www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Matthew 16:18 "Upon this rock"

Dear LatinTrad:

Keep on rocking (the boat)!

At any rate, if some people cannot accept Peter as "the rock," it's my fervent wish that everybody remains in the "Barque of Peter!"

AmdG

Well, regardless of how you feel about the Papacy, I hope we will all join together today in prayer for the Pope, who seems to be having more health problems.

Ray,

"BLESSED are you Simon ... and you are hard-headed." It doesn't make sense.

Also, I do not know if you are Orthodox, but have you ever considered that not only is your interpretation not held by modern exegetes, but there is not one bit of support of it from Sacred Tradition. If you are Orthodox, shouldn't that matter?

Dear francisg:

Are you a Roman Catholic? :p

RayK is! Just a click away and you will know.


AmdG

Just Catholic.

Francis,

There is no just Catholic, or generic Catholic. One is only Catholic through membership in a Particular Church. You are Latin Catholic, or Byzantine Catholic, or Maronite Catholic etc., but never just Catholic.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

But I'M just Catholic!!

It says so in my profile!!

So it must be true!!

Francisg
If you want to know where RayK is coming from just look at his homepage.
Looks pretty Modernistic/New Age to me.
Stephanos I

My research papers posted there and overloaded with quotes from Augustine, Aquinas, St. John of the Cross, Pseudo-Dionysius, Origin, Philo, Thomas Aquinas, Moses Maimonies... etc... the only two �modern� authors I take from were Erick Fromm (1959) and Rollo May. Oh yes - several times I refer to Bernard Anderson�s �Understanding The Old Testament� (Professor of Old Testament Theology Prinston Theological Seminary 1975) which is as main stream as you can get.

Modern and New Age - hardly!

My pagers were read and checked for the Hebrew by a scholar of -ancient- Hebrew, His remarks to me? "Fascinating! Fascinating!� and we were to get together on change he moved (for his job) here to the East Coast (he did not move) and he took about 8 month to read it (slowly) and check things along the way.

You are way out of your league. You would be best to keep silent and skip over my posts.

Your accusations and rumor starting about me are unappriciated and certainly un-Christian. You condenm what you do not understand. Humility, humility.


-ray

If you are not aware of the culture, traditions, social life, and history and liturature of the Jews at the time of Jesus - it may not make sense to you... and still be accurate.

I am Catholic and very close to the Orthodox church. I discuss theology more with Orthodox clergy than I do with Catholic. I was invited by the Orthodox to attend an international meeting of Orthodox academics and theologians - I was the only Catholic invited to attend I believe. Let us not think I was invited to speak - I was invited to attend the lectures and listen. The seminars and lectures lasted several day and we by invitation only. I had to decline for other plans already in place. The invitation is in no way an endorsement of my views - it was based upon my friendship with them but certainly they would not have invited me if they considered me heretical.

We, as Catholic and Orthodox, are free to examine, discuss, question, and further develop understanding of the gospels. There are very few items of faith which are set into stone and of which we must take at the value and interpretation of the magisterial.

Opinion (which is the area of the interpretation we have been discussing) is opinion. Nine hundred and ninety nine out of one thousand early father down through tradition may hold that the interpretation is one of Peter�s confession of faith - and unless the church has made an infallible declaration upon the meaning - it all remains opinion - opinion that may be examined, discussed, and fresh insights brought to bare.

I am not an authority and you are not bound to my considerations.

Now as regards my interpretation, it is too short a space here for me to supply you with background in the Jewish culture of the time of Jesus. That takes many books and years. Surface it to say that these Jews had their �colloquialisms� just as we do today. And giving a nick-name often related to something in the other person that is a small fault - to make light of. It is a sign of endearment between friends that on occasion we are able to say to our friends �you are a bone head� etc. So I have established that a nick-name given during Jesus time may have been a friendly and brotherly use of what might seem negative.

You might say that it was not of Jesus personality to select a name like this - but I would remind you that he had also named John and his brother James �Sons of Thunder� in reference to their propensity to always be wanting God to bring down retribution - fire and brimstone - legions of military angels - on those who were an aggravation to Jesus and the disciples. The reference to Thunder is to the angry voice of God just before the storm. They wanted and angry God who swept away any opposition.

