No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 September 2022
Matthew's didactic teaching blocks often present the terms of salvation as an uncompromising dichotomy, envisioning either complete loyalty or faithlessness (e.g. 10.37–9; 16.25; 24.13). However, the characters in his narrative sections, especially Peter, nuance this harsh binary to allow for a significant degree of failure. After a brief survey recent works on Matthean soteriology and the use of Peter, it is argued that two features of Peter, when combined, widen the scope of salvation. First, Matthew portrays him as occupying a ‘middle ground’ between complete obedience and absolute failure, with all indications pointing to Peter remaining in that space, as emphasised by the last references to him (27.25; 28.16). Second, this failing Peter will not only be allowed in the kingdom, but will have a position of greatness there, as demonstrated by both Matthew's overall theology of status variation within the kingdom (e.g. 19.28; 20.26–7; 5.19) and his unique Petrine accounts (14.22–33; 16.17–19; 17.24–7). Though the way to salvation is narrow (i.e. 7.14), the character of Peter widens it to allow for more failure than some texts in the didactic sections might initially suggest.
1 Nolland, J., The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005)Google Scholar 1013 rightly comments that ‘reconstructing the source forms is necessarily quite tentative’. My comparison here does not require a particular redactional view but is only illustrative.
2 This feature comports well with Matthew's apocalyptic features (D. Sim, Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew (SNTSMS 88; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) e.g. 82–7).
3 Eubank, N., Wages of Cross-Bearing and Debt of Sin: The Economy of Heaven in Matthew's Gospel (BZNW 196; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013) 198CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4 Eubank, Wages of Cross-Bearing, 161. He allows for heavenly wages to increase one's position in the kingdom, but focuses on wages as a requirement for kingdom entrance. Eubank argues that the rich ruler pericope (19.23–9) raises the question, ‘What is the fate of those who have not earned treasure in heaven?’ (96), to which the following parable of the tenants (20.1–16) answers, ‘God will faithfully repay those who have earned treasure in heaven, but those who have not done enough to enter the kingdom will receive a wage that is wildly disproportionate to what they have done’ (96).
5 E.g. Eubank, Wages of Cross-Bearing, 158.
6 Runesson, A., Divine Wrath and Salvation in Matthew: The Narrative World of the First Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016) 44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 Runesson, Divine Wrath, 100. Runesson relies heavily upon the inheritance metaphor, so that eternal life is not earned by those within the covenant family since it comes from the work of others (unless one fails in loyalty to the law and so is disinherited). He speaks of ‘Matthew's careful avoidance of understanding salvation as a reward for works performed’ (200; cf. 420–5).
8 Runesson, Divine Wrath, 331.
9 Runesson, Divine Wrath, 268–9 (emphasis added).
10 E.g. Runesson, Divine Wrath, 134 argues that Judas’ repentance is effectual. He also allows for gradations of status within the kingdom, though he still locates harsh binaries within the category of ‘final judgment’. See his lists of texts in each of the three categories in Runesson, Divine Wrath, 49–52.
11 Brown, R., Donfried, K. and Reumann, J., eds., Peter in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Catholic Scholars (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1973)Google Scholar.
12 Brown, Donfried and Reumann, Peter in the New Testament, 81–2 (emphasis original).
13 Nau, A., Peter in Matthew: Discipleship, Diplomacy, and Dispraise (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992)Google Scholar and Wiarda, T., Peter in the Gospels: Pattern, Personality and Relationship (WUNT 127; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000)Google Scholar.
14 Nau, Peter in Matthew, 37.
15 Soteriology is not a major concern for Wiarda, though he does conclude, ‘The pattern episodes point to grace as the basis of the believer's relationship with Jesus … failure and sin do not break the connection which Jesus has established with Peter’ (Wiarda, Peter in the Gospels, 233).
