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 (Year A August 21-27) is a story of the confession of faith by Peter (verses 13-16, 20, Mark 8:27-30, Luke 9:18-21, verses 17-19 unique to Matthew). 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]
The setting is 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 geographic symbolism of moving from the northerly point in the mountains north of Galilee to the southern mountain on which Jerusalem rests becomes clear. [3] In verse 13, Jesus asks the disciples Who do people say that the Son of Man (τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, whereas Mark has who “I am,” which suggests the question refers to “a man like him) is? The question shows that this title was not messianic.[4] People are speculating that he might be John the Baptist, Elijah, and Matthew adds Jeremiah to this list, or one of the prophets. The association of Jesus with the prophets is understandable, since he took up the prophetic call for conversion, appealed to the prophets in his preaching, and did not expound scripture academically as the rabbis did.[5] The disciples, the first readers, and even us as modern readers, can sense that while these attributions are complementary, especially since in the Jewish thinking of the time the age of prophecy was over until the Messiah came, they are also incomplete and therefore are missing the mark. Hope arises in verse 15 as Jesus asks the disciples But who do you say that I am? Peter responds that he is the promised Jewish Messiah (ὁ χριστὸς). 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 (Ex 29:21), the anointing by the Lord of Saul (I Sam 10:1, 6), David (I Sam16:13), and the anointing by the Lord of the prophet (Isa 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.[6] In Mark this profession of faith is dramatic because the tension of the story of Jesus builds to this point, becoming the first time the disciples comprehend the identity of Jesus. This memorable statement becomes a model for others. 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.[7]
Unique to Matthew, in verse 16:15, Peter adds to the affirmation that Jesus is the Christ that Jesus is the Son of the living God (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος). Here is the appropriate confessional response for the disciples of Jesus.[8]The affirmation of faith found here has 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.” In Mark, the Christological question posed answered, his gospel will focus upon the fulfillment of the messianic mission of Jesus as he moves toward the cross and resurrection. Matthew adds to Mark that he is the Son of the living God, like the response of the disciples in 14:33.
Going to verse 20, as in Mark, the response of Jesus to the affirmation of faith, surprisingly, is that they tell no one he is the Messiah (ὁ χριστός). The reason, undoubtedly, is that the term had political implications Jesus did not share. It would not be surprising that the Jewish-Christian church would prefer titles like Son of Man and Son of David, but it early adopted the Christ as a title for Jesus.[9] 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 talking about his deeds or magnifying his person. 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.[10]
The church understands itself historically as the people of God who profess Jesus of Nazareth as the coming of the promised Jewish Messiah. This profession is what makes Christians who they are. What the church professes is the one who came in Jewish flesh and one through whom God saves and redeems. He was the son of a Jewish carpenter, he was a descendant of David, 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. One may study the documents and conclude differently from that of the church. He may have been a Jewish revolutionary figure who died a disappointed failure (Reimarus, 1691-1768), showing how this is the case by removing miraculous element from the gospels (David Friedrich Strauss, 1808-74). By focusing upon him as an apocalyptic preacher of the immanent rule of God, one could view him as one dying with disappointment in the end not coming when anticipated (Johannes Weiss, 1863-1914, and Albert Sweitzer). One might tell the story of Jesus as a romantic figure, a strange, sweet, spirited poet, moral teacher, and example (Ernest Renan, 1823-1892). One might portray Jesus as a moral philosopher of timeless ethical truth (H. J. Holtzmann, 1832-1910). Such authors have their reaction to the question asked by Jesus, who do you say I am? Our images of Jesus often reflect our aspirations. Yet, the risen Lord keeps breaking free of our images.
The incomprehensible and ineffable nature of truth and reality will make many persons hesitate to offer such an affirmation of faith that here, in Jesus, we have encountered such truth and reality. It seems arrogant to make such an affirmation. Many Christians, desiring not to give offense, will back away from the uniqueness of the saving work of Christ. As science shifted from a geocentric view of the solar system to the heliocentric one, an enlightened theology recognizes Christology as an anachronism. It may well be that an absolute center does not exist.[11] Yet, the affirmation of this nonexclusive particularity of salvation in Christ may well be the condition for genuine respect from others.[12]The secularity of this age lends itself to becoming perpetual tourists of religious claims, refusing to land anywhere as your home. The church that seeks to remain faithful to the apostolic witness 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?”
