Traditional Meaning Behind Christ Being "The Rock"

[urroner]

I've been asked to talk this Sunday about Helaman 5:12

And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall.

What is the history behind using the term "the rock?"

I know that when the ancient Israelites made a covenant with God, they often planted a rock somewhere or made a rock a symbol of that covenant.

1 Sam 7:12

Samuel took a single rock and set it upright between Mizpah and Shen. He named it “Ebenezer” (Rock of Help), saying, “This marks the place where GOD helped us.”

BTW, in the song "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing," Ebenezer is mentioned:

Come, thou Fount of every blessing,

tune my heart to sing thy grace;

streams of mercy, never ceasing,

call for songs of loudest praise.

Teach me some melodious sonnet,

sung by flaming tongues above.

Praise the mount! I'm fixed upon it,

mount of thy redeeming love.

Here I raise mine Ebenezer;

hither by thy help I'm come;

and I hope, by thy good pleasure,

safely to arrive at home.

Jesus sought me when a stranger,

wandering from the fold of God;

he, to rescue me from danger,

interposed his precious blood.

O to grace how great a debtor

daily I'm constrained to be!

Let thy goodness, like a fetter,

bind my wandering heart to thee.

Prone to wander,

Lord, I feel it,

prone to leave the God I love;

here's my heart,

O take and seal it,

seal it for thy courts above.

[bluebell]

Perhaps it also has to do with Christ being the chief cornerstone. Isn't that always a type of rock?

[shalamabobbi]

How about the rock that Moses cleaved to bring forth water for the Israelites..

[Scott Lloyd]

I have long felt that the passage Matthew 16:13-20 contains some fascinating triple imagery when viewed with an LDS perspective. That's where Christ gives the name Peter to Simon and tells him, "Upon this rock I will build my church."

First, Christ is referred to in numerous places in the scriptures as the Rock, the stone of Israel, the chief cornerstone, etc. (see the Topical Guide entry for Christ as "Rock").

Second, Peter, the name Christ gives the chief apostle, means rock, or more particularly, little rock.

Finally, Joseph Smith taught that the word rock here pertains to revelation and refers back to the verse where Christ calls Peter blessed because "flesh and blood" has not given Peter his sure knowledge of Jesus being the Christ, the Son of the Living God, but is was revealed to him by Heavenly Father.

So, in the sense that Christ said he would build His church upon "this rock," it means that Jesus is the founder and leader. It is, in very deed, the Church of Jesus Christ.

Peter -- and his successors in office of chief apostle -- are the "little rock" in the sense that they possess the keys of the Kingdom, the right of presidency over the authority of the priesthood, given them by Christ, to administer the Church and perform its saving ordinances.

And rock means revelation in that the Church is governed by Christ, via revelation, to His chief apostle.

Another interesting bit, found by looking at the Joseph Smith Translation of this passage, is that Cephas, an alternate name for Peter, refers to a stone, or more particularly a seer stone, such as those used by Joseph Smith in his prophetic office, including the seer stones that were elements of the Urim and Thummim.

So, in a sense, the Protestants are kind of right when they say "Rock" refers to Christ. And the Catholics are kind of right when they say "Rock" refers to Peter and his lawful successors. They just don't have the full picture.

Edited September 4, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[volgadon]

I've been asked to talk this Sunday about Helaman 5:12

What is the history behind using the term "the rock?"

I know that when the ancient Israelites made a covenant with God, they often planted a rock somewhere or made a rock a symbol of that covenant.

1 Sam 7:12

BTW, in the song "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing," Ebenezer is mentioned:

That is part of it, but far more pertinent is the idea of a fortified stronghold, usually in the mountains.

[Christian Mormon]

Perhaps it also has to do with Christ being the chief cornerstone. "

If Christ is "Chief Cornerstone" doesn't it make him Indian? LOL

[Zakuska]

Thats my Favorite Scripture! Used it on my Mission Plaque.

[urroner]

That is part of it, but far more pertinent is the idea of a fortified stronghold, usually in the mountains.

Are ;you saying that the word "rock" in ancient Israel can also represent a "fortified stronghold?"

[volgadon]

Are ;you saying that the word "rock" in ancient Israel can also represent a "fortified stronghold?"

Yes, that is how it is used frequently in the Psalms and elsewhere.

[The Nehor]

The great truth hidden in this:

God is both animal and mineral (and possibly vegetable based on the seed analogies).

[MiserereNobis]

As a Catholic, I'd like to respond here with the Catholic understanding of this scripture.

