Matthew's "rock"

[CaptainPicard]

As far as your thesis, I’m not sure if we know enough to substantiate it.

Is it theologically significant which passages Matthew leaves out when describing Peter? It could be, we don’t know. It’s possible Matthew just thought “Mark’s got that covered, I’ll focus on these parts”. Or perhaps he had another reason entirely.

Your point about “Immanuel” and Jesus “being with us always” is interesting. It does seem to match up well. Does this mean that it was Matthew’s intention to show the reader that Jesus “has it covered” as far as ruling goes? I think it’s a big jump, but again, it doesn’t seem like we have the data to know.

Even though I see the merit in getting in Matthew’s head using only his writings, even this methodology is another maybe. We don’t know if Matthew wanted us to read him this way. Obviously he’s describing events that really happened and he knows that his account is just another testimony of many – such as Mark, Paul’s writings, and all of the oral testimony that was certainly swirling around at that time. It would make Matthew almost schizophrenic to describe Peter as fizzling out, even though we know (and I assume that Matthew knew too, though I guess we can’t be sure) that Peter was reinstated at the end of John’s gospel and played a major leadership role in Acts. Obviously John hadn’t been written yet and I’m not sure about Luke, but the events described had certainly already happened. Anyway, the theory seems to make Matthew run cross-current with the rest of scripture.

This is a little arbitrary, but the story of Peter being destined for greatness, then screwing up, then just being kind of a “has been” who’s just-ok-but-nothing-fantastic, just doesn’t seem to me to fit. I get where Judas fits, but this version of Peter just doesn’t seem to have a place in the gospel.

But the story of a man who comes back to lead the Church (even as imperfectly as he does) and eventually, after decades of humbling service finally makes good on his promise that “Even though I should have to die with you, I will not deny you.” – that’s a good story. It incorporates all the elements of the gospel – Jesus’ love for us, our weakness, His forgiveness, His strengthening us so that we really can do amazing things with His grace, our taking up our cross and following Jesus. It even mirrors the story of Jesus, to a certain degree. Peter is chosen, destined for greatness, “dies” in a spiritual sense, and comes back to life better than ever when Jesus forgives him. And as you said, God likes to elevate the little, bumbling, nobodies.

Anyway, I’m definitely outside of the confines of the gospel of Matthew now, but I will be sure to keep your theory in mind the next time I read Matthew. I’ll be able to reflect on it a little more then.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Is it theologically significant which passages Matthew leaves out when describing Peter? It could be, we don’t know. It’s possible Matthew just thought “Mark’s got that covered, I’ll focus on these parts”. Or perhaps he had another reason entirely.

That’s how inferential arguments work. We can’t really “prove,” anything from them. They’re all about establishing plausibilities. When Matthew as available to him a phrase in Mark which says, “Go tell the disciples and Peter” that Jesus is going ahead of them to Galilee, and chooses not to mention it, you’ve got to wonder why. You can’t help but draw some kind of conclusion from that. But which conclusion do you draw? That’s the rub.

Your point about “Immanuel” and Jesus “being with us always” is interesting. It does seem to match up well. Does this mean that it was Matthew’s intention to show the reader that Jesus “has it covered” as far as ruling goes? I think it’s a big jump, but again, it doesn’t seem like we have the data to know.

I don’t think it’s that big of a jump. What I’m saying is that if “you are Peter and you get my shiny set of kingdom-ruling keys” is in your gospel and so is “get behind me Satan,” “I swear I don’t know the guy,” “I [not Peter, whose still weeping bitterly] am with you always,” then its incumbent upon us to figure out how these seemingly contradictory pictures of Peter go together. What was Matthew thinking? That’s a worthy enough question to ask, in my opinion. I’m not comfortable with just sweeping Matthew under the table just because Luke and John have more positive things to say about Peter.

Anyway, the theory seems to make Matthew run cross-current with the rest of scripture.

No more so than John having the Baptist say, “I’m not Elijah,” and Jesus saying, “Oh, but he is Elijah, if you’re willing to accept it.” There’s a way to put these texts together without coming to the conclusion that Bible is errant and without one text silencing the other. “Everyone gets their due and the Bible is still true.” (The solution, by the way, is that John the Baptist himself doesn’t really see himself as a prophet or Elijah, but Jesus does. That’s not contradictory. It just means John the Baptist didn’t have as deep an insight into himself as the one “who knew what was in a man” (John 2:25)

This is a little arbitrary, but the story of Peter being destined for greatness, then screwing up, then just being kind of a “has been” who’s just-ok-but-nothing-fantastic, just doesn’t seem to me to fit. I get where Judas fits, but this version of Peter just doesn’t seem to have a place in the gospel.

Many scholars have shared your frustration in trying to make sense of Matthew. You’re in good company. Fortunately, Matthew doesn’t have the last or only word about Peter. There are other perspectives needed to round out our view. But in terms of understanding Matthew on his own terms, I think we have struggle with the possibility that Matthew may not have intended his readers to come to the conclusion that Peter has primacy of jurisdiction over the church.

But the story of a man who comes back to lead the Church (even as imperfectly as he does) and eventually, after decades of humbling service finally makes good on his promise that “Even though I should have to die with you, I will not deny you.” – that’s a good story. It incorporates all the elements of the gospel – Jesus’ love for us, our weakness, His forgiveness, His strengthening us so that we really can do amazing things with His grace, our taking up our cross and following Jesus. It even mirrors the story of Jesus, to a certain degree. Peter is chosen, destined for greatness, “dies” in a spiritual sense, and comes back to life better than ever when Jesus forgives him. And as you said, God likes to elevate the little, bumbling, nobodies.

Anyway, I’m definitely outside of the confines of the gospel of Matthew now, but I will be sure to keep your theory in mind the next time I read Matthew. I’ll be able to reflect on it a little more then.

Yes, Peter’s story isn’t finished in Matthew and ultimately is a good story. It’s Peter’s story, however, and not necessarily that of his “successors.”

When Vatican I defined primacy, and then used that to claim infallibility for the pope, it appealed to Matthew 16:18-19, but also John 1:42 and Luke 22:31-32. I don’t know if in using the texts Vatican I defined the literal sense of those texts or whether they were just part of the argument. I also don’t know if Vatican I intended to give an exhaustive defense of papal infallibility or whether it was just sketching out the biblical basis for the claim. But what I do know is that it defined papal infallibility with a large portion of the bishops still unconvinced by the pro-infallibility crowd.

Perhaps that vocal minority (or was it a majority?) simply didn’t think the reasons for the claim were theologically justified or perhaps they merely thought it wasn’t the right time in history to make the definition. Whatever the reasons the dissenters had, I think it is important to remember that a dogma is only as good as the reasons we have for holding it. If there are no good, compelling reasons to claim papal infallibility (much less for requiring everyone to accept it), then the SAFE thing to do is not to define it in the first place.

What I wonder is if it is even permissible for a Catholic to come up with any other interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19. Or has Vatican I permanently settled the question? I ask because what is the point in arguing this any further if the only possible conclusion a Catholic can have is that Christ conferred a primacy of jurisdiction on Peter (and by extension his successors) over the entire church?

 

[paul_c]

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

Miguel,
I have to disagree with your implication that Matthew somehow degrades Peter after identifying him as the rock on which Jesus will build his church.

Why would Matthew have so unequivocally stated that Peter was the rock with the keys to heaven if he didn’t believe that Peter was the head of the Church?

Furthermore, Matthew subsquently places Peter in several situations of leadership within his gospel. Only Peter, James and John are present at the transfiguration in Chapter 17 and it is Peter who speaks up for them in this situation and offers to make the tents for Jesus, Moses and Elijah.

Later in Chapter 17 Peter is approached by the authorities about whether Jesus pays the temple tax. Jesus arranges for the temple tax to be paid for himself and Peter, but none of the others.

In chapter 18, Peter is the one who speaks up for the apostles and askes about how often he should forgive and in chapter 19, Peter again speaks up for the Apostles, questioning Jesus on their reward for having left everything to follow uom.

In chapter 26, Peter again is priviledged to accompany Jesus to the Garden of Gethsamane and it is Peter, specifically who the Lord rebukes for falling asleep, even though James and John have done likewise. and of course, it is Peter who Matthew follows in parrallel to the Lord during the passion, Keep in mind, this is not to discredit Peter. All of the Apostles were scattered in Matthew’s gospel, and only Peter was still following Jesus, albiet at a distance. It in fact demonstrates Peter’s importance because it shows that even the leader, Peter, fell away to fulfill the prophesies quoted by Jesus in Matthew 26. . The fact that he isn’t mentioned in the crucifixion and resurrection narratives is not nearly as important as you suggest, These events are about Jesus, not the disciples, in Matthew’s Gospel so none of the Apostles are mentioned by name.

 

[Nita]

1. 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.”

To me, Matthew’s last mention of Peter specifically by name, in no way puts him in “not such a good light”. It does just the opposite – it puts Peter in an extremely “good light”. He recognized/admitted his sin, was extremely sorry for it (I don’t think men weep nearly as often or easily as we women }, and repented. Would that all of us sinners, whom Jesus came to save, could stand in such a “good light”.

Neither does it somehow demonstrate that he has gone from first to being last. There is nothing in Scripture to corroborate that Peter henceforth was considered last.

Altho Matthew doesn’t mention Peter again by name, it is not the “last time” Peter’ is shown to us in Matthew’s gospel. He is included in the eleven Matthew speaks of in the closing verses of his gospel.
*Mt. 28:16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. *

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Miguel,
I have to disagree with your implication that Matthew somehow degrades Peter after identifying him as the rock on which Jesus will build his church.

Why would Matthew have so unequivocally stated that Peter was the rock with the keys to heaven if he didn’t believe that Peter was the head of the Church?

At the end of the day, I don’t know! But I do know Matthew’s overall picture of Peter is dark, that he chose what was most negative in Mark and left out or toned down what was most positive about Peter in Mark. That can’t be a coincidence.

Furthermore, Matthew subsquently places Peter in several situations of leadership within his gospel. Only Peter, James and John are present at the transfiguration in Chapter 17 and it is Peter who speaks up for them in this situation and offers to make the tents for Jesus, Moses and Elijah.

Yes. Not everything about Peter is negative in Matthew. I never said otherwise. Matthew is just far more negative than his source, Mark. Yet even in the Transfiguration, all three of the “leaders” here are struck with fear. Only Matthew records Jesus touching them and commanding them to rise and have no fear. This sets up–what I think is one of Matthew’s major concerns–to contrast Jesus to all would-be heads of the church. “When they lifted their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus” (17:7) That’s the way Matthew’s gospel is going to end–with Jesus still present until the end of the age. If Matthew had envisioned an en enduring office for Peter, this would have been the time and place to pass the torch and hand over the keys. Instead, Peter is left out of the story by name (compare to Mark, where Peter features prominently). It’s not that Matthew is saying Peter wasn’t there. He’s just keeping him anonymously part of the “eleven” (28:16).

