Okay, not that kind of apology…\u00a0On Monday<\/a>, when I put up the “Lectionary Notes” for yesterday’s Mass Readings, I said that later in the week\u00a0I would try to do a slightly more\u00a0apologetics-related post concerning Matthew 16<\/a>.<\/p>\n Since this is an apologetics entry, if you haven’t read my<\/span> Ecumenical Apologist<\/a> post, I would invite you to read that first since it explains something of my perspective and my attempted approach with posts like this.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n I was running a little low on time this week so I dug through my email and found a correspondence\u00a0from a few years ago with a non-Catholic whom we will call “Jay”.\u00a0Jay raised the question of the Pope early on in our\u00a0correspondence, but I had resisted talking about the issue of the Papacy\u00a0until we had covered some more fundamental issues (authority, the canon etc.).<\/p>\n Anyway, here’s what I said in response to his statements about Matthew 16…<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Dear Jay,<\/span><\/p>\n Thanks for your last email…<\/span><\/p>\n Pope Fiction<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Matthew 16<\/a> is certainly one of the main passages referred to when talking about authority.\u00a0 This was the passage which convinced me of Petrine Primacy and Apostolic Succession \u2013 something I had struggled with for a long time\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n It’s worth saying before I work through this passage that it isn\u2019t hard to find Evangelical, even anti-Catholic scholars who will agree with about 90% of what I\u2019m about to say.\u00a0 I\u2019m not saying this because I think that you\u2019ll listen to them<\/em>, only to make the point that rejection of Peter as the rock is not automatic by the entire non-Catholic world (W.F. Albright, Gerhard Meyer, Donald Carson, R.T France, Herman Ridderbos, \u2026).<\/span><\/p>\n Can you smell what The Rock is cookin\u2019?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n You quite correctly emphasize that verse 17<\/a>\u00a0(“…flesh and blood did not reveal this to you…”<\/em>) shows Peter’s confession was a gift from the Father.\u00a0 Verse 23<\/a>\u00a0(“Get behind me Satan!”)<\/em> only serves to emphasize Peter\u2019s general lack of natural ability.\u00a0 Peter isn\u2019t entitled to lead the Church because of his intelligence, strength or impeccability \u2013 it\u2019s all about God and the special gift that He gives.\u00a0 Jesus didn\u2019t call Simon \u201crock\u201d because of his rock-like character, any more than Yahweh called Abram \u201cfather of many\u201d because of his large family.<\/span><\/p>\n [You said that in all other parts of Scripture the only “rock” referred to is God Himself.] Actually, Isaiah 51:1-2<\/a> describes Abraham as the rock from which Israel was hewn.\u00a0 But even if this passage didn\u2019t exist, just because God is described as \u201cthe rock\u201d in other parts of scripture it doesn\u2019t preclude the possibility of \u201crock\u201d later being applied to a human \u2013 particularly when that person also receives it as a name and it is given to him by God Himself!\u00a0 In the same way, surely God alone is the shepherd of His sheep? Yet Jesus tells Peter to \u201cfeed my lambs\u201d (Jn 21:15<\/a>).<\/span><\/p>\n You are also quite right when you say two different words are used for \u201crock\u201d in this passage: \u201cpetros<\/a>\u201d and \u201cpetra<\/a>\u201d. \u00a0However, it is actually debatable as to whether these two words meant two different rock sizes in first century Greek (it appears to be the case in Attic Greek, but in Koine Greek?)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n However, first things first \u2013 in what language would this dialogue have been?\u00a0 It would most likely not have taken place in Greek, but in Aramaic, where there is but one word for rock: kepha (John 1:42<\/a>).\u00a0 So literally Jesus would have said: \u201cYou are kepha<\/strong> and on this kepha<\/strong> I will build my church\u201d. \u00a0Here there is no possible distinction or suggestion of differing rock size.\u00a0 This is the same Aramaic word<\/a> Paul uses in his letters when referring to Peter (1 Cor 1:12, 3:22, 9:5<\/a>), even though Paul himself wrote in Greek.<\/span><\/p>\n But why did the Holy Spirit lead Matthew to use two different words when he wrote his Gospel?\u00a0 Well, for a start, some early sources contend that Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew and then<\/em> subsequently translated into Greek, but even if we dismiss that, the answer is simple \u2013 the writer of the Greek had no real choice<\/strong>… <\/span><\/p>\n [In English, unlike in other languages, inanimate objects do not have gender. For example, in French, “house” is feminine (“la maison”) whereas “bed” is masculine (“le lit”). There are some rare cases of something similar in English, such as when sailors refer to ships as “she”]. \u00a0In Greek, \u201cPetra<\/a>\u201d is a feminine \u00a0noun and therefore inappropriate for use as a man\u2019s name (it would make it something like \u201cRockelle\u201d or “Rockette”), so the author of the Gospel simply changed the gender, rendering \u201cpetra\u201d as \u201cpetros\u201d (and thereby changing \u201cRockelle\u201d or “Rockette” to \u201cRocky\u201d).