The nature of the “righteousness of God”: Martin Luther was right

This is the “interpretation” of the “verse” on which the Reformation hinges. And Martin Luther got it right. The “infallible” “Church” got it wrong, and the world has never been the same.

I’m continuing to talk about Martin Luther’s “discovery” of “justification” and “the Theology of the Cross,” both of which emerged in his thinking at the same time, and which were inextricably related to each other. As McGrath (“Luther’s Theology of the Cross,” Oxford, UK: and Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, ©1985, 1990) pointed out:

There are two aspects to Luther’s discovery of ‘the righteousness of God’. The first relates to the nature of this righteousness: Luther discovered a ‘wonderful new definition of righteousness’ which stood in diametrical opposition to human understandings of iustitia. The second relates to the mode by which this righteousness comes to the individual: man cannot perform good works which are capable of earning justification on a quid pro quo basis, but he can totally abase himself, and cry out to God for grace.

McGrath considered “the second aspect of the matter,” “mode”, first. And at these two links I talked shared that discussion:

The Righteousness of God
God’s wrath is his penultimate and not his final word

Beginning his discussion now of the “nature” of this “righteousness of God”, McGrath says:

It will be clear that Luther’s early insistence upon the necessity of destroying human preconceptions of iustitia through the opus alienum Dei leads us on to consider the nature of the ‘righteousness of God’. In the opening of the scholia [commentary] of his lectures on Romans, Luther states his conviction that the letter represents a programmatic assault upon human preconceptions of wisdom and righteousness.

Remember that it was not so clear-cut at all for young Martin Luther. Consider the world in which he grew up , and what “human preconceptions of wisdom and righteousness” were like:

In his Theology of the Cross, Luther follows Paul in rebuking Roman boastfulness

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. (Romans 12:1)

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. (Romans 1:18)

Robert Jewett, in his Commentary on Romans (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, ©2007) writes about Roman hubris as it resulted in a pyramid of honor:

J. E. Lendon has shown that a relatively small number of officials ruled the vast [first-century Roman] empire, using a combination of force, propaganda, and patronage that was held together by “the workings of honour and pride,” which provided “the underpinnings of loyalty and gratitude for benefactions” that made the empire functional. Although the threat of force and the desire for gain were always present, “the duty to ‘honour’ or respect officials, whether local, imperial, or the emperor himself is vastly more prominent in ancient writings than the duty to obey…. The subject paid ‘honour’ to his rulers as individuals deserving of it in themselves, and, in turn, the rulers are seen to relate to their subjects by ‘honouring’ them. Subject and official were linked by a great network of honouring, and obedience was an aspect of that honouring … As Cicero revealed, there was nothing specifically governmental in honouring people; it was an everyday social function.”

This background is essential for understanding the argument of Romans, which employs honor categories from beginning to end. Lendon observes: “Honour was a filter through which the whole world was viewed, a deep structure of the Graeco-Roman mind… Every thing, every person, could be valued in terms of honour.” At the peak of this pyramid of honor stood the emperor, who claimed to renounce honors while gathering them all to himself. Beneath him the intense competition for superiority in honor continued unabated on all levels of society.

This is the true, historical source for the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, διάκονον and προστάτις”

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well (Romans 16:1-2, ESV).

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me (Romans 16:1-2, NIV)

Συνίστημι δὲ ὑμῖν Φοίβην τὴν ἀδελφὴν ἡμῶν, οὖσαν [καὶ] διάκονον τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἐν Κεγχρεαῖς, 2 ἵνα αὐτὴν προσδέξησθε ἐν κυρίῳ ἀξίως τῶν ἁγίων καὶ παραστῆτε αὐτῇ ἐν ᾧ ἂν ὑμῶν χρῄζῃ πράγματι• καὶ γὰρ αὐτὴ προστάτις πολλῶν ἐγενήθη καὶ ἐμοῦ αὐτοῦ (Romans 16:1-2, NA27).

In my last post, I quoted William Lane who cited epigraphic and archaeological evidence that “patronage and leadership went hand in hand” in the ancient world. In the passage above, Paul commends Phoebe as both διάκονον (diakonon or “servant/deacon”) and προστάτις (prostatis or “patron/benefactor”).

I’ll come back to Phoebe in just a minute. Meanwhile, Lane continues:

This was undoubtedly true for the church in Rome as well. In Romans, Paul acknowledges his own dependence upon patronage in Corinth (16:23) and Cenchreae (16:2). G. Theissen has identified four criteria for assessing the degree of wealth of individuals mentioned by Paul: (1) engagement in civil or religious office; (2) possession of a house; (3) service to Paul or the church or both; (4) ability to undertake a journey on behalf of the church. To judge from Paul’s commendation of Aquila and Priscilla in Romans 16:3-5 and incidental references in Acts (18:1-3, 18, 24-27), they, at least, satisfy all four criteria. Wealth and patronage were almost certainly determining factors in the leadership they provided in Rome to those who looked to them as hosts and house church patrons. This would presumably also be true of the leadership of the other house churches acknowledged in Paul’s greetings in Romans 16.