I have long felt that the passage Matthew 16:13-20 contains some fascinating triple imagery when viewed with an LDS perspective. That's where Christ gives the name Peter to Simon and tells him, "Upon this rock I will build my church."

First, Christ is referred to in numerous places in the scriptures as the Rock, the stone of Israel, the chief cornerstone, etc. (see the Topical Guide entry for Christ as "Rock").

Yes, indeed, Christ is the Rock, the invisible head of His Church, the bridegroom of His Church.

Second, Peter, the name Christ gives the chief apostle, means rock, or more particularly, little rock.

Absolutely. It is quite clear from the passage that Peter was singled out for a special position within the visible Church, the visible head of Christ's Church. He is the visible head, while Christ is the invisible, and he is the rock, while Christ is the Rock. The parallels are blatant.

Finally, Joseph Smith taught that the word rock here pertains to revelation and refers back to the verse where Christ calls Peter blessed because "flesh and blood" has not given Peter his sure knowledge of Jesus being the Christ, the Son of the Living God, but is was revealed to him by Heavenly Father.

Obviously this is where we will disagree. I understand that your interpretation of the scripture is based on Joseph Smith being a prophet (just as he interpreted "evangelist" to correspond to your modern-day patriarchs), but if one looks at the scripture text itself this interpretation is a stretch. Peter was named "the rock" in the very same sentence in which Christ said his Church would be built upon "this" rock. The antecedent of "this" is clear because of the context and the proximity. Imagine if Christ said: "Peter is special and upon him I will build my Church." The antecedent of "him" is clearly Peter and we would all be confused if "him" referred to someone else. The same principle holds here: "You are the rock and upon this rock will I build my Church." Which rock? The rock that he just named: Peter.

So, in the sense that Christ said he would build His church upon "this rock," it means that Jesus is the founder and leader. It is, in very deed, the Church of Jesus Christ.

No quarrel here; Jesus Christ founded His Church and is Her Head and Bridegroom.

Peter -- and his successors in office of chief apostle -- are the "little rock" in the sense that they possess the keys of the Kingdom, the right of presidency over the authority of the priesthood, given them by Christ, to administer the Church and perform its saving ordinances.

We absolutely agree with each other, although you are using the LDS terms and I would use Catholic ones. Peter, and his successors, possess the keys of the kingdom. This makes Peter's successors the visible head of Christ's Church. Of course, the question is then instantly asked: who are Peter's successors? I take Christ at His word when He said, in the same sentence, that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. Peter's apostolic successors have held and continue to hold the keys of the kingdom, from Peter unto the present day.

And rock means revelation in that the Church is governed by Christ, via revelation, to His chief apostle.

While we might disagree on the meaning behind the word "revelation," I agree that God guides His Church through the work of the Holy Ghost via the successor of Peter.

So, in a sense, the Protestants are kind of right when they say "Rock" refers to Christ. And the Catholics are kind of right when they say "Rock" refers to Peter and his lawful successors. They just don't have the full picture.

Since this is an LDS forum, I'll let that one go, except to say that we believe we've had the full picture handed down under the protection of the Holy Ghost since the time of Jesus and the apostles. We are an Apostolic Church, following the doctrine of the apostles and their successors.

+ PAX

[3DOP]

As a Catholic, I'd like to respond here with the Catholic understanding of this scripture.

Yes, indeed, Christ is the Rock, the invisible head of His Church, the bridegroom of His Church.

Absolutely. It is quite clear from the passage that Peter was singled out for a special position within the visible Church, the visible head of Christ's Church. He is the visible head, while Christ is the invisible, and he is the rock, while Christ is the Rock. The parallels are blatant.

Obviously this is where we will disagree. I understand that your interpretation of the scripture is based on Joseph Smith being a prophet (just as he interpreted "evangelist" to correspond to your modern-day patriarchs), but if one looks at the scripture text itself this interpretation is a stretch. Peter was named "the rock" in the very same sentence in which Christ said his Church would be built upon "this" rock. The antecedent of "this" is clear because of the context and the proximity. Imagine if Christ said: "Peter is special and upon him I will build my Church." The antecedent of "him" is clearly Peter and we would all be confused if "him" referred to someone else. The same principle holds here: "You are the rock and upon this rock will I build my Church." Which rock? The rock that he just named: Peter.

No quarrel here; Jesus Christ founded His Church and is Her Head and Bridegroom.

