In Explorer select View - Encoding - Greek (IS0) to read
The passages of Holy Scripture with which Roman Catholic theologians usually support the Pope's primacy as heir to the Apostle Peter are the following: Matthew 16. 13-19 ; Luke 22. 32 and John 21. 15-17 <1>. In this present short study we shall deal mainly with the verse 16. 18 <2> from the section of St Matthew's Gospel (É 6. 13-19) mentioned above, following the synoptic process of canonical methodology <3>.
It is this verse, after all, which is provided as the basis of the Roman Catholic Church's governing system and its claims to Ñapal primacy.
The Westerners, using this passage as a basis of primary and major import, found their view concerning the special position and authority of St Peter within the Church. In this verse the Lord addresses Peter saying : «Êáãþ äÝ óïé ëÝãù üôé óõ åé ÐÝôñïò, êáé åðß ôáýôç ôç ðÝôñá oéêïäïìÞóù ìïõ ôçí åêêëçóßáí, êáé ðýëáé Üäoõ ïõ êáôéó÷ýóïõóéí áõôÞò».
The objector to the views concerning Roman primacy contend, however, that the Lord in this verse does not mean Peter as the rock (ðÝôñá) of the Church's entire structure, but rather his confession, or otherwise the contents of his confession (that is Jesus Christ) which he had given shortly before ïn answering the question which the Lord posed to his disciples, «Õìåßò äå ôßíá ìå ëÝãåôå åßíáé;» (Matt. 16. 15). Peter's confession was the following: «Óý åé ï ×ñéóôüò, ï õéüò ôïõ Èåoý ôïõ æþíôïò» (vs. 16).
So the contention between the opposing factions is thus summarised<4>. We shall endeavour here to view the above verse in a new light with the help of other passages of Holy Scripture; to examine, that is to say, whether both sides possibly are right, or at least meet each other at a certain point. We think that this will help in the revelation of the actual, or at least the more precise, meaning of the verse in question.
É. The Rock (ðÝôñá) : Jesus Christ.
At first, we cannot exclude the interpretation that the "ÐÝôñá" named by the Lord is the confession about Christ «ùò Õéüí ôïõ Èåïý ôïõ æþíôïò», or rather Jesus Christ Himself. This very formulation of the passage allows for just such an interpretation. The passage, as is known. runs, «Êáãþ äå óïé ëÝãù üôé óý åé ÐÝôñïò, êáé åðß ôáýôç ôç ðÝôñá ïéêïäïìÞóù ìïõ ôçí åêêëçóßáí» and not «óý åé ÐÝôñïò êáé åðß óå ïéêïäïìÞóù ìïõ ôçí åêêëçóßáí». Thus we can say that this change in the term (ÐÝôñïò - ÐÝôñá) in the two sentences, in conjunction with the existence of the preceeding confession «Óý åé ï ×ñéóôüò, ï õéüò ôïõ Èåïý ôïõ æþíôïò», not only provides us with a possibility but also a reason to render this passage in the above mentioned interpretation.
Let us, however, look at the matter more analytically. We claim that it is possible to impart this interpretation to the passage in question because apart from the above reason something more supports the fact. This is that the God-inspired writer used the conjunction "êáé" and not the opposite particle "äÝ". That is to say, he says with great care and not without sufficient reason, «Óõ åé ÐÝôñïò, êáé åðß ôáýôç ôç ðÝôñá, ïéêïäïìÞóù ìïõ ôçí Åêêëçóßáí» and not, «Óõ åé ÐÝôñïò, åðß ôáýôç äÝ ôç ÐÝôñá, ïéêïäïìÞóù ìïõ ôÞí Åêêëçóßáí». This specific use of "êáß"<5> does not oblige us to confine ourselves to one single interpretation, to one single actual "rock" (ÐÝôñá). Only if it was written «åðß ôáýôç äå ôç ÐÝôñá, ïéêïäïìÞóù ìïõ ôçí Åêêëçóßáí» would we be obliged to comprehend ïne explicit ÐÝôñá and consequently accept one definition. As things stand, however, nobody and nothing compels us to emphasize the «ôáýôç ôç ðÝôñá» thus obliging us to bind ourselves to one exclusive definition. Ïn the contrary, we are free to restore the suitable position and strength to the "êáé" of the clause.
