Forberg: Peter - the High Priest of the new covenant?
A most interesting article ... lots of possibilities to go running off down various other rabbit trails as a result of this.
Peter - the High Priest of the new covenant?
Tord Forberg
Published in the East Asia Journal of Theology, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1986
We read the words Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et tibi dabo claves regni coelorum from Matt 16:18-19 in letters two meters high, under the cupola in St. Peter's Church in Rome. There they express the thought that Peter is the first in the series of popes over the world-wide Catholic church.1 However, the question whether Peter can also be connected with the high priest in Jerusalem has seldom been raised. After having studied three texts, all o which are localized to the territory surrounding Mount Hermon (Matt 16:13-19, 1 Enoch 12-16 and Test. Levi 2-7), George Nickelsburg has recently drawn a cautious conclusion: "... I am seeking an interpretation that is consonant with the character of Enoch - Levi - tradition, other parallels to which we have found in Matt 16. We may press our inquiry further. We have noted in both 1 Enoch 12-16 and T. Levi a disaffection with the Jerusalem priesthood. Is there any evidence that in ascribing priestly or quasi-priestly functions to Peter, the tradition(s) in Matt 16:13-19 may have viewed the apostle as a counterpart to or replacement of the Jewish high priest?"2 It is especially striking that Levi received his call to the priesthood in a vision near the site of one of the shrines of the northern kingdom (Test.Levi 2-7):3 "You shall be his priest and you shall tell forth his mysteries to men" (2:10), and "Levi, to you I have given the blessing of the priesthood until I shall come and dwell in the midst of Israel" (5:2).4
My purpose in this paper is to search for additional arguments supporting the hypothesis that Peter5 is presented as some kind of successor to the high priest in traditions used by the final redactor of Matt 16:13-19. He worked in early Jabnean times and stood in opposition to the emergent Rabbinate of the Shammaite type.6 Against such a background Peter stands out as a kind of Chief Rabbi who binds and loosens, in the sense of declaring something to be forbidden or permitted.7 This redactional layer is also clear in Matt 23:13: "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut (kleiete) the kingdom of heaven against men ..." The vitriolic attack on Pharasaism in Matthew 23 shows us a Matthew who is attacking (and being attacked by) "the synagogue 'across the street.'"8 Our task, however, is to examine the treatment of Peter in the pre-redactional material.
There is a considerable discussion on the pre-redactional character of vv17-19. These verses are often dealt with together, something which has been vigorously defended by Joachim Jeremias arguing from the poetical structure of the passage.9 It may, however, be that v17 is redactional, and that Matthew has rephrased vv13-17 to prepare for vv18-19.10 These verses contain several Semitisms. The most important one is of course the world-play Petros - petra.11 The tradition on how Peter got his name has a parallel in John 1:40-42. The common roots for these two texts must lie very far back in the gospel tradition.12 Our task is not to pursue the earliest traceable layer of this tradition but a far more modest one: How was Peter looked upon in the material used by the final redactor who made Peter into a kind of Rabbi making decisions on halakic questions?
This will be done through an examination of some important topics in vv18-19: the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the (temple) rock, and finally the links between our text and the Day of atonement. This will lead us to some concluding remarks.
First we will deal with the keys of the kingdom of heaven, mentioned in Matt 16:19. Keys were often looked upon as a sign of authority.13 An early example, often quoted, is Isa 22:22, "And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open."14 Isaiah speaks about the key of the house of David, i.e. of the palace. Later on the Jonathan Targum to this text has a cultic reference, "And I will give the key of the temple and the rulership of the house of David into his hand."15 The Davidic Messiah seems to have been associated with the temple already in Ps.Sol. 17 where we find him purifying Jerusalem and its polluted temple, mentioned in Ps.Sol. 2:2-3 and 8:11-12.16 In addition, the keys of the temple seem to have a quite concrete background, which we find in 1 Chron 9:27:17 the Levites "lodged round about the house of God; for upon them lay the duty of watching, and they had charge of opening (literally "and they (were) over the key"18) it every morning."
The keys are mentioned later on in two Mishnaic texts.19 Thus we read in m. Middot 1:8-9, "The Chamber of the Hearth ... there the eldest of the father's house used to sleep with the keys of the Temple Court in their hand (thus far = m. Tamid 1:1) ... And there was a place there, one cubic square, whereon lay a slab of marble in which was fixed a ring and a chain on which hung the keys ... When he had finished locking (the gates) he put back the keys on the chain and the slab in its place, put his mattress over it, and went to sleep."
