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

The following clip from Matthew's Gospel has been a bone of contention between Catholics and non-Catholics for obvious reasons:

"And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church."

Who or what is the "rock?"

I ask this because of my reading of one of St. John Chrysostom's homilies (No. 54) on Matthew 16. St. John writes:

"...therefore He added this, "And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;" that is, on the faith of his confession..."

Here John interprets the meaning of 'rock' as Peter's confession, not his person.

In our Pentecostarion, we sing:

"O Christ, strengthen me on the unshakable rock of your commandments." (Ode 3, Sunday of St. Thomas)

And also:

"You were not held by the stone which sealed your tomb; You arose, granting the rock of faith to all." (Sessional Hymn I, Friday Matins, Week of the Myrrh-Bearing Women)

Again, 'rock,' as we find in our own liturgical tradition, implies faith that we all can receive from Christ's resurrection.

But as Catholics, we Byzantines uphold the understanding that the Pope of Rome is "head of the college of bishops" and "enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can freely excercise" (Canon 43, CCEO). We also commemorate our Holy Father several times during the Divine Liturgy since we are in Communion with him and other Catholics.

But is our understanding of the meaning of Matthew's "rock" shaped by our current ecclesial relationship? This would seem to be the case since 1617 when Lev Krevza wrote his masterful "A Defense of Church Unity" after the Union of Brest.

Fr. Lev wrote in 1596:

"That our Supreme Shepherd, Jesus Christ, left us as the single chief shepherd after Himself St. Peter, to whom all, both sheep and shepherds, were to be subordinated." (in his "To the Reader" note at the beginning of his defense)

Fr. Lev also quotes St. John Chrysostom's "Pearl":

"Peter, truly the faithful rock upon which Christ built the Church."

He also mentions Chrysostom's homily on John, pericope 67:

"When He finished dining with them (the apostles), He commits the pastorship of the whole world to Peter. He gives it to none but Peter."

Things get confusing with such contradictory writing in Chrysostom's writings. Are there two definitions of "rock" in St. John's writings? But it gets more confusing. It has been noted that the Slavonic says "leadership" and the Latin says "oversight." Either are given to Peter over the "brethren" and not Apostles.

This is all too hair-splitting. How are we to interpret St. John Chrysostom and our liturgical tradition? I've been told that Steve Ray's book, "Upon This Rock," is an excellent apology for the Catholic meaning of "rock" in Matthew 16.

Any comments?

Joe

Why would a symbol have a singular meaning?
Why would its not having a singular meaning be conceived of as contradictory?

Symbolic language, poetic language, artistic language generally has layers of interconnected meanings. As such it is constantly fresh in its beauty and continually thought-provoking and inspirational.

And discussions that focus on one layer of meaning, typically are aimed ay making some important point, but would loose their rhetorical vitality. to say the least, if accompanied by some patent-like disclaimer to the effect that "the highlighting of one layer of meaning or interpretation should not necessarily be constrewn as disparaging some other."

If you are ready for this - I will open this wonderful thing up for you.

First you must accept three premise�
1) Being a father of the Church simply means that this person was involved with the early formation of the church� was influential� but was also not error free (Jesus alone was an error free human all other humans are often mistaken even if they are saints). Often a father of the church held personal opinions which we off the mark, based upon a misunderstanding, or simply a bit too influenced by pious intentions.

2) The writings of any father of the church need to be understood in the context - of his times.

3) Past opinions of theologians, scholars and saints (also not error free humans) are sometimes right and sometimes wrong� but �wrong� needs to be placed into a relative nature. Understandings which came before are not necessarily �wrong� but have a legitimate �place� in the ongoing developments of understanding. Yet it is clear that some explanations regarding biblical narrations, understandings and explanations which have become sacristant (taken for granted as right) are indeed wrong - other wise this whole biblical thing would have been put to bed by now. And these wrong �taken for granted� are solid impediments to further understanding making for stagnation.

And let us add a fourth: That which the church has defined as �You must believe� in regards to biblical interpretation - is very little. The rest - is open to discussion and we are not required to believe any set meaning - and questioning or coming to non-popular conclusions is not an act against the faith of the church.

