Open Forum

The tradition continues! We'll see if folks still want to talk about other topics, too.

The Holy Spirit, Procession, and the Love Between the Father and the Son (Church Teaching)

Hand-colored woodcut, c. 1500

[ source ]

This is from an exchange on the CHNI forum.

* * * * *

Yesterday, I attended a "Theology of the Body" class with workbook: Into the Heart: A Journey Through the Theology of the Body, by Christopher West, 2009. The speaker provided the following quotation without citation in her presentation:

God is in himself a life-giving Communion of Persons. The Father, from all eternity, is making a gift of himself to the Son. And the Son, eternally receiving the gift of the Father, makes a gift of himself back to him. The love between them is so real, so profound, that this love is another eternal Person-the Holy Spirit.

Does anyone know the source of this quotation? A search for the citation on the internet revealed its source as Christopher West. Does this source have roots in the Church Fathers, or traditions of the church? I have not been able to find it in the catechism.

Does identifying the Holy Spirit as the love that exists between the Father and the Son diminish the Spirit's divine personhood and distinction from the Father and the Son, despite the fact that the quotation insists otherwise? The citation does not include any reference to support the statement that real, profound love between two people constitutes a wholly separate person?

* * * * *

The words are directly from Christopher West: Good News about Sex and Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions about Catholic Teaching (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 2004), p. 19; as discovered in an online paper (footnote 13).

Scripture describes God as love. The present pope expressed a thought perhaps not unlike this one:

. . . the "three persons'' who exist in God are the reality of word and love in their attachment to each other. They are not substances, personalities in the modern sense, but the relatedness whose pure actuality . . . does not impair unity of the highest being but fills it out. St Augustine once enshrined this idea in the following formula: "He is not called Father with reference to himself but only in relation to the Son; seen by himself he is simply God.'' Here the decisive point comes beautifully to light. "Father'' is purely a concept of relationship. Only in being-for the other is he Father; in his own being-in-himself he is simply God. Person is the pure relation of being related, nothing else. Relationship is not something extra added to the person, as it is with us; it only exists at all as relatedness.

. . . the First Person (the Father) does not beget the Son in the sense of the act of begetting coming on top of the finished Person; it is the act of begetting, of giving oneself, of streaming forth. It is identical with the act of giving.

(Introduction to Christianity, pp. 131-132; cf. Augustine, Enarationes in Psalmos 68; De Trinitate VII, 1, 2.)

Bishop William E. Lori writes:

Reflecting on this, the Church definitively teaches that the Father eternally generates the Son and that the Son is eternally generated by the Father. The living, eternal bond of love between the Father and Son is the Person of the Holy Spirit (Compendium, 48).

This helps us understand what is meant when the Church expresses its Trinitarian faith: “One God in three Persons.” Notice that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not merely three names for God or merely three ways in which the one God might appear. Nor should we think of the Trinity as three gods cobbled together in a corporate partnership.

There really is only one God, yet with three distinct Persons (the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, etc.). The three Persons of the Trinity possess completely and co-equally the divine nature. They are three identifiable Persons, each fully God in a manner that is distinct yet related to the others (see U.S. Catholic Catechism for Adults, 52).

This has to do with the filioque dispute: the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The western understanding (that became highly controversial, and was greatly misunderstood0 was trying to convey that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ (Jn 15:26; Rom 8:9b; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19; 1 Peter 11) as well as of the Father (Mt 12:28; Jn 15:26; Rom 8:9a; 1 Cor 12:3; Eph 4:30; 1 Jn 4:2). The belief under consideration was developed by St. Augustine in his work, The Trinity: section XV. I found some quotes, probably from this work, but the complete documentation wasn't accessible.

Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott, in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, describes the Catholic belief as:

The Holy Ghost Proceeds from the will or from the mutual love of the Father and the Son.

(p. 66)

He classifies it as a sententia certa belief, which means (pp. 9-10):

. . . a teaching pertaining to the Faith; theologically certain . . . a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions).

We do indeed find the teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

264 "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as the first principle and, by the eternal gift of this to the Son, from the communion of both the Father and the Son" (St. Augustine, De Trin. 15, 26, 47: PL 42, 1095).

The older Roman Catechism stated that the:

Holy Ghost proceeds from the Divine Will, inflamed, as it were, with love.

(I, 9, 7; cited in Ott, p. 67)

Ott gives the theological rationale for this doctrine:

Scripture and Tradition ascribe the works of love to the Holy Ghost. Cf. Rom. 5,5: "The charity of God is poured forth into our hearts by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us." The appropriation of the works of love to the Holy Ghost has its basis in the personal character . . . of the Holy Ghost. It is, therefore, to be inferred that the Holy Ghost "proceeds" by an act of love (per modum amoris). For this reason the Fathers call the Holy Ghost "Love" . . . The 11th Council of Toledo (675) declared: . . . that the Holy Ghost proceeds from both is seen by this that He is known as the love or sanctity of both.

