Re: Protestants and Catholics working together

Chris Smith wrote:
<lsenders@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And here we have the pressure point upon which the entire inverted
pyramid of RC theology is resting. If there was ever any verse in the
Bible which needed context or supporting scripture to determine its
interpretation, this one would be one at the top of the list.

[snip uses of "rock" as metaphors for God]

Before looking for "context" from other books of scripture, you might
first consider the context from the verse you're reading. The verse
itself, textually, precludes the interpretation you argue. One might
argue whether Christ truly meant that He would found his church on Peter
as a person, or on the faith as embodied by Peter, or some other
equivocation; but to argue that Jesus' "rock" had nothing to do with
Peter is silly. It is equivalent to saying that Jesus intentionally
mislead his listeners, who surely noticed that he: (a) called Peter the
rock, and then immediately (b) stated that he would found his Church on
that rock. Do you really think no one drew the connection?

There are few here who are not familiar with the controversy over the
meaning of the statement,

Matt. 16:18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this
rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not
overpower it. [NASB]

.. . .particularly over the identity of "this rock." In the view of the
RCC Peter as the first bishop of Rome is that rock, and therefore no
church without a Petrine foundation can have any claim to legitimacy.
The RCC regards Peter as the first bishop of Rome and the following
bishops of Rome (i.e., Popes) as Peter's historical successors. From
its interpretation of verses 18 and 19 the RCC concludes that (a) it
is the only legitimate church, since it alone can trace its lineage
back to Peter, and (b) verse 19 establishes the infallibility of the
Pope and the Church.

Matt. 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and
whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and
whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." [NASB]

Now the Protestant reaction to the RC claim, is to assert that the
rock has nothing to do with Peter and is in fact Peter's confession.
Others reject both views by appealing to those passages that affirm
that Christ is the foundation. For example, in 1 Cor 3:11, Paul
asserts that "no one can lay any foundation other than the one already
laid, which is Jesus Christ" (NIV). But no one of these three
solutions is entirely satisfying . There appears to be an element of
truth in each of the three explanations.

First, it must be pointed out that the conclusions which the RCC draws
from the identification of Peter as the rock on which the church is
built are not supported by either biblical or historical evidence.

1) There is no historical documented evidence that Peter was ever even
in Rome, let alone granted the title as being the "bishop of Rome.".
2) Simply put, the text states nothing about Peter's successors. In
fact, the entire idea of an apostolic succession is a contradiction in
terms. An apostle is defined in Acts 1:21-22 as one who had been with
Jesus since the beginning of His ministry and who had been an
eyewitness of the resurrection. Therefore in that sense the apostles
did not, and could not, have any successors.
3) There is no evidence that Jesus, or the remaining apostles, or
anyone else for that matter regarded Peter as infallible. In fact, in
the following paragraph, Jesus rebukes Peter in the strongest terms
(Mt. 16:23). Paul did the same thing in their dispute about the
evangelization of the Gentiles (Gal. 2:11).

Yet beyond these worthy objections, with qualification, the RC view is
correct in identifying Peter as the rock in verse 18 upon which the
church is built -with qualification. Everywhere it is recognized that
Jesus was using a pun in that verse. Unfortunately for us, the pun
cannot easily be translated into English. The language Jesus spoke
was Aramaic, the Semitic language of Palestine at that time, in which
the words for Peter and rock are identical. That word is kepha. So
Jesus' assertion is "You are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my
church."

Kepha was not Peter's name. His name was Simon. Kepha was a nickname
given to him by Jesus (Jn 1:42). In Mt 16:18 Jesus is using Simon's
nickname in a pun. We can attempt to convey the sense of this pun
into English by translating Kepha as "Rocky." "You are Rocky, and upon
this rock I will build my church."

The NT was written in Greek in which it is equally difficult to
translate this pun. The Greek word for "rock" is petra, which is
feminine and therefore cannot be used as a masculine name, so Matthew
translates the first Kepha as Petros, the masculine form of petra.
But petros means stone, not rock, and was not used as a name at that
time. In fact, each occurrence of Petros in the NT refers to Simon's
nickname (that is, Peter, or Kepha, or Rocky).

So it seems that Jesus intended to identify Peter as the rock.
However, there is considerable truth in the Protestant reaction to the
claims of the RCC. After all, Peter was hardly a rock-like person.
He was unstable, wavering, and impetuous, and when understood in the
Jewish context of the rabbi / telmead relationship, his denying Jesus
as his rabbi exhibits extreme weakness. No true telmead ever denied
his rabbi. However, in this we gain the understanding of the context
of v 18 which informs us that the rock is not Peter the unstable
person, but Peter the confessor of Jesus as the Messiah. The rock on
which the church is built is not Peter the unsteady person who denied
the Lord, but Peter who affirmed that Jesus was the Christ the Son of
the living God. As FF Bruce observes, "what matters is not the
stature of the confessor but the truth of the confession."