Later in Chapter 17 Peter is approached by the authorities about whether Jesus pays the temple tax. Jesus arranges for the temple tax to be paid for himself and Peter, but none of the others.

Yes, some more positive material from Matthew. Your point?

In chapter 18, Peter is the one who speaks up for the apostles and askes about how often he should forgive and in chapter 19, Peter again speaks up for the Apostles, questioning Jesus on their reward for having left everything to follow uom.

You’re referring to 18:21. I don’t see Peter asking “on behalf” of anyone but himself. The other apostles may very well have understood what Peter did not–that there are no limits to forgiveness. Not only has the power of the keys (binding and loosing) been generalized tot he rest of the apostles, (arguably making them equal in authority), but only Peter is singled out as not understanding how to use the power he’s been given. How is that a “positive” for Peter?

In chapter 26, Peter again is priviledged to accompany Jesus to the Garden of Gethsamane and it is Peter, specifically who the Lord rebukes for falling asleep, even though James and John have done likewise.

Yes, this is one of the ten passages Matthew carries over from Mark, most of which put Peter in a negative light. This is no exception.

and of course, it is Peter who Matthew follows in parrallel to the Lord during the passion, Keep in mind, this is not to discredit Peter. All of the Apostles were scattered in Matthew’s gospel, and only Peter was still following Jesus, albiet at a distance. It in fact demonstrates Peter’s importance because it shows that even the leader, Peter, fell away to fulfill the prophesies quoted by Jesus in Matthew 26.

Way to try and turn a negative into a positive. But it’s not really going to work because the climax of the story in chapter 26 is to show Peter denying Christ. Matthew 10:33 says, “whoever denies me before men, I will also deny before my father in heaven.” I’m pretty sure this is unique to Matthew. We’re set up by Matthew to come to the inevitable conclusion that Jesus will deny Peter, just as he said he would. Fortunately Matthew doesn’t portray Jesus doing that and we know from other sources (John, for example) that Peter will be forgiven and reinstated. But Matthew deliberately avoids that conclusion (without denying it). Why? Furthermore, as if to put Peter in an even more negative light, Matthew has Peter swearing an “oath” that he doesn’t know Christ. That’s a huge violation of Matthew 5:33-37. Finally, Peter invokes a “curse” in v. 74. Most translations add “upon himself,” but the Greek isn’t reflexive. No object is given for the cursing. The Greek permits us to draw the conclusion that Peter is cursing “himself,” or even Jesus! Now that’s negative! Matthew doesn’t clarify the object of Peter’s curse. He doesn’t say it’s Jesus. But he doesn’t say it’s Peter either. Hmmmm.

The fact that he isn’t mentioned in the crucifixion and resurrection narratives is not nearly as important as you suggest, These events are about Jesus, not the disciples, in Matthew’s Gospel so none of the Apostles are mentioned by name.

That may or may not be why no one is named. But that isn’t my point. Peter is “deleted” from the post-Resurrection scenes. Remember, Matthew is reading Mark when he composed his gospel. Mark has Peter conspicuously present in the post-Resurrection story. Matthew deletes Peter. Why?

I mean, if Matthew’s purpose is to portray Peter as the first pope (as Vatican I all but claims), and if Matthew is reading, “go tell his disciples AND PETER” in Mark 16:7, and then chooses to delete the “AND PETER” part, you’ve got to wonder why?

 

[paul_c]

At the end of the day, I don’t know! But I do know Matthew’s overall picture of Peter is dark, that he chose what was most negative in Mark and left out or toned down what was most positive about Peter in Mark. That can’t be a coincidence.

I don’t see how you describe Matthew’s picture of Peter as dark. The only thing you could portray as negative is Peter’s denial of Christ and that is also recounted in the other gospels.

Yes. Not everything about Peter is negative in Matthew. I never said otherwise. Matthew is just far more negative than his source, Mark. Yet even in the Transfiguration, all three of the “leaders” here are struck with fear. Only Matthew records Jesus touching them and commanding them to rise and have no fear. This sets up–what I think is one of Matthew’s major concerns–to contrast Jesus to all would-be heads of the church. “When they lifted their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus” (17:7) That’s the way Matthew’s gospel is going to end–with Jesus still present until the end of the age. If Matthew had envisioned an en enduring office for Peter, this would have been the time and place to pass the torch and hand over the keys. Instead, Peter is left out of the story by name (compare to Mark, where Peter features prominently). It’s not that Matthew is saying Peter wasn’t there. He’s just keeping him anonymously part of the “eleven” (28:16).

Each of the Gospels show Peter’s primacy in their own way. In Matthew, its the commissioning in chapter 16. In John 22, Jesus tells Peter to feed his sheep . In Luke18, Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his brothers. In Acts, Peter clearly has the prominant role. And by the way, I believe that Matthew was the first Gospel and does not depend on Mark. This Markan primacy is a new innovation that requires a secondary “Q” source to be viable. A source that has never been found.

Yes, some more positive material from Matthew. Your point?

My point is to refute your point that Matthew is negatively biased against Peter.

You’re referring to 18:21. … Not only has the power of the keys (binding and loosing) been generalized tot he rest of the apostles, (arguably making them equal in authority), but only Peter is singled out as not understanding how to use the power he’s been given. How is that a “positive” for Peter?

