Thoughts

The Pharisees and Sadducees came, apparently together, making what Green calls a “sinister combination” (p175), in order to ask Jesus for a sign. Apparently they have not been watching him too closely (cf 11:4 and his response to John’s disciples). In response to this demonstration of their unbelief, he offers them only the ‘sign of Jonah’ (as he did 12:39-41), but they apparently show no interest in this (according to Chrysostom LIII:3) and Jesus leaves them. In contrast, shortly afterwards Peter shows a great sign of belief in response to Jesus’s question about who men say he is. Jesus identifies himself as ‘Son of Man’ (16:13) and Peter identifies him as both Messiah (‘Christ’) and ‘Son of God’ – even ‘Son of the living God’ (16:16). Green points out that, although all three of these titles have been used of Jesus previously in Matthew, this is the first conjunction of the three.

Both Green and Chrysostom attempt to make sense of the reason why, when last time the disciples acknowledged Jesus as ‘Son of God’ nothing was made of it, this time the result from Jesus is a blessing, an acknowledgement of divine inspiration, and a place at the root of the Church with powers to bind and loose and the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Chrysostom suggests that the first acknowledgement was as a son of God, “one of the many” (LIV:2) whereas here it was a genuine acknowledgement based on divine inspiration. Green suggests that the first time was in the heat of the moment, after being rescued from the danger of the storm, whereas on this occasion it is a calm, rational statement. Neither of them comment on the difference in the form of the acknowledgement: the first time simply, ‘Son of God’; here, ‘Son of the living God’. Here it is also given in conjunction with ‘Messiah’ or anointed one, strengthening the image. (According to Chrysostom, Jesus’s response, identifying Peter as “Son of Jonas” (16:17) is intended to convey a parallel relationship, making it clear that Jesus’s sonship of his Father is not a figure of speech, but is analogical to Peter’s natural sonship.)

What of Christ’s promise to the newly-named Peter to build his Church on this rock? Green notes that many have seen the use of the word church in the gospels (it only occurs twice, both in Matthew) as an anachronism, a later interpolation. However, he points out that it is appropriate since the Messiah is always accompanied by his people, the congregation. He might also have noted that, since many scholars agree that the Matthean church is an ongoing concern reflected in this Gospel’s teachings, it is not unnatural that the church should be mentioned.

Chrysostom takes for granted that the promise is not to build the Church on Peter per se, but “on the faith of his confession” (LIV:3), making him a shepherd. Although Green considers that the presentation in the Gospel makes it seem more natural that it is Peter himself who is meant, he says that it is Peter “in his confessional capacity”, which is not very different from Chrysostom’s view: building the church on the faith of the confession with Peter as shepherd. However, Green wishes to shift the interlocutor between the statement of the rock (to Peter) and the promises of the keys and binding and loosing (to all the disciples); there is no clear warrant in the text for this; in fact, the interlocutor is specifically changed to all the disciples only in 16:20 when Christ asks them not to tell anyone that he is the Messiah. (On the other hand, in Mt 18:18 the comment about binding and loosing is made again, and in this case it is clear that it is addressed to the disciples in general.) It is not clear here whether Peter receives this new name from Christ here, or whether it is a word play on a name he was already known by. Either way, (especially given the parallel in 18:18) it is perfectly possible that Christ was addressing him as a representative apostle, or even as (at this moment) a representative of the faith of those who needed to be at the base of the church.

Whatever the import of these words to Peter personally, it is remarkable that in the very next pericope Jesus is addressing him as the voice of Satan (16:23): a warning that any human being, no matter how spiritually exalted at one moment, is in danger of a fall the next.

What does it say about a life of Christian ministry? How can it be applied in today’s Church?

John Chrysostom writes that the aim of a priest is ‘the glory of God and the edification of the Church’[1] but speaks also of spiritual dangers for the priest and those he serves. Christian ministry is a life full of temptations with a constant danger of the sin of presumption. Therefore there is an intense need for self-examination, a priest’s understanding of his own weaknesses (for the ministry both lays bare and hardens his own sins), wise spiritual counsel and also, perhaps, good friends and close spiritual brothers, because of the danger of being crushed by worldly cares.

A priest’s glory is in the Liturgy and sacraments, ‘bringing down … the Holy Spirit’[2]. John connects the centrality of teaching to the lack of wonders and miracles in his age. It is not surprising that the ‘passion for oratory’[3] he mentions was rediscovered in the Enlightenment/Reformation in the West and the intensity of this ‘passion’ varies between cultures today. Teaching also combats heresies, many of which are still around, and is a part of administering the ‘spiritual medicine’ of the soul, along with perception and the appropriate use of discipline (not too hard, not too lenient). The priest is also responsible for intercessory prayer as an ‘ambassador for … not just a city [but] the whole world – and begs God to be merciful to the sins of all men, not only the living, but the departed too’[4].

The required list of qualifications for a priest includes everything from love, wisdom and purity to the willingness to sacrifice even his own salvation. The candidate for priesthood also needs to be ready to sacrifice his privacy and endure many sufferings – and not only the priest but his family too, who must, therefore, all be committed to the priestly ministry and ready for the sacrifice – perhaps a harder task in today’s more individualistic society.

The thread throughout St John’s writing is the strength of feeling he exhibits in justifying his flight from the priestly office. He feels himself completely unworthy – ‘I … could not bear the very thought of so horrible a thing’ as for the Bride of Christ to be ‘handed over to me, the most worthless of men’ – and considers it a necessary condition that a potential priest/bishop should ‘purify his soul entirely of ambition for the office’[5] In a society that encourages self-esteem and career-oriented thinking, it is vital to emphasize the importance of this humility, and the priest can only achieve this through constant awareness of his great responsibility for many souls and of the unrelenting but invisible battle in the midst of which ministry takes place. In this context of urgency and humility the priest must try to perform the pastoral and teaching tasks that St John describes. Knowledge of his incapability for this task, and the consequent reduction of the self to nothingness should lead him to total dependence on God, as necessary now as it always has been.