Matthew 16:13-20 question

[Future_Prodigy]

I was reading Catholicism: The Story of Catholic Christianity by Gerald O’Collins, Mario Farrugia (both Jesuits, whom after reading this forum I know find out aren’t well liked in the Conservative circle of Catholics); and in it, when they were tracing the historical roots of the papacy they mentioned how the early gospel ending of matthew did not include the Caesarea Philippi Confession but that it is in the longer ending not the shorter one. My problem is this verse is ALWAYS cited by Catholic Apologetists for the Primacy of Peter and even the ability to absolve sins.

I was wondering what other Catholics and Orthodox memebrs here had to say about this!

 

[Veritas41]

I’m a convert from evangelical Protestantism, and I never heard from even Protestants that Matt 16 wasn’ t in the original Gospel of Matthew (which it seems Protestants would gladly tout this if it were fact since this is a passage Catholics use to defend the papacy). Matt 16 isn’t even at the end of the Gospel, so I don’t understand why it would be said Matt 16 wasn’t in the “ending.” I’m not a Bible scholar or expert, but that sounds strange to me.

There is much more in the NT that supports Peter’s primacy.
socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/50-new-testament-proofs-for-petrine.html

 

[Todd_Easton]

As far as I know, Matthew 16:13-20 is present in all extant versions of Matthew’s Gospel. To suggest that there was an earlier, shorter version of his Gospel without these verses seems to be idle speculation, completely unfounded, and not deserving of anyone’s serious consideration.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Future,

Look at any critical edition, Protestant or Catholic and you will find that this passage, in its entirety, is in all the manuscripts. The fact that it is in one Gospel and not in another simply means that the four evangelists had different purposes. Otherwise where would be the need of four of them?

Verbum

 

[mercygate]

I was reading Catholicism: The Story of Catholic Christianity by Gerald O’Collins, Mario Farrugia (both Jesuits, whom after reading this forum I know find out aren’t well liked in the Conservative circle of Catholics); and in it, when they were tracing the historical roots of the papacy they mentioned how the early gospel ending of matthew did not include the Caesarea Philippi Confession but that it is in the longer ending not the shorter one. My problem is this verse is ALWAYS cited by Catholic Apologetists for the Primacy of Peter and even the ability to absolve sins.

I was wondering what other Catholics and Orthodox memebrs here had to say about this!

Um. That’s the Gospel according to **Mark **that has the “second” ending. Not Matthew.

 

[NotWorthy]

There’s also a lot of theories that John’s Chapter 21 was added, maybe by a disciple of John’s.

Some of our separated brethren hypothesize that Papists included it in the text.

 

[Wave]

The fact that it is in one Gospel and not in another simply means that the four evangelists had different purposes. Otherwise where would be the need of four of them?

Verbum

I don’t understand this reasoning at all. The story before these lines and after these lines is nearly identical in the other synoptic gospels. What “different purposes” could the other evangelists have had for leaving out the text about the keys and building the Church?

 

[NotWorthy]

I don’t understand this reasoning at all. The story before these lines and after these lines is nearly identical in the other synoptic gospels. What “different purposes” could the other evangelists have had for leaving out the text about the keys and building the Church?

Each Gospel had a purpose.

Matthew’s Gospel concentrated a lot on the fact that Jesus was the fulfillment of all the prophecies of the Messiah.

Mark’s Gospel focuses on giving strength to the Roman Christians who are suffering persecution. He shows that Jesus was glorified through His Suffering, and that their suffering at the hands of the Romans for Jesus is sharing in His Glory.

Luke Gospel is directed at the Gentile Christians, it’s written more at a historical perspective, just as Acts is.

John’s Gospel, written years after the other three, wanted to teach us more about Jesus, the Man. That’s why John Gospel doesn’t follow the other three in narration.

 

[Wave]

OK. I will make the question more specific. How does leaving out the lines about the keys of the Kingdom and building the Church in any way promote the purposes attributed to Mark and Luke? Surely it would, if anything, help to strengthen the will of the Roman Christians to know that their first bishop was given the keys to the Kingdom. Similarly, I do not understand how leaving out these critically important lines would improve the “historical perspective” of Luke’s audience.

 

[NotWorthy]

OK. I will make the question more specific. How does leaving out the lines about the keys of the Kingdom and building the Church in any way promote the purposes attributed to Mark and Luke? Surely it would, if anything, help to strengthen the will of the Roman Christians to know that their first bishop was given the keys to the Kingdom. Similarly, I do not understand how leaving out these critically important lines would improve the “historical perspective” of Luke’s audience.

Well, look at the writings of the NT. Many of them were to address things that needed proof or needed correction.

If the Early Church already understood this, then why would it need to be addressed. Again, with Matthew, the goal was to link this as the fulfillment of the OT. Peter, as the New Prime Minister, would continue a role that had been established in ancient Israel.

Let’s take Mark, for example. The source of Mark’s Gospel is believed to be Peter Sermons, for Mark worked with Peter for many years and would have learned primarily from Peter (Mark may not have known Jesus). In Mark’s Gospel, the role of all the Apostles are downplayed, even making them out to be little more than bumbling fools. This is thought to be due to Peter, who would have minimized his role when preaching the Good News of Jesus.

 

[Wave]

Well, look at the writings of the NT. Many of them were to address things that needed proof or needed correction.

If the Early Church already understood this, then why would it need to be addressed. Again, with Matthew, the goal was to link this as the fulfillment of the OT. Peter, as the New Prime Minister, would continue a role that had been established in ancient Israel.

I don’t buy it. The rest of the story – before and after – is the same in all three gospels. It would surely require strong motivation to leave the meat out of the sandwich.

If anything, this argues that, if the incident happened, it happened at another time and was inserted into this story by Matthew in order to make some point.

Also, don’t most people think that Mark was written BEFORE Matthew? If so, Mark could hardly count on the early Church understanding anything. Certainly something as controversial and important as this would not universally be considered axiomatic.

Let’s take Mark, for example. The source of Mark’s Gospel is believed to be Peter Sermons, for Mark worked with Peter for many years and would have learned primarily from Peter (Mark may not have known Jesus). In Mark’s Gospel, the role of all the Apostles are downplayed, even making them out to be little more than bumbling fools. This is thought to be due to Peter, who would have minimized his role when preaching the Good News of Jesus.

Mark: So I take it that you agree that leaving these verses out seems contrary to Mark’s stated purpose. Are you saying that Mark did not know that Jesus personally designated Peter to be the leader of the Church and gave him the keys to the Kingdom? If so, what was Peter’s motive for hiding this from him? Modesty? Are you seriously saying that Peter was too modest to admit that Jesus made him the leader of the Church?

Or are you saying that Mark knew about the keys and building the Church, but he left this out of the story to make Peter look like an idiot? I don’t see a third alternative.

Luke: You say “for example,” but I do not see how the reasoning applies to Luke at all. Did someone conceal this from him also? What was the motive? Was there a conspiracy?

 

[thistle]

I don’t buy it. The rest of the story – before and after – is the same in all three gospels. It would surely require strong motivation to leave the meat out of the sandwich.

If anything, this argues that, if the incident happened, it happened at another time and was inserted into this story by Matthew in order to make some point.

Also, don’t most people think that Mark was written BEFORE Matthew? If so, Mark could hardly count on the early Church understanding anything. Certainly something as controversial and important as this would not universally be considered axiomatic.

Mark: So I take it that you agree that leaving these verses out seems contrary to Mark’s stated purpose. Are you saying that Mark did not know that Jesus personally designated Peter to be the leader of the Church and gave him the keys to the Kingdom? If so, what was Peter’s motive for hiding this from him? Modesty? Are you seriously saying that Peter was too modest to admit that Jesus made him the leader of the Church?

Or are you saying that Mark knew about the keys and building the Church, but he left this out of the story to make Peter look like an idiot? I don’t see a third alternative.

Luke: You say “for example,” but I do not see how the reasoning applies to Luke at all. Did someone conceal this from him also? What was the motive? Was there a conspiracy?

Most people do NOT think Mark was written before Matthew!