He’s not singled out for not understanding how to use the power. Where does it say that. It says Peter approached Jesus and asked him how many times he must forgive his brother and he’s told essentially that there is no limit. He’s asking a practical question on behalf of the church he has been commissioned to lead. And yes, the other Apostles have been given the right to forgive sins but they are not not given the keys to the kingdom of heaven and they are not told that they are the rock on which the church will be built.

Yes, this is one of the ten passages Matthew carries over from Mark, most of which put Peter in a negative light. This is no exception.

These passages do not put Peter in a negative light as far as I can see.

Way to try and turn a negative into a positive. But it’s not really going to work because the climax of the story in chapter 26 is to show Peter denying Christ. Matthew 10:33 says, “whoever denies me before men, I will also deny before my father in heaven.” I’m pretty sure this is unique to Matthew. We’re set up by Matthew to come to the inevitable conclusion that Jesus will deny Peter, just as he said he would. Fortunately Matthew doesn’t portray Jesus doing that and we know from other sources (John, for example) that Peter will be forgiven and reinstated. But Matthew deliberately avoids that conclusion (without denying it). Why? Furthermore, as if to put Peter in an even more negative light, Matthew has Peter swearing an “oath” that he doesn’t know Christ. That’s a huge violation of Matthew 5:33-37. Finally, Peter invokes a “curse” in v. 74. Most translations add “upon himself,” but the Greek isn’t reflexive. No object is given for the cursing. The Greek permits us to draw the conclusion that Peter is cursing “himself,” or even Jesus! Now that’s negative! Matthew doesn’t clarify the object of Peter’s curse. He doesn’t say it’s Jesus. But he doesn’t say it’s Peter either. Hmmmm.

You are drawing inferences that just are not there. Under duress Peter denied knowing Jesus and then, realizing what he had done, cries bitterly and clearly repents. The other Apostles, on the other hand are no where to be found. Matthew isn’t setting us up for the conclusion that Jesus will deny Peter. We know he didn’t because he was one of the 11 Apostles given the great commission in Matthew 28. And we know from other sources (John) that the resurrected Christ, the good shepherd, recommissioned Peter to tend his flock.

That may or may not be why no one is named. But that isn’t my point. Peter is “deleted” from the post-Resurrection scenes. Remember, Matthew is reading Mark when he composed his gospel. Mark has Peter conspicuously present in the post-Resurrection story. Matthew deletes Peter. Why?

Peters involvement in the post Resurrection story isn’t deleted from Mark, its added to Mark.

 

[paul_c]

I mean, if Matthew’s purpose is to portray Peter as the first pope (as Vatican I all but claims), and if Matthew is reading, “go tell his disciples AND PETER” in Mark 16:7, and then chooses to delete the “AND PETER” part, you’ve got to wonder why?

This supposition is built on the faulty assumption that Matthew copied from Mark when it is much more likely that it was the opposite, despite current Protestant scholarship.

And by the way, it wasn’t only Matthew that portrayed Peter as the first Pope. It is clearly recognized by the writings of the Early church fathers. And it certainly wasn’t an innovation from Vatican I (1870!!).

 

[Nita]

Hi,

I
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.
   Some Observations to Consider:

1. Matthew omits 5 Petrine passages from Mark, all of which put Peter in a positive light.

Miguel Sastre

Could you please give the 5 Petrine passages that Matthew “eliminates”.
I could find only the following 2 – and I fail to see any “theological significance”.
Could you please explain why you consider them so significant.
**1. ** Mk: 1 35:38 "And Simon and those who were with him pursued Him and they found Him and said to Him, “Every one is searching for You.” … (This is the morning after Jesus had healed many.)
**2. **Mk 10:28-31 Peter began to say to Him, “Lo, we have left everything and followed you.” Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters…. Who will not receive a hundredfold… But many that are first will be last, and the last first.” (Altho Matthew’s gospel does not include this episode with Peter’s words about leaving everything, he does record the actual event of Peter leaving everything to follow Jesus - Mt 4:18-20)

There are 4 events recorded in both Mark and Matthew, where Mark identifies some of the disciples involved by name, but Matthew doesn’t. Unlike you, I fail to see any theological significance resulting from any of the omissions.
**1. **Mk 5:37 In Mt. 9: 23-26 Mk mentions Peter, James and John as being with Jesus, but Mt doesn’t say whether or not anyone was with Jesus at the time He raised Jairus’ daughter
**2. **Mk 11:21 "And Peter remembered and said to Him, “Master, look! The fig tree which you cursed has withered.” The withering of the fig tree is recorded in Mt, but not Peter’s statement.
**3. **Mk 13:3 In Mt 24:3 - again Peter, James, John and Andrew named as the disciples who questioned Jesus whereas Mt just says “disciples”, without identifying them by name.
**4. **Mk 16:7 In Mt 28:7 In Mk, angel says “disciples and Peter” whereas Mt just has angel saying “disciples”

Here are the only other Petrine passages I found in Mark
Mk 1:16-18 In Mt 18-20
Mk 1:29-31 In Mt. 8:14-17
Mk 3:16 In Mt 16:18 (cf John 1:42).
Mk 8:32-33 In Mt. 16:21-23
Mk 9:2 In Mt. 17:1-13
Mk 14:29-31 In Mt. 26:35.
Mk 14 33 In Mt. 26:37
Mk 14:37 In Mt. 26:40
Mk 15:54-72 In Mt 26:69-75 (Mark 15:72 also tells us that Peter wept )

I prefer the tradition that holds Matthew’s gospel was the first to be written.

 

[steve_b]

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 sending of the Holy Spirit, was the game changer.
ms:

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).

God with us is fulfilled in the incarnation.
ms:

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.

