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.