16 E.g. Kingsbury, J. D., ‘The Figure of Peter in Matthew's Gospel as a Theological Problem’, JBL 98 (1979) 47–61Google Scholar; Edwards, R., ‘Uncertain Faith: Matthew's Portrait of the Disciples’, Discipleship in the New Testament (ed. Segovia, F.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 67–83Google Scholar; Burnett, F., ‘Characterization in Matthew’, Semeia 63 (1993) 3–28Google Scholar; van Aarde, A., ‘The Disciples in Matthew's Story’, HTSS 5 (1994) 87–104Google Scholar; Syreeni, K., ‘Peter as Character and Symbol in the Gospel of Matthew’, Characterization in the Gospels: Reconceiving Narrative Criticism (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999) 106–52Google Scholar; R. H. Gundry, Peter: False Disciple and Apostate according to St. Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015) has also recently contributed to the discussion by considering Matthew's portrait of Peter from a redactional perspective. However, he concludes that the changes from Mark are significant in downplaying Peter. While Gundry rightly points out several instances in which Peter is viewed negatively in Matthew, he either neglects the more positive passages or resorts to constrained exegesis.
17 See J. Verheyden, ‘Rock and Stumbling Stone: The Fate of Matthew's Peter’, The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity (ed. D. Senior; Leuven: Peeters, 2011) 263–311, at 284–9.
18 M. R. James, ed., The Apocryphal New Testament: Being the Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses (Oxford: Clarendon, 1924) 311.
19 James, The Apocryphal New Testament, 311. The alternative translation which James notes seems unlikely and ut should be retained as ‘when’ (or even ‘since’) inasmuch as the thrust of the message is that forgiveness awaits repentance. The Latin is ut me postea plangerem amariter.
20 For a current example that argues similarly to the Acts of the Apostles, see M. Bates, Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Work, and the Gospel of Jesus the King (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017) 122–4. Bates addresses the problem of ‘imperfect allegiance’ and asserts, ‘we are saved when our confessed and imperfectly maintained allegiance unites us to Jesus the king … allegiance must be a settled conviction and basic disposition’ (123). He then considers ‘denial’ as a separate (but related) category as ‘disloyalty’, with Peter's restoration as proof that ‘treason is at least sometimes reversible through renewed allegiance’ (123). Yet for Bates, Judah's demise demonstrates that ‘reversal, even for those who were at one time followers of Jesus, is not an inevitable outcome’ (123).
21 Luke 22.62 similarly has καὶ ἐξɛλθὼν ἔξω ἔκλαυσɛν πικρῶς, though several early manuscripts insert ὁ Πɛ́τρος before ἔκλαυσɛν. We have Q material here, but our argument does not require these to be Matthew's unique compositions.
22 Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 1143.
23 Gundry, Peter, 51.
24 Gundry, Peter, 53–6.
25 So much so that C. Kähler, ‘Zur Form und Traditiongeshichte von Matt xvi.17–19’, NTS 23 (1974/77) 44 has famously called the first Gospel the ‘Peter gospel’.
26 Syreeni, ‘Peter as Character and Symbol in the Gospel of Matthew’, 150. However, he does see Peter as character and Peter as symbol being closely connected, going so far as to call them ‘Siamese twins’ (150). Peter is still a historical figure in Syreeni's approach, but Matthew's concern at this juncture is for his reader to see him as a symbol.
27 Burnett, ‘Characterization in Matthew’, 4, 20.
28 J. Brown, Disciples in Narrative Perspective: The Portrayal and Function of the Matthean Disciples (Leiden: Brill, 2002) 116–20 overviews the various approaches and rightly concludes, ‘Even when they are reunited with Jesus after his resurrection, the portrayal of the disciples as those of little (i.e. inadequate) faith is reaffirmed, for in their worship of him they still hesitate or waver …The disciples are consistently portrayed as prone to misunderstand and as wavering in their faith. It is true that the disciples’ portrayal is only gradually revealed to the reader as the story unfolds. This does not mean, however, that the disciples go through any significant change from the beginning of Matthew's story to the end. Their desertion and Matthew's final description of them as hesitating before the resurrected Jesus confirms that they have not grown in understanding of faith’ (118, 120).
