The Passion of the Christ

[UpNDownGuy]

Continued...

Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian


The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon,” the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community. (The Layman's Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), 93.)

Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary


The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built. . . . The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy. (“Matthew 14-28,” Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 470.)


I could add more examples, but this is getting pretty lengthy as it is...my point is that your interpretation has been largely abondoned by Protestant Biblical scholars. It is, of course, roundly refuted by the Catholic Church. More importantly, I've never found the Bible to be that tricky. If it says something, it's usually best to not try and read too much into the words.


In any event, feel free to believe what you will. I know what I believe won't change from postings on a pilot website.

 

[Super 80]

UpNDownGuy,

They are all valid commentaries, and probably represent a majority opinion in man's study of this passage.

However, I noted that a couple note the word play that is evident here. This is like Adama and Adam, and bone of my bones for Eve as well. Or like the Sons of Thunder among the Disciples. Or even the word play with Son of God and Son of Man being also in the Aramaic as "like unto God, and "like unto Man."

So with such self-evident word play I think there may be more than just a simple equation as when a commentator just out and out states this means Peter=rock.

Other aspects of the figurative use of 'rock' by Jesus as a sure foundation have to be included in any study of meaning one would assign to this passage as well. Since the last year of Jesus' ministry was one of conflict, and literally His following dwindled as the message took on a 'hard edge,' these twelve disciples were going to be the foundation of Christianity on the Pentecost.

Another figurative use of rock is in the Bible as in Jesus himself from Daniel as being 'cut out of the mountain without hands' (by God) ought to figure in as well.

I have already noted the feminine form is also used for the Church meaning not an institution, but the Saints, or the elect. And if rock has no distinction in the Aramaic, why then did the Gospel accounts make a distinction in gender? I think it is precisely to make a subtle difference between the rock Jesus is referring to and Peter the man - nothing to diminish his leadership role in the Apostles though.

The Apostles did not think to start a hierarchy with Peter at the head. Thus, I think they may have assigned a different meaning to Peter's name as well.

But none of your commentaries put this passage in context of the place where it was uttered. Seeing a walking tour on video of some of Jesus' ministry made a lasting impression upon me of Caesarea Philippi. If you put that discussion at the foot of that cliff with one of the head waters of the Jordan coming out of its base - it puts a totally different light on the passage and one that got me thinking about what the meaning might be.

This is all God-study by men. I am not saying I am right, and I'm not even trying to persuade you or say the others are wrong. I am informing all of my study. Take it for what you want; keep the good parts and reject what you think is bad.

But this is not a Protestant / Catholic debate, but a discussion among brothers. How you feel about this passage has no lasting consequence in your Salvation, but it is a measure of how hard God-study can be on even a simple verse.

How we deal with our differences can be a measure of our hope that we have in Jesus that His love would reflect from us as we deal with each other and the world.

 

[Timebuilder]

Well, I saw it.


Looking back on other depictions of this series of events, they are very clean and neat, Hollywood style. Like Jeffrey Hunter in King of Kings. Some speeches, some flogging, not much, almost no blood, nailing to a cross, an angry dark sky, and "it is finished."

A nice resurrection, flowing white robes, etc. Cue the music.

Not this time.

The Romans were noted for their brutality, and it is given full treatment here. It underscores the incredible level of commitment to our salvation that Christ had, to endure such treatment by choice, to suffer willingly on our behalf.

The realization of this level of love is what left me stunned.

Behold the Man.

 

[Satan]

so, it's christians vs. catholics now...

sweet

come to the dark side, there's just one

 

[UpNDownGuy]

Funny!!!

I just realized I was censored...LOL! I can't imagine what the offensive words were...I'd retype them, but I suspect they'd just go away again. I promise you there was nothing offensive intended in any of it.

 

[TonyC]

Re: Funny!!!

I just realized I was censored...LOL! I can't imagine what the offensive words were...I'd retype them, but I suspect they'd just go away again. I promise you there was nothing offensive intended in any of it.

