An Analysis of Matthew 16:13-23 and its Role in the Portrait of Peter in Matthew's Gospel

An Analysis of Matthew 16:13-23 and its Role in the Portrait of Peter in Matthew’s Gospel Neil William Taylor Table of Contents Preface 3 1. Introduction 4 2. An Exegetical/Redactional Analysis of the Confession at Caesarea Philippi and the First Prediction of the Passion 8 3. Understanding 16:17-19 through Matthew’s recasting of Mark’s characterisation of Peter 29 4. The Positive Intentions and Reversals of Peter 35 5. Jesus' Counter-rebuke of Peter in the Context of His Confession 47 6. Conclusion: Disqualifying Peter 53 Appendices 56 Bibliography 62 2 Preface Technical terms are defined and foreign words translated. All biblical quotations are taken from the New Revised Standard Version Bible: Anglicised Edition (1989, 1995) unless stated. The scholarly neutral designations BCE (Before the Common Era) and CE (Common Era) are used with dates instead of the conventional BC (Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini). My deepest gratitude to my wife Giselle, who has unceasingly supported me through my academic endeavours and listened ad nauseam to my theological claims and contentions; the teaching and non-teaching staff at Trinity College Theological School (University of Divinity, Melbourne), for their commitment to excellence; and my good friend Andrew Jelbart who was always generously at hand to perform his grammatical pedantry. 3 1 Introduction The origins of this minor thesis go back to my days as an undergraduate student at Trinity College Theological School while taking a second-semester unit in the Gospel of John with The Reverend Canon Professor Dorothy Lee (2016). In that unit, I wrote a thematic essay/reflection on the Beloved Disciple and Peter. My interest was piqued as I examined how John’s Gospel developed an ironic juxtaposition between the Beloved Disciple and Peter, while maintaining them as a pair, with roles crucially connected to Jesus and his unfolding “hour” (cf. John 20). As a postgraduate student, I was eager, once again, to encounter Peter in Professor Lee’s 2017 Gospel of Mark unit. On that occasion, I wrote an exegetical essay on the story of Peter’s denial of Jesus (Mark 14:53-72). I was attracted, not only to the way Mark individualises Peter above all the other disciples and how Peter fails Jesus, but also to the genetic connection between Peter and Jesus. What was most stimulating (at the time) was Reverend Dr Robin Whittaker’s article “Rebuke or Recall? Rethinking the Role of Peter in Mark’s Gospel”, highlighting that Mark’s arrangement of Peter as a disciple distinguished above all others is not in contempt of his failings, but precisely because of his failings. It is these pathways that have encouraged me again, to return to the examination of Peter, but this time through the lens of Matthew’s Gospel with a particular focus on 16:13-23. Redaction criticism is the study of how an author—in this case Matthew1 and his Gospel—selected, organised, revised, augmented, and added to the tradition of the Gospels. In regards to Matthew, this means specifically focusing on how he has integrated and at times rewritten Mark.2 In this sense, redaction criticism concerns itself with the 1 Note: In this thesis “Matthew” indicates the putative author and does not imply that Matthew the Disciple wrote the Gospel, See M. Eugene Boring, “The Gospel of Matthew: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” The New Interpreter’s Bible, edited by Leander E. Keck (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), 106-7. “Two of our oldest and best MSS (‫א‬, B) entitle the document simply ‘according to Matthew’. […] Since the oldest MSS of the other Gospels also have the simple form ‘according to Mark’, ‘according to Luke’, ‘according to John’, these titles apparently were added to the Gospels at the same time, with the common title “Gospel” uniting them all. The titles of our earliest MSS thus derive from the period when the fourfold Gospel canon was formed about the middle of the second century CE. […] Matthew itself, like the other NT Gospels, is anonymous. […] Apostolic authorship is a claim made for the book, not a claim made by the book itself.”; John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2005), 2-4. “The composition of the canonical Gospel by the apostle Matthew, though never questioned in the early centuries, is most unlikely.” 2 Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1994), 2-3. 4 meaning of the definitive shape of the whole text, while paying attention to theological predispositions witnessed in edits, redactions, and modifications of the source.3 This is the intention of this thesis as it pertains to Matthew 16:13-23 and its relationship within the Gospel of Matthew more largely. The theological and redactional predispositions witnessed in Matthew’s Gospel is the demanding call to a high measure of righteousness. For example, the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) reveals a Matthean eschatological thrust which makes high and conclusive demands. Matthew’s Jesus proclaims the untainted will of God with no concern for status quo or restrictions in the world.4 Matthew’s summons to this high standard of holiness prepares the disciple for the coming kingdom by way of an ethos of repentance and a new and different ethic—a distinctive and central pronouncement that Matthew makes, explicitly the declaration of “the gospel of the kingdom”, (4:23; 9:35; 24:14; cf. 26:3)—to prepare one to enter the kingdom of God. The correlation between righteousness and the kingdom is imperative5—to be otherwise is to be outside of the kingdom. The Matthean ethical imperativeness of righteousness and kingdom (6:33)6 is thus intended for those who have received the kingdom while contrasting those who are outside the kingdom. This is Robert Gundry’s description of the historical setting of the Gospel of Matthew; he says that Matthew’s narrative reveals within it a problematic uneasiness over a “mixed church”.7 The church has now expanded through the inundation of “disciples” from “all nations” (28:18-20). Such an influx incorporates false as well as true disciples (13:24-30, 36-43, 47-50; 22:11-14; 25:1-13). The difference between false and true disciples is exposed through the persecution of the church (5:10-12). This persecution does not have 3 Boring, “The Gospel of Matthew”, 93. 4 Donald A. Hagner, “The Church in Mathew”, Holiness and Ecclesiology in the New Testament, edited by Kent Brower and Andy Johnson (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007), 56. “Matthew’s pattern of righteousness may be called “prophetic” in the classical sense: as going directly against the prevailing conduct of the secular world.” 5 Donald A. Hagner, “Holiness and Ecclesiology: The Church in Mathew”, Built upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew, edited by Daniel M. Gurtner and John Nolland (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2008), 170. 6 Hagner, “The Church in Mathew”, 45-6. With reference to: “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well” (6:33). “In this exhortation we are confronted directly with the connection between the kingdom and righteousness. Jesus here calls his disciples to make the kingdom their priority: they are to put it “first.” To make a priority of living under the sovereign rule of God, his kingdom, is at the same time to seek God’s righteousness. The second phrase, “his righteousness" is epexegetical of the first “his kingdom.” That is, to prioritize the first is in effect also to prioritize the second. The call to righteousness is therefore inseparable from the gift of the kingdom.” 7 Gundry, Matthew, 5. 5 its foundation in the Roman rule, but amid the Jewish elite in Jerusalem. Matthew persistently displays and amplifies their culpability (27:62-66; 28:11-15). Their causing of Jesus’ execution is the culmination of a precedent starting in the Old Testament era and carried on into the church age (23:27-39).8 True disciples are suffering with perseverance. Some of them have had to “flee” for their lives (10:23). Thus, they have become wandering missionaries who trust in the welcome of other true disciples who are prepared to risk their own lives by sheltering these renegade preachers, by providing them sustenance, by giving them garments, by ministering to them in sickness, and by going to such lengths as to visit them in prison (10:40-42; 25:31-46). Collectively, then, they venture to live freely as Jesus’ disciples and to preach the gospel publicly—even in the face of the persecution that comes on them from the Jewish established order (5:13-16).9 “False disciples”, conversely, are openly dissociating from Jesus so as to circumvent persecution (10:32-33; 26:70). Some are even “betraying” true disciples in anticipation of satisfying the persecuting established order, and in an effort to demonstrate their own disconnection from those who follow Jesus faithfully and visibly (24:10; cf. 27:3-10). The “false disciples” have ceased living by the high standards of Jesus’ teaching (24:12)—a criterion that would point them out as easy victims for persecution.10 Linked to the Matthean theme of true and “false discipleship” is the, at times, unfavourable redactional portrayal of Peter—to the insinuating extent that Matthew renders the character of Peter as a “false disciple”. The menace of “apostasy” is interwoven within Matthew’s premise of the on-going presence of “false disciples” in the ekklēsia, a present form of Christ’s kingdom, until “the end of the age” (28:20).11 Gundry applies the phrase “antinomianism”12 (against the law) to “false disciples,” the same word used by A.W. Tozer to describe Christianity’s “ancient enemy of righteousness”,13 in contrast to the law of 8 Gundry, Matthew, 5; Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 42. 9 Boring, “The Gospel of Matthew”, 99; Gundry, Matthew, 5-6; Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 40, 42. 10 Gundry, Matthew, 6. 11 Robert H. Gundry, Peter – False Disciple and Apostate according to Saint Matthew (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2015), 3. 12 Gundry, Matthew, 6. 13 A.W. Tozer, Paths to Power: Living in the Spirit's Fullness (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2016), 50. 6 Christ. It is an empty form of discipleship without Christological relevance which betrays the requirement of true righteousness (5:19-20). Peter’s humanistic rebelion against divine will at Caesarea Philippi (16:20-23) is highlighted (as it is throughout Matthew’s Gospel) by extreme approval followed by extreme disapproval. Being called a “diabolical snare” by Jesus—used elsewhere in Matthew’s gospel to describe “false” or “non-disciples”—is incredibly disapproving: it is hard to imagine a worse name. Therefore, in this thesis, I will: test Gundry’s description of Matthew’s overall portrayal of Peter as “apostate” by using the focus of the Caesarea Philippi scene (16:13-23), by redaction-critical methodology, by exegetical methodology and by thematical methodology. 7 2 An Exegetical/Redactional Analysis of the Confession at Caesarea Philippi and the First Prediction of the Passion Amongst the disciples within Matthew’s Gospel, Peter is prominent. He is the first to be summoned (4:18-19) and he is unceasingly the mouthpiece for the Twelve (15:15; 16:16, 22; 17:4; 18:21; 19:27). Nonetheless, much like the church as a whole, Peter is the one who discerns and identifies the truth, yet makes every effort to avoid its costs. The most notorious of all Matthean Petrine texts (Matthew 16:13-23) demonstrates this stunningly. * * * Here in this section, before the Caesarea Philippi scene (16:13-23), Matthew follows his sources and starts his version of Mark’s next story (7:24-30). After the account of the Canaanite woman (15:21-28), following Mark 7:31-37, Jesus left the region of Tyre and Sidon and passes along the north-eastern threshold of the Galilean Sea. There on a mountainside, after performing many miracles and receiving the praise of the people (15:29-31)—Matthew again dependent on Mark for this pericope (Mark 8:1-10)—Jesus fed four thousand men, in addition to the “women and children” (15:32-39),1 demonstrating that he was completely capable of meeting the requirements of the Gentiles, in the same way he showed he could satisfy Israel’s requirements when he fed five thousand men, as well as the “women and children” (14:13-21).2 Following Mark 8:11-13 and other sources, Jesus returned to Jewish territory and encountered a challenging command for a sign from heaven (16:1-4). Like the Devil, the Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus to test him. Just as the Devil tried to tempt Jesus, the Pharisees and Sadducees asked him to show them a sign from heaven that might confirm that he had favour with God. Jesus denied the manner of sign that they sought, calling them “An evil and adulterous generation” (16:4); a portrayal of a covenant people wholly unfaithful to their covenant God—connecting with the language of Hosea. The only sign Jesus offered lay plainly in the scriptures, “the sign of Jonah” (16:4).3 However, it was 1 “besides women and children” highlights a Matthean redaction of Mark 8:9. 2 “besides women and children” highlights a Matthean redaction of Mark 6:44. 3 Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009), 422. Most scholars agree “Q reference” (16:14) is “authentic”. 8 an atypical sign, not a sign to sway the crowds that he was the Messiah, on the contrary, one that would happen later to prove that he was the Messiah. “That sign is the sign of death and the defeat of death.”4 Jonah was swallowed up by a large fish, inhabiting the dim despondency of its gut for three days and three nights (Jonah 1:17). The fish was unable to digest Jonah, vomiting him out as God’s reluctant prophet (Jonah 2:10). Jesus too would be laid open to death, but death, like the fish that consumed Jonah, will be unable to consume the very Lord of death who truly does the Father’s will. Following Mark 8:15-21 (Matthew replacing “Sadducees” [16:5] for “Herod” [Mark 8:15]), the pressure of the confrontation motivated Jesus to caution the Twelve about the false doctrines of the Pharisees and Sadducees (16:5-12)—labelling such teachings as “yeast”, because of their creeping and insidious effects on the people. The Twelve had difficulty grasping the idiom at first, reasoning that Jesus was speaking of real bread. After a while they realised Jesus was alerting them to the Pharisees and Sadducees deceptive teachings. The evil teachings of these religious leaders appeared to be taxing the Twelve. The season of popularity in the Galilean district was now changing to hostility. Many were left puzzled concerning the teaching of Jesus, versus the teaching of the religious leaders. Jesus and the Twelve subsequently departed the synagogue, and the township, for the region of Caesarea Philippi. It is not a mystery—in fact it is obvious—that Matthew interprets that the intentions of God, proclaimed within the Old Testament, have now been fully apprehended in Jesus. This is exhibited in the beginning four chapters of the gospel. Matthew has applied the substantive name “Messiah” prudently (although resolutely in 1:1, 16-18), yet the latent understanding of it has been amply expatiated. However, Jesus has not drawn on the name, allowing both the multitudes and the Twelve to take their own inferences from his singular “authority” which has repeatedly brought forth their “astonishment” and “amazement” (4:24-25; 7:28-29; 9:8, 26, 31, 33; 13:54; 15:31). Included in these are the recognition of Jesus as “the son of David” in 12:23, which may well have been the motivation for the religious authorities’ pressure for a sign in 12:38; 16:1. The Twelve advanced the notion even more, on the foundation of their extraordinary encounters and knowledge of Jesus’ authority, giving voice, in one instance, to the title “the Son of God” (8:29; 14:33). There 4 Stanley Hauerwas, Matthew (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press), 2006, 148. 9 is also the strange conjecture of “Herod the ruler” in 14:1-2 and the more insightful but still cautious consideration by John the Baptist (11:2-6). Subsequently, the moment had come for this pivotal question of the Galilean story to be defined: Who is Jesus? The pericope shapes the key defining moment in Matthew’s story. A Christological impetus (running from 13:54) reaches its climax and conclusion when the disciples are questioned who they believe the Son of Man might be, and Peter makes his exulted profession of faith: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (16:16). Peter’s pronouncement in v. 16 underlines the culmination of the steady recognition of Jesus as the Messiah by the Twelve throughout the Galilean chapter. This exulted affirmation gains a benediction from Jesus: Simon, son of Jonah, is blessed and endorsed because he was receptive to this revelation. He accordingly becomes the “rock”, an exemplar of authoritative custodianship and mission, to the ekklēsia yet to come (vv. 17-19). Following the preciousness of the faith-filled profession and Jesus’ benediction, Jesus revealed that invariably the same Son of the Living God must make a journey of suffering and ultimately death, as he is also the Son of Man (16:21-22). Peter rejected this (v. 22), and for his lack of faith was castigated: “Get behind me, Satan! [. . .] you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things” (v. 23). Peter recognised who Jesus is, and he professed his faith, but he was not ready—in his mind or body—to accede to the suffering way of Jesus. Consequently, he was reproved, charged with being a “stumbling-block” (v. 23) to Jesus—and ultimately to the church. Peter became the rock of the church when he confesses faith in the rightful revelation that he has grasped; he became the “stumblingblock” in the church when he challenged and bade to enforce his prerequisites on the way of Jesus in the world—the kenotic loss of self in love and service. Subsequently, a new tone of suffering, death, and resurrection fills the narrative as the messianic calling, which was first proclaimed in 16:21, determines the remainder of the narrative’s resonance. Galilee with its excited multitudes lay behind, and Jerusalem with its unreceptive and aggressive religious authorities lay ahead. What follows then, is a verse-by-verse redactional analysis of the pericope in question. 