www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Orthodox Study Bible

Sigh.

Were it not for the fact that the OSB makes it a point to deny any important connection to Simon and "rock" in 16:18 and then proceeds to attack papal claims in 16:19, you would have no argument from me. As I said before, I do not expect the OSB to take the Catholic position.

So perhaps, on a more positive note, you could offer the Orthodox explanation of why Simon was named Peter, since the OSB simply brushes it aside and offers nada. All we are told is that "Rock" does not refer to Simon himself, but to his faith.

As to the "sons of thunder" passage, of course there is significance there, but it has little bearing on anything ecclesiological. Your attempt to establish equivalance here limps more than a bit, if only for the reason that it is not coupled with Jesus describing the nature of how he will build His church, the granting of the keys, etc etc.

And of course, on what basis does the OSB go on in 16:19 to highlight the "special authority" granted to Simon?

If...

- Jesus intended the keys for all the apostles,
- and there is no significance to the name change,
- and rock refers exclusively to his profession of faith,
- and an equal measure of primacy is granted to each and every apostle through the power of binding and loosing,

why bother saying that there is anything special about Simon's authority? It seems that the OSB wants it both ways. Can you clarify any apparent contradictions here?

Ok, perhaps you can do us a favor. Since you think that the giving of Simon the title "Rock" is so significant, why don't you present which Eastern Father of the Church ever emphasized this to the degree that you would have us Orthodox do. If such a great emphasis exists amongst our Fathers, I'd argree with you that this should be mentioned in our commentary. If not, then I see no need to go searching for this claimed significance of meaning.

St. Bede offers one that fits with Orthodox teaching: "Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock from which thou didst receive thy name, that is, upon Me Myself, I will build My Church. Upon this perfection of faith which thou didst confess I will build My Church" -Homily I.16

So the origin of St. Peter's name, according to St. Bede, derives from his confession that Jesus is the Son of God. It is upon this truth that the Church will be built.

The point of the OSB seems very clear and rational to me. Unlearned Orthodox should not be misled by Papal claims about this passage, nor should they go to the opposite extreme of the Protestants by denying any significance to St. Peter's role in the early Church. You might call that "wanting it both ways" but others would call that "balanced." The OSB editors would be irresponsible if they did not state something to guard the Orthodox flock from exaggerated Latin Papal claims. They are quite justified, therefore, in doing so.

p.s. My comparison might "limp" to someone who considers St. Peter a "super-apostle" and the Popes of Rome as "super-bishops" but to us Orthodox it makes good sense as we do not, and never have, attributed the significance to them that you Latins do. For us and the Tradition we maintain, it walks just fine.

I love the Orthodox Study Bible. I take it to Church whenever I can for reflection.

I especially enjoy:

• the headings of each portion to correspond to that particular day.
• the interpretations of the Holy Fathers regarding the context of the Holy Word read that day
• A wonderful commentary on the Eastern Church
• The preparation for the Sacrament of Penance

When I read the day's scripture readings, and the applicable footnotes listed in the OSB, I can then more fully appreciate our Presbyter's homily for the day.

all in all, I see nothing but positives for the OSB, as a simple layman.

In Christ,

Michael

As with the OSB, you offer nothing that is a satisfactory explanation for the renaming of Simon. It is not that I believe that none exists, I had merely hoped you could offer more than passing the proverbial buck. The fact that the narrative account mentions the name change should warrant some explanation. What is the Orthodox interpretation then?

No - your comparison limps because you have not established any grounds for equivalence in terms of the importance of the two passages ("sons of thunder" and "you are Peter") for the reasons I mentioned above.

And I do not accept the super-apostle or super-bishop theories you set up as caricatures of the position of my church on papal/petrine primacy.

If you can't address the point, just admit it and I'll try to find someone who can explain the renaming of Simon from an Orthodox perspective. The idea that something isn't important because "it just isn't", especially when dealing with passages of the Sacred text satisfies only those with an agenda for denying evidence that is contrary to their own position.

Christ is Risen!

I re-read the commentary last night on the passage in question. Again, I don�t see any major issue with it. In general I don�t think the OSB goes in to super detailed exegesis for various reasons. The space it devotes to the passage in the Holy Gospel of St. Matthew is actually in my opinion one of the more substantial sections of commentary. I said before, and I will repeat, I think the OSB editors are well within the Orthodox tradition and have done their best to make the essential elements of the passage in question clear to those who they think their audience is comprised of.

I posted earlier a link to Al Green�s web site which has a section devoted to "St. Peter and the Rock" [aggreen.net] . There is one article in particular by Panagiotis Boumis which is on the Myriobiblos site of the Church of Greece (an excellent site IMO). The link to that article is here [myriobiblos.gr] . Mr. Boumis goes in to a detailed view of the passage in question, and in particular addresses the nuances of the Greek it was written in concerning such issues as the rock, the name change and so forth.

I have gotten the feeling that the real question being asked here is �how can anybody come to anything but the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16?� Obviously the Orthodox Church does view this differently, and hopefully the links I have posted will go some way in to clarifying what is position is vis-�-vis this passage and others related to it.

Andrew

Andrew,

Thank you for providing those links. I've not been involved in this conversation but I am very interested in reading them!

God Bless,

Andrew,

Indeed He is Risen!

I concur. Thanks for the links.

I am not taking the position you mentioned, although I certainly agree with the Catholic interpretation otherwise you and I would be in full communion on your side of the aisle.