We may conclude that in Rome those who possessed the resources and initiative to invite the church into his or her home assumed major leadership responsibilities deriving from the patronage offered. These included important administrative tasks, such as the provision of the common meals of the community, the extension of hospitality to traveling missionaries and other Christians, the representation of the community outside the domestic setting, in addition to pastoral oversight and governance. In this connection it is important to note Paul’s usage of the term to refer to the person who gives aid to the congregation (ὁ προϊστάμενος) in Romans 12:8, where the context refers to the extension of material help. The term carries connotations both of patronage and leadership. A plausible inference is that those who acted as patrons were in some sense also involved in governance of the community. A position of authority emerged out of the benefits that individuals of relatively higher wealth and social status could confer upon the community.

How did such leaders arise? Certainly in Rome they did not owe their position to apostolic appointment, a point of some significance in the light of the later argument of 1 Clement 42.4 and 44.2, where the first leadership of the church in Corinth is traced to appointment by Paul. In Rome, leadership was almost certainly derivative from patronage and service, as well as from the interaction between willing individuals and recognition by the wider community. That said, it is important to observe the significance of the commendatory greetings in Romans 16. Paul’s formulation amounts to a recommendation of certain individuals as leaders within the several Christian communities of Rome who gain their “legitimacy” from recognition by the apostle. Household leadership had emerged “from below” in the several communities in Rome, but the effect of Romans is to legitimate it “from above” by the apostle. (211-212).

Please do not miss the significance of what Lane is saying. Roman Catholics want to say that the three offices of “bishop, presbyter, and deacon” were given by some kind of “divine institution”. Given that it is “leadership in the church of Rome” that is being talked about, this is a far more accurate picture of how leadership in the church of Rome came about. And it has nothing to do with a magical or “sacramental succession”.

Jewett translates the phrase ὁ προϊστάμενος (ho proistamenos) in Romans 12:8 as a generic “the leader/presider”. He says,

the passive participle describes someone being ‘set over or at the head of’ a group, a usage reflected in the collective leadership that had been put in charge of the Thessalonian congregation [1 Thess 5:12: “We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you” ESV; Ἐρωτῶμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, εἰδέναι τοὺς κοπιῶντας ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ προϊσταμένους ὑμῶν ἐν κυρίῳ καὶ νουθετοῦντας ὑμᾶς NA27]. This appointed role is different from the cognate term προστάτις (prostatis or “patron/benefactor”), which is an upper-class designation of someone who can provide support and protection. The passive form of the expression “the leader” renders it unlikely that it merely refers to someone financially or societally capable of giving aid to clients….The expression probably implies appointment to a leadership role in an early house or tenement church, whether as presider, administrator of charitable work, or pastoral supervisor (752-753).

Thomas Schreiner, a Souther Baptist commentator, and Douglas Moo, a conservative Lutheran, in their commentaries on Romans both translate this instance of ὁ προϊστάμενος (ho proistamenos) in Romans 12:8 as “one who presides”.

This leads us to the role of Phoebe. The word προστάτις in 16:2, then, which the ESV renders as “patron” and the new NIV renders “benefactor”, very likely includes the idea of leadership.

Schreiner says “Scholars debate” whether Phoebe held an office. “On the one hand, the term διάκονος may be generic denoting various kinds of service and assistance. On the other hand, the term also designates an office (cf. Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim 3:8, 12; see also Ign Eph. 2.1; Magn. 6.1). Is Paul commending Phoebe because she held the office of deacon, or because she served in [a] variety of unofficial ways in the church en Cenchreae? It is impossible to be sure, but for several reasons it is likely that she held the office of deacon. First, 1 Tim 3:11 probably identifies women as deacons (Schreiner refers to his own earlier analysis). Second, the designation “deacon of the church in Cenchreae” suggests that Phoebe served in this special capacity, for this is the only occasion in which the term διάκονος is linked with a particular local church. Third, the use of the masculine noun διάκονος also suggests that office is intended. Of course, we need to beware of reading into early church offices the full-fledged development that was realized later. But woman deacons were probably appointed early, especially because other women needed assistance from their own sex in visitation, baptism, and other matters” (Thomas Schreiner, Commentary on Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, ©1998, pgs 786-787).

Jewett discusses the significance of the word προστάτις as applied to Phoebe:

[with respect to the phrase “to provide her with whatever she might need from you in the matter…”], It must have significance, or else it would hardly have been mentioned as the opening request in the final series of personal greetings.

