Another "rock" question

[Deus_Solus]

I figure that I should introduce myself since this is my first post in this forum. I come from a strong fundamentalist church background. God, in his grace, has set me on a search for His Truth and His Church. I have been intensely exploring the doctrines of the Catholic Church, and in them I have found a lot of what I found to be lacking in my fundamentalist upbringing. Fundamentalist doctrines, however, have are still deeply ingrained within me. I am confident though that, despite myself, God will ultimately lead me to the Truth.

 That being said, lets get down to business. I have been recently studying a lot about the Church’s claims to authority and Apostolic succession, most of which is seems  to be scripturally based on Matthew 16:18, which I am still having problems with. 

 I am familiar with the *Petros* / *petra* distinction in the Greek (as well as their synonymous nature in the Koine), as well as the Aramaic *Kephas* / *kephas* argument for Jesus’ designation of Peter as the leader of the Church. I am also familiar that Jesus is usually referred to in the New Testament figuratively and metaphorically as *lithos* (Matt. 21:42, Mark 12:10, Acts 4:11, Rom. 9:33 among others). However, Jesus is also referred to as *petra* in Rom 9:33 and I Cor. 10:4. I realize that Jesus did give Simon the name Peter, but that notwithstanding, if we are to interpret the Bible in a uniform fashion, how can Peter be the “rock” mentioned in Matthew 16:18 if nowhere else in the Old or New Testament is there a record of an individual figuratively or metaphorically referred to as a “rock” other than God Himself?

 Thanks in advance for your thoughts.:)

 

[mtr01]

Deus Solus:

I realize that Jesus did give Simon the name Peter, but that notwithstanding, if we are to interpret the Bible in a uniform fashion, how can Peter be the “rock” mentioned in Matthew 16:18 if nowhere else in the Old or New Testament is there a record of an individual figuratively or metaphorically referred to as a “rock” other than God Himself?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Just a quick thought to ponder before the heavy debate begins…

If Jesus gave Simon a name that was only ever used to refer to God, what do you think that means in terms of it’s importance? Doesn’t that seem like something pretty important in and of itself?

 

[adventistnomore]

Perhaps that’s a paradox equivalent to reconciling this verse:

“For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor. 3:11)

with these:

“…built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.” (Eph 2:20)

“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” (Rev. 21:14)

Somehow the Church is built upon Christ alone, and yet also on the apostles. These two ideas are not opposing one another. The apostles acted in perfect unity with Christ, as Acts 15:28 says (when describing the ruling of the Jerusalem Council): “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” Christ inspired the apostles, and they were under His perfect guidance. In that case the Bible itself claims that we are built upon the apostles, because we are built upon Christ Himself through their ministry, teaching, and sacrifice. And Peter, in a special way, was singled out by Christ when he prophesied of the establishment of the Church in Matthew 16.

Don’t think either/or… Christ didn’t and neither did the Biblical writers. We are built upon Christ, and the Apostles through which He established the Catholic Church.

• Hugo.

 

[teajay]

Also it appears to be an act of delegation of authority. To delegate a power means to “commit (authority, power, etc.) to an agent or deputy”. If A delegates authority to B, A still retains that authority himself. This frequently occurs in government. So it wasn’t the transfer of power in any way, but the delegation of power.

So you might imagine that Jesus is the rock, but given he was to leave Earth in physical form, Peter was a ‘delegated’ rock. So technically there is a distinction, but to us who are lower than both in authority, they are both rocks.

 

[FyodorFan]

Hi. I’m new here, too.

I wanted to add that an awesome thing about the Lord is that he literally pours out Himself as a gift of love to us. Not just His righteousness–but everything. His Body and Blood (in the Eucharist). His Life (that is, grace). And His very Rock-ness (i.e. His authority). Not that we deserve any of it. So, yes, God is the Rock first and foremost–but He let’s Peter share in that as a free gift of love. Since Jesus’s goodness, love, authority (rock-ness) etc. is infinite, He can give to others without losing one drop of His own glory.

Rose

 

[BibleReader]

This is a really, REALLY cool question by one who loves Scripture! God bless you, man!

Just by way of a preliminary note: It’s not just Matthew 16:18. It’s also Luke 5:1-3 (note that it’s Simon Peter’s boat!); and Peter who bears the sword (the word of God, Ephesians 6:17) when Malchus’ ear is cut off (receives the word poorly) so that Christ repairs the hearing; and Peter who drags in the net of “fish” – souls from the sea of damnable souls, John 21:11; and Peter who is told three times to take care of the sheep, John 21:15-17.

Verses which rip-into Peter – and there are a bunch of them – are expressions of divine anger at the papacy for the sins it will commit in spite of the authority it is being given.

I.e., the Church of Peter is THE Church in spite of things like the corruption which generated the Reformation, and in spite of the priest sex business in the news today.

Now, your point…

While we see Jesus characterized AS “the rock,” we also see Jesus portrayed as being IN “the rock.”

So, in Genesis 19, Lot and his two daughters retreat to a rock house – a cave – where sleeping Lot, with wine-filled veins, “marries” his two daughters, and begets Gentile babies by them. What’s going on there?

“Daughters” = Woman Type = “mankind in need of salvation.”

“Two” = “the Church.”

“Cave” = “the Church.”

“Wine” = “the blood of Christ.”

“Sleeping” = “dead.”

Sleeping Lot drunk with wine = dead Christ. In the cave = dead Christ in His Church. The two girls are the people of God’s Church in need of salvation. Sex in the cave between the girls and Christ = the same union portrayed in the Song of Songs – Christ “marrying” His people in the Church. The resulting Gentile babies are the converts the Church will generate among the people.

So, here, the “rock” – the rock cave – = “the Church,” and Christ is IN it.

In Genesis 23, the cave for burying people purchased by Abraham is a picture of the Church purchased by Christ. Note that once again the purchaser, Abraham, is buried IN the rock, with Sarah (a woman = “mankind in need of salvation”).

In Genesis 28, when Jacob sleeps on the rock pillow, dreams of the stairway to Heaven, and sets up the rock as a pillar which is “God’s house,” that, right there, is very much an expression of dead Christ applying His death to the Church and then setting up the Church.

In Judges 6:20-21, when fire comes from a rock and consumes Gideon’s meat and bread, the meat = Christ, the bread = the Eucharist – Identification by Juxtaposition, where two things are laid side-by-side to say A = B – the fire is God accepting the sacrifice and the “rock” upon which the sacrifice takes place is “the Church.”

How about “rocks” as “the Church” personified in the popes? See Matthew 3:9, Luke 3:8, Luke 19:40.

 

[scylla]

I never understood this as an arguement from a view outside the Church. When I heard people argueing over the meaning of this this seemed so meaningless for me. The reason why is this, everyone gets so caught up in proving that Peter wasn’t the rock, or that Jesus was, but ignore the whole statement. Jesus would make a Church that would endure. Which Church is that? Which Church is the only one that really qualifies and traces Peter as one of its earthly spiritual leaders.
Trying to argue against the meaning of what Christ was meaning also makes the whole context not make sense.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I had long thought that God is the only one to call rock because of the Psalm which poetically states that only God is a rock.
However,

Isaiah 51:1-2

Points out that Abraham, the great founding father of many nations was also called rock.

– Sorry I wasn’t around when the post first happened –

Doesn’t that just intensify the argument between Jesus and the Pharasees, If Abraham was your father… ?
And their retort, we have God as our father.

Jn 8:39-42

hmm…