13 The pericope creates a new beginning after a change of location. Yet Matthew’s geographic references are ambiguous—it appears that 15:39 and 16:5 places Jesus and the Twelve somewhere on the north side of the lake: R. T. France proposes that Mark’s report of Jesus healing a blind man at Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26), unspecified by 10 Matthew’s edit, identifies the location.5 From this locality to Caesarea Philippi the journey would have been roughly forty kilometres on foot, however, Matthew does not tell us that Jesus went to the “village” itself (cf. Mark 8:27), but only to its “district”. Philip’s Caesarea6—modern “Baniyas”, in earlier times “Paneas”, which included the grotto where people worshiped the Greek god Pan, a picturesque region in the foothills of Mount Hermon, near the source of the Jordan River. What took place here is both a culmination and a powerfully decisive moment in the Gospel (as it is also in Mark and Luke). Donald A. Hagner suggests that it is questionable that Jesus opts for Caesarea Philippi proper because of its steeped pagan relations, in order to champion his own supremacy over the world’s religions.7 The locale was undoubtedly teeming with pagan connotations for both Jesus and the Twelve. In light of the surroundings, Keener regards Caesarea Philippi as the unqualified location to hear the declaration that it is neither Pan nor Augustus but Jesus who is “the Son of the living God”8—wholly emphasising the Matthean motif of Jesus’ “universal mission”.9 Throughout the First Jewish Revolt of 66-70CE, Caesarea Philippi was a rest and relaxation setting for the Roman general Vespasian, who launched the siege on Jerusalem and then left his son Titus in command to end the job when he became emperor. After the sacking of Jerusalem, Titus and his troops returned to Caesarea Philippi,10 where Josephus Flavius reports he “solemnized” his brother’s birthday slaying and burning in excess of two thousand five hundred Jewish captives.11 Although Matthew is following Mark 8:27f (discarded by Luke [cf. 9:18f]), Boring sees a desire in Matthew to underline that the momentous event transpired in a place with deep-rooted “nationalistic and religious associations, Jewish and pagan”.12 Matthew carries the setting of Jesus’ declaration as the 5 R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007), 615. Gundry, Matthew, 328. W.D. Davies, and D.C. Allison Jr., The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. 3 volumes; International Critical Commentary; (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988-1997), 604. Matthew “did this because the material had already been incorporated into 9:27-31. It is more probable that the First Evangelist found Jesus’ use of saliva, and especially the fact that the cure is not from the first complete (‘I see men, but they look like trees walking’), too problematic to reproduce.” 6 France, The Gospel of Matthew, 615. “So called to distinguish it from Caesarea Maritima on the Mediterranean coast, and because Herod Philip had been responsible for its recent enlargement.” 7 Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28 (Dallas: Thomas Nelson, 1995), 466. 8 Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 424. 9 Boring, “The Gospel of Matthew”, 343. 10 Boring, “The Gospel of Matthew”, 343. 11 Josephus Flavius, The Jewish Wars, Books IV-VII. Trans. H. ST. J. Thackeray (Massachusetts: William Heinemann Ltd., 1961), 515-14. 12 Boring, “The Gospel of Matthew”, 343. 11 Jewish Messiah, under the spectre-like shadow of a Caesar’s place of worship, where the Roman slayers of Jerusalem had rejoiced and solemnized their conquest, a sacred place deeply linked to both pagan and Jewish revelatory episodes.13 In the remainder of the verse Jesus asked the disciples for the “people’s” (anthrōpoi) opinion about the “Son of Man” (huios anthrōpos). Because of Matthew’s generic use of “people”, Ulrich Luz suggests “Son of Man” is emphasised by the play on words and by its collocational arrangement. The play on words articulates detachment. The people evidently do not know, by experience or veracity, who the Son of Man is. The weight of the enquiry is amplified by the actuality that here, for the first time, Matthew juxtaposes the people’s opinion of Jesus with that of the Twelve.14 While the Twelve have a pre-awareness of the “Son of Man”, since Jesus himself has spoken something to them about his role (10:23; 13:37, 41), the multitudes (“people”) had still not comprehended Jesus’ public sayings about the Son of Man (11:19; 12:40, cf. 8:20). John Nolland sees Jesus’ use of the generic phrase “people” as opposed to “the people”, previously in 7:12; 12:36, not as an information gathering exercise for the Twelve, but to create a staged scene from which to call forth the confession that will come from Peter’s own lips.15 Matthew accommodates most of Mark 8:27, apart from “I am” shifting to “the Son of Man”. Where Mark withholds “the Son of Man” from the voice of Jesus for the first Passion prediction in 8:31, in Matthew the expression has now been well-established as a mode in which Jesus makes himself known as a Person of renowned import.16 Using it here, instead of in 16:21 (Matthew’s parallel to Mark 8:31), averts the notion, thinkable in Mark, that Jesus is ambiguous on being called the Messiah and shifts the suggested classification to “Son of Man”; for Matthew it will be absolutely as the Messiah that Jesus will suffer. Matthew does not want to have a fundamental bond between ‘Son of Man’ language and Jesus’ Passion.17 After this moment until the Passion, Jesus will not speak openly of the Son of Man. Only in the weighty trial scene before the Sanhedrin, which Luz properly understands as a reversal of the pericope’s 13 Boring, “The Gospel of Matthew”, 343. 14 Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8-20, Hermeneia Series (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 360. 15 Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 659. 16 Gundry, Matthew, 329. 17 Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 659. 12 exalted confession, will he once more, in reply to the high priest’s question whether he is the Messiah and the Son of God, declare openly of himself as the Son of Man (26:64). Just like that, as Matthew redactionally composes a new beginning, he also instigates in this verse of his narrative a factor that will come to its culmination in the ultimate judgement of Jesus by the religious leaders of Israel. The name “Son of Man” acts at this point to differentiate the comprehending Twelve from the “people”.16 In Matthew (as in Mark) Jesus embraces the title and the sayings about the future coming of the Son of Man (cf. Dan 7:13) as a fitting way to communicate his own hope for the future. Matthew’s often repeated statement about the impending “coming” of the Son of Man (10:23; 25:31), which is always expressed as his coming in the last days to bring God's sovereignty and his everlasting kingdom (Dan 7:14),18 goes beyond Daniel 7 where his coming is illustrated as his appearing with “all the angels” and “then he will sit on the throne of his glory” (25:31; cf. 13:41; 24:31) and “in his kingdom” (16:28, which differs from Mark 8:38). The coming of the Son of Man has been adjusted to the Old Testament narrative of the eschatological revelation of Yahweh. The image of Daniel 7:9 of the “Ancient of Days” sitting on his throne and declaring judgment is completely in harmony with the Old Testament expectation. Both things are said about the Son of Man: He sits on his glorious throne (19:28; 25:31) and decrees judgment (25:31ff.; cf. 16:27; 13:41). What these passages indicate in Matthew (as in Mark), with their links back to Daniel 7, is that the Son of Man is a divine being19 (16:13, 17)—he is God himself appearing in human form. Therefore, the definitive purpose of the title seems to be an emphasis not only on Jesus’ divinity, but also his humanity (1:23)—a designation of the Messiah. 14 The peoples’ perception of Jesus as a prophet is inadequate. Those who faithfully follow Jesus personally know him as the Messiah, God’s Son (16:15-16). Oscar 16 Luz, Matthew 8-20, 360. 17 Oscar Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament (Westminster: John Knox Press, 1959), 16. 18 Ian S. Kemp, “The Blessing, Power and Authority of the Church: A Study in Matthew 16:17-19”. Evangelical Review of Theology 40, no. 2 (2016): 129, 134. http://search.ebscohost.com.divinity.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLAn3925108&site=eds-live (accessed March 12, 2019). 19 Markus Zehnder, “Why the Danielic “Son of Man” Is a Divine Being”. Bulletin for Biblical Research 24, no. 3 (2014): 332-45. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26371180 (accessed September 17, 2019); cf. Victor M. Armenteros, “A Rock in the Path: Possible Jewish Readings of Matthew 16:18” DavarLogos 8.1 (2009): 72. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/3000076.pdf (accessed March 12, 2019). 13 Cullmann says “Son of Man”, “Son of God”, “Messiah” and the broader “one of the prophets” are emblematic of the Jewish conviction of the “returning prophet”, particularly one of the Old Testament prophets who is connected—as a forerunner or associated individual rather than the promised one himself—with the coming eschaton.20 Like Herod the Tetrarch, some people believed that Jesus was the resurrected John the Baptist (14:2). Because of Jesus’ preaching and his widespread impact on the people, it is unsurprising that he is seen as the second John; even by those who lacked all awareness of the previous connection between the two. Others judged Jesus as Elijah, a prophet who in the Old Testament was given the preparative task of herald to the Messiah (cf. Malachi 3:1; 4:5-6) and who, for precisely this reason, became equated with the work of John the Baptist (by Jesus before now in 11:9-10, 14; cf. 17:12-13). Both John and Elijah are eschatological characters, and the simplifying phrase “one of the prophets” exemplifies a typical response to Jesus. As already discussed above, theologically, the pericope landmarks an event in Matthew’s Gospel. At this point, demons (4:3; 8:29) and disciples (14:33) have lauded Jesus as “Son of God”, and he has been named the “Messiah” in redactional settings (1:1, 16, 17, 18; 2:4; 11:2). To such a particularly noteworthy pericope Matthew makes interesting edit to Mark. In support of the three-alternatives reported in Mark as models of popular opinion regarding Jesus (Mark 8:28), Matthew inserts a fourth: the prominent Old Testament prophet Jeremiah. Due to Matthew, he is the only evangelist to mention the prophet Jeremiah by name (2:17-18; 16:14; 27:9-10),21 France poses the question: “why choose him rather than, say, Isaiah, with whom Jesus has himself implicitly compared his own ministry in the quotation in 13:13-15?”22 Firstly, the direct Matthean quotations of Jeremiah do not 20 Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, 16-17. “This expression arises already with the words in Deuteronomy 18:5 ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you shall heed such a prophet’. This text, which of course does not yet point to a return of Moses himself but to the eschatological appearance of a prophet similar to him, plays and important role in the concept of the prophet.” 21 In 2:17-18 the Bethlehemites’ sorrow and lamentation over the massacre of their children is related, by petition to Jeremiah 31:15, to Rachel weeping for her children. In the Caesarea Philippi encounter of 16:13-23, when Jesus asks the Twelve ‘Who do people say that the Son of Man is?’, Matthew introduces the ambiguous reply, ‘Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’ (v. 14). Then in 27:9-10 the words of ‘the prophet Jeremiah’ comment on the buying of the ‘Field of Blood’ with Judas’ thirty pieces of silver. 22 France, The Gospel of Matthew, 616. 14 provide any basic outline of Jesus’ life and ministry prior to the Passion. They do not provide illustrative or pictorial details which may flesh out a biological sketch of Jesus. This could have been achieved without Scripture or its fulfilment. What Matthew’s “Jeremiah” references show is that the necessary elements of Jesus’ origin, identity, ministry—and even his betrayal—were already providentially set out in the inspired text, thus following the divinely ordained plan for the Messiah. Jeremiah’s message was unusual in nature: one of destruction and doom, prophesying the ruin of Judah and the destruction of the temple within his lifetime, if God’s word was not apprehended and obeyed by those who rule the promised land of Judah. A parallel message, of a rejected prophet striving against the religious elite, will become a mounting feature of Jesus’ ministry in Matthew’s Gospel.23 In view of Jesus’ public actions and accomplishments, it is not extraordinary that people would have regarded him as a prophet (21:11, 46),24 but while this assessment was appropriate (for example; 11:21-24; 24:2-31), it was lacking. Regarding Jesus in such standings placed him within classifications of thought that were already present, in preference to allowing the Messiah himself to reformulate their analyses by his identity.25 15 Matthew hastens towards christological declaration by redactional mitigation “And he [autos] was questioning [epērōta] them [autous]” (so Mark) to “He said to them [autois]”, dramatizing the following question, “But who do you say that I am?” Jesus does not ask the question to gain knowledge or data, but to draw out from the Twelve an unequivocal affirmation of his messianic identity. Matthew’s commentary on their conditional “understanding” in v. 12 conceivably forewarns the reader to anticipate a change for the better. In spite of everything, these are the people to whom “the secrets of the kingdom of heaven” have been made known (13:11, 16-17).26 16 In bringing Simon Peter27 to the forefront for the first time in 14:28 and proceeding it by awarding Peter the role of representative in 15:15 (cf. 19:27)—answering 23 Ross E. Winkle, “The Jeremiah Model for Jesus in the Temple”. Andrews University Seminary Studies 24, no. 2 (1986): 156-58. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6d1d/7bd098c9e861163c704047d93f9efe0796e4.pdf (accessed September 17, 2019). 24 cf. John 9:17. 25 Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 424. 26 France, The Gospel of Matthew, 617. 27 For the double name, see 4:18; 10:2; cf. v. 17. The addition of “Simon” sets up for its use in 16:17. 15 for himself as well as for the Twelve—here for the third time Matthew has Peter begin to speak or give an answer (apokritheis). On all three occasions the questions have been directed to the Twelve, and in v. 14 the answer to the first question is accounted for jointly, but now Peter answers. One would suppose that, as in 15:15, he speaks for the Twelve. Hagner and Nolland both see Peter not only as representative of the Twelve, but also as their leader.28 With the personal spotlight on Peter in 16:17-19, he is more than a mere representative. No matter what, definitely by v. 20 the Twelve are equally bearers of Peter’s revelatory insight regarding Jesus’ role and identity. Peter thus voiced boldly the ultimate profession: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God”—and yet he still has not identified the profession as Jesus’ will.29 This answer disagrees emphatically from those suggested by the “people”. Specifically, here Jesus is not acknowledged as one of the characters implicated in the coming eschaton, but as the singularly determinative person—“the coming one”30—Christos,31 Messiah. With the addition of Matthew’s revelatory redaction, “the Son of God” (as with “Son of Man”), classifies the Messiah as new, other, and more than a human figure, the one who is exclusively the proof of God, the very instrument of God, and who shares in God’s being. The Twelve had previously affirmed Jesus as “the Son of God” (14:33). At that time, it was the “terrifying” combination of natural and spectral events; here, it is the outcome of composed and relaxed contemplation along with the result of godly disclosure. It is this second confession, the revelatory hinge point of Jesus’ call to suffer and die, which connects to the high priests questioning of Jesus; whether he is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (26:63), once more bringing together the two titles. The phrase “the living God”, is an Old Testament expression (cf. Deut 5:26; Ps 42:2; 84:2), also found in Matt 26:63. In the region of Caesarea Philippi, a focal point for the worship of the Hellenistic god Pan (formerly of the Canaanite Baal), the title “the living God” could have a singular meaning, illustrating that 28 Hagner, Matthew 14-28, 468; Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 661. 29 Keener, The 30 Gospel of Matthew, 424. cf. Matt 3:11b “but one who is more powerful than I is coming after me”. 31 Hagner, Matthew 14-28, 468. This is the first occasion of the title in direct speech. The biblical Hebrew ‫( ָמִשׁיַח‬mašīaḥ), closely relates to the title “Son of David” (1:1, 16; cf. 9:27; 12:23; 15:22) legitimising rightful kingship.; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 618. “… most Jews in first-century Palestine its primary connotation would be of a ‘son of David’ who would restore the nation to the glory and independence it had known under the first David. It was thus a nationalistic term, and one which was hard to separate from the political aspirations of a subject people.” 16 the true God is inimitably the source of all life, in contrast to the so-called gods of the world who were not alive.32 17-19 Mark and Luke have no parallel to vv. 17-19 making these verses unique to Matthew’s Gospel. Boring mentions that the source of these verses is persistently in dispute, however widely held scholarship would assign them to a pre-Matthean tradition33 or to Matthew himself. Whether the statements of vv. 17-19 were initially a whole, or independent sayings, including the connection of 16:19 to 18:18 (“bind” and “loose”), is debated. However, Boring proposes that 18:18 was at first an axiom of Jesus which circulated in the Matthean Community as a prophetic saying, from which 16:19 was developed.34 Nolland, highlighting other matters, plausibly understands v. 17 as a conclusion from 11:25-27 and 13:16 (as one in Luke 10:21-23, and so possibly grouped in Matthew’s source): conceivably Matthew has formed a link from these conventional forms to connect the profession of vs. 16 and the commissioning of vv. 18-19.35 By whatever form scholarly debate might advance, what is palpable is that Matthew incorporated his Peter event into the Markan Caesarea Philippi scene. Within his inner narrative comes vv. 17-19, and the establishing of the ekklēsia—the open witness to an unabbreviated faith in Christ and an endless faithfulness to the plan of Jesus. What this represents is that Matthew has not essentially discerned an “office of Peter”36 within his ekklēsia; he simply sees Peter the disciple of Jesus whose persona he has to conserve for his community, since it is the church of Jesus and that it may remain the church of Jesus. Optimistically it represents that Matthew is undeniably imagining a physical continuum, explicitly, a continuance of the ministry of Peter. This is reinforced by Peter’s emblematic role which is supported by the veracity of what Peter obtained as a charge from Jesus— which is of on-going significance for the church.37 32 Boring, “The Gospel of Matthew”, 344; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 619; Hagner, Matthew 14-28, 469. 