Matthew's "rock"

[Miguel_Sastre]

Hi,

I know that most Evangelicals begin their protest of the Catholic use of Matthew 16:16-19 by denying that “this rock” refers to Peter. They have their reasons: 1. The gender agreement issues that leave the exact referent of “rock” ambiguous; 2. We base our interpretation on the Greek text, not the supposed underlying Aramaic. 3. The earliest interpretations of the Church Fathers make Peter’s confession the “rock” etc.

But I’m not most Evangelicals. I happen to agree that Peter (also known as Cephas) is almost certainly “this rock.” What I want to discuss, however, is what Matthew intended his readers to conclude from that fact.

Notice that I’m focusing on Matthew rather than Jesus. I’m not denying that Jesus said these words. (I’m not a liberal.) Rather I am focusing on the fact that Matthew is the only gospel to include them and that he almost certainly has a theological reason for doing so.

Let me lay out a couple of my assumptions here and sketch out an argument that I’m prepared to defend in more detail.

Assumptions:

1. I’m going to assume Marcan priority (i.e., that Matthew is using Mark as a source.)
2. Matthew’s editing of the passages he takes over from Mark where Peter is involved is theologically significant.
3. Matthew’s omissions of passages in Mark where Peter is involved is also theologically significant.
4. The best interpreter of Matthew is Matthew.
5. Matthew, like other NT authors, usually (if not always) cites/alludes to the Old Testament with broader OT contexts in mind.

Some Observations to Consider:

1. Matthew omits 5 Petrine passages from Mark, all of which put Peter in a positive light.
2. Of the 10 Petrine passages Matthew carries over from Mark, most of these are among Mark’s most negative portrayals of Peter. In some cases, Matthew takes what is already negative in Mark and makes it even more so.
3. Matthew has 5 unique passages (including 16:18-19), some of which put Peter in a positive light, some of which do not. In some of these passages, Peter is juxtaposed to Christ almost as if to magnify Christ’s superiority.
4. When we examine Peter in Matthew, on the whole, he seems to be a rather tragic figure. He starts of very well, but ends up in not such a good light. He who is called “first” (Matthew 10:2) truly ends up being last. For the last time Peter is mentioned in Matthew we find him “weeping bitterly.”
5. The fact that Peter plays no part in Matthew’s post-Resurrection story is a conscious editorial move on Matthew’s part and should be taken into consideration when discussing Peter’s alleged “primacy.”

Argument

1. Against the background of a rather sustained “demotion” of Peter, Matthew introduces the “this rock” passage.
2. Peter then gets the “keys of the kingdom” alluding strongly to Isaiah 22:22.
3. But a reading of Isaiah in broader context (Isaiah 22: 15-25) suggests that Peter stands in typological relationship to Eliakim.
4. Eliakim received the “key” to the Davidic kingdom, but ends up not being able to bear the responsibilities placed upon him. He’s a “peg” that can’t bear the weight placed upon him, thus showing himself to be a shaky foundation.
5. It is therefore likely that Matthew and Jesus intend us to see Peter in light of Eliakim.
6. Therefore given Matthew’s overall portrayal of Peter and the Isaianic background, what kind of “rock” is Peter at the end of Matthew’s story? He’s a denier of Christ.
7. But according to Matthew, those who deny Christ before others, Christ himself will deny before his Father.
8. Conclusion: Matthew seems to be saying–at one level–that it’s better to keep your eyes on Christ who does not sink rather than submergible Peter.
9. Another conclusion: Matthew’s identification of Peter as the “rock” seems to be a case of biting irony.
10. Nevertheless, Christ did choose Peter to be the “rock” and he promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his church. But there is nothing intrinsic to Peter that provides a solid foundation. Matthew has made sure that his readers will understand that whatever “foundational” role Peter may have had in the church, true “primacy” belongs to Christ alone.

Sorry that went so long. But I think that does sketch out my major points. Feel free to poke holes in it.

