Matthew's "rock"

[paul_c]

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.

Look, you understand that Matthew clearly shows that Jesus picked Peter to head his church. He is the rock on which is built and he was given the keys. As Jesus famously said to Paul on the road to Damascus, (paraphrasing acts 26) You are kicking against the goad.

Paul was a great saint, but he was not the leader of the Church. He claimed jurisdiction over the churches he founded, nothing more and it is clear from Acts that he was subordinate to the church leaders, who sent him on his missionary journeys and in fact, sent him to see Peter and the Pillars of the church (the apostles) in Jerusalem to make sure he was not teaching heresy. This was because Peter had the authority from Christ.

Whereas Paul was told in a vision on the road to Damascus that he would witness before kings but Peter was told by the risen Christ to tend his flock. They each had their role within the church.

You can deny the primacy of Peter and the authority of the Catholic Church, but that doesn’t make you right. In fact, if you study the Early church fathers, you will find that they all recognized Peter’s primacy. You are 2000 years removed and you are currently second guessing what has always been true. Do you really think that you know better than all those that have come before you, marked with the sign of faith.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

You can deny the primacy of Peter and the authority of the Catholic Church, but that doesn’t make you right.

And you can assert it, but that doesn’t make you right. Hence a forum for making our respective cases. May the best arguments prevail.

Cheers

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

NI 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.

You’re missing my point completely. I’m limiting my discussion to Matthew’s editing of Mark (on the assumption that he’s using Mark as a source.) It’s the differences from which I’m making inferences. It’s those inferences that constitute my argument that Matthew is demoting Peter–on the whole–and that therefore that is the context in which Matthew 16:16-19 should be read.

Yes; but Matthew 16:16-19 does not stand alone.

Yes, I know. Please see opening post.

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’s just one piece of the overall case. Since Matthew deletes Peter from some of Mark’s more positive Petrine scenes, we can ask what “effect” that has on Matthew’s overall portrayal of Peter, right?

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?

Now that’s a good point. It might be worth looking at Matthew’s editorial on the other apostles as well. That said, I don’t see Matthew focusing on the other disciples in the same way I see him focusing on Peter. Given that particular focus on Peter (which leaves out positive material that he could have used from Mark and sometimes makes the already negative material even more so), the question arises: What are we to make of Peter? Compared to Mark (which already has a fairly mixed image of Peter), Matthew’s portrayal is even more mixed (darker, I’d say). Could that be said of the other apostles as well? That’s an intriguing possibility I had not considered.

 

[paul_c]

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.

I want to make another point on your comment that will perhaps enhance your understanding of Catholicism. It will also server to clarify my point.

In Catholicism, The Pope and his fellow bishops do not create new doctrines. Rather, they are tasked with passing on the doctrines that they have been taught by their predecessors, beginning of course with the Apostles and St. Peter, who learned directly from Jesus himself.

So when Peter told the first converts at Pentecost who asked how they could be saved, he told them what Jesus had told him: repent and be baptized (Acts 2: 38). And in Acts 15 at the council of Jerusalem, when confronted with the debate between the Jewish Christians, represented by James and the Gentile Christians represented by Paul and Barnabas, he told them what he had been shown by the Holy Spirit: that the Jewish law need not apply to Christians. Your critique that he is giving his theological opinion based on his experience, is exactly correct. He’s not making this up on his own, he is passing on what God has taught him. And so it is with our existing Popes. The reason that we believe that the Popes teaching on Faith and Morals is infallible is that it is not their own teachings, but the teachings of the Apostles beign passed down to him through the ages. If you see any interpretation from the Pope, you will see that it is fully documented to show the continuity of teaching back to the Apostles and that it is well vetted with the Cardinals and Bishops to make sure it is consistent.

In the case of the decision on following the jewish laws rendered at Jerusalem by Peter in 49 AD, he had recieved direct revelation on the subject , demonstrated to be of God by the gifts of the Holy spirit given to Cornelius and his household, which he applied in rendering the decision.