Then why did Jesus give Peter the keys to the kingdom? Why give HIM the power to bind and loose here that would be bound and loosed in heaven if that wasn’t to take place DURING Peter’s life?
ms:

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.

That’s why we don’t depend on Matthew alone

 

[steve_b]

At the end of the day, I don’t know! But I do know Matthew’s overall picture of Peter is dark, that he chose what was most negative in Mark and left out or toned down what was most positive about Peter in Mark. That can’t be a coincidence.

This hasn’t been proven Matthew copied from Mark
ms:

Mark has Peter conspicuously present in the post-Resurrection story.

So does John
ms:

Matthew deletes Peter. Why?

He doesn’t delete Peter. He doesn’t name ANY of the apostles in that narrative. He just calls them collectively as the 11. However, by saying there are 11, it’s fair to say he deletes Judas, who he said hung himself in the previous chapter.

Here’s the end of Matthew.

Chapter 28

1* * Now after the sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the sepulchre. 2* And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone, and sat upon it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. 4* And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. 5 Butthe angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he * lay. 7* Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. Lo, I have told you.” 8 So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9* And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Hail!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshipped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid; go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see me." 11* While they were going, behold,some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place. 12 And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sum of money to the soldiers 13 and said, “Tell people, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 And if this comes to the governor’s ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 15 So they took the money and did as they were directed; and this story has been spread among the Jews to this day. 16* Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshipped him; but some doubted. 18* And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19* Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20* teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

Now, from this narritive, who was there for sure at the ascension?
ms:

I mean, if Matthew’s purpose is to portray Peter as the first pope (as Vatican I all but claims), and if Matthew is reading, “go tell his disciples AND PETER” in Mark 16:7, and then chooses to delete the “AND PETER” part, you’ve got to wonder why?

• Matthew opens up questions that he doesn’t always answer.
• Matthew doesn’t give every detail. If he did we wouldn’t need the other 26 NT books. Although He mentions Peter 23 times, 29 if you include when he is called Simon also. That’s FAR and away more than any other apostle is mentioned by name.
• Vat I doesn’t use only 1 document to defend any teaching.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Could you please give the 5 Petrine passages that Matthew “eliminates”.

1. Mark 1:35-39 (Simon and the disciples looking for Jesus)
2. Mark 5:21-24; 35-43 (Healing of Jairus’ daughter)
3. Mark 11:12-14; 20-23 (Withered fig tree)
4. Mark 13:3-4 (question about temple)
5. Mark 16:7 (Jesus going ahead to Galilee)

In none of these five passage in Mark is Peter viewed “negatively.” In fact, Peter often has a prominence. So Matthew’s choice not to carry over these scenes with Peter in them (in some cases Matthew has the scene, but without Peter) minimally suggest that Matthew wasn’t trying to maximize Peter’s primacy. If it had been, why pass up on these obvious pro-Peterine-primacy passages? So, the theological significance of these omissions is that Matthew, IF using Mark as a source, has decided to leave out/delete Peter from them. Matthew has passed up on some opportunities to portray Peter positively. These omissions, therefore, should be taken into consideration when arguing for Petrine primacy, especially on the basis of Matthew’s gospel.

I prefer the tradition that holds Matthew’s gospel was the first to be written.

The problem is treated in a different fashion again in Matthew. He begins with the words: “Immediately, after the tribulation of those days.” Here there really is a temporal connection. Mark’s schematic in illo tempore [Latin for “in that time”] is converted into Matthew’s “immediately” which seems to move the events of the end of the world into direct proximity with the destruction of Jerusalem.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (cited in Dogmatic Theology, Eschatology, Death and Eternal Life, Catholic University Press (1988), p. 40).

I think your pope holds, or at least once held to, Marcan Priority (which is not surprising, given his level of scholarship). How does one say that Mark’s schematic is converted into Matthew’s unless one is presupposing that Matthew is following Mark?

Cheers

 

[Nita]

1. Mark 1:35-39 (Simon and the disciples looking for Jesus)
2. Mark 5:21-24; 35-43 (Healing of Jairus’ daughter)
3. Mark 11:12-14; 20-23 (Withered fig tree)
4. Mark 13:3-4 (question about temple)
5. Mark 16:7 (Jesus going ahead to Galilee)

In none of these five passage in Mark is Peter viewed “negatively.” In fact, Peter often has a prominence. So Matthew’s choice not to carry over these scenes with Peter in them (in some cases Matthew has the scene, but without Peter) minimally suggest that Matthew wasn’t trying to maximize Peter’s primacy. If it had been, why pass up on these obvious pro-Peterine-primacy passages? So, the theological significance of these omissions is that Matthew, IF using Mark as a source, has decided to leave out/delete Peter from them. Matthew has passed up on some opportunities to portray Peter positively. These omissions, therefore, should be taken into consideration when arguing for Petrine primacy, especially on the basis of Matthew’s gospel.

I keep thinking you’ve got to be kidding - that you can’t honestly believe that when something is recorded in one or more gospels, but omitted in others, it should then be taken less seriously, or even perhaps negated. Do you realize how many “omissions” there would be when you compare the 4 gospels (omissions of names, teachings, or events)? Lot of minimizing!!

BTW, did it ever cross your mind that perhaps Matthew didn’t know about the event in Mark 1:35 since he had not yet been called by Jesus (cf Mk 2:14). Or that he might not have remembered Peter’s remark about the fig tree, especially since it had no bearing on the meaning of the event. Peter probably did remember making the remark and may thus have spoken of it in his preaching.
And Mark of course is recognized as making a record of Peter and what he preached.
From Eusebius’ (265AD - 340 AD)“Church History” newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm

Chapter 15. The Gospel according to Mark.

