jesus is the Christ. Despite the fact that Athanasius had frequent contact with the Bishop of Rome⁵⁵⁵ and held the church there in high esteem⁵⁵⁶, it does not appear that he understood this verse to provide the pope with the apostolic office and authority of Peter.

Hilary, d. A.D. 368⁵⁵⁷

Hilary Pictaviensis is believed to have been born to wealthy parents in the town of Poitiers, France.⁵⁵⁸ Hilary embraced Christianity in the middle of his life, with his wife and his daughter, Apra.⁵⁵⁹ Around the year 350, he became bishop of Poitiers and took decided stance against Arianism, which was devastating the Gallic church at the time.⁵⁶⁰ For this, he has often been called the “Athanasius of the West.”⁵⁶¹ For his support of orthodoxy, he was banished by Constantius to Phrygia in Asia Minor, where Arianism maintained a strong foothold.⁵⁶² Here, between 356 and 361, he wrote the main work of his life, On the Trinity.⁵⁶³ He died quietly on Jan. 13, 368.⁵⁶⁴

On one hand, Hilary did not seem to have a problem asserting that Peter is the rock of the church. He states the following in his tractate on Ps. 131:

He [Jesus] took up Peter – to whom He had just before given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, upon whom He was about to build the church, against which the gates of hell should not in any way prevail, who whatsoever he should bind or loose on earth, that should abide bound or loosed in heaven – this same Peter … the first confessor of the Son of God, the foundation of the church, the doorkeeper of the heavenly kingdom, and in his judgment on earth a judge of heaven.⁵⁶⁵

Here, Hilary states that Peter was the one “upon whom [Christ] was about to build his church.” The apostle is seen to be the first confessor of the Son of God and the keeper of the gate of heaven, so clearly Peter is given special attention and honor. On the other hand, Hilary is equally (if not more so) rigorous in proclaiming that the “rock” in question is Peter’s faith, not the apostle himself. For example, in his treatise On the Trinity, Hilary states: “This is, therefore, the one immovable foundation, that is, the one blessed rock of faith, which confessed through the mouth of Peter: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.’”⁵⁶⁶ He continues the “rock-faith” parallel in the same treatise. Later, he writes:

It is not the evangelical or apostolic faith to believe that He is the Son of God in name rather than in nature. If this name is one of adoption and therefore is not the Son because He came forth from God, I ask why did the blessed Simon make this confession, ‘Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Do not all have the power to be born as sons of God through the sacrament of regeneration? … And the Father, by declaring, ‘This is My Son’ revealed to Peter that he should say: ‘Thou art the Son of God. The one who reveals is indicated by the words ‘This is,’ but the knowledge of the one who confesses by the words “Thou art.’ It is upon this rock of the confession that the Church of Christ rests. But the sense of flesh and blood does not reveal the knowledge of the confession …This faith is the foundation of the Church and the gates of hell are powerless against her.⁵⁶⁷

Again, Hilary declares that it is Peter’s faith that is the “rock” of the church. Therefore, the church is maintained and supported not by a single man (Peter), but by the faith that that man expressed in Jesus; that same faith is proclaimed by every true Christian. In other words, the Church of Christ is built on nothing less than the declaration that Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah; he is the Son of God. For Hilary, faith in Jesus, not Peter, is the focal point of the verse. Therefore, it appears that Hilary’s understanding of Matt 16:18 is not at all concerned with a permanent apostolic see in Rome.

Ambrosiaster, c. 366-384⁵⁶⁸

This name was given to the author of a set of commentaries on the thirteen epistles of St. Paul; the medieval writers ascribed all but one of these works to St. Ambrose.⁵⁶⁹ An incidental remark on 1 Timothy 3:15 shows that the documents were probably written during the pontificate of Damasus (366-384).⁵⁷⁰ Erasmus was the first theologian to challenge this notion, and Ambrose is universally denied as the author of the works.⁵⁷¹ Many people, including “Hilary the Deacon” and Hilary, a layman and Proconsul of Africa, have been suggested as possible authors.⁵⁷² Whoever the author may be, there is little hope that the documents remain in their original form; copyists appear to have inserted many sayings from Augustine, Chrysostom, Jerome, and others into the work.⁵⁷³ Despite the problems with the writings, the commentaries use of the old Latin version and its reference to various readings, provide great help in the area of textual criticism.⁵⁷⁴

Like Ambrose, Ambrosiaster maintains that the “rock” of Matt 16 is Peter’s faith. In his Commentary on Ephesians, Ambrosiaster writes:

‘Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.' The above puts together New and Old Testaments. For the apostles proclaimed what the prophets said would be, although Paul says to the Corinthians: 'God placed the apostles first, the prophets second' (1 Cor. 12.28). But this refers to other prophets, for in 1 Cor Paul writes about ecclesiastical orders; here he is concerned with the foundation of the Church. The prophets prepared, the apostles laid the foundations. Wherefore the Lord says to Peter: 'Upon this rock I shall build my Church,' that is, upon this confession of the catholic faith I shall establish the faithful in life.⁵⁷⁵