 

[Nita]

You’re missing my point completely. I’m limiting my discussion to Matthew’s editing of Mark (on the assumption that he’s using Mark as a source.) It’s the differences from which I’m making inferences. It’s those inferences that constitute my argument that Matthew is demoting Peter–on the whole–and that therefore that is the context in which Matthew 16:16-19 should be read.
…

That’s just one piece of the overall case. Since Matthew deletes Peter from some of Mark’s more positive Petrine scenes, we can ask what “effect” that has on Matthew’s overall portrayal of Peter, right?

If God and Matthew had wanted Jesus’ words spoken to Peter to be understood in a way that minimized or demoted the obvious sense of the words, I don’t think they would have done it in such an obscure way - and a way that would not be available for awhile. These important omissions that you assign such theological significance to, would be totally undetectable in the normal manner of evangelizing - oral preaching of the gospel.
.
Examine what is required before one can come to this conclusion of yours…
First: it had to await the writing of the respective gospels.
Second: One had to have in hand a copy of both Mathew and Mark.
Third: One had to be able to read
Fourth: One had to go thru and put together a parallel gospel, searching for where passages varied in wording, and then assigning significance to it. (In your case, assigning a significance to the absence of a word - “Peter” - when that particular word had no bearing on the actual event that was being handed on. Eg. Jesus’ cursing of the fig tree, Jesus’ talk about final things, raising of dead girl).

It is so obscure that apparently no one noticed it for a couple thousand years! And as you well know, there were people around long before you who also were interested not only in minimizing any Scriptural foundation for the office of the papacy, but in trying to negate in some way any passages where the obvious meaning establishes and/or supports it.
I think the motive or mindset that colors, so to speak, one’s reading and pondering of the Scriptures has a lot to do with what one gets out of it. By that I mean, rather than sitting down with Scripture with one’s heart set on being with God and wanting to understand Him more, imagining hearing Him speak the words, etc. – they sit down with the agenda of finding a way to rationalize away the obvious meaning of some words in Scripture that they don’t like, or that they disagree with for some reason.

For example, when I look at the same event in the various gospels I do it to see the additional information that may be provided by one evangelizer that was not included in the other one. In the particular passages you cite that are in both Mark and Matthew, IF I even noticed the addition of Peter’s name in Mark, I would just have considered it a little additional information – knowledge that Peter was definitely one of the disciples that were present at that particular time/event.

I’m curious. What was your motive when you were reading Scripture and happened to notice the absence of Peter’s name in some passages? Did it just happen; had you done something like a word search on “Peter” to start with? If so, why were you doing it???

If Matthew wanted to “demote” Peter, minimize his role, etc. all he had to do was omit the Matthew 16:16-20 passage. It’s absence would not have been noticed since none of the other gospels had included it.

 

[Nita]

Hi,

1. 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.

Miguel Sastre

This pretty much gives the Catholic position. We absolutely do not believe it was something intrinsic to Peter that qualifies him to be the rock on which Our Lord’s Church was built. The power to uphold the guarantee that it will never fail is God Himself. It is God who oversees and exercises control over what the Church teaches - as Jesus says in Mt 16:17 “Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.”

 

[Humble_Pie]

I noticed that no one has mentioned the probable significance of Christ “renaming” Simon in the first place.

I don’t know much about anything, but I know enough to recognize that God reserves “renaming” for very special individuals. Whether you are talking about Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel, or Simon to Peter, Jews in the first century would automatically see the significance in God changing someone’s name. This tends to follow the establishment of new and special covenants.

 

[steve_b]

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.

Matthew laid out very clearly what Jesus did for Peter. Jesus doesn’t undo what He did for Peter anywhere in the scriptures. Therefore, what Jesus does for Peter, is all that’s necessary to prove Peter’s primacy.

Peter didn’t lobby for the top job. No one lobbied for him to get the job like James and John’s mom did for her 2 sons… It might be possible to argue that Peter was perfectly happy being a fisherman. Afterall, what did Peter say to the others, when they were hold up in fear of the Jews after the crucifixion and resurrection? I’m going fishing.And what happened? Peter went fishing and the rest of them followed Peter.

And who changed that job direction? Jesus. But this time it’s John who gives the juicy details of that encounter. Further cementing the primacy of Peter for ALL time.
ms:

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.

How about this,

• source ≠ copying.
• Matthew gave us much needed information NOT in Mark

ms:

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.