When dealing with Rabbinic texts dating is always a difficult but important problem. Can we take for granted that the keys of the temple were kept in a box in the temple rock itself20 in New Testament times or earlier? We are hardly in a position to answer that question. But all those texts which tell us how these keys were given back to God when the temple was destroyed21 indicate at least that the priestly possession of the keys of the temple was of great importance as a sign of authority as long as the temple was in existence. The oldest of these texts is probably 2 Apoc.Bar 10:18, where we read how Baruch urges the priests (at the fall of the temple in 587 B.C.) to throw the keys of the temple up to heaven to God with the words, "Guard your house yourself, because, behold, we have been found to be false stewards." This text as well as Par.Jer. 4:4-5 and Pesiqta Rab. 26 give us a theological interpretation of the events of the year A.D. 70.22 Josephus also wrote in Contra Apionem 2.108 that the priests kept the keys, "others (sc. priests) ... take over from the outgoing ministers the keys of the building (claues templi) and all its vessels ..."
The words in 2 Macc 2:4-8, a work from the first century B.C., describing how the prophet Jeremiah deposited the tabernacle and the ark on Mount Nebo23 takes for granted that he was looked upon as the keeper of these keys. Otherwise he would not have access to the holy objects. This supports the hypothesis that 2 Apoc.Bar 10:18 (where we read that Jeremiah's co-worker Baruch initiated the giving back of the keys from the side of the priests) and Par.Jer. 4:4-5 (where Jeremiah as high priest24 speaks in plural on behalf of his fellow priests, "for we have not been found worthy to keep them, because we have been unfaithful stewards") go back to an early tradition, according to which Jeremiah as high priest kept the keys.25 In all these texts the giving back of the keys to God is a direct consequence of the fact that God had taken his hand from the temple, when it was burned by Titus' soldiers.26
It is further evident that the metaphorical language in Matt 16:18 fits the Pharisees badly. The words which describe Peter as the rock on which the church is to be built, and which will not be suppressed by the gates of the realm of death27 fit the high priest much better, being the highest representative of the temple aristocracy on Mount Zion.28
Already in the OT we find the temple mountain described as a cosmic rock29 or as the naval of the world (Ezek 38:12), a metaphor which we also find in intertestamental literature.30 Isa 28:14-22 about the corner-stone which God has laid in Zion is a most important text for our understanding of the Zion-theology. The people in Jerusalem are accused of having made a covenant with the realm of death. However, the corner-stone, laid by God, will not be swept away by any deluge. This Isaiah-text is alluded to by several NT authors.31 The most important of these passages is 1 Pet 2:4-10. Here Isa 28:16 is quoted together with Ps 118:22 and Isa 8:14 (all three passages with lithos = "stone" as a key-word) in a context about the readers as a holy priesthood offering spiritual sacrifices. It is thus clear that OT-passages like Isa 28:16 were read with a cultic frame of reference.32 This of course strengthens the possibility of such an interpretation of Matt 16:18-19 as well. This Isaiah-text was read in a similar way by the Essenes about their community in Qumran. This is described as "that tried wall, that precious corner-stone, whose foundations shall neither rock nor sway in their place" (1 QS 8:7-8). In 1 QH 6:2633 we read that the community is founded by God on the rock, where the author is saved from "the gates of death" (6:24). The community in Qumran and the church are thus described with similar metaphors which have their roots in the OT Zion-theology. In both cases the message is the same: The priestly hierarchy in the temple of Jerusalem is being replaced by the Essenes in the Judaean desert headed by the Teacher of Righteousness or by the church headed by Peter.34
In post-biblical Judaism and in Islam we find many traditions about the temple rock.35 It is looked upon as the gate to heaven as well as to hell (cf. "the Well of the Spirits" in Muslim tradition), as the point of departure for the creation ('aebaen shetijah, m. Yoma 5:2),36 as the centre of the world, and as the rock which restrains the waters of chaos (thus already in Isa 28:16). Under this rock we find the primeval depth, tehom (this m.Para 3:3). Heaven has even been created from the temple rock (thus b. Yoma 54b, a baraitha). It is not possible to date all this material back to the time of the second temple. It seems clear, however, that the Zion-theology was so developed already in the time of Jesus that the words in Matt 16:18-19a easily led a Jewish reader's thoughts to the temple mount.
The introductory words of the pericope on the transfiguration of Jesus give us a third argument that the text had a cultic frame of reference on the pre-redaction level. Matt 17:1 as well as its source in Mark 9:2 date the transfiguration six days after the Petrine confession and the discussion on suffering and martyrdom. This is striking, since the Synoptic gospels contain very few exact chronological notes outside the passion story. The fact that the transfiguration is firmly linked to the Feast of tabernacles37 places our text on the Day of atonement. This opens up new ways of understanding details in Matt 16:17-19.38 Peter may be addressed as "Simon Bar-Jona" in parallelism to Sir 50:1 where the high priest is called "Simon ... son of Onias", and Simon's new name Kefas may be chosen not only because of its meaning but also because of its similarity with the name of the then high priest, Kaiafas. Simon, not Kaiafas, is the mediator between heaven and earth. And certainly it is no coincidence that Peter is declared successor of the high priest on the very Day of atonement. On that day the sins of the people were atoned for. This now becomes the task of Peter, to bind or loosen from sin - a distinctively priestly task.