I believe a case can be made that Paul provides a direct hint in the wording of Rom 16:2c, “for she became a patron to many, and also to me”. The explanatory words καὶ γὰρ (“also for”) follow immediately after the vague term πράγμα, thus specifying what is meant by the “matter.” It is the matter of Phoebe’s patronage. The aorist passive verb used here, ἐγενήθη (“she became”), suggests that Phoebe functioned as a patron on a specific occasion for each of the persons named. She provided resources in concrete acts of patronage, implying the employment of substantial resources. The term προστάτις means “protectress, patroness, helper,” and its masculine counterpart took on the technical sense of a legal patron. Although the upper-class connotation of “patroness” runs counter to the subordinate implication traditionally seen in the term “deaconess,” several commentators have pointed to its relevance in this context. Kasemann argued, on the basis of an alleged lack of precise parallels to the legal use of the feminine term, προστάτης, that “women could not take on legal functions,” but this does not stand up under the weight of evidence discovered since 1981. [Kasemann wrote a 1980 commentary on Romans]. E.A. Judge was one of the first to point out the relevance of the papyrus from 142 B.C.E. that was published in 1981, referring to a woman being appointed the legal προστάτις of her fatherless son. Subsequently, the third-century C.E. inscription discovered at Aphrodisias has been published with a reference to a Jewish woman by the name of Jael as the προστάτις of a synagogue, clearly indicating a patronage role.

It is now clear that the patronage role played by Phoebe was not unique. Ramsay MacMullen’s survey showed that women made up “a fifth of all rescript-addresses” in the Roman period and that “perhaps a tenth of the protectors and donors that collegia sought out were women. Honors paid to a patroness ob merita, or some similar hint, indicate how the game was played.” He concludes that “as a general rule, then, women as benefactors should be imagined playing their part personally and visibly, out in the open. Other investigations of the archaeological and cultural evidence confirm this picture. Recent studies by Theissen, Holmberg, Funk, Murphy-O’Connor, Meeks, Kearsley, Tebilco, and Garrison of the leading role played by upper-class benefactors, both male and female, in early Christian communities provide the social background of the description of Phoebe’s status. The host or hostess of house churches was usually a person of high social standing and means, with a residencelarge enough for the church to gather, who presided over the Eucharistic celebarations and was responsible for the ordering of the congregation. The fact that Paul mentions Phoebe as a patroness “to many, and also to me” indicates the level of material resources that would support this kind of leadership role. In light of her high social standing, and Paul’s relatively subordinate social position as her client, it is mistaken to render προστάτις as “helper” or to infer some kind of subordinate role (945-947).

Understanding the Early Development of the House Churches in Rome, Part 4

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Aquila, Priscilla, and the accurate history of Acts 18.2

From William Lane:

The primary social universe in which members of Greco-Roman society lived was the household. It provided the basic economic, political, and religious social unit of Greco-Roman civilization. In Rome the household community constituted the basic unit of society. The Roman familia, consisting of all the persons, free or slave, under the authority of the head of the household (paterfamilias), provided an emotionally and existentially satisfying social setting for its individual members. The early church in Rome could not exist in such a milieu without something of that environment leaving its mark upon it.

In Romans 16:3-15 Paul shows an awareness of the existence of several house churches in Rome, one of which was associated with the Jewish Christian leaders Aquila and Priscilla, who are now back in the imperial capital after the lapsing of the decree of expulsion (Rom. 16:3-5)

Here Lane cites Peter Lampe, from a chapter of his work published in “The Romans Debate”, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2nd ed., 1991. I intend to spend some time with that work, but for now, I’ll just continue with Lane:

Christians in Rome during this formative period appear to have met as “household” groups in privately owned locations scattered around the capital city. They constituted a loose network of house churches, without any central facility for worship. The absence of central coordination matches the profile of the separated synagogues in Rome during this period.

On this point, see, for example, Scot McKnight, “A Light among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press © 1991).

An impression of what such early house churches in Rome may have been like is conveyed by the remains of buildings of several stories that date to the second and third centuries, but which have been modified over the course of time. Incorporated into the walls or preserved below the floors of at least three of the existing titular churches in Rome are the remains of large tenement houses. The ground floors appear to have been occupied by shops, and the upper levels by prosperous families. The connection of these buildings with the social world of craftsmen and artisans is suggestive in the light of reference to the church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla (Rom. 16:5), whose property must have served as workshop, residence, and meeting place. As yet there has been no excavation of common housing from the days of the early empire in Rome, but the work of J.E. Packer and A.G. McKay on the insulae, or apartment buildings, points to the existence of amorphous blocks of tenements, one building abutting another, that served the vast majority of people in the capital and other large cities of the Roman empire (Lane, pgs 208-209).

