Cosmic imagery

It is a serious misunderstanding of the relevant ways of speaking and writing to suppose that when the Bible speaks of the sun and the moon being darkened and the stars falling from heaven, and of similar “cosmic” events, it intends the language to be taken literally.

http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Apocalypse_Now.htm

More specifically, different manners of speaking were available to those who wished to write or talk of the coming day when the covenant God would act to rescue his people…Metaphors from creation would likewise be appropriate. The sun would be turned to darkness, the moon to blood. 

It is vital for our entire perception of the worldview of first-century Jews, including particularly the early Christians, that we see what follows from all this. When they used what we might call cosmic imagery to describe the coming new age, such language cannot be reading in a crassly literalistic way without doing it great violence. The restoration which would be brought about was, of course, painted glowing and highly metaphorical colours. The New Testament and the People of God (1992), 283-84.

i) I appreciate the fact that Wright is debunking pop dispensationalism hermeneutics. Mind you, the fact that he's correcting one error doesn't make his own position correct. Indeed, he could be committing the opposite mistake by overreacting.

ii) It may also be that he's trying to make Scripture less vulnerable to scoffers. Perhaps he thinks some eschatological language involves a three story cosmography. Taken literally, that would be false.

iii) For some odd reason, he seems to equate a "literalistic" interpretation of this imagery with cosmic disintegration. But there's no reason to suppose the phenomena he quotes, even if taken literally, denotes cosmic disintegration.

iv) We also need to distinguish between figurative imagery and mythopoetic imagery. He acts as though the imagery he quotes can't be literally true. But even if, for the sake of argument, we think the imagery he quotes is figurative, that doesn't make it mythopoetic. In fact, it's fairly prosaic.

v) Apropos (iii-iv), he doesn't seem to grasp what the imagery describes. In my opinion, a darkened sun denotes a solar eclipse, a darkened or blood-colored moon denotes a lunar eclipse, and falling stars denote a meteor shower. There's nothing inherently figurative about that imagery. These are natural phenomena. I myself have witnessed a solar eclipse. Unfortunately, it was overcast. Even so, for a few minutes morning became night.

I've witnessed a lunar eclipse. The moon was literally darkened. And it was reddish. A red hue. And I've probably seen shooting stars.

vi) As I've remarked before, I think one problem with some Bible scholars is that they are so out of touch with nature that they just assume certain descriptions must be figurative or mythopoetic. It's not something they themselves have observed or experienced.

Keep in mind, too, that if you live in or near a big city, light pollution obscures stargazing. But people in Bible times had a better view of the night sky than we do.

Just recently, as I was returning from a late afternoon walk, I saw a sunset sundog (parhelion). That's a rare optical illusion in which refracted sunlight generates a cloudy virtual mirror-image. A double sun.

Now, if I was a Bible writer or Intertestamental writer, Wright would chalk that up to "figurative" omen. Yet it really happens.

vii) I don't think there's a presumption that cosmic Biblical imagery is either literal or figurative. That depends on the context and the genre. And sometimes context or genre is inconclusive. In those cases, you have to be open-minded.

viii) In addition, there's nothing mythopoetic about Christ returning in the clouds. I think that's like Ezk 1. Christ will return in the Shekinah.

The coming of the Son of Man in Mark's Gospel

http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_2005_56_2_04_Adams_SonOfMan_Mark.pdf

God’s Divine Government is not “the Church”

In a recent post, I discussed “the Kingdom of God” as a concept, as it is presented in the Gospel of Mark, in a study by R.T. France: “Divine Government: God’s Kingship in the Gospel of Mark” (Vancouver, BC: Regent College Publishing, ©1990). France noted that the Greek phrase ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεο, frequently translated “the Kingdom of God” and in shorthand, “the Kingdom”, misses the true sense of that phrase.

In reality, the sense that Mark (and the other New Testament writers) overwhelmingly intend is, “There is, as we have noted, no reference in Mark to ‘the kingdom’ as if it were a ‘thing’ in itself. It is ‘God’ that is the controlling noun. The message of Mark 1.15 is not that a change of government is imminent, but that God is taking over (which potentially puts a question mark against any human political programme, even a Jewish one)”.

