Upon this Rock (Matthew 16: 13-20)

[paradox3]

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 16:13-20 - New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

Peter’s Declaration about Jesus - Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist but others Elijah and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But...

www.biblegateway.com

In this unique to Matthew narrative, Jesus tells Peter he is the rock upon which He will build His church.

Peter is to be given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever he binds or loosens on earth will be bound or loosened in heaven.

Peter has identified Jesus as the Messiah, the son of the living God. Others have been saying that Jesus is a prophet of God but only Peter gives this answer.

We know that Peter has a leadership role in the group of disciples. Roman Catholics believe he will later become the first Pope.

All of the disciples are ordered to tell no one Jesus is the Messiah.

What is the message in this passage for us today?

 

[paradox3]

A couple of things jump out for me.

Interesting that Jesus needs a rock other than himself.

Interesting that Peter is the disciple who will later deny Jesus three times.

Are there times we should, in turn, tell no one that Jesus is the Messiah? Generally we think of the command to make disciples of all nations. But I wonder.

 

[Mendalla]

Well, as a good Protestant boy, I've always gone with the narrative that it is Peter's faith and recognition of Jesus as the Messiah that is the "Rock" rather than Peter himself. Though clearly that faith is part of what ends up making Peter such an important leader in the post-Crucifixion Church so maybe this is Jesus ordaining Peter as a leader. I just don't think Jesus pictured an autocratic theocracy as where the church should go given that is largely what he was opposing in his attacks on the temple elites. If anything, I imagine something more decentralized like congregational Baptist and Reformed churches or Jewish synagogues was the goal, if Jesus had any thoughts about what form the movement would take after he was with the Father. So perhaps Peter as a model for a Christian, leader or no, in his faith and in his listening to God moreso than being THE one, sole, inerrant Christian leader.

As for the hush order, this is not the only case of that in the Gospels. Having secret knowledge is, of course, a thing in mystery religions but I am thinking this could be a more practical thing. Jesus wants to choose the time of his revelation and the disciples running through the streets preaching him as the Messiah could upset whatever that plan was. The world has changed so much, especially with Jesus being a well-known figure today, that I am not sure the gag order applies. Seems to me more something that was geared to that era, when there was a small band of followers in a potentially hostile world.

 

[paradox3]

Yes, it's hard to imagine that Jesus envisioned a bureaucracy. But then again, human beings tend to organize. Even the band of 12 disciples had an executive committee of sorts.

 

[Mendalla]

Yes, it's hard to imagine that Jesus envisioned a bureaucracy. But then again, human beings tend to organize. Even the band of 12 disciples had an executive committee of sorts.

This has always been my argument against pure forms of anarchism. We know a governance structure of some form is going to happen in any group of unrelated people larger than maybe 5 or 6 so better to acknowledge that and create one formally with controls on it than have one form informally with no real controls on it, as we sometimes see in groups that claim to not have one. Jesus acknowledgement of Peter as a leader, or at least as a role model, seems to be a step towards putting some kind of leadership in place.

 

[paradox3]

Lack of leadership can present real problems for groups. Just look at our congregations where the same few people keep recycling through the various roles.

I have often argued that we need to streamline structures that were created for much larger congregations.

 

[Mendalla]

Lack of leadership can present real problems for groups. Just look at our congregations where the same few people keep recycling through the various roles.

I have often argued that we need to streamline structures that were created for much larger congregations.

The Unitarian Fellowship overhauled its governance at least twice while I was there for that very reason. Went from Board + Council to Board + standing committees reporting to Board members, to recruiting teams more of less on a project basis, or at least that's what I perceive is the situation right now. And lost the minister along the way. They have a part-time Director of Congregational Life who does some of the administrative work and leads a couple services a month (she's actually a student studying for the ministry) and then a Lay Chaplain for rites of passage which is on a fee-for-service basis.

 

[paradox3]

We have streamlined the structure of our denomination over the past few years. Not everyone is happy with the new model but I think change needed to happen.