 

[NotWorthy]

I don’t buy it. The rest of the story – before and after – is the same in all three gospels. It would surely require strong motivation to leave the meat out of the sandwich.

If anything, this argues that, if the incident happened, it happened at another time and was inserted into this story by Matthew in order to make some point.

Also, don’t most people think that Mark was written BEFORE Matthew? If so, Mark could hardly count on the early Church understanding anything. Certainly something as controversial and important as this would not universally be considered axiomatic.

There are three keys you are missing. Yes, Mark was written before Matthew (I don’t know if it is, but that’s irrelevant). But the Gospel’s message had been transmitted for decades verbally. Mark’s Gospel was not the dawning of the story of Jesus to the early Christians.

Secondly, the Chirstians, during the time of Mark, had the nasty habit of being used as night torches in Nero’s garden so that the Romans could enjoy the gardens after hours. They were being used as food for the lions at the circus. Do you think they were worried about succession? They were needing to know that the Man they were likely to die was worth dying for.

Third, you act like the three synoptic Gospels were all written to repeat themselves. If so, why the need for three?

Mark: So I take it that you agree that leaving these verses out seems contrary to Mark’s stated purpose. Are you saying that Mark did not know that Jesus personally designated Peter to be the leader of the Church and gave him the keys to the Kingdom? If so, what was Peter’s motive for hiding this from him? Modesty? Are you seriously saying that Peter was too modest to admit that Jesus made him the leader of the Church?

Peter went through a large transformation after Christ’s Ascension. That was not the same Peter that was foolishly asking Christ to let him walk on water.

Or are you saying that Mark knew about the keys and building the Church, but he left this out of the story to make Peter look like an idiot? I don’t see a third alternative.

Luke: You say “for example,” but I do not see how the reasoning applies to Luke at all. Did someone conceal this from him also? What was the motive? Was there a conspiracy?

No conspiracy. Matthew’s Gospel just spent so much more time showing that the Israel of the OT was being re-constituted into the New Church. Jesus was de-constructing the Pharisees, while setting up the Apostles as twelve judges.

 

[Wave]

At this point, I am not even sure whether we even disagree. I appreciate much of what you said. There was a widespread oral tradition, there was a persecution in Rome, and the evangelists had different purposes and different audiences.

I think that the lines in Matthew are important and, at least in retrospect, controversial. After all, they now encircle the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica. It seems to me that the lines in Matthew’s text before and after, both of which are also reported by Mark and Luke, are less so. I have difficulty imagining either one deliberately removing the bread from the sandwich. When you argued that Peter downplayed his own role, I thought that you agreed with this, but perhaps this judgment is where we differ. Maybe you think that the keys to the Kingdom verses were not that important in the first century.

If I were Mark writing to strengthen the Roman Church or Luke trying to provide as complete an historical record as possible, this is the last thing that I would omit, especially if I decided to include the specific episode. I therefore think that a more likely explanation is that Matthew, perhaps for the reasons that you indicated, added the text, which may well have been part of a different episode, to a familiar story.

Essentially I am saying that I can more easily imagine one evangelist placing meat between two slices of bread to make a sandwich than two evangelists removing the meat before they served it.

 

[Yerusalyim]

OK. I will make the question more specific. How does leaving out the lines about the keys of the Kingdom and building the Church in any way promote the purposes attributed to Mark and Luke? Surely it would, if anything, help to strengthen the will of the Roman Christians to know that their first bishop was given the keys to the Kingdom. Similarly, I do not understand how leaving out these critically important lines would improve the “historical perspective” of Luke’s audience.

Why would INCLUDING the lines in Mark and Luke have been important? Remember, neither Mark, nor Luke, were present at the time these things were said, only Matthew and John, and in John, we find the other text that supports the primacy of Peter. Many scholars do think Mark was written first, who knows, but, if as we suspect Mark comes from the teaching of St Peter, it would be quite natural for Peter to NOT mention that Christ named him as the Holder of the Keys…don’t you think? Peter was, after the resurrection, a humble man I would imagine.

 

[NotWorthy]

…it would be quite natural for Peter to NOT mention that Christ named him as the Holder of the Keys…don’t you think? Peter was, after the resurrection, a humble man I would imagine.