Miguel Sastre

 

[dnu]

Can you provide one Church Father from the first say…400 years of the Catholic Church who refers to the “rock” of Mathew 16:18 as anybody other than Peter?

Nope. Everyone, including those closest to Jesus at the time the converstion took place, knew exactly who Jesus was talking to and what he meant by it. We can quabble over personal interpretations of verses and/or passages all day and it won’t change history.

These may help:

Peters Primacy:
catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp

Peter the Rock:
catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

Peter and the Papacy:
catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp

David

 

[DavidFilmer]

1. It is therefore likely that Matthew and Jesus intend us to see Peter in light of Eliakim.

Your reasoning either stands or falls upon the strength of this particular point. Has Eliakim proven strong, your entire argument collapses, even if we accept your initial predicates (which I do not, but that’s another discussion - for the sake of this reply I will not disupte them).

The Catholic position stands up quite well whether Eliakim was weak or strong. If he was strong, of course, we simply quit the field in victory. But he was weak, so we need to linger a little longer.

If we accept that Eliakim was an archtype of Peter, it doesn’t matter if Eliakim was strong or weak. In fact, as archtypes go, it is better if he was weak, because archtypes are typically weak.

An archtype is an imperfect representation of a more perfect reality. Adam was weak, but Jesus was strong. Eve was weak, but Mary was strong. The manna in the desert (and the loaves and fishes) were weak, but the Eucharist is strong.

Peter was also weak, for a brief period. But, even Jesus had a brief moment of hesitation as he prayed to his Father in the Garden.

Jesus prayed for Peter specifically, and he became strong. Never again was he weak. He might have been a shaky foundation BEFORE Pentecost (when there was yet no Church), but the Church had no lack of “the Rock” AFTER Pentecost (the birth of the Church). Once the Church came to be (and Peter’s mission came into play), Peter was absolutely “the Rock” who encouraged and strengthened the brethren, in answer to Our Lord’s prayer. Once Peter was ABLE to fulfill his calling, he was never weak.

The Catholic position is not compromised, whether Eliakim was weak or strong. The force of your argument relies on imparting the weakness of Eliakim to Peter (for more than a brief period - and at a time that matters) - an approach which is exegetically flawed.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

The Catholic position stands up quite well whether Eliakim was weak or strong. If he was strong, of course, we simply quit the field in victory. But he was weak, so we need to linger a little longer.

I’m not really engaging the “Catholic position” at this point; rather I’m trying to determine what Matthew intended his readers to conclude about Peter. So far you haven’t given a reason for Peter being either strong or weak. You’ve just asserted–but not supported–the idea that–either way, the Catholic position is still in tact. That may well be. After all, I’m not taking into account what John and Luke say about Peter. I’m just trying to listen to Matthew here, and what I’m hearing is a fairly vindictive indictment of Peter (or at least overblown concepts of Peter prevalent in Matthew’s day).

If we accept that Eliakim was an archtype of Peter, it doesn’t matter if Eliakim was strong or weak. In fact, as archtypes go, it is better if he was weak, because archtypes are typically weak.

I agree with your understanding of typology. The antitype (person, place, thing, event) is always in some sense superior to the type to which it corresponds. What I don’t agree with is your conclusion that, either way, Peter still comes out smelling like a rose. Look at it this way: If Eliakim is the story of one who starts out well (second-in-command to the king, key-bearer etc) but ends up in failure, HOW MUCH MORE is the antitype, Peter? That’s how typological arguments work. Compared to Eliakim, Peter’s failure is even greater.

Peter was also weak, for a brief period. But, even Jesus had a brief moment of hesitation as he prayed to his Father in the Garden.

Jesus prayed for Peter specifically, and he became strong. Never again was he weak.

