Monday, October 19, 2020

Why 1 Corinthians 3:10-11; 10:4; Ephesians 2:19-20 and 1 Peter 2:5 does not Preclude Peter being the Rock/πετρα of Matthew 16:18

  

And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter (πετρος), and upon this rock (πετρα) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matt 16:18)

 

While I am critical of much of Roman Catholic dogmatic theology, such as the Mass, Mariology, and the Veneration of Images, I do try my best to use good, informed arguments against these and other beliefs. For instance, you will never see me bring up, as an argument against the truth claims of Catholicism, morally questionable popes, the recent child abuse scandals, etc. One argument I do not think is a good one to use is that, Peter cannot be the "rock" of Matt 16:18 as Jesus is called the "rock" and/or the person whom the church is built upon elsewhere:

 

According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. (1 Cor 3:10-11)

 

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock (πετρα) was Christ. (1 Cor 10:4)

 

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone (ἀκρογωνιαίου). (Eph 2:19-20)

 

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (1 Pet 2:5)

 

Does this mean, ipso facto, Peter cannot be the “rock” of Matt 16:18? The answer is no. This is, to be honest, a bogus argument. Consider the following points:

 

Firstly, to read the “rock” and like-terms from the above passages back into Matt 16:18 is a common but fallacious practice of “mixing metaphors.” Reformed Protestant scholar D.A. Carson noted:

 

The objection that Peter considers Jesus the rock is insubstantial because metaphors are commonly used variously, till they become stereotyped, and sometimes even then. Here Jesus builds his church; in 1 Corinthians 3:10, Paul is “an expert builder.” In 1 Corinthians 3:11, Jesus is the church’s foundation; in Ephesians 2:19–20, the apostles and prophets are the foundation (cf. also Rev 21:14), and Jesus is the “cornerstone.” Here Peter has the keys; in Revelation 1:18; 3:7, Jesus has the keys. In John 9:5, Jesus is “the light of the world”; in Matthew 5:14, his disciples are. None of these pairs threatens Jesus’ uniqueness. They simply show how metaphors must be interpreted primarily with reference to their immediate contexts. (D. A. Carson, "Matthew," in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Volume 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1984], 368)

 

Pointing out the problems with such an approach, Catholic apologist Steve Ray noted:

 

In this metaphorical description [in Matt 16:18], Jesus himself could not be the foundation, because in this illustration he presents himself as the builder. The following is very important. In Scripture Jesus is variously depicted as the foundation (1 Cor 3:11), the builder (Mt 16:18), the cornerstone (Acts 4:11), and the temple itself (Rev 21:22). We also see the apostles and/or believers as the foundation (Eph 2:20; Rev 21;14), the builders (1 Cor 3:10), the stones, λιθος, not πετρα (1 Pet 2:5), the building (1 Cor 3:9), and the temple (Eph 2:21). Many illustrative metaphors are used to explain various aspects of the Church. One cannot simply substitute one descriptive figure of speech for another in any one illustration, thereby mixing metaphors. IT does great violence to the textual illustration itself and is a good example of roughshod “proof-texting”, wrongly “dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). (Stephen K. Ray, Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church [Modern Apologetics Library; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], 36 n. 38)

 

Secondly, absolutizing 1 Cor 10:4, one must claim that the person of Jesus was transubstantiated into a literal rock during the time of their sojourn in the wilderness, as the Greek states Christ “was” (ην) the rock. Instead, Paul is borrowing from Jewish traditions about the rock that travelled with the Israelites in their sojourn, and, as such was a continuing miracle, it is attributed to Christ's divine power, thus Paul is speaking analogously here. For more, see the discussion in Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura.

 

Thirdly, such an argument assumes that only the person of Jesus can be called the rock/πετρα. However, other figures are called “rock” in the Bible. One notable example is Abraham:

 

In Isa 51:1-2, we read:

 

Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.

 

The Hebrew for "rock" here is צוּר, and the LXX uses πετρα, the same word for "rock" in Matt 16:18 and 1 Cor 10:4. Now, absolutizing 1 Cor 10:4 in the same some critics of the Papacy and/or the Petrine interpretation of Matt 16:18 does, it would mean the following:

 

(*) Only Christ is called πετρα

(*) Abraham is called πετρα in Isa 51:1-2

(*) Ergo, Abraham was an Old Testament Christophany (i.e., a pre-incarnation appearance of the pre-mortal Jesus in bodily form)

 

Of such, such is an absurdity, but it does show the problematic nature of such an eisegesis-driven approach to the Bible.

