Saturday, August 04, 2012

Demagoguery vs an honest hermeneutic

Andrew Presslar 878:

It seems to me, based on the correlation with Matthew 16, that Isaiah 22:25 refers to the downfall of the house of Israel (according to the flesh).

It seems to me, based on the correlation with Matthew 16, that if Isaiah 22:22 is talking about Peter, then what really is the conclusion of the prophecy in Isaiah 22 (that the peg is cut off) is also about Peter.

The rock upon which the Church is built cannot be broken and cast down, per Our Lord’s power and promise.

Christ, of course, is the Rock. God is the Rock throughout the Old Testament; Christ is the Rock in 1 Corinthians 10. Peter is not “Rocky” according to all the commentaries. Of a rocky substance, and perhaps the first rock in the foundation of the church.

If you were familiar with what New Testament commentaries were saying, you would know that Matthew works in various kinds of “parallelisms”. (See Dale Allison, “Studies in Matthew”, pg 210, for example).

Note that in Matthew 11:11 ff, Jesus says of John the Baptist, “among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he”. Jesus is preaching the Kingdom; given that the church is not the kingdom, but rather, “the church witnesses to the kingdom”, Peter’s position as “Rocky” and one of the foundation stones (Eph 2:20, the very concept “church”, “the one new man” you rejected from my comment 875 above), Matt 16:18 is really saying to Peter, “you are rocky, a foundation stone, along with the rest of the apostles and prophets, of the church I will build”.

In other words, while John the Baptist is the last and the greatest of the Old Covenant, Peter is the first among New Covenant.

Christ himself is the cornerstone, however, and Christ himself “builds”.

The remainder of what you say in that comment depends upon an inadequate understanding of the New Covenant as the fulfillment of the Old.

My “understanding of the New Covenant as fulfillment of the Old” has the advantage of corresponding with biblical understandings of the covenant since the Reformation. Of course, I reject your notion that the Roman Catholic Church is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. But that seems to be your only criticism of what I’ve said. Aside from that, do you have any other reasons why my understanding is “inadequate”?

The remainder of the comment repeats your faulty analysis regarding Peter’s being “cut off,” and overlooks the fact that the ongoing Petrine ministry of binding and loosing has precisely the effect of enabling the thirsty to drink the liquor of knowledge–the Petrine charism prominently features the charge and corresponding authority to confirm the faith of the brethren.

You are referring to Luke 22:32, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” There is nothing unique about Peter’s “authority” or “charism”. And you are at a loss to actually describe these using Biblical terms.

The Greek word “στήρισον” (“strengthen”) is used elsewhere in a number of places in the NT of the charge of other Christians to strengthen one another in their faith amid persecution and temptation (including 1 Thess 3:2, 3:13, 1 Peter 5:10, Acts 14:22, 15:32, 15:41).

Peter’s sin of denial is extremely serious. Jesus’s prayer for him is a rehabilitation and a restoration to the norm, it is no call to any higher “authority” or “charism”.

Again, the interpretation I have given here is consonant with the text. It does not “read back” later concepts which are not really there, as your Roman Catholic hermeneutic so often does. My “interpretation” relies on the text, and doesn’t try to make the text say something it doesn’t say.

In fact, you are so quick to use this verse to show somehow “the wonders of Peter”, that you completely miss the whole context of what is happening here, in this verse, and that is, the power of Satan is broken.

* * *

I doubt that too many people are watching, but if you are out there, Jason Stellman, what you see here is a very fine contrast between the “Scripture-as-wax-nose” effect of the “Catholic IP”, vs what an actual reading of the text, to understand what the text says, really looks like.

No comments:

Post a Comment