According to Ambrosiaster, the prophets prepared the foundation of the Church, and the apostles were the foundation of the Church. The “rock” of the Church, though, is the catholic confession of faith in Jesus as the Christ. In other places, Ambrosiaster affirms the primacy of Paul in a way that would seem to be prejudicial to Peter.⁵⁷⁶ In his Commentary on Galatians, Ambrosiaster writes:

By the apostles who were somewhat distinguished among their colleagues, whom also he, Paul, because of their constancy calls 'pillars', and who had always been intimate with the Lord, even beholding his glory on the mount, by them he (Paul) says the gift which he received from God was approved; so that he would be worthy to have primacy in preaching to the Gentiles, even as Peter had the primacy in preaching to the circumcision. And even as he gives colleagues to Peter, outstanding men among the apostles, so he also joins to himself Barnabas, who was associated with him by divine choice; yet he claims the privilege of primacy granted by God for himself alone, even as it was granted to Peter alone among the apostles, in such a way that the apostles of the circumcision stretched out their right hands to the apostles of the Gentiles to manifest a harmony of fellowship, that both parties, knowing that they had received from the Lord a spirit of completeness in the imparting of the gospel, might show that they were in no way appointing one another.⁵⁷⁷

Although the above quotation does not specifically reference Matt 16, it does show that Ambrosiaster did not have a vision of Peter being the sole spokesman of the Church; Paul also wielded a great amount of authority (as did Barnabus). If Peter can claim to the foundation of the Church for the Jews, then Paul can claim to be the foundation of the Church for the Gentiles. In any case, Ambrosiaster does not appear to use this verse to affirm the succession of bishops from Peter or the perpetuity of the apostle’s office.

Theodoret of Cyr, c. A.D 393-458⁵⁷⁸

Theodoret was born at Antioch, probably c. A.D. 393.⁵⁷⁹ After distributing his property to the poor, he entered the monastery of Nicerte in c. 416 and was consecrated bishop of Cyrrhus in Syria in 423.⁵⁸⁰ He is chiefly known for his involvement in the theological disputes between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius. Theodoret was a friend and admirerer of Nestorius, and in a polemical work against Cyril, he explained that the term theotokos should only be applied to Mary in a figurative sense.⁵⁸¹ After the Council of Ephesus, he continued to oppose Cyril and the council’s findings against Nestorianism.⁵⁸² He was eventually deposed at the Latrocinian council and forced into exile.⁵⁸³ When the emperor Marcion ordered Theodoret to attend the Council of Chalcedon in 451, he obeyed and anathematized Nestorius by stating: “Anathema to Nestorius and to everyone who denies that the Holy Virgin Mary is the mother of God, and [to everyone] who divides the one Son, the Only-gotten, into two Sons.”⁵⁸⁴ After condemning his friend, Theodoret was restored to his bishopric; he died in 458, during the pontificate of Leo I.⁵⁸⁵

Like many of the fathers before him, Theodoret appears to have vacillated on the identity of the “rock” of Matt 16. In an epistle to John the Economus, Theodoret states:

Let us hear the words of the great Peter, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Let us hear the Lord Christ confirming this confession, for 'On this rock,' He says, 'I will build my church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' Wherefore too the wise Paul, most excellent master builder of the churches, fixed no other foundation than this. 'I,' he says, 'as a wise master builder have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.' How then can they think of any other foundation, when they are bidden not to fix a foundation, but to build on that which is laid? The divine writer recognizes Christ as the foundation, and glories in this title.⁵⁸⁶

Here, Theodoret seems to state that Jesus is the rock and foundation of the Church. Like the other members of this school of interpretation, Theodoret is heavily influenced by Paul’s words in 1 Cor 3. In other writings, though, Theodoret clearly identifies Peter’s faith as the pevtra. For example, in his Commentary on the Canticle of Canticles, he writes: “Surely, he is calling pious faith and true confession a rock. For when the Lord asked his disciples who the people said he was, blessed Peter spoke up … and the Lord answered … ‘I say to you, you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.’”⁵⁸⁷ In this text, Theodoret praises Peter’s faith. Again, in a letter to Eulalius, Theodoret writes: “Wherefore our Lord Jesus Christ permitted the first of the apostles, whose confession He had fixed as a kind of groundwork and foundation of the Church, to waver to and fro, and to deny Him, and then raised him up again.”⁵⁸⁸ Despite the fact that Theodoret calls Peter “the first of the disciples,” it is the confession, not the man, which grounds the Church. Thus, it appears that Theodoret does not use Matt 16:18 to lend support to the Petrine authority to the Bishop of Rome.

