Swimming the Tiber 6: Priests of the New Covenant

Written by on · Leave a Comment

The Protestant doctrine of the priesthood of believers is based on several passages of the New Testament. I will attempt to deal directly with those, but my goal is not to convince you that Catholics disagree with this in principle–rather, Catholics embody the priesthood of believers better than any other Christian group.

The first proof of the priesthood of believers is the tearing of the veil at the death of Christ. This is recorded in all three synoptic Gospels:

And Jesus, again having screamed with a great sound, sent forth the breath. And behold! the veil of the temple was split from on high until below into two and the earth was shaken1 and the stones were split.

– Matthew 27:50-51 (my translation)

And Jesus, having sent forth a great sound, breathed out. And the veil of the temple was split into two from on high until below.

– Mark 15:37-38 (my translation)

And it was already about the sixth hour and darkness came about upon the whole earth until the ninth hour, with the sun having been eclipsed, and the veil of the temple was split in the middle. And having sounded with a great sound, Jesus said, “Father, into your hands I set aside my breath.” And having said this, he breathed out.2

– Luke 23:44-46 (my translation)

The second proof, and the most obvious, is from the first epistle of St. Peter:

And you [are] a select race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people unto preservation, in order that you may proclaim the goodnesses of the [one] having called you out of darkness into his marvelous light;

– I Peter 2:9 (my translation)

The remainder of the doctrine comes from the Book of Hebrews, which I will not quote (most of the latter half of the book deals with this question, in part), but consider especially Hebrews 10:19-25; 13:15-19. There is also, wrapped up in this doctrine, the issue of conflating the priesthood of the Catholic Church with the Levitical priesthood, which is obsolete (see Hebrews 7:11-25; 8:1-7; 9:11-15; 12:18-24).

Let me start by saying this: There is absolutely no mediator in our salvation but Christ, and we are permitted direct access to the very presence of God, without the hindrance of the temple veil. Catholics have a tendency to use the term “mediator” regarding one or more of the saints; if this confuses you, look forward to my post on the intercession of the saints at a later date. For now, understand that it does not conflict with this point. Christ is our sole mediator, and it is by Christ alone that we are cleansed of our sins. No Catholic doctrine opposes these truths from the letter to the Hebrews.

How, then, has it become so confused? Why do Catholics have priests? Well, the short answer is that, whether or not we have unfettered access to him, God is still holy; it still behooves us to have as our pastors men who are held to a higher standard, who are devoted to serving him. The apostolic priesthood of the Catholic Church is less about mediation than it is about serving the purpose to which the apostles were called (see especially Matthew 16:19; 18:15-20; John 20:21-23; 21:15-17), in which they take on the mantle of Christ as his servants, to forgive sins, cast out demons, and bring the people to repentance.

That is to say, the priests of the Catholic Church are the vicars of Christ, meaning that they operate bodily in his stead, since he is with the Father in heaven. They only have authority because he grants it; they can only act as priests because he wills it.

But if they are the priests, how are we all priests? What of the verse from the first letter of Peter? Well, let me address two points there: First, that verse is primarily delineating the necessity of evangelization by all the faithful. We are all teachers and preachers of Christ, and it is our duty to share in the Great Commission (see Matthew 28:18-20). Second, the priesthood of believers, and the access we have been granted since the tearing of the veil, is most wonderfully fulfilled through the Eucharist.

I will deal with all of the ins and outs of the Eucharist in a later post (and there are a great many things to discuss), but here’s the short-short version: Where Protestants have Communion (eating bread and drinking wine/grape juice in remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice),3 Catholics have the Eucharist (partaking of the very Body and Blood of Christ). The Eucharist is not a new sacrifice (see Hebrews 9:24-10:18), but the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross made present. Catholics believe that it is not merely bread and wine, reminding us of Christ’s sacrifice, but Christ’s very own Body and Blood, the Real Presence.

So to partake of the Eucharist is to encounter God more personally, more closely, more fully than any Levitical priest ever could, even the high priest. It is truly the priesthood of the believer which allows this unfettered access to God’s own flesh. Christ offered himself as sacrifice (see Hebrews 7:27; 9:14; 10:10; 13:12), and as with such holy sacrifices, the priest consumes the flesh of the sacrifice (see Leviticus 6:26; Deuteronomy 18:1; cf. Genesis 14:18; John 6:47-58). So we, in partaking of the one sacrifice of Christ through the Eucharist, are priests ourselves, entering into the holy of holies.

In this way, Catholics absolutely believe in the priesthood of believers and, I think, fulfill it more perfectly than any Protestant denomination can.

If you are greatly troubled by all this talk of the Eucharist, and you find it difficult to accept, don’t worry; you’re in good company. As I said, I will work to address what are probably many concerns about these doctrines in upcoming posts; if you stick with me, we’ll get there.

But we have a few more topics we need to cover first. Up next is the necessity of the visible Church, that is, why can’t “the Church” just be the “mystical body of Christ through the Holy Spirit”? Why must it be this thing in the world, encumbered by so much bureaucracy and weighed down by the wickedness of the men that fill it? Let’s find out!

Last Post:
The Infallible Man
Next Post:
The Church Is One
Footnotes:
1 There is a great play on words here; ἐσείσθη, meaning “it was shaken,” sounds very similar to ἐσχίσθη, meaning “it was split.” Not only the veil, but the whole world, was torn asunder in this moment.
2 In all three of these verses, there is a play on words with πνεῦμα. The word literally means “breath” or “wind,” but over time, came to mean “spirit.” So in each place, as Christ dies, he sends out his breath, or breathes his last (physical death), but also sends out his spirit, or gives his spirit to the Father (both a poetical term for death and a literal passage of the spirit of Christ out of his Body–cf. I Peter 3:19-20 and Ephesians 4:9).
3 It should be noted that not all Protestants treat Communion this way. Lutherans have communion in “sacramental union,” meaning that Christ is bodily present in the elements, but the elements themselves do not change and the body is not present in a “local” (three-dimensional) sense. For Calvinists/Reformed Christians, “sacramental union” means that Christ is spiritually present in the elements, but again, the elements do not change. The Lutheran stance is mostly the same as consubstantiation, which some Anglicans (and others) hold, but consubstantiation is “differentiated” in that Christ’s body is manifested in three dimensions, but again, does not replace the original elements. If you’re confused by that, don’t worry; it’s kind of confusing. Zwingli’s symbolic “in remembrance” interpretation is most common among evangelical Christians, such as Baptists and non-denominational Christians.

Romans 8

Written by on · Leave a Comment
This is a literal translation of an ancient Greek text. It has also been cross-posted on 31Prayers.com. For more information on how to read this post and what everything means, see the relevant page on that site.

 
1Now, then, nothing [is] a condemnation to the [ones] in Christ Jesus.some manuscripts: to the [ones] in Christ Jesus not walking according to flesh.; others: to the [ones] in Christ Jesus not walking according to flesh, but according to spirit. (cf. verse 4 below) 2For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesusa freed theesome manuscripts: me; others: us [on a particular occasion] from the law of error and of death.or, potentially, from the law of error and from death.b 3For [that was] the inability of the law, in which [the law] was feeble through the flesh,c [but] God, having sent [on a particular occasion] his own son in [the] likeness of a flesh of error, and forlit. around, but, in a sense, to gain; this usage comes from combat in which a prize was placed in the middle of a ring and contestants fought around it error,d condemned the error in the flesh, 4in order thatἵνα + subjunctive purpose clause the judgment of the law may be filled in us, the [ones] not walking according to flesh, but according to spirit.e 5For the [ones] being according to flesh are mindful of the [things] of the flesh, but on the other hand, the [ones] [being] according to spirit [are mindful] of the [things] of the spirit. 6For the mind of the flesh [is] death,f but the mind of the spirit [is] life and peace; 7because the mind of the flesh [is] enmity unto God,g for [it] is not subjected to([it] does not place [itself] under) the law of God, for neither does [it] have the power;lit. nor is [it] able [to do something]h 8but the [ones] being in flesh are not able to make amends to God. 9But you, on the other hand, are not in flesh, but in spirit, if indeed a spirit of God dwells in you.i But, on the other hand, if someone does not have a spirit of Christ, this [man] is not of him.i.e., Christj 10But if Christ [is] in you, on the one hand the body [is] dead on account of error, but on the other, the spirit [is] alive on account of justice.k 11But if the spirit of the [one] having awakened Jesus out of [the] dead dwells in you, the [one] having awakened Christ out of [the] dead will make alive also your mortal bodies through the indwelling of his spiritsome manuscripts: on account of his indwelling spirit in you.

12Then therefore, brothers, [we] are debtors, not to the flesh in order to live according to flesh,genitive articular infinitive of purposel 13for if [you] live according to flesh, [you] are destined to die, but if [you] put to death for [the] spirit the acts of the body, [you] will live.m 14For as many as are brought to a spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15For [you] did not seize a spirit of slavery again unto fear,n but [you] seized a spirit of adoption in which [we] cry out, “Abba!” [that is,] father.o 16The spirit itself testifies with our spirit that [we] are children of God.p 17But if [we are] children, [we are] also heirs; on the one hand heirs of God,q but on the other, co-heirs of Christ, if indeed [we] co-suffer in order thatἵνα + subjunctive purpose clause [we] may co-glorify.

18For [I] calculate(reckon) that the misfortunes of the now-time [are] not worthy(fit / meet) towardslit. face-to-face with [the fact] that the destined glory is revealed(uncovered) unto us.idiomatically, this is something like, in comparison with the revelation of destined glory.r 19For the longingIn this construction, this word (ἀποκαραδοκία) is fairly rare. It is derived from a verb that appears more often (ἀποκαραδοκέω). Commentators (such as Strong’s Concordance) break it down to ἀπό + κάρα + δοκέω, literally, “away from + head + to think.” This leads to a sense like, “to think away from the head,” or, “to be forward-thinking,” or even, “with head outstretched.”