(p. 66)

Here are additional biblical passages that associate the Holy Spirit with love:

Romans 15:30 (RSV) I appeal to you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf,

2 Corinthians 6:6 by purity, knowledge, forbearance, kindness, the Holy Spirit, genuine love,

2 Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

Philippians 2:1 So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any incentive of love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy,

Colossians 1:8 and has made known to us your love in the Spirit.

2 Timothy 1:7 for God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a spirit of power and love and self-control.

For more on the filioque dispute, see:

A Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue on the Filioque (William Klimon)

Filioque in the Church fathers (edited by Joe Gallegos)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "Filioque"

Passover in Judaism: "Past Events Become Present Today" (Analogy to the Sacrifice of the Mass) / "Remember" in Scripture

[ source ]

I have heard that Jews celebrating Passover believe that the past becomes present. As such, the Catholic sees a similarity to our notion of the Sacrifice of the Mass, and Jesus' death on the cross becoming present, and in a very real sense, transcending time altogether. We also believe that the Last Supper, where the Holy Eucharist was initiated, was a Passover meal. Many common notions could be explored with regard to the development of traditional Jewish understanding and Christian belief that is related to these in some fashion. For example, one ecumenical Jewish site stated:

The Jewish conviction that at the Seder past events become present today is something that can resonate strongly with Catholics. The Catholic concept of anamnesis corresponds to the Hebrew term zecher. Both refer to the use of ritual to make the past a lived present reality.

The Hebrew word zecher (in Strong's Concordance, zakar or zeker: words #2142-2145), are usually translated as remember or remembrance, or related terms. It seems to have a connotation of more than a mere remembrance. The thing remembered has a direct relation to the present. For example:

Exodus 2:24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.

God "remembering" the covenant "made" it present insofar as it was still in force, thus enabling the Jews to win a battle. Of course, for God to "remember" anything is an anthropomorphism: God using expressions that human beings will understand. Since God knows everything at all times, to say that He "remembers" cannot be taken literally. If it were, this would imply a limitation of God's knowledge. But this is how it is often expressed: God "remembers" the covenant, which is very much a present (or eternal) thing, so that past and present are in effect merged:

Genesis 9:15-16 I will remember my covenant which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. [16] When the bow is in the clouds, I will look upon it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth."

Exodus 6:5 Moreover I have heard the groaning of the people of Israel whom the Egyptians hold in bondage and I have remembered my covenant.

Psalm 106:45 He remembered for their sake his covenant, and relented according to the abundance of his steadfast love.

Ezekiel 16:60 yet I will remember my covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish with you an everlasting covenant.

1 Maccabees 4:10 And now let us cry to Heaven, to see whether he will favor us and remember his covenant with our fathers and crush this army before us today.

Luke 1:54 He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy,

Luke 1:72 to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant,

The "remembrance" is perfectly harmonious with being "present" and "eternal." It's the classic biblical, Hebraic "both/and" outlook. Less "sacramental" Protestants, on the other hand, often draw the conclusion that because the terminology of "remembrance" is used in the Last Supper and the Mass, that, therefore, the Eucharist is solely a thing of the past, to be reflected upon, with mere symbolism of bread and wine (or grape juice), as opposed to being a present reality, and the actual Body and Blood of Christ under the outward appearance of bread and wine: a miracle.

The Passover was a way for the Jews to remember, or make again present, the Exodus and deliverance from Egypt. Thus, when it was instituted, Moses stated:

Exodus 13:3-10 And Moses said to the people, "Remember this day, in which you came out from Egypt, out of the house of bondage, for by strength of hand the LORD brought you out from this place; no leavened bread shall be eaten. [4] This day you are to go forth, in the month of Abib. [5] And when the LORD brings you into the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Hivites, and the Jeb'usites, which he swore to your fathers to give you, a land flowing with milk and honey, you shall keep this service in this month. [6] Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there shall be a feast to the LORD. [7] Unleavened bread shall be eaten for seven days; no leavened bread shall be seen with you, and no leaven shall be seen with you in all your territory. [8] And you shall tell your son on that day, `It is because of what the LORD did for me when I came out of Egypt.' [9] And it shall be to you as a sign on your hand and as a memorial between your eyes, that the law of the LORD may be in your mouth; for with a strong hand the LORD has brought you out of Egypt. [10] You shall therefore keep this ordinance at its appointed time from year to year."

Likewise, the Sabbath was an ongoing observance, but the word "remember" is applied to it:

Exodus 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

To "remember" all the commandments is to keep them in the present, and always:

Numbers 15:39-40 and it shall be to you a tassel to look upon and remember all the commandments of the LORD, to do them, not to follow after your own heart and your own eyes, which you are inclined to go after wantonly. [40] So you shall remember and do all my commandments, and be holy to your God.

Psalm 103:18 to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments.

Psalm 119:55 I remember thy name in the night, O LORD, and keep thy law.

There was a spiritual, moral aspect to remembering, with regard to present conduct:

Deuteronomy 9:7 Remember and do not forget how you provoked the LORD your God to wrath in the wilderness; from the day you came out of the land of Egypt, until you came to this place, you have been rebellious against the LORD.