Cyril of Alexandria, d. A.D. 444⁵⁸⁹

Cyrillus became patriarch of Alexandria about the year 412. He was the nephew of Theophilus, who deposed and banished John Chrysostom.⁵⁹⁰ When Theophilus died on Oct. 15, 412, Cyril assumed his bishopric three day later.⁵⁹¹ He had hardly entered his new position when he closed all the churches of the Novatians in Alexandria, and seized their ecclesiastical property.⁵⁹² In the year 415, he used armed force to attack Jewish synagogues who opposed his authority in the city; some were even put to death.⁵⁹³ From 428 to his death in 444 his life was marked by the frequent Christological controversies.⁵⁹⁴ Most notably, he was the chief opponent of Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431.

Like the aforementioned theologians, Cyril maintained that the “rock” of Matthew 16 remained Peter’s faith. In his Commentary on Isaiah, Cyril states the following: “When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”⁵⁹⁵ Thus, Cyril clearly links of the “rock” in question to the apostle’s faith. This is confirmed in his Dialogue on the Trinity. There, he writes: “ ‘And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' The rock, I think, is nothing other than the firm and solid faith of the disciple.”⁵⁹⁶ Again, it is Peter’s faith that is linked to the “rock” in question. According to Catholic scholar Michael Winter, it was Cyril’s “preoccupation with Christological questions that influenced his exegesis of Matthew 16.”⁵⁹⁷ Even if that is the case, Cyril’s exegesis stands as it is: the apostle’s confession of faith, not the apostle himself, serves as the rock of the Church. Thus, it appears that Cyril does not use this verse to support the perpetuity of the papal office or the apostolic authority that it wields.

⁵⁴³Henry Wace and William Piercy, eds., A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999; reprint, 2nd), 53.

⁵⁴⁴Ibid.

⁵⁴⁵Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3rd ed., vol. 3, Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity A.D. 311-600 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), 886.

⁵⁴⁶Ibid.

⁵⁴⁷Ibid.

⁵⁴⁸Ibid.

⁵⁴⁹Wace and Piercey, Dictionary of Early Christian Biography, 54.

⁵⁵⁰Schaff, History of the Christian Church: Vol. 3:888.

⁵⁵¹Ibid.

⁵⁵²Ibid., 889.

⁵⁵³Letter 29. NPNF 2, 4:551. PG vol. 26, col. 1189.

⁵⁵⁴Commentary on Psalm 118. For English, see James Waterworth, A Commentary by Writers of the First Five Centuries on the Place of St. Peter in the New Testament and that of St. Peter’s Successors in the Church (London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), 50. See also PG 27:1191.

⁵⁵⁵See the section of Appendix B entitled “Pope Julius I.”

⁵⁵⁶In his Defense before Constantius, Athanasius writes: “When I left Alexandria, I did not go to your brother’s headquarters, or to any other persons, but only to Rome; and having laid my case before the Church (for this was my only concern), I spent my time in public worship” (Defense before Constantius 4; NPNF 2, 4:239; PG vol. 25, col. 599). Here, Athanasius is defending himself to the Emperor Constantius. In this brief excerpt, Athanasius states that he went to Rome to declare his orthodoxy to the Church. At a time when his orthodoxy was constantly being questioned, Athanasius believed that it was of the utmost importance to receive approval from Rome. Thus, it appears that he (like many of the other fathers) viewed Rome as a place of final appeal regarding matters of Christian faith and practice.

⁵⁵⁷Schaff, The History of the Christian Church, 3:959.

⁵⁵⁸Wace and Piercy, Dictionary of Early Christian Biography, 474.

⁵⁵⁹Ibid.

⁵⁶⁰Ibid.

⁵⁶¹Schaff, The History of the Christian Church, 3:959.

⁵⁶²Ibid.

⁵⁶³Ibid.

⁵⁶⁴Wace and Piercy, Dictionary of Early Christian Biography, 475.

⁵⁶⁵Tractate on Ps. 131.4. For English translation see Joseph Berington and John Kirk, eds., Faith of Catholics: Confirmed by Scripture and Attested by the Fathers of the First Five Centuries of the Church, vol. 2 (New York: Fr. Pustet, 1885), 15. See also CSEL 22: 663.

⁵⁶⁶Trinity 2.23. FOC 25:54; CIL 62:59-60.

⁵⁶⁷Trinity 6.36-37. FOC 25:205-206, CIL 62: 239-40.

⁵⁶⁸Wace and Piercy, Dictionary of Early Christian Biography, 15.

⁵⁶⁹F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingston, eds., Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2^nd ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1974), 43.

⁵⁷⁰Wace and Piercy, Dictionary of Early Christian Biography, 15.

⁵⁷¹Ibid.

⁵⁷²Ibid.

⁵⁷³Ibid., 16.

⁵⁷⁴Ibid.

⁵⁷⁵Commentary on Ephesians 2.20. For English translation, see William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), 178. See also CSEL 81:85-86.

⁵⁷⁶Michael W. Winter, St. Peter and the Popes (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1960), 62.

⁵⁷⁷Commentary on Galatians 2.9-10. For English translation, see Edward Giles, Documents Illustrating Papal Authority A.D. 96-454 (London: S. P. C. K. Publishers, 1952), 122-123. See also PG vol. 17, col. 349.