Before A.D. 70 the temple on Mount Zion was the very centre of the Jewish world. Pious Jews from all over the diaspora made the pilgrimages there, and the sins of the people were expiated. After the year 70 the situation changed. We read about this in a Rabbinic tractate: "... Rabbi Joshua ... beheld the Temple in ruins. 'Woe unto us,' Rabbi Joshua cried, 'that this, the place where the iniquities of Israel were atoned for, is laid waste!' 'My son.' Rabban Yohanan said to him, 'be not grieved. We have another atonement as effective as this. And what is it? It is acts of lovingkindness.'"39 This story mirrors how the temple was replaced by the Rabbinic house of teaching and the synagogue. The importance of the academy at Jabne can hardly be exaggerated. As stated above the final redaction of Matthew took place early in the Jabnean period, when the Shammaites still dominated Pharaisaism. The redactor's frames of Judaism, the importance of which had grown much during the first century A.D.40 Peter is now looked upon as a counterpart to the emerging Rabbinate in Jabne.41 In Matthew we find two scribal "schools" opposing each other, the Matthean one and the Pharisaic one. This situation is mirrored in two pericopes preceeding our text, Matt 15:1-20 and 16:5-12, where v12 explicitly warns the reader for the teaching (didache) of the Pharisees and Sadducees. In these two texts Matthew makes Jesus repudiate the Jewish magisterium. This prepares the way for our pericope about the Petrine magisterium.42
The redactive work did not result in a total harmonization of the gospel material. Instead, a lot of material which reflects older situations was used without extensive re-writing, such as the particularistic statements in Matt 10:5-6 and 15:24 and the pericope on temple tax in Matt 17:24-27. The tension between tradition and redaction is also clear in the trias on worship in Matt 6:1-18.43
It is now time to summarize the thesis proposed in this paper. In the material which was used by the final redactor Peter was looked upon as a counterpart to the high priest. He is the highest representative for the people of God, for a church metaphorically said to be built on the temple mount.44 Thus the frames of reference for this tradition are priestly. This influences our interpretation of the contrasting words "bind" and "loose" in v19. If this verse is to be interpreted in the light of the priestly frames of reference which we have found in Enoch - Levi-tradition, it deals with binding in and loosing from sin, i.e. a priestly function given to Peter instead of to the temple priests under the high priest.45 This interpretation of the pre-Matthean material in vv18-1946 is supported by John 20:22b-23 and Matt 18:15-21, where the Matthean text of course is the most important one. Here the evangelist has "inserted his doublet of 16:19 into a Q saying about forgiveness and where Peter himself brings up a question about forgiveness."47 Further research must deal with the links between this pre-redactional layer of Matthew and John 1:41-42, something which I have not tried to illuminate in this paper.
Footnotes
1 For difficulties in seeing the historical Peter as a monarchial bishop with authority over the whole church, see Mc Cue 1974 and especially Brox 1976. Ludwig 1952 deals with early church exegesis of Matt 16:18-19
2 Nickelsburg 1981, quotation from pp. 595-96
3 Ibid., p. 589
4 Stendahl 1962, 787: "An Aram. fragment to Test.Levi 2:3-5 found at Qumran may give an astonishing complex of parallels to this passage and even to its connection with the country around Caesarea Philippi ... "
5 The scholarly debate on Peter is dealt with in Rigaux 1967 and Brown et al 1973
6 Fornberg 1984
7 This is the normal interpretation, see, e.g., Beare 1981, 355-56. According to Basser 1985 such an interpretation of the words "bind" and "loosen" cannot be shown until the Gaonic period. For a totally different interpretation connected with exorcism see Hiers 1985.
8 Stendahl 1968, xi.
9 Jeremias 1926, 68-69
10 Vogtle 1973, supported by Hahn 1977. See also Kahler 1976.
11 See, e.g., van Cangh and van Esbroeck 1980, 320-21. For the contrary view see Wilcox 1976, 79-81
12 On this see Brown 1966, 302
13 Jeremias 1965a. NT texts are Matt 16:19, Luke 11:52, Rev. 1:18, 3:7, 9:1 and 20:1. In 3 Apoc.Bar. 11:2 Michael is called "the holder of the keys of the kingdom of heaven."
14 Cf. Rev 3:7, "... the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens."
15 Dahlberg 1975, 78. This Targumic text reflects a time when it was no longer self-evident that the keys of the temple had been in the hands of the priests, i.e. a time after the fall of the temple in A.D. 70. The keys of the temple seem to have been unknown to the men behind the Babylonian Talmud. The only relevant passage is b. Ta'anit 29a on how the keys were handed back to God.