It seems that the weight of the keys may have humbled Peter, for such was often not the case prior to Jesus Passion.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

Primacy OF Peter

Our Protestant brothers and sisters reject apostolic succession in general and the teaching authority of the bishop of Rome in particular. I accept papal authority because it has strong support in Scripture, and it can be easily traced historically.
SCRIPTURE
In the OT, when God established His Covenant with the nation of Israel, He provided for a living, continuing authority in the Mosaic priesthood (2 Chr 19:11, See now, Amariah is high priest over you in everything that pertains to the LORD). (Mal 2:7, For the lips of the priest are to keep knowledge, and instruction is to be sought from his mouth, because he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts). This authority did not end when the OT Scripture was written; rather it continued as the safeguard and authentic interpreter of Sacred Scripture.

When Christ established His Church the New Israel, He set up a living, continuing authority to teach, govern and sanctify in His name. This living authority is called “Apostolic” because it began with the twelve Apostles and continued with their successors. It was this Apostolic authority that would preserve and authentically interpret the Revelation of Jesus Christ. This same Apostolic authority determined the canon of the Bible, and will preserve the teachings of Jesus Christ in all their fullness and uncorrupted from error, until the end of time.

Jesus Changes Simon’s name to Peter, which mean “rock.” Our Lord says this rock will be God’s way of preserving the Church from corruption until the end of time. Our Lord knew St. Peter would be dead by 70 A.D. Therefore Christ must have intended this office of Peter to last until the end of time

If you read Acts 15 it gives an account of the first Church council, the Council of Jerusalem. Called at the request of St. Paul, this council met to decide whether Gentiles had to follow the Law of Moses as well as the Law of Christ. Notice that there was much discussion among the Apostles and presbyters. However, after Peter spoke, the assembly fell silent. His statement ended the discussion. This council obviously considered St. Peter’s authority final.

Ok some of our Protestant brothers and sisters will say, “Hold up there Catholic boy.” Some will claim Acts 15 shows that James, not Peter was the head of the Church. Since James the Less (not James, the brother of John) gives the concluding remarks at the council of Jerusalem and also recommends some marriage and dietary regulations for the Gentiles, they conclude that James must be head of the Church.

The first twelve chapters of Acts, which describe the early Church in Jerusalem. Every Chapter (except 6 and 7, which describe St. Stephen’s martyrdom) shows St. Peter in a leadership position while St. James appears only briefly, and never in a leadership role. St. Peter is involved in all the Church’s important “firsts.” Peter led the meeting, which elected the first successor to an Apostle (Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:41). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic, Simon the Magician (Acts 8:21). Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-41). Peter received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentiles converts be Baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

He looks like the first Pope to me.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I’m no Scriptural expert, but I’ve never heard it even suggested in all my encounters with non- and anti-Catholics that these verses were not part of the original text.

What I have seen, as have many, I’m sure, is gross misrepresentations of its meaning and outrageously bad translations, like this:

“…and the things you allow on earth will be the things God has allowed, and the things your forbid will be the things God has forbidden.”



Peace,
Dante

 

[mercygate]

I’m no Scriptural expert, but I’ve never heard it even suggested in all my encounters with non- and anti-Catholics that these verses were not part of the original text.

What I have seen, as have many, I’m sure, is gross misrepresentations of its meaning and outrageously bad translations, like this:

“…and the things you allow on earth will be the things God has allowed, and the things your forbid will be the things God has forbidden.”



Peace,
Dante

I seem to recall thatThe Interpreter’s Bible, a widely used and well respected Protestant resource (in 12 volumes if I remember correctly), speculates that the passage about the keys MUST be a later insertion since it COULDN’T possibly have been authentic. I have the set downstairs and will look it up and come back later with the citation. I remember scratching my head, even as a Protestant, and thinking that this was a quibble without much substance.

 

[NotWorthy]

I seem to recall thatThe Interpreter’s Bible… speculates that the passage about the keys MUST be a later insertion since it COULDN’T possibly have been authentic.

No, it can’t be authentic. Because then, those crazy Catholics would be right!!!