Go through the 4 gospels. Who is the only apostle to get the keys from Jesus? While the other apostles get the power to bind and loose also, are keys mentioned? No. Are there qualifications for THEM to bind and loose? Are keys mentioned anywhere in the NT with anyother apostle but Peter? No.

In Matthew’s gospel, If a dispute occurs, how is it to be handled? What are the steps? And for final resolution, what is the final step mentioned? Take it to the Church…right? Who did Jesus 2 chapters before, say is the one Jesus builds His Church on and who has the keys to the kingdom of heaven to singularly bind and loose for the entire Church? Peter. Peter therefore, will always have to be part of major decisions concerning the entire Church.

 

[Nita]

I noticed that no one has mentioned the probable significance of Christ “renaming” Simon in the first place.

I don’t know much about anything, but I know enough to recognize that God reserves “renaming” for very special individuals. Whether you are talking about Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel, or Simon to Peter, Jews in the first century would automatically see the significance in God changing someone’s name. This tends to follow the establishment of new and special covenants.

Well said.

The reason it hasn’t been discussed is that the opening poster has made it clear he wants to focus only on the significance of Matthew choosing to eliminate the mention of Peter’s name where Mark had included it (see for example, Post #43 by Miguel, first paragraph). In other words, not on what the gospel of Matthew says, but on what it
doesn’t say!!!

As you probably noticed, he bases his conclusion on the assumption that Matthew had a copy of Mark’s gospel with him at the time/s he was recording his own gospel. His conclusion is of course, that the omissions were deliberate on Matthew’s part, for the specific intention of minimizing or demoting Peter.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

IIf Matthew wanted to “demote” Peter, minimize his role, etc. all he had to do was omit the Matthew 16:16-20 passage. It’s absence would not have been noticed since none of the other gospels had included it.

This is the rub. Matthew does include an unparalleled positive portrayal in making him the rock and key-bearer. How that goes together with the portrait of Peter in the rest of his gospel has baffled interpreters for years. I’m not noticing anything new, here. It’s a well-known problem.

Of course, if you look closely at the passage itself, you get hints. The allusion to Isaiah 22:15-25 may very well explain Matthew’s purpose for including it. If my analysis is correct (see previous posts), then the purpose for including it is in order to make a typological comparison of Eliakim to Peter. So if Peter recapitulaes Eliakim, then he’s going to be a key-bearer who won’t be able to hold up under pressure. Eliakim starts off well, but fails in the end. That’s very much Peter’s story in Matthew. (It is not, of course, the New Testament’s final word on Peter.)

 

[paul_c]

Well said.

The reason it hasn’t been discussed is that the opening poster has made it clear he wants to focus only on the significance of Matthew choosing to eliminate the mention of Peter’s name where Mark had included it (see for example, Post #43 by Miguel, first paragraph). In other words, not on what the gospel of Matthew says, but on what it
doesn’t say!!!

As you probably noticed, he bases his conclusion on the assumption that Matthew had a copy of Mark’s gospel with him at the time/s he was recording his own gospel. His conclusion is of course, that the omissions were deliberate on Matthew’s part, for the specific intention of minimizing or demoting Peter.

Which of course makes no sense. Why would Matthew ADD Peter’s commisioning and reception of the keys to heaven to Mark’s Gospel, if his goal was to minimize or demote Peter? If his goal was to demote Peter, wouldn’t he have just left him out of the gospel all together instead of adding the Part where Jesus singles him out as the Rock on which the church will be built.

And by the way, regardless of Matthew’s personal opinion about Peter, what he has done is given witness to how Jesus felt about Peter, the ROCK…

 

[paul_c]

This is the rub. Matthew does include an unparalleled positive portrayal in making him the rock and key-bearer. How that goes together with the portrait of Peter in the rest of his gospel has baffled interpreters for years. I’m not noticing anything new, here. It’s a well-known problem.

Of course, if you look closely at the passage itself, you get hints. The allusion to Isaiah 22:15-25 may very well explain Matthew’s purpose for including it. If my analysis is correct (see previous posts), then the purpose for including it is in order to make a typological comparison of Eliakim to Peter. So if Peter recapitulaes Eliakim, then he’s going to be a key-bearer who won’t be able to hold up under pressure. Eliakim starts off well, but fails in the end. That’s very much Peter’s story in Matthew. (It is not, of course, the New Testament’s final word on Peter.)