1. …And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter’s hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark.

I rather think the Holy Spirit allowed those omissions in Matthew precisely because their absence had NO theological significance.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

I keep thinking you’ve got to be kidding - that you can’t honestly believe that when something is recorded in one or more gospels, but omitted in others, it should then be taken less seriously, or even perhaps negated.

And I’m thinking you’re either misunderstanding or not reading very carefully. The argument isn’t that something is less important if only one person mentions it; rather I am saying that if Matthew has a copy of Mark in front of him when he writes, then what he keeps from Mark, tweaks in Mark, and deletes from Mark, is (or at least could be) theologically significant.

BTW, did it ever cross your mind that perhaps Matthew didn’t know about the event in Mark 1:35 since he had not yet been called by Jesus (cf Mk 2:14). Or that he might not have remembered Peter’s remark about the fig tree, especially since it had no bearing on the meaning of the event. Peter probably did remember making the remark and may thus have spoken of it in his preaching.

Again, IF Matthew has copy of Mark in front of him, then even if he wasn’t at the scene or forgot about it (how likely is that?), THEN the choice to leave Peter’s name out of it just might be significant.

Keep the larger point in mind: Some of the more positive images we have in Peter are omitted by Matthew. You might say, “so what?” After all, it’s an argument from silence (which I fully admit.)

But if you’re going to advance the notion that Matthew 16:16-19 provides the theological proof that Peter was given a primacy of jurisdiction over the entire church (as Vatican I claimed), then it is in deed strange that Matthew himself seems to go to great lengths to “demote” Peter in so many other places in his gospel.

There might be a perfectly plausible reason for that seeming inconsistency that keeps the Catholic position in tact. But it might also be that Matthew has something else in mind.

 

[paul_c]

And I’m thinking you’re either misunderstanding or not reading very carefully. The argument isn’t that something is less important if only one person mentions it; rather I am saying that if Matthew has a copy of Mark in front of him when he writes, then what he keeps from Mark, tweaks in Mark, and deletes from Mark, is (or at least could be) theologically significant.

Again, IF Matthew has copy of Mark in front of him, then even if he wasn’t at the scene or forgot about it (how likely is that?), THEN the choice to leave Peter’s name out of it just might be significant.

Keep the larger point in mind: Some of the more positive images we have in Peter are omitted by Matthew. You might say, “so what?” After all, it’s an argument from silence (which I fully admit.)

But if you’re going to advance the notion that Matthew 16:16-19 provides the theological proof that Peter was given a primacy of jurisdiction over the entire church (as Vatican I claimed), then it is in deed strange that Matthew himself seems to go to great lengths to “demote” Peter in so many other places in his gospel.

There might be a perfectly plausible reason for that seeming inconsistency that keeps the Catholic position in tact. But it might also be that Matthew has something else in mind.

Frankly, this is a rather weak set of arguments to discredit Peter’s claim of apostolic leadership. In fact, with the discourse in Matthew 16: 16-19, Matthew is by far the clearest in showing that Jesus declared Peter the leader of the Church. Your argmuments that Matthew somehow discredits this claim are weak. After all, if Matthew didn’t want it known that Peter was the leader of the Church, he could have just skipped over chapters 16: 16-19, couldn’t he? As it is, he made it abundantly clear that Matthew was chosen as the leader of the Church. All of your arguments about negativity thereafter are very subjective and unimportant in the face of the simple fact that Matthew reported that Jesus founded his chruch on St. Peter in no uncertain terms.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Frankly, this is a rather weak set of arguments to discredit Peter’s claim of apostolic leadership. In fact, with the discourse in Matthew 16: 16-19, Matthew is by far the clearest in showing that Jesus declared Peter the leader of the Church.

That’s not the point I’m disputing. The question is not whether Peter is the “rock” and “key-bearer,” (he is); rather what did Matthew intend us to conclude from that fact? You’re just dismissing the arguments as “weak,” but not giving any reasons for why they’re weak. They may very well be weak. But based on your posts, I have no idea why.

Your argmuments that Matthew somehow discredits this claim are weak. After all, if Matthew didn’t want it known that Peter was the leader of the Church, he could have just skipped over chapters 16: 16-19, couldn’t he?

It’s not that he didn’t want people to know this–that was never my claim; rather what kind of leader is Peter going to be by the end of Matthew’s story? That’s the question.

I’m claiming that the best way to answer that is by carefully studying Matthew in context.

 

[paul_c]

That’s not the point I’m disputing. The question is not whether Peter is the “rock” and “key-bearer,” (he is); rather what did Matthew intend us to conclude from that fact? You’re just dismissing the arguments as “weak,” but not giving any reasons for why they’re weak. They may very well be weak. But based on your posts, I have no idea why.

Fair enough. let me clarify. While Matthew’s major intent in the gospel is to tell the Good news of Jesus Christ to his Jewish audience, his subcontext is that the church was was to spread that news. In Chapter 16, we see him stating that Peter will lead this church and in Chapter 28, we see him commissioning the Apostles, to carry out its work.

You do a lot of reading into the intent of St. Matthew but why not take it at face value. He was retelling what he witnessed. And what he witnessed was this:

15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 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.
18 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.
19 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

It’s not that he didn’t want people to know this–that was never my claim; rather what kind of leader is Peter going to be by the end of Matthew’s story? That’s the question.

I’m claiming that the best way to answer that is by carefully studying Matthew in context.

