Here's more

HEADER FOR Expressions

(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)

Welcome

Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."

God bless you...

Here's more

Forum: Theological Expressions
Re:

The clergy/laity distinction: a help or a hindrance to the body of Christ? (RTC)
Re:

The bible did show some how............. (Emmanuel)
Re:

More on the Rock (RTC)
Re:

Regarding the Rock.......pebbles......... (Emmanuel)
Date: 2001, Jul 30
From: RTC

From the New International Dictionary of NT Theology: In secular Greek petra means rock, a mass of rock, boulder, and stone as material. petros, likewise attested from earliest times, means a (broken off) piece of rock, stone. A strict distinction of meaning cannot however be maintained: petros can mean, rock, and petra, stone. In the NT petros is found 154 times, but in all but one of the instances (Jn. 1:42) it is used as a second name for Simon. In Matt. 16:18 Jesus calls Peter the rock on which he will build his church: “And I tell you, you are Peter [petros] and on this rock [petra] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it”. The basis here is play on the words petros and petra. According to Mk. 3:16 and Jn. 1:42, Jesus himself gave Simon the name of Peter. In Matt. Simon already bears this name when he is mentioned for the first time in Matt. 4:18; many commentators conclude from this that in Matt. 16:18 he is not given the name, but rather that the name is interpreted. In Jn. 1:42, the only place in the NT where the noun petros is used in its normal sense, it is stated that the name Kephas means petros: “He [Andrew] brought him [his brother, Simon] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas’ (which means Peter).” Both the Aram. transliteration and the Gk. translation, kephas/petros, can mean rock, and therefore petra in Matt. 16:18 can be translated as rock. The assonance of the words makes it immediately evident that Peter is the “rock-man,” the foundation on which Jesus will build his church. But in what sense is Peter the rock? The saying is recorded only by Matt. and is added after the confession that Jesus is the Christ, which is also recorded in Mk. 8:29 and Lk. 9:20 (cf. Jn. 6:68, 69). The other evangelists do not have the saying about the rock-man of Matt. 16:18. This is, however, no reason for denying the authenticity of the saying, as is often done. But what does this saying of Jesus mean? It is probable that as early as the beginning of the 3rd cent. A.D. the Roman pope was using it to support his claim to be head of the church, asserting that this position had been given to him by Christ as the successor of Peter. The Gospel account, however, makes no mention of Peter’s successors. Indeed, some Protestant commentators of today deduce from the text that Peter was accorded a position of unique significance in the church, a position given to him alone and limited to the duration of his own life. Peter may have no significance as far as the work of building is concerned, but he is of great importance in the laying of the foundation. It may be doubted, however, whether such an explanation is satisfactory: in Matt. 16:18 Jesus is not speaking of the laying of foundations, but of the building of the church. It is important to observe further that Paul, who acknowledges the apostleship of Peter (Gal. 2:8), and himself appears in his letters as the standard exponent of apostolic authority, states clearly in Gal. 2:14 that “the truth of the gospel” stands as the norm binding on all apostles, even on Peter. It is this truth again which underlies the conferring of apostolic authority on Peter in Matt. 16:18. It is implied in the confession that Jesus is the Christ, for like the gospel itself this confession is based upon divine revelation (Matt. 16:17; Gal. 1:12). This confession, which is the source of all apostolic authority, points us to Christ as the true foundation of the church. Seen in this light, the words of Matt. 16:18 are simply an interpretation of the confession of Christ in Matt. 16:16 par., and there is no reason why this interpretation should not be attributed to Jesus himself. This view accords in the main with that of the Reformers. They had no wish to found their church on the person of Peter, and certainly not on his subjective act of faith: for them the rock foundation on which Christ would build his church was the eternal, unchangeable truth of the confession of Christ. It is not, of course, the act of confession on which attention is focused, but its content: the eternal Christ, upon whom the church is founded in every age. The church founded upon this rock is covered by Christ’s promise even today, that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Matt. 16:18 has been a crucial passage in the interpretation of claims to papal supremacy and indeed in the question of whether there should be a pope at all. The term pope derives from the Lat. papa, father. In the ante-Nicene church there were such “fathers” at Alexandria and Antioch, but already in the 2nd cent. Rome was claiming an ascendency. By the time of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (248-58), papal primacy was a burning issue. lthough petros can mean a detached rock or stone and petra a mass of living