Come on Miguel, this extention makes no sense. You are grasping at straws here to try to prove something that just isn’t there. Jesus made Peter the rock and gave him the keys and said the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail against it. Matthew bears witness to this. Do you think Jesus is omniscient? If so, then you can’t possible think that he would have made these statements if Peter was going to fail in his mission.

 

[Nita]

This is the rub. Matthew does include an unparalleled positive portrayal in making him the rock and key-bearer. How that goes together with the portrait of Peter in the rest of his gospel has baffled interpreters for years. I’m not noticing anything new, here. It’s a well-known problem

Which interpreters – and for how many years back. How about some links to some of their commentary that also gives a little biographical info on the interpreter – preferably the earliest ones you are aware of…

Of course, if you look closely at the passage itself, you get hints. The allusion to Isaiah 22:15-25 may very well explain Matthew’s purpose for including it. If my analysis is correct (see previous posts), then the purpose for including it is in order to make a typological comparison of Eliakim to Peter. So if Peter recapitulaes Eliakim, then he’s going to be a key-bearer who won’t be able to hold up under pressure. Eliakim starts off well, but fails in the end. That’s very much Peter’s story in Matthew. (It is not, of course, the New Testament’s final word on Peter.)

I’m sure you’re aware that Eliakim is sometimes seen as a “type” of Jesus. Does your logic apply there also?
From my Protestant Harper Bible Study footnote on this Isaiah passage:
22:20 Eliakim (whose name means “God will establish”) is a type of Christ… The type is fulfilled in Rev. 3:7 where Christ holds the key of David. “my servant Eliakim” contrasts his person and work with Shebna, who sought his own ends.
(I saw your previous posts on Isaiah and just preferred not to comment on your logic. Among other things it gets us talking about the meaning of a Scripture passage and you have been quite firm about wanting to contain this thread to just commenting on the absences in Matthew…)

 

[steve_b]

This is the rub. Matthew does include an unparalleled positive portrayal in making him the rock and key-bearer. How that goes together with the portrait of Peter in the rest of his gospel has baffled interpreters for years. I’m not noticing anything new, here. It’s a well-known problem.

Of course, if you look closely at the passage itself, you get hints. The allusion to Isaiah 22:15-25 may very well explain Matthew’s purpose for including it. If my analysis is correct (see previous posts), then the purpose for including it is in order to make a typological comparison of Eliakim to Peter. So if Peter recapitulaes Eliakim, then he’s going to be a key-bearer who won’t be able to hold up under pressure. Eliakim starts off well, but fails in the end.

Eliakim is a type.

[Is 22:]
17 Behold, the LORD will hurl you away violently, O you strong man. He will seize firm hold on you, 18 and whirl you round and round, and throw you like a ball into a wide land; there you shall die, and there shall be your splendid chariots, you shame of your master’s house. 19 I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. 20 In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, 21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22* And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. 23 AndI will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house. 24 And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons.** 25 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."

What’s the last part refering to and how does that apply to Peter?

Peter was crucified in Rome. He became a throne of honor to the Father’s house. He had the weight of the Father’s house on him right down to the cups and saucers… On him is all the promises Jesus gave him AND what would continue through his successors because Jesus said, my kingdom will have no end.

What do you do after a crucufixion? You cut the body down and remove the body from the cross. Jesus told Peter in advance how he would die and glorify God.

[Jn 21:]
18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go." 19* (This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.)

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Which interpreters – and for how many years back. How about some links to some of their commentary that also gives a little biographical info on the interpreter – preferably the earliest ones you are aware of…

You could start with Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 1 (1971), p. 307. Here Jeremias acknowledges that redaction criticism can’t solve the dilemma. So the “redaction critics” out there are well aware of the problems. I don’t share their skeptical assumptions, but I do think they’re right in their analysis that there is definitely a mystery in Matthew regarding his portrayal of Peter. Beyond that, I cant help you as I haven’t delved that deeply into the problem. I just don’t know who the “first” person to notice that Matthew’s portrayal of Peter is a definitely biased editorial of Mark. Since up to modern times most thought Mark had simply abbreviated Matthew, it wouldn’t surprise me if no one had noticed the problem until Marcan priority emerged as the dominant theory. (Of course, when you analyze Mark and Matthew together, it turns out the Matthew is usually shorter than Mark, pericope for pericope.)