We absolutely agree with each other, although you are using the LDS terms and I would use Catholic ones. Peter, and his successors, possess the keys of the kingdom. This makes Peter's successors the visible head of Christ's Church. Of course, the question is then instantly asked: who are Peter's successors? I take Christ at His word when He said, in the same sentence, that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. Peter's apostolic successors have held and continue to hold the keys of the kingdom, from Peter unto the present day.

While we might disagree on the meaning behind the word "revelation," I agree that God guides His Church through the work of the Holy Ghost via the successor of Peter.

Since this is an LDS forum, I'll let that one go, except to say that we believe we've had the full picture handed down under the protection of the Holy Ghost since the time of Jesus and the apostles. We are an Apostolic Church, following the doctrine of the apostles and their successors.

+ PAX

St. Pius X,

Restoring all things in Christ are we? God bless you and welcome!

3DOP

[urroner]

PopeStPiusX and 3DOP, you are being way too agreeable. I was hoping for a thread where Mormons and non-Mormons are screaming at each other and you two are just trying to love us all back into the RCC.

Everybody, thanks for all the responses.

[MiserereNobis]

St. Pius X,

Restoring all things in Christ are we? God bless you and welcome!

3DOP

Thank you and God bless you, too! I've been following your intelligent and succinct defenses of Holy Mother Church on other threads (especially the apostasy thread) and am glad the Faith has you as a defender.

+ PAX

[3DOP]

PopeStPiusX and 3DOP, you are being way too agreeable. I was hoping for a thread where Mormons and non-Mormons are screaming at each other and you two are just trying to love us all back into the RCC.

Everybody, thanks for all the responses.

Lynn,

If it makes you feel any better, I hate you as much as I possibly can! But who can hate a face like yours? hahahaha

[urroner]

Lynn,

If it makes you feel any better, I hate you as much as I possibly can! But who can hate a face like yours? hahahaha

Ahhh, have you ever met either of my ex-wives and yes, you saying that you hate me as much as you can makes me feel a lot better about myself.

[Scott Lloyd]

As a Catholic, I'd like to respond here with the Catholic understanding of this scripture.

Welcome to the board. And thank you for your articulate exposition of the Catholic understanding of Matthew 16:13-20. I appreciate your effort to highlight points of agreement in your and my views.

I have a few comments in response:

Obviously this is where we will disagree. I understand that your interpretation of the scripture is based on Joseph Smith being a prophet (just as he interpreted "evangelist" to correspond to your modern-day patriarchs), but if one looks at the scripture text itself this interpretation is a stretch.

I recognize that Joseph's application of the term rock to revelation is not immediately obvious. As I see it, one of the functions of a prophet of God is to teach precepts that reflect divine truth but may not necessarily be self-evident to mortal men and women.

Peter was named "the rock" in the very same sentence in which Christ said his Church would be built upon "this" rock. The antecedent of "this" is clear because of the context and the proximity.

As you have correctly observed in a prior post, I do not disagree with you here about the application of rock to Peter. I would put it this way: I believe what you have stated here, but I believe more in addition to it that you have chosen to reject.

Imagine if Christ said: "Peter is special and upon him I will build my Church." The antecedent of "him" is clearly Peter and we would all be confused if "him" referred to someone else.

But the fact is, he did not phrase it this way. And that brings me back to the point I started from: that Jesus's use of imagery here is ingenious, in that it leaves us free to discover other applications to his phrasing beyond the one that is immediately obvious.

Christ tended to teach that way in His mortal ministry, using imagery such as parables, similes and metaphors that challenged his hearers to look for deeper meaning in His words.

We absolutely agree with each other, although you are using the LDS terms and I would use Catholic ones. Peter, and his successors, possess the keys of the kingdom. This makes Peter's successors the visible head of Christ's Church. Of course, the question is then instantly asked: who are Peter's successors? I take Christ at His word when He said, in the same sentence, that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. Peter's apostolic successors have held and continue to hold the keys of the kingdom, from Peter unto the present day.

Let me make it clear here that in believing the prophesied falling away occurred, I am not saying that the gates of hell prevailed against Christ's church. Rather, the keys and authority to administer the Church were temporarily removed by the Lord until the prophesied restoration, or "refreshing," occurred in the dispensation of the fulness of times. Throughout the ages, the Church has, does and will yet remain intact. Satan has not prevailed, nor will he.

While we might disagree on the meaning behind the word "revelation," I agree that God guides His Church through the work of the Holy Ghost via the successor of Peter.

If you believe that revelation means divine communication from God to mortals, then we do agree on the meaning.