Well, not until Paul rebukes him, anyway. But again, notice how you’re using references outside of Matthew (presumably Luke’s “I’ve prayed for you that your faith may not fail”) in order to, force Matthew into compliance, as it were. I’m saying that Matthew is the best interpreter Matthew (one of my original assumptions going into this thread). Note, I’m not saying that Matthew has the only or final say on Peter. At the level of doing biblical theology, we’re definitely going to have to broaden our horizons to include other interpretations of Peter. I’m just saying that if we focus on Matthew, then we’re more likely to understand what Matthew himself meant us to understand by Peter as the rock and key-bearer.

The Catholic position is not compromised, whether Eliakim was weak or strong. The force of your argument relies on imparting the weakness of Eliakim to Peter (for more than a brief period - and at a time that matters) - an approach which is exegetically flawed.

The force of my argument also includes Matthew’s editing of Mark and his decided emphasis on Peter’s flaws. The argument from Eliakim is only a piece of my overall argument. Bottom line, Matthew, when taken as a whole and the passage itself (16:18-19) within its wider Matthean context, seem to leave us with a rather bleak picture of Peter. If so, then this has to be part of any discussion about Peter’s alleged “primacy” of jurisdiction over the church.

You mention that Peter, after Pentecost, is going to have a rather storied career. (I would agree with that, but probably for different reasons than you.) Yet it is interesting that the rest of the New Testament doesn’t show Peter presiding over the church or using his keys to bind or lose anything. The rest of the New Testament picture of Peter is more consistent with the rest of the career of Eliakim. Peter is more of a missionary than a monarch and his story kind of fades into the background when compared to, say, the apostle Paul. In other words, the claims that later popes have made on the basis of Matthew 16:18-19 do not seem to be descriptive of Peter as his life plays out in either Matthew’s gospel or even the rest of the New Testament.

 

[GiannaMarie_JMJ]

Hello!

Im not sure if you have heard of Scott Hahn, a former Presbyterian Minister, but either way, I really reccomend this article he wrote on Papal Authority and Infallibility. He explains Matt:16 and how Jesus gave Peter the keys. He also quotes many Non Catholic Bible Scholors and how they agree with the Catholic Church on this particular topic.

catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

I hope this helps

God Bless!!

GiannaMarie_JMJ

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Can you provide one Church Father from the first say…400 years of the Catholic Church who refers to the “rock” of Mathew 16:18 as anybody other than Peter?

I’m not frying this fish because I agree with you that Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18. But I am fairly certain that church fathers such as Hilary, Greggory Nyssen, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria and even the great Augustine all interpret the “rock” as someone or something other than Peter. I don’t know if all that fits within your required window of time (the first 400 years), but that should suffice to show you that the fathers were hardly univocal about the identity of “this rock.”

What I would say to each of these fathers if I thought it was okay to pray to them and thus speak my mind is this: "You guys were wrong, bros. Peter was the “rock.” On this, I’m sure we both agree.

I know these guys have pedigree as far as church history goes, but an error, no matter how old and no matter how celebrated the person who holds it, is still and error.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I lifted the two quotes below from 2 different web sites. The first deals with the authorship of Mark, and the second with Matthew.

What does seem to be evident is that Mark wrote for a Roman audience in Rome, and tradition states he wrote what Peter told him. On the other hand, tradition seems to indicate that Matthew wrote for a Jewish audience, and may have been Matthew, ex-Levi, himself.

If so, then Matthew would have had first hand knowledge of Peter as they did the rounds with Christ Himself, and not as a later disciple of a more mellow Peter dictating his memoirs. Matthew would therefore have been more likely to be aware of Peter’s defects, and quite possibly was not overly impressed, but recognised his authority as clearly granted by Christ.

They mystery remains then as to why Mark didn’t include the “Rock” statement, as one would think if he were being dictated to by Peter. Either Peter was being unnecessarily modest, in view of his later failures, or Mark wasn’t dictated to by Peter. John makes a reference to “Peter” quite early in his Gospel at 1:42, confirming in an indirect way Christ’s statement to Peter.

I think basically Matthew saw Peter in action, and while he made the most direct statement about the Petrine office, he also knew Peter’s faults first hand. He may nto have been particularly impressed either.