This seems unlikely to me. καραδοκέω was a word dating back at least to Herodotus (c. 5th century BC) and meant “to wait for the head,” i.e., the conclusion of something. ἀποκαραδοκέω was used by Polybius (2nd century BC) and Josephus (1st century AD). The word ἀπό idiomatically means “fully” or “completely” in composite words; thus, the word emphasizes looking to the resolution of a thing, not really an immediate striving (as “with head outstretched” suggests). of creation awaits anxiouslyhere and throughout, (expects eagerly) the revelation of the sons of God.s 20For creation was subjected to vanity, not [being] willing, but on account of the [one] having been subjected, upon hopet 21that also some manuscripts: subjected onto hope, because; others: subjected upon hope, and creation itself will be set free from the slavery of ruinu unto the freedom of the glory of the children of God.v 22For we know that all creation groans together and travails together even up to now; 23and not only [this], but also [we] ourselves, having the firstlingBecause of this word’s association with “first sacrifices,” it came to mean birth certificate; that may be the sense here. of the spirit, also we ourselves sigh in ourselves, awaiting anxiously adoption,some manuscripts omit this word the ransoming of our body.w 24For [we] were saved [on a particular occasion] (in / for / unto)Though all of the options listed are possible, this cannot mean that we were saved by hope. hope; but hope, being seen, is not hope;x for who hopes for what [he] sees?some manuscripts: what somebody sees, what does he hope for?; others: what somebody sees, does [he] also hope for?; others: what somebody sees, does [he] also await? 25But if [we] hope for what [we] do not see, through endurance [we] await [it] anxiously.

26And in just the same way, the spirit also helpslit. seizes against with, i.e., picks up with (though opposite), as perhaps with a large piece of furniture us with [our] weakness;as frequently, ἡμῶν is probably doing double-duty (being the object of “helps” and modifying “weakness”) for [we] do not know whatThis construction really emphasizes the ambiguity here; this is a very generic “what”; I imagine St. Paul’s eyes widening during this, accompanied by a hefty shrug. [we] should pray for,a deliberative independent subjunctive as far as [what] is needed, but the spirit itself intercedessome manuscripts: intercedes on behalf of us; others: meets on behalf of us (cf. v27 and v34 below) with unspeakable groans; 27but the [one] searching(seeking / searching for) the heartsy knows what the mind of the spirit [is], that(because) [the spirit] meets with GodLit. happens upon in accordance with God; idiomatically, may mean “pleads” or “meets” or even, in some cases, “intercedes” (the word here is the root of the one used in v26 above). But ἐντυγχάνω + κατά + accusative of something is a rare construction. Cf. Plutarch, Lycurgus 1.2: ἔνιοι δὲ καὶ κατ’ ὄψιν ἐντυχεῖν Ὁμήρῳ, “but some also [say] that [he] met with Homer in accordance with a face,” i.e., “face-to-face.” Contrast the lack of dative object in our passage, suggesting that κατὰ θεόν denotes the object of ἐντυγχάνει somehow. Thus, the sense is probably “meets” or “pleads” in the manner of God, but I like to think (however far-fetched) that the Trinity is textually implied (i.e., “God-to-God”). on behalf ofhere and throughout, lit. over holy [ones]. 28But [we] know that for the [ones] lovingfrom ἀγάπη God, all [things] work togethersome manuscripts: God works all [things] together; the singular verb here is not an indication of which manuscripts are correct, since, as usual, neuter plural subjects take singular verbs unto good,z for the [ones] being called(invited / chosen / welcome); compare ἐκκλησία (assembly / church) from the same root according to a purpose.lit. (public placement / public notice) 29Because [the ones] whom [he] knew beforehand, [he] also predetermined as conformed to the image of his son, in order that he may beεἰς + accusative + infinitive purpose clause [the] first-born among many brothers;aa 30and [the ones] whom [he] predetermined,for this and all the verbs in this verse, [on a particular occasion] these also [he] called; and [the ones] whom [he] called, these also [he] justified; and [the ones] whom [he] justified, these also [he] glorified.

