On this rock I will build my church

theological

Matthew 16:13-20 wrote:

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you 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.” Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

This is a famous passage that I've seen discussed on this forum time and time again. I thought it might be useful to discuss it a bit more.

The context surrounding the passage is that at the start of chapter 16 The Pharisees and the Sadducees say that they want a sign (as if the feeding of the 5,000 and the feeding of the 4,000 weren't enough!) and Jesus replies that the only sign they are going to get is the sign of Jonah. Meaning they will see when Jesus is crucified and when He rises again from the dead. Jesus then warns the disciples not to be conceited like the Pharisees and the Sadducees who want to catch Him out.

Some questions on the passage above:

What do people think about Jesus today?

What does Jesus ask His disciples at the start of this passage?

Why do you think Jesus wants to know what the disciples think?

Where does true knowledge come from?

Why does Jesus say that Peter is the rock on which the church is built?

What does Jesus mean when He is talking about loosing and binding in the kingdom of heaven?

Why does Jesus say that the disciples shouldn't say that He was the Christ? (See 16:1-4)

hinault

Jesus founded His church and anointed St. Peter as the head of the Church.
He did this so as to create a church here in Earth that is part of the mystical church that God has always dwelled in.

In appointing St.Peter as head, Jesus was conferring His personal authority upon one man, and one man only out of the 12 apostles.

Of course Jesus could have designed another system to create His church on Earth. He could have appointed several apostles as co leaders for example, but instead He chose the format as detailed in the Bible.

The authors of the gospels also picked up on this, in that when listing the names of the apostles, St.Peter is always listed first name, as a sign of his special favour with Jesus.

theological

I know that is the typical Roman Catholic church view, but it requires a lot to be injected into the passage. I want to start looking at the passage without our preconceptions, this is why I've added the questions. There's lots of engaging things in this passage other than this typical understanding by the way. I fear that we miss a lot if we simply reduce the passage to saying "The Roman Catholic church is right".

For example - Peter's belief is revealed to him from heaven not by flesh and blood. What does that mean about how we come to know Jesus?

What does loosing and binding mean?

The idea of Jesus saying "don't tell others I'm the Christ" at the end of the passage is also interesting and could lead to interesting conversation.

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

Jesus founded His church and anointed St. Peter as the head of the Church.
He did this so as to create a church here in Earth that is part of the mystical church that God has always dwelled in.

In appointing St.Peter as head, Jesus was conferring His personal authority upon one man, and one man only out of the 12 apostles.

Of course Jesus could have designed another system to create His church on Earth. He could have appointed several apostles as co leaders for example, but instead He chose the format as detailed in the Bible.

The authors of the gospels also picked up on this, in that when listing the names of the apostles, St.Peter is always listed first name, as a sign of his special favour with Jesus.

Ah. He got in ahead of me.:)


It's funny all this as we see at the Jerusalem Council and from Paul's own writings that James seemed to be the one in charge along with John

If Peter had been in charge surely it would have been him who decided on the things which would effect the gentiles for the next 2000 years plus.


Of course H probably has me on ignore and won't read this.
Perhaps someone can quote me

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

IFor example - Peter's belief is revealed to him from heaven not by flesh and blood. What does that mean about how we come to know Jesus.

This is a very interesting question. I think there are (at least!) two ways to read this particular passage.

Jesus says that Peter's insight was not revealed to him by "flesh and blood" - i.e. by human teaching or human authority. Rather, it has been revealed by "my heavenly father". So nobody told Peter this; it is an original spiritual insight of Peter's. And, because of this, Peter is "blessed".

But here comes the bit that I think could be taken in two ways. Is Peter blessed because he alone has been graced with this insight - i.e. the heavenly Father has revealed it to Peter specially? (In which case he has been blessed by being singled out by God in this way?) Or is it the case that this revelation was avaiable to all - at least, to all of Jesus's followers - but Peter is blessed because he, unlike the others, has had the humility and the openness to revelation to discern and accept it?

In favour of the latter reading is the close juxtaposition of this passage of scripture the the passage at 16:1-4, which Theo mentions. In that passage, the Pharisees and the Sadducees demand that Jesus show them a sign from heaven. Jesus basically tells them that they are too blind to recoognise the signs they have already had, and that no sign will convince them of something they have already chosen to reject. By contrast, Peter does correctly read the sign that is Jesus himself, implying that this is because Peter is not blind or obstinate.

As against this, though, Peter generally is portrayed as being, well, a bit slow on the uptake, and as having a faith that is often weak. "Oh you of little faith!" refers to Peter (Mt 14:31) and of course Peter will later deny Jesus three times. Which might support the view that it wasn't Peter's unique spiritual qualities that led him to discern the truth about Jesus ahead of others; he was simply specially graced with this insight by the Father.

theological

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is a very interesting question. I think there are (at least!) two ways to read this particular passage.

Jesus says that Peter's insight was not revealed to him by "flesh and blood" - i.e. by human teaching or human authority. Rather, it has been revealed by "my heavenly father". So nobody told Peter this; it is an original spiritual insight of Peter's. And, because of this, Peter is "blessed".

But here comes the bit that I think could be taken in two ways. Is Peter blessed because he alone has been graced with this insight - i.e. the heavenly Father has revealed it to Peter specially? (In which case he has been blessed by being singled out by God in this way?) Or is it the case that this revelation was avaiable to all - at least, to all of Jesus's followers - but Peter is blessed because he, unlike the others, has had the humility and the openness to revelation to discern and accept it?

In favour of the latter reading is the close juxtaposition of this passage of scripture the the passage at 16:1-4, which Theo mentions. In that passage, the Pharisees and the Sadducees demand that Jesus show them a sign from heaven. Jesus basically tells them that they are too blind to recoognise the signs they have already had, and that no sign will convince them of something they have already chosen to reject. By contrast, Peter does correctly read the sign that is Jesus himself, implying that this is because Peter is not blind or obstinate.

As against this, though, Peter generally is portrayed as being, well, a bit slow on the uptake, and as having a faith that is often weak. "Oh you of little faith!" refers to Peter (Mt 14:31) and of course Peter will later deny Jesus three times. Which might support the view that it wasn't Peter's unique spiritual qualities that led him to discern the truth about Jesus ahead of others; he was simply specially graced with this insight by the Father.