As regards Peter - you would have to get to know his personality thought the gospels. Jesus was - always - correcting him time and time again (he seldom or never did this to any other disciple) or Our Lord was often - just putting up - with him.

Take the time in which Jesus asked Simon to put out to sea and cast his net. Now put human flesh on this event. Here was Peter - the CEO of Peter�s Fishing Boat Company - just bringing in his boats and his men are folding the nets and tying up the boats for the day. Jesus, the son of a carpenter - turns to Peter (from a long line of professional fishermen) and tells him to put out the boats again and I will tell you where to throw your net. What Peter replies amounts to �I am the professional here on fishing - and we are really tired because we have fished all day and come up empty. I will do - what you say - but you are going to look foolish.�

Now read Matt 17: 23,24 and put flesh on it. Human flesh. What is taking place? You need a bit of Jeiwsh culture to fill in the blanks.

They come to Capernaum. At some point Peter is walking alone and a Tax collector sees him. The collector is busy collecting the tax at his table from mostly everybody who passes by. This Tax is the Temple tax and it is tribute to King Herod and a collection of customs money. That is how it was done. Peter give him no-never mind and is about to walk on by when the Tax collector sees him. Right away the Tax collectors knows Peter for two things. First - Peter is obviously a Galileans. Galilee was considered and apostate city. The Jews there were heavy in Greek accent and seldom came into Jerusalem for Temple services. The Tax collector could see that Peter was a Galilean because of the clothing Peter wore. It was well known that Galileans as a whole - did not bother to pay Temple taxes and seldom came to Temple. After all - Galileans were people involved in manual labor - such as fishing - and real loyal Jews did not work with their hands but were merchants and scholars etc. The Tax Collector may have seen Peter with Jesus and known Peter to be the disciple of Jesus the Rabbi. But not necessarily - we do not know. Since every �good Jew� must be under a Rabbi (even Rabbis must be under a more advanced Rabbi) and Galileans tended to ignore the practice - it was a sarcastic remark that the Tax Collector made when he shouted out through the crowd to Peter - �Does your master not pay the temple Tax?� which amounts to saying �Doesn�t your rabbi teach you to pay the religious Tax and abide by the Law of the Temple - or is your Rabbi an apostate and teach you to break the Laws.?� It was a clever question the Tax collector shouted out .

If Peter were to answer �No� - it would have been a public shame. Meaning �No - my Rabbi does not pay the Temple Tax and teaches us not to pay it.� which would be the same (in the ears of the crowd) as saying Jesus was an apostate who teaches us to break the Laws. Knowing this trap (the Tax collector had laid the trap publicly to put Peter on the spot - thinking to make Peter come forward and actually pay up) - Peter (who had probably never in his life paid any Temple Tax) said �Yes.� meaning that Jesus does teach us to pay Temple Tax and I have already paid the Tax� and leaves without paying anything to the Collector.

Peter - lied. He has as much as sworn that he had already paid Temple Tax.

Now - Notice!

The very next thing that takes place is that while this is still on Peter�s mind - he returns to the house where Jesus is. He enters the house and immediately Jesus turns to him and says (as if a discussion had been going on) �Peter. So what do you think? - from who do the kings of this earth receive tribute or customs? From their own sons or from others?�

Peter thinks a bit� and thinks about the fact that Herod�s own sons are exempt from paying Tax - and so are most of Herod�s cronies. Kings collect Taxes from the little people - from �others� but before Peter answers Jesus tells him exactly what Peter is thinking �From others.� Jesus said �The sons then are exempt.� and this was exactly what Peter was thinking.

Jesus continues �But so that we may not give offence to them, go to the sea and cast a hook, and take the first fish that you catch - open its mouth and you will find a stater (worth twice the Tax) take that to the Tax collector for you - and for me.�

Peter was probably dumfounded and embarrassed - because Jesus had just proved that although Peter had been entirely alone with the Tax collector and Jesus was physically a long way off and inside a house - Jesus had witnessed the whole encounter - and knew exactly what had taken place and what was said. More than that - Jesus knew that Peter had lied - and Jesus was about to repair - that lie!