31What therefore shall [we] say toward these [things]? If God [is] forlit. over us,ab who [is] againstlit. down upon us? 32For [the one] who at least did not spare his own son, but handed him over on behalf of us all, how will [he] not also, together with him,i.e., the son grace us with all [things]?technically, all [things] is the direct object and us is the indirect object, but this construction better represents the verb in Englishac 33Who will bring charges against [the] chosenlit. elect [ones] of God? The [one] judging [is] God;some manuscripts: [Is] the [one] judging [us] God? 34some manuscripts pose the second half of this verse as a question, i.e., [Is it] Christ Jesus…?who [is] the [one] condemning [us]? Christ {Jesus},some manuscripts: Christ; others: but at the same time, Christ {Jesus} the [one] having died, but more, having been roused, who also is in [the] right hand of God,ad who also meets [with God] on behalf of us.ae 35Who will separate us from the love of Christ?some manuscripts: of God; others: of God, the [love] in Christ Jesus (cf. v39 below) Pressure or a strait or pursuit or famine or nakedness or danger or a sword? 36Just as [it] has been written,af that: “On account of thee [we] are being put to death for the whole day,accusative of duration of time [we] were counted(reckoned) just as cattle for a slaughter.” 37But in all these [things] we over-conquer through the [one] having lovedfrom ἀγάπη us [on a particular occasion].ag 38For [I] have been persuaded that neither death nor life nor angels nor rulers nor [things] having been instituted nor [things] being destined nor powerssome manuscripts: nor powers nor [things] having been instituted nor [things] being destined; others: nor powers nor [things] having been instituted nor heights; others: nor [things] having been instituted nor [things] being destined; others: nor authorities nor [things] having been instituted nor [things] being destined nor powers; others: nor authorities nor powers nor [things] having been instituted nor [things] being destined 39nor heights nor depth nor any other creation has power to separate us from the love of God, the [love] in Christ Jesus our lord.

Cross-references:
a For the law…in Christ Jesus: cf. Romans 3:27
b verse 2: cf. Romans 7:23-24
c For [that was]…through the flesh: cf. Acts 13:38; 15:10
d God, having sent…and for error: cf. John 1:14; Philippians 2:7; Hebrews 2:17; 4:15
e us, the [ones]…according to spirit: cf. Galatians 5:16, 25
f For the mind…flesh [is] death: cf. Romans 6:21; 7:5; 8:13
g because the mind…enmity unto God: cf. James 4:4
h for [it] is…have the power: cf. Matthew 12:34; John 8:43; 12:39
i a spirit of…dwells in you: cf. I Corinthians 3:16
j But, on the…not of him: cf. I Corinthians 12:3
k verse 10: cf. Galatians 2:20; I Peter 4:6
l verse 12: cf. Romans 6:7, 18
m verse 13: cf. Galatians 6:8
n For [you] did…again unto fear: cf. II Timothy 1:7
o but [you] seized…[that is,] father: cf. Mark 14:36; Galatians 4:5-6
p verse 16: cf. II Corinthians 1:22
q But if [we…heirs of God: cf. Galatians 4:7; Revelation 21:7
r verse 18: cf. II Corinthians 4:17
s the revelation of…sons of God: cf. Colossians 3:4
t verse 20: cf. Genesis 3:17-19; 5:29; Ecclesiastes 1:2
u creation itself will…slavery of ruin: cf. II Peter 3:13
v the glory of…children of God: cf. I John 3:2
w verse 23: cf. II Corinthians 5:2-4; Galatians 5:5
x For [we] were…is not hope: cf. II Corinthians 5:7
y but the [one]…searching the hearts: cf. Psalm 139:1; I Corinthians 4:5
z for the [ones]…together unto good: cf. Ephesians 1:11; 3:11
aa first-born among many brothers: cf. Colossians 1:18; Hebrews 1:6
ab If God [is] for us: cf. Psalm 118:6
ac how will [he]…with all [things]: cf. John 3:16
ad who also is…hand of God: cf. Psalm 110:1
ae who also meets…behalf of us: cf. I John 2:1
af written: Psalm 44:22; cf. II Corinthians 4:11
ag verse 37: cf. John 16:33

Swimming the Tiber 4: Papists and Popery

Written by on · Leave a Comment

I swear the first time I heard someone say “popery,” I thought they said “potpourri.” That was a confusing conversation, let me tell you.

I have discussed at some small length the authority of the Church and of Tradition, both in determining the canon of Scripture and in their influence on the faith, handed down to us by the apostles. But there yet remains one great white whale of Catholic and Protestant disagreement–indeed, the very source of the latter name: the Papacy.

The Scriptural authority of the Papacy frequently depends on an oft-disputed passage of the Gospel of Matthew. This passage is so disputed that Zondervan’s NASB goes out of its way to provide a suggestion that Peter ought to be divorced from the foundation of the Church, in a place where that information would otherwise be irrelevant. Here’s the passage, first in the original Greek (or as close as we can get) for Matthew, chapter 16, verses 13 through 20:

Ἐλθὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὰ μέρη Καισαρείας τῆς Φιλίππου ἠρώτα τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ λέγων, Τίνα λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; οἱ δὲ εἶπαν, Οἱ μὲν Ἰωάννην τὸν βαπτιστήν, ἄλλοι δὲ Ἠλίαν, ἕτεροι δὲ Ἰερεμίαν ἢ ἕνα τῶν προφητῶν. λέγει αὐτοῖς, Ὑμεῖς δὲ τίνα με λέγετε εἶναι; ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος εἶπεν, Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Μακάριος εἶ, Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέν σοι ἀλλ’ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾄδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς. δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. τότε διεστείλατο τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἵνα μηδενὶ εἴπωσιν ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός.

