Does the Bible teach the Doctrine of the Papacy?

 

Third Rebuttal Statement

 

Moses Flores

 

            I would like to thank Ben for his last response.  I think it is one of his clearer statements about what he believes and why and I personally appreciated his dealing more grammatically with the text of Matthew 16:18. 

            From what I understand of his argument and exegesis however, it seems that the gist of the argument rests on an Aramaic understanding of this text, so let me deal as best as I can with the assertions for an Aramaic text. 

            First, let me point out what seems to be a confusion of the Hebrew language for the Aramaic language.  In comments made by Mr. Rosado, it was asserted that the Hebrew language is Aramaic (“…The Hebrew language – Aramaic.  Also known as Hebrew.”).  Hebrew is not Aramaic.  Granted that Aramaic is a derivative language from Hebrew, it is still not the same a Hebrew.  Note the following differences:

 

Aramaic: אֱלָהִי אֱלָהִי לְמָה שְׁבַקְתָּנִי

 

Transliterated: elohi elohi lemah sebaqtani

 

Hebrew: אֵלִי אֵלִי לָמָה עֲזַבְתָּנִי

 

Transliterated: eli eli lamah ‘zabtani[1]

 

           

 

            I acknowledge that the languages of many people in Palestine were, at the very least, trilingual as they used or spoke Hebrew, Aramaic and koine Greek.  Latin was also spoken especially in light of the presence of the Roman’s there.  How did these languages function?  Dr. Ray Register of www.answering-islam.org has an article on how these languages functioned in Jesus’ time.  He writes,

 

The situation in NT times was similar to what we have today, but with different languages. The Jews used the ancient Hebrew when reading their prayers and scrolls in the synagogue, but needed a modern Koine Greek translation to understand what they were reading. Most quotations in the NT from the OT are from the Greek LXX which explains some of the differences in wording between the Hebrew and the Greek in our present day translations.

The Jews of NT times spoke Aramaic at home and in conversations. Aramaic was similar Hebrew and Arabic. (al-Rahmaan, al-Rahiim, in the Fatiha of the Quran were probably derived from the Aramaic language). In business life and official writings they used the common Koine Greek that all peoples in the area used for hundreds of years. They actually thought and talked in at least two or three languages as people do today. The Roman occupiers of the Holy Land at that time spoke Latin and Greek. Evidence of the three languages used in that time is found in the New Testament itself in the Gospel of John 19:19-20:(NIV) [2] (Italics mine)

 

            So that Aramaic was around is not denied certainly.  Now, the fact remains that while Jesus may have spoken this to Peter in Aramaic, there still remains the glaring reality that no Aramaic documents of Matthew’s Gospel has been produced at all from history!  Rather, the New Testament’s oldest manuscripts are in koine Greek.  Also, scholars have been able to possibly locate which conversations of Jesus were more than likely in Greek rather than Aramaic through textual variants.  This quote from the Dictionary of New Testament Background explains:

 

.

            A more contentious issue in recent scholarship, however, is whether Jesus knew and used Greek and possibly even taught in it on occasion (see Porter 2000a, 126-80 for discussion). Many scholars recognize this possibility in theory but hesitate to specify particular instances where this may have occurred. Jesus came from an area that had been highly influenced by Hellenism. Nazareth was a small village, but it was on the same trade route as an excellent example of a Greek city in Palestine, Sepphoris, where both Greek and Aramaic were spoken, and near the primarily Gentile Decapolis, Hellenistic cities or villages in the region of Galilee. Jesus was involved in a trade where it is reasonable to assume that he would have had contact with others than his townspeople, possibly including Romans or other who spoke Greek. In the course of his itinerant ministry, Jesus also traveled to various parts of Palestine where he may have had contact with Greek speakers. Several of his disciples, including Andrew, Phillip, and even possibly Peter, had Greek names, despite being Jewish.

            On the basis of linguistic context of first-century Palestine, as well as Jesus’ background, a set of criteria have recently been developed to test whether Jesus spoke in Greek and whether any of the words of Jesus in the Gospels may record his actual words (see Porter 2000a, 126-237). The criteria that have been developed are three: the criterion of Greek language and its context, which determines the likelihood that in a given context Jesus would have spoken Greek; the criterion of Greek textual variance, which determines whether any of the words recorded can be attributable to Jesus; and the criterion of discourse features, which examines features of discourse, analyzing the words and actions of Jesus through the category of register.

            This examination has shown that there is a plausibility that in a number of contexts Jesus may well have used Greek in conversing with others: (1) Matthew 8:5-13 par. John 4:46-54: Jesus’ conversation with the centurion or commander (but the Johannine account diverges in terms of wording); (2) John 4:4-26: Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman; (3) Mark 2:13-14 par. Matthew 9:9; Luke 5:27-28: Jesus’ calling of Levi/Matthew; (4) Mark 7:25-30 par. Matthew 15:21-28: Jesus’ conversation with the Syrophoenician or Canaanite woman; (5) Mark 12:13-17 par. Matthew 22:16-22; Luke 20:20-26: Jesus’ conversation with the Pharisees and Herodians over the Roman coin of Caesar; (6) Mark 8:27-30 par. Matthew 16:13-20; Luke 9:18-21: Jesus’ conversation with his disciples at Caesarea Philippi; (7) Mark 15:2-5 par. Matthew 27:11-14; Luke 23:2-4; John 18:29-38: Jesus’ trial before Pilate. Furthermore, on the basis of Greek textual variance, in several of these contexts his actual words may be recorded (Jesus’ conversation with the Syrophoenician or Canaanite woman, his conversation with Pharisees and Herodians, his conversation at Caesarea Philippi and his trial before Pilate).

