13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" 14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of death will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.
This Sunday’s gospel reading is pretty well known. The confession of St. Peter “Thou art the Christ” appears in all three of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), with various differences depending on how the individual author intended its use.
In Matthew’s gospel the setting is Caesarea Philippi—which is somewhat interesting, as one commentator notes: “This area was known for its religious puralism. Herod’s temple to Caesar, an altar to Pan, and other sacred sites were there.” With the ever-present option of other religious expressions in the backdrop, Peter’s confession was one of immense faith [aka belief in spite of the lack of evidence]. Looking at the dusty wandering rabbi in front of him, Peter said: “You are the Christos [the Messiah/annointed-one of God].”
Backing up…I’m unsure as to who all Jesus has in mind when he asks in vs 13 “who do people (“the men” in the Greek) say that I am? Does he mean the other sages and rabbis? Does he mean the religious elite way down in Jerusalem? Does he mean Joe the Plumber on the street? Perhaps it’s not important. The reply in vs 14 has the common denominator that all listed possibilities are (a) PROPHETS (all of the people considered John the Baptist a great prophet) and (b) DEAD. That the scuttlebutt had it that Jesus was at the very least ONE OF THESE people is really not a bad starting point. The thinking behind this idea likely stems from Malachi 4:5-6:
“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.”
If the “Elijah” of the above prophecy is symbolic for any of the great old prophets, one could see how this thinking would develop among the people.
In vs 15, Jesus switches gears and asks the opinion of his core group. This is one of those places where the old KJV/ASV translations come in handy, as the question is phrased: “but who say *YE that I am?” What follows is Simon’s answer on behalf of the entire group: “You are the Messiah (Christos in the Greek), son of the living God” (vs 16). Messiah (Hebrew) and Christos (Greek) both carry the connotation of God’s “chosen one,” God’s “annointed one.” At the very least, Simon & the other disciples are going one further than Joe the Plumber. Jesus is *not a percursor prophet raised from the dead, he’s the MAIN EVENT; the real deal HIMSELF.
Vss 17-19 have had MUCH ink spilled on their behalf through the centuries—especially since the time of the Reformation. Let’s see if we can’t make some sense of them. Jesus begins by adopting the language of the beattitudes, saying: “Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah…” Why is he blessed? Because he’s received this as a revelation from God. God has favored him. It’s somewhat difficult to reconcile how it is that (a) on the one hand Simon is speaking on behalf of the *group and (b) Simon is singled out for specific recognition. Perhaps he was the only one bold enough to articulate what the rest believed? Regardless, Simon alone in this instance receives Jesus’ highest honor. And it doesn’t end with the blessing, it goes on.
Vs 18: And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of death will not overcome it. Grrrrr. Every English translation I looked at (about 12) except the Young’s Literal Translation botches this verse. Jesus does *not tell Simon that he is “Peter” as if he’s simply choosing another familiar first name for him. Jesus tells Simon that he “is *ROCK.” “You are PETROS, and upon this PETRA I will build my EKKLESSIA” is what Jesus says. Our familiarity with the common first name of Peter makes this verse practically disappear in its English rendering.
But the problems are just beginning. Since especially the time of the Reformation there has been a major divide between those who see this verse as empowering Peter as the first “pope,” vs those who do not. Not surprisingly the Protestant side of the debate has worked hard to derail Rome’s argument—but in so doing they have painted themselves into a corner.
Observe: they have tried [unconvincingly, in my opinion] to separate the person of Peter from the statement he just made, saying in essence: “The ROCK that Jesus builds his church on isn’t **PETER, but rather the truth of PETER’S CONFESSION.” This however does not pass the smell test. Jesus did not say: “blessed is the statement you just made Simon, I’ll call *it “rock” & build my church on that…” Trying to separate Peter from his confession [and Jesus’ words of blessing] will not do. Peter *IS the ROCK, and Jesus will build his church from Peter on up. Of course this does not mean that I’m capitulating to Roman Catholic theology. Saying Peter is the ROCK is a far cry from saying that his “ROCKNESS” mystically passes on along the succession of Bishops of Rome. Jesus never said that would happen. Even the “giving of the keys” to Peter in the following verse ends up being repeated for ALL of the disciples in John 20. What I’m saying is this…if we want to argue against a universal/continuous papacy that began with Peter, FINE. Let’s do that. But in so doing, let’s not derail the simple truth that Jesus is stating in these verses, a truth that uniquely applies to the person of Simon Peter, and him alone. As DA Carson notes: “if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than [Simon] Peter.” (Carson, “Matthew,” 368).
So, Jesus will build his “Church” from Peter on up. What is his church? The word comes from the Greek Ekklessia. It has a civic/political connotation. It’s the assembly/community called out. Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not Greek, so we can only guess at the word he originally used. I’m assuming that he did not use specific Jewish religious words. For instance, he did not say he’d build his TEMPLE on Peter, nor did he say he’d build his SYNAGOGUE on Peter. Why? My hunch is that Jesus intends to build *MORE than just a worshiping community. He’s building something that is totally new; totally redeemed; and totally in his image. It includes worship, to be sure, but it also includes every walk and facet of life.
Vs 18b constitutes another common interpretive error from this passage: “and the gates of death will not overcome it…” [it = his church]. I like the way the TNIV translates “gates of Hades” from the Greek into “gates of death.” That is a MUCH closer rendering than “gates of Hell” from the KJV. Two points: (1) “Hades” in this sense is the closest Greek rendering to the Hebrew “Sheol.” Sheol was NOT HELL. Sheol was considered the realm of the dead; all dead. So it is the gates of the realm of the dead that will not prevail against the church. (2) Jesus’ original point is often turned upside down by preachers. They talk about the church being under assault by Satan and his minions—and it is. And they talk about how even though the church faces assault on every side, the Bible promises that in the end the church will triumph—and it will! And then they point to Matthew 16:18 as a proof text. WRONG!!! The verse is not saying that the church will somehow survive the onslaughts of hell/hades/sheol. That’s backwards. Jesus said that it was hades/sheol that would not survive the onslaught of the church! The gates of death won’t prevail against what Jesus is building.
This is about RESURRECTION! We see this promise beginning to come true on Easter morning when the gates of Sheol cannot keep Jesus. And he, and 1Cor 15, and many other wonderful passages of the Bible go on to say that the gates of Sheol will also not be able to hold ANY WHO BELONG TO JESUS & HIS CHURCH.
Amen.
Cheers,
TM
No comments:
Post a Comment