I’ll put it this way. If one of Abraham Lincoln’s mates of his early days had written a biography about him, but waited until after the civil war, including his habit of leaving sarcastic letters lying around, the chances are that his biograhy would have been a bit more ascerbic than that of a third hand biographer who only had the older, wiser and sadder President Lincoln or official documents as a source.

**Authorship of Mark - **"This is what Christian tradition has handed down, however, and to be fair, it’s a tradition that dates back pretty far — to the writings of Eusebius around the year 325. He, in turn, claimed to be relying upon work from an earlier writer, Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, (c. 60-130) who wrote about this around the year 120:

  “Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered of what was said or done by the Lord, however not in order.”

Papias’ claims were based upon things he said he heard from a “Presbyter.” Eusebius himself is not an entirely trustworthy source, though, and even he had doubts about Papias, a writer who evidently was given to embellishment. Eusebius does imply that Mark died in the 8th year of Nero’s reign, which would have been before Peter died — a contradiction to the tradition that Mark wrote down Peter’s stories after his death. What does “interpreter” mean in this context? Does Papias note that things were not written “in order” to explain away contradictions with other gospels?

Even if Mark did not rely on Peter as a source for his material, there are reasons to argue that Mark wrote while in Rome. For example Clement, who died in 212, and Irenaeus, who died in 202, are two early church leaders who both supported a Roman origin for Mark. Mark calculates time by a Roman method (for example, dividing the night into four watches rather than three), and finally, he has a faulty knowledge of Palestinian geography (5:1, 7:31, 8:10)."

"**Authorship of Matthew **- 1.2.2. There are other early sources that also claim that Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic.

A. Irenaeus (130-200) (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1; also quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 5.8.2): “Now Matthew brought forth among the Hebrews a written gospel in their language, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church.” By “Hebrews” Irenaeus probably meant Palestinian Jews. The language that Jews in Palestine would have spoken was Aramaic, although many Jews had a literary knowledge of Hebrew.

B. Origen (185-254) (as quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 6. 25.3-4) asserts, “Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew [or Aramaic] language.”

C. There is a tradition cited by Eusebius, alleged to have originated with a man named Pantaenos (died c. 190), who was associated with the church in Alexandria, that there once existed a Gospel of Matthew written “in Hebrew letters” (H.E. 5.10.1-4): “One of these was Pantaenos, and it is said that he went to the Indians, and the tradition is that he found there among some of those there who had known Christ the Gospel of Matthew had preceded his coming; for Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them and had left the writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters, which was preserved until the time mentioned” (see H.E. 3.24.5-6). According to Jerome, Pantaenos brought back a copy of this Hebrew version of Matthew to Alexandria (De vir. ill. 36).

D. Eusebius reports the view current in his time is that Matthew’s gospel was based on his preaching to Palestinian Jews, whose first language no doubt would have been Aramaic. Naturally, Matthew’s gospel would have been written in Aramaic. He writes, “For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence” (H.E. 3.24.6).

E. Jerome (342-420) more than once asserts that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, and says that it is not known with certainty who translated it into Greek. He even claims that the original Hebrew gospel can be found in the library at Caesarea (De vir. ill.

 

[DPMartin]

Miguel

In what has been said here it should tell you that a believer’s strength, is the Presence of God with him (Holy Spirit). For Jesus stated that it was of the Father that Peter proclaimed Jesus “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”, and not of flesh and blood. And that my friends is the “Rock” that the Church is establish on, the revelation of God that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God. And as described in this thread, the beginning of the work of God on the day of Pentecost, via His Presence (Holy Spirit) with the Church to the world in the world.

But if you worry for whether Rome was given to the Saints or not. Look to the Cross, the Hebrew priest, approves what is to be sacrificed or offered for what ever the offering is for, and it must be of the heard. In this case Israelite “the Lamb that was slain”, and the one who kills the offering, is the one who receives the benefit of the offering. In other words the individual must be the one to kill the sacrifice, not the priest. Notice it is the Roman empire that executed, killed the sacrifice, so that the Life of it, would be bleed out.