29 Syreeni, ‘Peter as Character’, 147.
30 C. Blomberg, ‘Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven?’, JETS 35 (1992) 172.
31 E. Schweizer, The Good News according to Matthew (trans. D. Green; Atlanta: John Knox, 1975) 105; C. Blomberg, Matthew (NAC; Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1992) 105; R. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on his Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 19942) 84; C. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009) 178–9.
32 Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew (ed. P. Schaff; trans. G. Prevost and M. Riddle; New York: Christian Literature Company, 1888) 106 (emphasis original).
33 E.g. R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007) 188; U. Luz, Matthew: A Commentary (3 vols.; ed. H. Koester; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, rev. edn 2001–7) i.220–1; C. A. Evans, Matthew (New Cambridge Bible Commentary; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012) 117; Eubank, Wages of Cross-Bearing, 96; Runesson, Divine Wrath, 100.
34 W. Horbury, Messianism among Jews and Christians (London: Bloomsbury, 20162) 219. Furthermore, rabbinic tradition states that those who made themselves small for the law would be great in the future world. They, along with martyrs, were to be assigned the first of seven divisions in the next age. J. Meier, Law and History in Matthew's Gospel: A Redactional Study of Mt. 5:17–48 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1976) 95. See also O. Michel, ‘μικρός’, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. ii (ed. G. Bromiley and G. Friedrich; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) 653.
35 J. Goodrich, ‘Rule of the Congregation and Mark 10.32–52: Glory and Greatness in Eschatological Israel’, Reading Mark in Context: Jesus and Second Temple Judaism (ed. B. Blackwell, J. Goodrich and J. Maston; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018) 166–73, at 169–70 (emphasis original).
36 In arguing against the variation of status view, Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 178–9 writes: ‘Jesus again employs hyperbolic rhetoric characteristic of sages: his words do not envision the possibility of many who would keep or break the least commandment, hence vie for the same status, nor of some who would break some commandments while keeping others. Jewish teachers typically depicted various persons as “greatest”; the emphasis was not on numerical precision but on praising worthy people (e.g., m. ʾAbot 2.8)’. However, Keener's reference to the Mishna here hardly argues against variations of status. The text reads:
J He would say, ‘If all the sages of Israel were on one side of the scale, and R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus were on the other, he would outweigh all of them.’
K Abba Saul says in his name, ‘If all of the sages of Israel were on one side of the scale, and R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus was also with them, and R. Eleazar [b. Arakh] were on the other side, he would outweigh all of them.’
While the text does not specify what ‘weighing’ means – perhaps ability or significance or value – nothing suggests a rejection of varying levels of status. In fact, this text reveals that not all were the same.
37 Translation from H. Spurling, ‘Hebrew Visions of Hell and Paradise: A New Translation and Introduction’, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures (ed. R. Bauckham, J. R. Davila and A. Panayotov; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013) 699–753, at 736–7 (cf. 705–6 for discussion of the date of composition).
38 See W. Davies and D. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew (3 vols.; ICC; London: T&T Clark, 2004) ii.212; M. Konradt, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Göttingen: Vandenhock & Ruprecht, 2015) 296 for a good argument that this statement depicts the coming eschaton.
39 D. Turner, ‘His Glorious Throne: Israel and the Gentiles in Mission and Judgment in the Gospel of Matthew’, Matthew Within Judaism: Israel and the Nations in the First Gospel (ed. A. Runesson and D. Gurtner; Atlanta: SBL, 2020) 135–68. Gundry, Matthew, 392–3 and Davies and Allison, Matthew, iii.55–8 convincingly argue that κρίνω should be understood in light of שׁפט and thus mean ‘govern’. Contra Luz, Matthew, ii.517.