Having said that - the problem keeping us from a better understanding of the text involved - is - the past interpretations of the text which have been given by well respected people - and held to be �the gospel� and a �must�. Obviously - there is a problem with past interpretations of the text in as much as - we still debate it today.

While keeping in mind past interpretations, I ask you to look at the text in a new way. We must bring to it - context. And the context we must supply is - Jewish. Jesus (a Jew) is speaking to other Jews - when this takes place. These are people tied to their culture (foreign to us) and their times - within a social environment riveted to their Jewish traditions. Unlike today (mass media etc. where we absorb many cultures.) to be a Jew was to live, eat, breath, Jewish traditions.

Like many words spoken by Our Lord, his words and meaning are deep and reflective. Jesus often spoke in what we would today call - word play. This is much more so with the Hebrew language (Arabic and early Greek also) than today's languages. Voewls in the Hebrew are implied by context - meaning - and word can have several related meanings and only one may be being used or all of them may be implied at the same time. At times, every nuance of his words - was very important and fit what he was speaking about. To the Jew - Jesus hardly ever spoke poetically or metaphorically. He spoke - pure �Jewishness� and spoke as if the theology of the revealed scriptures was - the only reality there was.

We humans have �two� concepts of �reality� in our heads. There is the concepts of faith and the concepts of everyday practical reality. Our climb to sainthood consists of slowing giving up one to adopt the other. We can ask �How can I live my everyday practical life and be a Christian too?� because we have a foot in both worlds. Jesus, was not split like this. To him - the life of the scriptures was the only reality there was� and was the realty reason behind all events of daily life. He was often frustrated by the disciples and having to �interpreter� himself to them (�How long have you been with me !!! and you STILL do not understand what I am saying when I talk about the - bread of life?!! How much longer shall I have to put up with you people?!!�)

In short (I will give a link to a fuller explanation later)�

1) The main concept that would come to the Jewish mind when a �rock� upon which a church would be built was spoken of - is the Temple. The history of the Temple was that it was built upon the very same flat rock upon which Abraham offered Isaac. Mount Moriah. Dirt fill was pushed against the rock portion to make the land larger for the first Temple, and more excavation pushed even more dirt to level it larger for the second Temple. Today, the Temple is no more but instead.. The �Dome of the Rock� sits there. The Jewish phrase �I shall go to the rock� had the meaning of �I will go to the Temple�� for the Temple area (which included religious and government functions) was simply called �The Rock�.

So the first thing we should note is that Jesus is saying �I will build my Temple� because he is drawing a parallel with the religion and government (these were the same to the Jew) that he will build - with the Jewish Temple. This would have been foremost in the mind of the Jewish listener. The implications of this - are many. A) Jesus is calling it �my church� and �my ecclesia� (method of representative governing - as this word comes from the Greek meaning a Senate of representatives who govern). Keeping in mind that this is the only form of government which the Jew say as proper� these words fit well. B) In calling it �my ecclesia� or my Temple, my Church - he is equating himself with - God. Otherwise he should have said �I will build Yahwehs church� - so he was saying �I am God - I am Yahweh�. - when he said �my church�.

Secondly, he was also doing a word play and giving Simone a nick name that would stay with him. Jesus - was calling Simone - what would be equal in English to a loving way of calling someone a bone-head or nub-skull. In the same way we might say someone is �stone hearted� meaning thick and hard to move - we can think of Jesus saying Simone had a head as thick as a �rock� and hard to move - hard to get through to. This is recognized by Jesus using both genders (a male gender at one point and a female gender at another point) and using a contrary between (example of contrary is �on the one hand this but on the other hand that�). The use of the male gener signifies an object of the intellect and the use of the female gender signifies an object of the will. So the word play of �you are petra and upon this petros I will build my ecclesia� has the meaning of �you are petra (hard headed) but upon this petros (hard and solid will) I will build�� has the common meaning of �you are a numb-skull - BUT - upon your solid and immovable will - I will build my church�.

Third - but the use of Petra (a small, masculine, rock that has come from a larger rock) and Petros (large rock from which the small rock has been taken) Jesus is giving a wonderful image of the pool of the entire church (large rock - to be thought of as a combined unitive will of all in the church) and Simone (small rock intellectual in nature) as being lead in governing by one of its members.