For the sake of this and subsequent articles on the topic, and without going into too much detail at this point, I will note that the phrases “The Kingdom of God” and “The Kingdom of Heaven” are essentially equivalent – Matthew, writing to a largely Jewish audience, used the word “Heaven” “as a reverential substitute for “God”. (Schreiner, “New Testament Theology,” pg 46.) “It follows, on this view, that the expressions “kingdom of God” and “kingdom of heaven” refer to the same reality and should not be distinguished.” I’m not sure that anyone contests this.

With that said, I’d like to give yet another example of official Roman Catholic dogmatic arrogance in the face of God. I’d like to compare France’s portrayal of “Divine Government” with the concept that this Called to Communion article by Bryan Cross and Thomas Brown entitled “Christ Founded a Visible Church” portrays: that “The Roman Catholic Church is the Kingdom of God”.

Many Christians do not realize that the Catholic Church is and claims to be the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, in the Kingdom’s nascent stage. They mistakenly think of the Kingdom as either entirely invisible, entirely spiritual, or entirely future. Lumen Gentium specifically affirms that the Church is Christ’s Kingdom:

The Church, or, in other words, the kingdom of Christ now present in mystery, grows visibly through the power of God in the world [Lumen Gentium 3].

By “present in mystery” the Council meant that the Catholic Church is the Kingdom of Heaven in its beginning or seminal stage, i.e. the stage prior to the return of Christ. We do not now see the fullness of the Kingdom. But the Catholic Church is the present rule of Christ on the earth. Jesus did not say to Peter, “I give you the keys of the Church, but I retain the keys of the Kingdom.” Rather, Jesus said to Peter, “I will give to you [singular] the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.” The keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are the apostolic authority over the Church. That is why the Catechism says,

The Church is the seed and beginning of this kingdom. Her keys are entrusted to Peter [CCC 567].

To fulfill the Father’s will, Christ ushered in the Kingdom of heaven on earth. The Church is the Reign of Christ already present in mystery [CCC 763].

The [Roman Catholic] Church is ultimately one, holy, catholic, and apostolic in her deepest and ultimate identity, because it is in her that the Kingdom of heaven, the Reign of God, already exists and will be fulfilled at the end of time [CCC 865].

***End of “Called-to-Communion” quote***

First of all, note the condescension: “Many people do not realize…” My guess is that no one really knows what Lumen Gentium is saying here. (There is “plausible deniability” built into every official Roman Catholic doctrinal statement. Steve Hays has documented this phenomenon magnificently in his article The Magisterial cat-and-mouse game.) It is characteristic of Roman Catholic understanding of dogma today that its language is so convoluted that, no matter what “interpretation” is given, it can always be claimed (by writers like Bryan Cross and Thomas Brown) that “we [or they] didn’t truly and infallibly capture the meaning of the dogma”. Of course, the language is so convoluted, no one can. On the other hand, this convoluted method of expression lends itself perfectly to the lofty types of claims that are made in this article.

There is a lot to sort through in these selections. Here is how Lumen Gentium 3 actually says it, equating “the Roman Catholic Church” with “The Kingdom of God”:

To carry out the will of the Father, Christ inaugurated the Kingdom of heaven on earth and revealed to us the mystery of that kingdom. By His obedience He brought about redemption. The Church, or, in other words, the kingdom of Christ now present in mystery, grows visibly through the power of God in the world.

One of the difficulties in dealing with Roman Catholic Vatican II teachings is the denseness of the language that is used. And this is a prime example of it. By the phrase, “in other words”, it seems as if the writers of this document seem to be equating “The Church” and “the kingdom of Christ now present in mystery”.

But things are not always what they seem.

Look then at the phrase that Cross and Brown use, “We do not now see the fullness of the Kingdom. But the Catholic Church is the present rule of Christ on the earth.” And keep in mind that when Cross and Brown say the word “Church”, they mean “the Roman Catholic Church” and its visible hierarchy.

