Ep. 52: Proclamations
CLICK HERE for the corresponding devotional in Yeshua Adored
MATTHEW 16:13-28, MARK 8:27- 9:1, LUKE 9:18-27
They arrived at Caesarea Philippi. It would have taken two days to get there. It was a magnificent location. Nestling amid three valleys on a terrace on a slope of Mount Hermon, it is almost shut out from view by cliffs and woods. Everywhere there is a wild medley of cascades, mulberry trees, fig trees, dashing torrents, festoons of vines, bubbling fountains, reeds, and ruins and the mingled music of birds and waters. The vegetation and fertility all around are extraordinary. Here Herod, when receiving the tetrarchy from Augustus, built a temple in his honour. On the rocky wall close by, niches may still be traced, one of them bearing the Greek inscription, ‘Priest of Pan.’ When Herod’s son, Philip, received the tetrarchy. He enlarged and greatly beautified the ancient town and called it in honour of the Emperor, Caesarea Philippi.
It was into this chiefly Gentile district that the Lord now withdrew with his disciples after that last and decisive question of the Pharisees. It was here that Peter delivered his great confession. It may have been that this rock wall below the castle, under which sprang Jordan, or the rock on which the castle stood, supplied the suggestion for Jesus’ words, ‘You are Peter and on this rock will I build my church.’
Jesus and his disciples spent six days hereafter this confession and here, on one of the heights of snowy Hermon, was later on the scene of the Transfiguration. Isn’t it significant that such events should have taken place far away from Galilee and Israel, in the lonely grandeur of the shadows of Hermon and even amongst a chiefly Gentile population? Not in Judea, nor even in Galilee, but far away from the Temple, the synagogue, the priests, Pharisees and Scribes, was the first confession of the Church made, and on this confession its first foundations laid.
The backdrop of all of this had been the public challenge of the Pharisees and Sadducees, that Jesus should validate his claims to the Messiahship through a sign from heaven. Probably, neither his questioners nor his disciples understood his answer or even the meaning of his ‘sign.’ To the Pharisees, Jesus would seem to have been defeated. He had publicly declined or at least evaded the challenge. He had conspicuously failed! At least, so it would appear to those who could not understand his reply.
But what of the disciples, who (as we have seen) would probably understand ‘the sign’ of Christ somewhat better than the Pharisees? Jesus’ perceived failure in not meeting the challenge of his questioners must have left some impression on them. It must be remembered that his last ‘hard’ sayings at Capernaum had led to the defection of many, who until then had been his disciples.
It was after solitary prayer that, with reference to the challenge of the Pharisees (‘the leaven’ that threatened them) he now gathered up all their experience of the past by asking his disciples the question, what do those who had watched his works and heard his words, regard him as being? The answer came from Peter, the one who most truly represented the Church because he combined with the most advanced experience of the three most intimate disciples the utmost boldness of confession, ‘You are the Christ!’
And so in part was this ‘leaven’ of the Pharisees purged! Yet not wholly. For it was then that Jesus spoke of his sufferings and death and that the resistance of Peter showed how deeply that leaven had penetrated. And then followed the grand contrast presented by Jesus, between minding the things of men and those of God. Six days more of quiet waiting and growth of faith and it was met, rewarded, crowned and perfected by the sight on the Mount of Transfiguration.
Let’s return first to the great confession. The popular opinion did not point to Christ as literally the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the other prophets who had long been dead. For although the literal reappearance of Elijah and probably also of Jeremiah was expected, the Pharisees did not teach, nor did the Jews believe in, a moving around of souls between bodies. Besides, no one looked for the return of any of the other old prophets, nor could anyone have seriously imagined that Jesus was, literally, John the Baptist, since all knew them to have been contemporaries.
Rather it would mean that some saw in him the continuation of the work of John, as heralding and preparing the way of the Messiah. But, although they regarded Jesus as an extraordinary man or teacher, they did not view him as the Messiah.
The words of the confession are given somewhat differently by the three Evangelists. From our standpoint, the briefest form (that of Mark): ‘You are the Christ,’ means quite as much as the fullest (that of Matthew), ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.’ We can thus understand how the latter might be truthfully adopted and would be the most truthful, accurate and suitable in a Gospel primarily written for the Jews. And here we notice that the most exact form of the words seems that in the Gospel of Luke, ‘the Christ of God.’
The full knowledge that he was the Son of the Living God came to the disciples only after the Resurrection. Previous to the confession of Peter, those who had witnessed his walking on the water had remarked, ‘Of a truth, you are the Son of God,’ but not in the sense in which a well-informed, believing Jew would hail him as the Messiah, and ‘the Son of the Living God,’ designating both his Office and his Nature.