⁵⁷⁸Cross and Livingston, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1341.

⁵⁷⁹Wace and Piercy, Dictionary of Early Christian Biography, 958.

⁵⁸⁰Cross and Livingston, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1341.

⁵⁸¹Ibid

⁵⁸²Ibid.

⁵⁸³Ibid.

⁵⁸⁴Wace and Piercy, Dictionary of Early Christian Biography, 961.

⁵⁸⁵Ibid.

⁵⁸⁶Epistle 146. NPNF 2, 3:318; PG vol. 81, col. 1396

⁵⁸⁷Commentary on Canticle of Canticles 2.14. For English translation, see Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, 180. PG vol. 81, col. 108.

⁵⁸⁸Epistle 77. NPNF 2, 3:273; PG 83:1250.

⁵⁸⁹Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3:944.

⁵⁹⁰Ibid.

⁵⁹¹Wace and Piercy, Dictionary of Early Christian Biography, 236.

⁵⁹²Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3:944.

⁵⁹³Ibid.

⁵⁹⁴Ibid.

⁵⁹⁵Commentary on Isaiah 4.2. For English translation, see Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, 175. See also PG 70, Col. 940.

⁵⁹⁶Dialogue on the Trinity 4.507. SC 237:149-150.

⁵⁹⁷Winter, St. Peter and the Popes, 74.

Biblical Topics:

Passage:

Bibliography for an Exegetical and Patristic Examination of Matthew 16:18

Commentaries

Albright, W. F., and C. S. Mann. Matthew. Anchor Bible, ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman, vol. 26. Garden City: Doubleday, 1971.

Bauckham, Richard. Jude, 2 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce A. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn Barker, vol. 50. Waco: Word Books, 1983.

Betz, Hand Dieter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.

Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew. New American Commentary, ed. David Dockery, L. Russ Bush, and Paige Patterson, vol. 22. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992.

Brown, Raymond E. et al. Peter in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars. London: G. Chapman, 1974.

Bruner, Frederick Dale. Matthew: A Commentary. Dallas: Word Publishers, 1990.

Calvin, Jean. Calvin's Commentaries. Vol. 16, Commentary on the Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Translated By John Owen. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.

Carson, D. A. “Matthew.” In Expositor's Bible Commentary. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, J. D. Douglas, and Walter Kaiser, vol. 8:3-599. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

Davies, W. D. and Dale C. Allison. Commentary on Matthew VIII-XVIII. International Critical Commentary, ed. F. F. Bruce, vol. 2. New Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991.

France, R. T. Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

Gundry, Robert. Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

Hagner, Donald. Matthew 14-28. Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce Metzger, David Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker, vol. 33B. Dallas: Word Books, 1995.

Keener, Craig. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999.

Keener, Craig. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Vol. 2. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003.

Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker, vol. 41. Dallas: Word Publishers, 1990.

Luz, Ulrich. Matthew: 8-20. Translated by James E. Crouch. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishers, 1989.

McKenzie, J. L. “The Gospel According to Matthew.” In Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, and Roland E. Murphy, 62-114. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1968.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel according to Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishers, 1992.

Plummer, Alfred. An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: James Family Christian Publishers, 1978.

Ridderbos, H. N. Matthew. Translated by Ray Togtman. Grand Rapids: Regency Reference Library, 1987.

Ryle, J. C. Matthew. Wheaton: Crossway, 1993.

Zwingli, Ulrich. Commentary on True and False Religion. 2nd ed., ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson and Clarence Nevin Heller. Durham: Labyrinth Press, 1981.

Exegetical Studies

Aland, Kurt. ed. Synopsis of the Four Gospels: Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis Quattuor Evageliorum, 11th ed. Stuttgary: German Bible Society, 2000.

Aune, David Edward. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3^rd Ed. Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Blass, F. and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and Revised by Robert Funk. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Bultmann, Rudolph. History of the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by John Marsh. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963.

Bock, Darrell. Jesus According to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Publishers, 2002.

Bock, Darrell. Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Publishers, 2002.

Caragounis, Chrys C. Peter and the Rock. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1990.

Catechism of the Catholic Church with Modifications from the Editio Typica. 5^th Ed. New York and London: Doubleday, 1997.

Cullman, Oscar. Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr: A Historical and Theological Study. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1958.

Cullman, Oscar. "Pevtra." In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey Bromiley. Vol. 6, 95-99. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.

Cullman, Oscar. “Pevtro" Khfa'".” In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey Bromiley. Vol. 6: 100-112. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.

Donfried, Karl. “Peter in the Book of Acts.” In Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman, Vol. 5: 253-254. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Fitzmeyer, Joseph A. “Aramaic Kepha and Peter's Name in the New Testament.” In To Advance the Gospel, 112-124. New York: Crossroad, 1981.

France, R. T. and David Wendam, eds. Gospel Perspectives, vol. 5. Sheffield: J. S. O. T. Press, 1981.