Deuteronomy 15:15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today.

Deuteronomy 16:12 You shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt; and you shall be careful to observe these statutes.

Deuteronomy 24:18,22 but you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you from there; therefore I command you to do this. . . . [22] You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt; therefore I command you to do this.

John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

2 Peter 3:2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles.

Jude 1:17 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

Revelation 3:3 Remember then what you received and heard; keep that, and repent. If you will not awake, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come upon you.

God "remembers" our acts of worship and prayers:

Exodus 28:29 So Aaron shall bear the names of the sons of Israel in the breastpiece of judgment upon his heart, when he goes into the holy place, to bring them to continual remembrance before the LORD.

Exodus 30:16 And you shall take the atonement money from the people of Israel, and shall appoint it for the service of the tent of meeting; that it may bring the people of Israel to remembrance before the LORD, so as to make atonement for yourselves.

Psalm 20:3 May he remember all your offerings, and regard with favor your burnt sacrifices! [Selah]

Acts 10:31 saying, `Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your alms have been remembered before God.

"Remembering" God is virtually a synonym for reverence and worship of God:

Psalm 6:5 For in death there is no remembrance of thee; in Sheol who can give thee praise?

Psalm 22:27 All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD; and all the families of the nations shall worship before him.

Isaiah 17:10 For you have forgotten the God of your salvation, and have not remembered the Rock of your refuge; therefore, though you plant pleasant plants
and set out slips of an alien god,

Jonah 2:7 When my soul fainted within me, I remembered the LORD; and my prayer came to thee, into thy holy temple.

Tobit 1:12 because I remembered God with all my heart.

Given all this background, the institution of the Holy Eucharist can now come into clearer focus:

Luke 22;19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."

1 Corinthians 11:24-25 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." [25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

The Eucharist and Sacrifice of the Mass are present realities, not just bare symbolic, abstract thoughts. The Jewish Passover has this characteristic also. Rabbi Yossi Kenigsberg explains:

. . . on no other Jewish holiday are we instructed to have a formalized dialogue and discussion recollecting the relevant historical events of the time. Why did our sages provide us with the Haggadah text and prescribe this lengthy and detailed analysis of our Egyptian experience?

Besides celebrating our physical emancipation from slavery, on Pesach we also commemorate the anniversary of Jewish nationhood and identity. Since the Exodus represents the genesis of our Jewish collective identity, it is vital that we do everything possible to discover and reaffirm our Jewish consciousness at this juncture. In order to achieve this, we must feel a connection to our Jewish past, present and future. The objective of the seder and the Haggadah format is to facilitate the opportunity for us to develop an acute sense of affiliation with the past, present, and future of the Jewish experience. . . .

Throughout the trials and tribulations of Jewish history, God continuously intervenes on our behalf and we are confident that His divine protection will always embrace us. The fusion of the past, present, and future that we created on those first nights of Pesach will provide for us and for our children a glimpse into eternity.

In a book specifically about the Passover celebration, Martin Sicker provides further relevant insight (all emphases in original):

The Haggadah then continues with a statement that is also found in the Mishnah that calls upon each participant in the Seder to share vicariously in the experience of the Exodus.

In every generation one is obliged to view oneself as though he [personally] had gone out from Egypt. As it is said: And thou shalt tell thy son in that day, saying: It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt (Ex. 13:8).

The Haggadah then amplifies this teaching, providing an appropriate biblical prooftext in support of its elaboration.

The Holy One, blessed is He, did not redeem only our ancestors, but also redeemed us along with them. As it is said: And He brought us out from thence, that he might bring us in, to give us the land which He swore unto our fathers. (Deut. 6:23).

. . . The Mishnah calls upon each participant in the Seder to make an intellectual leap across the millennia and thereby to share directly in the experience of their ancestors.

(A Passover Seder Companion and Analytic Introduction to the Haggadah, IUniverse, 2004, p. 104)

Another Jewish source concurs:

By participating in the Seder, we are vicariously reliving the Exodus from Egypt. Around our festival table, the past and present merge and the future is promising.

Rabbi Dan Fink provides another eloquent explanation:

Our sages taught: “In every generation, it is incumbent upon us to see ourselves as if we, too, went out from Egypt.” Pesach is not about remembering the distant past; it is about re-experiencing that past in the present time. It is not the story of our ancestors long ago; it is our story. Our challenge is to consider what enslaves us — anything and everything from money to television to old, stale habits — and find ways to free ourselves from those burdens. The Hebrew word for Egypt, mitzrayim, means “a narrow place.” This spring festival of deliverance is the time of our own liberation, an opportunity to renew ourselves.

So this year, don’t ask, “When do we eat?” Savor the journey rather than kvetching your way to the destination. Find creative ways to make your seder a living, breathing experience of redemption. Raise other, better questions: “What can I do to change the world this year? What still enslaves me? How can I help hasten the redemption of others still in bondage?” It’s not about the food. It’s about the freedom. Experience it this year.