So how do we interpret those passages which refer to Christ as the
foundation of the church? Jesus describes Himself as the chief
cornerstone (Mt. 21:42, Mk. 12:10) and Peter confirms that
identification (1 Pet. 2:7). Such passages do not contradict Jesus'
description of Peter as the foundation of the church in Mt 16:18.
Biblical metaphors are used in a variety of ways and they have to be
interpreted in their specific context. For example, in Mt 16 Jesus is
the builder, but in 1 Cor 3, Paul is an "expert builder." In the
former context, Peter is the rock on which the church is built,
whereas in the latter, Christ is the foundation. In still another
context (Eph. 2:20), Paul states that the church is built upon the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, as we will discuss below.

But these different ways of describing the foundation of the church
are neither logically nor mutually exclusive. In one sense the person
and work of the Christ remains the foundation of the church. But in
another sense Peter's confession of Jesus as the Messiah is the basis
for the existence of the church. When Paul states in Eph 2:20 that
the church is built upon "the foundation of the apostles and
prophets," he is not implying that the apostles and prophets
constitute a different foundation from Christ. But the apostles
exercised the authority of Christ, and it is on that basis that their
work was foundational. For example, the doctrinal foundation of the
church is the apostles' doctrine (Acts 2:42). What the apostles
taught has the imprimatur of Christ and reflected His delegated
authority.

Like the apostles, prophets in the NT received distinct gifts which
permitted them to perform their ministry of prediction and
proclamation. The purpose of the prophetic mission was the
edification, exhortation, and consolation of the church (1 Cor.
14:3). There is evidence that in the NT prophets sometimes received
special revelation from God, which they in turn conveyed to the
church. However after the establishment of the NT canon, the need for
such gifts disappeared. The prophetic gift still exists today but as
understood exclussively in it biblical "9 times out of 10" distinction
meaning "forth-telling" not "fore-telling."

We could review a history of the church in regards to this dilemma,
but it would only show that the teachings of apostolic succession,
eccumentical unification and the like are all outside of the first and
second century church. The spectrum of RCC doctrine establishing
preeminence is outside of the apostolic record and outside of the
historical record of the early church. In fact, when one takes a hard
look at the sequence of events, it proves clear that the rise came
from individuals seeking to establish their own little kingdoms which
in turn lead to idea of ecclesiastical preeminence. Following the NT
discription of the early church, there would have been numerous
individual assemblies in Rome. How one particular denomination came
to be established in beyond the scope of this post. Let it only be
said that it was not established by Christ nor a precipate of
apostolic teaching. It was purely self serving. It was the
establishment of "religion," not what Christ had emphasized by the
"strong" Peter.

There are few here who are not familiar with the controversy over the
meaning of the statement,

Matt. 16:18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this
rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not
overpower it. [NASB]

.. . .particularly over the identity of "this rock." In the view of the
RCC Peter as the first bishop of Rome is that rock, and therefore no
church without a Petrine foundation can have any claim to legitimacy.
The RCC regards Peter as the first bishop of Rome and the following
bishops of Rome (i.e., Popes) as Peter's historical successors. From
its interpretation of verses 18 and 19 the RCC concludes that (a) it
is the only legitimate church, since it alone can trace its lineage
back to Peter, and (b) verse 19 establishes the infallibility of the
Pope and the Church.

Matt. 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and
whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and
whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." [NASB]

Now the Protestant reaction to the RC claim, is to assert that the
rock has nothing to do with Peter and is in fact Peter's confession.
Others reject both views by appealing to those passages that affirm
that Christ is the foundation. For example, in 1 Cor 3:11, Paul
asserts that "no one can lay any foundation other than the one already
laid, which is Jesus Christ" (NIV). But no one of these three
solutions is entirely satisfying . There appears to be an element of
truth in each of the three explanations.

First, it must be pointed out that the conclusions which the RCC draws
from the identification of Peter as the rock on which the church is
built are not supported by either biblical or historical evidence.

1) There is no historical documented evidence that Peter was ever even
in Rome, let alone granted the title as being the "bishop of Rome.".
2) Simply put, the text states nothing about Peter's successors. In
fact, the entire idea of an apostolic succession is a contradiction in
terms. An apostle is defined in Acts 1:21-22 as one who had been with
Jesus since the beginning of His ministry and who had been an
eyewitness of the resurrection. Therefore in that sense the apostles
did not, and could not, have any successors.
3) There is no evidence that Jesus, or the remaining apostles, or
anyone else for that matter regarded Peter as infallible. In fact, in
the following paragraph, Jesus rebukes Peter in the strongest terms
(Mt. 16:23). Paul did the same thing in their dispute about the
evangelization of the Gentiles (Gal. 2:11).

Yet beyond these worthy objections, with qualification, the RC view is
correct in identifying Peter as the rock in verse 18 upon which the
church is built -with qualification. Everywhere it is recognized that
Jesus was using a pun in that verse. Unfortunately for us, the pun
cannot easily be translated into English. The language Jesus spoke
was Aramaic, the Semitic language of Palestine at that time, in which
the words for Peter and rock are identical. That word is kepha. So
Jesus' assertion is "You are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my
church."