Why are you limiting your view of Peter’s leadership to Matthew’s gospel? After all, Matthew’s gospel is about Jesus, not Peter and Peter’s leadership really began after Jesus Ascends into heaven, which is AFTER Matthew’s Gospel. If you want to critique Peter’s leadership, read the pertinent Scripture: Acts and Peter’s epistles. When you do so, you will see that Peter exercises all the perogatives of the Popes:
He defines doctrine (Acts’ 15, where he declares that the Gentile converts don’t need to follow the jewish dietary laws). He defines what is required for salvation (Acts 2).
he heals the lame man. (Act3). he defines scripture (Peter 2:3) where he declares Paul’s letter’s as scripture. He brings Tabitha back from the dead. He speaks for the Apostles to the crowds and the authorities (Acts 2-4). He arranges for Judas to be replaced. (Acts 1). He travels the world, preaching and exhorting . He excommunicates Simon Magnus and condemns Anias and Sapphira for lying to the holy spirit. Paul Says in Galatians that Peter was called as the apostle to the circumcized and Peter in Acts 15 says that he was also called to bring the gospel to the Gentiles. This is not disputed.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

You do a lot of reading into the intent of St. Matthew but why not take it at face value.

I’m not the one reading papal primacy into Matthew 16:18-19. I’m just point out what Matthew keeps and eliminates from Mark and how that may/may not influence the conclusions we draw about Matthew 16:18-19. What the “face value” of Matthew is, is precisely the question under discussion.

Why are you limiting your view of Peter’s leadership to Matthew’s gospel?

Ultimately, I’m not. But in order to understand Matthew on his own terms, I’m trying to limit the scope to just Matthew. It’s one of my stated assumptions in the OP of this thread–that Matthew is the best interpreter of Matthew.

If you want to critique Peter’s leadership, read the pertinent Scripture: Acts and Peter’s epistles. When you do so, you will see that Peter exercises all the perogatives of the Popes:

I’m not the one criticizing Peter–I’m saying Matthew is doing that. And by all means, keep reading to see how Peter’ story plays out in the rest of the New Testament. I’m all for that. I don’t see him using his keys–that is “presiding” over the church or having a “primacy of jurisdiction” as Vatican I claimed. But I’m willing to listen if you want to make the case for this.

He defines doctrine (Acts’ 15, where he declares that the Gentile converts don’t need to follow the jewish dietary laws).

Is he “defining” doctrine as something to be held definitively by the faithful? Or is he giving his opinion based on his previous experience? The fact that James is going to echo Peter and say “in my judgment,” suggest that if anyone is “defining doctrine,” “presiding” and “exercising jurisdiction,” it’s James–not Peter. Of course, if we read Matthew 18:18 as a generalization of the power of the keys to the other apostles, then what James does makes perfect sense. But that wouldn’t support Petrine primacy, so I see why it would be disagreeable to you.

He defines what is required for salvation (Acts 2). he heals the lame man. (Act3). he defines scripture (Peter 2:3) where he declares Paul’s letter’s as scripture. He brings Tabitha back from the dead. He speaks for the Apostles to the crowds and the authorities (Acts 2-4). He arranges for Judas to be replaced. (Acts 1). He travels the world, preaching and exhorting . He excommunicates Simon Magnus and condemns Anias and Sapphira for lying to the holy spirit. Paul Says in Galatians that Peter was called as the apostle to the circumcized and Peter in Acts 15 says that he was also called to bring the gospel to the Gentiles. This is not disputed.

If this proves that Peter is pope, then by this same criteria, you could make a much more convincing case for the primacy/papacy of Paul.

 

[paul_c]

I’m not the one reading papal primacy into Matthew 16:18-19. I’m just point out what Matthew keeps and eliminates from Mark and how that may/may not influence the conclusions we draw about Matthew 16:18-19. What the “face value” of Matthew is, is precisely the question under discussion.

Your claim that you accept that Peter is the rock on which the church is built but then you try to infer that Matthew weakens this claim by what he keeps and eliminates from Mark. This is what I mean by inferring Matthew’s intent. And why would Matthew, an Apostle, have to draw from Mark, who was not.

Ultimately, I’m not. But in order to understand Matthew on his own terms, I’m trying to limit the scope to just Matthew. It’s one of my stated assumptions in the OP of this thread–that Matthew is the best interpreter of Matthew.

But you aren’t using Matthew to interpret Matthew, are you? You are using Mark to interpret Matthew, critiquing Matthew on his differences from Mark.

I’m not the one criticizing Peter–I’m saying Matthew is doing that. And by all means, keep reading to see how Peter’ story plays out in the rest of the New Testament. I’m all for that. I don’t see him using his keys–that is “presiding” over the church or having a “primacy of jurisdiction” as Vatican I claimed. But I’m willing to listen if you want to make the case for this.

Matthew isn’t criticizing anyone. He’s just relating the facts as he saw them. And of course Peter presides over the church. See the next section.

Is he “defining” doctrine as something to be held definitively by the faithful? Or is he giving his opinion based on his previous experience? The fact that James is going to echo Peter and say “in my judgment,” suggest that if anyone is “defining doctrine,” “presiding” and “exercising jurisdiction,” it’s James–not Peter. Of course, if we read Matthew 18:18 as a generalization of the power of the keys to the other apostles, then what James does makes perfect sense. But that wouldn’t support Petrine primacy, so I see why it would be disagreeable to you.

