Posted on 01/25/2007 10:49:26 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
This is quite correct theology, and is mentioned all over the place by the Church Fathers and by modern theologians if you know what to look for. The "Apostolic College" or the "College of Bishops" is typically how it is referred to.
Yes, both Peter and the college of Apostles (which we see as the bishops) enjoy that prerogative to be part of the rock of foundation. But the two passages differ as well, insofar as *only* Peter gets the keys.
Nonsense. I have the key right here myself.
Thank you, Jesus Christ.
.Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
If Peter was the Rock, then the wall would either have one foundation or 11, not 12.
Thank you for sharing your views for the research project!
Thank you for the excellent Scripture choices and the insight on the foundation of New Jerusalem in Revelation!
Really? LOL...Must've missed that passage. How do you spell Eckleburg in Greek? I'll look it up in my concordance. ;)
My goodness, you thought I was arguing he was a GOD? Holy cow, I have to explain myself better.
Of course Peter is not a God. But if "only" God is a rock, why does Christ call Peter the Rock at all?
As Dr. Eckleburg posted above about Ephesians 2:20, the Apostles are definitely "rocks" and foundation stones" as well. *All* the Apostles share in that ministry.
The wrong way to look at this is Peter's authority opposed to that of the Apostles. The right way to look at this is that all the Apostles share the same authority as foundations and rocks, with Peter having a special role in that regard (exemplified by the keys, which no other Apostles have).
You've opened up another can of worms here which is not exactly germane to this discussion, but suffice it to say that the language of the metaphors is entirely different. In John 6, Christ says "my flesh is REAL food, and my blood is REAL drink". That "real" there is *alethe*...Greek for "true, real (in a substantive sense)". He doesn't use that word at all when he speaks metaphorically...the closest he comes is *alethinos* in "I am the true vine". BUT the two words are different...alethes means true in essence while alethinos means true by analogy.
See, many of these problems in the English Bible can be avoided by going back to the original Greek.
In a sense that is true, and the Church Fathers said as much, so who I am I to argue with them.
But if the Rock is only Peter's confession, and not Peter himself, why did Christ change Peter's name?
Following is to explain, in case any of you are wondering, why I have not engaged much on the theological debate of whether Peter is the Rock.
The premise which I am attempting to uphold or debunk in this research project has three parts:
(b) the name has been erased and/or lost in certain translations and
(c) thus has had an effect on how Christians understand certain passages in Scripture.
Now that the three points seem to be established and/or evidenced on the thread, I will enter the debate – just a little bit - on Matthew 16.
First of all, it is quite apparent by the excerpt from Pope Benedict posted by betty boop at 43 that the name, God is the Rock, is proclaimed at the highest authority of the temporal Roman Catholic Church – even though it may be perhaps not so clearly understood among the laity.
And that to me is the great tragedy: losing the Name, God is the Rock, in the common vernacular of all Christians - because names are more than a little bit important.
The Jews of course have always known this and have carefully guarded the Names of God over the millennia.
The importance of a name is also evidenced in common parlance among Christians. Witness all the hostile sidebars contesting the names ascribed to Mary.
And please do not let this thread devolve into yet another such hostile sidebar. The point is that a name ascribes honor (or dishonor) and thus becomes a core issue in theology and, I aver, in the sanctification of the Christian believer as follows.
A name itself is a meditation – whether the Name of God or of any of His saints or fellowservants of Almighty God.
How many of us begin a meditation or prayer contemplating names like these: I AM, Messiah, YHWH, Jesus Christ, The Rock, Immanuel, Rose of Sharon, Lily of the Valley, Bright and Morning Star, Elohim, El Shaddai, Adonai, HaShem, Almighty God, Word of God, Alpha and Omega, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, and so on?
I assert that when we contemplate a Name of God, we are also worshipping Him through one of His revelations to us. He is the Rock, He is Alpha and Omega, He is the Word of God, He is God with us, He is the Vine, and so on.
Thus I assert that when we think of Peter in Matthew 16 – and Abraham in Isaiah 51:1-2 – we should be thinking of them, not as “The Rock” which is a Name of God specially announced in the Song of Moses, the Torah, Deut 32:1-4 ---– but rather as fellowservants, each as first “rocks” in the construction of His believers - both Christian and Jew - but neither one exclusive nor the cornerstone nor the foundation nor the head of His Body.
Everyone gets a new name in the Kingdom, just as we all do. We are born again
I agree with what you state. And, in the case of Peter, you do not see any other place in the New Testament where he is spoken of as "the rock". Rather, you see him, along with James and John, "reputed to be" pillars of the church. He certainly took an active role in the leadership of the early church. But one does not see him as being the prime apostle at any time after Pentecost.
Luke 22
24 Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest.
25 And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’
26 But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves.
27 For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves.
28 “But you are those who have continued with Me in My trials.
29 And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me,
30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
Why are we called Christians? I think it is the same reason. Peter was reflecting Christ with his confession. He actually got it. Shortly afterward, Jesus is calling Peter "Satan". Did Peter suddenly change? No. His actions and thoughts were what spurred Jesus's names for him.
Amen.
Everywhere in Scripture we are assured it's not we who toil, but Christ who serves and carries out God's will, that is our profound salvation.
Yes, compare the story of Joseph. His brothers thought he was dead, but he was down in Egypt, alive the whole time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.