Now - as to the question �does rock refer to Peter�s confession of faith� - no - it does not. Firstly, I have shown the use of �rock� to be primarily to mean the Temple and the mount upon which it was built� and secondarily to mean �nub-skull� and thirdly to mean one taken from the entire church to be the churches �intellect�. and governing function.

Now what shall we do with Peter�s �confession of faith� which precedes this event and has lead many to mistakenly see it as the cause of Jesus assigning a primacy of ministerial authority to one� but before I do that let me remind you that the Kingship of Christ was seen as real and the governing he would do would be along the format of the Kingdom of David - and King David also appointed one minister out of all ministers (his cabinet) to be Prime Minster and that Minister wore the Keyes to The Kingdom upon a sash across his breast (as described in Isaiah) which signified his office to represent the King in the King�s absence. A symbolic meaning of �he alone may unlock or lock any door in the kingdom - including the king�s own private chambers�).

The original Greek has this ��. flesh and blood has not revealed this to you - and I say to you also..� but translators did not know what to do with �also� so most leave that word out.

Jesus had just asked �who do men say I am� - and everyone replied speaking of Jesus as a human. A prophet. More that a regular prophet and perhaps THE prophet who would user in the messiah. Perhaps the prophet who would actually BE the messiah. But Peter goes a step further and said �You are the Son of God� assigning to Jesus MORE than just a human nature.

In the current Jewish perspective� even if Jesus was the messiah� the promised messiah was seen as a special human prophet - and was not equated with being a Son of God and sharing in the very nature of God - making him also - God. Human reasoning, even knowing all the prophecies, could not come to the conclusion that the messiah would be anything more than a very special human prophet. There existed no basis, in Jewish thought - that the messiah would be - Yahweh himself. And so Jesus responded �flesh and blood has not revealed this to you� - meaning that only the spirit of God could implant this knowledge into Peter�s mind.

Was Jesus astounded that Peter had come to this knowledge (which Jewish thought and Old testament learning could not have given him)?? No. Not at all� because it was Jesus himself who infused this knowledge into Peter.

Keeping in mind that the God nature of Jesus is the same God nature of the Father - Jesus acknowledges that the Father has �spoken� to Peter (to us this means the Father had infused this knowledge into Peter) while he clearly identifies himself with this action of the Father� for Jesus - CONTINUES the conversation that the Father and Peter were having (the infusion of Peter�s intellect) and says �and further I say to you also � this and that� meaning that it was Jesus in total union with his father that began the infusion - and �further more� meaning there was more that was going to be said - �I say to you also� meaning �here is the rest�.

Jesus KNEW what had been reveled to Peter because Jesus was a party to that revelation. Not only was it the Father who revealed to Peter that Jesus the messiah was also God - but it was also Jesus, the Son, at the same time who did this revelation to Peter.

Jesus was therefore, leading Peter out. It is as if to say �Peter, I have just been in conversation with you, that no one else can hear, while revealing to you in your intellect that the messiah that I am is also the Son of God and the same nature as God is � THIS - is who I am.� When Peter blurted it out - Jesus continues what he had been saying to Peter on a mystical level - now on a human level �and I further� I tell you this in addition to what I had just been saying to you�� and that amounted to �

�I, God and messiah, and Yahweh himself - will build my church and government - not upon your ability to reason things out - but rather upon the foundation of your solid and strong good will and intentions.�

Was Peter�s words �You are the messiah and the Son of God� a confession of faith? No. Not at all. It was a certainly and took no faith on the part of Simon to come to, reason out, or believe in spite of lack of real evidence - it was rather a mystical revelation (properly called and �infusion� of certain knowledge taking place directly into the human intellect). One MUST keep in mind, that up to that point, Jewish scripture and prophecy knew nothing about the promised messiah (the Son of Man - meaning of human nature) also being the Son of God (of God nature). This concept (that the messiah would also be Yahweh in human flesh) had never been �on the table� and so Peter had no way to �put his faith into it�. Peter did not have �faith� in it - Peter was initiated into the certain KNOWLEDGE of it.

Faith is required for something which you have no direct knowledge of - but try to believe. What Simon Peter was given was a mystical and certain - knowledge.