The Bible does not talk about a visible hierarchy, but in official Roman conciliar (Vatican II) dogma, “the mystery of the church” somehow becomes “manifest” – this one is not hard to find, a few paragraphs down, still quoting Lumen Gentium:

The mystery of the holy Church is manifest in its very foundation. The Lord Jesus set it on its course by preaching the Good News, that is, the coming of the Kingdom of God, which, for centuries, had been promised in the Scriptures: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand". In the word, in the works, and in the presence of Christ, this kingdom was clearly open to the view of men. The Word of the Lord is compared to a seed which is sown in a field; those who hear the Word with faith and become part of the little flock of Christ, have received the Kingdom itself. Then, by its own power the seed sprouts and grows until harvest time. The Miracles of Jesus also confirm that the Kingdom has already arrived on earth: "If I cast out devils by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you". Before all things, however, the Kingdom is clearly visible in the very Person of Christ, the Son of God and the Son of Man, who came "to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many:"

When Jesus, who had suffered the death of the cross for mankind, had risen, He appeared as the one constituted as Lord, Christ and eternal Priest, and He poured out on His disciples the Spirit promised by the Father. From this source the [Roman Catholic] Church, equipped with the gifts of its Founder and faithfully guarding His precepts of charity, humility and self-sacrifice, receives the mission to proclaim and to spread among all peoples the Kingdom of Christ and of God and to be, on earth, the initial budding forth of that kingdom. While it slowly grows, the [Roman Catholic] Church strains toward the completed Kingdom and, with all its strength, hopes and desires to be united in glory with its King.

This is a classical Roman Catholic bait-and-switch. At the beginning of this passage, it’s a “mystery”, but when the smoke clears, at the end, the “mystery”, presto-changeo, clearly reveals and assumes that the Roman Catholic Church is “the Kingdom of God”.

No amount of analysis can show just how this equation is made. It is “a mystery” and then, voila, it is “manifest”.

But what is “the Kingdom of God”? Cross and Brown doesn’t simply make this claim (that “the Roman Catholic Church” is “the Kingdom of God”). They give a specific time and identity to this “kingdom” and makes the claim that the Roman Catholic Church is no less than the Kingdom prophesied in the Old Testament. Let’s take a couple of representative looks:

The New Testament authors understand the Church as the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. The angel Gabriel tells Mary that the Lord God will give her Son the “throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.”

See how they equivocate – or rather, they allow Roman Catholic teaching to serve as the “touch point” to equate “The Kingdom of God” (the Kingdom of the Son of David) with “the Roman Catholic Church”. There is no exegetical justification given to show that “the Roman Catholic Church” is “The Kingdom of God”.

Look at the language Cross and Brown use, trying to make their own exegetical link: “the Catholic Church is and claims to be the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, in the Kingdom’s nascent stage”.

Christ’s teaching that the Kingdom of Heaven is like a dragnet that gathers fish of every kind is paralleled in the account in John 21 where the disciples catch 153 fish and draw the net upon the land. That account clearly refers to the Apostles, as fishers of men, bringing all the nations into the Church, and in this way we again see that the Church is the Kingdom in its present stage.

Right at the heart, where, if Cross and Brown are trying to prove from the Scriptures that “the Roman Catholic Church is “The Kingdom of God”, they misuse it. They set up the Roman Catholic Church’s visible hierarchy, right here in John 21. But to do that, they need to have something other than Vatican II’s word for it. Exegetical justification for this reading is clearly lacking. To equate the Apostles with “rulership in the kingdom on earth” as they do is to clearly miss that God rules -- that is the exegetical meaning of “the kingdom”, and I’ll address this next time.

The Kingdom of God

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:14-15).

Μετὰ δὲ τὸ παραδοθῆναι τὸν Ἰωάννην ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν κηρύσσων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ λέγων ὅτι πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς καὶ ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ μετανοεῖτε καὶ πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ.

I’ve recently picked up a small study by R.T. France: “Divine Government: God’s Kingship in the Gospel of Mark” (Vancouver, BC: Regent College Publishing, ©1990). France was Principal, Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University (1989–95) and has authored a number of commentaries on both Matthew and Mark (among other things).

France says he titled his book “Divine Government” because English translations which render the Hebrew and Greek phrases as “the Kingdom of God” give too much of an impression that something with a definite size and shape is what’s being talked about. “There is, as we have noted, no reference in Mark to ‘the kingdom’ as if it were a ‘thing’ in itself. It is ‘God’ that is the controlling noun. The message of Mark 1.15 is not that a change of government is imminent, but that God is taking over (which potentially puts a question mark against any human political programme, even a Jewish one)” (pg 22). And I would say, it even puts a question mark against any program that involves the establishment of a “church authority” of any kind.

