Posted on 06/02/2018 6:34:56 AM PDT by Salvation
Question: A Protestant told me recently that Peter can’t be the rock since Jesus is described as the rock and cornerstone of the Church, and he showed me a couple of places where Jesus is described as the cornerstone and even a stumbling block to unbelievers. Is there an answer for this? — Allen Desome, Washington, D.C.
Answer: Of course Jesus, Peter and others who are called “rock” or stone are not literally chunks of stone. What we have in such attestations is the application of a metaphor. Scripture, like any lengthy document uses many metaphors, similes and analogies. Such things can be true in different ways.
In the Scriptures we see that Peter is called “the rock” by Jesus (Mt 16:18). Jesus is also called a stone (1 Pt 2:6). And the apostles and prophets are called foundation stones and Jesus as the cornerstone (Eph 2:20). The Book of Revelation describes the Twelve Apostles as foundation stones (Rev 21:14). So there are a number of “stone” references that need not be mutually exclusive.
Jesus is the deepest and surest foundation of the Church. That the Apostles, prophets and, in a special way, Peter are rock is understood in a subordinate sense. That is, they are rock and foundation for the Church on account of the grace and support of Jesus.
|
|
The Protestant to whom you refer fails to see the context and metaphorical sense of the texts and terms. He also fails to see that Jesus, while not abandoning his Church as her true head and foundation, does assign Peter a unique status to be the visible and identifiable rock on which the Church will be built. Peter (and his successors) is the rock, but he does not stand in midair. He is supported by Christ and his grace and affirmed by him as the visible rock and head of the Church. The Protestant approach is to see the Church as invisible. But Jesus did not establish an invisible Church. It is visible and with a visible rock and head: Peter and his successors.
Apparently some want to play word games instead of understanding the true meaning that Christ directed Peter and the Apostles and their successors to build His Church. Peter the Rock performed his mission and was martyred for his faith in Jesus and the Catholic Church has continued to Preach the Good News and Baptize new members into the Body of Christ.
You are entitled to believe whatever you want and make up a name for your church, but if you truly believe in Jesus
Christ, then you shouldn’t try to believe only what fits your beliefs.
Jesus is the Truth and you should believe all of His teachings and that of His One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church that was built by Peter and the Apostles and their successors.
God’s Peace be with you.
Those are excellent points. Tbh, I didn’t realize until today just how many times the OT refers to God, our Redeemer and Savior as the Rock. Those passages lend depth and power to the good confession. I.e.: Jesus is affirming yet again that He is God. It is an awesome affirmation.
The foundation (Jesus Christ) isn’t - but the church is sure filled with sin-prone and fallible people. And of course extending back through history with the Hebrews as well. I love that both lineages of Jesus are filled with people with a sordid history. I think those lineages go out of their way to include them (the women for example, which typically were not included in a lineage.)
It doesn’t matter to me what a catholic wants to believe when it comes to Peter and the Pope or whatever. And I won’t bash them for it. There is a day coming when all Christians will need to set aside these differences, big and small, to join together against the muslims.
But for me, I agree that what IS building the Christian church is the revelation and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Take for example the recent stories of muslims having dreams of Jesus Christ, and only understanding them after a Christian has witnessed to them. And then they convert! (This just happened a little while ago to one of our pastors when he was visiting a school we have set up in Rwanda.)
If you guys want a church built on a very fallible and often wrong human being go for it. The error in translation calling Peter the Rock has been pointed out ad nauseum. I worship in the true Church built on the only steadfast Rock, the Rock of Ages Jesus Christ
That stories of Muslim conversions are absolutely wonderful! I pray they will come to Jesus in ever greater numbers. I also pray blessings on your pastor and the school in Rwanda; may God guard and prosper them.
So, instead of refuting the arguments presented to you, you just ignore the points against you, make an argument by assertion, and then leave?
Looks like we know who won the debate this time...
Yet we have Peter's OWN words under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit decades AFTER Jesus spoke these words to him:
I think Catholicism has FAR too much riding on their interpretation of Peter being the rock rather than Jesus Christ. If Peter is not THE rock, then there goes the dogma of the Pope of Rome being his "successor" throughout time and there goes whatever authority this successor has over all Christendom. In the first century, it was understood that an Apostle had to have the qualification of seeing the risen Lord and being His hand-picked disciple. Peter - as did the other Apostles - could pass down the teachings to those he laid hands on to carry out the work of building Christ's assembly/church. Once you got three to four generations past that (some even sooner), there was no guarantee and God's divinely-inspired word was and remains the authority for the rule of faith - not a man. The "teachings" are what is passed down - not some autocratic human authority via an institution and especially not those that were/are corrupted.
Thank you for pinging me. Yes, isn’t it wonderful that it’s Peter—not Paul, James, John or the writer of Hebrews, who teaches us about, “living stones.” We are getting this straight from Cephas! He explains that we are all stones in the spiritual house, but there is only One cornerstone: Jesus.
Amen!
“The passage contains the feminine word, ‘petra.’”
Thank you. If He had meant the guy Peter, the word would’ve been “Petros”.
“He never said to Peter, YOU are the rock on which I will build my church,”
Exactly.
Exactly. I don’t claim to be a Greek expert, but I did take two years of Koine under an ***amazing*** Greek scholar. He explained that no way would the Lord have characterized a man, Peter, as a feminine, ‘petra.’ I may not be able to use my prof’s exact words in passing his teaching along, but I got and have retained the gist of it—thank God.
This third rock from the sun is the rock upon which Christ's visible churches are built, and there is no other, literally. "Upon this rock I will build my church."
Perhaps your thesis as to the choice of the word "petra" is a little off-base, as well as that which you attribute to your Greek instructor?
Come now, this is not a Catholic vs non-Catholic issue, is it?
Please don’t put words in my mouth.
I have no wish to argue.
Thank you.
A key point
***
...until you actually read what the Apostle Peter himself wrote about who ‘the rock’ is, and Peter himself tells us that the Rock is Jesus.
QED.
I’m not a Greek expert, either. But in seminary I helped my fiance’, in the Pastoral program, study for Greek and Hebrew, and I learned a lot by doing that. Dad, a minister, also was well educated in both languages. His sermons were deep and pithy, incorporating those languages and translations. (Sadly, most sermons now are airy-fairy and feel-good shows, and not steeped in Theology.)
The “Petros” vs. “petra” is SO clear. Elementary, really. But if someone wants to create a cult, I guess it’s easy enough to pull something out of the air and run with it.
We’re in perfect agreement. The Good Confession was a very, VERY big deal. It’s all about the identity of Jesus. In the passage, Jesus has just asked the disciples who people were identifying Him as. They answered, ‘some say John the Baptist some say Elijah, or one of the prophets.’
Then comes the big question. ‘But who do YOU say that I am?’
Peter identifies Jesus as, ‘The Christ, the Son of the living God.’
In context, he’s calling Jesus God Himself. That’s a game-changing, earth shaking statement.
And it is upon this confession—the testimony that Jesus is both Messiah and God—that the church is built, as the rest of the NT makes clear.
1 Corinthians 12:3
Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.
1 John 2:23
Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.
Btw, what a blessing to have been raised by a committed pastor—and to have married a similar man of God. What an interesting life it sounds like you’ve had!
I don't see what in the Bible (or elsewhere) supports that proposition. It seems like an article of faith.
Also, Paul seems to refer to Peter as "Cephas."
"Petra" πέτρα is feminine. "Petros" Πέτρος is masculine. It would be at least awkward to call a guy Petra. It would be one thing to say that so-and-so is a πέτρα. It would be another to NAME him Πέτρα.
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.