16 Nickelsburg in a letter to the author, Sept. 17, 1985
17 Dahlberg, op.cit. 76-77
18 The LXX reads "keys" in plural
19 Gerhardsson 1963, 59
20 Emphasized in Gerhardsson ibid. We may find some support for this idea in a Coptic Jeremiah apocryphon (published in Kuhn 1970), where we read in ch.29: "He (sc. Jeremiah) took all the keys and put them in the tower. He said: 'I tell you, tower, receive the keys of the house of the Lord and keep them until the people returns from captivity.' Then the stone opened its mouth and received them from him." Cf. ch.41 where we read how "the pillar" gives back the keys. The earliest Coptic manuscript dates from the 7th cent. A.D., Kunh op.cit., 104
21 2 Apoc.Bar 10:18, Par.Jer. 4:4, Abot R. Natan A4 and B7, y.Shekalim 6:3, b.Ta'aint 29a, Pes.Rab. 26:6, Lev.Rab. 19:6, 2 Targ.Ester 1:3 and a Coptic Jeremiah apocryphon (see Kuhn op.cit., 95). For these texts see Bogaert 1969:1, 234-41 and Gry 1948.
22 Bogaert op.cit., 241. 2 Apoc.Bar and Par.Jer. seem to go back to an early source known to the author of 2 Macc, thus Nickelsburg 1973.
23Goldstein 1983, 182-84. See also Jeremias 1965.
24 Thus Bogaert, op.cit., 238
25 This also seems to be taken for granted in the Coptic Jeremiah apocryphon ch.41, where we read that Jeremiah entered the Holy of Holies. The relevance of these texts about Jeremiah may be supported by the fact that he is mentioned in Matt 16:14
26 The destruction of the temple in fire is mentioned explicitly in Abot R. Natan B7, b.Ta'anit 29a and 2 Apoc.Bar 10:19 and is taken for granted in Abot R. Natan A4. For the symbolism in what happens to the keys cf. Ezek 11:22-23 and 43:1-5 on the glory of the Lord.
27 The expression "gates of hell" is widely used: Ps 9:14, 107:18, Isa 38:10, Job 38:17, Sir 51:9 Hebrew, Wisd 16:13, 3 Maac 5:51, 4 Ezra 4:7 and Ps.Sol 16:2. See Jeremias 1968, 924-28
28 It is unlikely that Matthew wants to direct the thoughts of the readers to the rock in Banyas with the cave of Pan and the spring of Jordon as an antitype of the church. This is argue by, e.g., Immisch 1916; cf. Milik 1955, 405. The symbolism holy rock - temple - cave - may, however, be the same, Jeremias 1926, 73
29 For the mount of Zion see Isa 2:2-3 (with parallel in Micah 4:1-2), further Ps. 15:1, 24:3 and 99:9, Isa 57:13 and Zech 8:3. It is explicitly described as a rock in Ps 27:4-5, 61:3-5 and Isa 30:29 MT. For Zion-theology see Ringgren 1966, 161-63.
30 1 Enoch 26:1-2, Jub 8:19 and Josephus, War 3.52
31 E.g., Matt 21:42, Luke 20:17, Rom. 9:33, 10:11, Eph. 2:20, 2 Tim 2:19 and 1 Pet 2:4,6
32 Nickelsburg 1981, 596 and a letter to the author, Sept 17, 1985
33 For this text and its relationship to Matt 16:13-20 see O. Betz 1957
34 Schmidt 1933, 100-2 emphasizes the parallelism between Peter and the temple rock. The possibility that the names Kefas/Peter shall lead the thoughts to the temple rock is supported by the fact that it cannot be shown conclusively that they were used earlier than our text. But Fitzmeyer 1979 presents a possible example of kp' as a personal name in one of the Elephantine papyri.
35 For what follows see Jeremias 1926, a most important work. See further Bohl 1974, Donner 1977, Schmidt op.cit, Vogt 1974 and Keel 1978, 118-20. For OT times see Keel op.cit., 179-83
36 Cf. Jeremias op.cit., 66
37 Riesenfeld 1947
38 For what follows see van Cangh and van Esbroeck op.cit
39 Abot R. Natan A4
40 Neusner 1979. For the different gospels and the historical situations taken for granted see Smith 1979
41 Most of Matthew reflects this emergent Rabbinate. See Fornberg op.cit. and, somewhat differently, Davies 1964
42 Meier 1979, 100-6, 113-14
43 See H.D. Betz 1985
44 Scholars have often referred to Isa 51:1-2 where Abraham is mentioned as a rock, from which the Jewish people has been hewn out. We find this metaphor later on in a reworked form in Pseudo-Philo 23.4. See also a still later text (dependent upon Matthew 16 according to Lampe 1979, 229-30), Jalqut 1 sec. 766 (a quotation from Midrash Tanchuma to Num 23:9), where we read, "When God looked at Abraham who should appear, he said, 'Behold, I have found a rock (ptr'), on which I can guild and found the world.' Thus he called Abraham a rock." The hypothesis that Peter is looked upon as a second Abraham, thus Chevalier 1982, must be rejected, because the metaphorical use of the rock is different in Isaiah 51 and Pseudo-Philo compared to Matthew
45 Cf. the central role of the high priest during the Day of atonement: Leviticus 16, Sir 50:1-21 (?) and m. Yoma
46 Cf. Peter's binding of Ananias and Sapphira in sin in Acts 5:1-11
47 Nickelsburg op.cit., 594-95
Peter - the High Priest of the new covenant?