Peter�s �confession� was not a �confession of faith� in a concept that would have never been possible to enter into his human head by way of his (or tohers) reasonings - but was rather a spontaneous admission of what he had just been �given�. And Jesus goes on to tell him why - he was given it (not because of his intellectual ability but because of his solid good will and intentions) and to what purpose he had been given it (that Peter would be the Prime Minister and intellectually guide the entire church as the governing function of the church Jesus would build).

You see? There is a �flow� to all this. These portions are much more connected than had been thought.

I did not notice djs's post untill after I had written this. This may satisfy you djs - I have exposed all the word play depth.

It has been a while for me, you may be better off reading my notes on this.
http://www.thegenesisletters.com/Letters/YouArePetros.htm

-ray

Duplicate post - sorry.

Ray,

What do YOU have to say?

Joe

"1) The main concept that would come to the Jewish mind when a “rock” upon which a church would be built was spoken of - is the Temple."

I checked out the Old Testament and "rock" is used the majority of the time to refer to God. I looked up the Psalms and found it in a number of places:

Psalm 18:2, 31, 46; 19:14; 28:1; 31:2,3; 42:9; 62:2,6; 71:3; 78:35; 89:26; 92:15; 94:22; 95:1; 144:1

I also found a few uses in Isaiah:

Isaiah 3:9; 8:14; 17:10; 26:3,4; 30:29; 32:2; 44:8: 51:1

How do these fare with your Jewish understanding?

This is all too interesting.

Joe

Dear Friends,

One issue with that scripture is that it certainly wasn't interpreted by the Church of the first millennium as it was later on by what even RC theologians today call "papal triumphalist paradigms."

A number of the Fathers considered even average Christians, like me, to be the "rock" if we confess Christ as Peter did and as we do every time we say the Jesus Prayer.

What can be said with any degree of certainty is that this text, when it is used to understand ecclesiology, refers to the Episcopate since, as we see in the scriptures as well, all the Apostles affirmed what Peter said as well - Peter was the first to so affirm.

The Ecumenical Councils are largely silent about the primacy of Rome, but it was assumed that the bishop of Rome had the first place in any such Council - also owing to Rome being the capital of the Roman empire.

Later RC thought was influenced by the "Apostolic See" of Rome notion. The East didn't believe in one such See since Peter and the Apostles established churches in many areas in the East, including Antioch and Alexandria - Pope St Gregory I in fact claims that the "Petrine See" consists of THREE Churches - that of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria - all three of which were founded by Peter (or his assistant, St Mark).

Both Constantinople and Alexandria claimed "Ecumenical" authority throughout the Church along with Rome. Alexandria never forgave Constantinople for "usurping" its place after Rome.

In any event, RC papal doctrines appear to be quite inflated if based solely on this scripture which the early Church ascribed to the foundation of the Episcopate.

Alex

Synonymous.

The context is that the history of the Temple is that it is God's House and Elohim dwells there as the Shekina (cloud of presence which lead Israel out from Egypt) of which continual presence a high priest may come into the Holy of Holies only once per year (the Feast of Atonement). The Ark of the Covenant upon which the Presence rested is common to the early Orient East as a chair, a Throne, upon which the King sat and within which was the document of the agreement of governing (covenant) between the King and his people was kept and from which the King judged important issues. Other nations had human Kings - Israel had the mysterious presence and actions of Providence as their direct King (later augmented by a human King to act as representing the Presence when the people demanded a human go-between).

The official designation of the Temple area was �The House of Yahweh� and that is inscribed on several found items from the Temple. It was the seat of worship and government and learning. This is to be thought of in the same sense as we might say �The House of David� and designated not only the patriarch but his entire family and generations. �I shall be as a father to Israel, and they shall be as my sons�.

A modern comparison would be the synonymous identification of the President with the White House. Someone today would rather say �I am going to the White House� than �I am going to visit the President� and someone going to the White House would be going to be closely and directly involved in the business of the personal presence of the President .

Or again (and probably more practical) when we say on Sunday �I am going to church� we are actually going to visit Jesus or God - in his mysterious presence but since that Presence is nothing the senses can perceive - we say �I am going to church� because human words deal mostly with sense perceptions..