Jesus was saying that by rights they WERE exempt from the Tax - because the Tax was rightly collected for the Temple services which were the services of God. And Jesus - IS God. God need not pay himself Temple Tax (of course) and because Jesus IS God - the disciples were under no obligation to pay Temple Tax - �but so that we do not give (public) offence� - God himself (finding the coin by way of the fish) will supply the coin by which Peter may go and make the lie he had spoken - now to be the true.

Now you will NOT find that explaination of this event in any of tradition or the �fathers; opinions. And THAT does not mean it is not accurate. In fact you MAY find some other explaintion within tradition (I do not know of any) saying something else entirely. But I will stand by my interpretation because - I know the culture and the Jewish traditions and history involved.

Jesus was often exasperated by Peter. More so than any of the others because Peter was very stubborn. It seemed that no matter how many times Jesus explained things - the others just stayed silent in their confusions - but Peter would come to some conclusion out of his own head - and act on it.

Witness the times that Jesus got angry with Peter. How many times had he explained to them all �I am going to Jerusalem, where I will be arrested, and killed.� and still when it came to be time it was Peter who said �Nope - you are NOT going to Jerusalem!� (�Get behind me Satan)� and still Peter brought several swords hidden under his cloak on that night to the garden (as if Jesus did not know they were there!).

And on the boat - �Is it because we did not bring any loafs of bread that you are saying - beware of the leavening of the Pharisees??� (note that it was Peter who spoke up to say what all the others were thinking) and Jesus gets humanly angry with Peter.

�HOW many times have you heard me - and you STILL do not understand!?� and Jesus quickly goes around the stunned faces �You - how many loafs of bread did you collect?� and �You- how many did YOU collect?� and since they STILL did not get it - Jesus throws his hands up in the air in exasperation - turns away from them and mumbles �I - am going to sleep.� as if to say �Forget it.�

I have given you only a few examples - but this is the norm for Peter. He was a stubborn bone-head with a good heart. And Jesus was fully human in all ways and had human friendships and human emotions including anger and frustration - and humor.

Now it this is a �modernist� and New Age interpretation (as one person on this board accuses of me) then why would be it showing that Jesus was fully human (as the church claims) and also divine (he knew what had happened with Peter and the Tax collector) and that Jesus had equated himself with God (being exempt from the Tax paid to God)� ??

No. Simon Peter failed Jesus most of the time - all thought the gospels - because Simon just could not get it through his thick skull - what Jesus was about. It was not until after the Resurrection - when Jesus appeared to Simon on the shore (remember that all the disciples had asked Peter what they should o now that Jesus was dead - and Peter resigned his position as chief apostle by simply saying �I - am going back to fishing.� and left). So here was Peter - fishing - and Jesus appears to him and - well - let us save that for another day.

Do you think that Jesus would never speak to his disciples in such a way as I have said? I have already shown you that �Son�s of Thunder� was used in the same way�

How about this� Luke 25 -2 5 when on the road to Emmaus Jesus says to them �You fools - and thick and slow of heart to believe�.� (the original Hebrew would have said �thick of heart� for that was a well known phrasing as I pointed out else where) do you think that Jesus loved them any less because he had called them - fools? Is this - not - a liberty that is taken in friendship? Do you think that Jesus loved John and James any less because he nick-names the pair �Sons of Thunder� and they too could not get it through their heads they were to be messengers of - peace and forgiveness?? And -forgive- those that were about to persecute them - to the death.

This - is not �New Age� stuff - it is - age old stuff - brought to light again.

Thank you for the opurtunity of discussion. Please do not take anything I say personally.

-ray

I agree with all you say but I would also say that Jesus is the rock also.

The church is his body - himself - and he would build that government (eccelsia) which is himself - upon Peter's firm and good will.

I believe that is the primary meaning - and I do also agree that they are very ligitimate secondary and parallel meanings which Jesus included by inflection.