What was censored (twice) was the word Pesh itta wihout the space...

The Pesh!tta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses.

The Pesh!tta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho.”

Interesting censorship...

 

[Super 80]

It wasn't censorship as much as it was a programming glitch, any time you put s-h-i-t together in a word, it gets bleeped out no matter how innocent the word may be.

 

[TonyC]

It wasn't censorship as much as it was a programming glitch, any time you put s-h-i-t together in a word, it gets bleeped out no matter how innocent the word may be.

...automated censorship

 

[Timebuilder]

One month.

Five thousand "reads."




Yeah. No one is interested in threads like this.

 

[surplus1]

I hope the many readers are more interested in the substance than the quarrels.

Finally saw the movie. Thought it was well done, even though there was some "license" in trying to make the story comprehensible.

My personal opinion is that the film is of great interest to those who already know the story of Jesus and what The Christ did for us all. However, for those that do not know or have not heard the Word, I don't think it will do much in the way of education. I think it will just come across as a depiction of some "dude" that was horribly beaten and murdered for his beliefs. I found the treatment of the Ressurection especially nebulous and lost on those who do not already know and believe.

I hope I'm wrong, but I really do think that for Christians it is a great reminder of the price God was willing to pay for our salvation. For non-Christians it's just an example of how evil and brutal men can be but it won't convert anyone.

The movie presumes you know the whole story and you already understand why this sacrifice was made. If you don't, then you will not learn it from this film. JMHO.

 

[Timebuilder]

The movie presumes you know the whole story and you already understand why this sacrifice was made. If you don't, then you will not learn it from this film. JMHO.

No, you are probably correct, there is little "learning" from the film, aside from learning the brutality of Romans and the degree of suffering endured. And there certainly is a great deal of "poetic license" that Gibson feels is acceptable that someone more familiar with the Bible might not feel is acceptable.

There is however (and I think this is one of the reasons the movie was made) a stimulus to ask questions. Imagine: someone sees the movie, and he doesn't understand why Jesus was rejected as the Messsiah, or why He suffered this treatment willingly. This moviegoer will likely ask the first person he thinks can give him an answer. Maybe a friend. Maybe the local Bible church. A neighbor, or a poster on an aviation message board.

Before this movie, I had imagined a "flogging" to be the kind of whipping that a seaman might suffer on the Bounty under Captain Bligh. You know, a couple of dozen strokes of the whip, a bucket of seawater, and off to your hammock to suffer in recovery for several days, and then back to work on the ship.

It never occurred to me that they would just keep going until the victim was more like road kill than a man.

It makes the idea of His sacrifice even more impressive, because He could have decided against the whole thing, and let us all be lost. Instead, He was the architect of compassion and service. Wow.

 

[skydiverdriver]

Surplus,
You are free to doubt that anyone will be converted because of the movie. Or, you could actually look at the evidence, and find that many people are being saved because of it. I hear people talking all the time about the things that happened in the film, and if they could find where it was in the Bible to check it's accuracy. Perhaps you havn't heard anyone say these things, but I have, a lot.

I'm a bit suprized that you refused to answer my question about Bible "versions" with different interpretations. You refer me to a website where people debate about what the Word means, but that doesn't mean the interpretations are wrong. Two people could read the exact same sentence and come up with different meanings. That's why Protestant christians believe in the preiesthood of the believer.

I'm also wondering why you think you are a christian because you belong to the Catholic church. I'm wondering if I were to join a golf club, would that make me a golfer? What if you left the Church, would you still be a christian? Can you leave the Church? I really am curious as to how you feel about these things.

Thanks for reading, and answering.

 

[skydiverdriver]

----------------------------------------------
NEWS BRIEFS:
----------------------------------------------
'Passion' Prompts Man's Murder Confession

A Texas man who authorities say had literally gotten away
with murder confessed to the crime two weeks ago after
seeing "The Passion of the Christ."