40 The disciples are described elsewhere as sharing in the messiah's rule (e.g. Matt 10.6; cf. B. Henning, Matthew's Non-Messianic Mapping of Messianic Texts (BINS 188; Leiden: Brill, 2020) 45–92).
41 Pace Blomberg, Matthew, 301 who sees both ‘ruling’ and ‘judging’ elements but still states, ‘So we cannot conclude that the apostles necessarily receive any privilege they do not share with all believers’.
42 Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 805. Matt 19.30 may form the conclusion of the previous section, similarly to 20.16 (an extremely similar but not verbatim repetition), but the two probably form an inclusio around the parable of the vineyard labourers. If the former, then the δɛ́ introducing Matt 19.30 is simply a coordinating conjunction. But if the latter, it would be contrastive, to qualify the earlier discussion which stresses merit over grace.
43 If ἐν ὑμῖν in vv. 26 and 27 modify μέγας (‘great among you’) and πρῶτος (‘first among you’), then this argument is only strengthened. However, the phrase is actually used three times in these two verses and the first contrasts ἐν ὑμῖν with the way status operates with the gentiles (v. 25). If the following two uses of the same prepositional phrase are to be understood similarly, and there is no reason to think they change, then they modify ὃς ἐὰν and ὃς ἂν.
44 D. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) 298.
45 BDAG, 892. P. J. Louw and E. A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996) 737 place it in the same category as μɛγας and ἐκ δɛξιῶν καθίζω.
46 France writes, ‘Their open bid for leadership now is therefore a direct challenge to Peter's leading position: if James and John are at Jesus’ right and left, where will Peter be? … At any rate, the egalitarian picture of the “twelve thrones” in 19:28 is now challenged by the brothers’ concern for personal status’ (France, The Gospel of Matthew, 758).
47 M. Silva, ‘δɛξιός’, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis (5 vols.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014) i.665. The phrase ‘right hand’ is often the description of where Jesus has ascended (i.e. Matt 26.64; Acts 2.33; 5.31; Rom 8.34; Eph 1.20; Col. 3.1; Heb 1.3; 1 Pet 3.22). Midr. Ps. 18§29 in discussing Ps 110.1 says that the Messiah will sit at God's right hand and Abraham at his left. This shows that the left is not a derogatory place, but still less than the right. See discussion in Grundmann, ‘δɛξιός’, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (ed. G. Kittel, G. Bromiley and G. Friedrich; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–) i.40.
48 ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός μου could also modify ἡτοίμασται, but the contrast (ἀλλ') is between the Son, who does not give the position and the Father, who does.
49 Blomberg, ‘Degrees in Heaven?’, 167 claims, ‘Jesus’ reply … leaves the door open for some people to receive such a higher status, but tellingly Christ refuses to discuss that option, redirecting his disciples’ attention to servanthood instead and employing the language of present.’ Luz, Matthew, ii.545 similarly sees the text as eliminating authority structure: ‘there simply is not to be in the church any “being great” and “being first” at all’. On the contrary, Jesus does discuss the option and asserts that it will be given by the Father. Davies and Allison, Matthew, iii.93 rightly observe, ‘we have here the spirit of Jesus, who found in the motif of eschatological reversal not just consolation (cf. the beatitudes) but also an imperative: those whom God will one day exalt must in the meantime humble themselves’.
50 Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 486 suggests that the position of the right hand and the left allude to those who were crucified on either side of Jesus. However, this is far from certain and seems too cryptic to be the intended meaning. But even if the allusion is present, it would not rule out the actual position of honour, but only reinforce the suffering that is necessary to obtain these positions.