(I am just yakking now) did Jesus mean to build it on Pter's confession of faith? yes in so much as Peter speaking the knowledge that had been infused into him - was a spoken 'confession' of faith (does the word confession really fit??)

Does that "confession of faith" extend to the whole church? yes - as long as it remains rooted in the origin which is Peter.

(just thinking out loud)

Is the church built upon Peter's brain and own thoughts and intelligence? No. Peter had already show the disaters of acting by his own logic. And his "confession" was not soemthing that he came to buy his logic but it was infused. So it is rather Peter's strong good will - that is the human foundation.

Knoweldge has no will of its own and can be used for good or bad - the defining item here is Peter's good will.

I was not 'correcting' you - I was using your post as an occation for further thought.

-ray

Ray,

Your example brings home my point clearly, though I probably did not express it myself clearly in my last post. You wrote:

It seems your point here is that your interpretation of the taxes does not contradict Sacred Tradition. This is exactly what I meant when I wrote that your interpretation of the "rock" is not supported by Sacred Tradition. Being "just Catholic" , I adhere to the Catholic teaching that the UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE FATHERS ON THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE makes that interpretation DE FIDE - that is, to be accepted with divine authority.

Now, the Church Fathers are UNANIMOUS that, no matter how you interpret who or what "the rock" is, Simon's NAME CHANGE designated nothing else but a reflection of Christ's intention for Simon to become a solid foundation for the Church. It is OK to have a different interpretation, but it is NOT OK to have a contradictory interpretation. To say that Jesus intended Simon's name change as a mere nick-name intending to reflect a quality that is actually antagonistic to the quality that the Fathers have UNANIMOUSLY assigned to Peter (i.e., hard-headedness/stubborness is not a quality amenable to the ideal leadership Peter was intended to represent) seems, IMHO, to be heterodox.

In Christ always.

P.S. If you regard Stephanos' caricature of you as "new age" to be inappropriate, isn't your own statement that Stephanos is out of his league rather "below the belt"? Stephanos seems to know a lot about many issues.

Yah - I tried to erase it but I was too late

He seems to know some good stuff - but he often tends to rub me the wrong way. If he would lighten up on the accusations of hersesy and new age - I might even get along with him. This is just a discussion board.

-ray

Dear francsig�

I never said �merely� or �only� - the giving of a nick-name.

What I wrote was very clear as to the certainly of this event being the occasion of Jesus� announcing his own intention to build his ecclesia upon Peter the chief apostle.

No such �unanimous� opinion of the Church Father�s exists - in the sense of it having no further meaning.

Please consult your Catholic catechism (115 The Sense of Scriptures) regarding the literal sense, the spiritual sense, the allegorical sense, the moral sense and the anagogical sense present in scriptures �according to an ancient traditions� which is your Church Fathers.

Now it is common sense to see that before the Resurrection Peter exhibited not much in the way of ideal leadership. As regards if the nick-name of �rock� has any further meaning according to any of the senses which 155 of the Catholic Catechism and the ancient tradition of the Church Father�s sets forth the possibility of� I am reminded of an audio tape of Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, in which the good Archbishop said�.

The tape is about 30 minutes long and the bishop is saying just what I say about Peter. In fact I might be guilty of plagiarism (if I were selling anything) because I have paraphrased Archbishop Sheen so closely and so much.

It was entriguing possiblity that the Archbishop�s belief regarding the name given to Peter that started me on the research as to if the Archbishop - was right. Was there any basis in the Hebrew language and colloquial phrases which further supported the Archbishop and nailed down this "rock thing" in anyway along the ilnes of what he spent 30 minutes proving of Peter? (I asked myself)

The Archbishop was right!
Righter - than he knew.
(well may not 'righter' than he knew. He was already convinced in every other aspect.)

The only missing pieces (that the Archbishop didn�t know) that would have nailed it down soundly was regarding the Old Testament colloquial Jewish phrase �thick of heart� (first found as applied to Pharaoh in Exodus) which can just as well mean �thick of head�. At that time they believed that the location of �thought� was in the chest and within the heart. A man thought �with his heart�. So the determination of the meaning as to �head� or �heart� (intellect or will) for us of English mind - depends upon the context.