Dan Leach, 21, admitted to Fort Bend County, Texas,
sheriff's deputies that he killed his 19-year-old
girlfriend in January -- staging the crime scene to appear
like a suicide. Authorities fell for the ruse, ruling that
the suburban Houston woman hanged herself.

"He was very, very meticulous," Detective Mike Kubricht
told the Associated Press. "It was very well-planned and
well-executed."

One thing Leach apparently didn't plan on, though, was the
conviction he'd feel after seeing Mel Gibson's film about
the last 12 hours of Jesus' life on Earth.

"He made an admission that viewing 'The Passion of the
Christ' had some impact on him," Chief Deputy Craig Brady
told Houston television station KTRK. "I believe it's his
conscience that got the best of him. He approached members
of his church congregation first, and told his family
members what had occurred."

Leach told deputies his motive for the killing was that he
thought his girlfriend was pregnant -- and he didn't want
the responsibility of being a father. The woman's autopsy,
however, revealed no evidence of pregnancy.

----------------------------------------------

 

[surplus1]

No, you are probably correct, there is little "learning" from the film, aside from learning the brutality of Romans and the degree of suffering endured. And there certainly is a great deal of "poetic license" that Gibson feels is acceptable that someone more familiar with the Bible might not feel is acceptable.

I can agree with that.

There is however (and I think this is one of the reasons the movie was made) a stimulus to ask questions. Imagine: someone sees the movie, and he doesn't understand why Jesus was rejected as the Messsiah, or why He suffered this treatment willingly. This moviegoer will likely ask the first person he thinks can give him an answer. Maybe a friend. Maybe the local Bible church. A neighbor, or a poster on an aviation message board.

I can agree with that too.

Before this movie, I had imagined a "flogging" to be the kind of whipping that a seaman might suffer on the Bounty under Captain Bligh. You know, a couple of dozen strokes of the whip, a bucket of seawater, and off to your hammock to suffer in recovery for several days, and then back to work on the ship.

My reaction is different. I think the whipping scenes are overdone. It is extremely doubtful that a "man" could endure the severity of the beating depicted and then carry a cross over such a long distance. Persumably we believe that Jesus did not use the power of God to assist in His human sacrifice. The graphics depicted in the film appear to contrdict the possibility of any human being able to endure that, to the point of suggesting divine intervention. They have their purpose and their effect, but I wouldn't take them as Gospel.

The "debt" for human sin was not paid for by a flogging. It was paid by the decision of God to become man and endure death. The gory details of how the murder took place are not verifiable in the extremes depicted in the movie. Yes, we know there was a beating, we know there was a crown of thorns, we know He carried the cross and we know that He was crucified and died for us. However, the importance of that was not the severity of the beating, it was the fact that He was God and didn't have to do any of that.

It never occurred to me that they would just keep going until the victim was more like road kill than a man.

We really don't know that they did. The Gospel does not go into details of the scourging. It says that it happend but there are no graphic details. In any case this is to me irrelevant. The sacrifice was God becoming man and dying for us, not the severity of the flogging.

It makes the idea of His sacrifice even more impressive, because He could have decided against the whole thing, and let us all be lost. Instead, He was the architect of compassion and service. Wow.

Yes, He could have done away wilth all or any of that at any time. Yes, the compassion and service were the example but from my perspective the physical pain did not itself atone for the sins. If that were so, then any man could have suffered and been crucified. God becoming man and giving up life was the sacrifice.

Perhaps the movie will benefit many and I hope that it does, but for me personally it does nothing to create, improve or develop my Faith. It is a good film, but it is only a film.

 

[surplus1]

Surplus,

I'm a bit suprized that you refused to answer my question about Bible "versions" with different interpretations. You refer me to a website where people debate about what the Word means, but that doesn't mean the interpretations are wrong. Two people could read the exact same sentence and come up with different meanings. That's why Protestant christians believe in the preiesthood of the believer.