Again, Peter himself had made a confession of Christ, when, after his teaching at Capernaum, so many of his disciples had forsaken him. It had been, ‘We have believed, and know that you are the Holy One of God.’ The mere mention of these words shows both their internal connection with those of his last and crowning confession, ‘You are the Christ of God’ and the immense progress made.
In the words of this confession, Peter has consciously reached the firm ground of Messianic acknowledgement. It is the first real confession of the Church. The reply of the Saviour is only recorded by Matthew. But its absence in the Gospel of Luke proves that it could never have been intended as the foundation of so important a doctrine as that of the permanent supremacy of St. Peter (through the papal system).
Let’s examine the meaning of Jesus’ reply. The whole form here is Hebraistic. The ‘blessed are you’ is Jewish in spirit and form. The address, ‘Simon bar Jonah’ proves that the Lord spoke in Aramaic, rather than Greek. Lastly, the expression ‘flesh and blood’ as contrasted with God, occurs in the letters of Paul and in almost innumerable passages in Jewish writings, as denoting man in opposition to God. No less Jewish in form are the succeeding words of Christ, ‘You are Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (Petra) will I build my Church.’
We notice in the original the change from the masculine gender, ‘Peter’ (Petros), to the feminine, ‘Petra’ (‘Rock’), which seems the more significant, that Petros is used in Greek for ‘stone,’ and also sometimes for ‘rock,’ while Petra always means a ‘rock.’ The change of gender must therefore be significant.
We recall that, when Peter first came to Christ, the Lord had said to him, ‘you shall be called Cephas (Kepha in Aramaic)’, which is Peter (Petros, a Stone, or else a Rock). When the Lord, therefore, prophetically gave the name Cephas, it may have been that by that term he gave only a prophetic interpretation to what had been his previous name, Peter. This seems the more likely, since it was the practice in Galilee to have two names, especially when the strictly Jewish name, such as Simon, had no equivalent among the Gentiles.
Believing that Jesus spoke to Peter in Aramaic, we can now understand how the words Petros and Petra would be purposely used by Jesus to mark the difference, which their choice would suggest. We can understand how, just as his contemporaries may have regarded the world as reared on the rock of faithful Abraham, so Jesus promised, that he would build his Church on Peter’s faith and confession.
Nor would the term ‘Church’ sound strange in Jewish ears, being the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Qahal, ‘convocation,’ ‘the called.’ In Hebrew use, it referred to Israel, not in their national but in their religious unity. As here employed, it would convey the prophecy that his disciples would in the future be joined together in a religious unity; that this religious unity or ‘Church’ would be a building of which Christ was the Builder; that it would be founded on Peter’s faith and confession. And that this religious unity, this Church, was not only intended for a time but would last beyond death and that ‘the gates of Hades’ shall not prevail against it.’ Viewing ‘the Church’ as a building founded upon Peter’s confession. He would be representative of the Apostles, ‘the stewards of the mysteries of God’ with ‘the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.’
No terms were in more constant use in Rabbinic Canon Law than those of ‘binding and loosing.’ The words are the literal translation of the Hebrew equivalents Asar, which means ‘to bind’, in the sense of prohibiting and Hittir, which means ‘to loose’, in the sense of permitting. On the other hand, ‘binding and loosing’ referred simply to things or acts prohibiting or else permitting them, declaring them lawful or unlawful. This was one of the powers claimed by the Rabbis. As regards their laws, it was a principle that while in Scripture there were some that bound and some that loosed, all the laws of the Rabbis related to ‘binding.’ So binding was to do with law-making.
On the other hand, loosing was to do with the administrating of justice, determining guilt or innocence. These two powers - the legislative and judicial - which belonged to the Rabbinic office, Jesus now transferred to his Apostles; the first here to Peter as their representative, the second after his resurrection to the Church. In the view of the Rabbis. heaven was like earth and questions were discussed and settled by a heavenly Sanhedrin. Now, regarding some of their earthly decrees, they would say that ‘the Sanhedrin above’ confirmed what ‘the Sanhedrin beneath’ had done.
All the three Evangelists record - each with distinctive emphasis - that the open confession of his Messiahship was not to be made public. Among the people, it could only have led to results the opposite of those to be desired. The Evangelists write it down in plain language, as fully taught them by later experience, that he was to be rejected by the rulers of Israel, slain and to rise again the third day. And there can be as little doubt that Jesus’ language must have clearly implied all this because at the time they did not fully understand it.
This is an extract from the book, Jesus : Life and Times, available for £10 here (Finalist for Academic Book of the year at 2023 CRT awards)