rock, the two words could be used interchangeably. Without further clear indication it is impossible to build any firm argument on the distinction between the two words. If, therefore, the rock is Peter himself, the passage gives no grounds for thinking that Jesus gave him this name in virtue of his stable character. In fact, his vacillation under pressure gives a certain irony to the name. It would seem that Peter was the rock in the sense that he was the first member of the church proper. In the context of Christ’s pronouncement Peter is the representative spokesman of the disciples, the first to confess Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God. As such, he is assured that flesh and blood has not revealed this to him but the Father in heaven (Matt. 16:16 f.). He used the keys of the kingdom in opening the church first to the Jews (Acts 2) and then to the Gentiles (Acts 10) by proclaiming the gospel to them. He exercised leadership in the appointment of Matthias to the apostolic band in replacement of Judas (Acts 1) and discipline in the case of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11). He figured prominently in the early days of the church in bearing witness before the Jews and their leaders. However, once the church was thus opened and established, Peter’s foundational role is essentially over. After his imprisonment (Acts 12) he began to occupy a less prominent place. His work was confined to the Jewish mission (Gal. 2:8). In the first great council of the church depicted in Acts 15 it was James, the Lord’s brother, who presided (Acts 15:19 ff.). Although Peter played an important part in the debate (Acts 15:7 ff.), it was James who delivered the decisive judgment. Moreover, nowhere in the NT does Peter lay claim to primacy. In the opening verses of the two epistles of Peter, the author describes himself as an apostle, and this is how Paul views him (1 Cor. 9:5). Eph. 2:20 allows a foundational role to the apostles and prophets but insists with the Gospels that Christ is the : believers constitute “the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone” (Eph. 2:19 f.). Similarly the new Jerusalem in Rev. 21:14 is built on the foundation of the apostles. This theme is taken up by Peter himself when he describes believers as “living stones . . . built into a spiritual house” (1 Pet. 2:5). There is no thought of the foundation of Peter continuing right through the building. Neither the epistles nor Acts give any hint of a permanent primacy and jurisdiction of Peter, still less of such authority being handed on to possible successors. In itself the passage (in Jn. 21:16 to "feed my lambs") indicates the kind of task to which Peter was commissioned; not his place in the hierarchy of the church. The promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church pictures Hades as the abode of the dead and the ekklesia as the people of God wandering (like ancient Israel) before it through a land occupied by hostile powers which it cannot avoid, but which it will assuredly overcome. Not even the armed fortress of death through which Christ and his people must pass will be able to prevent them from attaining their goal. Whilst it seems probable that Peter visited Rome (cf. 1 Pet. 5:13), there is no hint that Peter was ever bishop of Rome. Indeed, the primary document for the church at Rome in the sub-apostolic age is 1 Clement, but this letter seems to know nothing of the primacy of a bishop of Rome. The church of Rome at that time seems to be governed by a college of presbyters. The letter was sent in the name of the church, and is attributed to Clement personally only by a variant ending preserved in some later manuscripts. Such considerations undermine not only the idea of a special teaching primacy vouchsafed to Peter but also the idea of a hierarchical teaching magisterium formally vested in the episcopal office of the church. In secular Greek lithos (Homer onwards) means stone. In general lithos can describe stones of every sort. In the NT most instances of the word lithos are in the Synoptic Gospels, especially Matt.; it occurs only occasionally in Paul, in 1 Pet. and in Rev. It is used lit. of a mill-stone (Lk. 17:2), a boulder (Matt. 27:60 par. Mk. 15:46; Matt. 28:2 par. 16:3 f.; cf. Lk. 24:2; Jn. 20:1) or a precious stone (Rev. 18:12, 16; 21:11, 19). Its fig. use is chiefly in connexion with OT quotations which are given a messianic interpretation. ++++++++ That's some edited text from a rather long article. For me, I do not just take this verse and bang on it, and construct an entire papacy edifice based on one controversial verse. How this verse should be interpreted should be guided by the light thrown by the rest of the NT. Does Acts and the rest of the NT gives any such expressed notion of primacy to Peter as Pope? The honest reader would say no. Here's another thought that I have. In Revelation where Jesus was speaking to the churches, there's no mention at all about Peter if he was to be the foundation of the church. At least I should think that Jesus should ask the churches to do some correction based on an established ecclesiastical order rather than to ask the churches to heed His words to them, if a hierarchy has been intended by Jesus to be visibly headed by Peter.