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.
23
Goldstein 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
posted by JAM at 11:38 AM