Tord Forberg
Published in the East Asia Journal of Theology, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1986
We read the words Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et tibi dabo claves regni coelorum from Matt 16:18-19 in letters two meters high, under the cupola in St. Peter's Church in Rome. There they express the thought that Peter is the first in the series of popes over the world-wide Catholic church.1 However, the question whether Peter can also be connected with the high priest in Jerusalem has seldom been raised. After having studied three texts, all o which are localized to the territory surrounding Mount Hermon (Matt 16:13-19, 1 Enoch 12-16 and Test. Levi 2-7), George Nickelsburg has recently drawn a cautious conclusion: "... I am seeking an interpretation that is consonant with the character of Enoch - Levi - tradition, other parallels to which we have found in Matt 16. We may press our inquiry further. We have noted in both 1 Enoch 12-16 and T. Levi a disaffection with the Jerusalem priesthood. Is there any evidence that in ascribing priestly or quasi-priestly functions to Peter, the tradition(s) in Matt 16:13-19 may have viewed the apostle as a counterpart to or replacement of the Jewish high priest?"2 It is especially striking that Levi received his call to the priesthood in a vision near the site of one of the shrines of the northern kingdom (Test.Levi 2-7):3 "You shall be his priest and you shall tell forth his mysteries to men" (2:10), and "Levi, to you I have given the blessing of the priesthood until I shall come and dwell in the midst of Israel" (5:2).4
My purpose in this paper is to search for additional arguments supporting the hypothesis that Peter5 is presented as some kind of successor to the high priest in traditions used by the final redactor of Matt 16:13-19. He worked in early Jabnean times and stood in opposition to the emergent Rabbinate of the Shammaite type.6 Against such a background Peter stands out as a kind of Chief Rabbi who binds and loosens, in the sense of declaring something to be forbidden or permitted.7 This redactional layer is also clear in Matt 23:13: "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut (kleiete) the kingdom of heaven against men ..." The vitriolic attack on Pharasaism in Matthew 23 shows us a Matthew who is attacking (and being attacked by) "the synagogue 'across the street.'"8 Our task, however, is to examine the treatment of Peter in the pre-redactional material.
There is a considerable discussion on the pre-redactional character of vv17-19. These verses are often dealt with together, something which has been vigorously defended by Joachim Jeremias arguing from the poetical structure of the passage.9 It may, however, be that v17 is redactional, and that Matthew has rephrased vv13-17 to prepare for vv18-19.10 These verses contain several Semitisms. The most important one is of course the world-play Petros - petra.11 The tradition on how Peter got his name has a parallel in John 1:40-42. The common roots for these two texts must lie very far back in the gospel tradition.12 Our task is not to pursue the earliest traceable layer of this tradition but a far more modest one: How was Peter looked upon in the material used by the final redactor who made Peter into a kind of Rabbi making decisions on halakic questions?
This will be done through an examination of some important topics in vv18-19: the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the (temple) rock, and finally the links between our text and the Day of atonement. This will lead us to some concluding remarks.
First we will deal with the keys of the kingdom of heaven, mentioned in Matt 16:19. Keys were often looked upon as a sign of authority.13 An early example, often quoted, is Isa 22:22, "And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open."14 Isaiah speaks about the key of the house of David, i.e. of the palace. Later on the Jonathan Targum to this text has a cultic reference, "And I will give the key of the temple and the rulership of the house of David into his hand."15 The Davidic Messiah seems to have been associated with the temple already in Ps.Sol. 17 where we find him purifying Jerusalem and its polluted temple, mentioned in Ps.Sol. 2:2-3 and 8:11-12.16 In addition, the keys of the temple seem to have a quite concrete background, which we find in 1 Chron 9:27:17 the Levites "lodged round about the house of God; for upon them lay the duty of watching, and they had charge of opening (literally "and they (were) over the key"18) it every morning."
The keys are mentioned later on in two Mishnaic texts.19 Thus we read in m. Middot 1:8-9, "The Chamber of the Hearth ... there the eldest of the father's house used to sleep with the keys of the Temple Court in their hand (thus far = m. Tamid 1:1) ... And there was a place there, one cubic square, whereon lay a slab of marble in which was fixed a ring and a chain on which hung the keys ... When he had finished locking (the gates) he put back the keys on the chain and the slab in its place, put his mattress over it, and went to sleep."
When dealing with Rabbinic texts dating is always a difficult but important problem. Can we take for granted that the keys of the temple were kept in a box in the temple rock itself20 in New Testament times or earlier? We are hardly in a position to answer that question. But all those texts which tell us how these keys were given back to God when the temple was destroyed21 indicate at least that the priestly possession of the keys of the temple was of great importance as a sign of authority as long as the temple was in existence. The oldest of these texts is probably 2 Apoc.Bar 10:18, where we read how Baruch urges the priests (at the fall of the temple in 587 B.C.) to throw the keys of the temple up to heaven to God with the words, "Guard your house yourself, because, behold, we have been found to be false stewards." This text as well as Par.Jer. 4:4-5 and Pesiqta Rab. 26 give us a theological interpretation of the events of the year A.D. 70.22 Josephus also wrote in Contra Apionem 2.108 that the priests kept the keys, "others (sc. priests) ... take over from the outgoing ministers the keys of the building (claues templi) and all its vessels ..."
