13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of 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 to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.
Matthew 16:13-20 is a story of the confession of faith by Peter. The source is Mark in verses 13-16, 20 (Mark 8:27-30, Luke 9:18-21). Let us consider these verses first. Peter offers an affirmation of faith that becomes a model for others. Historically, some scholars see no problem as to the possibility that the disciples might have wondered if Jesus were the Messiah. The disciples would hardly have left everything if this were not the case.[1]
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi. The affirmation of faith by Peter occurs in an area well known for its many temples, especially to Pan.[2] The Cave of Pan is at the foot of Mount Hermon, north of the Golan Heights. Greek and Roman myth identified it as one of the entrances to Hades, though the other caves are in Greece. The conversation that contains this dramatic and geographic watershed begins innocently enough. Jesus and the disciples journey far to the northeast and enter Caesarea Philippi. This may separate the disciples from the crowds who have often surrounded them up to this point in the narrative. This was a particularly appropriate place for the disciples to assert the divine nature of Jesus. From this point on, Jesus' focus shifts to the city of Jerusalem. Jesus asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man (Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) is (Mark has “I am”)?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah (Mark does not have the reference to Jeremiah) or one of the prophets." The surmisings of others, recounted by the disciples, are as complimentary as they are incomplete. Both Matthew’s readers and apparently the disciples themselves can hear the wrongness in these titles. While they may be acceptable answers from the other citizens of the region, Jesus’ next question reveals a hope for more from those closest to him (including the readers). Such responses would have messianic implications, for Jews of this time believed the spirit of prophecy ended with Malachi and would not return until the Messiah came. Yet, this response does not satisfy Jesus. 15He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah (Χριστὸς), Matthew adding, the Son of the living God (Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος)." The outspoken Peter is the first to respond. Peter has not shown any predilection for supernatural revelation at this point. Whether he is speaking for himself or the group is unclear. This is the first time any of the disciples have successfully comprehended the identity of Jesus. It is a job description. In this setting, the statement of faith by the disciple is what is memorable. It becomes a model for others. The affirmation of faith by Peter is the watershed in the narrative of Mark. The tension of the story of Jesus has built up to this climax. The Christological question posed and answered, Mark will focus upon the fulfillment of the messianic mission of Jesus as he moves toward cross and resurrection. We can see the geographical symbolism as Jesus from the northerly point of the travels of Jesus high among the mountains to the southern mountain on which Jerusalem rests.[3] These verses have parallels in other passages. In John 6:66-69, many disciples turned away from Jesus because of the difficulty of his teaching. Jesus asked the twelve if they also wished to turn away from following, but Simon Peter said they had no one else to whom to turn, for he had the words of eternal life. “We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” In John 11:25-27, Jesus informs Mary, “I am the resurrection and the life.” Mary responds, “Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one coming into the world.” The Gospel of Thomas 13 has an unusual exchange which will contrast the special relationship Thomas had with Jesus versus the relationship the other twelve had with Jesus. Clearly, this passage disparages Peter and Matthew in particular and elevates Thomas. It comes from a time when Gnostic believers were making clear their distinction from the apostolic churches. We should note that Peter affirms his faith only in the presence of Jesus and the other disciples. It would have been a confession or witness had he done so on the night of the arrest of Jesus.[4] We also need to remember that while Peter is a model here, in the next verses he will oppose the journey of Jesus to Jerusalem and he will lead the disciples in deserting Jesus at his arrest. He will have significance only as he embraces the path of suffering that Jesus will follow.[5]
Peter’s astonishing declaration also opens the door for even more profound misconceptions. He will have significance only as he embraces the path of suffering that Jesus will follow.[6] Messianic expectations were primarily triumphalist, promising political deliverance of Israel and its restoration to power. At times it is translated “Messiah”; other times “the Christ.” The title harkens back to the Jewish understanding of “the Anointed One” — one who had been anointed by God for a special purpose. In the Old Testament, one sees this primarily in relation to kings and priests and carries the connotation that not only has God chosen the person, but God has also empowered the person. It can refer to the anointing of Aaron and his sons (Exodus 29:21), the anointing by the Lord of Saul (I Samuel 10:1, 6), David (I Samuel 16:13), and the anointing by the Lord of the prophet (Isaiah 61:1). It was a title of honor and majesty. A warrior prince would conduct a crusade that would liberate the nation and lift Jerusalem to eminence for the entire world to see. The anointed one anticipated the triumph of Israel over its foes. “God’s Messiah” was the name of the prince in the Psalms of Solomon (50 BC). Jewish people welcome him as a conquering hero.[7] Yes, Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, but this messiahship brings a salvation radically different than anyone had expected.
Some would argue that such a Christ-centered affirmation of faith is nothing more than the theological counterpart of geocentrism in cosmology. It represents an anachronistic absolutizing of our own contingent place in the scheme of things. Thus, the center of our religious history is also the sole hope of salvation for the rest of humanity. The history of world religion teaches us that while there are high points, an absolute center does not exist.[8] Yet, ever since Peter makes this affirmation of faith, the church understands its uniqueness in this way. What makes Christians who they are is Jesus. If God had given the church a book, it might become a noble philosophy of life or a system of virtues. What the church has instead is one who came in Jewish flesh and through whom God saves. He was the son of a Jewish carpenter, he lived briefly, he died violently at 30, and he unexpectedly rose from the dead. The church believes it has seen as much of God it hopes to see in this life. Even in his own time, maybe especially, the identity of Jesus was hardly self-evident. Some believed or hoped he was the promised Messiah and eventually believed he was God come to humanity in the flesh. Others thought he was crazy. Since the time of Jesus, many others have undertaken to identify Jesus. H. S. Reimarus (1691-1768) said Jesus was a Jewish revolutionary figure who died a disappointed failure. David Friedrich Strauss (1808-74) showed how this was the case by removing the miraculous elements of the Gospels. Ernest Renan (1823-92) offered a romantic picture of Jesus as a strange, sweet, spirited poet and a great moral teacher and example. H. J. Holtzmann (1832-1910) portrayed Jesus as a teacher of timeless ethical truth. Johannes Weiss (1863-1914) returned attention to the kingdom of God as an apocalyptic, end of the world notion that ended in a disappointed Jesus. Albert Switzer would agree with this assessment. These authors made their decisions regarding Jesus. The question for us, of course, is the decision we make regarding Jesus. Such scholars ought to remind us that our images of Jesus will often reflect our aspirations. Yet, Jesus keeps breaking free of our limited images.[9] The incomprehensible and ineffable nature of ultimate reality will make sure many persons will hesitate to offer such a claim. After all, it seems arrogant to claim one religious description of reality as superior to rival descriptions. Further, no tradition can reasonably claim exclusive rights to the means of salvation. Many Christians, desiring not to give offense, will back away from the uniqueness of the saving work of Christ. Yet, the affirmation of this nonexclusive particularity of salvation in Christ may well be the condition for genuine respect from others.[10] When it comes to such matters, the secularity of this age moves us toward a stance of perpetual detachment. We are onlookers. We stand back and watch the world go past us. We are like perpetual tourists, just passing through without landing anywhere. We can quickly learn the basic teachings of Buddhism, Islam, and even the teachings of Jesus. Yet, the church still asks, “However, what do you believe? On what will you bet your life? What commitment, which attachment, will determine how you live, move, and have your being?” At some point, the church does not care what 9 in 10 Americans believe. What do you believe? When it comes to religious matters, we can find so many different opinions and conflicting points of view. We seem to have no place to stand where we can determine what is right. Yet, making no decision is adopting a point of view. You are socially acceptable and intellectually humble if you admit you have no point of view or settle down and admit to having a position. True, you will not know everything. You will not have settled all questions. Yet, to find the words that locate you in a relationship with “the way, the truth, and the life” is to find a rock on which to stand and build your life.
We have developed far more complex affirmations of faith than we see from Peter. The Council of Chalcedon in 431 adopted its creed. The creed defines that Christ is “acknowledged in two natures,” which “come together into one person and one hypostasis.” The formal definition of “two natures” in Christ sides with Western and Antiochene Christology and diverges from the teaching of Cyril of Alexandria, who always stressed that Christ is “one.” Regarding the person of Christ and the Hypostatic union, Chalcedonian Creed affirmed the notion that Christ is “One Person,” having “One Hypostasis.” The creed states explicitly the Christological notions of “One Person” (monoprosopic — having one prosopon / Greek term for “person”) and “One Hypostasis” (monohypostatic — having one hypostasis) in order to emphasize the Council’s anti-Nestorian positions.
Here is one humorous presentation of the potentially complex affirmation of a modern faith. They replied, “You are he who heals our ambiguities and overcomes the split of angst and existential estrangement; you are he who speaks of the theonomous viewpoint of the analogia entis, the analogy of our being and the ground of all possibilities. You are the impossible possibility who brings to us, your children of light and children of darkness, the overwhelming roughness amid our fraught condition of estrangement and brokenness, in the contiguity and existential anxieties of our ontological relationships. You are my Oppressed One, my soul’s shalom, the One who was, who is and who shall be, who has never left us alone in the struggle, the event of liberation in the lives of the oppressed struggling for freedom, and whose blackness is both literal and symbolic.” And Jesus replied, “Huh?”
My point is that the affirmations we have in the New Testament can have a refreshing simplicity.
Do you know what a humanist is? My parents and grandparents were humanists, what used to be called Free Thinkers. So I am honoring my ancestors, which the Bible says is a good thing to do. We humanists try to behave as decently, as fairly and as honorably as we can without any expectation of rewards or punishment in an afterlife ... And if I should ever die, I hope you will say, “Kurt is up in Heaven now.”
That’s my favorite joke. How do humanists feel about Jesus? I say of Jesus, as all humanists do, “If what he said is good, and so much of it is absolutely beautiful, what does it matter if he was God or not?”