\u00a0\u00a0 Even with this gender change in the Greek, the wordplay Jesus is using is unmistakable.<\/span><\/p>\n Also, had differing rock sizes been important to the author of this Greek\u00a0Gospel, \u201clithos<\/a>\u201d (1 Peter 2:4-5<\/a>) could have been used and this would have worked rather better as it\u2019s already<\/em> a male noun. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n I got flow…<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n However, even if we push all this aside, if we decide to designate Jesus as the rock and downplay Peter, we break the flow of the passage:<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0“Simon, you are greatly blessed by the Father…<\/span>you are but a tiny pebble but on this massive rock (me) I will build my Church<\/span>…and I\u2019m going to give you the keys to the kingdom<\/span>“<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n The flow of blessings makes much more sense<\/strong> if we assume Peter is the rock:<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u201cSimon, you are greatly blessed by the Father\u2026you are the rock on which I\u2019m going to build my church…and I\u2019m going to give you the keys to the kingdom<\/span>\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n The keys to the issue<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Even if you disagree with everything I\u2019ve said so far, you have to agree that Jesus gave Peter \u201cthe keys of the kingdom\u201d because it is absolutely explicit in Matthew 16. \u00a0Personally, this is what made sense of the papacy for me.\u00a0 So, what do we make of these keys?<\/span><\/p>\n The Davidic Kingdom<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The central thrust of Matthew\u2019s Gospel is how Jesus is the fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdom.\u00a0 Therefore, when I looked back into how the Davidic Dynasty operated, the significance of the keys suddenly became clear.\u00a0 In Isaiah 22:22<\/a> (which Jesus closely parallels in Matthew 16) we see that in the original Davidic Kingdom there was a chief steward. This chief steward was the prime minister who administered the royal household and the affairs of the kingdom.\u00a0 The king was still ultimately in charge, but this minister had tremendous power \u2013 he was a shepherd and father-figure in the kingdom.\u00a0 You might even call him the King\u2019s \u201cvicar\u201d\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n So where do the keys fit in?\u00a0 The keys symbolized authority<\/em>\u00a0passed from the king to the minister.\u00a0 Now, there were other ministers in the kingdom, but this chamberlain had far more power in “binding”, “loosing”, “opening” and “closing”.<\/span><\/p>\n Also, this wasn\u2019t an honor just given to one man at one time in history, but it was an office<\/em>\u00a0in the kingdom. The keys were passed from one prime minister to the next, conferring authority onto their next holder.<\/span><\/p>\n The New Kingdom<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Returning to 28 AD, we see Jesus setting up the new<\/em>\u00a0Davidic Kingdom, conferring on Peter an amazing grace \u2013 giving him the keys, a sign of his primacy among the ministers of this new kingdom.\u00a0 It was an office which would be filled by the men who came after him. \u00a0[There is strong patristic support for this] .<\/span><\/p>\n This idea of an office is also seen in the Book of Acts when Peter says that, following Judas\u2019 death, his office\/episkope\/bishoprick should be filled. This is not debated among the Apostles. A space is vacant and must be filled! The idea of conferred authority isn\u2019t new either – Jesus told His listeners to obey the Pharisees because they sit on the “seat of Moses” (Exodus 18:13, Matthew 23:1-3<\/a>).<\/span><\/p>\n Talking heads<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Now, [Jay], you make lots of statements about Jesus Christ being the head of the Church.\u00a0 What does Joe Catholic say?\u00a0 He gives a hearty \u201cAmen!\u201d Of course Jesus is the head of the Church \u2013 he\u2019s the King of the Kingdom.<\/span><\/p>\n However\u2026.this\u00a0doesn’t\u00a0preclude authority being given to the offices held by the Lord’s ministers here on earth. The Catholic Church teaches that this special grace has been given to the magisterial teaching authority of the Church and, in particular, to one man.\u00a0 A man who is \u201cset apart\u201d, a \u201cshepherd\u201d, a \u201cfather\u201d, the \u201cvicar\u201d of Christ…and who is the \u201cservant of the servants of God\u201d, who teaches from the seat of Peter, and who is today is Pope Benedict XVI.<\/span><\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/restlesspilgrim.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/08\/pope_bible.jpg\")
<\/p>\n