I agree with you. I don't think the passage is actually all that focused on Peter being endowed with some ability. Knowledge of God is imparted spiritually and not through biological descent or any human factor.

I think you're right to focus on the first few verses of chapter 16. The context is of proud people refusing to receive the truth humbly. A lot of it could be down to attitude.

The interesting thing about revisiting passages we are familiar with is often how much we don't know.

For example the talk of loosing and binding I don't have a concrete idea on. It could be referring to the work of the gospel either bringing people salvation or judgement but that is nebulous.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

I agree with you. I don't think the passage is actually all that focused on Peter being endowed with some ability. Knowledge of God is imparted spiritually and not through biological descent or any human factor . . .

But the passage does very clearly single out Peter. (What that means, if anything, for the "successors of Peter" is a whole other question, as you point out, which it might be beneficial for us to put to one side.)

Peter is "blessed" - either he is singled out for a unique revelation or he has spiritual qualities or a disposition that enable him to discern/accept what others cannot.

It's worth noting, though, that this blessing, whichever one it is, is a blessing for more than just Peter. Because of this blessing of Peter's, "on this rock [Peter] I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". In other words, not only Peter but the entire community of believers benefits from this blessing. So this isn't a case of the Father being capricious or playing favourites by giving Peter a grace/blessing that is denied to others; rather, Peter is the channel through which a blessing is conferred on the entire church.

Couple of other points worth noting here.

First, Mark and Luke tell the same story, but with a couple of differences, one being that in Mark/Luke Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah, but not as the Son of God. Only Mark has the last bit, which you'd think is a pretty important bit. If Peter said it, why would Mark and Luke leave it out?

Secondly, and relatedly, only Matthew has the bit about Peter being a rock upon which the church etc etc. Matthew is also the only evangelist who mentions that Jesus says to Peter that "flesh and blood has not revealed this to you".

Thirdly, on that last point, John flatly contradicts Matthew. While John doesn't tell this story at all, he does give an account of Peter being called as an apostle in the first place. Peter's brother Andrew hears John the Baptist identify Jesus as "the Lamb of God" and then follows Jesus and listens to him. He then goes and finds his brother Peter and says to him "we have found the Messiah!". So in John's telling not only does "flesh and blood" reveal to Peter that Jesus is the Messiah; the very first thing that Peter ever hears about Jesus from anyone is that Jesus is the Messiah.

Fourthly, this passage in Matthew is the first occasion on which Jesus ever mentions a "church". In the other three gospels Jesus never refers to a church at all; in Matthew he does so here and in one other passage in Mt 18 (dealing with how to resolve disputes among believers). The general understanding is that there is no "church" until the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost ("the birth of the church").

All of which suggests that Matthew's account incorporates a good deal of later reflection/understanding by the Christian community. Looking back, the community sees Peter's identification of Jesus as the Messiah as a privotal moment, and Matthew frames his story so as to make explicit what the community believes the moment meant for the community's (later) understanding of Jesus as the Son of God, and for Peter's leadership role among the apostles and, after Pentecost, within the church.

Tat suggests that James, not Peter, was the leader of the apostles/the early church. I think it's a mistake to assume that the early church must have had one, and only one, leader, and that if it was James it can't have been Peter (or vice versa). It's clear from the gospels that Peter did have a leadership role of some kind among the apostles; he often acts as their spokesman. The picture is more complex in Acts, but Peter as well as James and John (the beloved Apostle, not the Baptist) all seem to have had leadership roles. It's Peter, for example, who conducts the election of Mathias (to replace Judas as an Apostle), and Peter whose preaching to the crowds at Pentecost is recorded in detail. Peter couldn't have been sole leader all the time for a couple of reasons, the obvious one being that he spent time in prison. Also, he left Jerusalem for Antioch, which probably helps to account for the prominence of James as the leader of the Jerusalem church. One view of Peter's role is that he acted as a bridge between the (often opposing) views of Paul and James, and the communities that they founded or led. And - wild speculation here - when Matthew talks about Peter being the rock on which the church is built, he may be referring to Peter's role in keeping different factions or different local churches united into a single community of believers. (Which of course is also what Catholics consider the Pope's role to be.)

antiskeptic

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is a very interesting question. I think there are (at least!) two ways to read this particular passage.

Jesus says that Peter's insight was not revealed to him by "flesh and blood" - i.e. by human teaching or human authority. Rather, it has been revealed by "my heavenly father". So nobody told Peter this; it is an original spiritual insight of Peter's. And, because of this, Peter is "blessed".

But here comes the bit that I think could be taken in two ways. Is Peter blessed because he alone has been graced with this insight - i.e. the heavenly Father has revealed it to Peter specially? (In which case he has been blessed by being singled out by God in this way?) Or is it the case that this revelation was avaiable to all - at least, to all of Jesus's followers - but Peter is blessed because he, unlike the others, has had the humility and the openness to revelation to discern and accept it?

In favour of the latter reading is the close juxtaposition of this passage of scripture the the passage at 16:1-4, which Theo mentions. In that passage, the Pharisees and the Sadducees demand that Jesus show them a sign from heaven. Jesus basically tells them that they are too blind to recoognise the signs they have already had, and that no sign will convince them of something they have already chosen to reject. By contrast, Peter does correctly read the sign that is Jesus himself, implying that this is because Peter is not blind or obstinate.

As against this, though, Peter generally is portrayed as being, well, a bit slow on the uptake, and as having a faith that is often weak. "Oh you of little faith!" refers to Peter (Mt 14:31) and of course Peter will later deny Jesus three times. Which might support the view that it wasn't Peter's unique spiritual qualities that led him to discern the truth about Jesus ahead of others; he was simply specially graced with this insight by the Father.

Salvation, in my experience, although a comparatively rapid process, was a process. I can recall about 6 years of directly related process elements from search (for what I knew not) beginnings to seemingly overnight being born again.

Being born again took the form of a prayer one night, going to sleep and waking to being 'eyes opened'

I think Peter has that final born again clarity here. Like the thief on the cross who couldn't see then could see, it was his moment when the lights went. He was in process in his following up to that point - because presumably he was searching.

Why not tell others? Well because Peter's telling might not be intended to be part of their process. Perhaps the process is intended to permit people not to complete the process. Or telling might accelerate the process where acceleration isn't desired. Or interfere with the process.

It's the most natural thing in the world to want to tell others this news above all news. It made a God-botherer of my mam when she was born again and I wasn't. I used to go ill green when a seemingly innocuous conversation would be steered to the subject of God. I told her where to shove her God on more than one occassion. And made a God-botherer out of me when I was born again. I actually still uphold a promise made to a poor best friend of mine, such was my fervour: not to mention the G word except in absolutely unavoidable circumstances (like when doing the eulogy at my mam's funeral!)

ChrisJ84

Peregrinus wrote: »

Peter is "blessed" - either he is singled out for a unique revelation or he has spiritual qualities or a disposition that enable him to discern/accept what others cannot.

Really helpful post, Peregrinus. Lots of food for thought.

The bit I've quoted is where I would differ from a Roman Catholic most significantly. The passage clearly refers to Peter himself, but I think it does so in his role of confessing Jesus as the Messiah - and that the other disciples will share in that role as they make a similar confession. Ephesians 2:20 is an important cross reference in that regard.

The idea that Peter hold a special office, or has greater authority than the other apostles, or that he was infallible in his teaching, don't seem to me to be well supported by the biblical witness. The idea that there are successors to such an office seems even more of a stretch. What do you think?

Peregrinus

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Really helpful post, Peregrinus. Lots of food for thought.

The bit I've quoted is where I would differ from a Roman Catholic most significantly. The passage clearly refers to Peter himself, but I think it does so in his role of confessing Jesus as the Messiah - and that the other disciples will share in that role as they make a similar confession. Ephesians 2:20 is an important cross reference in that regard.

The idea that Peter hold a special office, or has greater authority than the other apostles, or that he was infallible in his teaching, don't seem to me to be well supported by the biblical witness. The idea that there are successors to such an office seems even more of a stretch. What do you think?

I agree with Theo that the question of the successors of Peter is best noted, and then put to one side for the purposes of this thread. Not that it's an unimportant question, but it's such a highly-charged issued that if we discuss that in this thread it will crowd out discussion of anything else, which would be a pity, since there is much else to discuss.

Maybe open a separate thread for discussion of that particular issue? (Though I fear it might not go well.)

As for Peter's own leadership role or lack thereof, I think there is a good deal of scriptural evidence that, yes, he did have a particular leadership role (thogh he was not the only apostle to have a leadership role of some kind). Among other things:

- When apostles are listed, Peter is always listed first.

- Along with James and John, he seems to form an "inner group" who are particularly close to Jesus, or to whom particular things are revealed - the Transfiguration, the Agony in the Garden.

- He often seems to take a spokesman role on behalf of the apostles as a group.

- In the final chapter of John's gospel, one of the last recorded acts of Jesus is to commission Peter three times to "feed my lambs . . . tend my sheep . . . feed my sheep".

- Acts has a lot of pointers towards a leading role for Peter - sometimes, but not always, in company with John. (But when Peter and John are mentioned, Peter is always mentioned first, and it's usually only Peter who says anything.) As already discussed, Peter organises the election of Mathias, and he takes the leadership role in publicly preaching about Jesus, and working signs, at and after Pentecost. When a group of apostles is arrested, Peter acts as their spokesman. When Ananias makes a donation to the apostles, it's Peter who deals with him about it. Simon Magus is sent to Peter and John on his conversion, but it's Peter who deals with him. It's Peter who gets sent out to tour local churches in Judea, Samaria and Galilee, and who works miraculous signs there. Cornelius has a vision of an Angel, who tells him to seek out Peter, and it's Peter who has a vision telling him that the dietary laws are abrogated. Etc, etc.

We could possibly explain this by hypothesing that the author of Acts was something of a fan of Peter. But, even if so, Acts has been received by the church as inspired scripture, which suggests that the church collectively, and under the inspiration of the Spirit, accepts and endorse the view of Peter embodied in Acts, which is definitely of Peter as a leader amoung the Apostles and within the church at large.

As for whether Peter had the gift of infallibility , we stray again into highly-charged territory. But I will say this; the Catholic view of infallibility is not that God reveals things to Peter (or the Pope) who can then pass them on to the rest of us, and he can be treated as an infallible source because, well, God reveals stuff to him, doesn't He? It doesn't work like that at all.

Peter is portrayed as spokesman for the apostles. Most of the time, he's not telling Jesus what Peter thinks; he's telling Jesus what the apostles think. When he preaches in Acts, he doesn't preach what Peter believes, but what the church believes. And similarly for what Catholics believe about papal infallibility; the pope is infallible when he proclaims what the church believes, not what the pope believes.

Infalliblity is first and foremost a gift to the church, not to Peter. In the passage we are discussing, Jesus promises that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church, not that they won't prevail against Peter personally. In so far as what Peter says or does in Acts is taken to be infallible or authoritative, that's not because Peter says or does it. Rather, Peter says or does it because it's his particular role (as "spokesman") to discern, reflect and express the beliefs and deeds of the entire Christian community. Peter, if you like, is a vehicle (wrong word, but you get my meaning) through which the church teaches and acts, and what the church teaches and does is authoritative because Christ has promised that the gates of hell will not prevail, that he will always be with them, etc.

So it's not "Peter authoriatively preaches to the community what they must believe" so much as "Peter discerns what the community believes and authoritatively preaches it". And I think we see him doing quite a lot of that in Acts. For example, when the disciples are inspired by the Spirit at Pentecost and immediately go out preaching to the people, they all preach. But we are only told what Peter actually says, indicating (I suggest) that what Peter preaches can be taken as normative for what the church preaches.

theological

Peregrinus you provide so much meat on the plate that you'll have me begging for vegetables but let me slice this post up. I won't cover it all.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the passage does very clearly single out Peter. (What that means, if anything, for the "successors of Peter" is a whole other question, as you point out, which it might be beneficial for us to put to one side.)