33 Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 621; Cf. Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 665. 34 Boring, “The Gospel of Matthew”, 344. 35 Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 665. 36 Luz, Matthew 8-20, 369. 37 Luz, Matthew 8-20, 370. 17 Peter is the central character in vv. 13-20. Jesus’ “query” (v. 13) is directed at the Twelve, as is the secrecy embargo in v. 20, yet the messianic affirmation is articulated only by Peter, and the resulting special mention is spoken to him in the second-person singular. It is probable that Peter was at this point functioning as spokesperson for the Twelve (who have previously voiced their belief that Jesus is the Son of God, 14:33), but by augmenting Mark and Luke with the addition of vv.17-19 Mathew has demonstrated that he sees Peter as more than merely a group spokesperson; despite the fact that the prescription of v. 19 will be said again in the plural concerning all the Twelve in 18:18. 17 Peter’s confession results in a blessing.38 Jesus’ introductory reaction to what Peter (Simon in this verse) has said is unequivocally encouraging, in sharp contradiction to what will result in vv. 20-23. The words are reminiscent of 11:27. Except, however, there we read of the Son “revealing” the Father, this time the Father “reveals” the Son. Gundry notes that Jesus’ blessing of Peter is somewhat blunted by the realisation that a comparable blessing has already been spoken over the Twelve collectively in 13:16-17; whose “eyes” and “ears” were proclaimed to be the receivers of special revelation—including Judas Iscariot. Both there and here in v. 17, “blessed” denotes “privilege”. In both examples, a definitive consequence is affected by what is executed and achieved with the “privilege”, not because of the “privilege” itself.39 Likewise, France, as Gundry, regards the beatitude as, to a certain degree, perfunctory, save for a different reasoning. He suggests that beatitudes, like this one, are clarified by the “but” article (or “because” clause); that Jesus is patting Peter on the back for his remarkable perceptiveness, not for the reason that Peter has singlehandedly unravelled the truth but that, reminiscent of all understanding about God and his Son (11:27), it has been “revealed” to him by God himself (cf. 11:25). The narration of God as “my Father in heaven” tracks appropriately from the pronouncement that Jesus is God’s Son. “Flesh and blood” is a perspicuous means of portraying human agency’s 38 Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 426. Rabbi’s often declared blessings on those who gave right answers, as Jesus does here. 39 Gundry, Peter, 17; Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 665. Uses the phrase “Fortunate are you, Simon Bar-Jonah”; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 611. “A less literal rendering might be ‘I congratulate you’ (or ‘Good on yer”!).” 18 difference from God or other spiritual beings.40 An especially appropriate comparison is Gal 1:16, where Paul contends that his gospel came to him by divine revelation rather than through discussion with “flesh and blood”.41 Simon’s father’s name (“Jonah”) is mentioned here and in John 1:42, the two locations where we learn of Simon being given the nickname Peter; the use of Simon’s full name lends gravity to the event. Conversely, in John 1:42 the father’s name (as the English translation indicates) is most likely “John.” 18 In the renowned “rock” maxim Jesus solemnly carries on his beatitude with an assurance to Peter. A good deal here is exegetically complex and contentious. It appears fairly evident that Jesus is not conferring the name of “Peter” but explaining this name in the narrative (cf. 4:18; 10:2). It also seems apparent that “my church” (ekklēsia)—with Matthew being the only Evangelist to use the term ekklēsia—represents here the entire church and not merely a single congregation (cf. in Matt 18, ekklēsia seems to indicate a local community). Luz articulates that within the eschatological background of Jesus’ declaration there exists the understanding of the people of God and the biblical language concerning the “house Israel”42 (for example, Exod 16:31; 40:38, Lev 17:3, 8, 10; 22:18, Num 20:29, Josh 21:45, and Ruth 4:11). In a balancing observation, Keener notes that biblical tradition had repeatedly promoted the “building up” of God’s community (for example, Ruth 4:11; Ps 51:18; 69:35; 147:2; Jer 1:10; 24:6; 31:4, 28). Keener also highlights that texts from Qumran (4QpPs 37.3, 16) show that a conversant praxis continued amid Jesus’ contemporaries; for them “God was the builder of his community”.43 Within Matthew’s Messianic framework, he sees Jesus as a substitute for the “builders” who “rejected” him (Ps 118:22; Matt 21:42).44 The “Gates of Hades” is an established Semitic term for the entrance to the realm of death (cf. 11:23; Rev 1:18), though in Hebrew it is the “gates of Sheol”, the “gates of death” or the “bars of death” (Isa 38:10; Job 17:16, 38:17; Ps 9:13, 107:18). Hades/Sheol essentially 40 France, The Gospel of Matthew, 619; cf. Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 665. 41 cf. 1 Cor 15:50; Eph 6:12; Heb 2:14. 42 Luz, Matthew 8-20, 362. 43 Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 428. 44 Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1996), 47-52. “. . . “rock”, the foundation of the church, is interpreted as Messiahship”. cf. Armenteros, “A Rock in the Path”, 71. 19 identifies as the realm of the dead. The words imply that while death itself attacks the church of Christ, death itself cannot defeat God’s people (ekklēsia—“church”). That the Church, as God’s eschatological community, will “prevail” until Christ’s return, in spite of the ensuing persecution and death of the apostles, and, even more immediate, the crucifixion of its builder—presently to be revealed; cf. v. 21—highlights that the Church does not depend on the mortality of men and women. If the Church evades annihilation in spite of the death of its leadership, so too will it avoid everything that its adversary may oppose it with. The Gates of Hades, as the substance of the realm of the dead that humans cannot overpower, will not be stronger than the church built on the rock. The Church, created and designed for its Messiah who will be with it “always, to the end of age” (28:20).45 19 Here, the “kingdom of heaven” is in marked distinction to the powers of Hades (Sheol), the realm of the dead considered to be situated below the earth, in the previous verse (v. 18; cf. Heb 2:14; Rev 1:18). Many commentators on Matt 16:18 highlight the “word play” in petros, the name of Peter, and petra, the “rock” on which Jesus will build his church.46 Many have assumed that in the understated differences between these two words Jesus was expressing that the person “Peter” was insignificant (petros as stone), but what signifies the Church is the “rock” (petra) on which it stands. The “rock” is then Jesus the person and/or Peter’s confession, any of these being of greater import than the person of Peter, just as the “rock” is greater than the stone.47 Jesus is Peter’s—and the rest of the disciples’—“one teacher” (23:8), ensuring that they are appointed to teach new believers “to obey everything that” he has “commanded” in his manifold utterances, statements and declarations as documented in the Gospel of Matthew (28:20).48 More specifically, the naming of “rock” with Jesus’ foundation teachings of his ekklēsia (cf. 7:24-28) corresponds very well with one of Matthew’s comprehensive 45 Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 472. 46 See, for example, Boring, “The Gospel of Matthew”, 345; Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 627; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 621; Hagner, Matthew 14-28, 470; Hengel, Saint Peter, 21; Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 668-9. 47 Markus Bockmuehl, Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory: The New Testament Apostle in the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 73; Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr: A Historical and Theological Study (London: SCM Press Limited, 1962), 168-9. 48 Both Matt 23:8 and Matt 28:20 are unquietly Matthean texts. 20 viewpoints—that of accurate instruction—as can been seen from the distinctively Matthean emphasises to “saying these things [words]” of Jesus in 7:24-28; 19:1; and to “saying all these things [words]” of his in 26:1 (noting the use of the demonstrative pronoun, as in 7:24, 26;16:18).49 Such a determination can also be applied to the subject matter of v. 19. A new metaphoric image, of the kingdom of heaven’s “keys” opening locked doors or gates, given by Jesus to Peter, so that whatever he binds on the earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever he loosens on the earth will have been loosened in heaven. The symbol of the “keys” embodies Jesus’ words in the same representative manner as “rock” does (cf. Matt 23:13; Luke 11:52, “the key of knowledge”). This is very different from any varying interpretations of Peter’s newly bestowed authority of the ekklēsia. Making use of the “keys” is tantamount to teaching “these things [words]” to hopeful believers and potential disciples (28:20). As Gundry highlights, Jesus’ Great Commission (28:18-20) will multiply the authoritative (“in heaven and on earth”) use of these keys by incorporating the other apostles together with Peter, in the same manner as 18:18 will also multiply the agency of all the apostles to bind and loosen—“Judas Iscariot included!”50 Acceptance or receipt of this authority (the kingdom of heaven’s “keys”; “binding” and “loosening”) does not ensure salvation, nor is it a safeguard against the possibility of becoming a “false disciple”. Therefore, it does not ensure the salvation of Peter or the other apostles. In accordance with 23:8-12 Jesus is the apostles’ only teacher—their instruction in, and compliance to, the Great Commission involves communicating his “words/commandments, not in interpreting them”.51 20 Following the added work of vv. 17-19, v. 20, once more, lines up with Mark 8:30.52 Matthew returns to the “Messiah” profession of v. 16 and so Mark 8:29 (“You are the Messiah.”) with the character of messiahship and, so, the Passion of the Messiah (16:2428) which extends beyond the Twelve’s understanding of “Messiah”. Here (16:21), as with 49 Gundry, Peter, 24. 50 Gundry, Peter, 24. 51 Gundry, Peter, 24. cf. Barber, M.P. “Jesus as the Davidic Temple Builder and Peter’s Priestly Role in Matthew 16:16-19”. Journal of Biblical Literature 132, no. 4 (2013): 947-48. New Testament Abstracts (NTA0000076721). 52 Boring, “The Gospel of Matthew”, 346-5; Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 641; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 627; Gundry, Matthew, 336; Luz, Matthew 8-20, 366; Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 682. 21 the second and third passion predictions (17:22-23; 20:1-19 cf. Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34) there follows a sequence of admonitions that links the character of the disciple, and the fate of the disciple (18:1-5; 20:28 cf. Mark 8:34-38; 9:33-37; 10:35-45). To come after Jesus means to “deny” oneself, to take up one’s cross and follow Jesus in the way of death (16:2526 cf. Mark 8:34). In the divine, contrary to human strategy, “those who want to save their life will lose it” (16:25 cf. Mark 8:35). The recurrence of opposition underlines the clash between divine and Messiah by increasing Mark—“him” in favour of “the Messiah”—thus stressing Jesus’ identity. Following Mark, Matthew repeats Jesus’ summons to “stern” silence (Mark 8:30). Nolland highlights an associated summons in 17:9 that indicates the expectation of the Passion has a great deal to do with it. A Messiah devoid of a cross is not the sort of Messiah that Jesus means to be; Peter will recoil immediately in contradiction of this disagreeable reality.53 In a different way from Mark, Matthew preserves the line between the Twelve and the “people” that transpired in vv.13-16. The realisation that Jesus is the Messiah resides with the Twelve and no-one else. They now represent the ekklēsia that is also differentiated from the “people”.54 Gundry pragmatically notes that the redacted description of Jesus as “the Messiah”, instead of “him” (Mark 8:30), is a preference of Matthew, accordingly Matthew changes a stern veto of disclosure into a reaffirmation of Jesus’ messiahship. The reaffirmation accentuates, yet again, the Twelves’ valuing (or indifference) of Jesus’ true identity.55 “From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering [. . .] and be killed, and on the third day be raised” (v. 21). The intense rejection by Peter of these words (vv. 22-23) demonstration that the struggle between divine and human discernment has a cost that human assessment is willing to “forfeit” (16:25-26 cf. Mark 8:35-37). By laying out the relationship between Messiah and disciple in the language of cross and death, Matthew (and so Mark) indicates that Peter’s opposition to Jesus’ passion-and-resurrection declaration fixates on the notion that Jesus should suffer 52 Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 682-3. 53 Luz, Matthew 8-20, 366. 54 Gundry, Matthew, 337. 22 and die more readily than Peter embracing the scenario overall—that of true discipleship.56 21 The matter now emerges whether the first passion-and-resurrection prediction (vv. 21-23) should be thematically divorced from vv. 13-20. Gundry advocates that doing so would, to some degree, sequester Peter’s beatitude in vv. 17-19 from Jesus’ blistering reply to him in vv. 21-23.57 The justification for a partition or structural break leans largely on the phrasing “From that time on, Jesus began” (v. 21), and the identical composition in 4:17, which begins a new unit of Matthew (wherein Jesus delivers an address). Likewise, it is contended that 16:21 begins a new division wherein he expounds, in a prediction, his death and resurrection.58 However, Gundry argues that Jesus’ travel to Capernaum in 4:12-16 can equally and easily be treated as the beginning of a new division; besides 4:17-16:20 covers much more than sermonising; namely miracles, exorcisms, and individual teaching, none of which are overlaid by the announcement that “Jesus began to preach and to say, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near.’” Also 16:21-28:20 covers, as well as passion-and-resurrection predictions, the transfiguration, exorcism, a miracle, and an entry in addition to continuous spoken ministry of diverse kinds and a report of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Therefore, a progressive assessment would be to state that equally 4:17 and 16:21 suggest the onset of new and different, but not unshared events – preaching and predicting, specifically—instead of a key structural end.59 Gundry also highlights a redactional justification for 16:13-23 as a complete pericope vis-à-vis its Markan parallel (Mark 8:27-33) which continues the episode of Peter’s confession into a misinterpretation of Jesus’ messiahship, misinterpretation that provokes Jesus’ rebuke and his radical call to discipleship—cross bearing.60 56 Kristian Bendoraitis, “Apocalypticism, Angels and Matthew”. The Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the Shaping of New Testament Thought, edited by Benjamin E. Reynolds and Loren T. Stuckenbruck (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2017), 41; George W. E. Nickelsburg. “The Genre and Function of the Markan Passion Narrative”. The Harvard Theological Review 73, no. 1/2 (1980): 168-9. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1509483 (accessed September 10, 2019); cf. Sharyn Dowd and Elizabeth Struthers Malbon. “The Significance of Jesus’ Death in Mark: Narrative Context and Authorial Audience”. Journal of Biblical Literature 125, no. 2 (2006): 277-8. doi:10.2307/27638361. 57 Gundry, Peter, 26. 58 Boring, “The Gospel of Matthew”, 348; Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 653-4; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 631; Hagner, Matthew 14-28, 473; Luz, Matthew 8-20, 378-9; Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 685. 59 Gundry, Peter, 26. 60 Gundry, Matthew, 337. 23 After the summons to secrecy in v. 20, which made associates of the Twelve, with a unique understanding which the “people” did not have, Jesus reveals to them his suffering and his resurrection. As a result, he now expands the Twelves’ unique understanding. The proclamation is totally unguarded, once a mystery, as it was in 12:40, but now intended just for the Twelve. In Matthew, as in Mark (8:31), Jesus’ prediction of sorrow is no longer his plain-spoken reply to Peter’s declaration; rather, Jesus initiates a new direction, which Matthew will echo numerous times in preface to his advent in Jerusalem (17:12, 22-23; 20:17-19). Matthew states, “From that time on, Jesus began to show” (deiknumi)61 as opposed to “teach” (Mark 8:31) because for him “teach” relates primarily to moral directives. The verb “to show” exposes an essentially new revelation and gives evidence to the proof of heaven’s delivered verdict, that Jesus must suffer and die, making evident what was only previously hinted at in 9:15 and 12:40. Jesus presents the rejection and death of the Messiah as necessary. Even so, it is plotted by the Jewish leaders within their own autonomy and with their own malevolence for which they are fully responsible. God’s design and human accountability are no more inharmonious in Matthew than they are in other places in the New Testament and Judaism. Jesus is cognisant of this scheme. His declaration already foresees, in bold outline, the whole passion narrative. The passive verbs demonstrate that is not Jesus who is the instrument of power but the Jewish leaders or, in the ultimate evaluation, God. Nonetheless, the passion account will demonstrate that Jesus is likewise engaged. He moves in the direction appointed to him as God’s submissive Son. His imminent sorrow and resurrection62 are a turning point that will now dominate the development of the Matthean narrative.63 22 Mark’s “He said all this quite openly (parrhēsia)” (8:32) is absent. The frankness and bluntness of Jesus’ speech in Mark makes Peter’s denseness indefensible. Matthew’s non-inclusion lifts the burden off Peter. “And Peter took him aside and began to 61 Hagner, Matthew 14-28, 479. “. . . a matter of divine necessity (to be distinguished from the blind fate of the Greek world)”. cf. Regarding “show” (δεικνύω) examples, Acts 10:28; 1 Corinthians 12:31; Revelations 1:1. 62 Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 655-6. “on the third day”–Matthew 17:23; 20:19; cf. 27:63; 26:32. “These predictions find their fulfilment in 28:1, 6, and this affirmation in turn becomes the central element of the kerygma of the early church (cf. 1 Cor 15:4; Acts 2:23-24; 3:15; 4:10, etc.). The related reference “three days” is found in 12:40 (together with “three nights”) in connection with the sign of Jonah and in 26:61 and 27:40 in connection with the metaphor of destroying the temple and rebuilding it in three days (cf. John 2:19-22). 