My arguments in the discussion have not pretended to determine which version is right or which version is wrong or which version is in between. If there are different interpretations of the meaning of the Word, there is conflict. Both can't be "right" if they are different. The "problem" is precisely that two people can read the same thing and come up with different meanings. If those "different meanings" contradict each other that brings the veracity of the whole thing into question.

The web site to which I reffered you is just such a debate. One version of the Bible is being compared to other versions of the Bible. The claim is made, repeatedly, that one version is accurate and the other is not. I am not making the claim, they are.

I said to you that until you all (reformers) get your act together about which "version" is accurate, I can't compare anything for there is nothing to compare with. I have no idea why you have all these different interpretations. From my perspective, man cannot "interpret" the Word of God and give it a series of different and conflicting "meanings" from time to time. It is either the Word of God or it isn't. When you change the "meaning" you have altered the Word.

I not saying that you have to use Olde English or any particular phrase or word exactly. I am saying that you can't have multiple meanings for the same thing.

I'm also wondering why you think you are a christian because you belong to the Catholic church. I'm wondering if I were to join a golf club, would that make me a golfer? What if you left the Church, would you still be a christian? Can you leave the Church? I really am curious as to how you feel about these things.

If you understood what I have been trying to say you would not ask those questions. Evidently I have failed to properly articulate my feelings or my beliefs. I'm sorry that I haven't been clear.

I do not think that I am a Christian because I belong to the Catholic Church. Catholics don't have "memberships" in churches in the same context that Protestants do. I am a Christian because I believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God made man, that he suffered and died for our sins, that He is the Messiah and Savior. Belonging to the Catholic Church does not make me a Christian and will not in itself save my soul. Faith in Jesus Christ is what will do that. The Church is merely a tool that the Lord uses to spread His Word.

I also believe that the Catholic Church is the the church that Jesus founded and sent his Apostles to teach His word in and through. However, belief in "the church" is not the source of belief in the Christ. It is the other way around, i.e., belief in the Christ is the souce of belief in His Church.

Equating that to membership is a golf club is specious and does nothing more than indicate your lack of comprehension. I don't know what you believe or don't believe and it doesn't matter to me. I've been critical to some extent of the "born again" Christians but I don't mind saying that when it comes to the analogy that you use, they are way ahead of you. The Faith is in Jesus Christ, not in some "club" that you call a church.

The Church is universal, the vehicle through which God chose to spread his Word. It is not a "thing" made by man that I can leave or not leave. In that context all churches are irrelevant. Christianity is not belief in a "church", it is belief in Jesus Christ. You choice of words is therefore totally confusing to me. I say again, the church does not make me a Christian, therefore it is not possible for me to "leave" the Word of the Lord. The church merely spreads the Word, it does not create it.

The Word can't be spread with whatever "meaning" man chooses to give it. It comes from God and His teachings must be followed. They can't be subject to the whims of men. The Apostles and their descendents were charged by Jesus with teaching His Word. They must do so accurately, not however they feel they should at different times.

As an example, when they come up with the idea that Christ was not divine, not God, (like the Unitarians) or like the Jehova Witnesses, that is a perversion of the word. Someone has to keep it straight until God returns. His Church was charged with doing that.

Over the centuries, many men have made grave errors in how the went about teaching the Word. Many of those men were Catholics, some even Popes. They were men, and men make mistakes. We must ask ourselves -- were the errors in the Word itself or the method of its teaching? In my opinion we are free to condemn the method when it is obviously contrary to the Word, but we are not free to change the Word itself.

This is a difficult subject for religion is an abstraction. As I tried to say earlier, it is not a question of fact, it is a question of Faith, i.e., the belief in that which cannot be proven.

I hope that answers some of your questions.

Respectfully,
Surplus1

Thanks for reading, and answering. [/B][/QUOTE]