But if Christ hadn’t delivered his Sermon on the Mount, with its message of mercy and pity, I wouldn’t want to be a human being. I’d just as soon be a rattlesnake.[11]
The source unique to Matthew is in verses 17-19. 17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood, that is, nothing human, has not revealed (ἀπεκάλυψέν) this to you, but my Father in heaven. The source of this affirmation is divine.[12] The use of the word “revealed” here has an apocalyptic flavor. A revelation normally reserved for the future the Father has chosen to reveal now.[13] 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, referring to the affirmation of faith by Peter, I will build my church (ἐκκλησίαν). The statement assumes the church already exists by giving to Peter a prominent role in it.[14] We find a similar statement in John 1:35-42, where John the Baptist identifies Jesus as the Lamb of God. The two disciples follow Jesus. After spending time with Jesus, Andrew tells his brother Simon that we have found the Messiah. He brings Simon to Jesus, who also renames him Cephas or Peter. We should note the statement presupposes the existence of the church by assigning a prominent role in it.[15]And the gates of Hades, (ᾅδου, Old Testament sheol) will not prevail against it. The task of the church is to rescue people from the forces of evil that lead people to sin and death. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, suggesting that it has gates as well. In Jewish writings, the Key of David refers to the teachers of the Torah. Heaven is at stake in what the church does or fails to do on earth.[16] And whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. What Peter binds or sets loose on earth the Father will bind or loose in heaven. The rabbis had such power for excommunication at this time. Peter is the authorized teacher of the community. His function is to allow those who are worthy to enter. A misunderstanding and misapplication of this text would be to refer to a form of church discipline in which certain individuals, even a Pope, has a part in determining who are true Christians and who are not.[17] Peter and the disciples seem to have a unique and unrepeatable role in the life of the church.[18] The focus on this section is on the appointment of Peter to his special ministry in the early church. We need to remember that Peter is typical of the disciples in his ignorance and lack of faith.
We more carefully consider the community as the successor of Jesus, in the sense that the community becomes the Body of Christ, rather than limiting its reference to Peter.[19] Yet, the passage gives us an opportunity to reflect upon the role of Peter in the early church. John 21:15-19 gives to Peter a special role in feeding the sheep of Jesus and promises Peter will follow the path of Jesus toward suffering and crucifixion. Galatians 2:11ff indicates that Peter left Jerusalem and moved to the Syrian church at Antioch for his missionary work, as in I Corinthians 9:5. Paul seems unafraid to stand against Peter when he was clearly in the wrong. In Corinth, some groups in the church identified with Peter as their authority (I Corinthians 1:12). This at least hints that the role the authority of Peter in the early had a contested element in it. Paul famously stated in I Corinthians 3:11 that the only foundation to the church is Jesus Christ. Some scholars think Paul is arguing against the tradition we find reflected in Matthew. We also need to remember that Peter will lead the disciples in opposing Jesus in his journey to Jerusalem. He will lead the way in deserting Jesus at his arrest. Thus, Peter represents their disloyalty and weakness as well as provides a model affirmation of faith. The interpretation of this passage that led to the Pope claiming he inherited the keys to which Jesus refers to here has led to clerical pride and arrogance. Peter and the apostles have significance only as they embrace the path of suffering that Jesus will follow.[20]
Returning to the Mark source, 20 Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. The response from Jesus might surprise us. The reason, undoubtedly, is that the term had political implications Jesus did not share. The fact that Peter has a wrong‑headed notion of what messianic duties are will come soon enough. He did not understand the job description of Messiah in the same way as Jesus did. Jesus tried to stop people from telling about his deeds or magnifying his person. Since the days of W. Wrede it has been customary to trace these features to Mark and to find in them the theory of a messianic secret that traces back to the post-Easter knowledge by the community of the majesty of Jesus to non-messianic traditions of his earthly appearance. Mark, however, refers to the regard that the work of Jesus evoked and that led to the post-Eater awareness of his divine sonship. Such an account contains traces of a traditional realization that Jesus was aware of the ambivalence into which his message thrust him and that he tried to counteract it.[21] Of course, the secret is out now, after the sending forth by the risen Jesus and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. We have no such restrictions.
[1] Others, such as Bultmann, view the passage as a profession of faith in the risen Lord. For the Jesus Seminar, it becomes a stylized scene shaped by Christian motifs. In their view, Jesus rarely initiates dialogue or refers to himself in the first person.
[2] (Sherman E. Johnson, Matthew; Interpreters Bible [New York: Abington, 1951], 449).
[3] (R.T. France, The Gospel of Mark, [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002], 327).
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] (Ralph P. Martin, Mark [John Knox Press, 1981], 45).
[8] —B.A. Gerrish, “What do we mean by faith in Jesus Christ?” The Christian Century, October 6, 1999, referring to Ernst Troeltsch.
[9] N. T. Wright, Who Was Jesus? [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1992].)
[10] J. A. DiNoia, “Jesus and the World Religions,” First Things, June/July 1995.
[11] —Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without a Country (Random House, 2017), 79-80.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.1 [62.2] 719, IV.3 [72.4] 862.
[17] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.1 [62.2] 698.
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 336.
No comments:
Post a Comment