I’m sure you’re aware that Eliakim is sometimes seen as a “type” of Jesus.

Revelation 3:7 could be taken that way. But how is Matthew using Eliakim? That’s the question. I’m not going to force Matthew into compliance with John just because John may have seen a different type.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Who is the only apostle to get the keys from Jesus? While the other apostles get the power to bind and loose also, are keys mentioned? No.

Do the keys have to be mentioned 18:18 in order for us to know they in some sense get them? After all, if the keys (per Isaiah 22) is a symbol for “opening and shutting” (see Isaiah 22:22) and if this in turn explains “binding and loosing” in Matthew, then it seems to me that when Jesus gives the other apostles this same power, then he’s giving them the keys (which are symbolic, even Isaiah). Interestingly, Jesus associates the “binding/loosing” power with forgiving sins in Matthew 18 rather than making ecclesiastical decrees, defining doctrine, etc. So the fact that Jesus doesn’t mention “keys” in Matthew 18:18 doesn’t seem all that significant, since it’s the power behind the keys that matters. Also, since we never actually see Peter using his keys in Matthew, but rather we see him being rebuked for not using them correctly (how many times must I forgive?), then it doesn’t seem like there’s any further importance attached to the keys in Matthew. What about the rest of the New Testament? Where do we find Peter wielding the power of the keys in a way that no other apostle does? Where in the New Testament do we see anything even remotely approaching the claims Vatican I made for the papacy on the basis of Matthew 16:18-19?

 

[Nita]

You could start with Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 1 (1971), p. 307. Here Jeremias acknowledges that redaction criticism can’t solve the dilemma. So the “redaction critics” out there are well aware of the problems. I don’t share their skeptical assumptions, but I do think they’re right in their analysis that there is definitely a mystery in Matthew regarding his portrayal of Peter. Beyond that, I cant help you as I haven’t delved that deeply into the problem. I just don’t know who the “first” person to notice that Matthew’s portrayal of Peter is a definitely biased editorial of Mark. Since up to modern times most thought Mark had simply abbreviated Matthew, it wouldn’t surprise me if no one had noticed the problem until Marcan priority emerged as the dominant theory. (Of course, when you analyze Mark and Matthew together, it turns out the Matthew is usually shorter than Mark, pericope for pericope.)

I wouldn’t consider something written in the 1970’s (about the NT which has been around for scholars to examine for 1900 plus years) as a good basis for saying it’s baffled interpreters for years.

Revelation 3:7 could be taken that way. But how is Matthew using Eliakim? That’s the question. I’m not going to force Matthew into compliance with John just because John may have seen a different type.

Matthew isn’t “using Eliakim” or even the “keys” — he’s just recording Jesus’ words. If there is any “using” being done, it is Jesus who is doing it. And He never mentions Eliakim, but He sure does mention the “keys” and the power they confer to the holder.

 

[paul_c]

You could start with Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 1 (1971), p. 307. Here Jeremias acknowledges that redaction criticism can’t solve the dilemma. So the “redaction critics” out there are well aware of the problems. I don’t share their skeptical assumptions, but I do think they’re right in their analysis that there is definitely a mystery in Matthew regarding his portrayal of Peter. Beyond that, I cant help you as I haven’t delved that deeply into the problem. I just don’t know who the “first” person to notice that Matthew’s portrayal of Peter is a definitely biased editorial of Mark. Since up to modern times most thought Mark had simply abbreviated Matthew, it wouldn’t surprise me if no one had noticed the problem until Marcan priority emerged as the dominant theory. (Of course, when you analyze Mark and Matthew together, it turns out the Matthew is usually shorter than Mark, pericope for pericope.)

