Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, ‘Who do people say that the Son of Man is?’ 14And they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’ 15He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ 16Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah,* the Son of the living God.’ 17And 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. 18And 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. 19I 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.’ 20Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was* the Messiah.*
Literally: But when Jesus came into the region of Caesarea of Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, "Who do the people say the son of man to be?" But they said, "Certainly John the Baptist, but others Elijah, but yet others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say I am to be?" But Simon Peter answered, saying, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God." And Jesus answered him and said, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my father in the heavens. And I say to you that you are Peter and on this rock, I will build up of me the church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you might bind on the earth will be bound in the heavens, and whatever you release upon the earth will be released in the heavens." Then he distinctly instructed the disciples so that they would surely not say that he is the Christ.
Caesarea Philippi is at the far north of the land of Israel. It was originally named Paneas, after the Greek god Pan, the god of music. Caesar Augustus gave the town to Herod. Upon Herod's death, his son, Phillip, "inherited" the city and renamed it after Caesar and himself. With this Roman city mentioned in the introduction to the pericope, Matthew intends the following story to be read and heard in light of Roman power.
The main source is Mark, but Matthew adds several Matthean touches. Where Mark has, "Who do people say me to be?" Matthew has "Who do the people say the son of man to be?" The more formal-sounding "son of man" adds a bit of gravitas to the question. The phrase "son of man" comes from Daniel 7--"...one like a son of man..."--which adds a typically Matthean touch of eschatology and apocalyptism.
Who do the people say the son of man to be? John the Baptist, Elijah, and Jeremiah are specifically named. Jesus had obviously attracted a lot of attention and people were searching for ways to think of him. To whom can we compare the extraordinary Jesus of Nazareth? He is like John the Baptist or Elijah! In fact, the mention of John the Baptist is quite clear. His name is preceded by the Greek word men which means "truly" or "certainly," hence my translation: "Certainly John the Baptist." (In 14: 2, King Herod had said that Jesus was John the Baptist risen from the dead!)
This again underlines Jesus' continuity with the ministry of John the Baptist, this despite the fact that the actual message of Jesus was quite different from, though not necessarily in conflict with, the message of John. In political terms, one suspects that Jesus was an early follower of John's, but branched off at some point, drawing some supporters away from John--Andrew, for example. When John was killed, Jesus made a bid for the support of John's now-leaderless supporters, and largely succeeded. (Some of John's supporters continued in John's name. To this day, there is a group called the Mandeans, located now in southern Iraq, who trace their "religious lineage" to John the Baptist.)
Elijah was the classic prophet, and, like Jesus, was from northern Israel. Elijah also has an "end-times" association. Matthew adds "Jeremiah" to the list. The inclusion of the "suffering prophet" makes sense. Jeremiah and Jesus have some important connections. Both opposed the religious and political establishment of their day, and both suffered for it.
Jesus says, "OK, that's the talk at the filling station and the grocery store, but what do you think?" Peter answers, "You are the Christ." For a more complete identification of Jesus as "son of man" and "messiah (xristos)," Matthew adds to Mark, "the son of the living God." In Matthew's gospel, this is the first identification of Jesus as the messiah by one of the twelve.
In the first use of makarioi since the beatitudes, Jesus calls Peter "blessed." He also calls him "Simon, son of Jonah." In John's gospel, Simon is called "son of John." Perhaps bariona (son of Jonah) is a variant of ioannes (John), though I tend not to think so. In my view, "Jonah" is an image of resurrection. As Jonah was three days in the whale, so Jesus would be three days in the earth. To call Simon Peter the "son of Jonah" was another way of calling him a "son of the resurrection." It is with eyes informed by the resurrection that Peter is able to make his confession. Jesus says as much when he says that "flesh and blood" has not informed Peter, but rather direct revelation from God. (John Meier believes the story may originate from a post-resurrection story. My view is that this is possible, but not relevant.)
On this basis, Jesus gives Peter another name and title, that of "Petros," or "rock." This recalls Old Testament figures, such as Abram and Jacob, who were likewise given new names. As God can give new names, so can Jesus. Thus, Matthew affirms, again, Jesus' equality with God.
"Petros," incidentally, was not used as a person's name in those days. It was simply the name for "rock." As such, the word is not so much a name as a title. "You are Rock, and on this Rock, I will build my church."
Catholics say that Jesus means to confer primacy upon Peter. They then go from that to saying that Peter was the first Pope, and that all subsequent Popes are "Peter" as well--all of them "vicars of Christ" on earth, as Jesus himself said. Protestants say that Jesus was not referring to Peter, but rather to Peter's "confession." That "confession"--not Peter himself--is the "rock" upon which the church is built.
As to Matthew's intent, I agree with the Catholics. The plain sense of the passage is that "rock" refers to Peter, not his supposed "confession." Frankly, you'd have to go through some mental proxysms to make "rock" refer to Peter's words and not himself.
On the other hand, the primary source, Mark, has nothing about Peter being a "rock." Considering Mark's view of the disciples as a whole, and Peter in particular, such an assertion would be laughable. All the disciples are clueless in Mark's gospel, and Peter is the most clueless of all.
Matthew clearly added in the business about Peter, just as he does in several other places in his gospel. Why? My view: By the time Matthew was written, Peter's faction had "won out" in the leadership struggles of the early church. Even though Matthew's primary source, Mark, was anti-Petrine, Matthew, even though following Mark quite closely in other respects, nevertheless takes a pro-Petrine position. It's quite an about-face, especially considering that Matthew was written only 10-15 years after Mark.
The word ekklesia--"church"--literally means "the called-out gathering." It is an eschatological image which recalls the worshipping community at Mount Zion at the end of time. Precisely because it is an end-times image, death has no power over it.
The reference to "keys" recalls Isaiah 22: "...and I will place on his shoulder (Eliakim, in this case) the key of the house of David." Binding and loosing also recalls Isaiah: "...he shall open, and none shall shut; he shall shut, and none shall open (22:22)." John Meier says that "binding and loosing," seen in the context of rabbinic sources, means the authority to decide between what is permissable and not permissable, or also even to include or exclude people from the community. It may indeed have been Matthew's agenda to devolve that authority onto Peter.
There were at least three major factions in the early church--the community of the Beloved Disciple, another "dissident" faction represented by the community around "Mark," and the "head office" in Jerusalem which was at least initially led by Peter. That's for starters. Several other groups, some now considered heretical--the ebionites and the proto-gnostics, for example--also considered themselves followers of Jesus.
There was some friction in all of this. This is not to say that they were enemies of each other. The Beloved Disciple, for example, has some things to say about Peter, but never is there a sense that relationship had been broken between the two. Mark is likewise quite critical, but does recognize Peter as the leader of the disciples. It's just that Mark doesn't think that counts for much.
Why would Jesus tell people not to say anything about him? Why the so-called "messianic secret"? It could have been "reverse psychology." This is indicated by Mark 7: 36: "Then Jesus ordered them to tell no one; but the more he ordered them, the more zealously they proclaimed it." Also, we ought to consider that Jesus was opposed by the various authorities of the day, and just maybe he didn't want them to know what he was doing or where he was going.
Comments