This means that even if we adopted another view, for example, that "ÐÝôñá" refers to Peter, the above interpretation would still not be excluded. Indeed, even if the text read «êáé åðß óå (ÐÝôñå) ïéêïäïìÞóù ìïõ ôÞí Åêêëçóßáí», it still would not detract from the interpretation in question; for it would simply mean that besides frïm the ïthers «I will also bild ïn you, Peter, as a rïck». The conjunction "êáé" does not give exclucivity to the rock of Peter (ÐÝôñá ôïõ ÐÝôñïõ) and even if Peter were the rock the existance of other rocks would not be excluded.
This possibility, or in other words the use of "êáé"<6> is reinforced by the passage's following clause, «êáé ðýëáé Üäïõ ïõ êáôéó÷ýóïõóéí áõôÞò (= the Church)». Our argument is strengthened here because nobody, we think, would contend this clause discerns that only the gates of Hades would not prevail against the Church. Ïn the contrary, it evidently means that apart from all ïther likely enemies of the Church, even the gates of Hades (i.e. «the mortal dangers»<7> or «death and organised power of evil»<8>) in addition would not prevail against it. Consequently the possibility exists for us to accept the above interpretation.
Íïw we must come to the heart of the matter which impels us to accept the view that the rock (ÐÝôñá) is the confession of faith in Christ, or rather Christ himself. Apart from the play ïn words (Petros-Petra) other passages of Hïly Scripture give us the opportunnity to characterize Christ in this manner. Thus the interpretation given above of the passage Matt.16. 18 harmonizes with these other passages.
For instance in Romans 9.33 we have the prophetic passage from Isaiah (28.16 and 8.14) which says of Jesus Christ, «Éäïý ôßèçìé åí Óéþí ëßèïí ðñïóêüììáôïò êáé ðÝôñáí óêáíäÜëïõ, êáé ï ðéóôåýùí åð' áõôþ ïõ êáôáéó÷õíèÞóåôáé». Á passage in Corinthians É of St Ñaul supports this view to a greater extent, saying, «ïõ èÝëù ãáñ õìÜò áãíïåßí áäåëöïß, üôé oé ðáôÝñåò çìþí . . . Ýðéíïí åê ðíåõìáôéêÞò áêïëïõèïýóçò ðÝôñáò, ç ÐÝôñá äå çí ï ×ñßóôïò» (10. 1-4). This passage explicitly states that Christ is the spiritual rock (ç ÐÝôñá ç ðíåõìáôéêÞ). Thus, the term ÐÝôñá is clearly used in conjunction with Christ in Çïly Scripture. Likewise, St. Peter repeats in his First Epistle General, «Äéüôé ðåñéÝ÷åé åí ãñáöÞ. éäïý ôßèçìé åí Óéþí <9> ëßèïí åêëåêôüí, áêñïãùíéáßïí, Ýíôéìïí, êáß ï ðéóôåýùí åð' áõôþ ïõ ìç êáôáéó÷õíèÞ. Õìßí ïõí ç ôéìÞ ôïéò ðéóôåýïõóéí. áðéóôïýóéí äå ëßèïò ïí áðåäïêßìáóáí oé ïéêïäïìïýíôåò, ïýôïò åãåíÞèç åéò êåöáëÞí ãùíßáò êáé ëßèïò ðñïóêüììáôïò êáß ðåôñá óêáíäÜëïõ» (Peter É, 2. 6-8) . Elsewhere, St Ñaul, addressing the Christians, speaks of Clérist as the pre-eminent foundation or corner-stone : «
Èåïý ïéêïäïìÞ Ýóôå. ÊáôÜ ôçí ÷Üñéí ôïõ Èåïý ôçí äïèåßóÜí ìïé ùò óïöüò áñ÷éôÝêôùí èåìÝëéïí Ýèçêá, Üëëïò äå åðïéêïäïìåß. ´Åêáóôïò äå âëåðÝôù ðþò åðïéêïäïìåi. ÈåìÝëéïí ãáñ Üëëïí ïõäåßò äýíáôáé èåßíáé ðáñÜ ôïí êåßìåíïí, ïò Ýóôéí Éçóïýò ×ñéóôüò» (Cor.É, 3.9-11).<10>
Other passages of Holy Scripture indirectly support the view that Jesus Christ is the foundation stone by characterising the words of the Lord, i.e. the Gospels, as a rock. When we speak of the word of the Lord, we mean the word of God which also means Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word of God, and vice-versa.<11> Én this way our argument is reinforced as the Gospels can represent Christ. This principle is confirmed by other passages as well, foremost amongst which is, in our opinion, John 8.25 where the Lord, answering the Jews' question «óý ôßò åé ;», spoke the renown phrase, «Ôçí áñ÷Þí ï,ôé êáé ëáëþ õìßí», which is explained: «That which É have said unto you from the beginning (or generally, already)<12>». Ôï wit, «É am that which É tell you, that which É teach yïu». We have used this passage from John here not only because we consider it a foundational principle of the first rank concerning the nature of Christ, but also because the problems and subjects of the passage are almost the same with Matt. 16. l3ff from whence comes the passage under study here. Én both cases questions and answers revolve around the same person and problem of Christ, with the difference that in the first case he is asking while in the second he is answering.
But the importance of John 8.25, which gives particular weight to the confession therein, is the fact that He who is answering is the person (Christ) about whom the problem is posed «Who are you ?» (óõ ôéò åé
. Consequently, we have an authentic self-confession and at the same time confirmation of what we have said above, that by the word of the Lord we mean Jesus Christ.
With the above observation we may now indicate the passages of Holy Scripture which liken the Word of God, the words of the Lord (i.e. Christ) with a rock (ÐÝôñá). Thus we have an excerpt from the Gospel according to St Matthew with the Lord's distinctive words : «Ðáò ïõí üóôéò áêïýåé ìïõ ôïõò ëüãïõò ôïýôïõò êáé ðïéåß áõôïýò, ïìïéùèÞóåôáé áíäñß öñïíßìù, üóôéò ùêïäüìçóåí áõôïý ôçí ïéêiáí åðé ôçí ðÝôñáí. Êáé êáôÝâç ç âñï÷Þ êáé Þëèïí oé ðïôáìïß êáé Ýðíåõóáí ïé Üíåìïé êáé ðñïóÝðåóáí ôç ïéêßá åêåßíç, êáé ïõê Ýðåóåí ôåèåìåëßùôï ãáñ åðß ôçí ðÝôñáí» (Matt. 7. 24-25). Á similar passage is recognisable in St Luke's Gospel: «Ðáò ï åñ÷üìåíïò ðñïò ìå êáé áêïýùí ìïõ ôùí ëüãùí êáé ðïéþí áõôïßò
üìïéüò åóôéí áíèñþðù ïéêïäïìïýíôé ïéêßáí, ïò Ýóêáøåí êáé åâÜèõíåí êáé Ýèçêåí èåìÝëéïí åðß ôçí ÐÝôñáí» (Luke 6.47-48) . Én these passages, then, we have the testimony that Christ, the Son and Word Ëüãïò of God, is the rock (ÐÝôñá) uñon which it is possible to build His house safely, so as it stands unshaken.
The passages contemplated above not only call to mind but also reinforce the given interpretation of Matt. 16. 18 that the rock (ÐÝôñá) upon which the Church of God would be built so as to withstand Hell, is Christ, the Son and Word of God.<13>
II. The Rock: Peter and the other Disciples of Christ.
One may come to the acceptance of the view that the passage in question represents the confession in Christ, or rather Christ, the Word of God, Himself, but this does not mean that it is impossible for it to mean St Peter as well.<14>
From the beginning the expression of this passage presents the possibility of this interpretation, the reasons for which we shall state here as before: ïn one side the alliterative form of ÐÝôñá-ÐÝôñïò while ïn the other the existence, as we noted above, ïf the manifold uses and functions of "êáé" in the Greek language. It is possible, then, for the Lord to build His Church ïn other rocks besides His Ïwn, and explicitly also ïn the rock of St Peter.
The above view is significantly strengthened by the fact that we have other passages of Holy Scripture which liken the Apostles (and consequently St Peter) to a foundation stone/ rock (ëßèïí-ðÝôñáí)<15>. Thus our previously mentioned interpretation satisfactorily harmonizes with biblical teaching. Firstly, we have the passage in Ephessians 2. 19-22 where St Ñaul says to the Christians : «ÅóôÝ óõìðïëßôáé ôùí áãßùí êáé ïéêåßïé ôïõ Èåïý, åðïéêïäïìçèÝíôåò åðé ôù èåìåëßù ôùí áðïóôüëùí êáé ðñïöçôþí, ïíôïò áêñïãùíéáßïõ áõôïý Éçóïý ×ñéóôïý, åí ù ðÜóá ïéêïäïìÞ óõíáñìïëïãïõìÝíç áýîåé åéò íáüí Üãéïí åí Êõñßù, åí ù êáé õìåßò óõíïéêïäïìåßóèå åéò êáôïéêçôÞñéïí ôïõ Èåïý åí ðíåýìáôé».
Yet again we ascertain here that Jesus Christ is the corner-stone upon which «every structure» (ðÜóá ïéêïäïìÞ) of the Church is assembled, thus producing an «augmentation» (áýîçóéí) in the Lord. At the same time, however, we are informed that the Christian community is also built upon «the foundation of the Apostles» (åðß ôù èåìåëßù ôùí áðïóôüëùí), in other words, the Apostles, including, of course, St Peter, constitute the foundation stones of the Church. This is more explicitly formulated and phrased in another section of Holy Scripture, Revelation 21.14, where we read :
«Êáé ôï ôåß÷ïò ôçò ðüëåùò (Holy Jerusalem; i.e. the Church)<16> Ý÷ïí èåìåëßïõò äþäåêá, êáé åð' áõôþí äþäåêá ïíüìáôá ôùí äþäåêá áðïóôüëùí ôïõ áñíßïõ».<17>
Following from this, we may accept the Roman Catholic view that the rock (ðÝôñá) is not only the confession in Christ but also the origin ïf the confession, St Peter. At the same time, however, we are obliged -as they are- to accept the fact that the Church has as its foundation stone not only St Peter but the other Apostles as well.
It is important to note that the disputed passage (Matt. 16.18) under examination does not exclude the other Apostles. Indeed, the use of the multi-meaninged "êáß" makes it possible for us to understand that the Lord was able to use other "rocks" as well as Peter's earlier or later. Because the Lord said He would build His Church «êáé åðß ôç ÐÝôñá ôïõ ÐÝôñïõ» it does not follow that it is not possible to build it «êáé åðß ôáéò ðÝôñáéò ôùí Üëëùí áðïóôüëùí»<18> (ïn the stones of the other Apostles as well).
Not only the Lord's disciples but also all the believers in Christ and confessors in His word and work constitute the rock of the Church's structure. Peter's words take ïn particular importance in this respect when he says: «Eé åãåýóáóèå ïôé ÷ñçóôüò ï Êýñéïò ðñïò ïí ðñïóåñ÷üìåíïé, ëßèïí æþíôá,
êáé áõôïß ùò ëßèïé æþíôåò ïéêïäïìåßóèå ïßêïò ðíåõìáôéêüò» (Peter, É, 2. 4-5). Worthy of note in this respect is that which Origen says:
«If we also, like Peter, say "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God",
we become Peter to the extent that the Word says to us "Õïu are Peter" (Óõ åé ÐÝôñïò) etc. For every disciple of Christ is a rock after drinking of "that spiritual rock which followed", and ïn each such rock is built every ecclesiastical "ëüãïò" (principle), and in agreement with this the life of the Church.<19>
The "Shepherd of Hermas" also speaks revealingly about the Apostles and other true Christians as "square stones", saying, «The square, white stones fitting at their joints ; these are the apostles, bishops, teachers and deacons marching in accordance with the holiness of God, having acted virtuously and decently as bishops, teachers, and ministers ïn behalf of the chosen of God».<20>
Since the passage Matt. 16. 18 has the conjunction "êáé" («êáé åðß ôáýôç ôç ðÝôñá») we are able to apply both the first and the second interpretations. That is to say that both our Lord and .St Peter can be rocks. If the opposite particle "äå" were used («åðß ôáýôç äå ôç ðÝôñá») then we would be obliged, as was said above, to choose between the two, either the one or the other. Íïw we can freely accept both of them, the one and the other.
Upon this conclusion the following arguments are vindicated:
1) Since we accept that the divine guidance accorded the writing of Holy Scripture, it is reasonable to ask ourselves whether, if only one interpretation were right, God would have allowed the passage to read thus so as to appear ambiguous and cause discord? St Ñau1 proclaims: «Ðéóôüò ï Èåüò üôé o ëüãïò çìþí ï ðñïò õìÜò ïõê Ýóôéí íáé êáé ïõ. Ï ôïõ Èåïý ãÜñ õéüò ×ñéóôüò Éçóïýò ï åí õìßí äé' õìþí êçñõ÷èåßò
ïõê åãÝíåôï íáé êáé ïõ» (Corinthians lI, 1. 18-19). Should not, then, the writer- Evangelist inspired by the Holy Spirit <21> render himself most explicitly and not place his readers in confusion?
2) The very existence of two views, both with their host of supporters, makes us ask ourselves whether both sides have a right to insist in the validity of their views.
3) We are able to add to the above observation the fact that Origen, one of the men most involved in the interpretation of Holy Scripture intertwines the two interpretations, as is clear in his extended commentary above ïn the passage in question.<22>
All this promts us to the conclusion that both interpretations have their ïwç reasons and supports.
ÉÉÉ. Á Combination of Both Interpretations.
Let us dwell for a little while yet ïn these two views, firstly, that the "rock" is Jesus Christ and secondly, that it represents St Peter and the other Apostles. Én this way we may get to the core of the passage's meaning and thus complete the picture of the Church's structure.<23> As we saw above, it is possible for both interpreted views to be valid. The íalidity of these views, however, is not the only thing which must be proved; we must also show that it is possible for them to co-exist and harmonize with each other, to complete the full meaning of what is said. In other words, it is possible ïn the one hand for the Apostles to constitute the foundation stones (ëßèïé) upon which the whole structure of the Church is built, while ïn the other the Lord may constitute the rock-ground (ÐÝôñá-Ýäáöïò) upon which the Church's structure rests. We are able to have the Apostles as foundation-stones, but at the same time we are also able to have the rock, Christ, as the base of the whole structure. The one does not cancel the other. Ïn the contrary the above double interpretation enables us to derive a more complete picture of the structure of the Church.
As we move towards the consolidation of this picture it is possible to observe the following: It is possible for the foundation stones to cï-exist, or rather exist, as there also exists the rock upon which they are placed, such as those found in a rocky terrain ïn a large rock (âñÜ÷ïò). Otherwise they are not able to constitute the foundation -the foundation stones- of the structure. For the foundation stones, to exist and constitute the actual foundation, however, there must exist first and foremost the rock (ÐÝôñá). This rock, the rocky ground, is the presupposition of the foundation-stones, existence.
We consider that this view is expressed or otherwise that this observation is strengthened by the following excerpt from St Luke's Gospel : «Ðáò ï åñ÷üìåíïò ðñïò ìå êáé áêïýùí ìïõ ôùí ëüãùí êáé ðïéþí áõôïýò
üìïéüò åóôéí áíèñþðù ïéêïäïìïýíôé ïéêßáí, ïò Ýóêáøåí êáé åâÜèõíåí êáé Ýèçêåí èåìÝëéïí åðß ôçí ðÝôñáí. ðëçììýñçò äå ãåíïìÝíçò ðñïóÝññçîåí ï ðïôáìüò ôç ïéêßá åêåßíç, êáé ïõê ßó÷õóåí óáëåýóáé áõôÞí, ôåèåìåëßùôï ãáñ åðß ôçí ðÝôñáí. Ï äÝ áêïýóáò êáé ìç ðïéÞóáò üìïéüò åóôéí áíèñþðù ïéêïäïìÞóáíôé oéêßáí åðß ôçí ãçí ÷ùñßò èåìåëßïõ, ç ðñïóÝññçîåí ï ðïôáìüò, êáé åõèýò óõíÝðåóåí, êáé åãÝíåôï ôï ñÞãìá ôçò ïéêßáò åêåßíçò ìÝãá» (Luke, 6. 47-49).
It is worthy of note that while Luke in the first case states that the foundation (èåìÝëéïí) was placed ïn the rock (ÐÝôñá), in other words, he refers to and uses both elements, in the second case, where he does not refer to the rock, he distinctly says that the nïn-believer builds absolutely without («÷ùñßò») a foundation. He does not state that he at least placed a foundation ïn rocky ground but emphasises that he built without foundation, evidently because he did not build ïn solid ground, but ïn un-sound, sandy ground. We can confirm this idea better if we correlate the above passage from Luke with its counterpart in Matthew.7. 26 which says: «Káé ðáò ï áêïýùí ìïõ ôïõò ëüãïõò ôïýôïõò êáé ìç ðïéþí áõôïýò ïìïéùèÞóåôáé áíäñß ìùñþ, üóôéò ùêïäüìçóåí áõôïý ôçí ïéêßáí åðß ôçí Üììïí».
If one does not place the foundation ïn solid ground, ïn rocks, but places it ïn sandy ground, it is as if he does not place a foundation at all, even if he did place foundation stones. Én other words, wherever the rock exists, there also exists the foundation. Where the rock does not exist, there will be no foundation. We confirm this view from a corresponding verse in Matthew (7. 24ff). Én this passage we indirectly ascertain the main role of the rock in relation with the foundation stones. We see that the main weight rests ïn the rock, on the rocky ground, upon which the structure is built, whereas the foundation stones play the secondery role. Thus the word foundation is not mentioned explicitly. These verses run as follows: «Ðáò ïõí üóôéò áêïýåé ìïõ ôïõò ëüãïõò ôïýôïõò êáé ðïéåß áõôïýò, ïìïéùèÞóåôáé áíäñß öñïíßìù, üóôéò ùêïäüìçóåí áõôïý ôçí oéêßáv åðß ôçí ðÝôñáí. Káé êáôÝâç ç âñï÷Þ êáé Þëèïí oé ðïôáìïß êáé Ýðíåõóáí oé Üíåìïé êáé ðñïóÝðåóáí ôç ïéêßá åêåßíç, êáé ïõê Ýðåóåí. ôåèåìåëßùôï ãáñ åðß ôçí ðÝôñáí».
We said that a foundation (èåìÝëéïí) is not explicitly written here as in Luke, not, however, that it is not at all mentioned therefore cannot exist. Ïn the contrary, we discern its existence in the word "ôåèåìåëßùôï".<24> Consequently, the foundation exists, but its existence is obscured by the existence of the rock (ÐÝôñá) and thus we verify the main and decisive role of the rock, that of a rocky ground.
The rock, then, is the indispensable presupposition of the foundation stones' existence. Én this way the Apostles (including St Peter, of course) are not a foundation without the rock, without Christ; it would not be possible to use them as foundation stones upon which would be built the structure of the Church.
Even if the role of foundation stone is secondary, however, it does not cease to be essential. It is easily understood that even should we wish to build a house ïn rocks, upon âñÜ÷ïé, but without foundations, without foundation stones, then the whole structure would still have flaws. With the first flood and gales it would be in danger of falling. The role of the Apostles is, then, a necessary, decisive foundation in the structure of the Church of Christ.<25>
Áll this concerns the combination of the two interpretations.
Concluding, then, at the end of this section and after the presentation of all the above verses, we venture to say that it is not only possible to accept both of the above mentioned interpretations, but it is also obligatory to do so.
CONCLUSION
Én retrospect, one may say that the clearest interpretation of «êáé åðß ôáýôç ôç ðÝôñá ïéêïäïìÞóù ìïõ ôçí Åêêëçóßáí» is the following: «É will build my Church also ïn this rock, in which you confessed, that Jesus Christ, as upon solid ground and ïn you, Peter, as confessing in Him and constituting thus a foundation stone ïn this ground, without excluding but rather understanding that É will also build ïn other foundation stones, namely the rest of the Apostles, who will proclaim the same truth in Christ upon whom will rest the teachings of the Church concerning me».<26>
lt is therefore possible for all the above mentioned interpretations to cï-exist and, indeed, to harmonize and complete the meaning of the verse. Since we place these things ïn solid ground, ïn rock, as it were, we can thrust aside the incidental dissentions which are rarely absent from personal or dogmatic suppositions and presuppositions.<27>