Citing some of the same passages from the Talmud, Jewish educator Jennie Rosenfeld wonderfully expresses the same notions:

. . . it is particularly difficult to imagine how anyone so historically removed from the Egyptian exile can personally experience the redemption from Egypt in the same way that the Jewish slaves experienced it. . . . If we use this season in order to tap into our personal need for redemption in the here and now, we can either vicariously relate to or truly experience yetziat mitzrayim (exodus from Egypt) in our own lives. . . .

One type of holiness is kedushat hazman, holiness of time; the time of year in which miracles occurred in the past has within it the potential for future miracles. Jewish holidays both commemorate past miracles and contain the kedushat hazman, the temporal holiness, which we can access to effect miracles now. . . . by believing in the miracle of yetziat mitzrayim, we can experience it again now in our personal lives. Every individual can tap into this season in order to leave his/her personal meitzar (place of narrowness or confinement) or mitzrayim. The fact that Pesach occurs in the spring, the season in which nature renews itself and the flowers begin to blossom, foreshadows this potential for personal growth.

These fascinating aspects of the Jewish self-understanding of Passover have obvious analogical implications relative to the Catholic Mass. The great Catholic writer Karl Adam exclaimed:

The Sacrifice of Calvary, as a great supra-temporal reality, enters into the immediate present. Space and time are abolished. The same Jesus is here present who died on the Cross. The whole congregation unites itself with His holy sacrificial will, and through Jesus present before it consecrates itself to the heavenly Father as a living oblation. So Holy Mass is a tremendously real experience, the experience of the reality of Golgotha.

(The Spirit of Catholicism, translated by Dom Justin McCann, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1954; originally 1924 in German, 197)

In conclusion, here are my thoughts, from my (1996) book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (pp. 99-100):

Some verses in Revelation state that the "prayers of the saints" are being offered at the altar in the form of incense (8:3-4; cf. 5:8-9). But the climactic scene of this entire glorious portrayal of Heaven occurs in Revelation 5:1-7. Verse 6 describes "a Lamb standing as though it had been slain." Since the Lamb (Jesus, of course) is revealed as sitting in the midst of God's throne (5:6; 7:17; 22:1,3; cf. Matt. 19:28; 25:31; Heb. 1:8), which is in front of the golden altar (Rev. 8:3), then it appears that the presentation of Christ to the Father as a sacrifice is an ongoing (from God's perspective, timeless) occurrence, precisely as in Catholic teaching. Thus the Mass is no more than what occurs in Heaven, according to the clear revealed word of Scripture. When Hebrews speaks of a sacrifice made once (Heb. 7:27), this is from a purely human, historical perspective (which Catholicism acknowledges in holding that the Mass is a "re-presentation" of the one Sacrifice at Calvary). However, there is a transcendent aspect of the Sacrifice as well.

Jesus is referred to as the Lamb twenty-eight times throughout Revelation (compared with four times in the rest of the New Testament: John 1:29,36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19). Why, in Revelation (of all places), if the Crucifixion is a past event, and the Christian's emphasis ought to be on the resurrected, glorious, kingly Jesus, as is stressed in Protestantism (as evidenced by a widespread disdain for, crucifixes)? Obviously, the heavenly emphasis is on Jesus' Sacrifice, which is communicated by God to John as present and "now" (Rev. 5:6; cf. Heb. 7:24)

Protestant Exegesis Profoundly Affected Historically By Polemical Overreactions to Catholic Positions (Example of Matthew 16:18: Peter as the "Rock")

D. A. Carson: Eminent Protestant Exegete

[ source ]

Matthew 16:18 (RSV) And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

This curious phenomenon was one of the central themes of my book, The Catholic Verses (2004). I wrote in its Introduction:

No one comes to the Bible as a completely impartial and objective "observer" or reader. We all approach it, whether consciously or unconsciously, with some sort of preexisting theology, or at least a disposition towards a certain viewpoint. It is impossible not to do this. It is part of the very nature of the thinking process. . . .

I shall contend throughout this book that - far too often - Protestants do not take all of Scripture into account, and that they are guilty of eisegesis (reading into Scripture one's own presuppositions), or seriously erroneous exegesis, at least as often as Catholics are, if not more frequently. . . .

I hasten to add - and emphasize to the greatest degree - that these tendencies of bias and subjectivism and subconscious influence of denominational traditions do not necessarily entail a deliberate attempt to ignore or to twist Scripture. Every serious student of the Bible comes to the biblical text with a theological framework, in order to interpret it and make sense of it in its entirety. This is proper and right, and no one should have any objection to it. . . .

. . . without questioning (at all) the sincerity or integrity of Protestants, I shall now proceed to offer a critique of common Protestant attempts to ignore, explain away, rationalize, wish away, over-polemicize, minimize, de-emphasize, evade clear consequences of, or special plead with regard to "the Catholic Verses": 95 biblical passages.

In Chapter Four, on the papacy, I commented specifically on historic Protestant exegesis of Matthew 16:18-19:

Many Protestants are uncomfortable with Matthew 16:18-19, first because of its extraordinary implications for St. Peter's preeminence as the supreme earthly head of the Church, or Pope; which he was appointed by our Lord Jesus himself. The Church, according to Jesus (and in the Catholic view), is built upon Peter. In the figure and leadership of Peter in the Bible, the Catholic Church sees a primitive (later highly developed) model for Church government and papal headship.

(pp. 55-56)

Historically, the standard polemical response of Protestants to the phraseology of rock was to contend that it referred only to Peter's faith, not Peter himself. In that way, the institutional element of the charge from the Lord to St. Peter is avoided. If faith is the exclusive key to the meaning, then Peter can be viewed as merely a representative of a general principle, rather than unique in the sense of institutional, concrete leadership and jurisdiction.

(p. 56)

Somewhat surprisingly, the consensus among Protestant commentators today (including such eminent scholars such as R. T. France, D. A. Carson, William Hendriksen, Gerhard Maier, and Craig L. Blomberg), is that rock indeed refers to Peter himself, not his faith. They try to evade any further "Catholic" implication, though, by denying the notion of papal succession -- that Peter as rock applies to Peter alone.

(pp. 57-58)

Here we are concerned with St. Peter as the proclaimed leader of the Church. The finer points and particulars of such an office require another discussion entirely. Scarcely any biblical passages contain a fully developed doctrine. That is as true of the papacy and ecclesiology as it is of any Christian theological construct.

(p. 58)

Situations like this usually arise when the Catholic exegetical argument is (quite arguably) superior to any Protestant alternative, and when (as in the present instance) the basic Catholic contention has become the consensus position of prominent biblical commentators across the board:

Though in the past some authorities have considered that the term rock refers to Jesus himself or to Peter's faith, the consensus of the great majority of scholars today is that the most obvious and traditional understanding should be construed, namely, that rock refers to the person of Peter.

(Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1985 edition, "Peter," Micropedia, vol. 9, 330-333. D. W. O'Connor, the author of the article, is himself Protestant and author of Peter in Rome: The Literary, Liturgical and Archaeological Evidence [1969] )

Catholics have been contending all along that Peter himself was the "rock": not his confession of faith; nor Jesus Himself. Now it is widely accepted that this is indeed what the passage teaches. But for centuries, many (most?) Protestant commentators denied this, and it looks they did so primarily due to mere polemical reaction against the Catholic claim and Catholic dogmatic beliefs about the papacy, in part built upon this passage.

This is not just my opinion, but that of several prominent Protestant exegetes, past and present, as I will now demonstrate. These eminent Bible scholars maintain that the passage is very clear, and was only interpreted otherwise out of polemical reaction to the Catholic exegesis. If this can occur (rather strikingly) with regard to Matthew 16:18, who knows how prevalent the same tendency has been elsewhere in Protestant exegesis, wherever issues arise that are key to the Protestant-Catholic dispute?

Ironically, while Catholics are routinely accused of eisegesis, it looks like Protestants have committed quite a bit of it themselves, in their rush to distance themselves from Catholic exegetical viewpoints. To "prove" that a passage has no "Catholic" implications whatsoever, many Protestant commentators have been quite willing to special plead and engage in outright eisegesis. I provided dozens of examples of this in The Catholic Verses. Here I need only cite Protestants chastising fellow Protestant commentators, to prove my point that it occurred:

Another interpretation is, that the word rock refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other would have been sought for.

(Presbyterian Albert Barnes, Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, Philadelphia: 1832; see larger excerpt)

* * * * *

The application of the promise to St. Peter has been elaborately impugned by Dr. Wordsworth. His zeal to appropriate the rock to Christ has somewhat overshot itself. In arguing that the term can apply to none but God, he will find it difficult surely to deny all reference to a rock in the name Peter. To me, it is equally difficult, nay, impossible, to deny all reference, in "upon this rock," to the preceding word Peter. Let us keep to the plain straightforward sense of Scripture, however that sense may have been misused by Rome.

(Anglican Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers, four volumes, London: Rivingtons, 1868; reprinted by Baker Publishing Group, 1983, Vol. 1, p. 319; see larger excerpt)

* * * * *

As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that 'upon this rock' means upon thee. No other explanation would probably at the present day be attempted, but for the fact that the obvious meaning has been abused by Papists to the support of their theory. But we must not allow the abuse of a truth to turn us away from its use; nor must the convenience of religious controversy determine our interpretation of Scripture teaching.

(p. 355)

The Protestant reluctance to admit that the rock means Peter really plays into the hands of the Romish controversialists. It favors the impression that conceding that point would be conceding all that the Romanist claims . . . Now to take Peter as the rock is certainly the most natural and obvious meaning. And to make this the life or death issue is to give the Romanist a serious polemical advantage. In general, it is a great principle of Biblical interpretation to take the most obvious meaning of any phrase, unless it would thus yield a sense hopelessly in conflict with the unambiguous teaching of other passages.

(p. 357)

(Baptist John Albert Broadus, Commentary on Matthew, 1886; reprinted by Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Classics, 1990; see larger excerpt)

* * * * *

In view of the background of verse 19 . . . one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession of Peter.

(Methodist William F. Albright, and C.S. Mann, Anchor Bible, Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1971, Vol. 26, 195, 197-198)

* * * * *

Attempts to interpret the "rock" as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.

(Presbyterian David Hill, "The Gospel of Matthew," in Ronald E. Clements and Matthew Black, editors, The New Century Bible Commentary: London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972, 261)

* * * * *

On the basis of the distinction between 'petros' . . . and 'petra' . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere 'stone,' it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the 'rock' . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . .

(Baptist D. A. Carson; in Frank E. Gaebelein, general editor, Expositor's Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1984, vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke [Matthew: D. A. Carson], 368)



R. T. France [ source ]

It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the 'rock' here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus' declaration about Peter as v.16 was Peter's declaration about Jesus . . . It is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied . . . Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus' new community . . . which will last forever.

(Anglican R. T. France; in Leon Morris, general editor, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, Vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)

* * * * *

The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock (e.g., most recently Caragounis) seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.

(Presbyterian Donald A. Hagner, "Matthew 14-28," in David A. Hubbard and others, editors, World Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b; Dallas: Word Books, 1995, 470)

See also the excellent, copiously documented article by fellow Catholic apologist Nicholas Hardesty: Protestant Scholars on Mt 16:16-19.

Presbyterian Marvin R. Vincent (1834-1922) on the Petrine Implications of Matthew 16:18 ("Rock")

From: Word Studies in the New Testament (four volumes): Charles Scribner's Sons, 1887; reprinted by Eerdmans, 1946; vol. 1: 91-92 (see more on Vincent).

18. Thou art Peter (ou ei Petros). Christ responds to Peter's emphatic thou with another, equally emphatic. Peter says, "Thou art the Christ." Christ replies, "Thou art Peter." Petros (Peter) is used as a proper name, but without losing its meaning as a common noun. The name was bestowed on Simon at his first interview with Jesus (John i. 42) under the form of its Aramaic equivalent, Cephas. In this passage attention is called, not to the giving of the name, but to its meaning. In classical Greek the word means a piece of rock, as in Homer, of Ajax throwing a stone at Hector ("Iliad," vii. 270), or of Patroclus grasping and hiding in his hand a jagged stone ("Iliad," xvi. 734).

On this rock (epi tauth th petra). The word is feminine, and mean a rock, as distinguished from a stone or a fragment of rock (petros, above). Used of a ledge of rocks or a rocky peak. In Homer ("Odyssey," ix. 243), the rock (petrhn) which Polyphemus places at the door of his cavern, is a mass which two-and-twenty wagons could not remove; and the rock which he hurled at the retreating ships of Ulysses, created by its fall a wave in the sea which drove the ships back toward the land ("Odyssey," ix. 484). The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter's confession, but to Peter himself, in a sense defined by his previous confession, and as enlightened by the "Father in Heaven."

The reference of petra to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: "On this rock will I build." Again, Christ is the great foundation, the "chief corner-stone," but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ's church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Pet. ii. 4), calls Christ a living stone, and, in ver. 5, addresses the church as living stones. In Apoc. xxi. 14, the names of the twelve apostles appear in the twelve foundation-stones of the heavenly city; and in Eph. ii. 20, it is said, "Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (i.e., laid by the apostles and prophets), Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone."

Equally untenable is the explanation which refers petra to Simon's confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men.

"The word petra," says Edersheim, "was used in the same sense in Rabbinic language. According to the Rabbins, when God was about to build his world, he could not rear it on the generation of Enos, nor on that of the flood, who brought destruction upon the world; but when he beheld that Abraham would arise in the future, he said: 'Behold, I have found a rock to build on it, and to found the world,' whence, also, Abraham is called a rock, as it is said: 'Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn.' The parallel between Abraham and Peter might be carried even further. If, from a misunderstanding of the Lord's promise to Peter, later Christian legend represented the apostle as sitting at the gate of heaven, Jewish legend represents Abraham as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, so as to prevent all who had the seal of circumcision from falling into its abyss" ("Life and Times of Jesus").

The reference to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the early church, to the Jewish portion of which he was a foundation-stone. See Acts, i. 15; ii. 14, 37; iii. 13; iv. 8; v. 15, 29; ix. 34, 40; x. 25, 26; Gal. i. 18.

Presbyterian Exegete Albert Barnes (1798-1870 ) on the Petrine Implications of Matthew 16:18 ("Rock")

From: Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, Philadelphia: 1832 (see more on Barnes).

Verse 18. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter. The word Peter, in Greek, means a rock. It was given to Simon by Christ when he called him to be a disciple, John 1:42. Cephas is a Syriac word, meaning the same as Peter--a rock, or stone. The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: "Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock, denoting firmness, solidity; and your confession has shown that the name is appropriate. I see that you are worthy of the name, and will be a distinguished support of my religion.

And upon this rock, etc. This passage has given rise to many different interpretations. Some have supposed that the word ROCK refers to Peter's confession; and that he meant to say, upon this rock-- this truth that thou hast confessed, that I am the Messiah--and upon confessions of this from all believers, I will build my church. Confessions like this shall be the test of piety; and in such confessions shall my church stand amidst the flames of persecution--the fury of the gates of hell. Others have thought that he referred to himself. Christ is called a rock, Isaiah 28:16; 1 Peter 2:8. And it has been thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said: "Upon this rock, this truth that I am the Messiah--upon myself as the Messiah--I will build my church." Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it. Another interpretation is, that the word rock refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other would have been sought for. "Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm in and fit for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honoured; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles." This was accomplished. See Acts 2:14-36, where he first preached to the Jews, and Acts 10:1 and following, where he preached the gospel to Cornelius and his neighbours, who were Gentiles. Peter had thus the honour of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles. And this is the plain meaning of this passage. See also Galatians 2:9. But Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one on whom he would rear his church. See Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not of Peter, was followed. See also Galatians 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed--a thing which could not have happened if Christ, as the Roman Catholics say, meant that Peter should be absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter should have infallible successors who should be the vicegerents of Christ, and the head of the church. The whole meaning of the passage is this:

"I will make you the honoured instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church."

Will build my Church. This refers to the custom of building, in Judea, on a rock or other very firm foundation. See Barnes "Matthew 7:24". The word church means, literally, those called out, and often means an assembly or congregation. See Acts 19:32; Gr.; Acts 7:38. It is applied to Christians as being called out from the world. It means, sometimes, the whole body of believers, 1:22; 1 Corinthians 10:32. This is its meaning in this place. It means, also, a particular society of believers, worshipping in one place, Acts 8:1; 9:31; 1 Corinthians 1:2, etc. Sometimes, also, a society in a single house, as Romans 16:5. In common language, it means the church visible--ie. all who profess religion; or invisible, i.e. all who are real Christians, professors or not.

(Matthew chapter 16)

Renowned Anglican Commentator Henry Alford (1810-1871) on the Petrine Implications of Matthew 16:18 ("Rock")

From: The New Testament for English Readers, four volumes, London: Rivingtons, 1868; reprinted by Baker Publishing Group, 1983 (see more on Alford here and here).

The name Peter (not now first given, but prophetically bestowed by our Lord on His first interview with Simon, John 1:43) or Cephas, signifying a rock, the termination being only altered from Petra to Petros to suit the masculine appellation, denotes the personal position of this Apostle in the building of the Church of Christ. He was the first of those foundation-stones (Rev. 21:14) on which the living temple of God was built: this building itself beginning on the day of Pentecost by the laying of three thousand living stones on this very foundation. That this is the simple and only interpretation of the words of our Lord, the whole usage of the New Testament shews: in which not doctrines nor confessions, but men, are uniformly the pillars and stones of the spiritual building. See 1 Pet. 2:4-6: 1 Tim. 3:15 (where the pillar is not Timotheus, but the congregation of the faithful) and note: Gal. 2:9: Eph. 2:20: Rev. 3:12. And it is on Peter, as by divine revelation making this confession, as thus under the influence of the Holy Ghost, as standing out before the Apostles in the strength of this faith, as himself founded on the one foundation, Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. 3:11 -- that the Jewish portion of the Church was built, Acts 2-5, and the Gentile, Acts 10-11. . . .

The application of the promise to St. Peter has been elaborately impugned by Dr. Wordsworth. His zeal to appropriate the rock to Christ has somewhat overshot itself. In arguing that the term can apply to none but God, he will find it difficult surely to deny all reference to a rock in the name Peter. To me, it is equally difficult, nay, impossible, to deny all reference, in "upon this rock," to the preceding word Peter. Let us keep to the plain straightforward sense of Scripture, however that sense may have been misused by Rome.

(Vol. 1, p. 319)

Evangelical NT Scholar Peter Stuhlmacher on the Petrine Implications of Matthew 16:18 ("Rock")

From: The Historical Jesus in Recent Research, edited by James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight, Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2005 (see many more books by Dr. Stuhlmacher).

These verses [Matthew 16:17-18] can easily be translated back into Aramaic. The formulations have close parallels in the Qumran texts, where we read for example that the Teacher of Righteousness was installed "to found the congregation" . . . similar expressions include "you [God] place the foundation upon rock" . . . and the plea "establish for them a rock from of old" . . . In this sense Matt 16:18 also resembles Isa 51:1-2, "Look to the rock from which you were hewn . . . Look to Abraham . . ." Peter is given the name Cephas (from the Aramaic kepha, "rock"). He is the foundation stone of Jesus' "church" (ekklesia) . . . The saying speaks of the structure of the messianic people of God to which Jesus saw himself called and for which Peter was supposed to play his literally foundational role. After Easter Matt 16:17-19 was applied to the founding of the early church through this "rock-man," Cephas (cf. 1 Cor 15:5).

(p. 333)

Prominent Baptist Exegete John Albert Broadus (1827-1895) on the Petrine Implications of Matthew 16:18 ("Rock")

[ source ]


From: Commentary on Matthew, 1886; reprinted by Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Classics, 1990 (see more on Broadus):

As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that 'upon this rock' means upon thee. No other explanation would probably at the present day be attempted, but for the fact that the obvious meaning has been abused by Papists to the support of their theory. But we must not allow the abuse of a truth to turn us away from its use; nor must the convenience of religious controversy determine our interpretation of Scripture teaching. . . .

Some hold that such a play upon words, "thou art Rock, and on this rock," is unworthy of our Lord. But there is a play upon words, understand as you may. It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ; and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter's confession. . . .

Late Jewish writings speak of Abraham as the rock, or of the patriarchs as the rocks, on which God laid the foundation of the world.

Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros, and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or a fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed (see Lid. and Scott). It is worthy of notice, too, that Jesus himself is called lithos in 1 Pet. 2:5 ff. Again if petros had been used both times in the Greek, it would have meant, "Thou art Peter, and on this Peter," without distinctly showing the play upon words; and it would not have been natural for Matthew to write, 'thou art petra' (feminine), when he has been constantly writing the apostle's name Simon Petros (masculine). But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction.

(p. 355)

Let it be observed that Jesus could not here mean himself by the rock, consistently with the image, because he is the builder. To say, "I will build . . . I am the rock on which I will build," would be a very confused image. The suggestion of some expositors that in saying 'thou art Peter and on this rock' he pointed at himself, involves an artificiality which to some minds is repulsive.

(p. 356)

The Protestant reluctance to admit that the rock means Peter really plays into the hands of the Romish controversialists. It favors the impression that conceding that point would be conceding all that the Romanist claims . . . Now to take Peter as the rock is certainly the most natural and obvious meaning. And to make this the life or death issue is to give the Romanist a serious polemical advantage. In general, it is a great principle of Biblical interpretation to take the most obvious meaning of any phrase, unless it would thus yield a sense hopelessly in conflict with the unambiguous teaching of other passages.

To understand that Peter is here the rock is not forbidden by the fact that other images are drawn from the same source. In 1 Cor. 3:10 ff., Paul speaks of himself as master-builder (architect), and other teachers also as builders, Christ being the only foundation. In Eph. 2:19 ff. he makes the apostles and prophets the foundation, with Christ as cornerstone. So in Rev. 21:14 the names of the twelve apostles are engraved on the twelve foundations of the city walls, which makes the apostles in one sense the entire foundation. In 1 Peter 2:4 ff. all Christians are living stones . . .

(p. 357)

Presbyterian Bible Commentator Frederick Dale Bruner on the Petrine Implications of Matthew 16:18 ("Rock")

[ source ]

From: Matthew: A Commentary, Vol. 2: The Churchbook, Matthew 13-28, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; revised and expanded edition, 2004 (see more on Dr. Bruner):

I like to put the question this way: Is it person Peter or is it pointing Peter whom Jesus honors here? It is both. There can be no profitable denying that Jesus honors the actual person of Peter here and makes him foundational in the church. And according to the history and theology of the book of Acts, it was in fact Peter who opened the gates of the kingdom to the Jews at the Jewish pentecost of Acts 2, and to the Gentiles at the Gentile pentecost of Acts 10 (and in between it was Peter, with John, who opened the doors of the kingdom to the "in-between" Samaritans at the Samaritan pentecost of Acts 8). Peter was really made into somebody and something by Jesus, and "what God hath put together, let no man put asunder."

But it was a particular Peter who was given this gift: "You are Rocky, and on this very rock [kai epi taute te petra; the word "rock" is preceded by two important qualifiers] I will build my church." "This very" Peter, the Peter just given the gift of the good confession -- pointing Peter -- is made the rock (a Reformation point). But it was this pointing Peter who was made the rock (a Roman point). Only both points make the whole point.

(p. 127)

. . . the Protestant Cullmann . . . (cf. also the Protestants Klostermann, 139; Schniewind, 189-90; and Vischer, 18) writes that "Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession," to which Cullmann adds, "he is this, of course, only . . . as the Simon whom Christ has taken in hand" -- elected and pointing Peter. . . .

"All this [about Peter being the rock] is said with safety, for what has it to do with Rome?" (Bengel 1:211).

(p. 129)

Bruner, in the same context, denies (more typically of Protestants) that the text includes any hint of Petrine or papal succession. That is another issue. Historically, on the other hand, Protestants have traditionally interpreted "Rock" as Peter's faith, and not he himself. I like Bruner's ecumenical emphasis here a lot: both sides have a true insight, and the complete exegesis can incorporate the emphases of both sides. Catholics have no problem with the emphasis of "pointing Peter." That motif is in the passage, too. No small number of Protestant exegetes, however, continue to deny that Peter himself could be the Rock in any sense.