Its really interesting to me that you think that Matthew is biased against Peter compared to Mark, when it is Matthew’s gospel that most clearly elevates Peter to primacy. After all, Matthew is the one that highlights Jesus’ commission of Peter as the rock on which he would build his church and it is Matthew that highlight’s Jesus giving the keys of the kingdom to Peter. It is Mark that is silent on this. I would say that Mark is biased against Peter, not Matthew. And this is probably because Mark is speaking for Peter, a humble man.

 

[steve_b]

Do the keys have to be mentioned 18:18 in order for us to know they in some sense get them? After all, if the keys (per Isaiah 22) is a symbol for “opening and shutting” (see Isaiah 22:22) and if this in turn explains “binding and loosing” in Matthew, then it seems to me that when Jesus gives the other apostles this same power, then he’s giving them the keys (which are symbolic, even Isaiah). Interestingly, Jesus associates the “binding/loosing” power with forgiving sins in Matthew 18 rather than making ecclesiastical decrees, defining doctrine, etc. So the fact that Jesus doesn’t mention “keys” in Matthew 18:18 doesn’t seem all that significant, since it’s the power behind the keys that matters.

[Mt 18:]

15* “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18* Truly, I say to you, ὑμῖν hymin plural] *whatever you ὑμῖν hymin plural bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you ὑμῖν hymin plural loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, ὑμῖν *hymin plural ] *if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

• Keys aren’t mentioned,
• binding and loosing takes 2 or 3 of them to agree.

Mt 16:
17* And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18* And I tell you, σοί soi 2nd person singular you σύ *sy] are Peter, * and on this rock * I will build my church, and the powers of death * shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you σοί soi2nd person singular the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

See a difference here between the context? Mt 18 Jesus talks in the plural. Mt 16, Jesus switches tense in the middle of His teaching. He starts out talking to all of them (plural) but switches to singular when He singles out Peter for a name change, and receiving the keys of the kingdom, and binding and loosing. None of this is plural tense. It’s singular, and directed at Peter personally. And the keys come to the Church through Peter.

In Mt 16 It’s like saying

• I Jesus (1st person singular) give you Peter (2nd person singular) the keys to the kingdom. Whatever you bind and loose is bound and loosed in heaven

sm:

Also, since we never actually see Peter using his keys in Matthew, but rather we see him being rebuked for not using them correctly (how many times must I forgive?),

Wasn’t Jesus teaching Peter here as He did for the 3 years of His public ministry?

when Jesus has ascended to heaven and the Holy Spirit comes on Pentecost, THEN, Peter is in charge.
ms:

then it doesn’t seem like there’s any further importance attached to the keys in Matthew. What about the rest of the New Testament? Where do we find Peter wielding the power of the keys in a way that no other apostle does?

Calling for replacement of Judas (Acts)
Council of Jerusalem, Peter settles the matter, re: circumcision and Mosaic law(Acts)
Who does Paul see to verify that he is preaching correctly and not running in vain?
ms:

Where in the New Testament do we see anything even remotely approaching the claims Vatican I made for the papacy on the basis of Matthew 16:18-19?

You wouldn’t expect the Church in the 1st century with 1000’s of members, to look like the Church in the 18th century or the 21st century with over a billion members, would you?

 

[FightingFat]

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

The rock stuff is all through scripture. Fundamental principles when studying this stuff include things like the fact that continuity and development are in themselves, the verification of a text. The fact that Is. 22:22 cross references perfectly with Matthew 16:18, and that Matthew is in the business of giving us OT references to prove his Jewish point is important and points to the deposition and replacement of a ruler. The key in Isaiah is a sign of Kingship. Jesus says “you are going to take my place and you will have my authority”—Peter is made ruler of God’s people.

Even Paul refers to Peter as Cephas (Gal 2:9; 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:15) as does John (1:42), really I don’t know how much clearer it could be!! If Jesus hadn’t changed Peter’s name to Rock then why would everyone be so familiar with the tradition? In Jn 21:18 we see Peter taking precedence over John and the continuity and development leads to the monophysite heresy defined at the robber council being overturned at Chalcedon in 451 and the the council’s exclamation that Peter had spoken through Leo. The invalidity of the council wasn’t evident until the pope demonstrated it was, this is what caused John Henry Newman to recognise that the Catholic Church is the Church of Acts.