Also note: Lk:23:38: And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

These three languages, Latin, Greek, Hebrew are still relied on for accurate translations, even the KJV . Note also that we now know Jesus is the “High Priest” and at the Cross the Romans were casting lots for the robe of the “High Priest”. Note that the Vatican has apparently prevailed. Even though Paul states to the Romans that he is also obligated to the Greeks and the Barbarians reminding them it is their obligation also, if they are to continue Paul’s work. And last but not least Paul and Peter’s journeys to Rome to complete their ministries unto Christ Jesus.

But again, the Strength of the Church is the Presence of God with the Church. No different then the strength of Israel is the Presence of God with them. And I believe they understand this much more then the Gentiles do.

What is served my friend, is God’s revelation of His Son to the world in the world, which cannot be done without the Presence of God that reveals to those in the world, He is the Christ, the Son of the living God .

 

[dnu]

I think a lot of the confusion comes from people trying to over-think something that is actually so simple.

There is nothing complicated about “Simon…you are rock and on this rock I will build my Church.”

It’s ironic that Jesus only mentions “Church” singular, not “I will build my tens of thousands of Churches all diametrically opposed to one another in doctrine and creed but vaguely connected by a book that will be canonized in almost 400 years…”

oh well, that is just a disgruntled ex-member of a protest sect speaking…

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Hello!

Im not sure if you have heard of Scott Hahn, a former Presbyterian Minister, but either way, I really reccomend this article he wrote on Papal Authority and Infallibility. He explains Matt:16 and how Jesus gave Peter the keys. He also quotes many Non Catholic Bible Scholors and how they agree with the Catholic Church on this particular topic.

catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

I hope this helps

God Bless!!

GiannaMarie_JMJ

Hi GiannaMarie,

Yes, I am familiar with Scott Hahn. We actually share in common that both of us studied the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament at Gordon Conwell, although at different times. (I don’t actually know him. Also, I just took a course there. I was not a seminarian there.)

That’s why I was interested in reading the link you sent. I was wondering if he might have dug into Isaiah 22:15-25, and not surprisingly he has.

What is surprising, though, is that he doesn’t seem to follow the story to the end. He rightly focuses on all the royal privileges bestowed on Eliakim, but he fails to mention how Eliakim is destined in that same story to fail. So if you take the passage as a whole, then you see that while Eliakim starts off with high hopes, he kind of “Peters out” in the end. (LOL at myself!)

Since Peter stands in typological relationship to Eliakim, then we are fully justified in saying that the entire Eliakim story goes with the allusion to the keys, and not just the parts that portray Peter in a positive light. And isn’t this just the way Peter’s own story unfolds in Matthew’s gospel? He’s called “first” in 10:2. But then the last time Peter is mentioned, he’s “weeping bitterly” after having thrice denied Christ.

There is no reinstatement of Peter in Matthew. There is no mention of him at the Great Commission. Matthew could have kept this quote from Mark: “Go tell his disciples AND PETER, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee’” (Mark 16:7). Yet in Matthew, Peter is nowhere to be found after the Resurrection. The first really is last. Peter fades into oblivion, just like Eliakim.

That, anyway, is Matthew’s sad conclusion about Peter. I think Matthew’s story of Peter serves as a corrective to overblown claims for Peter’s primacy in and “over” the Church.
Unfortunately, Rome’s apologists (including Hahn) have not seen this wider context and end up coming to the exact opposite conclusion that Matthew probably intended his readers to come to.

God bless you too.

Miguel Sastre

 

[CaptainPicard]

I’m sorry if I’m sounding a little uncharitable, but you’re waaay over thinking this. Let’s look at Matt 16:

“Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.”

So you say that this is Jesus’ way of winding up and getting ready to really lay into Peter? Do you think He was rolling His eyes and sarcastically saying to Himself “woohoo, look at you, you got it right! Amazing!”?