63 Luz, Matthew 8-20, 381; Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 656. 24 rebuke him” (so Mark), Matthew develops a more relaxed situation than Mark as he takes Jesus “aside [. . .] saying ‘God forbid it [May God be (or, ‘God will be’) merciful to you], Lord! This must never happen to you’” (v. 22). Gundry underlines the detail that Matthew bends Peter’s “rebuke” into a profession—using prayer-like words—of Jesus’ lordship. The statement’s accent favours what Peter does comprehend about Jesus rather than what he does not comprehend. And Peter’s wholesome (albeit natural) intention materialises in his desire (or statement) “that God will have mercy on Jesus.”64 Why does Peter want to shield Jesus from his suffering? France and Luz ask if he and the others were directed by a Jewish Messianic awareness which renders the Messiah as an apolitical military figure.65 Or, is Matthew merely expressing human benevolence, because Peter’s distress and love for Jesus is plausible, since he does not want him to die? Rarely does Matthew exhibit such a state of affairs. Given that in vv. 24-26 Matthew has Jesus clarifying self-denial and travail in discipleship, as does Mark, he undoubtedly recognised Peter’s remonstration not merely as a voice of disapproval against Jesus’ suffering but also as a remonstration in contradiction of the Twelves’ own suffering—and that of the imminent ekklēsia. Also, here, Peter is the spokesperson for the Twelve, as, in the same way, he framed his profession in v. 16 with that of the church’s profession. As a disciple he dwells within the incongruity of confusion and destiny, of courage and dread and the costs of such courage, and of duplicity and shame (26:69-75).66 The problem is not that Peter is worse than the other disciples, because eventually they all “desert” Jesus and “flee” (26:56) while Peter still “follows him at a distance” (26:58). The issue is baked into the irony of a devoted despondency which is emblematic of the Matthean-Petrine “blessings turn to curses and confessions to denials”67 theme. 23 Interestingly, in contrast to Mark, Matthew here further advances Peter’s isolation by editing Mark’s gloss that Jesus’ rebuke followed as he “turned and looking 64 Gundry, Matthew, 338. 65 France, The Gospel of Matthew, 631. “The way the disciples react to the idea of messianic suffering and ‘defeat’ [. . .] is symptomatic of the natural Jewish response.”; Luz, Matthew 8-20, 382. 66 Luz, Matthew 8-20, 382. 67 Arlo J. Nau, Peter in Matthew: Discipleship, Diplomacy, and Dispraise . . . With an Assessment of Power and Privilege in the Petrine Office (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1992), 24-6. 25 at his disciples” (Mark 8:33).68 The Matthean Jesus’ counter-rebuke is sternly singular in its castigation, and summonses Peter to immediate rehabilitation and transformation. “Get behind me” resonates the words of 4:19, the followers or true disciples’ blueprint. “Behind me” is not simply a place or location, but the disposition of the disciple. These words immediately elicit the banishment of Satan in 4:10, which accentuates Jesus’ dislocation of himself from Peter’s false messianic dogma. As Boring asserts, “Jesus is going to the cross; the [true] disciple is to follow”.69 While in 4:10 the ‘Adversary’ was the ruling demon himself, here it is Jesus’ alleged disciple. Peter served as the devil’s mediator. Satan tendered the kingdom without Calvary at Jesus’ temptation; Peter now tenders the identical temptation and is designated “Satan”.70 For Peter to be labelled with this reprehensible name must have been extremely hurtful, notably after the tribute in vv. 17-19.71 Jesus’ mission is to install another kingdom, a fundamentally different way of using leadership and power. Peter the rock turns out to be Peter the “stumbling-block” (cf. Isa 8:11-15), a stone of offence (skandalon) to Jesus (as Jesus would be an offence to others [cf. Rom 9:33; 1 Pet 2:6-8]) in the path to the execution of God’s will—this Matthean edit makes Peter the representative disciple also in jeopardy of false profession. As Boring highlights, Matthew creates a clashing collocation by placing v. 23 directly after the benediction proclaimed over Peter in vv.17-19. In the very face of God’s disclosure (v. 17), Peter carries on thinking as most moral individuals would: practically, introspectively, and on par with human affection and happiness.72 68 Nau, Peter in Matthew, 56. 69 Boring, “The Gospel of Matthew”, 349; cf. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 433. 70 Cullmann, Peter, 25; Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 433-4. Yip-Mei Loh, “The Sōma and the Psychē in the Gospel of Matthew and in Plato’s Timaeus”. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 2 no. 1 (2016): 583-4. https://grdspublishing.org/index.php/people/article/view/295/2564 (accessed September 26, 2019). Peter is defined as a “second-class Satan”, one who acts for Satan. Risto Saarinen, “René Girard and Lutheran Theology”, Theophilos 1, 2001, reproduced at https://tuhat.helsinki.fi/ws/portalfiles/portal/31628623/2001saarinen_girard_lutheran.pdf: 5 (accessed September 26, 2019). 71 France, 72 The Gospel of Matthew, 634. Boring, “The Gospel of Matthew”, 350. 26 Summary Identifying all eleven verses of Matt 16:13-23 as a distinct pericope utterly shifts the inclination of the vv. 17-19 addition. Peter has yet again embraced a positive intention and deteriorated it into a dire disapproval (For example, pre-16:13-23: 14:28-31; 15:15-16 and post-16:13-23: 17:4-6; 18:21-22; 26:33-75), now he is identified, by Jesus, as “Satan” and a “stumbling-block” (16:23)—a stone of offence (skandalon), a scandal. Matt 16:13-23 exemplifies the irony of the disparity that builds within the Petrine-Matthean narrative. Traditionally, Peter’s confession and blessing in 16:13-20 is handled as one reading and the consequent “Get behind me Satan!” event in 16:21-23 is treated as a completely separate unit. This division—arranged around Peter’s commendation in 16:17-19—has been helpful in preserving a constructive rather than a conflicting study of Peter in Matthew. Nevertheless, with Matthew’s intensified utilisation of Mark’s ironic positive intention and reversal pattern, regarding Peter (see Appendix 3), a reader of Matthew also ought to have seen such a reinterpreting treatment in this pericope, Matt 16:13-23. In following Matthew’s reworking of Mark 8:27-30, what he “gives he can also take away”,73 and when it comes to Peter Matthew frequently does just that; for example: By redacting Jesus’ opening question to the Twelve in 16:13, Matthew includes the “Son of Man” importance in the question, thus rendering Peter’s reply Christologically perfect by its identification of Jesus as the “Son of God” (16:16). Even so, it is self-evident that previously in 14:33, the Twelve express a comparable profession which demonstrably takes away from the exclusivity of Peter’s profession in the pericope—it is no longer the defining moment in Matthew’s Gospel as it was in Mark’s Gospel (Mark 8:29)—because it is already generally known to Matthew’s audience. Just as 14:33 takes distinction away from 16:16, so to the amendment from 16:19 to 18:18, which amounts to a razing of Peter, or at the very least a subtraction from the “bind” and “loose” authority given at first to Peter alone (16:19). Matthew’s redaction of the first passion-and-resurrection prediction and Satansaying (16:21-23) is accordingly shaped to focus on Peter. By eliminating, “And he said this 73 Nau, Peter in Matthew, 114. 27 quite openly” (Mark 8:32), and “But turning and seeing his disciples” (Mark 8:33)— narrations which indicate Mark’s intention that Jesus’ rebuke of Peter was a collective rebuke of the Twelve. Conversely, in Matthew’s edit (16:23), Jesus’ reprimand “Get behind me, Satan” is directed singularly at Peter and serves as a plain-spoken equipoise to 16:1718. Matthew’s strategic addition in v. 23: “You are a stumbling-block to me” (skandalon) convincingly exceeds the passion of Mark’s Satan-saying (Mark 8:33). Matthew’s intentional edit now epitomises Peter as an illustrative paradigm to the pervasive problem within the ekklēsia. The pericope’s concluding comment by Jesus, “For you setting your mind not on divine things but on human things” (16:23), helps to complete a rather disapproving and ruinous inclusio with the pericope’s issuing question by Jesus, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” (16:13). In the face of his former discriminating declaration in 16:16, Peter’s fundamental grasp of Jesus’ messiahship is lacking. At this point, he is exhibiting a vain form of discipleship without Christological relevance. Peter appears to be no more enlightened than “the people” (v. 13) external to Jesus and the Twelve. 28 3 Understanding 16:17-19 through Matthew’s recasting of Mark’s characterisation of Peter As is acknowledged, Matthew includes a number of unique episodes involving Peter to those he preserves from Mark’s Gospel. Therefore, does Matthew mention Peter more than Mark? Comparing Matthean and Markan pericopes where Peter is explicitly characterised (for example, is mentioned by name and or has narrative dialogue) or is an implicit character (for example, as part of the disciple group or the twelve) is roughly equal. Implicit Matthean pericope allusions equal 41, with explicit pericope references equalling 15, giving a combined total of 56. Subsequently, implicit Markan pericope allusions equal 41 with explicit pericope references equalling 14, giving a combined total of 55. Although Matthew has inserted Petrine scenes (for instance, the episode concerning Peter’s “walking on the water” (14:28-31) and the temple tax event (17:24-27), Peter inhabits a similar number of pericopes in Mark’s Gospel as he does in Matthew’s Gospel (see Appendix 2). Peter: Evidence of prominence1 or indicators of failure, or both? Although Matthew sidesteps certain references that Mark makes to Peter2 while including other references (as mentioned above), he also preserves many of Mark’s references. Matthew keeps to Mark in depicting Peter as being the first to “follow” Jesus 1 The use of “primacy” denotes “prominence” unless otherwise specified. 2 Mark 1:36; 11:21; 13:3, 16:7. N.B., Mark 1:36: The word ‘disciples’ is not used (and does not occur until Mark 2:31), and could have been problematic for Matthew for two reasons. First, “Simon and his companions” had to “hunt” Jesus down like he was some exhausted quarry. Moreover, secondly, they do not act as disciples, but as interpreters of the demands of the people, “Everyone is searching for you”; i.e. at present, they “are setting their mind not on divine things but on human things” (Matt 16:23). N.B., Mark 11:21; 13:3: Bockmuehl, Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory,85. “the very seriousness of Peter’s fall from the heights of Matt 16 could be one of the key reasons why he no longer features prominently in the remainder of the Gospel”. For example, Matt 21:20 omits Peter’s observation about the withered fig tree in Mark 11:21 with a mostly similar one by the disciples. In a similar fashion (Matt 24:3), Matthew erases Peter’s distinction (along with James, John and Andrew) by having Jesus address all the disciples, widening the audience of Jesus’ Olivet Discourse. In both pericopes, the inference gives the impression of either nil or neutral. N.B., Mark 16:7: Finally, Matthew’s omission of Peter from Mark 16:7 in Matt 28:27 is neither nil or neutral; it is shockingly intentional. It meant that Peter would play no active part at all in the Matthean post-Easter narrative of the Church. 29 (Matt 4:18-20; cf. Mark 1:16-18).3 As in Mark, Peter is the first noted on the list of the Twelve (Matt 10:1-4; cf. Mark 3:14-16)—asserted rather particularly in Matthew (“first”). Cullmann comments, that Matthew here is only using “first” as a “characteristic expression . . . used to designate the group of disciples”4 and does not denote Peter’s primacy.5 However, Perkins maintains that Matthew (in 4:18 and subsequently in 10:2) associates Peter’s primacy with “the solid foundation of the Kingdom of God in the teachings of Jesus”.6 Davies and Allison contend that “Peter is ‘first’ (10:1-2) because he is the first apostle to be called (4:18-22). His primacy therefore belongs to salvation-history”.7 Maybe, also, “first” contemplates Peter’s distinction among the Twelve, serving as their spokesperson, even their superior, at best the first among equals—with an imaginable expectancy of 16:17-19: Peter the “rock” who possesses the keys of the kingdom and the authority of binding and loosening. Conversely, Gundry and Nau have understood “the first” ironically, taking into account the later ominous aphorisms in Matthew and Mark that the “first will be last, and the last first” (Matt 19:30; Mark 10:31 cf. Matt 20:16, 27).8 It does not lack cause, because Jesus’ axiom in Matt 19:30 and Mark 10:31 is a reaction to Peter’s issue in question, specifically “Look, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?” (Matt 19:27, the second sentence augmentation of Mark 10:28). It suggests import that Jesus does not offer Peter any pre-eminence in either account. In Matthew, Peter’s accolade will be identical to that of his fellow disciples that have followed Jesus. Each one of them “will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (19:28). Furthermore, and notably, Peter’s palpable disloyalty in 26:69-75 given Jesus’ charge in 10:26-31 not to be apprehensive of “those” adversaries, that “first Peter” in 10:2 prophesies the gloomy future 3 There is also (subsequently) the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law in Matthew 8:14-17; cf. Mark 1:29-31. Damgaard, Rewriting Peter, 54, notes, that the “story about the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law occupies [. . .] a much more prominent position in the Gospel of Mark (namely in the beginning of the gospel), whereas the author of Matthew places the story in the chapters about Jesus’s [sic] miracles (Chapters 8-9)”. 4 Cullmann, Peter, 26-7. 5 France, The Gospel of Matthew, 377. “The commissioning of the Twelve is spelled out in strictly functional terms.” Gundry, Peter, 8-9. 6 Perkins, Peter, 66. cf. Hengel, Saint Peter, 28-36. “the Apostolic foundational figure of the Church”. 7 Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 648-9. cf. Hengel, Saint Peter, 17. 8 Gundry, Peter, 9; Nau, Peter in Matthew, 76. 30 for Peter as a consequence of the “first who will be last”9 should be ironically kept in mind. As Damgaard affirms, Matthew’s audience would have grasped that “the first” in 10:2 was intended ironically way before they arrived at 19:30, because, these decisive texts 4:18, 10:2 and 16:16 link to each other, and also, given that Matthew adopts “Simon” and “Peter” in all three of the texts (whereas Mark only uses both names in Mark 3:16).10 Therefore, the emphasis on “first” would be more reasonably viewed as a poignantly ironic commentary aimed at Peter’s affirmation (16:16). Mark’s audience would unquestionably regard “first” as forestalling Peter’s affirmation of Jesus which was (paradoxically) first in Mark, but in contrast to Mark, Peter does not hold a primary standing in Matthew as the first individual to make a declaration about Jesus. Quite the opposite, Gundry notes, since Matthew makes use of Peter’s affirmation, “You are the Messiah”, from Mark 8:29, and then includes “the Son of the living God” (16:16). Specifically, this inclusion follows the affirmation of the other disciples, i.e., Peter is not the “first” making it questionable if Peter was among the worshipping disciples who said of Jesus, “Truly you are the Son of God” (14:33).11 As a consequence of 14:33, Matthew not only has Peter “playing catch-up”12 to his companions, he also forecasts 16:16, and comes very near to rendering 16:16-18 irrelevant. Damgaard also resonates with 14:33/16:16 irony13 and observes Matthew’s positioning of Peter’s declaration (16:16), which occurs after his distinctive account of Peter’s “walking on the water” (14:28-31), where the entire group “worshipped” Jesus and declared “Truly you are the Son of God” (14:33). It is too severe to say Peter’s declaration at Caesarea Philippi is irrelevant, but, in light of 14:33, one senses a contrariness that his declaration does not deserve such a benediction that Jesus gives. Likewise, Jesus’ contention appears curious, “for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood” (16:17), as Peter now reiterates what the rest of the group have already declared in the boat, explicitly that Jesus is the Son of God (14:33). 9 Gundry, Peter, 8-9. 10 Damgaard, Rewriting Peter, 46. 11 Gundry, Peter, 16. “’Truly you are God’s Son’, actually carried more emphasis then does Peter’s confession, [. . .] ‘You are . . . the Son of God’, to which the addition of [. . .] ‘the living’, lessens emphasis on ‘the Son’ in favour of emphasis on ‘God’ as well as conforming to OT and other Jewish usage, e.g., in 26:63, Deut 5:26; Josh 3:10; 1 Sam 17:26; Ps 42:2; Jer 10:10 Hos 1:10; Jub. 1:25; Sib. Or. 3:763; T. Job 37:2; T. Sol. 1:13. 12 Gundry, Peter, 16. 13 Damgaard, Rewriting Peter, 48. 31 In Matthew, Peter’s prominence does not rest on his wisdom or character, but neither is he differentiated from the other disciples. However, as it seems likely, Matthew knew the primacy tradition connecting Peter to Mark. Even though Matthew extensively relies on Mark, he possibly wanted to avoid his gospel becoming linked to the same source (namely Peter) as Mark. Therefore, Matthew emphasis on Peter (by editing Mark) seems to be ironically amplified—positively and/or negatively—compared to the corresponding material in Mark. Matthew’s literary art seems to have highlighted the incongruous excess and lack in the person of Peter (see Appendix 3). Or, by avoiding Mark’s references to Peter’s inside view (i.e., Matt 21:20 omits Peter’s observation about the withered fig tree in Mark 11:21) and by downplaying the importance of remembrance in relation to Peter (i.e. Matt 24:3 erases Peter’s distinction in Mark 13:3, along with James, John and Andrew, by having Jesus address all the disciples). Within both redactional impressions (Peter’s augmented personal peaks and valleys and by omitting references to his inner thoughts and memory), Matthew has effectively neutralising Peter’s prominence. What is given to Peter in Matt 16:17-19 (the authority to bind and loosen) is also given to the other disciples in Matt 18:18, so his “pre-eminence”, if it exists, is at the very least first among equals. Finally, the general framework (taken from Mark) makes it clear that Christology and discipleship (not church office nor pre-eminence) are focal in the new ekklēsia, and that both are joined intimately together by the inevitability of suffering14 (Matt 16:24-25)—a bond that Peter, by wit and instinct, attempts to avoid. Flesh, blood and (the) Rock Does Peter merely answer Jesus’ question in 16:16, “But who do you say that I am?” (16:15), as a representative for the Twelve—since they have already spoken for themselves (14:33)? However it might be, Matthew has developed Peter’s confession, which appears to indicate that he wants his audience to see the connection between 14:33 and 16:16—a link that ironically destabilise Jesus’ own contention about what “flesh and blood” has not 14 Charles E. Carlston and Craig A. Evans, From Synagogue to Ecclesia: Matthew's Community at the Crossroads (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 319-21. 32 shown to Peter. The allusion to “flesh and blood” (16:17) could reasonably indicate that Jesus’ benediction is, moreover, not expected to be read supportively.15 Instead of declaring “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on you I will build my church”, Jesus moves from the second-person discourse, “you are Peter”, to a third-person position, “and on this rock”. (16:18).16 The move elicits 7:24, where “the rock” represents Jesus’ “these words of mine”, which harmonise Matthew’s emphases on Jesus’ words (within five narratival arrangements17), forming the rock on which he will build his ekklēsia.18 The announcement in 16:18 that “the gates of Hades will not overcome it [Jesus’ ekklēsia]” parallels the account in 7:25 that “The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock” and thus reinforces the correlation between these two Matthean texts. Furthermore, the connection and credence of “this rock” with Jesus’ “these words of mine” rather than with Peter fixes a potent weight on Jesus’ words that run throughout the Gospel of Matthew. “These words of mine” are equally the architecture of the “keys” (16:19) that are employed in opening and closing of the door to the kingdom of heaven (cf. Rev 3:7-8 with reference to Isaiah 22:22; Rev 21:25), in accord with deeds they forbid (“bind”) and demand (“loosen”).19 In 7:24-25 the “rock” embodies Jesus’ words/teachings, not the builder who is flesh and blood. Obviously, the precedents for “rock” are diverse in each of the passages (7:24-25 and 16:18), but with no “rock” on which to build the ekklēsia there is no justification for the name “Peter” to exist. However, Matthew’s undertaking in 16:19 to draw on “keys” as a symbol for Jesus’ words/teachings supports a reference to Jesus’ words in 16:18 in addition to 7:24-25, so that the precedents are not evidently dissimilar; and a non-comparative word 15 Damgaard, Rewriting Peter, 48; Gundry, Peter, 98. Peter confession is “belated”, and “only by virtue of God the Father’s revelation to him.”; Cf. Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 623. “’flesh and blood’ [. . .] The opposite to God”. 16 Gundry, Matthew, 333; Gundry, Peter, 98. 17 Gundry, Matthew, 7, 10-11. “Thus emphasis falls on his words (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). Not only do these words gravitate together in five lengthy discourses (chaps. 5—7, 10, 13, 18, 23-25), but even in the narrative sections the description of what Jesus does shrinks for the sake of greater attention to what he says”. 18 Cullmann, Peter, 168; Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 626; Gundry, Matthew, 3335; Gundry, Peter, 18-26; 98-9; Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 426-7. 19 Cullmann, Peter, 168. “Christ is the master of the house, who has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, with which to open to those who come in.”; Gundry, Peter, 25, see also 99. “To ‘bind’ [. . .] to teach Jesus’ words prohibiting behaviour that calls for church discipline and, failing that, bars entrance to the kingdom of heaven [. . .] to ‘loosen’ means to teach Jesus’ words concerning behaviour conducive to entering that kingdom.” 33 play between petros and petra serves to validate the existence of Peter in the passage— albeit rather disapprovingly and ironic—as merely flesh and blood. 34 4 The Positive Intentions and Reversals of Peter When relating to apostles, some Protestant academics write prodigiously on the subject of Paul—being a prime motivation of their academic interest.1 Undeniably, Paul, outstandingly amongst the apostles, effected many epistles, all of which provide essential portraits of a nascent Christianity (convincingly the Corinthian epistles), and several (particularly Romans and Galatians) remarkable conversations on Christian faith that understandably have engaged academics of every subsequent generation.2 Peter, in contrast, has posed a number of perplexing questions since at least the time of Tertullian,3 Origen4 and Cyprian.5 He has been affirmed at times successively as the “prince of the apostles”, Christ’s appointed “earthly vicar of the present, institutional 1 Some Protestant academic examples (in no particular order) from the last one hundred years; A. Schweitzer, V.P. Furnish, Rudolf Bultmann, N.T. Wright, E. Kasemann, Richard B. Hays, John Dominic Crossan. Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. John Richard de Witt (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1975), 13. “It is not surprising that with respect to so profound and complicated a phenomenon as the manner in which the Apostle Paul has given form and expression to the gospel of Jesus Christ, a great variety of conceptions is to be traced in the history of Pauline investigation [. . .] The theology of the Reformation, broadly speaking, has long found this entrance in Paul’s preaching”. 2 Helen K. Bond, and Larry W. Hurtado (editors), Peter in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2015), 1. 3 Philip Schaff, “On Modesty”, Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Fourth Part; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), Chapter XXI. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.viii.xxi.html (accessed 21 September, 2019). To Tertullian’s mind, Peter was singularly given the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the authority to “bind” and “loosen”, and he expressly denies that these gifts were meant for anyone after Peter. “[. . .] you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to…every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord conferring this (gift) personally upon Peter? ‘On thee’, He says, ‘will I build My Church’; and, ‘I will give to thee the keys’, not to the Church; and, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound’, not what they shall have loosed or bound.” 4 Origen, “Commentary on Matthew”, ANF09, trans. by John Patrick, ed. by Allan Menzies (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1896.), Book 12, Chapters 10-2, 13-14. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm (accessed 21 September, 2019). Origen held to the belief that all who declared the same faith as Peter also could be called “rock”. In actual fact, he believed that the gifts which were awarded to Peter were no less awarded to any other believer. 5 Philip Schaff, “The Treatises of Cyprian. Treatises I. On the Unity of the Church” ANF05. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 422-3. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.i.html (accessed 21 September, 2019). Cyprian believed Peter to be the “rock”. Just as significance to him was the parity of the other apostles with Peter. Together these two ideologies were the essential basis for the unity of the church, its arrangement, and its purpose. “The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, ‘I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock[etc.]’ [. . .] And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power [. . .] that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity”. 35 church”6 from whom (in Roman Catholic tradition) the papal office is imagined to originate.7 He is depicted in all four Gospels as the representative of the Twelve. Yet, by degrees in some Protestant circles it seems that, Peter’s acknowledgement falls far short of the consideration given to Paul. One might argue that Paul is effectively the prince of the apostles for Protestants, as Peter is for Roman Catholics.8 This question of legitimate ministry and ecclesial authority frustrates any collaborative interdenominational forward motion. As Nau denotes: The Roman Catholic Church has created a “Matthew 16:17-19 syndrome”.9 This “You are Peter” primer (buoyed by Luke 22:32 and John 21:15-19) has singularly become the solid rock on which the colossal Petrine structure has been built, directly or indirectly shaping models of ecclesiastical organisation and ministry within all denominations. Furthermore, this text (central to the Petrine office), as Nau highlights, has grown to be so regularised and sacrosanct, that any mere examination or attempted reclarification is generally dismissed by conventionality.10 The first disciple’s (Peter) reputation, realised and recognised, is too ubiquitous and competing to sidestep. Even though many academics estimate,11 within general positions, that Matthew is reasonably familiar and comprehensive, nonetheless, regarding Matthew’s identity and assessment there are still questions and demands. Particularly with Peter, whose substance in Matthew cannot be summarised as a cipher for the Twelve or for the church en masse. Matthew’s Peter strikingly presents within a poignant focus of positive intention and reversal. Much like the Church as a whole, Peter is the one who discerns and identifies the truth yet makes every effort to avoid its costs. The most notorious of all Matthean Petrine texts (Matthew 16:13-23) demonstrates this stunningly. One might ask: Has Matthew alienated Peter by characteristically overloading him as an utterly failing disciple for some ecclesial-partisan 6 On the papal interpretation of Matt 16:17-19, see Ulrich Luz, Studies in Matthew, trans. Rosemary Selle (Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2005). 171-2. “Reformers quite rightly referred to the consensus of the Church Fathers. Catholic exegesis on the other hand undertook a papal interpretation and thus initiated a far-reaching process of re-interpretation of the Fathers. It began with Salmeron.” See Alphonsus Salmeron, Commentarn in Evangelicam Historiam IV (Coloniae Agrippinae: Antonium Hierat, 1612), 3.2 = 387-400. 7 Markus N. A. Bockmuehl, The Remembered Peter: In Ancient Reception and Modern Debate (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 204. i.e. the “Vicar of Peter”. 8 Pheme Perkins, Peter: Apostle for the Whole Church (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 5-9. 9 Nau, Peter in Matthew,22; cf. Gundry, Peter, vii. 10 Nau, Peter in Matthew,22; Bond and Hurtado, Peter in Early Christianity, 2; Gundry, Peter, vii. 11 Boring, “The Gospel of Matthew”, 106-7; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 15; Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 38-41; Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 2-4. 36 interpretation that exists within the Matthean community, or is the issue more specifically within the represented realm of God’s reign—“the kingdom of heaven”? Peter as an Intratextual Figure Most scholars recognise Matthew's debt to Mark12 in the arrangement of his own Gospel, and they fully acknowledge his widespread redaction and expansion of this major source—i.e. Matthew rewrites Mark.13 Albeit evident that Matthew was fundamentally indebted to Mark concerning genre, sequence and subject, it is also evident that he was displeased with his principal source.14 Cullmann and Damgaard advocate that Mark, according to Matthew, implies an inadequate demonstration of Jesus’ story that needed development to meet the theological concerns of his community (his intended audience). Therefore, if Mark used the character of Peter to link his gospel to an “apostolic authority”15 then Matthew’s undertaking appears somewhat impudent, mainly because the character of Peter plays an equally vital part within Matthew’s Gospel. However, Matthew’s portrait of Peter is noticeably different from Mark’s. Matthew does not merely develop Mark’s image of Peter—Matthew renders a profoundly altered image of Peter. Additionally, for a Markan audience, Matthew’s picture of Peter would not only have “intratextual”16 import as a figure within the Matthean narrative, it would also have an “intertextual”17 import in connection 12 Boring, “The Gospel of Matthew”, 92; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 3-5; Gundry, Matthew, 2; Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 8-9; Noland, The Gospel of Matthew, 1. cf. David C. Sim, “Matthew’s Use of Mark: Did Matthew Intend to Supplement or to Replace His Primary Source?” New Testament Studies 57, no. 2 (April 2011): 178. doi:10.1017/S0028688510000366. “Matthew's precise use of his Marcan source. On any theory of Marcan priority, the conclusion is inescapable that Matthew was indebted to Mark in a number of ways. He adopted fully the Gospel genre that Mark had seemingly initiated, and followed the general Marcan story-line of a Galilean mission preceding the climactic events in Jerusalem.” 13 Gundry, Matthew, 10. “in addition to inserting other materials”. 14 Gundry, Matthew, 5-9. “By noting Matthew’s emphases we can infer the situation in which he wrote and the purposes for which he wrote. This will also reveal the theology characteristic of his gospel.” cf. J. Andrew Doole, What was Mark for Matthew?: An Examination of Matthew's Relationship and Attitude to His Primary Source (Mohr Siebeck, 2013). 179. For example, Matthew’s development of Mark’s Christology, Greek and the omission of Mark’s more obscure references (e.g. the naked young man, Mark 14:51). Sim, “Matthew’s Use of Mark”, 179-81. “Matthew owed a considerable debt to his Marcan source, he was none the less dissatisfied with and critical of the earlier Gospel.” 15 Cullmann, Peter, 26-7; Finn Damgaard, Rewriting Peter as an Intertextual Character in the Canonical Gospels (London: Routledge, 2015), 35. 16 Damgaard, Rewriting Peter, 37. 17 Damgaard, Rewriting Peter, 37. 37 to Mark’s Gospel. If any of Mark’s initial audience had previously formed a connection linking Mark and Peter (i.e. Papias),18 an audience familiar with Mark would also judge how Matthew’s image of Peter connects to this understanding. Robyn Whittaker highlights that scholarship, in its assessment of the Markan Peter, “demonstrates a range of views” and to assert any one view would be a generalisation of an involved character within Mark’s Gospel.19 It is evident from the beginning that Peter is not merely a ‘walk-on’ character in Mark’s narrative. However, Timothy Wiarda, in summarising Mark’s portrayal of Peter, contends that Peter has no unique standing in the Gospel of Mark but is later given significance by the authors of Matthew and Luke. He regards Peter as an “opinion leader”, a “type” of spokesperson for the Twelve,20 rather than an individual. Thus, “opinion leader” not only diminishes Peter’s leadership standing, it also, in Wiarda’s opinion, moderates his individuality.21 And yet, Peter receives a reasonably large amount of interest in Mark’s narrative and is also one of the characters who, through his forming, critically shapes the audience’s association with Jesus. Peter’s Markan portrayal, as well as his narrative function(s), is closely connected to Jesus, the protagonist or Subject of the story, and to other characters like the disciples, the crowd and others. However, Peter, in Mark, “is almost exclusively shaped indirectly”. Peter is a distinctive figure (or type), or as W. S. Vorster says; one of the Jesus’ “Helpers” within the Markan narrative plot.22 If Matthew’s desire was to set aside and replace Mark’s Gospel, then one, in light of that, should anticipate his narrative to give a distinctive focus on his portrayal of the person of Peter and any “intertextual” links to the Gospel of Mark and its (or its audiences’) assertion of Petrine authority. However, Matthew’s Petrine licence is at best indistinct, at 18 Cullmann, Peter, 177, 226; Gundry, Matthew, 613; Hengel, Saint Peter, 12-13; 46-7. A convention later known from Papias (c. 60–163 CE). In regards to Mark’s Gospel, Papias writes that it was based on the eyewitness account and apostolic authority of Peter. The Papias tradition, with its insistence on the apostolic, eyewitness source of Mark's gospel, runs counter to the form-critical understanding of the tradition. Yet to accept Mark's dependence on Peter does not rule out Mark's role as the redactor and narrator of the received tradition. 19 Robyn Whitaker, “Rebuke or Recall? Rethinking the Role of Peter in Mark’s Gospel”. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 75, no. 4 (October 2013): 669. http://search.ebscohost.com.divinity.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=url,ip,cookie,uid&db=rlh&AN=90624 455&site=ehost-live (accessed August 8, 2019). 20 Timothy Wiarda, “Peter as Peter in the Gospel of Mark”. New Testament Studies 45, no. 1 (1999): 19. 21 Wiarda, “Peter as Peter in the Gospel of Mark”, 28. 22 W. S. Vorster, “Characterization of Peter in the Gospel of Mark”. Neotestamentica 21, no. 1 (1987): 63. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43047896 (accessed August 8, 2019). “Peter is also presented as an Opponent of Jesus, in fact as the Opponent of Jesus who reveals a total lack of understanding” (cf. Mark 8:27ff). 38 worse, according to Gundry, “damning”;23 such an abstruse representation of Peter appears to reaffirm Matthew’s rewriting of Mark’s Gospel. A Chequered Depiction of Peter An instructive look at Appendix 3 (“Peter’s Positive Intentions and Reversals: A Chronological Conceptualisation”), demonstrates a Matthean-Petrine positive to negative words and actions, and likewise, the contrast of differing religious dogmas (as mentioned above). For anyone who sympathetically reads Matthew’s Gospel in its entirety, Matthew’s portrayal of Peter is an emotionally charged and well-shaped roller coaster ride; we see a similar ‘ride’ in Mark (see Appendix 3). Peter’s words and action, time after time, heave Peter backwards and forwards from the positive to the negative with bewildering haste. Benedictions turn to blasphemies and revelations to rejections. What started with a word of hope and possibility (4:18f.) ends in absolute agonising grief (26:75).24 Nau and Gundry highlight that only in Matthew is Peter categorically appointed “first” (10:2), but then he is absent, playing no dynamic part in the narratives of the crucifixion, resurrection, or the post-Easter Church.25 Only in Matthew is Peter endorsed with the “command” to “walk on the water” but sank when “he noticed the strong wind” (14:28-30). Only in Matthew is Peter praised for receiving a direct revelation from heaven (16:17) and then, six verses afterward, rebuked as “Satan” and a “stumbling-block” (16:23). Only in Matthew is the agency to open and shut and “bind and loose” bestowed solely on Peter (16:19), and then, two chapters afterward, reallocated to the entire twelve (18:18).26 A further point of interest, which is evident in Appendix 3, is the aggregation of references regarding Peter in chapters 14 to 18. Nau notes that “eight of the fifteen Petrine pericopes”27 in Matthew emerge distinctly in these five chapters. 