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.
Monsignor Pope Ping for OSV colum!
Correct source — OSV.com
Fixing this
Monsignor Pope Ping for OSV column!
My thought is that this is fundamentally dishonest. Peter cannot be the rock because Jesus very deliberately shifts from masculine Peter-rock—Petros—to feminine rock—petra—to describe the foundation. I.e.: the foundation is the Good Confession. [Even Augustine—a man of no mean scholarship—confirmed this.]
If the author does not know or will not admit that this is the real issue then he’s either too uneducated to opine or too dishonest to address the truth. ‘B,’ is far more likely.
The word game essentially becomes meaningless when you also examine the word “Peter” as well as the word “rock”. He didn’t say Borgia, or Francis. Or say he was building a fabulously wealthy fuedal monarchy with temporal leaders. Its also helpful to remember that when the words were written in 70 AD, that everyone hearing them had already died. So it’s dicey to parse the precise words and punctuation as you would a tape recording. Everyone treasures Peter, but this has taken on a life of its own. It became a football when the Roman Empire wanted all of Christiandom to place the church in Rome superior to the older ones in place, and where the events actually happened.
I presume that some do not know the Greek was the translation from the Aramaic the language that Jesus and Simon spoke. There was no distinction between petros and petra.
Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter?
Jesus gave the power to bind and loosen?
Jesus established a visible and hierarchical church
We know from elsewhere in Scripture Jesus clearly intends his church to be visible with a hierarchical structure. Take for example Matthew 16:18-19: Jesus promises to make Peter the rock upon which he will build his church, which indicates Jesus’ intention for Peter to be the visible foundation for the Church of Christ on Earth—a visible marker that identifies Jesus’ true church. Wherever the foundation is, there is the true church.
Jesus also gives Peter the keys of the kingdom (Matt. 16:19). In the Jewish tradition, the image of the keys signifies a governing role in the Davidic kingdom known as the royal steward (see Isa. 22:15-22). If Peter is a governor, then there must be a society to govern. Sounds like a visible and hierarchical church to me.
In another passage in Matthew, Jesus makes it clear the church, and not the individual, is the final court of appeal when it comes to settling disputes among Christians:
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:15-18)
Thank you, Salvation!
I believe the author has enough education to think Jesus was not speaking Greek. What you are referencing is a translation.
“Is there an answer for this? — Allen Desome, Washington, D.C. ”
A good example of someone who wants someone to justify what he was taught, instead of seeking truth from Scripture.
He has outsourced his mind instead of obeying the command of God to “study to show yourself approved, a workman who rightly handles the Word of Truth.”
I think the reference in Matthew 16 is pretty explicit (the name change tells the story), and I have never heard a protestant explanation (other than the obvious) that didn’t sound forced and even a bit embarrassing.
For the other team, I think that the “complete” form of apostolic succession wherein the Bishop of Rome is automatically “Peter” is also contrived and embarrassing. “Incomplete” apostolic succession, where bishops are chosen and then invested by laying on of hands by the brothers seems quite solid.
“Greek was the translation from the Aramaic the language that Jesus and Simon spoke”
No.
The Holy Spirit inspired the NT in Greek. The words are His and they are Greek words.
The reason the writer probably used that Greek form of Rock, was that the writer is thought to be a greek-speaking Jewish man 70 to 90 years later. Both sides of this debate are missing the point by trying to parse the words so carefully. Jesus loved and tapped Peter. And Jesus did not appoint any ongoing line of succession. Protestants should not try to minimize the meaning of Jesus saying this to Peter. And the RCC needs to stop seeing it as license to see themselves as the seat of all of Christianity, and claiming the current pope is serving directly under Peter with all the authority of Christ. Both corners in the debate are destructive.
The reason the writer probably used that Greek form of Rock, was that the writer is thought to be a greek-speaking Jewish man 70 to 90 years later. Both sides of this debate are missing the point by trying to parse the words so carefully. Jesus loved and tapped Peter. And Jesus did not appoint any ongoing line of succession. Protestants should not try to minimize the meaning of Jesus saying this to Peter. And the RCC needs to stop seeing it as license to see themselves as the seat of all of Christianity, and claiming the current pope is serving directly under Peter with all the authority of Christ. Both corners in the debate are destructive.
Are the words of Scripture divinely inspired or not?
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
So taking the words of divinely inspired Scripture at face value is parsing?
You can’t mean that.
Sure they are. But I don’t believe your FreeRepublic comments are.
Is the word, ‘petra,’ as used to designate the foundation an error?
It’s a translation.
Is the Scripture in the form we have it inerrant or error-prone?
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.