Now my English translation (interesting footnotes not relevant to the issue at hand are linked):

But on the other hand, Jesus, coming into the portions of Caesarea, the [Caesarea] of Philippos, was asking his disciples, saying, “Who do men say that the son of man1 is?” And they said, “On the one hand, the [ones] [say] John the Baptist, but on the other hand, others [say] Elijah, but different [ones] [say] Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” [He] says to them, “But you, who do you say that I am?” And then Simon Peter, having answered, said, “Thou2 are the Christ, the son of God, the living [God].” And then Jesus, having answered, said to him, “Thou are blessed, Simon Bar-Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to thee, but my father who [is] in the skies. And I, on the other hand, say to thee that thou are Peter, and upon this stone I will build3 my assembly, and [the] gates of Hades will not overpower it.4 I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of the skies, and whatever [thou] fetter [on a particular occasion] upon the earth will have been fettered in the skies, and whatever [thou] unbind [on a particular occasion] upon the earth will have been unbound in the skies.” Then [he] gave express orders to the disciples, in order that no one might say that he was the Christ.

Obviously, verse 18 is the crux of it: “And I, on the other hand, say to thee that thou are Peter,” etc., etc., etc. But there are some important things to note here.

The first is word choice. The NASB and every Protestant Bible scholar on the planet will tell you that God named Peter Πέτρος, but called the foundation of the church πέτρα, precisely because they were different words that meant different things. I’ve heard that argument plenty of times. Made it myself once or twice, ignorant as I was. So when I was studying this, I finally looked it up in the preeminent Liddell & Scott lexicon. And lo and behold! The dictionary says that the two words are distinguished from each other. That settles it, right?

Well, let’s look closer, just to be safe. Let’s see, πέτρος, a stone, an individuated stone. A single stone. A masculine noun, too. Neat. Okay, πέτρα, that’s supposed to mean a really big rock, right, some kind of boulder or foundation, like Peter’s declaration of faith, right?

Whoops.

Looks like πέτρα means “rock.” As in the material. “Stone” as a material. Or maybe the geography (the “rock” of cliffs, for example). It can also mean “rocks” (individuated!), but it is distinguished from πέτρος because the latter almost always means “a stone,” whereas πέτρα means “rock” or “stone,” in general. But Xenophon, in multiple works, uses πέτρα to mean “stone” and “stones” interchangeably. All the time. To add to the difficulty, so does Scripture in Matthew 27:51; Romans 9:33; 1 Peter 2:8; and Revelation 6:15-16. And looking back, it looks like πέτρος has even been used to mean a boulder… so it’s not always tiny.

So it’s not as clear-cut as “Peter’s name means a pebble and the rock is a huge slab of faith!” Rather, it’s not that at all. Consider Jesus’ style: he has been playing on words since his opening question in this passage; indeed, throughout his ministry, he plays on words (cf. Matthew 23:24, comparing Aramaic galma (gnat) and gamla (camel); John 3; 12:32; 18:5-6). And you’re telling me that he would suddenly subvert that pattern, specifically to exclude a man he just named “blessed”?

So no, from a linguistic perspective, the word-choice argument against the Papacy doesn’t hold water.

Let’s look at a few other support beams in my favor. Throughout this passage, Jesus (and, more specifically, Matthew) is using the terms μέν and δέ. These are the usual terms for differentiating one thing from another in a list, or distinguishing multiple things when they are parallel. It’s also great for saying, “This thing, and then this other thing, and then this other thing, and then this other thing.” Those words are very versatile. That’s where most instances of “on the one hand…on the other hand” come from in Scripture translations (as you see in mine above). So when Jesus is saying, “Simon, thou are the rock, [and]…” is he using δέ, to signify a change? Nope–he’s using καί, signifying a continuation. There is no reversal. There is no change. Linguistically, Jesus is linking Peter to the stone, not separating them.

Speaking of links and parallels, what’s the deal with this sentence, anyway? “And I, on the other hand, say”? What’s going on there? Well, the structure of the sentence is nearly identical to the structure of Peter’s response to Christ in verse 16. He says, “Thou are the Christ, the son of God, the living [God].” Christ turns around and says, “And I, on the other hand, say that–” note the identical words here, “–thou are [the] stone, and on this stone, I will build my assembly, and [the] gates of Hades will not overpower it.”

Note my dubious use of the definite article there. The issue is this: ancient Greek has no indefinite article. It has some words that can approximate it, when something’s indefinite status needs to be called out very explicitly. But otherwise, if you want something indefinite, you just leave off the definite article. Oh, unless it’s a name. Then you can include the article or not, but you’re only talking about that one guy (or God, or any proper noun). Or when it’s the Law. It’s okay to leave off the article then and not mean any old law, but the Law. And a few other, itty-bitty, irrelevant, don’t-even-worry-about-them exceptions. So whether Peter is “a rock” or “the rock” depends pretty heavily on whether Jesus really is giving him the name Peter in this moment. If he is, all bets are off; if he’s making a simple statement about reality, he could just mean “a rock”… but not necessarily. I think “the” rock is appropriate, because I think this is the moment of the naming of Peter.