But surely it must be pedantic to insist that we use the exact biblical terminology. Where is the harm in a convenient abbreviation? I hope I am not usually a pedant, but in this case I do see a significant danger in the nearly universal modern use of ‘the kingdom’, a danger which is writ large when ‘kingdom’ comes to be used as an adjective. The danger arises from a twofold misunderstanding.

Firstly, the word ‘kingdom’ does not convey in modern English what the Hebrew/Aramaic malkut and the Greek basileia conveyed in their biblical context. It is a scholarly commonplace to point out that whereas ‘kingdom’ in English is today primarily a ‘concrete’ noun, with a clearly identifiable ‘thing’ to which it refers (whether a place or a community), the biblical nouns are abstract, and refer to the act of ruling, the situation of being king – as did the word ‘kingdom’ in the sixteenth-century English from which it has entered our biblical tradition (12).

Here France’s understanding of the original Biblical terms that are rendered “kingdom” undermines the concept that the “kingdom” is visible at all, much less that it is “a visible kingdom” or “a visible church”. “Kingdom” in the original languages connotes a verb, an activity, a movement. It is not “a visible thing”. But he goes further.

The second point follows naturally. If ‘the kingdom of God’ means ‘God being king’, then to abbreviate it to ‘the kingdom’ is to focus on the wrong one of the two nouns. To speak of ‘kingship’ without saying who is king is to speak only in a vague abstraction which can have no specific reference in itself. ‘The kingdom’ is about as meaningless as ‘the will’ or ‘the power’ used alone without a reference to whose will or power is in view. To make the point in terms of a familiar biblical text, ‘Yours is the kingdom, the power and the glory” (Matt. 6.13) does not mean that there are antecedent self-existent ‘things’ called ‘the kingdom’, ‘the power’ and ‘the glory’, which have come into God’s possession. It means simply, ‘You are the king, you wield power, and you are glorious.’ It is a statement about God, not about ‘the kingdom’. The content of the phrase is no less than the great declaration of many Old Testament psalms, ‘The Lord is king’, or “God rules’.

There’s one more thing that I want to point out at the moment, and that is, happens invisibly, and automatically.

And he said, “The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground. He sleeps and rises night and day, and the seed sprouts and grows; he knows not how. The earth produces by itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come” (Mark 4:26-29).

The dynamic power of God’s kingship is the obvious point also of the parable of the growing seed (4.26-29). The emphasis falls on the ability of the seed to grow by itself. The farmer can go away and live his own life while the seed gets on with its growth; he doesn’t know, and doesn’t need to know, how it does it. The earth looks after the process by itself (automate), and all the farmer will need to do is to reap the crop which has been produced for him without his own effort. Any real-life farmer will tell you, of course, that it is not as simple as that today, that life between sowing and reaping is not simply extended holiday. But a parable is not necessarily a photographic reproduction of real life, and the story is clearly told in such a way as to emphasize the lack of human involvement. God’s kingship has its own dynamic, and is not dependent on human effort. It is, in other words, God’s saving power which is the subject of Jesus; message, not a human reform programme…. There is a secret here to be discovered. God is powerfully at work, but many will be unable to see it. But those who despise and even oppose Jesus’ mission are in for a surprise. And those who want to believe him but are tempted like John the Baptist to ask, ‘Are you really the one we were waiting for, or should we look for someone else?’ (Matt 11.3) may take heart: God’s work will be completed, in God’s way (32-33).

France’s exegetical analysis of the “Divine Government” in Mark, as we see it in the phrase “Kingdom of God”, has a direct bearing on those who say “God founded a visible church” and that “God gave the church a visible structure and government”. Of course he didn’t, and those who say he did are grossly misrepresenting what God’s program is all about.

And further, this is also a direct response to those who want to suggest that, because Sola Scriptura and “justification by faith alone”, as doctrines, were not articulated until the 16th century, that somehow they are not a part of God’s program. Both of these fundamental doctrines of the Reformation were simply a harvest on our part – the direct result of the work of God in our midst. “Our God Reigns”, and he does it in ways that surprise and delight us, with no effort at all on our part.