In Acts 15, Peter says that he was the one chosen by God to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles, which no one disputes because its true as reconted in Acts 10. Peter states the doctrine that the Gentiles don’t have to follow the Jewish laws that James’ followers from Jerusalem were trying to force on them. James, as bishop of Jerusalem, shows his solidarity with Peter by accepting what he says and then calls off his followers. Don’t disregard that it is Peter that calls for Judas’ replacement. And it is Peter who speaks for the Apostles at Pentacost and it is Peter who tells the first converts what they must do to be saved (Be Baptized, etc). And it is Peter who heals the lame man and then witnesses to both the people and the sanhedrin on behalf of the church. And it is Peter that condemns Anaias and Sapphira and it is Peter who travels around the country side preaching and it is Peter that affirms that Paul’s letters are scripture in 2Peter 3… It is Peter that Paul recounts seeign at the beginning of his ministry in Galatians as well. So tell me again how it is that Peter doesn’t exhibit leadership in scripture.

If this proves that Peter is pope, then by this same criteria, you could make a much more convincing case for the primacy/papacy of Paul.

How so? Paul was commissioned by the church as a missionary along with Barnabas. He was sent by the church in Acts 15 to Jerusalem to make sure he was preaching the true message (so that he would not have run in vain…) He was very successful as both a missionary and a theologian and that made him a Church leader, but not THE church leader. After all, it was Paul who sought out Peter’s advice and it was Peter who declared Paul’s writings to be scripture. Those acts clearly demonstrate Peter’s primacy over Paul.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

How so?

Well, pretty much everything you said about Peter in your previous post could be said of Paul, but on even greater scale. You said:

He [Peter] defines what is required for salvation (Acts 2).

How exactly is Peter “defining” doctrine here? It looks like he’s giving his theological opinion based on his experience. But this is all part of an ongoing discussion. So if this makes Peter the pope, then why wouldn’t Acts 15:12 make Paul (or Barnabas) the pope? “And all the assembly fell silent , and they listened to Barnabas and Paul…” Or what about James? “Brothers, listen to me. … Therefore my judgment is that…” Wow. That kind of sounds like James is the pope, not Peter.

he heals the lame man. (Act3).

If this makes Peter pope, then couldn’t Acts 14:9; 28:8 make Paul the pope? He heals people too. Besides, how does healing make one pope?

he defines scripture (Peter 2:3) where he declares Paul’s letter’s as scripture.

Is he “defining” scripture or stating a fact that Paul’s letters had already come to be regarded as scripture? Nothing here suggests that his audience didn’t already know that Paul’s letters were scripture. But if this makes Peter pope, then wouldn’t Paul’s even more illustrious declaration that “all scripture” is inspired prove that Paul could be pope as well?

He brings Tabitha back from the dead.

If that makes Peter the pope, then couldn’t Paul’s bringing back of Eutychus from the dead make Paul the pope? (See Acts 20:9-10)

5

He speaks for the Apostles to the crowds and the authorities (Acts 2-4).

Paul does a lot of public speaking too. In fact, probably more than Peter. Does that make Paul more qualified to be the pope than Peter?

He arranges for Judas to be replaced. (Acts 1).

Paul appointed elders in every church (cf, Acts 14:23). In fact, it sounds like Paul did far more “appointing” than Peter. Does that mean Paul is pope?

He travels the world, preaching and exhorting .

Um…I think you know what I’m going to say here. (That Paul was more of a world-traveler than Peter, and preached and exhorted at least as much as Peter. So does that make Paul pope?)

He excommunicates Simon Magnus and condemns Anias and Sapphira for lying to the holy spirit.

Did you notice what Paul did to Elymas on Cyprus? (Acts 13:8-12)

Those acts clearly demonstrate Peter’s primacy over Paul.

Respectfully, I think you’re seeing a primacy for Peter that just isn’t there. Like I said, all the examples you cite could just as easily prove the primacy of Paul. In fact, no one has primacy over the church except Christ alone.

 

[Nita]

Again, IF Matthew has copy of Mark in front of him, then even if he wasn’t at the scene or forgot about it (how likely is that?), THEN the choice to leave Peter’s name out of it just might be significant.

Never said he forgot about the event – just particular comments made by those present.

Keep the larger point in mind: Some of the more positive images we have in Peter are omitted by Matthew. You might say, “so what?” After all, it’s an argument from silence (which I fully admit.)

I think you’re giving too much importance to the inclusion of Peter’s name in a few verses of Mark – and thus to their exclusion in Matthew… I consider the Matthew 16:16-19 passage about Peter to be a “positive image” that is of far greater proportions than the inclusion of his proper name as one of the disciples present at an event.

But if you’re going to advance the notion that Matthew 16:16-19 provides the theological proof that Peter was given a primacy of jurisdiction over the entire church (as Vatican I claimed),

Yes; but Matthew 16:16-19 does not stand alone. To mention only one other one, in John 21:15-17, after His resurrection but before His ascension, Jesus, the Good Shepherd, assigns Peter the task of being the visible shepherd of His flock here on earth (Feed My lambs, tend My sheep,…).

then it is in deed strange that Matthew himself seems to go to great lengths to “demote” Peter in so many other places in his gospel.

“great lengths” ???
For some reason, you see Matthew’s failure to include the proper name “Peter” in these verses as a deliberate effort on Matthew’s part to “demote” Peter. That is what I find a totally inacceptable hypothesis. I’m presuming then you would contend that Matthew deliberately excluded the names of James, John and Andrew – and for the purpose of demoting them too (Mk 5:37 and Mk 13:3)… If this presumption is wrong, could you explain why?