 

Bibliography*

 

M. Casey, Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel (SNTSMS 102; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998);

 

J.A. Fitzmyer, “The Languages of Palestine in the First Century a.d.,” CBQ 32 (1970) 501-31;

 

S.E. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals (JSNTSup 191; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000a)[3]

 

 

 

            I want to deal a bit more in depth with the text of Matthew 16:18 especially to interact with the grammatical and syntactical construction a bit more in the original languages.  I will try not to make it too technical but where I do I will point out the relevance immediately.

            The original languages text of Matthew 16:18 reads,

 

kavgw. de, soi le,gw o[ti su. ei= Pe,troj( kai. evpi. tau,th| th/| pe,tra| oivkodomh,sw mou th.n evkklhsi,an

kaloo de soi legoo hoti su hei Petros, kai epi taute te petra oikodomeso mou ten ekklesian

 

           

            First, when Jesus is talking to Peter, he is addressing him personally.  This is shown from the second person pronouns soi and su which are second person pronouns.  Jesus is directly addressing Peter alone; “and I say to you…”  So Jesus is speaking to Peter directly and only to Peter (Simon) – not to successors for the text will not allow that understanding grammatically at all.  In speaking to Peter He tells him “you are Peter”.  Here Jesus is speaking in the first person, hence the “I” and Peter is in the second person.  Just pointing out the obvious here.  Jesus Christ is directly addressing Peter.

            Mr. Rosado has laid emphasis on the conjunction  kai (and) saying that this proves a connection between  Pe,troj and th/| pe,tra .  A connection is certainly not denied but the grammar will NOT support a connection in the sense that Petros is the same as Petra.  Allow me to explain why.

            When Jesus said, kai. evpi. tau,th| th/| pe,tra  , he uses a demonstrative pronoun taute , “this”.  According to Greek grammar, “the demonstrative pronouns are used to point out and designate certain objects in distinction from others.[4]”    If this is true, then Jesus is speaking to Peter about a different kind of rock than he is.  This makes sense within the text and the distinction between Petros and petra.   Also, as a pronoun it has an antecedent, an object of reference that it can point to.  The demonstrative pronoun cannot refer back to Peter because Jesus uses personal pronouns with reference to Peter.  Thus, Jesus is referring to something other than the person he just finished addressing. 

            So let’s understand what Jesus is saying.  First, he is addressing Peter personally after Peter’s revelation of Christ from the Father (v.17).  He says to him directly as he is the first to confess this revelation, “And I say to you that you are Peter…”  Interestingly enough, kavgw   is a contraction of the conjunction kai  and the egw .  Thus, there would certainly be a grammatical reason, it seems, why Jesus is now pronouncing Simon bar-Jonah to be Petros, a rock.  In fact, the next word after that in the text is de , a conjunctive particle known as a postpositive, which can be translated as “but, on the other hand, and, also, now, etc..[5]”  Certain grammatical rules preclude the translation as “but” or “on the other hand” However, it is not be wrong to understand Jesus as saying to Peter after the confession, “and I now say to you”.  Most translations do not translate de as “now” but as “also” (NASB, KJV, NKJV).  The understanding is still connected to the revelation by the Father as Jesus also reveals something new.  That is, it gives the understanding “just as the Father has revealed a truth to you, and now I also will reveal a truth to you…”  The truth revealed is not Peter’s name because Simon is already called Peter throughout the Gospel prior to this conversation; nothing new to the audience.   

Remember that up to this point, he is addressing Peter directly: “you are rock, Peter.”  But then, He proceeds to tell Peter about another rock.  He says, “and upon this other rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell itself will not prevail against the rock which I speak of.”  What “rock” was Jesus referring to?  Again, it could not have been “petros” because the demonstrative pronoun precludes this understanding.  Remember that a pronoun must have an antecedent.  However, we obviously don’t find the antecedent within the same verse so we must look in the immediate context. 

            Remember the whole context of this passage is the identity of Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God.  It is not about Peter’s identity but about Jesus’!  Again, we read Matthew 16:15-17:

 

“He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’  Simon Peter replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’  And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah!  For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.”  (ESV)

 

            What is “this” that was revealed?  That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.  This is what is so important in this entire passage of Scripture.  Again, verse 20 shows that Jesus’ identity is the immediate context and that it is Peter’s Confession of Jesus as the Christ that is so very important as Jesus tells his disciples not to tell anybody that He was the Christ. 

            So what is the Church built upon?  She is built upon the revelation of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God.  It is this revelation that grants access into the Church for without this essential truth about Jesus Christ revealed by the Father (cf. John 6:44; 65), no one can be in the Church.  It is that revelation that is the foundation of the Church;  not the person of Peter. 

 

            I hope this clarifies Matthew 16:18.  Grammatically and syntactically, I don’t believe the Scriptures allow the reader to conclude in any way that the Rock upon which the Church is built is Peter.  It is clear that the solid foundation of the Church is the identity of Jesus Christ, not the identity of Peter.  It is that identity of Christ which the gates of hell shall never be able to conquer or silence or eradicate.  The church will always have that sure foundation and all who are in the Church stand on that foundation through revelation from the Father even as Peter had that revelation given to him.