8 Comments


  1. Here I’ve not read Hahn, but I’ll offer a few thoughts. He is not the only one to see Peter as being equated with the rock in Matthew 16. A host of Protestant commentators have agreed on this point, only they interpret differently what it means for Peter to be the rock.
    Second, no pride of place for Peter in Acts? I’m incredulous.
    Third, as I’ve said in our private conversations, from what you are saying, the way that Hahn is presenting the issue is not necessarily the way that all Catholics see it. Rather, in places like Matthew 16, some see a pride of place given to Peter. The papacy, then, is the later outworking of this pride of place. It’s not necessarily that the idea of the papacy is there in some clear cut fashion in Matthew 16, but rather it is there is seed form.
    Anyway, I know that you and I have talked about this a bit before, but I just wanted to post these thoughts here for others who might read this post.

    Reply
  2. Kevin

    Joel – Are you familiar with the Catholic response to the difficulty of the Greek “pebble” vs “rock” as regards gender, as opposed to the Aramaic, which is likely the language in which Christ declared the name change, where such a distinction of gender would not have been necessary and therefore would not have resulted in two different words being utilized?

    Reply
  3. Kevin

    Sorry Joel, I clicked through to your sources and saw that these do, in fact, deal with the Greek/Aramaic issue I raised in my previous comment, so obviously you are familiar with this linguistic issue.

    Reply

Leave a Reply, Please!