Peter is "blessed" - either he is singled out for a unique revelation or he has spiritual qualities or a disposition that enable him to discern/accept what others cannot.

In this case yes. But think about the knowledge he has been revealed here. This knowledge is that Jesus is the Christ. That knowledge has been revealed by God to many under heaven since this pronouncement. In fact it has been revealed to all Christians.

The nature of the knowledge being discussed is important.

Peregrinus wrote: »

First, Mark and Luke tell the same story, but with a couple of differences, one being that in Mark/Luke Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah, but not as the Son of God. Only Mark has the last bit, which you'd think is a pretty important bit. If Peter said it, why would Mark and Luke leave it out?

It's worth pointing out that a key criteria for being the Messiah is being God's Son. Psalm 2 points out that the eternal King who reigns on Zion is God's Son. Different gospels major on different aspects of Jesus and they are not identical.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Thirdly, on that last point, John flatly contradicts Matthew. While John doesn't tell this story at all, he does give an account of Peter being called as an apostle in the first place. Peter's brother Andrew hears John the Baptist identify Jesus as "the Lamb of God" and then follows Jesus and listens to him. He then goes and finds his brother Peter and says to him "we have found the Messiah!". So in John's telling not only does "flesh and blood" reveal to Peter that Jesus is the Messiah; the very first thing that Peter ever hears about Jesus from anyone is that Jesus is the Messiah.

I'd be careful to say that John flatly contradicts the other gospels. In respect to Peter there's an extended dialogue at the end of John after they eat breakfast where Jesus tells Peter to feed His lambs and that he will be taken somewhere he doesn't want to go.

Perhaps this betrays a bit about how I view the Bible but the gospels don't contradict. They complement in their difference in fact.

Peregrinus wrote: »

All of which suggests that Matthew's account incorporates a good deal of later reflection/understanding by the Christian community. Looking back, the community sees Peter's identification of Jesus as the Messiah as a privotal moment, and Matthew frames his story so as to make explicit what the community believes the moment meant for the community's (later) understanding of Jesus as the Son of God, and for Peter's leadership role among the apostles and, after Pentecost, within the church.

Another interesting insight. Why must it be a later insight? Why couldn't Jesus have known there would be a church, the gathered people of God who would follow Him?

What makes you think it had to be retrospectively added.

Thanks for the fascinating post. I'll go eat some vegetables for the next few hours.

Also - I'd value thoughts on loosing and binding and what that means. I may try dig into a commentary later.

Peregrinus

Hi Theo

Jesus could certainly have known that there would be a church. The question is, did he mention it at this point? If he did, it would have been pretty striking to the apostles, since they (presumably) did not know this, Jesus never having mentioned it before (that anybody bothers to record). Which raises the obvious question, if Jesus did say this at this point, why do Mark and Luke omit it from their accounts? Similarly, if Jesus had actually used the phrase “the Son of God” of himself at this point, that would have been very striking - he usually uses “the Son of Man” with respect to himself. So, again, you’d think it would be noticed, it would be remembered, it would be recorded. And yet it’s not there in Mark or Luke.

Matthew knows this; he quotes large chunks of Mark word-for-word, so he’s obviously familiar with Mark, and he regards Mark as reliable and authoritative. His purpose in writing his own gospel is not to subvert or refute Mark, and I very much doubt that it is to “correct” Mark’s account.

And this is pretty typical of Matthew’s gospel. He keeps giving us additional details, often very dramatic or striking, that other evangelists do not mention. For example he tells us that, at the moment of Jesus’s death on the cross:

“. . . the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split, tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.”

Mark and Luke tell us about the veil of the Temple. But no other evangelist mentions earthquakes, tombs opening, the appearance of the risen dead in the city streets. if it happened as described, is that not a very odd omission? Also a strict reading tells us that the tombs open and many dead are raised, but apparently they remain quietly in their open tombs until after the resurrection of Jesus himself, three days later, at which point they come out, go into the city and appear to many. That’s odd, and no explanation is offered.

We can read Matthew’s additional details as strict journalistic accounts of things that Jesus said or of events that happened, but implies that Mark was ignorant of these things, which is hardly possible, or that he chose to suppress them, which is troubling. So I think it makes more sense to read them as Matthew’s way of telling us more about the truths that Jesus was proclaiming, or the nature of the events that happened. In this particular case, the tombs opening etc is mentioned not because it unfolded exactly as described (and an attempt to read it like that highlights some puzzling aspects, as noted) but because it tells us something important about what the sacrifice of Christ meant. The imagery of the earthquake and the resurrection of the dead, read in the light of the scriptures as a whole, points to the coming of the final age. And the deferral of part of these dramatic events until after the yet-to-happen resurrection of Jesus makes more sense if we understand it not as Matthew deliberately confusing the temporal sequence of actual events, but using timing symbolically, to indicate the primacy of the resurrection of Jesus.

I’m taking too long to say: a strictly literalistic reading of Matthew’s flourishes gives rise to a lot of difficulties. Whereas if we understand them as Matthew’s ways of capturing and communicating truths about what the historical events mean or why they matter, those difficulties disappear. Matthew isn’t contradicting or correcting earlier texts; he is explaining them. When Matthew writes about the tombs opening, he’s not saying “Mark forgot to tell you this”. It’s more like “You already know about the death of Jesus; you’ve read about it in Mark. But we have come to believe/know the death of Jesus to have had particular consequences, a particular meaning, and these details that I am adding call your attention to that”.

So, back to Chapter 16. When Matthew adds in the bit about the gates of hell not prevailing against the church, and about flesh and blood not having revealed Jesus’ nature to Peter, I think he’s not saying that Jesus said exactly these things on exactly this occasion but Mark, etc, forget them or suppressed them. I think he’s saying “Since these events happened [and perhaps even since Mark wrote his account of them] we have come to understand the significance of what was said and done here, and I am putting in this detail as a way of bringing out what we have come to understand.” In other words, he’s capturing not just historical facts on what Jesus said and did but the fruit of subsequent reflection on and discernment about those facts by the community of believers. The “flourishes” are a literary technique he uses to do this.