But whether he says, “Thou are a rock,” or, “Thou are the rock,” the rest of the sentence follows along all the same, marking him as the foundation of the Church.

Frankly, Matthew 16 is firmly on the side of the papists. Even before you throw in the obvious parallel with Isaiah 22.

But there are still three major obstacles between saying, “Okay, sure, maybe Peter was the foundation,” and the modern understanding of the authority of the Papacy.

  1. When is the primacy of Peter ever shown in the Scriptures? I only remember him denying Christ and getting yelled at by Paul.
  2. What qualifies the primacy of Peter to transfer from him to anyone else on down the chain?
  3. I’m betting there’s no way you can explain away that doctrine of infallibility.

I’ll tackle the questions of primacy and heredity now; I’m putting infallibility off until next time.

The primacy of the apostles, and Peter in particular, is exhibited in Acts 15. Luke first introduces us to the problem at hand: the Judaizers, who insist on circumcision even for the Gentiles, have great dissension with Paul and Barnabas. (We see Paul write against forcing circumcision on the Gentiles in Romans 2-4; I Corinthians 7; Galatians 5-6; Ephesians 2; Philippians 3; and Titus 1.) The two groups determine that they need a superior authority to their own reason: the authority of the apostles is sought out in Jerusalem.

When they arrive, the apostles and elders (literally the “presbyters,” often translated “bishops”) convene and debate the matter. This is the first Ecumenical Council, under the auspices of St. Peter himself. Eventually, Peter (!) stands and delivers the final say on the matter. The other positions do not hold water. No one pipes up to continue the fight. Peter’s word on circumcision (and salvation) is taken as-is. The only follow-up conversation is what should be demanded of Gentile converts: in short, don’t worship pagan gods. The apostles (!) approve the message, compose the letter, and send it. Here endeth the first Ecumenical Council, under the purview and authority of the Papacy.

And if that is not enough, recall that it is Peter alone who is charged with tending the sheep in John 21. His is the ultimate duty among all the apostles.

There is also the question of passing this authority on to Peter’s successors. There are a few points to consider here.

First, go back to Matthew. Jesus tells Peter that this rock, this assembly, will last forever. The gates of Hades, the very hands of death, cannot prevail against the Church. Christ, the Good Shepherd, wants Peter to tend his sheep until he returns; he has not yet returned, has he? How could the Church stand against the gates of hell, and how could the sheep be tended by loving shepherds, if the apostolic authority given to Peter (and to all the apostles) does not succeed into the next generation?

Some will argue that only the Twelve Apostles have the authority to ordain their immediate successors and fill them with the Holy Spirit–that those successors do not acquire this ability. Acts 9 flies directly in the face of this: though Christ himself has chosen Saul, the man cannot become an apostle until Ananias (not one of the Twelve, obviously) ordains him and fills him with the Holy Spirit. 2 Timothy 2 shows us Paul (a second-generation apostle) exhorting Timothy (third-generation) to pass along the faith (fourth-generation). All this works together to reinforce the continuation of apostolic authority within the Church.

This post grows quite long, and as I said, I will tackle the doctrine of infallibility in my next post. Let it suffice for now that the doctrine is not so unrestrained as you probably believe.

Last Post:
Whence Cometh Scripture, Thither Go I
Next Post:
The Infallible Man
Back to the passage
Footnotes:
1 There is a great play on words here using ἄνθρωποι and ἀνθρώπου that is difficult to render in English. The word can mean “man,” and in the singular, it often means “man” collectively (as in “Son of Man”), but in the plural (and sometimes in the singular), it means individuals, and specifically human individuals. It isn’t directly associated with the male sex any more than “mankind” is.

2 As with my translation posts (and as you’ll find in the King James), I’m using “you” for second person plural and “thou/thee” for second person singular throughout. This seems more dignified than using “you” for second person singular and “y’all” for second person plural.

3 From a purely textual perspective, it’s possible this could be a first-person jussive, i.e., “Let me build!” The future (as rendered above) is more likely, though.

4 The antecedent of this pronoun is unclear. It could be assembly (ἐκκλησίαν) or stone (πέτρᾳ). As often happens in Greek, it’s probably both, but if only one, then the closer (“assembly”) is more likely.

Romans 7

Written by on · Leave a Comment
This is a literal translation of an ancient Greek text. It has also been cross-posted on 31Prayers.com. For more information on how to read this post and what everything means, see the relevant page on that site.