The words in 2 Macc 2:4-8, a work from the first century B.C., describing how the prophet Jeremiah deposited the tabernacle and the ark on Mount Nebo23 takes for granted that he was looked upon as the keeper of these keys. Otherwise he would not have access to the holy objects. This supports the hypothesis that 2 Apoc.Bar 10:18 (where we read that Jeremiah's co-worker Baruch initiated the giving back of the keys from the side of the priests) and Par.Jer. 4:4-5 (where Jeremiah as high priest24 speaks in plural on behalf of his fellow priests, "for we have not been found worthy to keep them, because we have been unfaithful stewards") go back to an early tradition, according to which Jeremiah as high priest kept the keys.25 In all these texts the giving back of the keys to God is a direct consequence of the fact that God had taken his hand from the temple, when it was burned by Titus' soldiers.26
It is further evident that the metaphorical language in Matt 16:18 fits the Pharisees badly. The words which describe Peter as the rock on which the church is to be built, and which will not be suppressed by the gates of the realm of death27 fit the high priest much better, being the highest representative of the temple aristocracy on Mount Zion.28
Already in the OT we find the temple mountain described as a cosmic rock29 or as the naval of the world (Ezek 38:12), a metaphor which we also find in intertestamental literature.30 Isa 28:14-22 about the corner-stone which God has laid in Zion is a most important text for our understanding of the Zion-theology. The people in Jerusalem are accused of having made a covenant with the realm of death. However, the corner-stone, laid by God, will not be swept away by any deluge. This Isaiah-text is alluded to by several NT authors.31 The most important of these passages is 1 Pet 2:4-10. Here Isa 28:16 is quoted together with Ps 118:22 and Isa 8:14 (all three passages with lithos = "stone" as a key-word) in a context about the readers as a holy priesthood offering spiritual sacrifices. It is thus clear that OT-passages like Isa 28:16 were read with a cultic frame of reference.32 This of course strengthens the possibility of such an interpretation of Matt 16:18-19 as well. This Isaiah-text was read in a similar way by the Essenes about their community in Qumran. This is described as "that tried wall, that precious corner-stone, whose foundations shall neither rock nor sway in their place" (1 QS 8:7-8). In 1 QH 6:2633 we read that the community is founded by God on the rock, where the author is saved from "the gates of death" (6:24). The community in Qumran and the church are thus described with similar metaphors which have their roots in the OT Zion-theology. In both cases the message is the same: The priestly hierarchy in the temple of Jerusalem is being replaced by the Essenes in the Judaean desert headed by the Teacher of Righteousness or by the church headed by Peter.34
In post-biblical Judaism and in Islam we find many traditions about the temple rock.35 It is looked upon as the gate to heaven as well as to hell (cf. "the Well of the Spirits" in Muslim tradition), as the point of departure for the creation ('aebaen shetijah, m. Yoma 5:2),36 as the centre of the world, and as the rock which restrains the waters of chaos (thus already in Isa 28:16). Under this rock we find the primeval depth, tehom (this m.Para 3:3). Heaven has even been created from the temple rock (thus b. Yoma 54b, a baraitha). It is not possible to date all this material back to the time of the second temple. It seems clear, however, that the Zion-theology was so developed already in the time of Jesus that the words in Matt 16:18-19a easily led a Jewish reader's thoughts to the temple mount.
The introductory words of the pericope on the transfiguration of Jesus give us a third argument that the text had a cultic frame of reference on the pre-redaction level. Matt 17:1 as well as its source in Mark 9:2 date the transfiguration six days after the Petrine confession and the discussion on suffering and martyrdom. This is striking, since the Synoptic gospels contain very few exact chronological notes outside the passion story. The fact that the transfiguration is firmly linked to the Feast of tabernacles37 places our text on the Day of atonement. This opens up new ways of understanding details in Matt 16:17-19.38 Peter may be addressed as "Simon Bar-Jona" in parallelism to Sir 50:1 where the high priest is called "Simon ... son of Onias", and Simon's new name Kefas may be chosen not only because of its meaning but also because of its similarity with the name of the then high priest, Kaiafas. Simon, not Kaiafas, is the mediator between heaven and earth. And certainly it is no coincidence that Peter is declared successor of the high priest on the very Day of atonement. On that day the sins of the people were atoned for. This now becomes the task of Peter, to bind or loosen from sin - a distinctively priestly task.
