Dear James White,
Although there are several excellent points you make - some of which I had never considered before - I think your reading is guilty of precisely what you accuse Catholics. You say:
This is the immediate context of verse 18, and to divorce verse 18 from what came before leads to the errant shift of attention from the identity of Christ to the identity of Peter that is found in Roman Catholic exegesis. Certainly we cannot accept the idea, presented in Roman theology, that immediately upon pronouncing the benediction upon Peter's confession of faith, the focus shifts away from that confession and what it reveals to Peter himself and some office with successors based upon him!
Actually, we can accept it. One of Christ's purposes in the Incarnation was to establish and bring all mankind into the true religion; therefore, it is not unusual that at the very moment his disciples make a profession of faith, He confirms them in that profession and promises perpetuity for the church which He will build ("and the gates of hell will not prevail against it"). Furthermore, your argument here is unconvincing for several reasons. First, because Scripture is not a systematic narrative; second, because the argument is based the assumption that Scripture has no sudden or unexpected transitions (when in fact the Bible is full of them); and third, because the same argument you use may be used against you. The immediate context of the following verses (which you do not quote) shows clearly that Christ was speaking directly to Peter and the apostles.
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
As I understand it, your argument is that by switching from the personal pronoun to the demonstrative pronoun in verse 18, Christ signifies something other than Peter as "this rock." You appeal to the context to support this, accuse Catholics of ignoring that context, and yet avoid what implication the use of the second person in verse 19 has on your argument. If you want to argue that at first He was talking to Peter and then He was talking about Peter's confession - and this, because Jesus did not use the second person pronoun for a third time in the same sentence - then does it not make just as much sense to argue that, since at first He was talking to Peter and then again talking to Peter, He was probably talking to him all along? Even if you want to say that Peter was the representative of the apostles, as he is elsewhere in Scripture, He was still talking to him in the beginning of verse 18, and to him throughout verse 19, so why not in the second half of verse 18 as well?
Not only does the preceding context argue against this, but the following context likewise picks up seemlessly with what came before: the identity of Jesus as Messiah. Hence, the logical antecedent for tau,th is Peter's confession.
Actually, verse 19 tells against it. And it is not quite "seemlessly," as you said. Verse 19 is not directly about Jesus as Messiah but rather about how Christ gave His apostles the authority to forgive sins. It is about how Christ provided His church with the means to continue His saving work, that is, the work of reconciling the human race to the Most High. Consequently, reading the previous verse as related to Christ's gift to His church is not fantastic but natural. And while I can readily admit that verse 19 is indirectly about the identity of Jesus as Messiah (for the apostolic community He left on earth proclaims Him and continues His mission), I cannot understand why you say verse 19 supports your reading.
I can grant however that there is a secondary sense in which "this rock" refers to Peter's confession. First, because Christ built his church on the one to whom that divine revelation was given ("flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven"); second, because this sacred doctrine is the first infallible teaching of the church (for the church cannot err when it teaches those truths which God has revealed); and third, because this same revelation is the most important proclamation of the church at all times (that is, relative to sinful humanity, not considered in itself). But the primary sense still refers to Peter himself, for at least two reasons. First, because Christ is making a pun; and Peter's newly invented name is clearly the object of that pun. And second, because Scripture says elsewhere that the church is built on the "foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Eph 2:20). Consequently, it is neither strange nor strained to claim that in this passage Christ is building his church on the rock of Peter. Your reading only "commands the most logical grammatical sense" if you overlook the fact that Christ is making a joke. If I may be permitted the expression, you ignore the theology of the pun! :)
I welcome any criticism or comments you have. Indeed, I would be in your delighted if in your busy life you found time to respond to this letter.
Your brother in Christ, etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment