Organization: University at Buffalo
X-Envelope-to: christia@asuacad.bitnet
X-VMS-To: CHRISTIA
X-VMS-Cc: PSYROBTW
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 01:15:16 -0400
From:         Robert Weiss <PSYROBTW@UBVMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Church and Rome

Brad Kaiser writes...

bk> Robert Weiss said previously:
bk>
bk> >>   I don't know about Protestants, but it seems that the
bk> >>  revelation that Peter gave was the rock on which the church was built.
bk> >>  The rock of revelation...

[...]

bk> The notion that Jesus is not identifying Peter with the "Rock" upon
bk> which He founds His Church, but is identifying Peter's confession as
bk> that Rock instead, is not a new one.

     And there is also the third way, that of Jesus being the rock on which
     His church was built. This was the view of Jerome and Augustine.

bk> In the text, Jesus tells Peter "you are 'Petros'", and says "... on
bk> this 'petra' I will build my Church".  The two words are the same;
bk> they have different endings because the writer of the Gospel has to
bk> change 'petra' to 'Petros' in order to make it the proper name of a
bk> man; 'petra' is feminine.  (As Victor can attest, the same sort of
bk> thing occurs in German, and in many other languages.  We lose it in
bk> English, because English is not an inflected language.)  To decide
bk> that the same word, used twice in a sentence, refers to two different
bk> things is unnatural in the absence of any evidence.

     There isn't an absence of evidence. There is a change of gender
     indicating a change of subject. What is interesting is that a revelation
     takes the feminine gender. It appears that there are two complete,
     distinct statements: "Thou art Peter," and "Upon this rock I will build
     my church."

     The gates of Hell were not to prevail against the church. But the gates
     of Hell did prevail against Peter shortly afterward, as recorded just
     five verses later when Jesus rebuked him, "Get thee behind me, Satan;
     thou art a stumbling block unto me, for thou mindest not the things of
     God but the things of men" (v23).

     When I read this I questioned if this was the Petra that the church was
     founded upon.

bk> Two noted Protestant Bible scholars, W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann,
bk> had this to say about the passage:
bk>
bk>    In view of the background of verse 19 ... one must dismiss as
bk>    confessional interpretation [biased by denominational views] any
bk>    attempt to see 'this rock' as meaning the faith, or the Messianic
bk>    confession of Peter. ... The keys are a symbol of authority ... The
bk>    general sense of the passage is indisputable ... Peter is the rock
bk>    on which the new community will be built, and in that community,
bk>    Peter's authority to 'bind' or 'release' will be a carrying out of
bk>    decisions made in heaven.  His teaching and disciplinary activities
bk>    will be similarly guided by the Spirit to carry out Heaven's will.
bk>
bk> [Albright & Mann, Anchor Bible 26, pp. 195-198]

     The TNTC is similar. It reads, "It is only Protestant overreaction to the
     Roman Catholic claim (which of course has no foundation in the text),
     that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later Bishops of
     Rome, that has led some to claim that the `rock' here is not Peter at all
     but the faith which he has just confessed." (_Tyndale New Testament
     Commentary_1, RT France, p254).

     It seems that Mann and France went to the same school. :) One states that
     a certain view is held because of bias, the other, because of
     overreaction. I think that if we dismiss these ad hominem remarks we will
     be better off. There are those of all denominations that view this
     passage outside of the interpretation that is being presented here (more
     further on).

bk> For more information on the keys as a symbol of authority, see Is.
bk> 22:22.  While you have your Bible open, look also at Lk 22:31-32 and
bk> Jn 21:15-19, where Jesus confirms Peter's authority before (Luke) and
bk> after (John) His resurrection.

     It doesn't appear that Jesus is confirming Peter's alleged authority in
     Luke 22:32. When He tells Peter "when you have been turned again,
     strengthen your brothers," it appears that Peter will be a source of
     encouragement.

     In John 21:15-19, Jesus is telling Peter to feed and shepherd His lambs.
     This is not giving primary authority to Peter, but rather defining the
     ministerial role of pastor for Peter. Feeding and tending the flock is
     the duty and service of all those who answer the calling of pastor.


bk> Finally, what did early Christians say about these verses?  Here's a
bk> sample:

     [...]

     Brad, I have found that whenever there is a verse that is supposed to be
     interpreted one way, an appeal to the Fathers and Doctors of the church
     is self-defeating. The main reason is that there isn't a consensus on
     *anything* in the Fathers. In the Eerdman's translation of the
     Ante-Nicene Fathers (v5, p561), A. Cleveland Coxe, DD, offers this
     Elucidation on the Treatises of Cyprian:

     "Launoi, the emminent Gallican, found but seventeen of the Ftahers and
     Doctors of the Church (among whom he reckons `Fathers' down to the
     twelfth century) who understand St. Peter to be `the rock,' and he cites
     forty of the contrary opinion [Guettee, p.143, ed. New York]. Yet of the
     `seventeen,' most of them speak only rhetorically, and with justifiable
     freedom. I have often done the same thing myself, on the principle which
     the same apostle applies to all Christians: `Ye also as lively stones,'
     [Compare _Peshito Syriac_, where Cephas is the very word applied to all
     believers, Ed. Trostii, 1621] etc.

     "But it is quite noteworthy that the Council of Trent [from Richter,
     _Canones et Decreta_, etc., p.10. ed. Lipsiae, 1853] itself momentarily
     adopts the prevailing patristic and therefore the Catholic
     Interpretation, speaking of the Nicene Creed: `In quo omnes qui fidem
     Christi profitentur necessario conveniunt, ac fundamentum firmum et
     unicum, contra quod portae inferi nunquam praevalebunt (Matt. xvi. 18).'

     "Thus, the faith of Peter is confessed the only foundation, in a direct
     exposition of the text so often quoted with another intent. In spite of
     all this, the Creed of Pius IV. was enjoined as soon as that council
     closed; and every member of the late Vatican Council was made to profess
     the same verbally before any other business was undertaken. Now, even
     this spurious creed forced them to swear concerning the Holy Scriptures,
     `I will never take and interpret them otherwise than according to the
     unanimous consent of the Fathers.' Obviously, according to this rule,
     there is no Catholic doctrine on this subject; much less any Catholic
     teaching to the effect that the modern bishops of Rome are `the rock,' as
     really as St. Peter himself."


=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU