[soc.religion.christian] "... and upon this rock ..."

root@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (System Manager) (10/29/90)

As far as the meaning of the words: "... and upon this rock I shall build
my church!", we must first pause to consider the fact that the Mission of
Jesus was of a *spiritual* nature, and that His words therefore can best
be grasped in their spiritual meaning.

For example, "Unless a man be born again ...", "My kingdom is not of this
world", "This generation shall not pass ...", "I am the resurrection ...",
"Take up the cross (of truth) ...", as well as the meaning of many of His
parables are all best understood in the spiritual sense.

Thus, when Jesus spoke of the "rock", He was making simple reference to the
*spiritual* form of the *conviction* which Peter expressed with his words:
"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God!"

It was the conviction that was and is the rock, and not Peter himself in a
personal sense, a was *interpreted* by Matthew, for instance. Peter was
simply the first one to declare his conviction, and the response of Jesus
was to indicate that the foundation for His Church *in the spiritual sense*
was just this strong conviction about Jesus and His Message.

Obviously, someone attaining to such a conviction would naturally then try
to understand and live solely in accordance with the Word of Jesus, and thus
receive the *key* to the Kingdom of Heaven. And those to whom Peter could
later on mediate his conviction, would also therewith receive the same key.
This process is a simple and natural spiritual happening, which is neither
bound up with Peter, nor dependent upon him! He was simply the first one to
state his conviction, and thereby elicit the explanation from Jesus.

Thus, it is not correct to claim that a particular earthly church had been
therewith founded by Jesus. Take His words in the spiritual sense, and you
will find the right meaning, and not otherwise!

The source of my knowledge is the Grail Message, "In the Light of Truth",
by Abd-ru-shin, which is available to all serious seekers, and which is
the sole authority for all questions of a spiritual nature!

Best regards,
Mark Sandrock

hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (11/05/90)

In article <Oct.29.02.00.14.1990.14106@athos.rutgers.edu> root@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) writes:


>As far as the meaning of the words: "... and upon this rock I shall build
>my church!", we must first pause to consider the fact that the Mission of
>Jesus was of a *spiritual* nature, and that His words therefore can best
>be grasped in their spiritual meaning.

>For example, "Unless a man be born again ...", "My kingdom is not of this
>world", "This generation shall not pass ...", "I am the resurrection ...",
>"Take up the cross (of truth) ...", as well as the meaning of many of His
>parables are all best understood in the spiritual sense.

I suspect that "spiritual" as you use the term here is equivalent to
"figurative" in the literary sense.  "Take up the cross" appears to
be a figure of speech in which "cross" represents the burden of
following Jesus and obeying his commandments.  Many but not all of 
Jesus' sayings are of this nature.  He often used the power of
imagery to convey his message.  I would however not put "My kingdom
is not of this world" in the same category, I think he was saying
that his Kingdom literally exists but in another world.

This may appear to be nit-picking, but I think we can better
understand Jesus' message if we are clear as to which sayings are
literal, which are figurative, and which are both.  Of course this
is not always obvious to modern man so we are likely to disagree on 
some passages.  Since I think spirits literally exist, I tend not to
talk about "spiritual meanings."  Spirit is literal and I think much
of Jesus' reference to them is also literal.


>Thus, when Jesus spoke of the "rock", He was making simple reference to the
>*spiritual* form of the *conviction* which Peter expressed with his words:
>"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God!"

From the footnotes in my Bible this is an interesting wordplay in
the Greek (I don't know if anything similar held in the Aramaic
which Jesus presumably spoke).  Peter (Petros) is a small rock.  The
word translated "rock" upon which the church would be built is
petra, bedrock.  I offer the following loose translation based on
that wordplay (and my totally non-existent knowledge of Greek):

Peter:  You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Jesus:  That's right, and this was revealed to you by my Father in
Heaven...  You are a small rock, upon this bedrock I will build
my church.  Further, I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of
heaven so that whatever you bind (seal, covenant) on earth shall be
bound and whatever you loose (break the seal or covenant) on earth
will be loosed in heaven.

>It was the conviction that was and is the rock, and not Peter himself in a
>personal sense, a was *interpreted* by Matthew, for instance. Peter was
>simply the first one to declare his conviction, and the response of Jesus
>was to indicate that the foundation for His Church *in the spiritual sense*
>was just this strong conviction about Jesus and His Message.

Well, I think that the bedrock is the fact that, as Peter had just
said, Jesus is the Son of God.  His church would be built on his
divine sonship.  Peter, a small rock, would be part of the building.
In fact he would be an important enough part that he would have the
"keys of the kingdom" and be able to bind and loose on earth with
those actions recognized in heaven.

>Obviously, someone attaining to such a conviction would naturally then try
>to understand and live solely in accordance with the Word of Jesus, and thus
>receive the *key* to the Kingdom of Heaven. And those to whom Peter could
>later on mediate his conviction, would also therewith receive the same key.

Well, I think you are mislead by the difference in the use of keys
today compared with in Jesus time.  I think we need to consider the 
context of this passage, both textual and historical:

Textually, Peter is given the keys in the context of being told he 
will be able to seal on earth and have it recognized in heaven.  
This sounds to me like he is to act as an agent for God, be in a
position to represent God.  It is similar to a lot of what goes on
today, I can sign certain documents and it is just as though my
employer had signed them.  In some matters I can act as an agent for
him.  Later (Mat 18:18) the rest of the 12 were also told they would
have this power but I find no evidence that it was to be extended to
the church membership at large.

Historically, 2000 years ago there were a lot of people with access
to the master's house who did not have keys.  Keys were large and
bulky and locks were rare (probably not even used on the house but
only on the treasury).  The guy who carried the keys was probably
the steward.  He had charge of most of his master's affairs,
probably including hiring, firing, and acting as paymaster.  Giving
somebody the keys implied giving him a *lot* of authority.

>This process is a simple and natural spiritual happening, which is neither
>bound up with Peter, nor dependent upon him! He was simply the first one to
>state his conviction, and thereby elicit the explanation from Jesus.

Of course it is not bound up with Peter any more than the function
of a wealthy household 2000 years ago was dependent upon a
particular steward.  However such a household would have a steward
and I think Jesus was here appointing someone to that position.

>Thus, it is not correct to claim that a particular earthly church had been
>therewith founded by Jesus. Take His words in the spiritual sense, and you
>will find the right meaning, and not otherwise!

I disagree.  I think he did found a particular earthly church.  
(However, I do not think the Roman Catholic Church is that church.)

>The source of my knowledge is the Grail Message, "In the Light of Truth",
>by Abd-ru-shin, which is available to all serious seekers, and which is
>the sole authority for all questions of a spiritual nature!

Somehow I doubt you will find many who agree with this last
paragraph.  Most religious people prefer to regard either the cannon 
or the Holy Spirit as the final authority for spiritual questions.

[This passage has been discussed before.  Let me point out a couple of
things: (1) footnotes about "rock" are sometimes attempts by
Protestants to avoid the Catholic interpretation of this passage.
Some Protestants have found themselves creating distinctions between
different kinds of rock that probably have little real justification
in the Greek.  However admitting the plain meaning of the Greek does
not immediately commit one to papal infallibility.  There's a good
deal of interpretation between this passage and Roman theories of
papal authority.  (2) The power of the keys has some background in
Jewish discussions.  It probably did have a specific ecclesiastical
meaning.  --clh]

ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (11/08/90)

In article <Nov.5.05.06.54.1990.16060@athos.rutgers.edu>, hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) writes:
> [This passage has been discussed before.  Let me point out a couple of
> things: (1) footnotes about "rock" are sometimes attempts by
> Protestants to avoid the Catholic interpretation of this passage.
> Some Protestants have found themselves creating distinctions between
> different kinds of rock that probably have little real justification
> in the Greek.  However admitting the plain meaning of the Greek does
> not immediately commit one to papal infallibility.  There's a good
> deal of interpretation between this passage and Roman theories of
> papal authority.

In particular, it's worth noting that papal infallibility is a very
recent doctrine.  Formerly, the idea was that an ecumenical council
could (by the grace of the Holy Spirit) discover what the truth was
about a particular matter (such as the Trinity).  {"Petra", by the way,
can mean a large _detached_ rock, as the moderator says, it's hard to
wring much out of the Greek here.}  Wasn't it the 19th century when
papal infallibility came in?

As a Protestant, I don't actually have any difficulty believing that
Peter was in effect the first bishop of Rome.  He _was_ qualified for
the job!  There's a book "The Bones of St Peter"; they reckon they've
found his actual grave.  Could be.  And let's face it, the truth of
Christianity _was_ transmitted to Protestants through the church that
was in communion with Rome.  (If you've seen the Creed in a form that
says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father _and_ the Son,
think about it.  {The compromise formula worked out between Rome and
the East is _through_ the Son.})

-- 
The problem about real life is that moving one's knight to QB3
may always be replied to with a lob across the net.  --Alasdair Macintyre.

[While papal infallibility in its final form is recent, it is based on
ideas that have a fairly long tradition.  Some of the documents during
the Reformation from the Catholic side come very close.  The concept
that the Church as a whole is infallible goes back to the early
Fathers, based on the concept that the gates of Hell will never
prevail against the Church.  (Mat 16:18) Papal infallibility is really
a development of that idea.  It's not that the Pope in independently
infallible, but that he embodies the infallibility that is inherent in
the Church.  (Though in it most recent definition, the Pope isn't
required to consult anyone, and can make infallible definitions
independently of anyone else's authority, it seems clear that he does
this as a representative of the Church as a whole, and not as a matter
of personal privilege.)  While there's no question that the Pope's
powers have tended to grow over time, you can find quite early
statements (2nd Cent at least) that suggest a very special place for
Rome and its bishop in the Church.  That's not to say that I endorse
the specific way this role has developed within the Roman Catholic
tradition, nor do I agree with infallibility.  But Protestants need to
know that this isn't something that was came out of nowhere in the
19th Cent.  --clh]

daved@westford.ccur.com (508-392-2990) (11/10/90)

Hi Chuck!   :-)

You noted, 

>(2) The power of the keys has some background in
>Jewish discussions.  It probably did have a specific ecclesiastical
>meaning.  --clh]

I've never heard this before; do you have a citation handy?