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”

So in the middle of a passage which is all about Peter (whose name means “rock”) Jesus starts talking about Himself for just a real quick second, then switches back again without alerting anybody that’s what He’s doing? Oh, and I suppose that He starts the sentence with “you are Peter”, because Peter is so weak and pathetic that perhaps Jesus thought he might have forgotten his own name?

“I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Did He or didn’t He give Peter the keys of the kingdom? Did He or didn’t He give him the power to bind and loose? You say that this was all ironic? Did Jesus say “psyche! I was just showing you how completely unworthy you are!” Why do you think Jesus changed Peter’s name? You’re saying that it was just a way that for Jesus to make fun of him?

It always blows my mind that Protestants cite Peter’s imperfections as a reason why he can’t be the first pope. Do Protestants only allow perfect people to be the ministers and leaders of the people of God? I suppose God really screwed up when He appointed Moses to lead His people and David as king!

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

You’re waaay over thinking this.

You may be right. But until you actually interact with the argument, I don’t really have a response for you.

 

[CaptainPicard]

You may be right. But until you actually interact with the argument, I don’t really have a response for you.

After looking back on your argument, I see that I misunderstood your point 9, so I was replying to something that you didn’t mean. Sorry about that!

 

[CaptainPicard]

Alright, I’ll try to make a pertinent point this time, let’s see how it goes!

“Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock. And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.” Matt 7: 24-27

Do you think that it’s fair to say that Jesus, in Matt 16 hearkens back to this passage? If this is the case, I think it’s fair to make a few observations.

1. Jesus is the wise man who builds His house on the rock.
2. While sand fails, the rock doesn’t. By analogy, Peter doesn’t fail the Church (though he may personally fail from time to time.)
3. If Peter did fail, then the Church would come tumbling down because it’s built upon him (certainly Jesus, too, is the Rock, but in a way that doesn’t diminish Peter’s rock-ness, I would assert). This can’t happen as Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. Likewise, it would make Jesus equal with the foolish builder whose house fell over.

 

[dnu]

The most likely reason that there is so little response is that there really isn’t much of an argument to speak of. This poor horse has been dead for centuries. :stretcher:

 

[psamwel]

Hi GiannaMarie,

What is surprising, though, is that he doesn’t seem to follow the story to the end. He rightly focuses on all the royal privileges bestowed on Eliakim, but he fails to mention how Eliakim is destined in that same story to fail. So if you take the passage as a whole, then you see that while Eliakim starts off with high hopes, he kind of “Peters out” in the end. (LOL at myself!)

The reference to Is 22 in Matthew is a reference to the office, as indicated by the very story of Eliakim replacing Shebna. Furthermore this office goes back even to Genesis with Joseph as “prime minister” to Pharaoh. Yet, you attempt to diminish the importance of that fact by v25 in Isaiah, which says:

“In that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a sure place will give way; and it will be cut down and fall, and the burden that was upon it will be cut off, for the LORD has spoken.” (Is. 22:25)

The text does not indicate that the fall of the office of prime minister happens when Eliakim holds is, however you’re correct in the assertion that it indicates a failure of the office. However the only way the office of prime minister can “fail” is if the kingdom fails, for the office of prime minister holds no power apart from that of the King.

Furthermore, in Amos we see that God promises to restore the kingdom of David.

“In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old;” (Amos 9:11)

“'After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up,” (Acts 15:16)

So to your point about “keeping the story going”, there is no reason to explicitly point out the failure of the Davidic kingdom in relation to the fulfillment of Peter’s role of prime minister in the New Kingdom…for we know that the Kingdom to which Peter’s office is bound is a Kingdom that will never end. And therefore, the type is fulfilled perfectly in Peter and his successors.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

The reference to Is 22 in Matthew is a reference to the office, as indicated by the very story of Eliakim replacing Shebna. Furthermore this office goes back even to Genesis with Joseph as “prime minister” to Pharaoh. Yet, you attempt to diminish the importance of that fact by v25 in Isaiah, which says:

“In that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a sure place will give way; and it will be cut down and fall, and the burden that was upon it will be cut off, for the LORD has spoken.” (Is. 22:25)

You’re misreading my argument. I’m not diminishing the importance of the office. I’m simply saying that IF the OT context (Isaiah 22:15-25) goes with the allusion (Matthew 16:19), THEN that context includes Eliakim’s prophesied failure and not only his royal privileges.