Historical and cultural context

R. T. France (“The Gospel of Mark” Grand Rapids, MI, Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company © 2002):

The historical and cultural context of first-century Palestine is probably better appreciated by the world of NT scholarship these days than it has ever been previously in modern times, partly through the discovery of new material, but chiefly through the greater readiness of NT scholars to explore and benefit from what has long been available to them in Jewish and (to a lesser extent) classical studies. The result has been an impressive (though not, of course, unanimous) drawing together of data from a wide range of sources to help us see Jesus more as the people of his own time may have seen him (from the Introduction, pgs 2-3).

The Oral Character of Early Christian Writings Undermines Yet Another Key Contention of Roman Claims for the Papacy

Scott Hahn makes a big deal of it. Noting that R.T. France is “one of the top evangelical New Testament scholars in the world,” Hahn makes the assertion that

"Jesus' … blessing is given to Peter alone. The other disciples may have shared his insight but Peter, characteristically expressed it. Matthew often illustrates Peter's place at the head of the disciples' group. He was the spokesman, the pioneer, the natural leader." He goes on to talk about how Peter is referenced to the Rock. France says, "It describes not so much Peter's character, that is the Rock. He did not prove to be rock-like in terms of stability or reliability but rather the name Rock or Peter points to his function as the foundation stone of Jesus' Church."

This is a non-Catholic. This is an Evangelical Protestant who has absolutely no interest in supporting the Church's claims but he says, "The term Peter, Rock, points to Simon and not his character because he could be very unstable, but rather his official function as the foundation stone of Jesus' Church. The word-play is unmistakable." He says, "It is only Protestant over-reaction to the Roman Catholic claim, of course, which has no foundation in the text, that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later Bishops of Rome." In other words France is saying, "We can't apply this to the Popes, the later Bishops of Rome." … France is very candid in saying, "Look, it's only because we Protestants have over-reacted to the Catholic Church that we are not frank and sincere in admitting the fact that Peter is the Rock. He is the foundation stone upon which Jesus is going to build the Church."

Here is one of France’s justifications for his conclusion:

A second escape route, beloved especially by those who wish to refute the claims of the Roman Catholic Church based on the primacy of Peter as the first pope, is to assert that the foundation rock is not Peter himself, but the faith in Jesus as Messiah which he has just declared. If that was what Jesus intended, he has chosen his words badly, as the wordplay points decisively toward Peter, who whom personally he has just given the name, as the rock, and there is nothing in his statement to suggest otherwise. Even more bizarre is the supposition that Jesus, having declared Simon to be Petros, then pointed instead to himself when he said the words “this rock” (“The Gospel of Matthew,” R.T. France, Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge, U.K.: William B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, ©2007, pg622).

Now, sometimes even “top evangelical New Testament scholars” need a whack on the back of the head. There is no question that Peter was important. But many notable patristic interpretations of this verse hold that “this rock” was not Peter, but rather, Peter’s confession. Among others, Augustine said “Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her” (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 236A.3, p. 48, from here). And following this interpretation, it’s a standard Protestant understanding that “this rock” did not refer to Peter, but rather to Peter’s confession of Jesus as “the son of the Living God”.

But look again at the rationale that Dr. France uses to dismiss the idea that “this Rock” is not Peter. “Even more bizarre is the supposition that Jesus, having declared Simon to be Petros, then pointed instead to himself when he said the words ‘this rock.’”

That’s a dramatic gesture, and while it may or may not have made sense for Jesus to have made those hand gestures, if one understands that first century Palestine was an “oral culture,” and that oral delivery and rhetoric had much more importance in that day than our day, then the hand gestures take on an important new meaning.

The Oral Presentation of Early Writings
France’s notion that it is “bizarre” that Jesus “pointed to himself” (pg 622) is seriously challenged by a deeper understanding of the oral nature of documents written in the first century world. It is highly likely that these documents were intended not for reading in a book – there were not many books in those days – but rather, they were intended for oral presentation.

Texts were written in such a way that they could be presented orally. And so, in Matthew’s Gospel, the image is not “Jesus pointing to himself,” but rather, the hand gestures of the individual who would be delivering the Gospel message, orally, to an assembled group of people (in this case, “the church”).

Such a focus on orality sheds light on the odd grammatical structure of the sentence (Matthew 16:18) which shifts from the second person (“you are Peter”) to the third person (“and on this rock”).

Carolyn Osiek, in her study “The Oral World of Early Christianity in Rome: The Case of Hermas” (from Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson, eds, “Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome” Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company ©1998), notes that

”Studies of the implications of orality and literacy in the ancient world continue to multiply, but few have been applied to Christian literature except in the study of the development of oral tradition, and then primarily to certain canonical texts, notably the Gospel of Mark. Moreover, the corresponding characteristics of oral and literate thinking continue to be the object of study by social scientists, and these studies are becoming more and more nuanced. The ongoing interest in literacy and orality in the ancient world has been reflected in biblical studies largely in the form of interest in the transmission of oral tradition. It is now clear, for instance, that in the case of an oral teacher such as Jesus there was no ‘original form’ of his sayings, even during his lifetime, for oral teaching is necessarily contextual, adapted in each situation to a different audience.” The concern here is not about the transmission of oral tradition, but about oral thought processes, oral performance, and the social implications of orality and literacy (155-56).

While this study of the rhetorical characteristics of early Christian documents is new, it sheds light on the contentions over the genuine meaning of “this rock” in Matthew 16:18.

France himself (“Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher” Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, originally © 1989 Paternoster Press) noted that the Gospel of Matthew contains “repeated formulae which may function as structural markers…. Such repetitions sometimes serve to alert the reader to points of comparison between different characters in the story” (128-129). “So much of the material, particularly the teaching material, is grouped in symmetrical structures, often marked out by repeated words or phrases. The effect is to make this gospel a suitable quarry for blocks of material for easy memorization” (130). “In the overall progression of the narrative, and in the selection of material for insertion in this part of the gospel it seems clear to me that Matthew is operating with a clear sense of dramatic progression” (138).

In his 2007 commentary on Matthew, France does not make the connection between the dramatic qualities of the Gospel and the likely oral presentation of it. But in a 2007 Hermenia Commentary on the Letter to the Romans (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press), Robert Jewett goes into much detail of the “rhetorical” structure of Romans and the likely method of its oral delivery:

With the exception of the greetings at the end of Romans, the letter displays a wide range of stylistic features that would have made the hearing very engaging when the letter was declaimed in the early congregations. In the analysis section of each chapter there is an account of such devices. There are far too many for an exhaustive listing here (30).

These include various kinds of parallelisms, anaphora, antistrophes, chiasms, applied to “series of tens”, “series of fives,” “series of sevens,” “series of threes”.

The discovery of the remarkable array of stylistic and organizational devices in Romans calls attention to the crucial importance of the oral delivery to the various congregations in Rome. In view of the fact that ancient letters in Greek were written without spaces between words or punctuation, the discernment of the numerical sequences and other stylistic features would have been very difficult for anyone reading the letter aloud for the first time. Classical rhetoric taught the techniques of preparing texts for public delivery and for the actual delivery itself, including the tone of voice and gestures suitable for different occasions. In the Greco-Roman world, speaking without notes was preferred, and students were taught to memorize their speeches before delivering them (39-40).

With regard to their inherent rhetorical structure, Romans and Matthew have much in common. Considering that the Gospel of Matthew was not only written with a dramatic structure in mind, but was intended to be presented orally, can provide us with a key insight into an odd grammatical structure that has been at the root of contentions that have lasted for centuries.

If Peter is not “this rock” but rather, a smaller rock, then that has serious ramifications Rome’s already shaky authority structure.

And as France himself concludes,

When the image of a foundation stone is used in relation to the Christian church elsewhere in the NT, that stone is Jesus himself, not Peter, as in 1 Cor 3:10-11 (where Christ is the foundation, and Paul’s apostolic work merely the superstructure) and 1 Pet 2:4-8 (which, if written by Peter himself, is particularly telling!). But Eph 2:20 expands the metaphor to a corporate foundation of “the apostles and prophets,” with Christ as the cornerstone, and in Rev 21:14 the names of the twelve apostles are inscribed on the twelve foundations of the heavenly city (622).

Paul himself states clearly in 1 Corinthians 10:4: “the Rock was Christ,” in the Old Testament, in the New Testament. And the oral character of the Gospels and other writings helps to clarify an understanding that Rome, in defense of its supposed authority, has muddied up for centuries.