23 Gundry, Peter, vii. 24 Nau, Peter in Matthew, 24,26. 25 Nau, Peter in Matthew, 26; Gundry, Peter, 9, 98-100. Conversely, one could argue, ought not the resurrectionappearance event in Matthew 28, where the remaining eleven (minus Judas Iscariot) are given the “Great Commission”, signal Peter’s (including the other ten) last dynamic act and the final word on him in Matthew? 26 Nau, Peter in Matthew, 26. 27 Nau, Peter in Matthew,26 39 What could this mean? Is there a vested agenda? Why this profound rise and fall in Peter’s representation (for a Markan comparison, see the right-hand side of Appendix 3 which shows a far less energetic account of Peter’s “rise and fall”)? For what reason is there an intensity of attention on Peter in this section (chapters 14-18) and virtual indifference regarding him elsewhere? In reality, how did Matthew want his audience to view Peter? We can no longer seek to integrate the Matthean Peter as both the typical disciple and one having unique salvation-historical primacy. One must now see (in light of the questions asked above) that the figure of Peter in Matthew is both involved and indistinct. Matthew has intentionally highlighted both a positive and negative tension in Peter—which at times, stretches the Petrine metaphor to near breaking point. The Matthean positive intention and reversal polemic focused on Peter summarises his character as “good start—poor finish” (one might say at times a devastating finish), see below. Matthew’s audience would ultimately come to a realisation that Peter is a fluctuating individual on whom Jesus could not build. They would no longer read (or hear) the apparent relationship between petros and petra (16:18)—that Simon was called petros because he performed and served as a petra—but see it as a noticeably incongruous amplification.28 A Case in Point: Matthew 16:13-23 Matthew 16:13-23 is understandably the critical text for any positive intention and reversal interpretation of Peter in Matthew, a text Nau refers to as, the “grandfather” of all Petrine texts, the quintessential Petrine pericope, the birthplace of the “Matthew 16:17-19 syndrome,” and the touchstone by which the Petrine figure has been understood in the First Gospel for the past eighteen centuries.29 Wallace W. Bubar suggests that Jesus’ declaration to Peter in vv. 13-20, traditionally understood to give validity and agency for the church, ironically challenges the bases 28 Damgaard, Rewriting Peter, 39; Nau, Peter in Matthew, 76, 113-4. “. . . what the evangelist gives he can also take away, and when it comes to Peter he usually does”. cf. Gundry, Peter, 19-26. 29 Nau, Peter in Matthew, 109. 40 of the whole Gospel.30 By examining the Matthean episodes that advance a “rock” allegory, Bubar notices “a kind of inbuilt textual unravelling”, or an “original intent”, which he infers as demonstrating that Peter is not depicted as a “solid rock” (i.e., foundational) in Matthew.31 Jesus’ parable of the sower (13:1-23)—with noteworthy faithfulness— duplicates the story of Peter’s association with Jesus.32 The narrative of “rocky ground” (13:5, 20) is the account of petros. Largely, the notion of Peter in Matthew is that he conducts himself not unlike the “seeds that fell on rocky ground”.33 Peter’s wholehearted reaction to Jesus’ invitation inevitably ends in deficiency and despair every time difficulty appears—highlighting an incongruity34 between the portrait of Peter as a “rock” in Matt 16:13-20 (approving) and the disapproving representation of Peter in the remainder of the gospel (especially 16:21-23).35 However, Gundry explains that Matthew 7:24-25 refers to “rock” differently (i.e. Jesus’ words/teaching are represented by the rock not the builder), yet, using Bubar’s argument, one does not have to stretch it too far to identify the ironic “rocky” Matthean symbol. For example, the assumed “petros” becomes a shifting sand heap when difficulty and trials assault—as a consequence Peter suffers reversal; what was foundational and radical inverts and becomes inferior and devastating. Whether “rocky ground” or “shifting sands” it is the pattern of Peter in Matthew. Mark Goodacre, building on Bubar’s unrequited question, observes that Matthew is, on the issue of Peter, a successful reader of Mark; that Matthew’s portrayal of Peter is constructed from, and upon, in many incidences, Mark’s account of Peter (see parallel comparison in Appendix 3).36 The understated association between the account of Peter and the parable of the sower, present in Mark 4:1-20, provides a developing key to Mark’s Gospel and likewise for 30 Wallace W. Bubar, “Killing Two Birds with One Stone: The Utter De(Con)Struction of Matthew and His Church”. Biblical Interpretation 3, no. 2 (1995): 156. https://divinity.on.worldcat.org/oclc/5672355697 (accessed 14 June, 2019). 31 Bubar, “Killing”, 147. Using a “deconstruction” model which notices “puns, anagrams and wordplay”. Cf. Gundry, Peter, 21-3. 32 Cf. Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 396-99. Or, at the very least, an allegorical formative portrait of nascent Christianity. 33 Bubar, “Killing”, 147-48. 34 Bubar, “Killing”, 151-52, 156. “systematic inversion, contradiction, aporia”. 35 Gundry, Peter, 23-4. 36 Mark Goodacre, “The Rock on Rocky Ground: Matthew, Mark and Peter as Skandalon”. What Is It That the Scripture Says?: Essays in Biblical Interpretation, Translation, And Reception in Honour of Henry Wansbrough Osb, edited by Philip McCosker, (London & New York: T & T Clark, 2006), 63-4, 70-1. 41 Matthew’s narrative as he develops Mark’s negative portrayal by exercising the semantics of “rocky ground”. However, Goodacre suggests, that Matthew’s portrayal of Peter must be understood as a constructive account of the “early Christian stereotype of the unresponsive Jew”37 for whom the crucified Christ was a stumbling-block (cf. 1 Cor 1:23), resonant of Matt 16:21-23. This, Goodacre contends, renders the Matthean Peter as the absolute “scandalised”38 paradigm. Although Peter is capable of grasping Jesus’ distinctiveness, he cannot grasp his purpose. An Added Example of Matthew’s Critical Interpretation of Peter As we have already ascertained, Matthew 16:20-23 is an understandably joyless moment for Peter—an ironically jarring juxtaposition placed immediately after pronounced blessing—and an understandably critical text for interpreting Peter in Matthew. However, several texts in Matthew, between chapters 14-18, show episodes of Peter’s energetic rise and fall (see Appendix 3) that are illustrative of 16:13-23. Perhaps the best example of the way in which Matthew takes an “approving” Petrine episode, and then in the very next episode amplifies the dark side of Peter’s words and actions, can be observed in his rewriting of Mark’s exclusive group at Gethsemane,39 moving through slumber, to Peter’s denial.40 In contrast to the Markan Peter, who merely stresses that he will not be scandalised41 (Mark 14:29), Matthew’s Peter asserts that “Though all become deserters because of you, I will never desert you” (Matt 26:33).42 As in Mark, Peter’s denial in Matthew is seen in the in the middle of Jesus’ trial before Caiaphas the high priest and scribes and the elders (Mark 14:53-65; Matt 26:57-68) and his consequential handing over 37 Goodacre, “The Rock on Rocky Ground”, 72. 38 Goodacre, “The Rock on Rocky Ground”, 72. 39 Mark 14:33 and Matthew 26:37 40 Mark 14:68, 70-71 and Matthew 26:70, 72, 74 41 skandalizō [σκανδαλίζω]; stumble or entice to sin, apostasy. KJV: “offended”; NIVUK and RSV: “fall away”; NRSVA: “become deserters”. 42 Matthew uses the same Greek verb as Mark, skandalizō [σκανδαλίζω], however, he uses it twice. 42 to Pilate (Mark 15:1; Matt 27:1-2). Demonstrably, there is a collocation between Jesus’ veracious responses to his prosecutors and Peter’s denial between his congruent questioning. However, Matthew adds another character into the fray who, again, seems to accentuate the gravity of Peter’s betrayal in the denial pericope. It is in Matthew (and only in Matthew) where Judas departs Matthew’s account with “repentance”, or at the very least he cared afterward (metamellomai; 27:3),43 having acknowledged his “sin by betraying innocent blood” (27:4), and subsequently kills himself. Peter, surely, instead departs “weeping bitterly after “remembering” Jesus’ recent prediction of his betrayal and then indeed comprehending its realisation (26:30-35). Consequently, Peter’s cravenness and betrayal not only stands in conflict to the sober and truthful replies of Jesus to his Sanhedrin accusers, but moreover to Judas’ restoration of sorts, whether in terms of his “repentance” or perchance even in his suicide,44 an individual defined earlier by Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel as one whom “it would have been better for that one not to have been born” (26:24). Therefore, in Matthew—and only in Matthew—we have this extremely revealing thee-way collocation between Jesus, Peter and Judas.45 An examination of Matthew’s reworking or redaction of the Denial episode itself from his Markan source, shows there is an apparent attempt on Matthew’s part to exaggerate the scene on multiple fronts. In Matthew, Peter’s enquirers are three separate individuals: a “servant-girl”, “another servant-girl”, and “the bystanders” (compared to Mark 14:66-70: “one of the servant-girls”, the same “servant-girl”, and “the bystanders”). In addition, Matthew escalates sequentially Peter’s three denials in reply to his three 43 William Klassen, Judas: Betrayer or Friend of Jesus (London: SCM, 1996), 162-163 for a discussion of the meaning of μεταμέλλομαι. It should be noted that the other two times Matthew uses the verb, he has in mind “repentance” in the sense of μετάνοια (cf. Matt 21:29, 32). Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 1153. “When it is all put together, I think it is extremely difficult to deny the Matthean Judas genuine repentance.” 44 Caroline F. Whelan, “Suicide in the Ancient World: A Re-Examination of Matthew 27:3-10”. Laval Théologique et Philosophique 49, no 3 (1993): 505–522. doi.org/10.7202/400796ar. On the socio-cultural implications of Judas’ suicide. cf. Klassen, Judas, 161-168; Miriam T. Griffin, “suicide”, The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Vol. 4: Edited by Simon Hornblower and A. Spawforth (Oxford: OUP, 2012), 1410-11. “Suicide was neither wholly approved or wholly condemned [in Greek and Roman cultures]. When arising from shame and dishonour, suicide regarded as appropriate; self-sacrifice was admired” [. . .] “death by jumping from a height [. . .] or by hanging was despised and regarded as fit only for women, slaves, or the lower classes, apparently because it was disfiguring.” 45 John P. Meier, Matthew (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1980), 335. Meier is among a number of commentators who argue this juxtaposition “While Peter’s weakness contrasts unfavourably with Jesus’ courage, it contrasts favourably with Judas’ despair (27:3-10)”. cf. Donald Senior, “The Gospel of Matthew and the Passion of Jesus: Theological and Pastoral Perspectives”. Word & World Volume XVIII, Number 4 (Fall 1998): 375. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials PLUS (ATLA0001006225). 43 enquirers:46 1) the manifestly open “But he denied it before all of them” (Matt 26:70); 2) “Again, he denied it with an oath” (Matt 26:72); and, 3) “Then he began to curse and he swore an oath” (Matt 26:74). Therefore, the sequence of Peter’s reaction is at first a clearcut denial, accompanied by a denial “with an oath” (“with an oath” is a Matthean redaction), finally, Peter’s obstinate curse and swearing of an oath, indeed a curse that may well be spoken against Jesus as suggested in the Greek text47—intensifies the heinousness of the denial—when Peter argues, “I do not know the man” (Matt 26:72, cf. Mark 14:70).48 The Gospel of Matthew is the only gospel where the exploitation of any oath (i.e. calling on God as an underwriter and notary) is prohibited (cf. Matt 5:33-37). Peter’s use of and oath— which in addition included some sort “curse” on him or Jesus—evidences his actions (in using his own words) as a scandal (an “apostate” and a “deserter”: something he pledged to Jesus he would not be, Matt 26:33) at least, in contradiction of Jesus’ command to refrain from oaths, at worst, against the very person of Jesus. Matthew’s Peter not only effectively cursed and denied, with oaths, that “I do not know the man” (Matt 26:72, 74), at the same time, he rejects Jesus as the Messiah; and given that Matthew is the only gospel where Jesus states that “whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven (Matt 10:33), it appears that Peter, at this juncture, surrenders his eternal salvation. Furthermore, there is an obvious and agonising conclusion in Matthew’s Gospel. Matthew restricts Mark’s cock-crowing to one at the end of the episode to mark and bracket the execution of Jesus’ earlier prediction in Matt 26:34 (match this to Mark’s two cock crowing, the first of which occurs after the first denial in 14:68). But then Matthew appears to magnify Peter’s last action in describing Peter “going out” and weeping “bitterly”. Thus, Peter’s weeping is transformed by the adverb pikrōs, frequently translated as “bitterly”, literally meaning “sharp” or “piercing”.49 Moreover, by this conclusion, 46 It is noteworthy to compare Matthew’s redaction of Mark to Luke’s redaction of Mark at the corresponding account in Luke 22:54-62. For example, in Luke, there seems to be a moderating of Peter’s three-fold denial, mainly in the deletion of Peter’s oath-taking and cursing. 47 Helmut Merkel, “Peter’s Curse”, The Trial of Jesus: Cambridge Studies in honour of C. F. D. Moule, ed. by Ernst Bammel (Studies in Biblical Theology 2.13; London: SCM Press, 1970), 66-71. Merkel suggests that the third denial of Peter was a curse directed against Christ. He observes that καταναθεματίζω (“I curse”) is never used involuntarily, without thinking or spontaneously in ancient literature (i.e., “self-cursing,” to place a curse upon oneself). 48 Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 654-5. 49 Muhammad Wolfgang and G. A. Schmidt, A Greek-English Reference Manual To The Vocabulary Of The Greek New Testament: Based on Tischendorf’s Greek New Testament Text and on Strong’s Greek Lexicon with Some Additions and Amendments (Hamburg: disserta Verlag, 2017), 423. 44 Matthew shows Peter more disapprovingly than in Mark. In Mark, Peter on impulse falls apart and sobs when the rooster crows for the second time (Mark 14:72), doubtlessly subjecting himself to profound jeopardy, because he is still within the courtyard of the high priest’s residence. By contrast, Matthew shows Peter unsentimentally leaving, and moving outside the courtyard, and sobbing bitterly after his third denial of Jesus, Peter is analogous to the damned, who are repeatedly and specifically (with only one exception Matt 24:51) said in Matthew to weep and gnash their teeth “away from” the kingdom (8:12; 13:50; 22:13; 25:30). Highlighting this point is Matthew’s particular Markan edit, as Peter retreats farther and farther, separating himself from the judgment hall where Jesus is standing trial. Peter in his “falsity” reasoned he could keep himself from danger, but that other (eternal) dangers prowl when one tries to follow Jesus from a distance.50 And it is here where Peter, as a named character, leaves Matthew’s narrative. He is not referenced by name in the final two chapters of Matthew’s Gospel, re-emerging only namelessly as one intermingled into the background of the “eleven disciples” in Matt 28:16. What do Peter’s tears reveal? Are they tears of shame and penance as so many commentators argue? Why do we leave Peter in Matthew’s Gospel with a substantial amount of double meaning? In the end, Judas and Jesus leave Matthew’s narrative without a hint of double meaning. As in Mark, Peter not only has a privileged position of being close to Jesus, he is also impulsive and a failure. Excluding Mark 1:35-58, Matthew preserves all the events in Mark’s Gospel that accentuate the incredulity of Peter (Mark 8:32-33; 9:2-8; 14:29, 31, 32-42, 54, 66-72), with Matthew rewriting these events and casting Peter in an even worse light than Mark (Matt 16:22-23; 17:1-8; 26:33, 35, 36-46, 69-75). By adding new references, Matthew also intensifies the portrayal of Peter as a fallible and stumbling follower of Jesus (Matt 14:28-31; 15:15; 17:24-27; 18:21-22). It was Peter who denied Jesus with an oath. It was Peter who was unable to maintain vigil (26:37,40). It was Peter that put his own faith to the test—and sank (14:28-31). It was Peter who declares his faith in “the Son of God” and rejects sorrow. He was identified as the “Rock”—and “Satan” (16:16,22).51 Regrettably, Peter had expected to follow a Messiah whose kingdom did not necessitate the cross 50 Gundry, Peter, 100. 51 Ulrich Luz, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, translated by J. Bradford Robinson (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995) 94.3 45 (16:22); consequently, he was shown unqualified when the time came to “take up his cross and follow” Jesus (16:24). One cannot moderate the negative characteristics that Matthew has loaded into the complex portrayal of Peter. Is the key to a reading of Peter’s radical reversals Mathew’s desire to edify his own community, or is it Matthew’s attempt to correct, according to his perception, an inadequacy in Mark’s Gospel?52 52 Damgaard, Rewriting Peter, 42. 46 5 Jesus' Counter-rebuke of Peter in the Context of His Confession In 16:21-23, Matthew incorporates into Peter’s opposition to Jesus’ first passionand-resurrection prediction both the rebuke, “God forbid it, Lord!” and the disputation, “This must never happen to you”. While common to Mark’s parallel, the charge spoken by Jesus to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan!” calls to mind “Away with you, Satan!” in Matthew’s (but not Mark’s) description of Jesus’ temptation (4:10; contrast Mark 1:12-13). Additionally, Matthew includes a third edit via Jesus’ declaration to Peter, “You are my skandalon”1 (snare, offence, stumbling-block). For example, Peter opposes Jesus’ passionand-resurrection predication (v. 21) by using a word-trap, in order to preserve Jesus’ humanity—thus escaping the cross. The noun skandalon and the verb skandalizō are also employed elsewhere in Matthew’s Gospel (absent from Mark and Luke’s parallel) for counterfeit or “non-disciples”.2 Jesus begins this apocalyptic revelation of the suffering Son of Man because the revelation Peter received and expressed in 16:16 is lacking without the further revelation of the Son of Man's death and resurrection. To see Jesus as the celebrated Messiah and transcendent Son of God, and yet not accept what it means to associate this figure with the Son of Man, is to miss the weightiest revelation Jesus brings. And this is specifically Peter's problem. Even though he answers Jesus’ question about the Son of Man, Peter links Son of Man with Messiah and Son of God. Then he neglects to see the powerful link, what the title Son of Man demands. Thus, Peter at once, and high-handedly, starts rebuking Jesus (16:22). Peter's perception of a celebrated Messiah and Son of God unthinkingly discounts the notion of suffering and death. For no other reason than he is so infatuated with the revelation he has been given (16:17), he has no capacity for the greater revelation Jesus is now disclosing (16:21). What Peter neglects to understand is that by embracing the image 1 Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), 1604. “skandalon”: literally the movable stick or trigger of a trap, a trap (animal) or a snare (enemy); used figuratively in the New Testament to imply a stumbling-block, offense, or scandal; i.e., Matt 16:23. The term can infer word-traps, which one’s adversary will pursue, and in so doing, become caught up and ensnared. cf. [1] Skandalon and [2] Skandalizō appear nineteen times in the Gospel of Matthew (the Gospel of Mark is a distant second at eight). [1] Three verses, five occurrences: 13:41; 16:23; 18:7. [2] Thirteen verses, fourteen occurrences: 5:29-30; 11:6; 13:21; 13:57; 15:12; 17:27; 18:6-9; 24:10; 26:31; 26:33. 2 Gundry, Peter, 99. cf. Luke 17:1 “Jesus said to his disciples, ‘Occasions for stumbling [skandalon] are bound to come, but woe to anyone by whom they come!’” 47 of a divine Son of God not liable to suffer, he is echoing the temptation of the devil in Matt 4:1-11: i.e., “If you are the Son of God” then exploit the power associated with your divine importance, circumventing suffering, and effortlessly win the kingdom. Consequently, when Matthew follows the rebuke of Mark 8:33, “Get behind me, Satan”, it has an additional bleakness, a more unfavourable connotation than even Mark intended. In Matt 16:23, Jesus reiterates his sovereign discharge of the tempter (4:10), but now he addresses the diabolical disciple who would tempt him from the way of the cross by promoting a false notion of Messiahship or Sonship.3 Matthew further adds: “You are a stumbling block to me”. “You are a skandalon to me”, something that trips someone up, a trap, a stumbling-stone, something which causes a person to fall into sin or separation from God. Given its proximity to Matthew 16:18 ("You are the rock"), skandalon probably ironically means an impediment to Jesus on his way of suffering. Satan, who is the source and trigger of skandala in the world (Matt 13:41), now opposes Jesus; personified in the one who he called “rock”. In his defiance against the passion prediction, Peter has become a skandalon. Confident in the mystery he has been given, thoughts of his mind rest “on humans things”, not “on divine things” (16:23). Peter— the skandalon—imagines the Messiah and Son of God manifesting worldly ambitions of painless glory, as opposed to God's great revelatory mystery of the cross. Meier states that as an obstructer/opposer (skandalon) of God's hidden salvific plan for the universe, Peter becomes the “adversary par excellence, Satan. As long as he persists in this role of enemy of the cross, he must be dismissed”.5 Meier raises and intriguing question; “dismissed” as what, the “rock” (16:16) and/or as a true disciple? Is skandalon a damnable means? Both Bubar and Goodacre question and highlight Matthew’s over-emphasis of the 3 John P. Meier, The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church, and Morality in the First Gospel (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2004), 116-7. 4 Nau, Peter in Matthew, 117. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 433. Keener steers clear of “personification” per see and suggests Peter “functions as the devil’s agent”. 5 Meier, The Vision of Matthew, 118. 48 negative elements in his portrayal of Peter, in particular the use of skandalon as an over use of “figurative languge”.6 Conversely, Gundry, initially using Jesus’ 16:23 announcement to Peter—“You are a stumbling-block [skandalon] to me” (redacted from the Markan parallel and Luke)—notes that everywhere else in Matthew skandalon refers to the doomed (four times in 13:41-42; 18:7-9).7 Likewise, David McCracken considers “skandalon” in Jesus’ 16:23 exchange with Peter, and elsewhere in Matthew, as “diabolical”.8 A few verses after Peter receives his blessing for identifying Jesus as “the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (16:16) Peter rebukes Jesus for his passion-and-resurrection prediction. Jesus turns and faces Peter saying: “Get behind me, Satan! You are a “stumbling-block” (skandalon) to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things” (16:23). The Caesarea Philippi scene (16:13-23) is a significant hinge or branching point in Matthew’s Gospel (as it is in Mark); not only does Jesus for the first time name his imminent passion-and-resurrection, the event shapes the distinctive and alternative existence of discipleship. It is not hard to fathom why the first-century ekklēsia (or a twenty-first century church for that matter) must see the skandalon as a dangerous matter. Within moments of Jesus making Peter the “rock” of his ekklēsia, it is Peter who makes himself a “stumblingblock” to Jesus. The metaphorical significance of “block/stone” in skandalon invalidates Peter as “rock” and foundation of Jesus’ ekklēsia. There is no equivocation: “Peter is ‘Satan’; he is not on the side of God”.9 From the human perspective, instead of the divine, the Passion can only be a skandalon.10 Peter is chronologically the first by all accounts to be offended by the Passion, and he is offended directly after receiving the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” (16:19), well before the episode of the cross transpires. Peter stumbles against divine truth, which is in the figure of a skandalon, Jesus. However, since Peter has set his mind on human rather than divine things, he himself becomes a diabolical skandalon, 6 Goodacre, “The Rock on Rocky Ground”, 13, 21; Bubar, “Killing”, 155. “The Gospel of Matthew, through its use of figurative language, is infected with an obvious element of self-division. More important, its author is constantly chiselling away at the very rock that serves as the foundation of the church, and hence of the text.” 7 Gundry, Peter, 9, 11, 100, 103, 105; cf. 24-5. 8 David McCracken, The Scandal of the Gospels: Jesus, Story, and Offense (Oxford: OUP, 1994), 34. 9 McCracken, The Scandal of the Gospels, 34. 10 René Girard, Jean-Michel Oughourlian and Guy Lefort, Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World (London: New York, Continuum, 2003), 418. 49 enticing Jesus with things natural and human.11 Within Matthew’s theology, Jesus becomes a skandalon for the “people” (16:13) as well as the Twelve, because the Twelve also play a role in his Passion. The cross is a skandalon for all humanity. The divine offense may be taken unfavourably (by being offended) or favourably (by not being offended), but the human offense is wholly adverse. McCracken, quoting Jean Bosc, names these distinct appearances “the offense of the cross” and “the offense of the world”.12 The offense of the cross is Jesus, who conceives the risk of offense but exalts those who are not offended. The originating source of this skandalon is Jesus himself, and its recipient is the individual who is rebelling against truth and love, both of which must be offensive because they stand as an adversary to humanity—living naturally by their own wits and strength—absent of Spirit. Furthermore, the skandalon of the world, or of the individual, is the skandalon of the self-governing person, the individual without God, who has fallen victim to the deception of autonomy and ignorance—the seemingly wellmeaning, self-reliant human (as is Peter) is distract from truth and love. The originating source of this second skandalon is the individual person, and its focus (namely, in opposition to), every time, is the person—the person “considered not in his revolt and his sin but in the spiritual vocation to which God directs him”.13 Peter, as originator of a worldly skandalon, attempts to coax Jesus from his calling. He does this in reaction to a skandalon that was declared by Jesus to Peter, who, in his offended stance, is in a diabolical mutiny against God’s will and design. Still, centring in on the idea of “Satan” and the diabolical, Jerimiah Alberg identifies the 16:23 character, not as a confused or paradoxical Peter who is pieced through with ignorant human understanding, but that “Satan and the skandalon are one and the same thing”. When Jesus declares the passion-and-resurrection for the first time (16:21) he correlates the two expressions, as he says to Peter: “Get behind me, Satan! You are a skandalon, a stumbling-block to me” (16:23). Therefore, the skandalon produces the strongest aspect of enmity.14 11 McCracken, The Scandal of the Gospels, 34-5. 12 Jean Bosc, “L’Eglise et le scandale”. Foi et Vie 45 (1947): 672, quoted in David McCracken, “Scandal and Imitation in Matthew, Kierkegaard, and Girard”. Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture 4, no. 1 (1997): 148, 149, 153, 154, 155, 156, 158. https://www.uibk.ac.at/theol/cover/contagion/contagion04.pdf (accessed July 5, 2019). 13 Bosc, “L’Eglise et le scandale”, 672, quoted in McCracken, The Scandal of the Gospels, 35. 14 Jerimiah Alberg, “Scandal”, in The Palgrave Handbook of Mimetic Theory and Religion, eds. James Alison and Wolfgang Palaver. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), 487. 50 “You are a scandal to me” Matt 16:22-23 demonstrates there is a perfect integration between the physical reality of the obstacle—“you are a skandalon, a stumbling-block to me”—and its imminent cosmic significance—especially for Peter. From divine judgement, the Passion becomes symbolic of the self-transcendence and life-giving service of Jesus himself and so the hallmark for true discipleship.15 From human judgement, the Passion can only be a “stumbling-block”. In all four gospels, each evangelist deems it necessary for Jesus to warn the Twelve, but without the slightest result (for example: Mark 8:31-33, 9:30-32; Matt 16:21-28, 17:22-23, 20:17-19, 26:1-2, 31; Luke 9:22-27; John 12 to 17 reveals several events where Jesus prepared the Twelve for his departure). There appears to be an amalgamated degree of “idolatry and scandal”16 in the kind of pre-eminence that Jesus held over the Twelve (in particularly Peter) before the Resurrection (for example: Matt 8:27; 16:14). That is why they are never conscious of the central issue. In spite of his warnings, they characterise Jesus with the temporal regard of a cultic chieftain, a doyen or a leading thinker. The Twelve (i.e., highlighted by Peter in Matt 16:16, 23) see Jesus as essentially indomitable; “they see him as master of a superior form of power. They are his followers so that they can take part in this invulnerability—so that they can become godlike”.17 So it is predictable that they be scandalised (as a “stumblingblock”). After his last supper, and then journeying on to the Mount of Olives with the Twelve, Jesus once more declares that he is going to his death and will be a source of skandalon to the Twelve. Once more, Peter remonstrates and boasts: “Though all become deserters (skandalon) because of you, I will never desert (skandalon) you” (26:33). Jesus then predicts that Peter will forsake him three times. Matthew here is almost verbatim to his Markan source with a small sign of redactional activity. Matthew excludes “twice” in 26:34 (cf. Mark 14:30). However, once again, Matthew intentionally increases Peter’s culpability as a skandalon. Peter will be powerless to challenge the development of violent corruption, provoked by the desires of the religious elite, that will begin when public 15 Donald Senior, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries: Matthew (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), 193. 16 Girard, Things Hidden, 418. 17 Girard, Things Hidden, 419. 51 opinion completely turns against Jesus. To presume oneself immune to skandalon, as Peter has, is to claim the autonomy of Satan thus confronting a point of crisis, exposing the demand of the heart and, in Peter’s case, imperilling oneself to imminent cosmic disaster. 52 6 Conclusion: Disqualifying Peter In this thesis, I have tested Gundry’s description of Matthew’s overall portrayal of Peter as “apostate” by using the focus of the Caesarea Philippi scene (16:13-23), by redaction-critical methodology, by exegetical methodology and by thematical methodology. Matthew’s complex portrayal of Peter reflects his complex relationship to the Gospel of Mark. Matthew was, nevertheless, reliant on Mark, but simultaneously he seemed focused on displacing Mark. As the person of Peter shapes Mark’s connection to apostolic authority, the person of Peter becomes Matthew’s battleground. Matthew gives the impression that he recognised the reality that Mark displayed a Petrine tradition, and by rendering Peter as an epiphanic beneficiary in Matthew 16:17-19, he conceded his reliance on the Gospel of Mark, which was specifically a rich foundation for him. But as his reworking of Mark reveals, Matthew also regarded Mark as an earnest misrepresentation, and he chose accordingly to, ironically, introduce this falsity in Peter’s character. Matthew’s justification appears to have been that he could establish the deficiency of Mark by illustrating the “apostacy” of Peter—the Rock on whom Jesus would build his church showed himself to be a sand heap—a paradigmatic, failed disciple. The intertextual connotation of Matthew’s portrayal of Peter as a failed disciple signifies that the universal gospel could not be dependent on Peter alone—Mark’s gospel had to be replaced by a gospel where all Eleven disciples had a sanctioning role (cf. Matthew 28:19-20).1 As one reads the Petrine passages in Matthew, it is obvious that Peter’s notoriety cannot be used to indicate Primacy. The reverse, undoubtedly, would be nearer to the truth. A number of notable Matthean key passages come to light which replace 16:17-19. For example; the uniquely Matthean “walking on the water” pericope, where we discover a tangible pattern for interpreting the figure of Peter in Matthew’s Gospel. Peter is intended to “sink” (14:30-31) so that Jesus, as the one who “saves”, is elevated as the “Son of God” (14:33). Recognising all eleven verses in Matthew 16:13-23 as a pericope wholly alters the subtleties of vv. 17-19. Peter is yet again diving head-long into a shocking failure—labelled as a diabolical skandalon. It is another event of a “comparison/contrast” between Jesus (the 1 Damgaard, Rewriting Peter, 53. 53 Christ) and Peter, the failed disciple with the same (anticipated) outcome.2 The same pattern is repeated in the decisive chapters of the Gospel where Peter is ultimately seen weeping bitterly as he retreats further and further into the darkness, representative of his separation from Jesus and his failure as a disciple (Matthew 26:75). Reinforcing the suggestion of perdition in Peter’s bitter weeping (cf. Jesus’ woes on Judas [Matthew 26:24]), Matthew includes his idiosyncratic version of Judas Iscariot’s penitent, desperate suicide (distinguished from Acts 1:15-20). Not surprisingly, then, Matthew redacts “and Peter” (Mark 16:7) from the 28:7 directive to the women at the empty tomb to “‘go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him’”. Peter will be together with the Eleven while the resurrected Jesus stands elevated on a mountain peak—a position of divine revelation, and declares his perfect and absolute “authority in heaven and on earth” (28:16-20)—but, as a “weed among the wheat” (13:15), he endures as a “non-disciple” and “apostate” amid faithful and enduring disciples.3 Christology radiates more intensely, in contrast to the stumbling of “human things”.4 Matthew 16:13-20 highlights (with other Petrine passages in Matthew), the term used by Nau—the “Matthew 16:17-19 syndrome”—a patterning of explanatory ecclesiastical traditions that promotes the allure of a Peter who bids us a living picture of our faulty but restorable selves. The depictions in Matthew should not devitalise other depictions in the New Testament. Neither should other depictions weaken the one in Matthew.5 Nau says any “disconcertion [. . .] at least in the case of Peter, thus turns out to have been ours”,6 not Matthew’s. Matthew’s “editorial technique”7 and intent, by negatively portraying Peter as a skandalon and “false disciple” who apostatised and is bound for eternal perdition, gives his Gospel extra weight. “False disciple” opposed to “true disciple”—challenges preponderant beliefs and traditions, to move and inspire us toward a 2 Nau, Peter 3 Gundry, in Matthew, 110. Peter, 100. 4 Nau, Peter in Matthew, 148-9. 5 Gundry, Peter, 108. 6 Nau, Peter 7 in Matthew, 151. Nau, Peter in Matthew, 152. 54 “righteousness that exceeds” (Matthew 5:20), a grace and forgiveness that experiences no limit (Matthew 18:22), and a loyalty to a Lord who reigns “in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18).8 Theologically, Luke and John negate Matthew’s representation of Peter as a “false disciple” and “apostate” fated for perdition by showing him alternatively as rehabilitated and reinstated after his disowning of Jesus (see Luke 22:31-32; 24:34; John 21:15-22; Acts 1-12; 15:7-11; cf. Mark 16:7; 1-2 Peter). Or is it reversed, that Matthew negates Luke and John?9 8 Nau, Peter in Matthew, 152. 9 Gundry, Peter, 103. 55 Appendix: 1 Matthew 16:13-23 Mark 8:27-33 Now when Jesus came into the district of 27 Jesus went on with his disciples to the Caesarea Philippi, villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way he asked his disciples, ‘Who do people say he asked his disciples, ‘Who do people say that the Son of Man is? that I am?’ 14 And they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist, 28 And they answered him, ‘John the Baptist; but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or and others, Elijah; and still others, one of one of the prophets.’ the prophets.’ 15 He said to them, ‘But who do you say that 29 He asked them, ‘But who do you say that I 16 I am?’ Simon Peter am?’ Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of answered him, ‘You are the Messiah.’ the living God.’ 17 And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 20 Then he sternly ordered the disciples not 30 And he sternly ordered them not to tell to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. anyone about him. 21 From that time on, Jesus began to show 31 Then he began to teach them that the Son his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem of Man must undergo great suffering, and and undergo great suffering at the hands of be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, the elders and chief priests and scribes, and and the scribes, and be killed, and after be killed, and on the third day be raised. three days rise again. 