Hengel, Martin. Studies in the Gospel of Mark. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.

Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. “The Languages Spoken by Jesus.” In New Dimensions in New Testament Study. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974.

Jeremias, Joachm. "Puvlh." In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey Bromiley. Vol. 6: 921-28. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.

Kohlenberger, John R., Edward W. Goodrick, and James A. Swanson. The Exhaustive Concordance to the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishers, 1995.

Luz, Ulrich. Matthew in History: Interpretation, Influence, and Effects. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994.

Meeks, Wayne, ed. The Writings of St. Paul. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1972.

Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 2^nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959.

Moulton, James. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament. Vol. 4, Style. Edited by Nigel Turner. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1906.

Porter, Stanley. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood. Bern and New York: Peter Lang, 1989.

Robinson, John A. T. Redating the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976.

Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934.

Schmidt, K. L. "Ejkklhsiva." In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Vol. 3: 501-535. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.

Stein, Robert. Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Books, 2001.

Turner, Nigel. Grammatical Insights into the New Testament. Edinburgh: Clark Publishers, 1965.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Extrabiblical Literature

Elliott, J. K., ed. Epistle of the Apostles. In The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English translation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.

Neusner, Jacob. The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan: An Analytical Translation and Explanation. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986.

Vermes, Geza, ed. The Thanksgiving Hymns. In The Dead Sea Scrolls. London: Penguin Books, 1995.

Journal Articles

Chapman, Dom John. “St. Paul and the Revelation to St. Peter.” Revue Benedictine 29 (1912): 133-147.

Draper, H. Mudie. “Did Jesus Speak Greek?” The Expository Times 67 (1995-1996): 317.

Ehrman, Bart. “Cephas and Peter.” Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1990): 463-474.

Elliott, J. K. “Kephas: Simon Petros: O Petros: An Examination of New Testament Usage." Novum Testamentum 14 (1972): 241-256.

Emerton, J. A. “Problem of Vernacular Hebrew in the First Century A.D. and the Language of Jesus.” Journal of Theological Studies 24 (1973): 17.

Gundry, Robert. “The Language Milieu in First-Century Palestine.” Journal of Biblical Literature 83 (1964): 405-408.

Gundry, Robert. “The Narrative Framework of Matthew xvi.17-19: A Critique of Professor Cullman's Hypothesis.” Novum Testamentum 7 (1964): 1-9.

Knight, G. A. F. “Thou Art Peter.” Theology Today 17 (1960): 168-180.

Lake, Kirsopp. “Simon, Cephas, Peter.” Harvard Theological Review 14 (1921): 95-97.

Porter, Stanley. “Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?” Tyndale Bulletin 44.2 (1993): 199-235.

Seitz, O. J. F. “Upon This Rock: A Critical re-examination of Matt 16:17-19.” Journal of Biblical Literature 69 (1950): 329-40.

Robinson, Bernard P. “Peter and His Successors: Tradition and Redaction in Matthew 16.17-19.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 21 (1984): 87-88.

Writings from the Church Fathers

Ambrose of Milan. “Commentary on Luke 6.98.” In Exposition of the Holy Gospel According to St. Luke with Fragments on the Prophecy of Isaias, ed. Theodosia Tomkinson. Etna: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1998.

Ambrose of Milan. De Incarnationis Dominicae Sacramento. Edited by Otto Faller. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinarum, vol. 79. Vindobonae: F. Tempsky, 1990.

Ambrose of Milan. Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord 4.32-5.35. Translated by Roy Deferrari. Fathers of the Church, ed. Roy Deferrari, vol. 44. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1963.

Ambrosiaster. Commentarius in Epistulas Paulinas. Edited by Henricus Iosephus Vogels. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. 81. Vindobonae: Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1966-69.

Ambrosiaster. “Commentary on Ephesians 2.20.” In The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, ed. and trans. by William Webster. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1995.

Ambrosiaster. “Commentary on Galatians 2.9-10.” In Documents Illustrating Papal Authority A.D. 96-454, ed. Edward Giles. London: S. P. C. K. Publishers, 1952.

Athanasius of Alexandria. Apologia Contra Arianos. Patrologiae cursus Completus: Series Graeca, ed. J. P. Minge, vol. 25. Paris: Garnier Freres, 1884.

Athanasius of Alexandria. Apologia ad Constatium. Patrologiae cursus Completus: Series Graeca, ed. J. P. Minge, vol. 25. Paris: Garnier Freres, 1884.

Athanasius of Alexandria. “Commentary on Psalm 118.” In A Commentary by Writers of the First Five Centuries on the Place of St. Peter in the New Testament and that of St. Peter's Successors in the Church, ed. and trans. by James A. Waterworth. London: Thomas Richardson, 1871.

Athanasius of Alexandria. Defense Against the Arians. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 4. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

Athanasius of Alexandria. Defense before Constantius. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 4. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

Athanasius of Alexandria. Epistula XXIX. Patrologiae cursus Completus: Series Graeca, ed. J. P. Minge, vol. 26. Paris: Garnier Freres, 1887.

Athanasius of Alexandria. Letter 29. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 4. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

Athanasius of Alexandria. Psalmo CXVIII. Patrologiae cursus Completus: Series Graeca, ed. J. P. Minge, vol. 27. Paris: Garnier Freres, 1889.

Augustine of Hippo. Sancti Aureli Augustini Opera. Edited by A. Goldbacher. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinarum, vol. 34. Vindobonae: F. Tempsky, 1910.

Augustine of Hippo. Letter 53. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Augustine of Hippo. On the Gospel of John, Tractate 124. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 7. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Augustine of Hippo. Retractations 20. Translated by Sister Mary Louise Bogan. Fathers of the Church, ed. Roy Deferrari, vol. 60. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1968.

Augustine of Hippo. Sancti Aureli Augustini Iohannis Evangelium Tractatus CXXIV. Edited by Augustino Mayer. Corpus Christianorium: Series Latina, vol. 36. Turnholti: Typographi Brepols, 1954.

Basil of Caesarea. “Adversus Eumonius 4.” In The Faith of Catholics: Confirmed by Scripture and Attested by the Fathers of the First Five Centuries of the Church, ed. Joseph Berington and John Kirk. Vol. 2. New York: Fr. Pustet, 1885.

Basil of Caesarea. “Commentary on Easi 2.66.” In The Faith of Catholics: Confirmed by Scripture and Attested by the Fathers of the First Five Centuries of the Church, ed. Joseph Berington and John Kirk. Vol. 2. New York: Fr. Pustet, 1885.

Basil of Caesarea. Contra Eunomium. Edited by R. Sesboü and G. M. Durand. Sources Chrtiennes, vol. 299. Paris: Cerf, 1982.

Basil of Caesarea. Ennarratio in Prophetam Esaiam. Patrologiae cursus Completus: Series Graeca, ed. J. P. Minge, vol. 30. Paris: Garnier Freres, 1857.

Chrysostom, St. John. Homilae in Iohannem. Patrologiae cursus Completus: Series Graeca, ed. J. P. Minge, vol. 59. Paris: Garnier Freres, 1862.

Chrysostom, St. John. Homilies on the Gospel of John. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 14. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Chrysostom, St. John. Homilies on St. Matthew. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 10. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Chrysostom, St. John. “Homily 3.” In The Faith of Catholics: Confirmed by Scripture and Attested by the Fathers of the First Five Centuries of the Church, ed. by Joseph Berington and John Kirk. Vol. 2. New York: Fr. Pustet, 1885.

Chrysostom, St. John. In Matthaeu Homilae. Patrologiae cursus Completus: Series Graeca, ed. J. P. Minge, vol. 58. Paris: Garnier Freres, 1860.

Cyprian of Carthage. The Epistles of Cyprian. Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Early Fathers Down to A.D. 325, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 5. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957.

Cyprian of Carthage. “Letter 70.3.1.” In The Letters of Cyprian of Carthage: Letters 67-82. Translated by G. W. Clarke. Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation, ed. Johannes Quasten and Joseph Plumpe, vol. 47. New York: Newman Press, 1989.

Cyprian of Carthage. On the Unity of the Church 4. Translated by Maurice Bvenot. Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation, ed. Johannes Quasten and Joseph Plumpe, vol 25. Westminster: Newman Press, 1957.

Cyprian of Carthage. Sancti Cypriani Episcopi Opera: De ecclesiae catholicae unitate. Edited by M. Bvenot. Corpus Christianianorum: Series Latina, vol. 3. Turnholti, Brepols, 1972.

Cyprian of Carthage. Sancti Cypriani Episcopi Opera: Sancti Cypriani Episcopi Epistularium: Ep. 1-57. Edited by G. F. Diercks. Corpus Christianianorum: Series Latina, vol. 3B. Turnholti, Brepols, 1972.

Cyprian of Carthage. Sancti Cypriani Episcopi Opera: Sancti Cypriani Episcopi Epistularium: Ep. 58-81. Edited by G. F. Diercks. Corpus Christianianorum: Series Latina, vol. 3C. Turnholti, Brepols, 1972.

Cyril of Alexandria. “Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.” In The Church of Rome at the Bar of History. Edited and Translated by William Webster. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1995.

Cyril of Alexandria. Commentarii in Esaim. Patrologiae cursus Completus: Series Graeca, ed. J. P. Minge, vol. 70. Paris: Garnier Freres, 1884.

Cyril of Alexandria. Dialogues sur la Trinit. Edited by Georges Matthieu Durand. Sources Chrtiennes, vol. 237. Paris: ditions du Cerf, 1978.

Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 7. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Cyril of Jerusalem. “Catecheses ad Illuminandos.” In S. Patris nosti Cyrilli Hierosolymorum archiepiscopi opera quae superrunt omnia. 2^nd ed. Edited by J. Rupp, vol. 2. Hildesheim: H. A. Gerstenberg Publishers, 1967.

Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechesis Illuminandorum. Patrologiae cursus Completus: Series Graeca, ed. J. P. Minge, vol. 33. Paris: Garnier Freres, 1857.

Damasus I. “Decree of Damasus.” In The Faith of the Early Fathers, ed. William Jurgens. Vol. 1. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1970.

Damasus I. Decretum de Libris Recipiendis et Non Recipiendis. Patrologiae cursus Completus: Series Latina, ed. J. P. Minge, vol. 19. Paris: Garnier Freres, 1846.

Eusebius of Caesarea. Commentarii in Psalmos. Patrologiae cursus Completus: Series Graeca, ed. J. P. Minge, vol. 23. Paris: Garnier Freres, 1857.

Eusebius of Caesarea. “Commentary on Psalms.” In The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, ed. and trans. by William Webster. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1995.

Eusebius of Caesarea. Ecclesiastical History. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

Eusebius of Caesarea. Ecclesiastical History. Edited and Translated by Roy J. Deferrari. Fathers of the Church, ed. Roy Deferrari, vol. 19. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1965.

Eusebius of Caesarea. Histoire Ecclsiastique. Edited by Gustav Bardy. Sources Chrtiennes, vol. 31. Paris: Cerf, 1952.

Eusebius of Caesarea. Histoire Ecclsiastique. Edited by Gustav Bardy. Sources Chrtiennes, vol. 41. Paris: Cerf, 1955.

Eusebius of Caesarea. Praeparatio Euangelica. Edited by Karl Mras. Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller, vol. 43. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1982.

Eusebius of Caesarea. “Preparation of the Gospel 1.3.8.” In A Commentary by Writers of the First Five Centuries on the Place of St. Peter in the New Testament and that of St. Peter's Successors in the Church, ed. and trans. by James A. Waterworth. London: Thomas Richardson, 1871.

Epiphanius of Cyprus. “Against Pneumatomachi 74.” In The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. Translated by Frank Williams. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, ed. Frank Williams, vol. 35. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987.

Epiphanius of Cyprus. “Cathari 59.” In The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. Translated by Frank Williams. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, ed. Frank Williams, vol. 36. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987.

Epiphanius of Cyprus. Panarion. Edited by Karl Holl and Jürgen Dummer. Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller, vol. 31. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1922.

Epiphanius of Cyprus. Panarion. Edited by Karl Holl. Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller, vol. 37. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1933.

Gregory of Nazianzus. “Carmina Theologica 2.” In The Faith of Catholics: Confirmed by Scripture and Attested by the Fathers of the First Five Centuries of the Church, ed. Joseph Berington and John Kirk. Vol. 2. New York: Fr. Pustet, 1885.

Gregory of Nazianzus. Carminum Theologica. Patrologiae cursus Completus: Series Graeca, ed. J. P. Minge, vol. 19. Paris: Garnier Freres, 1862.

Gregory of Nazianzus. Select Orations. Translated by Martha Vinson. Fathers of the Church, ed. Roy Deferrari and Thomas Hulton, vol. 107. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2003.

Gregory of Nazianzus. Orationes. Edited By C. Moreschini. Sources Chrtiennes, vol. 318. Paris: Cerf, 1985.

Gregory of Nyssa. Encomium in Sanctum Stephanum Protomartyrem. Edited by O. Lendle. Vol. 2. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990.

Gregory of Nyssa. “Panegyric on St. Stephen.” In The Faith of Catholics: Confirmed by Scripture and Attested by the Fathers of the First Five Centuries of the Church, ed. Joseph Berington and John Kirk. Vol. 2. New York: Fr. Pustet, 1885.

Hilary of Poitiers. De Trinitate. Edited by Pieter Smulders. Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina 62. Turnholti: Brepols, 1979.

Hilary of Poitiers. The Trinity. Translated by Stephen McKenna. Fathers of the Church, ed. Roy Deferrari, vol. 25. New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1954.

Hilary of Poitiers. “Tractate on Psalm 131.4.” In The Faith of Catholics: Confirmed by Scripture and Attested by the Fathers of the First Five Centuries of the Church, ed. Joseph Berington and John Kirk. Vol. 2. New York: Fr. Pustet, 1885.

Hilary of Poitiers. Tractatus Super Psalmos: Tractatus in Pslamum CXXXI. Edited by Anton Zingerle. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol 22. Milan: Ulricus Hoeplius Edidit, 1891.

Innocent I. “Epistle 29.” In Documents of the Christian Church, ed. by Henry Bettenson. 2^nd Ed. London: Oxford University Press, 1963.

Innocent I. Epistula XXIX. Patrologiae cursus Completus: Series Latina, ed. J. P. Minge, vol. 20. Paris: Garnier Freres, 1846.

Leo I. Epistle 105. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 12. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

Leo I. Epistula CV. Patrologiae cursus Completus: Series Latina, ed. J. P. Minge, vol. 54. Paris: Garnier Freres, 1858.

Leo I. “Oratio 3.” In Sancti Leonis Magni Romani Pontificis Tractatus Septem et Nonaginta. Edited by Antonius Chavasse. Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina, vol. 138. Turnholti: Brepols, 1978.

Leo I. Sermon 3. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 12. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969.

Seven Ecumenical Councils. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 14. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

St. Jerome. Against Jovinianus. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 6. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956.

St. Jerome. Against the Pelagians. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 6. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956.

St. Jerome. Dialogus Adversus Pelagianos. Edited by C. Moreschini. Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina 80. Turnholti: Brepols, 1990.

St. Jerome. Letter 15.2. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 6. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956.

Origen of Alexandria. “Homily 5.4.” In The Faith of the Early Fathers, ed. by William Jurgens. Vol. 1. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1970.

Origen of Alexandria. Commentarii in Ioannem. Edited by E. Preuschen. Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller, vol. 10. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1903.

Origen of Alexandria. Commentarii in Mattheum. Edited by Erich Klostermann and Ernst Benz. Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller, vol. 40. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1935.

Origen of Alexandria. Commentary on John 5.3. Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Early Fathers Down to A.D. 325, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 10. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Origen of Alexandria. Commentary on Matthew 12.10-11. Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Early Fathers Down to A.D. 325, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 10. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Origen of Alexandria. Homilae in Exodum. Edited by W. A. Baehrens. Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller, vol. 29. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1920.

Siricius I. Sicricus Himerio Tarraconensi Episcopo. Patrologiae cursus Completus: Series Latina, ed. J. P. Minge, vol. 13. Paris: Garnier Freres, 1846.

Siricius I. “To Himerius.” In Documents Illustrating Papal Authority, A.D. 96-454, ed. Edward Giles. London: S.P.C.K Publishers, 1952.

Tertullian of Carthage. De Monogomia. Corpus Christianorium: Series Latina, vol. 2. Turnholti: Typographi Brepols, 1954.

Tertullian of Carthage. De Praescriptione Haereticorum. Edited by R. F. Refoul. Corpus Christianorium: Series Latina, vol. 1. Turnholti: Typographi Brepols, 1954.

Tertullian of Carthage. De Pudicitia. Corpus Christianorium: Series Latina 2. Turnholti: Typographi Brepols, 1954.

Tertullian of Carthage. On Modesty. Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Early Fathers Down to A.D. 325, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 4. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Tertullian of Carthage. On Monogamy. Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Early Fathers Down to A.D. 325, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 4. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Tertullian of Carthage. Prescription Against Heretics. Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Early Fathers Down to A.D. 325, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.

Theodoret of Cyr. “Commentary on Canticle of Canticles 2.14.” In The Church of Rome at the Bar of History. Edited and Translated by William Webster. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1995.

Theodoret of Cyr. Explanatio in Canticum Canticorum. Patrologiae cursus Completus: Series Graeca, ed. J. P. Minge, vol. 81. Paris: Garnier Freres, 1864.

Theodoret of Cyr. Letters of the Blessed Theodoret. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969.

Theodoret of Cyr. Epistula CLXVI. Patrologiae cursus Completus: Series Graeca, ed. J. P. Minge, vol. 81. Paris: Garnier Freres, 1864.

Theodoret of Cyr. Epistula LXXVII. Patrologiae cursus Completus: Series Graeca, ed. J. P. Minge, vol. 83. Paris: Garnier Freres, 1866.

Writings on the Church Fathers

Allenbach, J. et al. Biblia Patristica: Index Des Citation et Allusions Bibliques Dans la Littrature Patristique. 7 Vols. Paris: Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique, 1975.

Berkhof, Louis. The History of the Christian Doctrines, 6^th ed. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1997.

Bettenson, Henry. Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd ed. London: Oxford University Press, 1963.

Chapman, Dom John. Studies in the Early Papacy. London: Sheed & Ward, 1928.

Cross, F. L. and E. A. Livingston, eds. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 2nd ed. London: Oxford University Press, 1974.

Eno, Robert. The Rise of the Papacy. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1990.

Frhlich, Karlfried. “Saint Peter, Papal Primacy and the Exegetical Tradition, 1150-1300.” In The Religious Roles of the Papacy, ed. Christopher Ryan. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1989.

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. Vol.1, The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. San Francisco: HarperSanFranciso, 1984.

Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. 4^th Ed. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco Publishers, 1978.

Ray, Stephen. Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999.

Scott, Herbert. The Eastern Churches and the Papacy. London: Sheed & Ward, 1928.

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. 3rd ed. 8 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950.

Norman P. Tanner, ed. “Session 4, July 18, 1870 of the First Vatican Council: 1869-1870.” In Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Vol. 2, Trent to Vatican II. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1990.

Wace, Henry and William Piercy, eds., A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies. 2^nd ed. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999.

Biblical Topics:

Library and Resources

Grammar

Passage:

Taxonomy upgrade extras: