Matthew 18:21–35

²¹ Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” ²² Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.
²³ “Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. ²⁴ When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. ²⁵ And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. ²⁶ So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ ²⁷ And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. ²⁸ But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii, and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay what you owe.’ ²⁹ So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’ ³⁰ He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt. ³¹ When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place. ³² Then his master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. ³³ And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ ³⁴ And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. ³⁵ So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”[1]

---

It might come across here that Peter is really trying to be magnanimous, but it falls short in contrast to God’s forgiveness of us. This should be something we can all relate to. That when we consciously try to give of ourselves that it often falls short of fully given of ourselves. This is even more true when we see such a dissimilarity between our giving of ourselves and what God has done for us. This might seem to be even more true when we accept it was grace given and then accepted that moved us to action first. Yet, this should move us towards thanksgiving and gratitude and not annoyance at our seeming feeble attempts to love our neighbor.

Jesus does not rebuff Peter for not thinking big enough, but through a parable, helps him to broaden his view and to get an inkling of how God forgives. Another aspect is that Peter’s statement is informed by scripture and he is trying to draw parallels from it.

For example, Brant Pitre notes:

And you can almost hear here an allusion to the Old Testament, which talks about the sevenfold vengeance of Cain in Genesis 4. So if you remember in Genesis 4, it tells the story of Cain slaying his brother and what God says is that “if anyone tries to take vengeance on Cain, vengeance shall be taken upon him sevenfold ❲or seven times as much❳.” So what Peter is presenting here is like an antithesis, an opposite. Instead of sevenfold vengeance of Cain in the Old Testament, it’s sevenfold forgiveness.[2]

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his commentary on Matthew, draws another parallel and quotes other Church Fathers:

It is as though He were to say: Till seven times belongs to weakness, but more belongs to malice. For that reason, he asks if he should forgive till seven times. Likewise, he knew that which is said in IV Kings 5, namely, that Eliseus commanded Naaman to wash himself seven times in the Jordan; for that reason, he thought that he should forgive seven times. Jesus saith to him: I say not to thee, till seven times; but till seventy times seven times. This seven times that He says can be taken in one way as by addition, so that the sense is not seven times, but seven times and seventy times. Or it can be taken as by multiplication, so that the sense is seven times seventy: and Jerome explains this passage in that way.

According to the first exposition, which is Augustine’s, it is given to be understood that we ought to pardon all, because Christ pardoned all sins.14 “Bearing with one another and forgiving one another, if any have a complaint against another. Even as the Lord hath forgiven you, so do you also” (Col. 3, 13). Or it can be said that the finite number stands for an infinite number, as in the Psalms, “The word which he commanded to a thousand generations” (104, 8).

According to Jerome, the explanation is the same; nevertheless, the meaning of the number is added. For, by seven,15 perfection is signified, and by a hundred, which is ten multiplied by ten, the Decalogue is signified. The first number that passes ten is eleven. And because by seven a totality is signified, for that reason, the totality of sins is signified; it is at though He were to say: Whatsoever sins your brother shall committed against you, forgive him. Hence, according to Jerome, it seems that He wishes to say, that a man can forgive more than he can offend.[3]

There is also the numerical significance of Jesus’ initial reply, as explained by John Bergsma:

I depart here from the translation used in the Mass. To me, “seventy times seven” seems to be the more accurate translation of the Greek. Furthermore, it is likely that the number is a symbolic allusion to a famous prophetic passage, Daniel 9:25, which decreed “seventy sevens” (my translation) of years from the time of Daniel to the coming of the Messiah.

Seventy times seven is four hundred and ninety. The number four hundred and ninety is ten times forty-nine, and forty-nine is the number of the Israelite Jubilee cycle (See Lev 25:8–9). In ancient Israel, on the fiftieth year after a cycle of forty-nine years, the nation observed a year of rest in which all debts were forgiven and all indentured servants set free (Lev 25:10).[4]

The parable Jesus gives is so rich and multi-layered. It would have been edifying as an example of God’s comprehensive and overwhelming forgiveness of us with just verses 18:23–28. This parable includes a shocking twist that after the unpayable debt of the servant is forgiven, the servant was not willing to do the same. For, a relatively small debt, he will resort to violence to retrieve the debt.

From the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture on Matthew:

The king’s mercy stands in stark contrast to the servant’s harshness in the second scene. The forgiven servant demands that one of his fellow servants pay back a debt the NAB describes as a much smaller amount. Literally, this smaller debt is only one hundred denarii—about a hundred days’ wages, which is 600,000 times smaller than the first servant’s debt. Shockingly, the first servant uses violence to pressure his fellow servant, seizing him and starting to choke him.[5]

It outraged the master when told about the servant’s behavior .

And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt.[6]:

John Bergsma reflects on this:

I have usually understood the delivery over to the jailers/torturers “until he should pay back the whole debt” as a reference to hell, on the assumption that it is impossible to pay your debt when you are in jail, and thus you will never leave, just as hell is eternal.

Michael Barber, however, has made the intriguing observation that perhaps the phrase “until he should pay back the whole debt” is meant in earnest: eventually, the man will pay off his debt and be released. Michael points out several Rabbinic texts that indicate a Jewish belief in a place of temporary punishment. In light of such texts, another interpretive option becomes possible: the delivery of the man over to the jailers refers to purgatory.[7]

God’s forgiveness of us and our redemption is a central component of the Good News. Love seeks to forgive, to restore communion among persons, and anything that separates us. No surprise that this message in Jesus’ statement at the end of this Gospel paragraph reflects what is in the Our Father. Forgiveness is to be passed on and not stopping with us; where we treat it as something deserved and not shared.

Peter Kreeft, in his commentary on this passage, has many wise things to say on this, but I especially appreciated this:

The only path that leads somewhere, like a birth canal into new life, is forgiveness.[8]

Sources

Catholic Productions, Commentaries by Brant Pitre
The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year A – John Bergsma
St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew
The Gospel of Matthew (Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture)
Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Cycle A
English Standard Version Catholic Edition
– Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

---

1. English Standard Version Catholic Edition (2019). Augustine Institute.  ↩
2. Catholic Productions, Brant Pitre, 24th Sunday in Ordinary Time  ↩
3. Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew, Dolorosa Press  ↩
4. The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year A, John Bergsma, 24th Sunday in Ordinary Time  ↩
5. The Gospel of Matthew, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, Edward Sri and Curtis Mitch  ↩
6. English Standard Version Catholic Edition (2019). Augustine Institute.  ↩
7. The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year A, John Bergsma, 24th Sunday in Ordinary Time  ↩
8. Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Cycle A  ↩

Matthew 18:15–20

¹⁵ “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. ¹⁶ But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. ¹⁷ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. ¹⁸ Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ¹⁹ Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. ²⁰ For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”[1]

It is simple to pull some general rules regarding those cases where we might need to rebuke our brother. It is important to understand the context of what is being said here, as Brant Pitre reminds us:

… it’s important to read this passage in light of the whole chapter. The whole chapter is a discourse of Jesus to his disciples. So he is speaking in particular to his students, to his disciples, to the men who have left their former lives behind and have become his followers, his students who travel with him every day to learn from him. He is speaking to the apostles in other words, and that’s clear if you look at the earlier verses in the Gospel of Matthew 18. So in Matthew 18:15, when Jesus says “if your brother sins against you,” he’s not talking about two siblings in a family. He’s talking about a brother within the community of his disciples. He is talking about conflicts between his followers, and in particular between the disciples themselves within the circle of the apostles. So whenever we read those words of his, what he’s describing then is a process of fraternal correction within the Church.[2]

You can see the ecclesial context here when you consider the wording “brother sins against you.” It is very specific about “against you” and not the broader of a brother sinning, but not against you personally. There is a sense where every sin is a sin against God and also a sin against the community. No sin is just in isolation, affecting only the person who missed the mark.

King David illustrates this here:

Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you may be justified in your words
and blameless in your judgment. (Psalm 51:4)[3]

The Catechism broadens the point:

CCC §1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

— by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
— by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
— by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
— by protecting evil-doers.[4]

In these three steps there is a lot that is unsaid regarding how you decide to rebuke your brother in the first place. Prayer must be involved first and the questions to consider. Are you in the right, considering the sin you are condemning? When you rebuke someone, it’s important to consider your relationship with them and how likely they are to accept your criticism. But, prudence does not mean saying nothing because it will be uncomfortable to you.

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his commentary on this passage, writes:

If thy brother shall offend against thee, go, etc.; “With them that hated peace I was peaceable” (Ps. 119, 7). Should you forgive first? No; but first you ought to go and rebuke him: hence, He does not command us to forgive just anyone, but the repentant. Likewise, He says, Rebuke, not ‘scold’ or ‘exasperate’: and show the offense briefly. If he acknowledges his offense, you ought to forgive him; hence, it is said, “Instruct such a one in the spirit of meekness” (Gal. 6, 1).
…
But does a man sin who omits to make this correction? Augustine says: “If you do not correct, you become worse by keeping silence, than he became by sinning.”

But although this is true, because all are bound to correct, someone might say that it is only fitting for prelates who are bound by their office, but it is fitting for others out of charity. Sometimes, the Lord permits the good to be punished with the wicked. Why? It is because they did not correct the wicked. Nevertheless, Augustine says that sometimes we ought to refrain from correcting, “if you fear that they will not be emended by this correction, but will be made worse.” Likewise, if you fear to correct lest it lead to a persecution of the Church, you do not sin if you do not correct. If, however, you abstain from correcting lest you be harmed in temporal goods, lest trouble come upon you, or some such thing, you sin; “Rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee” (Prov. 9, 8).[5]

The order these principles are laid out in, have much wisdom. John Bergsma writes how often we get this order wrong:

This principle applies to all life within the Church. When offended, however, our tendency is first to go and tell all our friends and anyone else who will listen about how so-and-so did something outrageous to us. This spreads the circle of the offense while making no progress toward reconciliation. It also starts a cycle of gossip and escalating exaggeration.[6]

Some might read the consequence when they will not listen “even to the Church” as rather harsh. One thing to remember is that in Matthew, this paragraph is placed right after the parable of the lost sheep. The context is always to bring somebody who has strayed home. A medicinal recipe to use when all other efforts have failed and to ultimately bring healing.

I like what Dr. Brant Pitre says here in his commentary as he expands on this idea:

So when Jesus says “tell it to the church” here, he is referring to the assembly of believers, and not just to the assembly of believers, but in particular to the assembly of authoritative leaders of those believers, because you can see here what he says is “if he refuses to listen even to the church,” then what’s the penalty? “Let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” What does that mean? Well effectively what it means is you treat him as cut off from the community of disciples.

In fact, as some scholars have pointed out, if you say treat the person like a Gentile or a tax collector, there is both a negative and a positive dimension. The negative dimension is that that person is excommunicated, they are cut off from the Church, they are cut off from the body of believers. The positive dimension though is how do you treat gentiles and tax collectors? How did Jesus and the apostles treat them? Well they evangelized them, they shared the good news with them. So it doesn’t mean that person necessarily is permanently cut off, what it means is that they need to be evangelized again. They need the gospel to be re-presented to them so that they can be called to repentance and then re-integrated into the community. That would be a second implication of his use of the language of gentile and tax collector in this particular context. So there is both excommunication but also evangelization implied by these two expressions that Jesus uses for an impenitent or unrepentant sinner within the Church.[7]

The Gospel passage talks about the future role of the disciples in the Church. The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible summarises this:

18:18 whatever you bind … loose: In 16:19, Peter was invested with Christ’s authority as the visible head of the Church. A derivative—but subordinate—authority is given also to the apostles as royal ministers in the kingdom. Jesus’ authority in this context is related to Church discipline; by extension, it is also a sacramental authority to forgive sins (cf. Jn 20:23; CCC 553 ,CCC 1444).[8]

From there, Jesus teaches them more regarding the communal nature of the Church and again how Jesus is there with us always in the Body of Christ.

Peter Kreeft writes about the efficacy of prayer:

There’s no catch to it. Jesus means exactly what he says. Take him at his word. He says: “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened” (Matt. 7:7–8). He promises to answer all our prayers, to satisfy all the desires of our hearts. He doesn’t promise how or when he will answer, because his way and his timing are much better and wiser than ours. He sometimes has to answer our shallow desires with a no to answer our deeper desires with a yes. And he sometimes has to take time to give us good things, because life is more like a farm, which takes time to grow crops, than like a machine, which gives you instant results from pushing a button. But he promises to answer every prayer of every faithful heart. And he infallibly keeps his promises. Our part is to believe and to wait in faith. We say, “Seeing is believing,” but Jesus says, “Believing is seeing.” We say we won’t believe it in our souls until we see it with our eyes, but Jesus says that if we believe it in our souls we will eventually see it with our eyes, because every good desire will be fulfilled eventually, if not in this world then in the next. That’s what he promises: “Everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.”[9]

We magnify prayer when we come to pray together in community, from a small to a larger group.

Sources

• Catholic Productions, Commentaries by Brant Pitre
• English Standard Version Catholic Edition
• Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Edition
• St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew
• The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year A – John Bergsma
• Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Cycle A
• The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible꞉ The New Testament
• Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

---

1. English Standard Version Catholic Edition (2019). Augustine Institute.  ↩
2. Catholic Productions, Brant Pitre, 23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time  ↩
3. English Standard Version Catholic Edition (2019). Augustine Institute.  ↩
4. Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed). United States Catholic Conference.  ↩
5. Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew, Dolorosa Press  ↩
6. The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year A, John Bergsma, 23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time  ↩
7. Catholic Productions, Brant Pitre, 23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time  ↩
8. Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament  ↩
9. Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Cycle A,, 23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time  ↩

Matthew 16:21–27

Matthew 16:21–27

²¹ From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. ²² And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” ²³ But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

²⁴ Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. ²⁵ For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. ²⁶ For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? ²⁷ For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.[1]

---

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his commentary on Matthew notes:

And why does He go to Jerusalem? He mentions the reason. But in that He says, Jerusalem, the first reason is that God’s Temple was there, the place where sacrifices occurred. Now the sacrifices of the Old Law were figures of that sacrifice which was on the altar of the Cross; for that reason, He willed that in the place where the figure was, the truth would appear; “And He hath delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness,” etc., (Eph. 5, 2). Another reason is that the prophets suffered in Jerusalem, as it is written below: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee” (23, 37). He wished, therefore, to suffer there to show that their death was a sign of Christ’s Passion. Likewise, ‘Jerusalem’ means ‘vision of peace’; but the Passion itself was making peace; “Making peace as to the things that are on earth and the things that are in heaven” (Col. 1, 20). Moreover, He wished to suffer there so that by this way there might be to us a way to the spiritual Jerusalem; “But that Jerusalem which is above is free: which is our mother” (Gal. 4, 26)[2]

In response to the news Jesus gives them, Peter returns to form and engages his mouth before engaging his brain. It is easy to critique Peter here, but we might want to pause how shocking this would have been to the disciples. We have the spoiler alert of history and know how this all plays out. From Peter’s perspective, he had just had his suspicions confirmed Jesus was the Messiah. Had just learned that he was going to play a major role himself in Jesus’ mission. Hearing such news, who of us would have calmly taken this in, perhaps pondering the role of the suffering messiah in Isaiah or the other scriptural clues. The Holy Spirit gave him knowledge about Jesus as the messiah, but he needed to let go of his expectations to understand God’s plans. Peter, as the everyman experiences the same as all of us being stripped down of our want and desires to bring them in conformity with God’s will. “On his own, he cannot see the spiritual necessity of Jesus’ Passion for sinners.”[3]

It now seems almost comical at the thought of Peter “rebuking Jesus.” He tries to prudentially use his role as leader by taking Jesus aside and not rebuking him directly among all the other apostles. Peter might have thought of himself being quite prudent in doing this. I can imagine his shock at hearing, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

SATAN The Hebrew word שָׂטָן (satan) means to oppose, obstruct, or accuse. The Greek term (σατάν, satan) literally means “adversary.” In the New Testament, it refers to a title or a name—(the) Satan. The term שָׂטָן (satan) is rendered as diabolos in the Septuagint.[4]

Dr. Brant Pitre comments further on the language used here:

Well notice what Jesus says there. He doesn’t just rename Peter as Satan, he says “get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me.” The Greek word here for hindrance is skandalon. We get the English word scandal from that, so he is saying you are a scandal to me. Now what is interesting about that is that in the original Greek, the word skandalon literally means “a stumbling stone.” A skandalon would be a stone in the path that you trip over when you are walking. So what Jesus is doing here, in a sense, is punning off of the name he just gave Peter. So when Peter was confessing faith in Jesus’ divine sonship he was the rock, he was the Petra ; but now that he is opposed to the passion and death and resurrection of Jesus, he’s become a skandalon a stumbling stone. So he is still a rock, but he’s taken on a different form here.[5]

I like to reflect on the playfulness of the language that Jesus uses and that he will pun.

Brant Pitre remarks on how Jesus uses opportunities to teach:

Most of us, when we think about the story of Peter and Jesus, we end with “get behind me Satan.” We say “look at Jesus, he kind of rebuked Peter because Peter doesn’t understand the cross.” That is not where the story stops in Matthew’s Gospel, because in Matthew’s Gospel Jesus—once again—uses Peter’s mistake as an opportunity to open up a deeper mystery, to teach them something further. And in this case, it is about the mystery of suffering and discipleship.[6]

In the second paragraph of today’s Gospel reading, teaches on what is sometimes called the “cost of discipleship.” He never glosses over what it means to follow him. He does not soften the blow, but teaches what reality will bear out over and over. More importantly, he directs us to our final end, and the glorious plan he has for us. We are not just passing through our earthly life into eternal nothingness. He uses paradoxes to bring us closer to this mystery and to understand what we should prioritize.

I was thinking about the idea of the “cost of discipleship” in contrast to the “cost of non-discipleship.” From experience, I know that my attempts to maximize pleasure and to reduce suffering have had the opposite effect. Trying to avoid suffering, I almost always increased it in the long term. Avoiding conflict, I became more conflicted. Redemptive suffering is such a hard-sell, but it can also be the heart of love as it can focus us on the suffering of others and willing their good.

CCC 440 Jesus accepted Peter’s profession of faith, which acknowledged him to be the Messiah, by announcing the imminent Passion of the Son of Man. He unveiled the authentic content of his messianic kingship both in the transcendent identity of the Son of Man “who came down from heaven,” and in his redemptive mission as the suffering Servant: “The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Hence the true meaning of his kingship is revealed only when he is raised high on the cross. Only after his Resurrection will Peter be able to proclaim Jesus’ messianic kingship to the People of God: “Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”[7]

Sources

• St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew
• The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible꞉ The New Testament
• Lexham Bible Dictionary – Verbum
• Catholic Productions, Commentaries by Brant Pitre
• Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Edition
• English Standard Version Catholic Edition
• Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

---

1. English Standard Version Catholic Edition (2019). Augustine Institute.  ↩
2. Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew, Dolorosa Press  ↩
3. Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament  ↩
4. The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Lexham Press. (2016)  ↩
5. Catholic Productions, Brant Pitre, 22nd Sunday in Ordinary Time  ↩
6. ibid  ↩
7. Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed). United States Catholic Conference.  ↩

Matthew 16:13–20

¹³  Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” ¹⁴  And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” ¹⁵  He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” ¹⁶  Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” ¹⁷  And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. ¹⁸  And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. ¹⁹  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” ²⁰  Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

---

It is very easy to read this passage and think mainly of all the apologetic angles involved defending the Papacy. Especially as this dovetails exactly with the first reading. So much commentary has been written on this both in defense of the Papacy and against it. The commentaries I read mostly concentrated on this aspect, and for good reason, as this is a very rich vein for this purpose.

From my non-scholarly view, I also see a resurgence in the scholarly work being done on this topic. I think of Erick Ybarra tome, “The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox.” The amazing work Suan Sunna has presented on this topic and its Old Testament foundations. Along with William Albrecht and Father Kappes book “The Complete Guide to the Papacy in the Holy Bible.” This is not an area subsisting on just long fleshed out apologetic answers.

It seems to me here that Jesus is engaging in a mode of teaching, both asking a question and using the location of Caesarea Philippi. A question that does not even demand their opinion, but what other people had said about him. It is often so much easier to repeat other people’s opinion instead of doing the hard-thinking involved in revealing your own. You can be much more speculative and not reveal your preference. We not only want to have the right answer, but the approved answer.

After drawing these opinions out of them, Jesus then asks the very specific, “But who do you say that I am?”

The apostles may have talked about how Jesus didn’t fit their expectations of the Messiah and what this meant. The usual impetuous Peter jumps in with a reply, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This seems so unlike Peter that he blurts something out and gets it right in one take.

And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.”

I wonder what Peter’s reply would have been without this revelation to him? Yet, it truly becomes his answer as he assents to it. He is being praised here by Jesus for not only his reply, but his intellectual assent and being docile to the Holy Spirit. Yet, in a passage that comes after this Gospel passage, Peter reverts to his own understanding when he denies Jesus will suffer and be killed.

I can easily reflect on the number of times in reaction my first thoughts would be a hot take. Instead of being open to God’s revelation, I express less honest and charitable thoughts. It is so audacious to turn and rebuke Jesus for what he reveals as part of his plan. It seems less audacious when I do the same.

I also think of the transformation of Peter, which I think of as PPP¹ and PPP², that is Pre-Pentecost-Peter and Post-Pentecost Peter. There is such a palpable difference, although I am tempted to pun with a papabile difference. While there is a unique charism associated with the Papacy, we are all called to transformation in Christ.

• Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

Suggested Resources

• The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox – St. Paul Center
• The Complete Guide to the Papacy in the Holy Bible: Kappes, Christiaan, Albrecht, William: 9798367000207: Amazon.com: Books
• Jesus, Peter & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy: Butler, Scott, Dahlgren, Norman, Hess, David: 9781882972548: Amazon.com: Books
• Intellectual Catholicism – YouTube – Suan Sonna