It’s not necessarily the case that these flourishes are pure invention by Matthew. Jesus might have said these things on another occasion, for example, and the memory of them been preserved and come to Matthew, and he puts them in here because he thinks they will help us to understand what Mark has already recorded about this occasion; he knows them to be connected so he connects them for us. Matthew isn’t writing a journalistic account of Jesus’s life or teachings - none of the evangelists are, because journalism wasn’t invented until many centuries later. And by the same reasoning the people for whom Matthew was writing weren’t expecting a journalistic account.

Peregrinus

On “binding and loosing” I don’t have any very profound thoughts. Maybe one not very profound thought.

There’s a temptation to understand this in terms of prisoners/slaves - binding people in chains, or releasing them in freedom. And of course this links in with the imagery of keys. So people think this is some reference to a role for Peter/the church in, e.g, pronouncing forgiveness for sins, or imposing punishments or penances. Binding and loosing turns up again in Chapter 18, only this time the power of binding and loosing is given to all the apostles, not Peter in particular. In the context there, it seems to refer to or be connected with excommunication so, again, it’s about punishment, sanctions for transgressions, disciplinary measures.

But maybe there’s another reading. We bind things together to make them stronger, and perhaps to create something new, something greater than the sum of its parts (e.g. we bind wires together to make a cable). Whereas we loose things to let them go their separate ways. So maybe this points to the role that Peter is going to be seen to play later on, in Acts, where he is a key figure in mediating the sometimes strongly-felt divisions and disputes in the early church - he has a role as an instrument of unity.

hinault

Binding and loosing : here is the commentary of Cornelius Lapide

Whatsoever ye shall bind: Origen, Theophylact and Anastasius of Nice (q. 74) think that these words likewise pertain to the precept about correction, and therefore apply to all Christians.
They explain as follows:—To whatsoever penitents you, 0 ye faithful, remit any offence which they have committed against you, God will remit it to them in heaven: but to those to whom ye do not remit, neither will God remit it to them.
But this is an explanation which cannot be upheld. This is plain from the following consideration, that Christ speaks of the Church in opposition to private sinners, and those who correct them.
Therefore by the Church He means her Prelates, and not the faithful generally.

Again, because He assigns judgment and a tribunal to the Church, (and this belongs only to Prelates) to which obedience ought to be rendered, on pain of being considered a heathen, and afterwards refers to that judgment of the Church this general power of binding and loosing, both internal, in foro conscientiæ, and external, in foro externo, by excommunication, the opinion of Origen cannot be correct. For the sinner is brought to the Pastor of the Church, that he may be moved to repentance and confession, and so be absolved from his sin, and be justified and reformed, but if not that he may be excommunicated. So SS. Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, and others, passim. Wherefore theologians rightly gather and prove from this passage, the power of excommunication, as well as the sacrament of penance after the method of judgment and absolution. The Emperor Theodosius understood this, when being expelled from the Church by S. Ambrose because of his slaughter of the Thessalonians, he made his moan, “Even to slaves and beggars there is access to the temple of God, but I am shut out. For I know the Lord hath said, ‘Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.’” Wherefore as a suppliant, he asked for absolution from S. Ambrose. This he obtained, and fulfilled the penance which he enjoined upon him. The Council of Basle take note from S. Thomas that there are three kinds of binding and loosing recognised by Catholics. The first is of authority, which belongs to God alone. The second of excellency, which is peculiar to Christ. The third, which has been granted by Christ to priests alone. Moreover this power of binding and loosing is a very ample one, and embraces various particulars, as I have shown in chapter xvi. 19.

Observe here the beautiful order of Christ’s discourse. In the beginning of the chapter, when the Apostles were disputing about precedence, He puts the humility of the little ones, as it were a bridle upon them: and warns them lest by their ambition they offend the simple folk, and those who are as yet feeble in the faith of Christ. Then in verse 15, He gives a remedy against scandal, brotherly correction; and He says all these things to the Apostles, as representing all the faithful. Then because He gives as the final stage of correction, that the Church must be told, that is to say, the Prelate of the Church, He intimates what His authority is, by saying, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, &c. For this power of binding and loosing appertains to Prelates, not to the rest of the faithful.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/newtestament/18matth.htm

theological

Peregrinus wrote: »

Hi Theo

Jesus could certainly have known that there would be a church. The question is, did he mention it at this point? If he did, it would have been pretty striking to the apostles, since they (presumably) did not know this, Jesus never having mentioned it before (that anybody bothers to record). Which raises the obvious question, if Jesus did say this at this point, why do Mark and Luke omit it from their accounts? Similarly, if Jesus had actually used the phrase “the Son of God” of himself at this point, that would have been very striking - he usually uses “the Son of Man” with respect to himself. So, again, you’d think it would be noticed, it would be remembered, it would be recorded. And yet it’s not there in Mark or Luke.

This post is very long, so I'll cut it to the pertinent points.

Why couldn't Jesus have mentioned it at this point? What is the greater assumption - assuming that Jesus said it and it was recorded, or that it must have been written later? I think the former is a simpler explanation given that there is no clear evidence of the latter.

Also - asking why do Mark and Luke omit it from their accounts, this is the nature of eyewitness testimony. There can be many people at a single event and their accounts can and often do slightly differ. If all four gospels were identical there would be no point to have four in our Bible.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Matthew knows this; he quotes large chunks of Mark word-for-word, so he’s obviously familiar with Mark, and he regards Mark as reliable and authoritative. His purpose in writing his own gospel is not to subvert or refute Mark, and I very much doubt that it is to “correct” Mark’s account.

Or they are both different collations of testimony of the same event. I'm cutting the rest of the post for brevity from here because my responses would be much the same.

Peregrinus

I accept that's a possiblity, Theo. Eyewitness accounts do always differ in the details. But a couple of factors suggest there's a bit more than that happening here.

First, it's usually the minor details that vary between eyewitness accounts; the striking things are the bits most likely to be remembered by several or all of the witnesses. Whereas a lot of the striking details that Matthew gives are found in Matthew alone.