The text does not indicate that the fall of the office of prime minister happens when Eliakim holds is, however you’re correct in the assertion that it indicates a failure of the office. However the only way the office of prime minister can “fail” is if the kingdom fails, for the office of prime minister holds no power apart from that of the King.

It does not explicitly say this happens in Eliakim’s lifetime, but contextually, it strongly implies this. Go back to verse 23. There Eliakim is identified as the “peg” in question. Then verse 24 says that they will hang on “him” (i.e., Eliakim), the whole honor of his father’s house. But “in that day,” (ambiguous time referent) , the “peg” gives way (cf. vs. 25). In its immediate context, this still looks like Eliakim. If you want to posit a future “successor” to Eliakim, go right ahead–but do supply some likely candidates. If this is a future, typological successor, then Peter would fit the bill marvelously, since after having been given the keys and the power to bind and loose, the last we hear of him in Matthew’s gospel is “weeping bitterly” having denied Christ. And if we take Matthew at his word, then those who deny Christ before others, Christ himself will deny before his Father. Peter could very well be the “peg” that gives way, when read typologically in light of Eliakim.

So to your point about “keeping the story going”, there is no reason to explicitly point out the failure of the Davidic kingdom in relation to the fulfillment of Peter’s role of prime minister in the New Kingdom…for we know that the Kingdom to which Peter’s office is bound is a Kingdom that will never end. And therefore, the type is fulfilled perfectly in Peter and his successors.

I can see how the conferring of the keys, in light of Isaiah, does support the notion that Peter was given an “office.” What I’m not as sure of, is whether we’re meant to infer from that fact that his office continues in perpetuity (and thus in his “successors,” whoever they may be). Given the way the Eliakim story plays out, and Peter’s own story in Matthew, it seems like his office comes to a dead end. Matthew doesn’t ever show us Peter “binding and loosing.” Rather he shows Peter being rebuked for setting limits to forgiveness. Peter, whom Matthew calls “first” (10:2), is no where found in the post-Resurrection story.

We would have to go outside of Matthew’s gospel to get more information on what it means to be the key-bearer and alleged “prime minister” of the kingdom. Yet no one outside of Matthew has any interest in telling us about the “keys.” Fortunately, we learn that Peter’s story is not as bleak as Matthew paints it. He will be reinstated and entrusted with pastoral responsibility.

But no where do we see Peter exercising that pastoral charge, in the role of a monarch or prime minister over the kingdom. He’s a missionary and a preacher. He’s a “fellow elder.” He’s not “presiding” over the Church as a whole or even the Church in Jerusalem. James is doing that, not Peter. So I don’t see how Peter is actually holding a Davidic “office” in the rest of the New Testament.

This is why I think Matthew is actually reacting to overblown claims for Peter (not unlike Vatican I makes for the papacy), which were probably circulating in his day (in and around Anticoh, if that’s where Matthew composed Matthew) in order to put Peter in proper perspective. We can certainly agree that Jesus conferred upon Peter an office and entrusted him with a responsibility. That’s a safe enough inference, given the data. But it looks like Peter failed to execute his office accordingly and there’s no indication that this office was intended to be passed on to his successors. If anything, it was to be a shared office with the other apostles (cf Matthew 18:18).

 

[dnu]

Careful, you are starting to sound like an Eastern Orthodox Christian

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Alright, I’ll try to make a pertinent point this time, let’s see how it goes!

“Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock. And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.” Matt 7: 24-27

Do you think that it’s fair to say that Jesus, in Matt 16 hearkens back to this passage? If this is the case, I think it’s fair to make a few observations.