 
1Or do [you] not perceive, brothers—for [I] speak [to those who] know law—that the law is lord of a person for as long a time as [he] lives? 2For the marriedlit. under-a-man woman has been bound by law to the living man; but if, on the other hand, the man dies, [she] has been left free here and in verse 6, lit. left idlefrom the law of the man. 3Then, therefore, with the man living, if [she] comes to be with a different man, [she] operates asidiomatically, is called adulterous; but if, on the other hand, the man dies, [she] is free from the law, in order that [she] may not bearticular infinitive in the genitive showing purpose adulterous, having come to be with a different man. 4And so, my brothers, you also were put to death ὥστε + indicative verb is a result clauseto the law through the body of Christ,a in order that you may come to be with another,lit. a different [one]εἰς + articular infinitive usually expresses purpose, but may also express result; in this case, the alternative translation would be: so that you come to be with another [that is,] with the [one] having been awakened out of [the] dead, in order that [we] may bear fruit for God. 5For when [we] were in the flesh, the misfortunes of the errors,here and throughout, (sins) the [misfortunes] through the law, were being energizedAs is typical, here we have a neuter plural subject (παθήματα, misfortunes) taking a singular verb (ἐνηργεῖτο). in our limbs, in order to bear fruit for death;b 6but now, on the other hand, [we] were left free from the law,c [we] dying in that with which [we] were being held back, so that we are slaves ὥστε + accusative-infinitive clause, indicating resultin a newness of spirit and not [in] an antiquity of writing.(letter)d

7What, therefore, shall [we] say? The law [is] an error? May [it] not come to be; but [I] would not know the error if not through law;In this clause and immediately following, these conditionals are simple past conditionals. Because of the negative construction, the difference in English between this and a counterfactual conditional is minimal. for [I] would also not know the desire (coveting)if the law did not say, “Thou will not desire.”(covet)e 8But the error, having seized a starting point through the commandment, works athere and throughout, (achieves by labor) every desire in me; for apart from [the] law, error [is] dead.f 9But I was living apart from [the] law then, but with the commandment having come, the error returned to life, 10but I died, and it was found [that] for me, the commandment, the [one] unto life,g this [one] [was] unto death; 11for the error, having seized a starting point through the commandment, deceived meh and, through it,i.e., the commandment [the error] killed [me]. 12And so the law [on the one hand] [is] holy and the commandment [is] holy and just and good.i

13Therefore did the good [thing] for me become death [for me]? May [it] not come to be; but [it was] the error, in order that [it] may appear as error, through the good [thing] working at death for me, in order that the error may become surpassingly lit. according to an overthrowingerroneous through the commandment.j 14For we knowSome manuscripts: on the one hand, [I] know; this differs from the text as given by a space between letters that the law is spiritual, but on the other hand, I am fleshy, having been sold under the error.This construction could also mean that the error is the agent of the sale, i.e., that Paul was sold by the errork 15For what [I] work at, [I] do not know; for what [I] want, this [I] do not achieve, but what [I] hate, this [I] do. 16But if [I] do not do this [thing] which [I] want, [I] consent to the law that [it is] beautiful. 17But now, I no longer work at it, but the error dwelling in me [works at it]. 18For [I] know that a good [thing] does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh;l for the wishing is close at handhere and in verse 21, (available) for me, but on the other hand, working at the beautiful [thing] [is] not [close at hand];Some manuscripts: [I] do not know [how to work at the beautiful thing]; others: [I] do not find [working at the beautiful thing] 19for [I] do not do a good [thing] which [I] want, but [I] achieve this bad [thing] which [I] do not want. 20But if [I] do this [thing] which ISome manuscripts omit do not want, I no longer work at it, but the error dwelling in me. 21[I] find, then, the law, for me, wanting to do the beautiful [thing], that for me the bad [thing] is close at hand; 22for [I] rejoice together with the law of God Some manuscripts: of the mind; others omitaccording to the interior person, 23but [I] see a different law in my limbs, warring against the law of my mindm and taking me prisoner in the law of the error, the [law] being in my limbs. 24I [am] a miserable person; who will save(set free); lit. protect / cover me out the body of this death?or this body of death; word placement suggests the translation as given, but this alternative sounds more natural in English and may still get the point across 25But grace [be] to God through Jesus Christ our lord.Some manuscripts: [there is] the grace of God through Jesus Christ our lord; others: [there is] the grace of [the] lord through Jesus Christ our lord; others: grace to our lord Jesus Christ; others: [I] give thanks to God through Jesus Christ our lord.n Then, therefore, I myself am a slave to [the] law of God in my mind on the one hand, but on the other hand [I am a slave] to [the] law of error in my flesh.

Cross-references:
a And so, my…body of Christ: cf. Colossians 2:14
b in order to…fruit for death: cf. Romans 5:21; 8:6, 13
c but now, on…from the law: cf. Romans 8:2
d so that we…antiquity of writing: cf. Romans 6:4
e Thou will not desire: cf. Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21; 4 Maccabees 2:5; Romans 13:9
f for apart from…error [is] dead: cf. Romans 5:13
g the commandment, the…[one] unto life: cf. Leviticus 18:5
h for the error…commandment, deceived me: cf. Genesis 3:13; Hebrews 3:13
i verse 12: cf. I Timothy 1:8
j [it was] the…through the commandment: cf. Romans 5:20
k I am fleshy…under the error: cf. Psalm 51:5; John 3:6
l For [I] know…in my flesh: cf. Genesis 6:5; 8:21
m a different law…of my mind: cf. Galatians 5:7; James 4:1; I Peter 2:11
n But grace [be]…Christ our lord: cf. I Corinthians 15:57

Romans 6

Written by on · Leave a Comment
This is a literal translation of an ancient Greek text. It has also been cross-posted on 31Prayers.com. For more information on how to read this post and what everything means, see the relevant page on that site.