The Rock - has Jewish tradition of being the chosen place of God�s presence through out Jewish history. I forget them all exactly - but Isaac was scarified there, Jacob built an altar there, the First and Second Temples were built there, and much more.

The Holy of Holies (room of Presence) was built upon the exact spot of the sacrifice and altar and so on. In Abraham�s time - it was a flat rock very wide with the spot where the altar was built being naturally raised a bit from all the rest of the rock.

In the American mind - a �rock� can be separated from the idea of a large hill or mountain because the mountain is lush with dirt, tree, etc� because the interior bedroom is mostly hidden� in that portion of the world of deserts and wind - any mountain exists because it is essentially a rock formation to begin with that resists sand storms, the corroding rush of desert rains and wind and unless it has been humanly cultivated it is mostly bare of vegetation and �earth� like dirt.

In early days, when you think of how the Temple area originally looked as Solomon built it - you should think of it a bit as Massada is built upon its natural rock mountain. Later renovations to it involved earthen embankments being built up around it to widen it from housing for the tiers of priest hood, holding areas for animals to be sacrificed, libraries, hall of records, schools and housing for Temple virgins (like Mary had served) and Garrison (Adonia I think that portion was called) for Temple police and the kings standing army. In its last form, the Temple complex - once raise high above the city - now needed walls (the Waling wall remains) on the side that was no longer a natural drop away.

During pilgrimage - approaching pilgrims could see, at night, far off, the polished white limestone of the Temple all lighted up at night. During the Feast of Lights, massive bondfires were built inside the Temple area and before the doors of the Temple. Old priestly garments were shredded as used as wicks for thousands of oil lamps and the fires lighted up the whole city (brighter than the moon at night). For this well known reason Jesus spoke of �a city set upon a hill� is seen far off. We translate this to �hill� but the original Hebrew-Arabic would have been �a city upon a rock� as hill, mountain and rock (used in this sense) are not separated in the old Hebrew mind and share the same word root.

Today, the exact spot of the Holy of Holies remains within the Dome of The Rock and is marked out.

Today, all that remains of the rock surface is this venerated surface (maybe 12 feet wide?) within the Dome of The Rock, the rest of the rock (being mostly lime stone I believe) has so much earth embanked against it (to enlarge the area from Temple expansion in the past) that the only �rock� remaining to see and touch is inside the Dome room.


-ray

Dear RayK,

Were you on your way to give a lecture on the scriptures and somehow got sidetracked to this Forum?

Alex

DJS,

Good point. I find the same problem in defining "church" or "love." Any definition is good unless it is the wrong one. :p

Alex makes sense in referring to even ordinary Christians as being rocks. St. Cyril of Alexandria writes in his 'Dialogues with Hermias' that "rock" means the "disciple's unshakeable and firm faith." Theodoretus writes in 'On the Song of Songs' that "rock" is the "piety of faith and the confession of truth." St. Theophylactus adds "the confession which he had made would be a foundation for the believers" in his 'Commentary on Matthew 16.'

The meaning of "rock" seems to be wide and varied, but why would any one particular definition be considered more important than another? There seems to be a line drawn on one particular meaning over another between Catholic and Orthodox camps. Yet, as DJS implies in the notion of symbol, the word "rock" has several definitions equally expressed from Eastern and Western Fathers.

If I read Steve Ray's book "Upon This Rock" and all its footnotes, I come away with one understanding (Rock = Peter). If I read a good number of the Church Fathers and our own Pentecostarion(!), I come away with an opposite understanding (Rock = Confession/Faith). If I read Lev Krevza's* "A Defense of Church Unity" (1617) and Zaxarija Kopystens'kyj's** "Palinodia" (1617-23) I discover the same opposite interpretations.

* Lavrentij (Lev) Krevza Bejda Revusk'kyj studied in Rome and joined the Basilian Order. He later became the (Greek) Catholic bishop of Smolensk and Chernihiv.

** Zaxarija Kopystens'kyj studied in German and later joined the Theophany Brotherhood in Kiev, who eventually became the archimandrite of the Caves Monastery.

Both Lev and Zax went at it in a fierce polemic battle. It was the first literary duel between an Eastern Catholic and an Orthodox Christian immediately following the Union of Brest. The Uniate-Orthodox polemics ceased after Bishop Josafat Kuncevych of Polack was murdered by the Orthodox.

Where in Ecumenism has this issue been re-investigated?

Joe

Dear Cantor Joseph,

You just better watch your back each time you go into Church!

We might come up from behind, tie you up and forcibly present you to the hierarchs for ordination, as was done with Augustine.

God bless and thank you for your ongoing witness, teaching and sharing of your vast knowledge and insights!

Alex

Ray,

The connection between the Psalms and the Temple is only understood. But nowhere do the Psalms refer to "rock" as the Temple. If the Psalms were the "Hymnbook of the Temple" wouldn't at least one of them refer to it as such?

What about "Mount" Zion? In Greek, "oros" means "mount" or "mountain." Mounts or mountains seemed to always refer to a place of sacrifice or prayer or a site of theophany, both in the Old and the New Testaments.

The pagans always built their temples on the largest hill (oros) nearby a city. Even in our own tradition we used to build our temples on top of a hill (oros) near a village.

There are also some interesting references to water coming out of a rock in the OT (remember Moses tapping his cane on the rock?). How does this relate to the water that came out of Christ's side while hanging on the cross? Why exactly DID water pour out of His side? If "rock" = God, then this would make sense, no?

Joe

Dear Cantor Joseph,

You know Zachary Kopystensky? Well, now that really IS impressive . . .

In fact, the Orthodox position at this time that the "Rock" referred to "faith" or "Peter's faith" was not, as the Catholic side often surmised, a way to deny any connection betwee Peter and the Roman Primacy.

In fact, what the Orthodox polemics at this time were saying, under pressure of the Unia and of the Polish Kingdom to accept it, was that the Petrine Primacy was based primarily on the incumbent pope demonstrating that he truly was in possession of the "faith of Peter" meaning the Orthodox faith prior to 1054.

If the pope of Rome could demonstrate that he adhered to the faith of Peter and the Apostolic Church he and the other disciples founded with Christ as the Cornerstone, then he could enjoy the privileges of the Petrine Primacy.

Ironically, the RC Church's Counter-Reformation theologians also had to define conditions in which the pope could be disobeyed for e.g. having fallen into heresy etc.

Zachary Kopystensky and St George Konissky, Archbishop of Mogilev (recently glorified by the Belorusyan Orthodox Church) both made the argument that the popes of their day had perverted the faith inspired in Peter that alone earned him and his descendants the right to be the "Rock" on which Christ built his Church.

Alex

Alex,

Eggsactly! Virtue is always between two extremes.

Do you think that this is the avenue that should be travelled in Ecumenism talks?

Today, our canons state that the Pope has full and immediate jurisdiction with no connection to a faith factor. This is different.

"Rock" seems to be a fun typology with much fun polemic value.

Joe

Dear Cantor Joseph,

Well, I think that when it comes to ecumenism we are all between a "Rock and a hard place!"

For the Orthodox, ecclesial communion itself is based on unity in faith - this is the key.

It is within that communion and within the collegiality of the bishops who are in communion with each other that the Roman president (as they used to call him) exercises a primacy of service and love.

So rather than talk about ways to adapt the Roman Primacy (an important topic in and of itself), the more "Orthodox" approach here would be to work at making sure Rome is Orthodox once again!

Rome approaches ecumenism as if Orthodoxy denies the Primacy, like the Protestants.

In fact, Rome seems to be deaf to Orthodox statements that Rome's "heresies" that led to the breaking of communion with Orthodoxy is what prevents that Primacy from being active throughout the East today.

By bringing up the matter of "Rock = Faith" you've brought an Orthodox perspective to bear on the Petrine Primacy itself and this paradigm is one that would truly bring much fruit to ecumenical dialogue if Rome were to take seriously Orthodoxy's charges of heresy levelled at it.

But then Orthodoxy has been doing that for quite some time now!

Rome is, in effect, putting the cart before the horse.

By returning to its own Orthodox and patristic faith of the first millennium, Rome will open the way for truly new ways of discussing how best to adapt the Petrine Ministry to the service of the universal Church of Christ.

Alex