51 Davies and Allison, Matthew, i.497; Konradt, Das Evangelium, 76; D. Turner, Matthew (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008) 480; Runesson, Divine Wrath, 100; Evans, Matthew, 117; Luz, Matthew, i.220–1; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 188. Some see the text as specifically directed against Paul's communities. D. Sim, ‘Are the Least Included in the Kingdom of Heaven? The Meaning of Matthew 5:19’, Hervormde Teologiese Studies 54 (1998) 573–87 argues that it places these communities outside the kingdom.
52 M. Silva, ‘μɛ́γας’, New International Dictionary, iii.254–7; BDAG, 624.
53 BDAG, 314.
54 Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 222.
55 Though rabbinic literature does speculate on which of the commandments was the least important (Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 178–9), and Jesus himself addresses the question of which is the first commandment (Matt 22.34–40), this does not seem to be in view at this point.
56 France, The Gospel of Matthew, 567–8 is a rare exception in suggesting that the action is a ‘foolhardy risk’ or a ‘childish search for exhilaration’.
57 E.g. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 566; Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 600; Davies and Allison, Matthew, ii.504; Konradt, Das Evangelium, 229.
58 Davies and Allison, Matthew, ii.500 note the similarities between Elisha and the lake scene. J. R. Daniel Kirk, A Man Attested by God: The Human Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016) 250 rightly quips, ‘If water walking is indicative of divinity, then Peter is divine, at least for a few moments.’
59 See D. Turner, ‘Primus inter pares? Peter in the Gospel of Matthew’, New Testament Essays in Honor of Homer A. Kent Jr. (ed. G. Meadors; Winona Lake, IN: BMH, 1991) 179–201 for a discussion and support of Peter as a representative of the apostles.
60 E.g. L. Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992) 423; W. Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, vol. ii (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1958) 161; J. Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. ii (trans. W. Pringle; Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010) 291.
61 B. Henning, ‘The Church's One Foundation? Peter as the Messianic Temple Stone in Matt 16:18’, Practicing Intertextuality: Jewish and Greco-Roman Exegetical Techniques in the New Testament (ed. M. Lee and B. Oropeza; Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2021) 77–90.
62 Luz, Matthew, ii.413 does not see Peter's role as significant – ‘Peter is little more than a prop on the stage.’ However, Matthew's interest in Peter's figure elsewhere suggests that this text contributes to his overall portrayal.
63 For more on Matthew's use of this expression, see R. Mowery, ‘Subtle Differences: The Matthean “Son of God” References’, NovT 32 (1990) 193–200 and ‘Son of God in Roman Imperial Titles and Matthew’, Bib 83 (2002) 100–10. D. Carson, ‘Matthew’, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. viii (ed. F. Gaebelein; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984) 394 states: ‘Jesus acknowledges the temple tax to be an obligation to God; but since he is uniquely God's Son, therefore he is exempt (v 26). The focus of the pericope is thus supremely Christological … Jesus here implicitly frees his followers from the temple tax on the grounds that they, too, will belong to the category of “sons”, though derivatively’. Cf. D. Garland, ‘Matthew's Understanding of the Temple Tax (Matt 17:24–27)’, SBLSP (1987) 190–209, at 206.
64 E.g. Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 726–7.
65 Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, 359. E. Lim, ‘Entering the Kingdom of Heaven Not like the Sons of Earthly Kings (Matthew 17:24–18:5), CBQ 83 (2021) 425–45 has also recently stressed the often overlooked link between the children imagery in Matt 17.24–7 and 18.1–5.
66 B. Oropeza, In the Footsteps of Judas and Other Defectors: The Gospels, Acts, and Johannine Letters (Apostasy in the New Testament Communities; Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011) 48–97; N. Eubank, ‘Damned Disciples: The Permeability and the Boundary between Insiders and Outsiders in Matthew and Paul’, Perceiving the Other in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. M. Siegal, W. Gründstäudl and M. Thiessen; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017) 33–48.
67 See section 1.1.
68 Eubank, Wages of Cross-Bearing, 161.
69 Runesson, Divine Wrath, 268–9.