Here is where we begin to cover material that genuinely contradicts what the Roman Catholic Church has taught about the papacy for centuries. Here we arrive at the place that I’ve written about in my blog post, “John Reumann best states the problem”. Reumann says:

Biblical and patristic studies make clear that historically a gap occurs at the point where it has been claimed “the apostles were careful to appoint successors in” what is called “this hierarchically constituted society,” specifically “those who were made bishops by the apostles . . .,” an episcopate with an “unbroken succession going back to the beginning.” For that, evidence is lacking, quite apart from the problem that the monepiscopacy replaced presbyterial governance in Rome only in the mid-or late second century. It has been noted above how recent treatments conclude that in the New Testament no successor for Peter is indicated.

These, too, are some of the “historical facts” that are not disputed.

Lane was writing in 1998. More recently, Robert Jewett, in his “Romans” commentary (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, ©2007), summarizes some of the latest work on this topic:

One of the standard studies of house congregations and house churches by Hans-Josef Klauck opens with a citation from Heinz Schurmann, “The living space of the congregation is the house. Another study rests on the same premise: “the earliest Christians met in private homes.” These studies investigate the references to houses as the meeting places of early Christian congregations and usually assume a freestanding building owned by the patron or patroness of a house church. Although the term οἶκος [oikos or “house”] can refer to a Roman atrium, a Greek peristyle house, a Hellenistic style of courtyard with adjoining rooms, or even an apartment building with shops on the ground floor, the standard conclusion is: “Private houses were the first centers of church life.” Klauck remains more open than most scholars on this question, concluding that congregations of 10-40 members could function in any of the four options, but he does not entertain the possibility that s different structure of leadership and a different style of community life might result from meeting in a space not provided by a patron. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor’s early calculation of the maximum size of 30-40 for a house church congregation rested on the premise of a freestanding villa. His later work considers the possibility that the shop space on the ground floor of a tenement building might be used for a “house church” such as Prisca and Aquila sponsored in Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome; it might accommodate a group of 10-20 believers. A number of earlier experts suggested the likelihood that even if Prisca and Aquila’s church met in their private apartment, it was probably in a tenement building.

Some details in the NT point indisputably in the direction of house churches presided over by patrons and patronesses, including references to “the church in the house” of particular patrons. The model of a house church presupposes a patron or patroness who owns or rents the space used by the Christian community. A number of such persons are mentioned in the Pauline letters, including Phoebe, Erastos, Crispus, Stephanos, Gaius, Appia, and Philemon and his wife, Nympha. A house church is thus assimilated into the hierarchical social structure of the Greco-Roman world, in which heads of houses exercised legal and familial dominion over their relatives and slaves. In the words of Wayne Meeks, “The head of the household, by normal expectations of the society, would exercise some authority over the group and would have some legal responsibility for it. The structure of the oikos was hierarchical, and contemporary political and moral thought regarded the structure of superior and inferior roles as basic to the well-being of the whole society. This model of a house church has led to the widely accepted theory of Gerd Theissen that such churches were marked by “love-patriarchalism” in which the hierarchical social order is retained while mutual respect and love are being fostered by patrons serving as leaders of the congregations in their houses (Jewett 64-65).

Steve Hays has already commented on this phenomenon:

The Co-Pope Team of Priscilla and Aquila

The Aquilan-cum-Priscillan lineage represents the true succession

The First Church of Rome

And he responded to quite a few objections in these blog posts:

The Counterfeit Shepherd

Superpope

Here might be an excellent time to re-state what the Roman Catholic theologian John Meier stated in his essay in “How Can the Petrine Ministry Be a Service to the Unity of the Universal Church?” (Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, ©2010):

A papacy that cannot give a credible account of its own origins can hardly hope to be a catalyst for unity among divided Christians (14).

There is, in fact, nothing that is credible about the papacy.

Understanding the Early Development of the House Churches in Rome, Part 3

Part 1
Part 2

I want to take a look at one of the “travel” paragraphs in Acts:

After three months we set sail in a ship that had wintered in the island, a ship of Alexandria, with the twin gods [the Greek gods Castor and Pollux] as a figurehead. Putting in at Syracuse, we stayed there for three days. And from there we made a circuit and arrived at Rhegium. And after one day a south wind sprang up, and on the second day we came to Puteoli. There we found brothers and were invited to stay with them for seven days. And so we came to Rome. And the brothers there, when they heard about us, came as far as the Forum of Appius and Three Taverns to meet us. On seeing them, Paul thanked God and took courage. And when we came into Rome, Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with the soldier that guarded him (Acts 28:11-16).

Having owned a study Bible most of my adult life, I can testify that this is one of those passages that I read over quickly, maybe referencing a nearby map, and then skipping on to “meatier” topics.

But this is a first-person factual account upon which an historian, who naturally looks to such attested accounts, can hang his hat. By the time Paul first got to Rome, there were Christians there.

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.