Before A.D. 70 the temple on Mount Zion was the very centre of the Jewish world. Pious Jews from all over the diaspora made the pilgrimages there, and the sins of the people were expiated. After the year 70 the situation changed. We read about this in a Rabbinic tractate: "... Rabbi Joshua ... beheld the Temple in ruins. 'Woe unto us,' Rabbi Joshua cried, 'that this, the place where the iniquities of Israel were atoned for, is laid waste!' 'My son.' Rabban Yohanan said to him, 'be not grieved. We have another atonement as effective as this. And what is it? It is acts of lovingkindness.'"39 This story mirrors how the temple was replaced by the Rabbinic house of teaching and the synagogue. The importance of the academy at Jabne can hardly be exaggerated. As stated above the final redaction of Matthew took place early in the Jabnean period, when the Shammaites still dominated Pharaisaism. The redactor's frames of Judaism, the importance of which had grown much during the first century A.D.40 Peter is now looked upon as a counterpart to the emerging Rabbinate in Jabne.41 In Matthew we find two scribal "schools" opposing each other, the Matthean one and the Pharisaic one. This situation is mirrored in two pericopes preceeding our text, Matt 15:1-20 and 16:5-12, where v12 explicitly warns the reader for the teaching (didache) of the Pharisees and Sadducees. In these two texts Matthew makes Jesus repudiate the Jewish magisterium. This prepares the way for our pericope about the Petrine magisterium.42
The redactive work did not result in a total harmonization of the gospel material. Instead, a lot of material which reflects older situations was used without extensive re-writing, such as the particularistic statements in Matt 10:5-6 and 15:24 and the pericope on temple tax in Matt 17:24-27. The tension between tradition and redaction is also clear in the trias on worship in Matt 6:1-18.43
It is now time to summarize the thesis proposed in this paper. In the material which was used by the final redactor Peter was looked upon as a counterpart to the high priest. He is the highest representative for the people of God, for a church metaphorically said to be built on the temple mount.44 Thus the frames of reference for this tradition are priestly. This influences our interpretation of the contrasting words "bind" and "loose" in v19. If this verse is to be interpreted in the light of the priestly frames of reference which we have found in Enoch - Levi-tradition, it deals with binding in and loosing from sin, i.e. a priestly function given to Peter instead of to the temple priests under the high priest.45 This interpretation of the pre-Matthean material in vv18-1946 is supported by John 20:22b-23 and Matt 18:15-21, where the Matthean text of course is the most important one. Here the evangelist has "inserted his doublet of 16:19 into a Q saying about forgiveness and where Peter himself brings up a question about forgiveness."47 Further research must deal with the links between this pre-redactional layer of Matthew and John 1:41-42, something which I have not tried to illuminate in this paper.
Footnotes
1 For difficulties in seeing the historical Peter as a monarchial bishop with authority over the whole church, see Mc Cue 1974 and especially Brox 1976. Ludwig 1952 deals with early church exegesis of Matt 16:18-19
2 Nickelsburg 1981, quotation from pp. 595-96
3 Ibid., p. 589
4 Stendahl 1962, 787: "An Aram. fragment to Test.Levi 2:3-5 found at Qumran may give an astonishing complex of parallels to this passage and even to its connection with the country around Caesarea Philippi ... "
5 The scholarly debate on Peter is dealt with in Rigaux 1967 and Brown et al 1973
6 Fornberg 1984
7 This is the normal interpretation, see, e.g., Beare 1981, 355-56. According to Basser 1985 such an interpretation of the words "bind" and "loosen" cannot be shown until the Gaonic period. For a totally different interpretation connected with exorcism see Hiers 1985.
8 Stendahl 1968, xi.
9 Jeremias 1926, 68-69
10 Vogtle 1973, supported by Hahn 1977. See also Kahler 1976.
11 See, e.g., van Cangh and van Esbroeck 1980, 320-21. For the contrary view see Wilcox 1976, 79-81
12 On this see Brown 1966, 302
13 Jeremias 1965a. NT texts are Matt 16:19, Luke 11:52, Rev. 1:18, 3:7, 9:1 and 20:1. In 3 Apoc.Bar. 11:2 Michael is called "the holder of the keys of the kingdom of heaven."
14 Cf. Rev 3:7, "... the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens."
15 Dahlberg 1975, 78. This Targumic text reflects a time when it was no longer self-evident that the keys of the temple had been in the hands of the priests, i.e. a time after the fall of the temple in A.D. 70. The keys of the temple seem to have been unknown to the men behind the Babylonian Talmud. The only relevant passage is b. Ta'anit 29a on how the keys were handed back to God.