Secondly, it's always the case that Matthew adds detail - he never omits a detail that other evangelists add. While you might explain this by saying that Matthew has the better memory of events, against this we have to balance the fact that Matthew does not claim to be a witness of the events at all, and does not appear to be, since he quotes Mark so extensively.

Thirdly, this explanation breaks down completely for things like Matthew's account of the death of Christ. It defies credibility to suggest that other witnesses simply did not notice or hear about, or did not recollect, earthquakes, the opening of tombs and the appearance of many dead. There's clearly more going on here than the ordinary variation between eyewitness accounts and, if that is true of Mt 27, then we must be at least open to the possibility that something similar could be at work in Mt 16.

But perhaps we can cut through all this by remembering that "whose account is the most accurate, jouralistically speaking?" is perhaps not the most important question here. Does Mark or Matthew do a better job of capturing the exact words of Jesus? Does it matter? Both accounts are canonical; both are received by the church as inspired scripture; both are a revelation. To hypothesise that Jesus may not actually have said "church" or "flesh and blood" on this occasion is not to detract from the words, or the significance they have in Matthew's account, or the truth that they embody. If it is in fact the case that they are a literary device rather than a journalistic record, that does not make them any less important, or any less of an inspired revelation. The Spirit is just as capable of inspiring one genre of writing as another. So I suggest that the important question is not "Did Jesus actually say them?" but "What do they mean?"

You make the point yourself that the "Son of God" language here links back to messianic imagery in Ps 2 (and elsewhere). That would explain why Peter might use the words. But it would also explain why, if Peter didn't in fact use the words, Matthew (or the tradition which Matthew records) assigns them to him. In the interesting question for is is not so much "which of these is correct?" but "what are these words telling us?"

theological

I'm going to keep the response brief again.

My main objections begin in point 3.

I still don't agree that just because other gospels note different things that they are contradictory. The gospels are also arranged material to make a point. Some are more explicit about what that is than others. For example John writes the following:

John 20:30-31 wrote:

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

There are lots more things that John or the other gospel writers could have commented on. I love this little remark at the end of chapter 21.

John 21:25 wrote:

Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written

I'm pretty happy that the gospels are different. I don't think their being word for word the same would be helpful for gaining a broad view of Jesus.

I'm not convinced that speaking about a church means that Matthew retrofitted it in. That would need to be evidenced. I'm not sure why Jesus couldn't have spoken about the church or flesh and blood. It is possible as I say in eyewitness testimony for particular details to be majored on by one witness and not by another.

Peregrinus

I don't think there's a huge difference between us.

1. I agree that it's good that the gospels are different. If they were word-for-word the same we would, in fact, have only one gospel. We have multiple gospels for good reasons.

2. I agree that different recollections from different eye-witnesses can account for differences between the gospels.

3. I don't think that's the only thing that can acccount for the differences, and I see no reason to think that it's the only thing that does account for the differences. Other factors could be at play, giving rise to differences between the gospels - e.g. judgments by the evangelist about which matters to include and which matters to exclude; judgments by the envangelist about how best to express whatever it is they want to say; evangelists drawing on different oral traditions which preserve different aspects of the life and/or teaching of Jesus; etc.

4. Like you, I am not convinced that speaking about a church means that Matthew retrofitted it, as you put it. But I also think it's entirely possible that he did. I don't privilege the "different recollections of eye-witnesses" account for differences like this over other accounts. If other ways of accounting for differnces between the gospels would need to be evidenced, why would this account not also need to be evidenced?

5. If he did retrofit the words, I don't see that as a problem, and I certainly don't see it as detracting in any way from the significance or meaning of the words, from their status as canonical scripture, or from what they reveal to us.

6. It follows that whether he retrofitted them or not is, at best, a secondary issue. The key issue is not "who came up with the words used here to express a revealed truth?" but "what is the revealed truth expressed here by these words?"

theological

I think the principle of retrofitting the text is problematic. If you're claiming the gospel writer has modified what Jesus said once to add additional things in how many other times are you suggesting this happened? It casts doubt on the authenticity of what Jesus said.

My position would be that there's no evidence for this.

The source of the words attributed to Jesus matters. If every word of Jesus is not His then I would say it makes Christianity an idle pursuit without basis. The whole basis for it unravels.

Peregrinus

Well, strictly speaking, none of the words attributed to Jesus in the gospels are his, if only because, so far as we know, he preached in Aramaic, while the gospels are written in Greek.

OK, that's a smarty-pants point. But it points to a truth, which is that the gospels don't give a court-transcript-like account of what Jesus said. As you point out, eyewitness recollections differ. One of the things they will differ about is the exact words someone used - particularly when they are reduced to writing years after the event.

So, I might recall that, on a particular occasion, you said "this is the biggest surprise I have ever had!". You might remember that, on the occasion, you said "this is the greatest surprise I have ever had!" And someone else might say that, actually, when the event happened you were actually too astonished to speak. It was later the same day, when recounting the event, you said "I never had such a surprise!". By the following day, you were telling people that you did exclaim about your surprise when the event occurred, but he was present at the event and is sure that you did not. His friend who was also present at the event recalls that you did exclaim, but that your exclamation was more of an incoherent shriek.

Which of these three accounts is correct? In a court-transcript-like sense, quite possibly none of them - you might have said something that nobody recalls exactly correctly, not even you. In the sense of accurately conveying the surprising nature of the event, its impact on you and your reaction to it, quite possibly all of them.

When considering factors like this in the context of the gospels, we have to consider a number of things. One I have already mentioned; the events were decades old by the time the gospel texts were written. Another is that, in the nature of Jesus's travelling and preaching, he often spoke about the same things more than once, sometimes to the same people, sometimes to different people. It would be quite easy for people to blend memories of different occasions where Jesus addresse the same topic, and to recall details from one occasion in connection with another, or indeed consciously to produce a synthesis of what Jesus said, and for narrative purposes present it in connection with one event on which Jesus addressed the topic.

I don't see any reason to assume that the evangelists were focussed on producing a transcript of what Jesus said (and, if they were, at least three of them failed miserably). They are concerned to record the truths that Jesus revealed, but that is not at all the same thing.

theological

Yes it is a smarty pants point

Translation is different to deliberate alteration.

I don't find the three different accounts you speak of all that different. Three witness accounts varying in detail. Matthew's was the most detailed.

It's worth pointing out at points Luke and Mark are more detailed than the others and indeed the same for John. That's the complementary nature of the gospels.

There are better explanations than assuming deliberate alteration particularly without any evidence for it.

Peregrinus

I think we are getting bogged down, theo.

We can agree on this at least; the words in Mt 16 are canonical scripture, expressing a truth revealed in the person, deeds and teaching of Jesus Christ. This is true regardless of how they came to be included in Mt 16.

Starting from that point, can we explore what is the truth that they reveal? I would be interested to know, for instance, if you had any reaction to my (admitted half-baked) thoughts about what the "binding and loosing" language might signify.

hinault

With all due respect, the words attributed to Jesus in the gospels are the words that He uttered in that time and in that place.

It may not be the posters here intention but it seems to me that there might be an attempt here to undermine the words uttered and recorded.

The eyewitness accounts given in the gospels are entirely true, and are therefore accurate

I read a recent study about 1st century gospel manuscripts. The survey said that of the manuscripts found throughout the world, there was 98.5 percent accuracy across all manuscripts ever found, to date

It is remarkable, given the diverse regions where these manuscripts have been located, the different languages in which the texts were communicated by orator to transcriber, and given the scarcity of writing materials at the time.

Try it yourselves. Read an account of something. Then try to verbalise what you read to someone's else for them to listen to and to transcribe. Then ask that person to verbalise what they've written to another person and for the other person to listen to and transcribe.,..and so on.

I'd reckon by the fourth transcription what is recorded would differ significantly from the original passage.

In the communication and transcription of the canonical gospels, the level of conformity of manuscripts found is miraculous. Literally.

Peregrinus

hinault wrote: »

With all due respect, the words attributed to Jesus in the gospels are the words that He uttered in that time and in that place.

It may not be the posters here intention but it seems to me that there might be an attempt here to undermine the words uttered and recorded.

The eyewitness accounts given in the gospels are entirely true, and are therefore accurate

I read a recent study about 1st century gospel manuscripts. The survey said that of the manuscripts found throughout the world, there was 98.5 percent accuracy across all manuscripts ever found, to date

It is remarkable, given the diverse regions where these manuscripts have been located, the different languages in which the texts were communicated by orator to transcriber, and given the scarcity of writing materials at the time.

Try it yourselves. Read an account of something. Then try to verbalise what you read to someone's else for them to listen to and to transcribe. Then ask that person to verbalise what they've written to another person and for the other person to listen to and transcribe.,..and so on.

I'd reckon by the fourth transcription what is recorded would differ significantly from the original passage.

In the communication and transcription of the canonical gospels, the level of conformity of manuscripts found is miraculous. Literally.

If it's miraculous, why isn't there 100% conformity?

I don't think your thought experiment works. Copies of the gospel texts weren't made by people listening to verbalisations of the existing texts; they were made by people copying existing texts that they had in front of them.

ChrisJ84

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think we are getting bogged down, theo.

We can agree on this at least; the words in Mt 16 are canonical scripture, expressing a truth revealed in the person, deeds and teaching of Jesus Christ. This is true regardless of how they came to be included in Mt 16.

Starting from that point, can we explore what is the truth that they reveal? I would be interested to know, for instance, if you had any reaction to my (admitted half-baked) thoughts about what the "binding and loosing" language might signify.

For what its worth, I think this exchange between you both has been really helpful. It illustrates the importance of explaining exactly what we mean when we say that scripture is inerrant or authoritative.

As you both said, clearly the gospel accounts don't claim to be journalistic transcripts of the events they describe. All the gospel writers include different details, and even order events differently, depending on who they are writing to and the theological points they trying to make. But all these differences can be plausibly reconciled and the gospel accounts are all clearly describing the same events. And I don't think that any of those differences / distinctives imply error or contradiction.

So, a helpful clarifying question might be to ask, "What degree of accuracy is implied by the text, and would the original readers have expected of the text?"

hinault

Peregrinus wrote: »

If it's miraculous, why isn't there 100% conformity?

I don't think your thought experiment works. Copies of the gospel texts weren't made by people listening to verbalisations of the existing texts; they were made by people copying existing texts that they had in front of them.

98.5 percent transcription conformity rate is unheard of given the time period, given the number of manuscripts and given the transmission (verbalization) of the content.


It is incorrect to state that manuscripts in the first century were recorded by copying what had already been written. In the majority of cases what was transcribed/written came from verbal/oral communication.

Remember, writing materials were in very very short supply. Also the number of people educated well enough to write was also in very short supply.

The manuscripts found from that period which conform covers a huge geographical area, which would have been even harder to traverse in the first century.

98.5 percent is a stupendous degree of accuracy for all those factors.

antiskeptic

theological wrote: »

I think the principle of retrofitting the text is problematic. If you're claiming the gospel writer has modified what Jesus said once to add additional things in how many other times are you suggesting this happened? It casts doubt on the authenticity of what Jesus said.

My position would be that there's no evidence for this.

The source of the words attributed to Jesus matters. If every word of Jesus is not His then I would say it makes Christianity an idle pursuit without basis. The whole basis for it unravels.

Does it. Take his revealing the true nature and intent of the law. Rather than having a codified, letter of the law law - which the Jew's attempted to follow, he showed it spirit and reaching into every corner of an individuals life.

Does it matter whether Jesus exact words were recorded. Or is the truth he conveyed (and the significance of it later explained) that matters.

I think the latter.

Peregrinus

If the point had been to record Jesus' exact words, clearly the gospels would have been written in Aramaic or, at least, the words attributed to Jesus would have been written in Aramaic, so that Jesus exact words would have been recorded. But only one statement of Jesus is recorded in Aramaic (and in that one he is quoting scripture).

Also, if it was important to record Jesus exact words, the believing community would presumably not have received as canonical Mark and much of Luke which - if we believe Matthew - frequenty give us what can at best be only extracts from Jesus's exact words.

