"Jesus of Nazareth" Chapter 9

Chapter 9: “Two Milestones on Jesus’ Way: Peter’s Confession and the Transfiguration”

I really enjoyed this chapter of Pope Benedict’s book. Yes, I enjoy all of the chapters, but I always especially like reading what people think about St. Peter. He was such an incredible man – there’s never been one like him – yet he was very, very humble, and sometimes it is difficult for people reading the scriptures to recognize his greatness, because he certainly did not showboat it in the Gospels, Acts, or his two Letters (Epistles.)

The first half of the chapter discusses the various times and ways that St. Peter recognizes the true and full identity of Jesus. I think Benedict describes these wonderfully. I’d like to expand on two points that for some reason just about everyone misses, perhaps because they are so plain and simple. Pope Benedict’s book structure relies quite a bit on overly scholarly work by others, which he then puts in perspective, explaining, agreeing with, or rebuking, depending on what is appropriate. This means that he dives into the more symbolic and complex, and sometimes skips over explaining a few basic things and exploring them for the edification of the general reader who is trying to put it all together and get inside the minds of Jesus and the Apostles, to deepen their faith and understanding. In one example Benedict says, “Scholarship overplays its hand with such reconstructions” (p. 303,) and while he is referring to one scholar’s work, I’d comment that everyone is doing this overplaying to some degree. So here are a few really obvious things about St. Peter that are remarkably profound to his mission as given to him by Jesus Christ.

Benedict describes, delightfully, the intertwining of events, locations, and words of St. Peter to Jesus. He only touches on Jesus’ “nickname” for St. Peter of Cephas, the rock. That is understandable because Benedict’s purpose is to discuss the nature of Jesus, as seen through St. Peter’s “eyes of recognition” (my words.) But there’s some really cool insight that is missed in not looking more at the deliberate implications of Jesus selecting Cephas as the nickname for St. Peter. Benedict points out that there is a tradition where this scene took place “where a wall of rock overhangs the waters of the Jordan and thus powerfully illustrates Jesus’ words about Peter as the rock” (p. 290.) And that is great, but the more important “interior location” of the event is from Jesus’ perspective as a carpenter. Jesus is by trade a carpenter in a time when both stones and wood were used to construct houses. Stones or rock were used for foundations and for wells, boundary markers, livestock pens, and so forth. Stones indicate where a decision to build has been made. Stones are removed from fields that are to be tilled, and placed where there will be a permanent structure. Jesus is telling St. Peter, Cephas, that not only will people literally one day see him as the spiritual rock upon which the Church is built, through the Apostolic and Papal lineage, but also that literally, St. Peter will choose where the foundation of the Church will be built.

Now much focus has been placed upon the Biblical passage “A stone which the builders rejected, the same has become the head of the corner” (Isaiah 28, later quoted by both Jesus and St. Peter) because that cornerstone refers to Jesus Christ. However, Jesus gives St. Peter the title Cephas, the rock, because he is also literally charging him with establishment of the physical presence and heart of the Church location in time and space on earth. If St. Peter had decided to go to some city in Africa, let’s say, and was martyred there, that would have been the Catholic Church’s “Rome,” The Vatican. If he had hopped a ship to England and gone to London to preach and convert, and was martyred there, London would have been the Catholic Church’s “Vatican.” But he went to Rome, the center of the world’s empire at that time, and that was where the rock of the Church was placed, with Christ as the cornerstone and St. Peter building the stones of foundation. Jesus literally gave St. Peter the nickname, the power, and the title to choose the literal location of the Holy See of the Church. If St. Peter had seen fit to go in a different direction perhaps we’d be arguing about doing the old rite Senegalese or Urdu mass! But it was really both St. Peter’s choice, and the logic of destiny, that he and St. Paul both converged on Rome, the center of the conquered world, and conquer and convert it for Christ.

We know that St. Peter was fully aware of what he had been charged with, though this may come as a surprise to some, because his words of acknowledgement are subtle and humble and easily missed. Read 1 St. Peter 2:4-10:

Draw near to him, a living stone, rejected indeed by men but chosen and honored by God. Be you yourselves as living stones, built thereon into a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Hence Scriptures says, “Behold I lay in Sion a chief cornerstone, chosen, precious; and he who believes in it shall not be put to shame.” For you, therefore, who believe, is this honor; but to those who do not believe, “A stone which the builders rejected, the same has become the head of the corner,” and “A stumbling-stone and a rock of scandal,” to those who stumble at the word, and who do not believe. For this also they are destined. You, however, are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people; that you may proclaim the perfections of him who has called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. You who in times past were not a people, but are now the people of God; who had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Is this not beautiful? Many people glide over the writings of St. Peter because they are sparse and humble. Some when they read this passage think that it is only a restatement of Jesus Christ as the cornerstone and their brains kind of turn off or skip ahead in the reading. But look carefully. St. Peter speaks of Jesus as the “living stone” and also the cornerstone “in Sion.” However, St. Peter immediately says, “Be yourselves as living stones, built thereon into a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” St. Peter wasn’t talking about a theoretical building offer symbolic sacrifices, because he uses the words “a holy priesthood.” He understands full well that he is to found and exhort the building of the literal Church. He underscores this again after the quotation about the rejected cornerstone being Jesus and “you, however, are a chosen race, a royal priesthood…” Again by using the word “priesthood” he is speaking of the establishment of the literal priesthood in literal Churches. He is writing this in Rome (which he calls Babylon ha ha) in 63 AD, shortly before his martyrdom. So thirty some years have passed since Jesus Christ died and rose again, and St. Peter has served as the Bishop of Rome – the first Pope – and is now preparing for martyrdom. As such he is spelling out that he has placed the stones of the foundation of the priesthood and the Church literal in Rome, and in the hands of all believers for their own locales.

I sometimes wonder if non-Catholic versions of the First Epistle of St. Peter the Apostle were written in lemon juice as “spy ink” and had to be heated over a candle to be read, as people doubt the first hand Apostolic origin and physical placement of the Catholic Church directly from Jesus Christ to St. Peter. No one can read this passage and misunderstand that St. Peter understood full well what Jesus intended for him to do as Cephas.

With this in mind, I suggest reading his full Epistle 1 and especially savor what he wrote in 5:1-11. Compare it to what you have read from Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict, and recognize that it is the first papal letter to the flock. It is wonderful that it is in everyone’s hands to see!

The second part of the chapter discusses the Transfiguration, where Sts. Peter, John, and James witness Jesus Christ in his body glorified, in discussion with Moses and Elijah. Benedict spends some time on two points to which I’d like to add some perspective and illumination. The first is that Benedict attributes St. Peter’s offer to make three tents, one for Jesus, one for Moses, and one for Elijah as kind of an ecstasy and highly symbolic (speculating a theorized timing connection to the Feast of the Tabernacles.) While St. Peter was in a wondrous ecstasy of amazement, he was not babbling or being symbolic. Think about it. The Apostles have come to understand who Jesus really is, and now he appears glorified and with Moses and Elijah. Jesus and the Apostles have had many followers, but also their lives have been in constant danger, and Jesus has even had to flee from his own hometown. So St. Peter quite literally believed that Moses and Elijah were appearing to stay and help Jesus. It’s actually a remarkable example of the depth of his faith and belief that he didn’t assume this was a vision, but recognized their physical presence and believed with joy that they would reappear and stay in order to help and protect Jesus. As you know, St. Peter and the others did not want to believe that Jesus would be persecuted and die. They knew who he truly was, and had growing comprehension of the face of God through Jesus, and so this seemed like “the next step,” a time to be elated and welcome Moses and Elijah to the fray, to the mission. Later it is explained that the works of St. John the Baptist were the fulfillment of the “return of Elijah,” but at that moment, St. Peter was certainly not being symbolic or addled, but he was showing as clear and as concrete an action-oriented faith as anyone could.

There is also an interesting synchronicity and foretelling by St. Peter here, because who would become the tent makers? St. Peter would, as the rock, and St. Paul, literally a tent maker, would, as they do in fact literally make the tents of the Church for everyone.

The second point on this part of the chapter that I want to make is about the speculation that the Transfiguration is related to the Jewish calendar by occurring during the Feast of Tabernacles. While there is all sorts of interesting correlations it simply is not so. One needs only to read the Gospel of St. John. Because St. John does not record the Transfiguration people do not read the part of his gospel that corresponds to the Transfiguration event. That’s an oversight because while he does not discuss the Transfiguration he does relate that Jesus so wished to attend the Feast of the Tabernacles that he goes in secret. This is related in John 7:1-15 and you can read what occurs. I’ll cite two lines (10): But as soon as his brethren had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly, but as it were privately, and (14) When, however, the feast was already half over, Jesus went up into the temple and began to speak. Jesus did not miss the major feasts of the Jewish calendar whenever possible. So going up the mountain to pray, and then undergo the Transfiguration, would not have taken place during Jewish holy days of obligation or feast days. Even if Jesus was establishing the New Covenant in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and law, he participated in feasts when he could in order to preach.