I’m a bit surprised at some of this article actually...Jimmy is usually very sharp and very careful but there are some strange things here. As to his statement that the Rock is not Peter’s Confession, well, I’ve read direct quotes from the Fathers who said otherwise. So who are we to dispute them?
My favorite exegetical way to look at Peter’s role lies in comparing the grant of authority in Matt 16 with Matt 18. It seems very deliberate here. The apostles are granted authority corporately in Matt 18 and it is the same authority that Peter individually is granted in Matt 16. That juxtaposition is interesting.
At the risk of becoming a broken record bringing up Met. Zizioulas for the umpteenth time, I really do like his formulation of no council without a protos, and no protos without a council, but the two always united. That really seems to be hitting at the essence of St. Matthew’s juxtaposition.
“At the risk of becoming a broken record bringing up Met. Zizioulas for the umpteenth time, I really do like his formulation of no council without a protos, and no protos without a council, but the two always united.”
Go right ahead and sound like a broken record. I think Met. John of Pergamum has it just right, though there are Orthodox who vigorously disagree.
“I’m a bit surprised at some of this article actually...Jimmy is usually very sharp and very careful but there are some strange things here.”
If you look sharp, you’ll notice Jimmy is not the author of this series. SDG is.