For reliable reference as to the Hebrew concept of �heart� please refer to Bishop Kallistos Ware�s tape �Discovering The Inner Kingdom: The Prayer of The Heart� Oakwood Publications.

The heart was the center of the person and the center of intellect as well as his volitive will and emotions. It was the �gateway� between our animal and spiritual natures. It was envisioned that human blood carried our spiritual �life� to our animal nature (body). Hence the rather shallow (but symbolic) Jewish law that forbids a man to eat bloody animal meat least that blood mix with our blood and pollute the heart and spirit to be inclined toward the desires of animal nature.

The colloquial phrase in treatment (�thick of heart�) can also mean <thick, solid, firm, slow, stubborn, dense, unmovable, etc> because in the Hebrew word encompassed all of these and as to which of the choices of English term best fit�s the translation depends upon surrounding factors (context). As a general rule you can be sure that you have the proper meaning when all the several possible inflections fall into place in harmony. It was not the Hebrew habit to select one meaning of a word over another - because the Hebrew language is just not this way. A particular meaning become primary due to context but secondary inflections must still be valid. If the subject being spoken has important significance the rule gets stronger. This is why the language lends itself so well to poetry and it is also why you will find variations of choice among English translations. Generally all English variations are valid but among them should, most often, be considered primary according to the literal or fundamental narrative.

On the road to Emmaus Jesus conjoins the terms �fools� a quality of the intellect - with �slow of heart� a quality of the will. It is the same structure we are examining. In his Jewish mind they are the same thing (foolish and slow - mind and heart). Two sides of the same coin. In that culture it was typical to give the object of the intellect first and then the object of the will second. They were not thought of as separate (as we think tend of them today) but rather as two sides of the same coin or two functions of the same �one thing�. Today we think of them as two separate functions; thought is envisioned as located in the head or brain and will is envisioned to be located with the sensations of the body.

I am sure a lesson in the form of Old Testament Hebrew language and phraseology - would bore most everyone but I hope this is helping you understand better.

Jesus was following the common Jewish form of speaking (at the time) when using this type of phraseology by naming the object of the intellect first (masculine in gender) and the object of the will second (feminine in gender). He was comparing first Simon�s head and then Simon�s heart - to a rock. We still do the same today when we compare someone�s head to a rock (bone head) and someone�s will to a rock (solid, firm, unmovable).

As regards if Jesus said �and� or �but� - again - in the Hebrew this is one word translated on force of the context (by determining if it the use is adding the first item to the second or holding the second item in contrary to the first item). I am not certain if this is also true in the Greek and Aramaic of the time. But that almost does not matter because if not true - there is the strong probability that the original transliterator was forced to make a choice between the two (and or but) from Hebrew to Aramaic etc.. on the possible scenarios of transliteration.

The final determination as to �and� or �but� is found in the �on the other hand� he is making (this-temple, my self, my church) as opposed to the Jewish Temple. It is a contrary (not this but that). Nailing it down.

None of this denies that Jesus would build his church upon Peter - it rather enforces it - �to the max!�

Thank's for the discussion.

-ray

You may find this intersting. It is often a good idea to consult the Jews regarding their language.

Yup.. you are right, my memeory failed and it is "You are petra ...." not you are petros.

I believe (as several scholars do) that the Lord spoke Hebrew and that the orginal gospels were written in Hebrew or perhaps Aramaic - and later transliteredted into Greek when they were needed for the gentile areas.

They were certainly not orginally written in Greek. At one time I believed the orginals may have been Aramaic because of some convincing Aramaic copies - but - research into the Aramaic manuscripts resulted in the same problem as the Greelk manuscripts had (too many areas where sentence structure did not follow Greek practise and proper form). After a direct word for word transliteration into Hebrew - it was found that sentence structure followed exactly Hebrew form - pointing to the probably reality that the orginals (excepting Luke) were in Hebrew and the Aramaic and Greek are direct transliterations (not translations - but translisterations).

http://www.jerusalemperspective.com/articles/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=1463

-ray