16 Nickelsburg in a letter to the author, Sept. 17, 1985
17 Dahlberg, op.cit. 76-77
18 The LXX reads "keys" in plural
19 Gerhardsson 1963, 59
20 Emphasized in Gerhardsson ibid. We may find some support for this idea in a Coptic Jeremiah apocryphon (published in Kuhn 1970), where we read in ch.29: "He (sc. Jeremiah) took all the keys and put them in the tower. He said: 'I tell you, tower, receive the keys of the house of the Lord and keep them until the people returns from captivity.' Then the stone opened its mouth and received them from him." Cf. ch.41 where we read how "the pillar" gives back the keys. The earliest Coptic manuscript dates from the 7th cent. A.D., Kunh op.cit., 104
21 2 Apoc.Bar 10:18, Par.Jer. 4:4, Abot R. Natan A4 and B7, y.Shekalim 6:3, b.Ta'aint 29a, Pes.Rab. 26:6, Lev.Rab. 19:6, 2 Targ.Ester 1:3 and a Coptic Jeremiah apocryphon (see Kuhn op.cit., 95). For these texts see Bogaert 1969:1, 234-41 and Gry 1948.
22 Bogaert op.cit., 241. 2 Apoc.Bar and Par.Jer. seem to go back to an early source known to the author of 2 Macc, thus Nickelsburg 1973.
23Goldstein 1983, 182-84. See also Jeremias 1965.
24 Thus Bogaert, op.cit., 238
25 This also seems to be taken for granted in the Coptic Jeremiah apocryphon ch.41, where we read that Jeremiah entered the Holy of Holies. The relevance of these texts about Jeremiah may be supported by the fact that he is mentioned in Matt 16:14
26 The destruction of the temple in fire is mentioned explicitly in Abot R. Natan B7, b.Ta'anit 29a and 2 Apoc.Bar 10:19 and is taken for granted in Abot R. Natan A4. For the symbolism in what happens to the keys cf. Ezek 11:22-23 and 43:1-5 on the glory of the Lord.
27 The expression "gates of hell" is widely used: Ps 9:14, 107:18, Isa 38:10, Job 38:17, Sir 51:9 Hebrew, Wisd 16:13, 3 Maac 5:51, 4 Ezra 4:7 and Ps.Sol 16:2. See Jeremias 1968, 924-28
28 It is unlikely that Matthew wants to direct the thoughts of the readers to the rock in Banyas with the cave of Pan and the spring of Jordon as an antitype of the church. This is argue by, e.g., Immisch 1916; cf. Milik 1955, 405. The symbolism holy rock - temple - cave - may, however, be the same, Jeremias 1926, 73
29 For the mount of Zion see Isa 2:2-3 (with parallel in Micah 4:1-2), further Ps. 15:1, 24:3 and 99:9, Isa 57:13 and Zech 8:3. It is explicitly described as a rock in Ps 27:4-5, 61:3-5 and Isa 30:29 MT. For Zion-theology see Ringgren 1966, 161-63.
30 1 Enoch 26:1-2, Jub 8:19 and Josephus, War 3.52
31 E.g., Matt 21:42, Luke 20:17, Rom. 9:33, 10:11, Eph. 2:20, 2 Tim 2:19 and 1 Pet 2:4,6
32 Nickelsburg 1981, 596 and a letter to the author, Sept 17, 1985
33 For this text and its relationship to Matt 16:13-20 see O. Betz 1957
34 Schmidt 1933, 100-2 emphasizes the parallelism between Peter and the temple rock. The possibility that the names Kefas/Peter shall lead the thoughts to the temple rock is supported by the fact that it cannot be shown conclusively that they were used earlier than our text. But Fitzmeyer 1979 presents a possible example of kp' as a personal name in one of the Elephantine papyri.
35 For what follows see Jeremias 1926, a most important work. See further Bohl 1974, Donner 1977, Schmidt op.cit, Vogt 1974 and Keel 1978, 118-20. For OT times see Keel op.cit., 179-83
36 Cf. Jeremias op.cit., 66
37 Riesenfeld 1947
38 For what follows see van Cangh and van Esbroeck op.cit
39 Abot R. Natan A4
40 Neusner 1979. For the different gospels and the historical situations taken for granted see Smith 1979
41 Most of Matthew reflects this emergent Rabbinate. See Fornberg op.cit. and, somewhat differently, Davies 1964
42 Meier 1979, 100-6, 113-14
43 See H.D. Betz 1985
44 Scholars have often referred to Isa 51:1-2 where Abraham is mentioned as a rock, from which the Jewish people has been hewn out. We find this metaphor later on in a reworked form in Pseudo-Philo 23.4. See also a still later text (dependent upon Matthew 16 according to Lampe 1979, 229-30), Jalqut 1 sec. 766 (a quotation from Midrash Tanchuma to Num 23:9), where we read, "When God looked at Abraham who should appear, he said, 'Behold, I have found a rock (ptr'), on which I can guild and found the world.' Thus he called Abraham a rock." The hypothesis that Peter is looked upon as a second Abraham, thus Chevalier 1982, must be rejected, because the metaphorical use of the rock is different in Isaiah 51 and Pseudo-Philo compared to Matthew
45 Cf. the central role of the high priest during the Day of atonement: Leviticus 16, Sir 50:1-21 (?) and m. Yoma
46 Cf. Peter's binding of Ananias and Sapphira in sin in Acts 5:1-11
47 Nickelsburg op.cit., 594-95
<< Home