Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: "... and upon this rock ..." Message-ID: Date: 5 Nov 90 10:06:57 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. Lines: 126 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article 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]