I certainly recognize the challenges of space in such an effort, and let me reiterate - I love the OSB. I use it. I recommend it. I have gained a great deal by using it.

I truly am interested in the Orthodox interpretation of the renaming. I look forward to reading the links to see if it fills in the gap that the OSB creates in interpreting the narrative.

Thanks and God bless,

Gordon

"If you can't address the point, just admit it and I'll try to find someone who can explain the renaming of Simon from an Orthodox perspective. The idea that something isn't important because "it just isn't", especially when dealing with passages of the Sacred text satisfies only those with an agenda for denying evidence that is contrary to their own position."

Gordon,

I offerered you an explanation by a Church father, that echoes our teaching about how we see the significance of St. Peter's name change. This you blatantly ignored. If you can't deal with the fact that we Orthodox do not attribute an exaggerated significance to St. Peter's name given him by the Lord (hence my comparison to the "Sons of Thunder"), then it is you who should "admit it." Perhaps it is you "with the agenda for denying evidence that is contrary to your own position." Physician, heal yourself.

What I have wrote is clear and reasonable. I think your accusations against the OSB are unfounded and a figment of your imagination.

Ghazar

I did read your quote after you wrote it. I will quote it again here:

Let me say fom the outset, it is a marvellous quote. (I'm not trying to be patronizing here - I am being sincere.) It provides tremendous insight into the connection between Simon's new name and the fact that he takes it from Christ. It also makes the connection between Christ, Simon's renaming and his profession of faith.

What it does not explain is the significance of the renaming in relationship to Simon's role in the ecclesia. I think Our Divine Savior renamed Simon "Peter" for a reason. I believe that the clues to this rationale are found within the narrative itself (keys, binding and loosing, etc etc.).

Setting all that aside, let me address you as a Christian brother.

I want to apologize for my contribution to the escalation of this conversation. I generally try not to engage in this type of polemic, but my frustration with trying to connect the dots and identify an Orthodox position got the better of me. I stand by my position that the OSB does not do a sufficient job explaining the passage and that it is patently wrong on certain points. You take a contrary position. Fine - we differ on what constitutes sufficiency in this regard, and certainly disagree in terms of the implications of our own respective interpretive traditions.

But we should dispense with the personalizing of our points of difference. Agreed?

Gordon

Dear Gordon,

I agree. I also apologize where I have been unfriendly in my posts. Other than this, I would question the very notion that our Lord "changed" Simon's name. I know that He gave him a new name, but it may be inaccurate to say that Jesus "changed" his name. Considering the NT witness, not only did others still continue to use Peter's given name, "Simon," but so did St. Peter himself (e.g. 2 St. Peter 1:1). St. Madteos refers to him as "Simon called Peter" (St. Mt. 4:18, 10:2, 16:16; cf. St. Mk. 1:30, St. Lk. 4:38, 24:34; St. Jn. 6:8, etc.). St. Margos says that Simon was "given the name Peter," not that Jesus "changed his name to Peter" (St. Mk 3:16). Hence my comparison to the giving of the name "Sons of Thunder" to Sts. Jacob and John. St. Ghookas writes in his Gospel: "Simon, whom He also named Peter" (6:14), and in his Works of the Apostles, he writes: "Simon whose surname is Peter" (10:5, etc.). Not only this, but our Lord Heesoos Himself still continued to refer to Peter as "Simon" (St. Mt. 17:25). In the Garden, Jesus still calls him "Simon" (St. Mk. 14:37, see also St. Lk. 22:31 & St. Jn. 21:15-17).

There's no doubt St. Peter had an important leadership role in the Church. But I don't think the name given him by our Lord was a reflection of this. Quite simply, in reference to his added name (which is "Bedros" in Armenian), I first consider this verse from St. Hovhannes' Gospel:

And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas'' (which is translated, A Stone). (St. Jn. 1:42)

Then I consider the following passage from St. Bedros himself:

Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, "Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious, and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.'' Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, "The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone,''
and "A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.'' They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed. But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy. (2:4-10)

Therefore I conclude that Christ is the chief conerstone. St. Bedros, based on his great Christological confession is another great stone in the living foundation of the Church (along with all the apostles). Then, we too are part of this great spiritual edifice, as living stones ourselves. I think I've maid all the points I wanted to make here. Anything more than this gets into the whole subject of ecclesiology and the role of the Pope of Rome.

How come in St. John 1:49-51 when Nathaniel makes the same assertion as St. Peter Our Lord only says, "Do you believe because I told you I saw you beneath the fig tree? You shall see greater things than this...Amen, amen I say to you, you will see Heaven opened up and the Angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man!"

And in St. John 11:25-29 when St. Martha also proclaims the same thing, Our Lord doesn't even say anything about it. There has to be something more to St. Peter. Especially since Nathaniel is another name for St. Bartholomew who is an Apostle.

Not trying to start an argument or pour more gas on the fire!

Probably b/c both of those references are from the Gospel of St. John, whereas the one in question we are discussing comes from St. Matthew's Gospel. If you stick with St. John, there is a simple statement of what "Kephas" means and nothing more about St. Peter's name.

I understand that Catholics see much more significance in references to St. Peter and I respect this. I really have to get back to my studies (which I barely have time for now). My main point was to defend our approach to the issue of St. Peter as represented in the OSB. I hope I've said enough on this.