Ut:
By saying, “they would have known what Jesus *would have *said” the grammar you use indicates that Jesus had not said what they quote Him as saying.
For example, if someone asked me, “Does Ut like working in the area of Information Technology?”
I might reply, yes, Ut told me, “I love working in Information Technology!”
Now, you might call me out on this and say, “Soc, I never said any such thing to you! Why did you say I did?”
“Well, if i had asked you if you like working in Information Technology, that’s what you’d say, woundn’t you?” i’d reply.
“Yes, but that’s not the point!” you might respond. “You’re not being honest, even if you are right that I agree with you! Rather than say, ‘Ut told me such and so,’ you ought to say, ‘I believe Ut would say such and so.’ It’s dishonest to put words in my mouth that i’ve never said!”
Do you agree, Ut that it would be dishonest for me to quote you as saying something you never said?
No. For the very reason you’ve already given, I would not say it was dishonest. You already know I am in the Information Technology industry, and from what I’ve told you about it, I do love what I do. So I would say that what you are saying represents what I actually thought about an issue.
I think you have to keep in mind that Jesus was with the dsiciples for three years. He said many things throughout those three years. What is reported about Jesus in the Gospels is only a subset of what he actually said and taught, as is evident from John’s words:
John 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.
Now, although I believe that the New Testament contains the fullness of revelation, I also believe that it does not self interpreting. And the reason it is not self interpreting is that the Gospels did not record everything that Jesus said and did. But, you will agree with me I hope, the Apostles did know everything that Jesus said and did. It was contained in their memory. And I bet you they thought about every single aspect of every single word and deed that Jesus ever said and did throughout their remaining days in this world. They processed his deeds and actions. They synthesised what he said and did into coherent theological systems.
Each Gospel writer took what was needed to impart a portion of what Jesus taught to one portion of Christ’s church. And the rest of what he said remained unmentioned. But no one Gospel writer ever claims that they have written down everything anyone would ever need to know on the subject of Jesus Christ and his teachings.
In fact, you will notice that the Gospels are very open ended. I’m sure you know the difference between open ended questions and closed question? I do this all the time when I interview SMEs.
Closed Question: What is the value required for Attribute A?
Open Ended Question: Can you describe some of the features and uses of Attribute A?
The same is true for answers. The answers that Jesus gave to Peter and the statements he made about the rock are very open ended. And open ended statements require an interpreter.
It is my strong belief that the only people suitable for this task were the Apostles and their successors. And the reason I trust the successors to the apostles is that they were taught so much more about Jesus than what is contained in scripture. They were given authoritative interpretations.
Let me illustrate this with a geometric example. Imagine the Gospels and the Letters of the new testament are Point A. From Point A, you can have interpretations that can go anywhere. 360 degrees in fact. However, when you have a church father giving interpretation B to a passage, you can immediatly draw a line from point A to point B and get a general idea of the trajectory and direction in which a certain line of interpretation is leading. The same is true for almost every other docrtine taught by the Catholic Church. Church Fathers give you a glimpse into the interprative trajectory of doctrinal development.
I trust the Church Fathers because they were so close to the fullness of the teachings of the Apostles, who gave them guidance on how to interpret scripture drawing from their experience with the living Word of God. I feel like I can trust the trajectory of the church fathers given how open ended scriptures actually are.
Going back to your possible interpretations of Matthew 16, and the confusion we have today, I would certainly go with the Church Fathers, who allowed for multiple interpretations of this text, but always affirmed one litteral meaning, which was that Jesus built his church on Peter.
The reason why the Gospels are so unclear on certain points is that they were written by Authoritative teachers whom one could always go to in order to clarify certain confusing points. For example, when the Corinthians decided to eject their lawfully ordained bishops, they did so on the strength of words, “if two or three of you agree on a point, etc…” Clement forcefully corrected them on this by describing apostolic succession and the lawful transmission of authority from the Apostles to their successors, the bishops. This is a clear example, for me, of how confusing scriptures can be withouth an authoritative interpreter.
Therefore the trajectory from A to interpretation B mapped out by the rebellious people in the church of Corinth, was corrected by the authoritative interpretation C coming from Rome. C, therefore, entered into this body of tradition coming from the Fathers, who were duly ordained by the Apostles.
God bless,
Ut