No, I think the obvious reality here is that the purpose of the evangelists, and the expectation of the believing community, was not a record of the words used by Jesus, but of the truths revealed by Jesus.

This isn't really affected by hinault's suggestion that the faithful preservation and propagation of the texts, once written, should be seen as miraculous. Even accepting hinault's view, there's no reason to think that God would intervene to miraculously preserve and propagate a faithful record of the words used by Jesus, but not a faithful record of the truths revealed by Jesus. So this tells us nothing about the genres of writing employed in the gospel texts.

theological

We've already discussed translation Peregrinus. I've explained my objection is to the idea that Jesus' words in scripture were deliberately altered. We've got no evidence for this opinion. If it were my opinion it would drastically lower my view of scripture because it would be rendered unreliable.

I also don't really get what you're saying at all about people but receiving Mark or Luke as canonical. That probably needs to be explained further.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

We've already discussed translation Peregrinus. I've explained my objection is to the idea that Jesus' words in scripture were deliberately altered. We've got no evidence for this opinion. If it were my opinion it would drastically lower my view of scripture because it would be rendered unreliable.

I'm not sure why omitting some of what Jesus says (which Mark must do, if Matthew is taken to be accurate) is fine, while summarising, paraphrasing, synthesising, elucidating, etc what Jesus says is such a problem. I certainly don't see why scripture would be rendered "unreliable", since any synthesis, elucidation, paraphrase or whatever is taken to have inspired by the Spirit. Not to get into a heresy trial or anything, but in a less tolerant age you might be accused of impugning the inerrancy of scripture if your assent to it is conditional on the Spirit only having inspired the literary techniques and styles and genres of writing that you are prepared to accept.

But, I repeat, I really think we should move on from this.

theological

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not sure why omitting some of what Jesus says (which Mark must do, if Matthew is taken to be accurate) is fine, while summarising, paraphrasing, synthesising, elucidating, etc what Jesus says is such a problem. I certainly don't see why scripture would be rendered "unreliable", since any synthesis, elucidation, paraphrase or whatever is taken to have inspired by the Spirit. Not to get into a heresy trial or anything, but in a less tolerant age you might be accused of impugning the inerrancy of scripture if your assent to it is conditional on the Spirit only having inspired the literary techniques and styles and genres of writing that you are prepared to accept.

But, I repeat, I really think we should move on from this.

There's zero evidence of deliberate alteration anyway which is why I'm confused as to why you think it is such a big possibility. I agree that we could have just discussed the passage but this is hugely important.

Alteration of quotations to include extra words of course is problematic because it raises doubts as to what Jesus said. We would have no mechanism of determining what Jesus said versus what the evangelist said. That for me is normally distinguished where the quotations end.

That's not about "literary style". It is about integrity in recording.

Peregrinus

We already have unavoidable doubts about exactly what Jesus said because there is no one-to-one correspondence between words in Aramaic and words in Greek. So if we look at the Greek text and ask ourselves "what did Jesus actually say in Aramaic?", we often cannot know the answer with certainty.

Which is why I pointed out earlier that, if the concern had been to capture and record the words that Jesus said, the gospels would not have been written in Greek and/or the church would not have received as canonical texts written in Greek. But we have no reason at all to think that the church was in the least bothered by this.

Alteration of quotations to include extra words may raise doubts as to what exactly Jesus said, but (a) for the reason just pointed out, and for the reason taht there are differences between the gospels, we already have unavoidable doubts about exactly what Jesus said, and (b) this is only problematic if we consider it necessary to know exactly what Jesus said. But why should this be necessary, if the gospel texts themselves are inspired by the Spirit? Even if what is given to us in the scriptures is not "exactly what Jesus said" it is nevertheless an inerrant revelation. So if, say, Mathew's inclusion of the "Son of God" language in the text we are discussing here (a) represents something Jesus said about himself on another occasion but is transferred here by Matthew to make sure we understand the significance of "Messiah" or (b) is an elaboration by Matthew to make sure of that, or (c) something else, it's still an inerrant revelation. Why should that be problematic?

theological

We've been through translation for the third time. My answer is still the same on that. If translation doesn't alter the substance of the meaning then it is fine. Adding extra words in is the problem.

And I've already answered your point about the differences between Matthew and the others. All three could have witnessed and seen different details from the same event. The gospel accounts are complementary.

Provided the additional words in Matthew's were still Jesus' I've got no problem.

I'm happy to explore the other areas of the passage. Repeating ourselves is pointless.

The view that the gospel authors added things to Jesus' quotes also lacks real evidence which is why I picked up this point initially. In the absence of evidence I'll stick with the view that Jesus' words are actually His.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

. . . In the absence of evidence I'll stick with the view that Jesus' words are actually His.

Fair enough, so. But can we get back to discussing what the words signify?

Did you have any thoughts about what I said on binding and loosing?

antiskeptic

On binding and loosing.

An earlier post of mine made the point that Peter's confession was simply that of a born again person. Someone who fully sees - like the thief on the cross fully saw.

And so there is nothing at all in the passage from which to draw conclusions on leadership of the disciples or first leadership of any church.

Christians have authority. We can call on heavenly power. We can call on his kingdom come. Our prayer and actions access the kingdom realm and alters things as a stone causes ripples on a pond. Any Christian can bind the realm of Satan on earth and in the heavenlies. And Christian can loose the kingdom of God. We are, afterall, co-workers with Christ. We know what the work is, it's no secret.

As for 'WHATEVER you bind and loose'.

This doesn't indicate limitless or special power granted. I made the point earlier that hyperbole was and is a feature of Middle Eastern expression. We needn't suppose that we can move a mountain by faith (otherwise how little faith we must have - some tiny fraction of a mustard seeds worth). Nor do we expect that whatever we pray in his name will come about, even though he said that whatever we pray in his name...

Why should we suppose the 'whatever' here to be any different to those other hyperbolics?

We Christians can all bind and loose. We all have the keys (a.k.a. access) to heaven. All of us. Peter's case is, therefore, of no special interest - other than it being an astonishing announcement of what any born again Christian can do and has.