 
1What therefore shall [we] say? Should [we] tarry with(persist in)dubitative independent subjunctive error,here and throughout, (sin) in order that grace may be more than enough?(superfluous)a 2Would that it not come to be.here and throughout, (become [so]) Whichever [of us] died [on a particular occasion] to error, how shall [we] still live in it?b 3Or do [you] not perceive(are [you] ignorant) that, as many as were baptizedc into Christ Jesus, [they] were baptized into his death? 4Thereforesome manuscripts: For; others omit [we] were buried together with him through the baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was roused out of [the] dead through the glory of the father, thus also we may walk about in newness of life.d 5For if [we] have become(come into being as) innate with(natural to) the likeness of his death, on the other hand [we] shall also be [innate with the likeness] of the resurrection;e 6knowing this, that our old man was co-crucified,f in order that the body of error might be left idle, in order that we may no longer be enslavedgenitive of purpose with articular infinitive to error; 7for the [one] dying has been justified(vindicated) from the error.g 8But, on the other hand,some manuscripts: For if [we] died with Christ, [we] believe that [we] shall also live with him, knowing that Christ, having been roused out of [the] dead no longer dies, his death no longer is lord [of him].Some translations simply render this, “Death is no longer master over him,” because κυριεύω (“rules”, “is lord”) takes a genitive for its direct object; but word order obviously has αὐτοῦ (“his”) modifying θάνατος (“death”). As usual, the answer is probably that the word is doing double-duty and modifies both. 10For [he] who died, died to error once for all;h but on the other hand, [he] who lives, lives for God.i 11Thus also you, calculate yourselves {to be}The presence or position of this word is disputed. dead to error on the one hand, but on the other hand, living for God in Christ Jesus.some manuscripts: in Christ Jesus our Lord; others omitj

12Let error not reign, therefore, in your mortal body, [leading] unto hearkening to(obeying) its yearnings,some manuscripts: it in its yearningsi.e., do not let sin command you 13and do not stand up your limbs as tools of injustice for error, but stand yourselves up for Godk as if [the] living out of [the] deadl and [stand up] your limbs as tools of justice for God. 14For your error will not reign;m for [you] are not under [the] law, but under grace.

15What therefore? Should [we] err because [we] are not under [the] law but under grace? Would that it not come to be.n 16Do you not know that of the [one] for whom [you] stand yourselves up as slaves [leading] unto obedience,shares root with ὑπακούω, “to hearken” [you] are slaves of the [one] to whom [you] hearken, either truly of error [leading] unto death or of obedience [leading] unto justice?o 17But thankslit. grace [be] to God that [you] were slaves of error, but [you] hearkened to(obeyed) a modellit. a beating / cast of instruction which [you] were taught,lit. handed over 18but having been set free [on a particular occasion] from the error,p [you] were enslaved to justice. 19[I] say a human [thing] on account of the weakness of your flesh. For just as [you] stood up your limbs as slaves to uncleanness and to lawlessness, [leading] unto lawlessness, thus now stand upaorist imperative; as an order, insists that something be done discretely (i.e., “on a particular occasion”) your limbs as slaves to justice, [leading] unto sanctification. 20For because [you] were slaves of error, [you] were free for justice. 21Therefore what fruit were [you] then holding? Upon which [things] [you] are now ashamed,q for the end of those [things] [is] death.r 22But now having been set free from the error, and [rather] having been enslaved to God, [you] have your fruit [leading] unto sanctification, and [you have] the end, eternal life.s 23For the wages of error [are] death, but the favor of God [is] eternal life in Christ Jesus our lord.t

Cross-references:
a Should [we] tarry…more than enough: cf. Romans 3:5-8
b Whichever [of us]…live in it: cf. I Peter 4:1
c as many as were baptized: cf. Galatians 3:27
d verse 4: cf. Colossians 2:12
e verse 5: cf. Philippians 3:10-11
f that our old…man was co-crucified: cf. Galatians 5:24
g verse 7: cf. I Peter 4:1
h died to error…once for all: cf. Hebrews 9:26-28; I Peter 3:18
i but on the…lives for God: cf. Galatians 2:19
j verse 11: cf. II Corinthians 5:15; I Peter 2:24
k stand yourselves up for God: cf. Romans 12:1
l as if [the]…of [the] dead: cf. Ephesians 2:5; 5:14
m For your error…will not reign: cf. I John 3:6
n Should [we] err…come to be: cf. Romans 5:17, 21
o verse 16: cf. John 8:34; II Peter 2:19
p but having been…from the error: cf. John 8:32
q Upon which [things]…are now ashamed: cf. Ezekiel 16:61, 63
r for the end…[things] [is] death: cf. Romans 7:5; 8:6, 13
s and [you have]…end, eternal life: cf. I Peter 1:9
t verse 23: cf. Romans 5:12, 15