Thanks,

Dave Davis

[The New Jerusalem Bible footnote for Mt. 16:19 claims that "'bind'
and 'loose' are technical rabbinic terms; primarily they have a
disciplinary reference; one is 'bound' (condemned to) or 'loosed'
(absolved from) excommunication.  Their secondary usage is connected
with doctrinal or juridical decisions.  An opinion is 'bound'
(forbidden) or 'loosed' (allowed)."  The Anchor Bible commentary on
Mt. does not mention this, but instead connects binding and loosing
with symbols of secular authority.  "Isa. 22:15ff [particularly 22:22
--clh] undoubtedly lies behind this saying.  The keys are the symbol
of authority, and Roland de Vaux rightly sees here the same authority
as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the
chamberlain, of the royal household in ancient Israel.  Eliakim is
described as having the same authority in Isaiah; it was Hilkiah's
position until he was ousted, and Jotham as regent is also described
as "over the household" (II Kings xv 5).  Significantly, the first
Chaldean governor after the deportation of 586 B.C., Gedaliah, is
given the same title on his official seal.  It is of considerable
importance that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of
the community are being discussed (cf. xviii 18; John xx 23) the
symbol of the keys is absent, since the sayings apply in those
instances to a wider circle.  In John xx 23 the words are used of
pardon, and in that context the Greek words luein and kratein derive
from a secondary interpretation of Isaiah's Hebrew."

oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) (11/10/90)

Re: Richard A. O'Keefe


In article <Nov.7.22.19.59.1990.16709@athos.rutgers.edu>
 ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:

>In particular, it's worth noting that papal infallibility is a very
>recent doctrine.  Formerly, the idea was that an ecumenical council
>could (by the grace of the Holy Spirit) discover what the truth was
>about a particular matter (such as the Trinity).  {"Petra", by the way,
>can mean a large _detached_ rock, as the moderator says, it's hard to
>wring much out of the Greek here.}  Wasn't it the 19th century when
>papal infallibility came in?


  Hi, Richard!

    Well... yes, and no. Yes, in the fact that "Papal Infallibility" was
 formally established (not quite "defined") as a *doctrine*... that which
 is taught. No, in the sense that Catholics believe that Papal Infallibility
 was ALWAYS the case, and that it was in 1870 (I *think* that was when
 Vatican I was held... can someone confirm or deny that? I misplaced my
 documentation...  :(  ) that this "truth" was *recognized* as being in
 need of formal, explicit declaration.
    Just as a note: "Papal Infallibility" is somewhat incomplete (No
 slam on you whatsoever, Richard... PLENTY of Catholics talk about it in
 the same way!  :)  ). The Church teaches (as clarified in Vatican II
 documents) that the ENTIRE body of Bishops is blessed with the ability
 to teach infallibly in matters of faith and morals; hence, the need
 for a consensus of Bishops for any assertion to be proclaimed infallible.
 In application, the Pope would not really be able to make such
 infallible proclamations with autonomy, though I suppose there is enough
 "legal wiggle-room" in the Vatican II documents to allow for it. It
 would be extremely awkward for the Pope to proclaim some statement, only
 to be discredited by the Bishops of the world (as would be the case of
 an obvious NON-infallible statement, such as a statement that went
 contrary to an explicit Law of God).

 (This might strike some as weird, that one would need a consensus to
 arrive at a Spirit-Given truth; one *possible* rationale is that the assembly
 of Bishops is not merely a democratic voting body, but a collection of
 believers who compare insights to make certain that personal thoughts are
 not intertwined in any given Bishop's assertions. As I say, I'm not
 fresh on the Vatican II justification of Bishop consensus... maybe
 someone (or I) can look into that...)


  The moderator adds:

>[... While there's no question that the Pope's
>powers have tended to grow over time, you can find quite early
>statements (2nd Cent at least) that suggest a very special place for
>Rome and its bishop in the Church.

  That's certainly true, though that may have been just fortunate
 happenstance (as far as Rome went; had Rome not been such a center of
 world affairs, a sort of Papacy might well have started in Jerusalem).
 Rome was influential in political and economic matters as well as
 religious matters (not so much Roman religion vs. Judeo-Christian
 religion, but influential in more indirect ways), and was therefore
 a likely candidate for religious focus. I merely wished to make the
 point that the Papacy's validity may not be solidly supported by any idea
 that Rome was endeared to the early Church. As an alternate possibility:
 it could have been that, in a world of more-or-less homogeneous
 political-economic influence, NO explicit center (other than God (including
 Jesus Christ, in the Christian case) might have formed. It's hard to
 tell.

----
   Take care!

   Sincerely,     Brian Coughlin
                  oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu

[Papal infallibility goes slightly beyond saying that the Pope
presents the concensus of the bishops.  ... "such definitions are
irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church".
I agree that papal infallibility is based on the general concept of
infallibility of the Church, but it presents this infallibility as
being present through the Pope in a very special way.  --clh]