 

That Abraham is the “rock” in Isa 51:1 is readily admitted by Protestant scholars, not just biased Catholics. Consider the following examples:

 

The Jewish Midrash on v.1 reads as follows: “When God looked on Abraham who was to appear, he said, ‘Behold, I have found a rock on which I can build and base the world,’ therefore he called Abraham a rock” (SBK, 1:733). Cullmann has suggested that this passage and its midrashic interpretation may lie behind Matthew 16:18, with Peter—representing the apostles as the first Christian believers—paralleling Abraham’s place as father of the faithful, but for the new covenant. Just as Abraham’s faith in God was a pattern for the OT community that succeeded him (and, of course, for Christians, too), so that of Peter and his fellow apostles in Christ would lead to the building of the church (see O. Cullmann, Peter, Disciple, Apostle, Martyr [London: SCM, 1953]. p. 193).

 

God’s promise to Abraham included a land as well as a people (cf. Gen 17:1–8). The capital city of that land is now in ruins and its environs reduced to a wasteland, but God will comfort her (v.3; cf. 40:1–9) by transforming her land and giving her a voice to praise him. Genesis has been in view in the reference to Abraham and Sarah (v.2); and it is mentioned again when the prophet alludes to the Garden of Eden, an allusion incidentally that was clearly meaningful to the first readers of the prophecy. (Geoffrey W. Grogan, "Isaiah" in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Volume 6: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1986], 294)

 

Look to the rock from which you were hewn—The allegory is explained in the following verse: “The rock from which you were hewn” refers to their ancestor, Abraham. The phrases are somewhat elliptical and both omit ממנו (“from which”). (See Ibn Balaam [ed. Goshen-Gottstein], 206; Saadyah Gaon, 114; Ibn Ganaḥ, Sefer ha-Riqmah, 287; Ibn Ezra; Kimchi.) For the expression חצב אבן, see 2 Kgs 12:13; and for the verb חצב, see Isa 5:2; 22:16. (The root here in the archaic qal passive is sui generis.) It also appears in the first line of a Hebrew burial inscription: ברך חצבך, “Bless those who hewed you” (see R. Deutsch and M. Heltzer, Forty New Ancient West Semitic Inscriptions [Tel Aviv, 1994], 27, no. 7a, line 1) and in the Siloam Tunnel Inscription, החצבם, “the excavators” (KAI 189:4, 6; and see the following hemistich). (Shalom M. Paul, Isaiah 40-66: Translation and Commentary [Eerdmans Critical Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012], 358)

 

One final point for consideration is that of John 1:42:

 

He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas" (Κηφας), which is by interpretation, A stone (Πετρος).

 

The NASB renders this passage:

 

He brought Simon to Jesus, who looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Cephas" (which is translated Peter).

 

This passage should also be noteworthy to Latter-day Saints, as in the JST, it reads "Cephas, which is, by interpretation, a seer, or a stone" (cf. Mosiah 8:16), emphasising the important role the person of Peter would play in the early NT Church. To quote again from Reformed scholar D.A. Carson:

 

But, says Jesus, You will be called Cephas: doubtless in Aramaic the expression was pā’, a word meaning ‘rock’. The terminal ‘s’ in ‘Cephas’ reflects an attempt to give the Aramaic word a Greek spelling (a pattern also adopted by Paul, e.g. 1 Cor. 9:5; Gal. 1:18). Because most of his readers cannot be expected to know any semitic language, John provides the translation, ‘Peter’. (D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John [The Pillar New Testament Commentary; Nottingham: Apollos, 1991], 156)

 

As a group of Catholic apologists also noted:

 

What linguistic usage in John 1:42 indicates that Jesus was using Cephas to be equivalent to Peter as rock, but not as a stone? In John 1:41, the Aramaic messias is interpreted to mean the Greek christos. Likewise, in the next verse, John 1:42, in a parallel way to the previous verse, the Aramaic kepha or kephas (anglicized as “Cephas”) is translated into the Greek as petros (anglicized as Peter in English Bible versions). The parallel use of Aramaic and Greek in the two verses leads one logically to the translation: kepas = petros = “rock.” That petros may have meant stone, or even little stone in Greek at some other point in time is not apparent or relevant in the definitional usage of Aramaic and Greek in the foregoing two verses of John’s Gospel.

 

“Understanding that Jesus spoke [to Peter] in Aramaic (e.g., he called him Cephas, which is [anglicized] Aramaic, in John 1:42) and that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic as well, if Jesus had intended to characterize Peter as a “little stone” as opposed to a massive rock in John 1:42 or Matthew 16:18, there were perfectly adequate Aramaic words which could signify such a diminution. For example, evna in Aramaic means ‘little stone.’” Robert A. Sungenis, “Will the Real Rock Please Stand Up?,” letter to authors, June 1994, 4. (Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess, Jesus, Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy [Santa Barbara, Calif.: Queenship Publishing Company, 1996], 26-27)

 

As we see, arguing that Peter cannot be the “rock” of Matt 16:18 because of passages such as 1 Cor 10:4 rests on poor logic and lousy eisegesis. If one wishes to hold to an interpretation of πετρα being something other than the person of Peter (Christ or Peter’s confession, for e.g.) one will have to look elsewhere to make their case. This argument should be retired by those who care about meaningful exegesis.