Is St. Peter the Rock on which Jesus built his Church?One of the most controversial passages in the Bible is Matthew 16:18, where Jesus tells Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.”
Catholics see this passage as evidence that Jesus made Peter the first pope.
Many Evangelicals look at it as just the opposite.
Who is right?
It’s an interesting question, and I’ve been on both sides of the question. In fact, this passage played a pivotal role in my conversion to the Catholic Church.
You may think you’ve heard all the arguments about whether Peter is the rock, but I’m going to show you the one that convinced me, and you probably haven’t heard it anywhere else . . .
The Basic Argument
A common claim in Protestant apologetics is that in Matthew 16:18, Jesus is actually contrasting St. Peter with the rock on which he will build his Church.
The argument is based on the fact that in Greek the word for Peter is petros, while the word used for “rock” here is petra.
It is often claimed that these words meant two different things–that petros meant a small stone or a pebble, while petra meant a large rock.
The idea is that Jesus is contrasting Peter–a tiny, insignificant stone–with the great rock on which he will build his Church, which is often said not to be Peter but Peter’s faith.
How well does this argument work?
By the Way . . .
Incidentally, if you’re interested in this type of information, you might want to check out my Secret Information Club.
If you’re not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.
I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.
The very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is an “interview” I did with Pope Benedict on the book of Revelation. What I did was compose questions about the book of Revelation and take the answers from his writings.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:
There are many gems in the writings of the Church Fathers. Some are valuable because of their insight into faith, others are valuable because they fill in things not mentioned in the Bible, and some are valuable because of their spiritual beauty.
Here is one about the Apostle John, who is sometimes called the Apostle of Love. This story alone would earn him that nickname.
It records an incident late in his life, and it is found in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, who wrote only a hundred years afterward and who obtained it from earlier sources.
It may well be true, but whatever degree of historical reliability it has, it touches on powerful human emotions, and it is undeniably beautiful.
The Revelation of John contains many mysteries, like: Who were the Nicolaitans?
The book of Revelation contains a lot of things that are mysterious. Some are mysterious because of the symbolism John uses, but others are mysterious because what he is referring to is simply unfamiliar to us.
For example, he refers to a mysterious group of heretics known as the “Nicolaitans.”
Who were they?
Fortunately, this is a mystery it’s possible to shed some light on . . .
What Revelation Says
The book of Revelation first refers to the Nicolaitans in the message to the church of Ephesus, where we read:
Yet this you have, you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate [2:6].
That doesn’t give us a lot to work with. There is apparently a group of people known as the Nicolaitans who do things (works) that are rightly hated by the Ephesians.
Revelation’s second reference to them is more informative, however. In the message to the church of Pergamum we read:
But I have a few things against you: You have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice immorality. So you also have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans [2:14-15].
Here the teachings of the Nicolaitans are linked to the teaching of Balaam. (The word here translated “so” is houtos, which carries the idea of explanation: “thus.”)
There may even be a play on words here: As we will see, the Fathers link the Nicholaitans to a man named Nicholaus, which can be understood in Greek to mean “conqueror of the people,” and “Balaam” can be understood in Hebrew as meaning “he conquers/destroys the people” (though it can be understood other ways also).
The Teaching of Balaam
We meet the figure of Balaam in Numbers 22-24, where we learn that he is a seer who was hired by the king Balak to put a curse on the people of Israel as they were threatening to move into the Holy Land.
Balaam, however, was unable to do so. (God wouldn’t let him!)
If you read only Numbers 22-24, Balaam can come off as a good guy. It seems, though, that he went bad.
Later in Numbers, Moses is criticizing the actions of the Israeliets with regard to the women of Midian, and he says:
Behold, these caused the people of Israel, by the counsel of Balaam, to act treacherously against the LORD in the matter of Pe’or, and so the plague came among the congregation of the LORD [Num. 31:16].
What precisely the Midianite women did that caused the sons of Israel to betray the Lord is not spelled out here.
It is, however, discussed in some extra-biblical writings.
On Sunday, October 7, Pope Benedict is scheduled to proclaim St. Hildegard of Bingen and St. John of Avila as the newest doctors of the Church.
A doctor (Latin, “teacher”) of the Church is a Christian writer who has been specially recognized by the Church for the value of his or her writings.
Earlier this year, Pope Benedict explained his decision to name these two individuals as doctors:
The Spirit, who “has spoken through the prophets”, with the gifts of wisdom and knowledge continues to inspire women and men who engage in the pursuit of truth, offering original ways of understanding and of delving into the mystery of God, of man and of the world.
In this context, I am delighted to announce that on 7 October, at the start of the Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, I will proclaim St John of Avila and St Hildegard of Bingen Doctors of the universal Church.
These two great witnesses of the faith lived in two very different historical periods and cultural environments.
Hildegard was a Benedictine nun in the heart of medieval Germany, an authentic teacher of theology and a profound scholar of natural science and music.
John, a diocesan priest in the years of the Spanish Renaissance, shared in the travail of the cultural and religious renewal of the Church and of all society at the dawn of modern times.
But the sanctity of their life and the profundity of their doctrine render them perennially relevant: The grace of the Holy Spirit, in fact, projected them into the experience of penetrating understanding of divine revelation and intelligent dialogue with that world which constitutes the eternal horizon of the life and action of the Church.
Especially in light of the project for a new evangelization, to which the Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, mentioned above will be dedicated on the eve of the Year of Faith, these two Saints and Doctors are of considerable and timely importance.
Even today, through their teaching, the Spirit of the Risen Lord continues to resonate his voice and illuminate the way which leads to the Truth that alone can set us free and give full meaning to our lives [Regina Caeli, Pentecost, May 27, 2012].
Meet St. Hildegard of Bingen
Let’s learn a bit about St. Hildegard of Bingen. Pope Benedict gave a pair of audiences on her a few years ago. He introduced her this way:
Joe Wetterling: Even his FB profile pic tells you he'll be a thoughtful interviewer
Recently Brandon Vogt announced September as Support a Catholic Speaker Month, in which various folks around the Catholic blogosphere would promote awareness of contemporary Catholic speakers.
I was one of those chosen, and Joe Wetterling was kind enough to do a profile interview with me via Skype. (Joe’s web sites include Joewetterling.com, HoKaiPaulos.com, and BaptizedImagination.com–be sure to check them out!)
We were later than many participants in getting the interview done, due to my eye surgery, and since I’ve been letting my eye-realignment settle in a bit before doing another video of my own, Joe is actually the first person to capture footage of me with my new, restored 3-D vision (so that my eyes track together–most of the time).
I’d like to thank Joe, Brandon, and everyone else who participated in the project. Thank you, and God bless you!
Did Jesus really feed more than 5,000 people with five loaves and two fish?
The multiplication of loaves is the most prominent miracle of Jesus’ earthly ministry. It is the only miracle–other than his Resurrection–mentioned in all four gospels.
This even ranks the raising of Lazarus.
But despite this, we’re subjected to countless homilies in which the priest seems bent on explaining away this grand miracle, in which Jesus fed 5,000 men (plus women and children) with just five loaves and two fish. Instead, we’re told, it was just a “miracle of sharing” whereby Jesus encouraged people to share the food they had in secret selfish stashes.
That’s certainly the impression you would get from some discussing a recent decree issued by the German bishops’ conference.
It’s being characterized as a “pay to pray” policy, whereby the Church will deny you the sacraments if you don’t give it money.
One news source headlined the story “German Bishops To Catholics: Pay Up Or Die Without Absolution.”
That seems to be about as misleading a headline as you could want, because the decree in question expressly refers to the possibility of people receiving the final sacraments.
Did the authors of the New Testament know they were writing Scripture or did they think they were writing something else?
You’d think that the answer would be an easy, “yes,” but a startling number of people–including New Testament scholars–say “no.”
I’m always taken aback when I’m reading along and suddenly encounter a statement like, “Of course, the authors of the New Testament didn’t know that they were writing Scripture. Their writings only came to have this status later.”
Huh?
How do you know that?
Let’s take a look at the issue . . .
What Scripture Is
Today we often think of a particular book as Scripture based on whether it is in the Bible. If it is in the Bible, it’s Scripture. If it’s not in the Bible, it’s not Scripture.
This may be a practical test for us today, but it’s not the way the New Testament authors thought of Scripture. Back when they lived, there was no book called “the Bible.” Instead, there were a collection of books, which were originally written on scrolls, that they thought of as Scripture.
Only the invention of new forms of publishing technology allowed these to be put together as the single volume that we now call “the Bible.”
Also back in the day–their day–the canon of Scripture was not yet completed, which means that it was still open. There was no closed canon, and so they also couldn’t use the test “Is it one of the books of the (closed) canon?”
If you can’t define what Scripture is by relating it to “what’s in the Bible?” or “what’s in the canon?” how can you define it?
The answer that the first Christians would have given if they had been asked “What is Scripture?” would probably have involved these concepts:
A book of Scripture is a sacred book.
A book of Scripture is an divinely authoritative book.
A book of Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
These provide important clues to whether the authors of the New Testament thought they were writing Scripture. Before we apply them, though, we should look at another way of approaching the issue . . .
What Scriptures Did the New Testament Authors Recognize?
When the New Testament authors quote from the Old Testament, they overwhelmingly (around 80-90% of the time) quote from a particular version of it: the Septuagint. This was a Greek translation of the Old Testament that was used internationally by the Jewish community.
When we look at the particular books that belonged to the Septuagint, we find that there are a number of different types, including:
Foundational books: These tell about the founding of the Hebrew community (Genesis-Deuteronomy).
Historical books: These tell the ongoing story of Israel’s history under God’s providence (Joshua-2 Chronicles, plus 1-2 Maccabees).
Prophetic books: These contain oracles and visions given through the prophets (Isaiah-Malachi).
Wisdom books: These contain divine wisdom on a variety of topics, written in several different forms including poetry (Job), songs (Psalms, Song of Songs), short sayings (Proverbs), meditations (Ecclesiastes, Wisdom), etc.
It’s not unreasonable to think that if we find the New Testament authors writing books of these types then they would have seen themselves as writing Scripture.
So if we apply that test, what results do we find?
The Book of Revelation
This one is so obvious that it’s blinding. The book of Revelation present itself as a prophetic revelation like the prophetic books of the Old Testament, whose imagery and language it frequently uses.
How could John not think he was writing Scripture?
The only ways I could see a person writing a book of this sort and not think he was writing Scripture would be if he was a fraud who was writing to deceive people into thinking he was writing Scripture–or if he was some kind of fiction author who thought he was writing fiction in the form of a prophecy.
There is no evidence that John was doing either one of these things.
He comes across as straightforward and sincere–even ardent.
So Revelation is an easy “gimmie.” Its author thought he was writing Scripture.
The Gospels
Also easy are the Gospels. They belong to the class of foundational books, just like the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy) does in the Old Testament. They tell the story of how the New Israel (the Church) was born through the ministry of Christ, just like the Pentateuch tells the story of how the Original Israel was born through the ministry of Moses.
In fact, the Gospel authors directly parallel Jesus with Moses (Matthew does this in particular) and the Twelve Apostles with the Twelve Patriarchs of Israel.
Furthermore, the Gospel authors portray Jesus as greater than Moses. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ was regarded as the greatest event in God’s plan of the ages–ever.
So anyone writing a Gospel to be read in the churches had to have the idea that he was writing Scripture.
As John Paul II said on one occasion:
Another “consolation” of the Holy Spirit for the Church was the spread of the Gospel as the text of the new covenant. If the books of the Old Testament, inspired by the Holy Spirit, were already a source of consolation and comfort for the Church, as St. Paul says to the Romans (Rom 15:4), how much more so were the books which related “all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning” (Acts 1:1). Of these we can even more truly say that they were written “for our instruction, that by endurance and by the consolation of the scriptures we might have hope” (Rom 15:4) [General Audience, March 13, 1991].
We also have evidence in the epistles that the Gospels were regarded as Scripture.
The Brother Whose Praise Is “In the Gospel”
In 2 Corinthians 8:18-19, St. Paul writes:
18 And we have sent with [Titus also] the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches;
19 And not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind [KJV].
I’ve quoted this from the King James Version because most modern translations render what verse 18 says dynamically rather than literally.
What Paul literally says is a brother “whose praise is in the gospel” and who, as revealed in verse 19, was a travelling companion of Paul.
Do we know any travelling companions of Paul who wrote a Gospel?
Sure! Luke!
And perhaps that’s what he’s referring to here. He’s sending Luke along with Titus to visit the Corinthians.
Or maybe not.
The verse is ambiguous, and it could mean something else. It could mean, in keeping with modern, dynamic translations, “the brother whose praise is in the service of the gospel” or “in preaching the gospel.”
Whether you think it means this kind of thing or whether you think it is a reference to Luke will depend on when you think Luke’s Gospel was written.
Note that St. Paul speaks of “the brother” (singular), as if there is only one of his companions whose praise is “in the gospel.” That would fit Luke well if we are talking about a written gospel, but it would be hard to see who he’s talking about if we’re not. Lots of Paul’s companions (e.g., Timothy, Titus), could be said to have their praise in thepreaching of the gospel, and all of them could have their praise in the service of the gospel.
(Note that Mark was also a companion of Paul who wrote a Gospel, but he is better known as a companion of Peter, and at one point Paul and Mark had a falling out, so Luke is the more likely choice.)
“The Worker Is Worth His Wages”
Less ambiguous is 1 Timothy 5:17-19, where we read:
[17] Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching;
[18] for the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”
The command about not muzzling an ox comes from Deuteronomy 25:4, but the statement that the worker deserves his wages is Luke 10:7–the only other place in the Bible this statement appears.
So here we have a direct New Testament reference to Luke as Scripture.
We thus have a consciousness being displayed, in the New Testament age, that Luke–and, by extension, the other Gospels–were Scripture.
Acts of the Apostles
If Luke thought he was writing Scripture when he wrote his Gospel then he would have thought the same thing when he was writing Acts.
Acts is the direct sequel to the Gospel of Luke, it picks up where the Gospel left off, and it fits the same mold as the Old Testament historical books, which continued the story of Israel from where the Pentateuch left off.
Acts is the New Testament equivalent of the Old Testament historical books, filling in the history of the New Israel down to his own day (c. A.D. 62) from the point where the foundational document (the Gospel) stopped.
So we have good evidence that the authors of Revelation, the Gospels, and Acts knew they were writing Scripture. That leaves us with the epistles, which we will look at soon.
This version of The Weekly Benedict covers material released in the last week from 20 September 2012 – 7 October 2012 (subscribe here; get as an eBook version for your Kindle, iPod, iPad, Nook, or other eBook reader):