1. Jesus is the wise man who builds His house on the rock.
2. While sand fails, the rock doesn’t. By analogy, Peter doesn’t fail the Church (though he may personally fail from time to time.)
3. If Peter did fail, then the Church would come tumbling down because it’s built upon him (certainly Jesus, too, is the Rock, but in a way that doesn’t diminish Peter’s rock-ness, I would assert). This can’t happen as Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. Likewise, it would make Jesus equal with the foolish builder whose house fell over.

Now that’s a pretty good argument. I think this “building principle” does go with Matthew 16:18-19, just as I think Matthew 10:32-33 (“whoever denies me before men…”) goes with Peter’s three denials “before men,” just as I think Matthew’s “first shall be last” describes Peter whom Matthew calls, “first” in 10:2.

If Peter is the “rock” (and not Christ), then I think we have to conclude that Jesus chose the weakest of men to be the rock. That’s consistent with the upside down way in which God works, choosing what is lowly and weak and making it strong. I have no problem with seeing Peter that way and I agree with you that Christ does not build on sand. He made no mistake in choosing Peter. I think we agree on this.

What I’m trying to focus on, however, is Matthew’s editorial on Peter and the overall context in which we read about Christ building on Peter.

I think we can conclude that Peter himself can fail without the church coming tumbling down. After all, he did fail (according to Matthew) and yet the church did not. In Matthew, the beginning of the church isn’t at Pentecost. It begins with Jesus himself calling a “new Israel” beginning with the Twelve. The church is commissioned at the Great Commission to “go forth to all nations.” At this point, we all can visualize the Ascension taking place. But in Matthew, Jesus doesn’t go anywhere. He says he is with us until the end of the age. This–I think–compliments Matthew’s claim that Jesus will be called Immanuel–“God with us” (to add yet another example of Matthew fulfilling Matthew).

Two things strike me about this. First, if Jesus is in some sense “still here,” then Matthew does not envision a transfer of jurisdiction to his second in command, Peter. If you only read Matthew 16:15-19, you might conclude this. But when you read the entire passage within its wider Matthean context, it seems that are view has to change in order to make sense of the rest of the story.

Second, if Jesus “denies” those who deny him (and there’s no denying that Peter denied him), and if Peter isn’t mentioned at the Great Commission, then what is Matthew telling us about the key-bearer? It’s difficult to conclude from this that Peter himself has any presidency or jurisdiction over the church.

How all that goes together with “Blessed are you Simon bar-Jonah” is a somewhat of a mystery (to me, anyway). I can see your point above about Christ being a wise builder and Peter being “foundational” to the church in some way. Perhaps what we are meant to conclude is that Christ has chosen to build his church on failures, and yet by his grace these failures can still be “rocks” rather than “sand,” and hence the church is still standing.

But congratulations on making a very good point above.

Cheers

 

[thenobes]

Why couldn’t verse 25 refer to Shebna?

It does not explicitly say this happens in Eliakim’s lifetime, but contextually, it strongly implies this. Go back to verse 23. There Eliakim is identified as the “peg” in question. Then verse 24 says that they will hang on “him” (i.e., Eliakim), the whole honor of his father’s house. But “in that day,” (ambiguous time referent) , the “peg” gives way (cf. vs. 25). In its immediate context, this still looks like Eliakim. hear of him in Matthew’s gospel is “weeping bitterly” having denied Jesus .

In the ASR, the referernce can be back to Shebna, in that “That Day” in verse25 can refer to Shebna’s downfall.

Isaiah 22:20-25*(American Standard Version)
*20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:
*21 and I will cloth him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
*22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; and he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
*23 And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a throne of glory to his father’s house.
*24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father’s house, the offspring and the issue, every small vessel, from the cups even to all the flagons.
*25 In that day, saith Jehovah of hosts, shall the nail that was fastened in a sure place give way; and it shall be hewn down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off; for Jehovah hath spoken it."

Tthat, the burden of Shebna and his minions.

peace
steve