Kepha was not Peter's name. His name was Simon. Kepha was a nickname
given to him by Jesus (Jn 1:42). In Mt 16:18 Jesus is using Simon's
nickname in a pun. We can attempt to convey the sense of this pun
into English by translating Kepha as "Rocky." "You are Rocky, and upon
this rock I will build my church."

The NT was written in Greek in which it is equally difficult to
translate this pun. The Greek word for "rock" is petra, which is
feminine and therefore cannot be used as a masculine name, so Matthew
translates the first Kepha as Petros, the masculine form of petra.
But petros means stone, not rock, and was not used as a name at that
time. In fact, each occurrence of Petros in the NT refers to Simon's
nickname (that is, Peter, or Kepha, or Rocky).

So it seems that Jesus intended to identify Peter as the rock.
However, there is considerable truth in the Protestant reaction to the
claims of the RCC. After all, Peter was hardly a rock-like person.
He was unstable, wavering, and impetuous, and when understood in the
Jewish context of the rabbi / telmead relationship, his denying Jesus
as his rabbi exhibits extreme weakness. No true telmead ever denied
his rabbi. However, in this we gain the understanding of the context
of v 18 which informs us that the rock is not Peter the unstable
person, but Peter the confessor of Jesus as the Messiah. The rock on
which the church is built is not Peter the unsteady person who denied
the Lord, but Peter who affirmed that Jesus was the Christ the Son of
the living God. As FF Bruce observes, "what matters is not the
stature of the confessor but the truth of the confession."

So how do we interpret those passages which refer to Christ as the
foundation of the church? Jesus describes Himself as the chief
cornerstone (Mt. 21:42, Mk. 12:10) and Peter confirms that
identification (1 Pet. 2:7). Such passages do not contradict Jesus'
description of Peter as the foundation of the church in Mt 16:18.
Biblical metaphors are used in a variety of ways and they have to be
interpreted in their specific context. For example, in Mt 16 Jesus is
the builder, but in 1 Cor 3, Paul is an "expert builder." In the
former context, Peter is the rock on which the church is built,
whereas in the latter, Christ is the foundation. In still another
context (Eph. 2:20), Paul states that the church is built upon the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, as we will discuss below.

But these different ways of describing the foundation of the church
are neither logically nor mutually exclusive. In one sense the person
and work of the Christ remains the foundation of the church. But in
another sense Peter's confession of Jesus as the Messiah is the basis
for the existence of the church. When Paul states in Eph 2:20 that
the church is built upon "the foundation of the apostles and
prophets," he is not implying that the apostles and prophets
constitute a different foundation from Christ. But the apostles
exercised the authority of Christ, and it is on that basis that their
work was foundational. For example, the doctrinal foundation of the
church is the apostles' doctrine (Acts 2:42). What the apostles
taught has the imprimatur of Christ and reflected His delegated
authority.

Like the apostles, prophets in the NT received distinct gifts which
permitted them to perform their ministry of prediction and
proclamation. The purpose of the prophetic mission was the
edification, exhortation, and consolation of the church (1 Cor.
14:3). There is evidence that in the NT prophets sometimes received
special revelation from God, which they in turn conveyed to the
church. However after the establishment of the NT canon, the need for
such gifts disappeared. The prophetic gift still exists today but as
understood exclussively in it biblical "9 times out of 10" distinction
meaning "forth-telling" not "fore-telling."

We could review a history of the church in regards to this dilemma,
but it would only show that the teachings of apostolic succession,
eccumentical unification and the like are all outside of the first and
second century church. The spectrum of RCC doctrine establishing
preeminence is outside of the apostolic record and outside of the
historical record of the early church. In fact, when one takes a hard
look at the sequence of events, it proves clear that the rise came
from individuals seeking to establish their own little kingdoms which
in turn lead to idea of ecclesiastical preeminence. Following the NT
discription of the early church, there would have been numerous
individual assemblies in Rome. How one particular denomination came
to be established in beyond the scope of this post. Let it only be
said that it was not established by Christ nor a precipate of
apostolic teaching. It was purely self serving. It was the
establishment of "religion," not what Christ had emphasized by the
"strong" Peter.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Query concerning dating of Scripture interpretations.
    ... we know from scripture that Jesus put Peter in charge. ... rock on which the Church would be built' [Matt. ...
    (alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic)
  • Re: are Catholics Christians ?!
    ... because no one is saved by their church ... The Fathers did not think that the rock was Peter, ... the words of Jesus and context on my side what do you ... Jesus asked the disciples who they thought he was, ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Is The Roman Catholic Church The One True Church
    ... I should reply that He made Peter ... is not the only pillar of the Church. ... Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" ... Instead this is another example of Jesus making clear who is the one ...
    (alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic)
  • Re: Is The Roman Catholic Church The One True Church
    ... I should reply that He made Peter ... is not the only pillar of the Church. ... Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" ... Instead this is another example of Jesus making clear who is the one ...
    (alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic)
  • Re: Is God Catholic?
    ... "Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, ... rock on which the Church would be built' [Matt. ... Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not ...
    (alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic)
Loading