Since this is an LDS forum, I'll let that one go, except to say that we believe we've had the full picture handed down under the protection of the Holy Ghost since the time of Jesus and the apostles. We are an Apostolic Church, following the doctrine of the apostles and their successors.

Perhaps this is a topic for another thread, but your comment here prompts me to wonder why an apostolic church would not have retained the office of apostle.

Again, thank you for your comment and this clear expression of how our respective views coincide as well as contrast.

I look forward to your continued posts on this board.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[MiserereNobis]

Welcome to the board.

Thanks!

And thank you for your articulate exposition of the Catholic understanding of Matthew 16:13-20. I appreciate your effort to highlight points of agreement in your and my views.

In some ways, Mormons and Catholics have a lot more in common than with Protestants. The idea of priesthood succession is one and this verse touches on that.

I recognize that Joseph's application of the term rock to revelation is not immediately obvious. As I see it, one of the functions of a prophet of God is to teach precepts that reflect divine truth but may not necessarily be self-evident to mortal men and women.

In Catholicism, this is why we have the Magesterium (the teaching authority of the Church), to protect the Faith and to clarify things that might not be obvious.

But the fact is, he did not phrase it this way. And that brings me back to the point I started from: that Jesus's use of imagery here is ingenious, in that it leaves us free to discover other applications to his phrasing beyond the one that is immediately obvious.

Christ tended to teach that way in His mortal ministry, using imagery such as parables, similes and metaphors that challenged his hearers to look for deeper meaning in His words.

Yes, this makes sense. Our Lord was perfect in all, including teaching... I wonder how my high school calculus class would have turned out if He had been at the helm

Let me make it clear here that in believing the prophesied falling away occurred, I am not saying that the gates of hell prevailed against Christ's church. Rather, the keys and authority to administer the Church were temporarily removed by the Lord until the prophesied restoration, or "refreshing," occurred in the dispensation of the fulness of times. Throughout the ages, the Church has, does and will yet remain intact. Satan has not prevailed, nor will he.

Would you mind elaborating on this somewhat? I'm not sure how His Church could have continued if the priesthood and keys had been removed. That would mean that there would be no one in authority to administer the sacraments (ordinances) and no one to authoritatively act in the name of Jesus (which is why we call the Pope the Vicar of Christ).

Are you understanding "prevail" as in "final victory"? I could see where the idea of the restoration would mean that the satan did not have final victory of Christ's Church, even though he had a temporary victory. But it seems odd that Christ would make such a pronouncement and then the priesthood go away after 100 years and be gone for 1600+. That would make Christ have 100-300 years and satan 1500-1700. That's quite a difference and seems to make Christ's promise look paltry.

If you believe that revelation means divine communication from God to mortals, then we do agree on the meaning.

Yes. I have found that when LDS hear Catholics or other Christians say "there is no more revelation" they take it to mean that we believe God will no longer speak to humans. This is not true. What we mean is that all the truths for salvation were given to the Apostles through the perfect revelation of Our Lord Jesus Christ. There is no more doctrine and the doctrine cannot change. However, the Church can, has, and will clarify the doctrine, through ecumenical councils and pronouncements of the Pope. This could be applying the doctrine to new situations (such as contraception or in-vitro fertilization) or declaring a doctrine to be a dogma (such as the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary). However, in these cases no new doctrine has been pronounced and no doctrine has changed.

Perhaps this is a topic for another thread, but your comment here prompts me to wonder why an apostolic church would not have retained the office of apostle.

An Apostle is a special witness for Christ. Look at the criteria the 11 Apostles used to replace Judas -- an Apostle must be someone who has seen Jesus. St. Paul was an Apostle because he had a vision of Christ, so he is a special witness as well. Also, the Apostles are "sent forth" -- hence the name Apostle. There are no Apostles today because Christ's earthly ministry ended ~2000 years ago. Now, there are the Bishops. The Apostles ordained the Bishops as their successors, who then ordained other Bishops, on and on until today. That's what is meant by an Apostolic Church -- a Church that traces it's authority back to Christ's Apostles.

In the LDS church, do your apostles have a similar definition, as a personal and special witness of Christ? Do LDS members believe their apostles have seen Jesus?

Again, thank you for your comment and this clear expression of how our respective views coincide as well as contrast.

I look forward to your continued posts on this board.

And I thank you for your views and respectful tone. Peace be with you!

[altersteve]

Are you understanding "prevail" as in "final victory"? I could see where the idea of the restoration would mean that the satan did not have final victory of Christ's Church, even though he had a temporary victory. But it seems odd that Christ would make such a pronouncement and then the priesthood go away after 100 years and be gone for 1600+. That would make Christ have 100-300 years and satan 1500-1700. That's quite a difference and seems to make Christ's promise look paltry.

The way we see it, the fact that there was an apostasy does not mean Satan prevailed over the Church, so yes, we understand "prevail" as in "final victory." Even though the Church "died" for a moment, it prevailed, just as Christ Himself also temporarily died yet also prevailed. They both prevailed over death -- the "gates of hell," which, in the original Greek, in my understanding, referred to the place of the dead spirits, not specifically Satan. But either way, Satan lost the battle. The number of years means nothing to us.

Also, for what it's worth, we also agree that the Church was, in a way, built on Peter, since we accept that Peter was ordained the first president of the Church (even though he may not have held that title at the time, it was the same priesthood office). It was this organized priesthood hierarchy that the Church would be built on in the future. When this hierarchy (consisting of prophets, apostles, etc.) disappeared, so too did the Church. And we simply don't believe God ever authorized any changes from what He previously established; these changes led to His temporary removal of the priesthood keys.

[altersteve]

In the LDS church, do your apostles have a similar definition, as a personal and special witness of Christ? Do LDS members believe their apostles have seen Jesus?

Yes and yes.

[MiserereNobis]

Also, for what it's worth, we also agree that the Church was, in a way, built on Peter, since we accept that Peter was ordained the first president of the Church (even though he may not have held that title at the time, it was the same priesthood office).

This is how we feel about Bishops. They do not hold the title of Apostle, but they are the successors to the Apostles and therefore have the same office.

It was this organized priesthood hierarchy that the Church would be built on in the future. When this hierarchy (consisting of prophets, apostles, etc.) disappeared, so too did the Church.

Obviously, from our point of view, the heirarchy did not disappear. The Apostles ordained/consecrated Bishops who then carried on their office. Peter was never a "prophet" in the OT sense of the word. He was the chief Apostle, and his primacy was therefore conferred upon the Bishop he consecrated as his successor in Rome.

And we simply don't believe God ever authorized any changes from what He previously established; these changes led to His temporary removal of the priesthood keys.

I assume from this that you believe that there was a First Presidency consisting of Peter, James, and John, even though no such office is mentioned in the NT (and Peter was never called a prophet). To what do you subscribe the lack of the titles in the Canon?

Edited September 11, 2012 by PopeStPiusX

[MiserereNobis]

Yes and yes.

Interesting. Do the apostles ever discuss their experiences of seeing Christ? It would seem to me that in order to be a witness of Christ, one would have give testimony, like witnesses in a courtroom must give testimony.

[Calm]

http://mormonchannel.org/qa/66

Special Witnesses of Christ - Episode 66

Program by: Mormon Channel

In this episode we address the question, "What does it mean to be a Special Witness of Christ?" Much could be said about the many responsibilities of prophets and apostles throughout the ages. They have been called to lead and direct, to warn and to prophecy. Perhaps the greatest responsibility of one anointed of the Lord, however, is to serve as a witness of the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Scott Lloyd]

Interesting. Do the apostles ever discuss their experiences of seeing Christ? It would seem to me that in order to be a witness of Christ, one would have give testimony, like witnesses in a courtroom must give testimony.

Some experiences are so sublime and sacred that they ought not be discussed publicly.

With that in mind, I believe the latter-day apostles have said as much as they feel they appropriately can regarding spiritual manifestations they have received regarding the reality and divinity of the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Paul is an example of an apostle whose interaction with the Lord was spiritual as opposed to physical and temporal. This, in my mind, leaves open the possibility that others could receive divine manifestations and, holding the apostolic office, fulfill the function of a special witness of Jesus Christ.

[altersteve]

Obviously, from our point of view, the heirarchy did not disappear. The Apostles ordained/consecrated Bishops who then carried on their office. Peter was never a "prophet" in the OT sense of the word. He was the chief Apostle, and his primacy was therefore conferred upon the Bishop he consecrated as his successor in Rome.

And we obviously don't believe the Apostles did any such thing, nor do we believe that God authorized this change.

I assume from this that you believe that there was a First Presidency consisting of Peter, James, and John, even though no such office is mentioned in the NT (and Peter was never called a prophet). To what do you subscribe the lack of the titles in the Canon?

The fact that it's not explicitly mentioned in the New Testament is not troubling to me, since the term "First Presidency" is clearly a modern one. And it's a belief I hold based on modern revelation. We believe all apostles are prophets, seers, and revelators, and indeed "in the OT sense of the word."