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, the 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) to emphasize the Council’s anti-Nestorian positions.
Verses 17-19 (unique to Matthew) is a saying regarding church order, the language of Aramaic clearly behind it,[13] in that we are to see here the Easter experience of the risen Lord by Peter that the Jewish-Christian community preserved, and in which a missionary charge is given to the church through Peter.[14] Jesus affirms the affirmation of faith by Peter. 17Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. What Peter has affirmed is an apocalyptic revelation normally reserved for the future by the Father choosing to reveal to Peter now. Verses 18-19 in a legal style that reads like a saying of the risen Lord speaking of his person and offering a prescription to the Christian community.[15] 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, which is Peter,[16] I will build my church (ἐκκλησίαν קָהָל),[17] or better, my congregation of the people of God that I am gathering, the rock of this affirmation of will be the basis upon which the risen Lord will build the church.[18] 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. Jesus continues by saying and the gates of hell (a phrase occurring only here) shall 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. The community of the people of God have the promise that even in the last final onslaught of the underworld it will not be overwhelmed.[19] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. This refers to expelling from and receiving back into the community.[20] In 23:13, the scribes claimed the power of the keys in respect to the kingdom by declaring the will of God in their instruction of scripture, acting as spiritual leaders of the congregation. His accusation was that they did not fulfill their task and that they thus barred entry into the kingdom of God rather than opening it up. Jesus turned the keys, the full authority of proclamation, to Peter. This authority is to bind and loose, by which he means pronouncement of judgment upon unbelievers and the promise of forgiveness to believers, dispensing a word of grace and judgment.[21] This saying of Jesus gives authority to Peter in matters of doctrine and discipline. The eschatological community of the just is forming, with Peter as its leader.[22] Binding and loosing is the power of excommunication, giving Peter as an authorized teacher of the earliest community the function of allowing only those worthy to enter. He and the disciples will receive authority as the community begins its life. It could take the form of rejection of fellowship (Act 8:20-21, with a curse (Gal 1:8-9, I Cor 16:22), handing over to Satan (I Cor 5:3-5, I Tim 1:20). It took place when there were serious moral apses (I Cor 5:1ff, Mat 18:15, Acts 8:18ff) or when the Gospel was falsified (Gal 1:8-9, Titus 3:9-10).[23] The unique moment in history in which Peter will lead the followers of Jesus means he will receive authority to forgive sin, what Peter does on earth being valid in heaven.[24] Peter played a significant role in the earliest community. The distinction of Peter from other leaders goes back to a saying of Jesus.[25] 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.[26] Peter and the disciples have a unique and unrepeatable role in the life of the church.
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. It is a direct parallel to this passage and presupposes an incident in the life of Jesus like that described in the Passion Narrative in Luke 22:31-34, which contains the promise by Peter to go to prison with Jesus and the prediction by Jesus of his three-fold denial and his command to strengthen the followers of Jesus. Replacing the threefold denial we now have the threefold protest that the risen Lord knows Peter loves him. It suggests that risen Lord properly commissioned Peter as the first leader of the community.[27] Gal 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 Cor 1:12). This at least hints that the role the authority of Peter in the early church had a contested element in it. Paul famously stated in I Cor 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.[28]
Application
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) 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.[29]
[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]
[3]
[4]
[5] Friedrich, TDNT, VI, 842.
[6] (Ralph P. Martin, Mark [John Knox Press, 1981], 45).
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] B.A. Gerrish, “What do we mean by faith in Jesus Christ?” The Christian Century, October 6, 1999, referring to Ernst Troeltsch.
[12] J. A. DiNoia, “Jesus and the World Religions,” First Things, June/July 1995.
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16] Cullmann, TDNT, VI, 98-99.
[17] The text has a thoroughly Semitic flavor, suggesting the context is the original Jewish-Christian community in Jerusalem in its opening few years of existence. K. L. Schmidt, TDNT, III, 518-24.
[18]
[19]
[20] Buchsel, TDNT, II, 60-61.
[21] J. Jeremias, TDNT, III, 749-53.
[22]
[23]
[24] Cullmann, TDNT, VI, 105-8.
[25] K. L. Schmidt, TDNT, III, 523.
[26]
[27] Cullmann, TDNT, VI, 105.
[28]
[29] —Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without a Country (Random House, 2017), 79-80.
No comments:
Post a Comment