32 He said all this quite openly. 22 And Peter took him aside and began to And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, rebuke him. saying, ‘God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you.’ 23 But he turned and said to Peter, ‘Get 33 But turning and looking at his disciples, he behind me, Satan! You are a stumblingrebuked Peter and said, ‘Get behind me, block to me; for you are setting your mind Satan! For you are setting your mind not on not on divine things but on human things.’ divine things but on human things.’ 13 56 Appendix: 2 Pericopes where Simon/Peter is mentioned explicitly [green] or implicitly [yellow] Matthew Mark 4:18-22 Four fishermen called 1:16-20 Four fishermen called 5-7 Sermon on the Mount; “his disciples” 4:21-25 Lamp under a bushel; “He said to them” 8:14-17 Peter's mother-in-law healed 1:29-34 Peter's mother-in-law and others healed 8:23-27 Calming the storm; “his disciples” 4:35-41 Calming the storm; “them” and “they” 9:9-13 Calling of Matthew; “his disciples” 2:13-17 Calling of Levi; “his disciples” 9:14-17 Question about fasting; “your disciples” 2:18-22 Question about fasting; “your disciples” 9:18-26 Leader’s daughter and a woman healed; “his disciples” 9:35-38 Tour of Galilee with compassion for people; “his disciples” 1:35-39 Preaching and healing tour in Galilee 3:7-12 Withdrawal and more healings; “his disciples” 10:1-4 The Twelve chosen 3:13-19a The Twelve chosen 10:5-15 The Twelve commissioned 11:1 The Twelve sent out 12:1-8 Plucking grain on the Sabbath; “his disciples” 2:23-28 Plucking grain on the Sabbath; “his disciples” 13:10-17 Purpose of parables; “the disciples came” 4:10-12 Purpose of parables; “with the twelve” 13:24-30 Parable of the tares; “He put before them” 4:13-20 Parable of the sower explained; “And he said to them” 13:31-32 Parable of the mustard seed; “He put before them” 4:30-32 Parable of the mustard seed; he continued saying to “them” 4:26-29 Parable of the seed growing secretly; he continued saying to “them” 13:33 Parable of the leaven; “He put before them” 4:33-34 Use of parables; “his disciples” 57 13:36-43 Parable of the tares explained; “his disciples” 14:13-21 Five thousand fed; “the disciples” 6:30-44 Five thousand fed; “apostles” 14:22-27 Walking on water; “the disciples” 6:45-52 Walking on water; “his disciples” 14:28-31 Peter walks on water 5:1-20 Gerasene demoniac healed; “they” 5:21-43 Leader’s daughter and a woman healed 6:1-6 Rejection at Nazareth; “his disciples” 6:7-13 The Twelve sent out into Galilee 6:53-56 Sick healed in Gennesaret; “they” 15:1-9 Tradition of the elders on cleanness; “your disciples” 7:1-23 True cleanness; “your disciples” 15:10-20 Peter asks about defilement 15:21-28 Canaanite woman's daughter healed; “his disciples” 15:29-39 Four thousand fed; “his disciples” 8:10 Four thousand fed; “his disciples” 16:5-12 Leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees; “his disciples” 8:14-21 Leaven of the Pharisees and of Herod; “the disciples” 8:22-26 Jesus cures a blind man at Bethsaida; “they” 16:13-23 Caesarea Philippi scene 8:27-33 Caesarea Philippi scene 16:24-28 Demands of discipleship; “his disciples” 8:34-9:1 Demands of discipleship; “his disciples” 17:1-13 Exclusive group: Transfiguration 9:2-4 Exclusive group: Transfiguration 17:14-20 Demoniac boy healed; “your disciples” 9:14-29 Demoniac boy healed; “your disciples” 17:22-23 Prediction of death; “them” 9:30-32 Prediction of death; “his disciples” 17:24-27 Temple tax; “for you and me” 18:1-5 Greatness is childlikeness; “the disciples” 9:33-37 Greatness is childlikeness; “the twelve” 18:21-35 The unforgiving servant 19:1-12 Teaching about divorce; “his disciples” 10:1-12 Teaching about divorce; “the disciples” 19:13-15 Little children blessed; “The disciples spoke sternly” 10:13-16 Little children blessed; “The disciples spoke sternly” 19:16-30 The rich young man 10:17-31 The rich young man 58 20:17-19 Prediction of death; “the twelve disciples” 10:32-34 Prediction of death; “the twelve” 20:20-28 Request of James and John’ “the ten” 10:35-45 Request of James and John; “the ten” 20:29-34 Two blind men healed; “they went out” 10:46-52 Blind Bartimaeus healed; “his disciples” 21:1-9 Triumphal entry into Jerusalem; “When they had come near” 11:1-11 Triumphal entry into Jerusalem; “When they were approaching” 21:18-22 Cursing the fig tree; “the disciples saw” 11:12-14 Cursing the fig tree; “his disciples heard” 11:15-18 Cleansing the temple; “they came to Jerusalem” 11:19-25 Lessons from the fig tree 11:27-28 Objections raised by Sanhedrin; “again they came to Jerusalem” 23:1-36 Denouncing the scribes and Pharisees; “his disciples” 12:41-44 The widow's offering; “his disciples” 24:1-2 Temple destruction predicted; “his disciples” 13:1-2 Temple destruction predicted; “his disciples” 24:3-31 Signs of the Times; “the disciples” 13:3-27 Signs of the Times; exclusive group 26:1-2 Prediction of death; “his disciples” 26:6-13 Anointing at Bethany; “the disciples” 26:17-19 Last Supper Preparations; “the disciples” and “my disciples” 14:12-16 Last Supper Preparations; “his disciples” and “my disciples” 26:20-25 Prediction of betrayal; “the twelve” 14:17-21 Prediction of betrayal; “the twelve” 26:26-30 Institution of Lord's Supper; “the disciples” 14:22-26 Institution of Lord's Supper; “they” and “them” 26:31-35 Prediction of Peter's denial 14:27-31 Prediction of Peter's denial 26:36-46 Exclusive group: Gethsemane 14:32-42 Exclusive group: Gethsemane 26:47-56 Arrest in the garden; “all the disciples deserted him” 14:43-50 Arrest in the garden; “the twelve” 26:57-68 Trial before Caiaphas; Peter followed “at a distance” 14:53-65 Trial before the high priest; Peter followed “at a distance” 26:69-75 Peter's denial 14:66-72 Peter's denial 16:1-8 Angelic appearance to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary; “tell his disciples and Peter” 28:16-20 Resurrection appearance to the eleven in Galilee 59 Appendix: 3 Peter’s Positive Intentions and Reversals: A Chronological Conceptualisation Matthew Petrine Related Material Mark (direct and indirect) Neutral Negative Positive + + Positive 4:18 Simon/Peter initial call 1:16 8:14 Mother-in-law Healed 1:29 Simon “hunts” for Jesus 1:36 Naming of the Twelve 3:13-16 + Exclusive group: Healing the ruler’s daughter 5:37 + 8:29 + 10:2 Negative 14:28 Peter walks on water 14:30 Peter sinks; “little faith, doubt” 15:15 Peter asks about defilement 15:16 “still without understanding” + 16:16 Peter’s revelation + 16:17-19 Peter’s agency - 16:20 “Do not tell anyone” 8:30 - - 16:23a Satan-saying 8:33 - - 16:23b “stumbling-block” - 16:23c “mind on human things” 8:33 - 17:1 Exclusive group: Transfiguration 9:2 Peter did not know what to say 9:5-6 + - + + 17:4-6 “overcome by fear” 17:24-27 Temple Tax: “for you and me” Peter, spokesperson: “we left everything…” 60 10:28 + - + Neutral + - 18:21 Peter asks about forgiveness 18:22 Peter corrected: “seventy-seven times” Peter, spokesperson: The Withered Fig Tree 11:21 + Exclusive group: Questions regarding end-time signs 13:3 + 19:27 Peter asks about recompense - 19:30 Last/first, first/last - 26:33-35 Peter’s heroics 14:29 26-36 Exclusive group: Gethsemane 14:33 - 26:40 Peter sleeps 14:37 - - 26:69-74 Peter’s Denial 14:66-71 - - 26:75 Peter weeps 14:72 + Resurrection: “tell his disciples and Peter…” 16:7 + + + 61 + Bibliography Commentaries Boring, M. Eugene. “The Gospel of Matthew: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” The New Interpreter’s Bible, edited by Leander E. Keck, 8:87-505. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995. Davies, W.D., and D.C. Allison Jr. The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. 3 volumes; International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988-1997. France, R.T. The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007. Gundry, Robert H. Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1994. Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. Hagner, Donald A. Matthew. 2 volumes; Dallas: Thomas Nelson, 1995. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 8-20. Hermeneia Series; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001. Meier, John P. Matthew. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1980. Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2005. Origen. “Commentary on Matthew (Book XII)”, ANF09. Translated by John Patrick. Edited by Allan Menzies. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1896. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm (accessed 21 September, 2019). Senior, Donald. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries: Matthew. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998. Talbert, Charles H. Matthew. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. Dictionaries & Lexicons Hornblower, Simon. and A. Spawforth. The Oxford Classical Dictionary Vol. 4. Oxford: OUP, 2012. Liddell, Henry George. and Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961. Muhammad, Wolfgang. and G. A. Schmidt. A Greek-English Reference Manual To The Vocabulary Of The Greek New Testament: Based on Tischendorf’s Greek New Testament Text and on Strong’s Greek Lexicon with Some Additions and Amendments. Hamburg: disserta Verlag, 2017. 62 General Studies Alberg, Jerimiah. “Scandal”. In The Palgrave Handbook of Mimetic Theory and Religion, edited by James Alison and Wolfgang Palaver, 485-491. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017. Bendoraitis, Kristian. “Apocalypticism, Angels and Matthew”. The Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the Shaping of New Testament Thought. Edited by Benjamin E. Reynolds and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, 31-52. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2017. Bockmuehl, Markus. Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory: The New Testament Apostle in the Early Church. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012. Bockmuehl, Markus. The Remembered Peter: In Ancient Reception and Modern Debate. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Bond, Helen. K. and Larry W. Hurtado (editors). Peter in Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2015. Carlston, Charles E. and Craig A. Evans. From Synagogue to Ecclesia: Matthew's Community at the Crossroads. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Crook, Zeba A. Parallel Gospels: A Synopsis of Early Christian Writing. Oxford: OUP, 2011. Culllmann, Oscar. The Christology of the New Testament. Westminster: John Knox Press, 1959. Cullmann, Oscar. Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr: A Historical and Theological Study. London: SCM Press Limited, 1962. Damgaard, Finn. Rewriting Peter as an Intertextual Character in the Canonical Gospels. London: Routledge, 2015. Doole, J. Andrew. What was Mark for Matthew?: An Examination of Matthew's Relationship and Attitude to His Primary Source. Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Ferguson, Everett. The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1996. Flavius, Josephus. The Jewish Wars. Books IV-VII; Translated by H. ST. J. Thackeray. Massachusetts: William Heinemann Ltd., 1961. Girard, René, Jean-Michel Oughourlian and Guy Lefort. Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World. London: New York, Continuum, 2003. Goodacre, Mark. “The Rock on Rocky Ground: Matthew, Mark and Peter as Skandalon”. What Is It That the Scripture Says?: Essays in Biblical Interpretation, Translation, and Reception in Honour of Henry Wansbrough Osb, edited by Philip McCosker, 61-73. London; New York: T & T Clark, 2006. Gundry, Robert H. Peter – False Disciple and Apostate according to Saint Matthew. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2015. 63 Hagner, Donald A. “Holiness and Ecclesiology: The Church in Mathew”. Built upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew, edited by Daniel M. Gurtner and John Nolland, 170-86. Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2008. Hagner, Donald A. “The Church in Mathew”. Holiness and Ecclesiology in the New Testament, edited by Kent Brower and Andy Johnson, 40-56. Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007. Hengel, Martin. Saint Peter: The Underestimated Apostle. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2010. Klassen, William. Judas: Betrayer or Friend of Jesus. London: SCM, 1996. Luz, Ulrich. The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew. Translated by J. Bradford Robinson. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995 Luz, Ulrich. Studies in Matthew. Translated by Rosemary Selle. Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2005. McCracken, David. The Scandal of the Gospels: Jesus, Story, and Offense. Oxford: OUP, 1994. Meier, John P. The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church, and Morality in the First Gospel. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2004. Merkel, Helmut. “Peter’s Curse”. The Trial of Jesus: Cambridge Studies in honour of C. F. D. Moule, Studies in Biblical Theology 2.13; ed. by Ernst Bammel, 66-71. London: SCM, 1970. Nau, Arlo J. Peter in Matthew: Discipleship, Diplomacy, and Dispraise . . . With an Assessment of Power and Privilege in the Petrine Office. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1992. Perkins, Pheme. Peter: Apostle for the Whole Church. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000. Ridderbos, Herman. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Translated John Richard de Witt. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1975. Schaff Philip. “The Treatises of Cyprian. Treatises I. On the Unity of the Church” ANF05. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.i.html (accessed 21 September, 2019). Schaff, Philip. Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Fourth Part; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.i.html (accessed 21 September, 2019). Throckmorton, Jr. Burton H. Gospel Parallels: A Comparison of the Synoptic Gospels. Thomas Nelson; 5th edition, 1992. Tozer, A.W. Paths to Power: Living in the Spirit's Fullness. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2016. Wiarda, Timothy. Peter in the Gospels: Pattern, Personality and Relationship. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. 64 Journal Articles Barber, M.P. “Jesus as the Davidic Temple Builder and Peter’s Priestly Role in Matthew 16:16-19”. Journal of Biblical Literature 132, no. 4 (2013): 935-53. New Testament Abstracts (NTA0000076721). Dowd, Sharyn, and Elizabeth Struthers Malbon. “The Significance of Jesus' Death in Mark: Narrative Context and Authorial Audience”. Journal of Biblical Literature 125, no. 2 (2006): 271-97. doi:10.2307/27638361. Ferda, Tucker S. “The Seventy Faces of Peter’s Confession: Matt. 16:16-17 in the History of Interpretation”. Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012): 421-57. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials PLUS (ATLA0001923223). Senior, Donald. “The Gospel of Matthew and the Passion of Jesus: Theological and Pastoral Perspectives”. Word & World Volume XVIII, Number 4 (Fall 1998): 372-79. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials PLUS (ATLA0001006225). Sim, David C. “Matthew’s Use of Mark: Did Matthew Intend to Supplement or to Replace His Primary Source?” New Testament Studies 57, no. 2 (April 2011): 176–92. doi:10.1017/S0028688510000366. Wiarda, Timothy. “Peter as Peter in the Gospel of Mark”. New Testament Studies 45, no. 1 (1999): 19-37. doi:10.1017/S0028688598000198. Works from a Website Armenteros, Victor M. “A Rock in the Path: Possible Jewish Readings of Matthew 16:18”. DavarLogos 8.1 (2009): 59-73. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/3000076.pdf (accessed March 12, 2019). Abraham, William J. “The Offense of Divine Revelation”. The Harvard Theological Review 95, no. 3 (2002): 251-64. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4150745 (accessed July 5, 2019). Bosc, Jean. “L’Eglise et le scandale”. Foi et Vie 45 (1947): 671-76. Accessed July 5, 2019. https://www.foi-et-vie.fr/archive/article.php?code=185. Bubar, Wallace W. “Killing Two Birds with One Stone: The Utter De(Con)Struction of Matthew and His Church”. Biblical Interpretation 3, no. 2 (1995): 144-57. https://divinity.on.worldcat.org/oclc/5672355697 (accessed June 14, 2019). Kemp, Ian S. “The Blessing, Power and Authority of the Church: A Study in Matthew 16:17-19”. Evangelical Review of Theology 40, no. 2 (2016): 128-139. http://search.ebscohost.com.divinity.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATL An3925108&site=eds-live (accessed March 12, 2019). 65 Loh, Yip-Mei. “The Sōma and the Psychē in the Gospel of Matthew and in Plato’s Timaeus”. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 2 no. 1 (2016): 577-591. https://grdspublishing.org/index.php/people/article/view/295/2564. (accessed September 26, 2019). McCracken, David. “Scandal and Imitation in Matthew, Kierkegaard, and Girard”. Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture 4, no. 1 (1997): 146-62. https://www.uibk.ac.at/theol/cover/contagion/contagion04.pdf (accessed July 5, 2019). Nickelsburg, George W. E. “The Genre and Function of the Markan Passion Narrative”. The Harvard Theological Review 73, no. 1/2 (1980): 153-84. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1509483 (accessed September 10, 2019). Saarinen, Risto. “René Girard and Lutheran Theology”, Theophilos 1, 2001, reproduced at https://tuhat.helsinki.fi/ws/portalfiles/portal/31628623/2001saarinen_girard_lutheran.pdf: 115 (accessed September 26, 2019). Vorster, W. S. “Characterization of Peter in the Gospel of Mark”. Neotestamentica 21, no. 1 (1987): 57-76. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43047896 (accessed August 8, 2019). Winkle, Ross E. “The Jeremiah Model for Jesus in the Temple”. Andrews University Seminary Studies 24, no. 2 (1986): 155-72. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6d1d/7bd098c9e861163c704047d93f9efe0796e4.pdf (accessed September 17, 2019). Whelan, Caroline F. “Suicide in the Ancient World: A Re-Examination of Matthew 27:3-10”. Laval Théologique et Philosophique 49, no 3 (1993): 505–522. https://doi.org/10.7202/400796ar (accessed 24 September, 2019). Whitaker, Robyn. “Rebuke or Recall? Rethinking the Role of Peter in Mark’s Gospel”. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 75, no. 4 (October 2013): 666-82. http://search.ebscohost.com.divinity.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=url,ip,co okie,uid&db=rlh&AN=90624455&site=ehost-live (accessed August 8, 2019). Zehnder, Markus. “Why the Danielic ‘Son of Man’ Is a Divine Being”. Bulletin for Biblical Research 24, no. 3 (2014): 331-47. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26371180 (accessed September 17, 2019). 66