At the congregational level the old session and stewards model had some merit. Boards and standing committees remind me of the corporate world.

We have started to call most of our committees "ministry teams". I am not sure how much difference this makes but some people really prefer the newer terminology.

 

[Mendalla]

We have started to call most of our committees "ministry teams". I am not sure how much difference this makes but some people really prefer the newer terminology.

Near the end of my stint as worship chair at the fellowship, we renamed the worship committee, the "Worship Weavers". Bit flowery but also nicely descriptive of what the group does. I think they are still using that name, too.

Back to Matthew, does this introduce a new understanding of "Messiah"? Was the Messiah understood as the literal or figurative "Son of the Living God" elsewhere at the time or prior? My understanding has always been that the Messiah was supposed to be more of an anointed leader like the old Kings and Judges. Which could be a figurative or metaphorical "Son of the Living God" but traditional Christianity reads Peter's statement of faith more literally.

 

[paradox3]

Will check later but I think some versions of the bible have Peter saying, "Thou art the Christ" which just means the anointed one.

Christianity definitely ended up with a different concept of Messiah than we find in the Hebrew Scriptures. I am not sure how or when the shift took place.

 

[Mendalla]

"Thou art the Christ" which just means the anointed one.

As did "Messiah" for the Jews as I understand it. That's why the word "Christ" got adopted for the Greek. An "anointed one" is not a "Son" but a king or priest anointed as part of their coronation/ordination.

 

[paradox3]

The son of the living God is very poetic. I wonder if Peter meant what the Church came to believe about "The Son of God."

 

[Waterfall]

Though clearly that faith is part of what ends up making Peter such an important leader in the post-Crucifixion Church so maybe this is Jesus ordaining Peter as a leader.

I always thought Jesus chose James (a very righteous man) to lead the church, not Peter.
Then there's Ephesians 2:20 which states that the foundation of the church is the apostles and prophets, not Peter alone.

 

[Waterfall]

The son of the living God is very poetic. I wonder if Peter meant what the Church came to believe about "The Son of God."

I personally feel it's read too literally in Christianity.....yet it would still remain an honor to be blessed with this description to describe Jesus' important appointment through God. IMHO

 

[Mendalla]

I always thought Jesus chose James (a very righteous man) to lead the church, not Peter.
Then there's Ephesians 2:20 which states that the foundation of the church is the apostles and prophets, not Peter alone.

Which is as it should be, really. As I said, I have always interpreted the "Rock" as being more setting Peter's faith as a role model for leadership than making him a leader per se. Certainly not as the founder of a multi-millennial dynasty of Popes.

 

[paradox3]

The history of the early Christian church & its leadership is often disputed. I remember being taught that Peter and James led different factions of followers after the death of Jesus.

 

[Waterfall]

The history of the early Christian church & its leadership is often disputed. I remember being taught that Peter and James led different factions of followers after the death of Jesus.

Wasn't James the head of the Jerusalem church?

 

[paradox3]

What were the keys to the kingdom of heaven that Jesus promised Peter? Is this where we get the idea of Peter guarding the pearly gates?

The binding and loosing on earth and in heaven has me completely baffled.

 

[Mendalla]

What were the keys to the kingdom of heaven that Jesus promised Peter? Is this where we get the idea of Peter guarding the pearly gates?

I think that's where the that image originated but I suspect it is also a way too literal understanding of it.

The binding and loosing on earth and in heaven has me completely baffled.

Taken at face value, it seems to say that Peter's actions on Earth somehow affect what happens in Heaven. Since it ties with the line about the keys, perhaps it is saying that he is not so much standing literally at the gates so much as following his role model is what will get you into The Kingdom. But, yeah, it's a confusing saying.

 

[paradox3]

This is probably completely far fetched, but Jewish men are commanded in the Torah to bind their arms and head at certain times.

The bindings (known as tefillin) consist of a small box holding a scrap of scripture and tight leather straps. They actually leave welts on the skin

Was Jesus suggesting that this tradition might be optional in the world to come?

Confusing for sure @Mendalla