You Have The Words of Eternal Life Is P

‘YOU HAVE THE WORDS OF ETERNAL LIFE!
’ IS PETER
PRESENTED AS RETURNING THE KEYS OF THE
KINGDOM TO JESUS IN JOHN 6:68?
Paul N. Anderson
Charles Fox College
Abstract
In John 6:68 Peter is presented as declaring, “Lord, to whom shall we go?
You have the words of eternal life!” Whereas Jesus is portrayed as imbuing
Peter (and his followers) with institutional authority following Peter’s
confession in Matthew 16:17-19—entrusting him (and them) with the Keys
of the Kingdom, Peter is portrayed as affirming the sole authority of Jesus
just prior to his confession in John 6:68-69. The parallels here could be
incidental, but similarities between several aspects of the Matthean and
Johannine traditions on matters of church organization and governance raise
questions as to whether a dialectical set of exchanges might have been in
play in the latter third of the first-century church. Such a possibility is
analyzed by considering several crises in the Johannine situation, as
informed by the Johannine Epistles and other evidence. Hermeneutical and
ecumenical implications abound.
Is Peter portrayed in John 6 as returning the Keys of the Kingdom back to

Jesus? At the outset, it must be said that this is an overstated way of putting
it, which is why it is raised as a question. If indeed such a thesis can be
argued,1 however, two further questions follow: “How so, and why?”
Mistaken is the view that we have in the Johannine narrative a flat
1 At least seven parallels with Matt 16:17-19 can be found in the Gospel of John, suggesting
a corrective dialogue (Anderson 1996, 221-250); at least four crises in the Johannine
situation are exposed in the rhetorical dialogues of John 6, of which this is last (Anderson
1997, 50-59); and five key elements of the Johannine view of Christocracy can be seen to
have affected the history of biblical interpretation, and correctly so (Anderson 1991, 33-
42). With Professor Käsemann, “One need not be a frog to jump twice into the same
pond” (1968, vii). Taking earlier work further, this essay examines parallel developments
in Matthean and Johannine Christianities, considers the character of possible dialectical
engagements between them, connects the effects of Diotrephes upon the Johannine
response to institutional trends, and then comes back to a re-reading of John 6:68 in the
light of these factors.
Neotestamenica 41.1 (2007) 6-41

© New Testament Society of South Africa
ANDERSON “You Have the Words of Eternal Life!” 7
engagement with a Matthean text, as secondary orality and gospel-tradition

interfluentiality is more likely to have been the case. Also mistaken is the
view that an inference of a Johannine corrective to rising institutionalism
countered all of Matthean ecclesiology, when the Matthean tradition itself
bears both familial and pneumatic strains. More incisively, the apparent
Johannine critique of rising institutionalism in the late first-century church2
reflects a primary and acute concern to address the infelicitous exercise of
structural authority, as suggested by the inhospitality of Diotrephes, rather
than its more gracious expressions. In that sense, the Matthean and
Johannine evangelists may have been in accord. Nonetheless, casting the
matter in sharp relief gets the discussion going as to the character and
development of the issues that may have been involved. When compared
with the developing Matthean tradition, the Johannine shows impressive
similarities and differences with extensive implications.
At stake, of course, is precisely those implications, connected most
centrally to the presentations of Peter’s confession in Matthew and John and
their related developments. On one hand, Peter’s receiving the Keys to the
Kingdom in Matthew has been interpreted in Roman Catholic tradition as
Jesus’ granting Peter and his successors Christocratic authority to loose and
bind as a means of carrying out Christ’s leadership within the Church. The
“rock” upon which the Church is founded, therefore, is the apostolic
ministry of Peter, whose succession is understood as taking place by means
of historic episcopacy, connecting later leaders with the authority of the
apostles in office-bearing and structure-furthering ways. Philippe Menoud
regards this model as the singular apostolic one:
Authority in the Church comes from on high. It belongs to Christ the Spirit,
who is the head of the body, the Church. It passes to those whom Christ
Himself has chosen, the Apostles, and then to those who are called to assist
them or to succeed them. The Church is a christocracy and, more precisely,
an apostolic christocracy....
2 This indeed is the view of an impressive number of scholars: von Harnack (1904; 1905),
Streeter (1929), von Campenhausen (1969), Käsemann (1968) and others. Miranda refers
to Diotrephes in general terms as “Die Amtsträger” (the office-holder; 1972, 394). Even
Brown (1982, 716-720, 732-748) interprets the Elder’s struggle with Diotrephes not as a
factor of his selfishness, but of his position and problems related to its inhospitable
exercise.
8 Neotestamentica 41.1 (2007)
Hierarchical christocracy, which is expressed here and there in different

texts in the New Testament, is the very expression of the theology of the
Church.3
Interestingly, though, the only Gospel claiming directly to be written by
an apostle presents a very different picture of Christocracy, and likewise a
very different presentation of Peter and his confession. In the Fourth Gospel,
Jesus declares that he will lead the Church by means of the Holy Spirit,
accessible to all believers, and Peter is presented as affirming Christ’s
authority rather than receiving it. It is no mistake that Luther’s doctrine of
the Priesthood of Believers is based upon John 20:21-23, which may itself
reflect a late first-century set of dialogues that have continued throughout
the history of Christianity ever since. Accordingly, the Reformers argued the
“rock” upon which the Church was founded was Peter’s confession,
extending apostolic authority to all who profess their faith in Christ
authentically and with theological fidelity. Arguably, such a first-century set
of dialogues may also explain why “the Petrine tradition is placed in the
shadow of the Beloved Disciple” (Käsemann 1968, 29). In that sense, one
wonders what the particulars might have looked like regarding the
provocative insight of Professor Käsemann4 of Tübingen:
We have seen how our assumption of John’s historical position throws light
upon his christology. The difficulties of his ecclesiology and the peculiar
dialectical relation to tradition can also be more thoroughly understood on
the basis of our assumption. The man who lives on the fringe of the
prevailing development of the Church can oppose its trends and
simultaneously be subjected to them, as his very action shows.... By
contradicting the present in his faithfulness to the past, he is already
contributing to the scaffolding of the future.
Here Käsemann points to John 17 as the “last will and testament” of
Jesus for the Church—a manifesto of how the Church should be directed
and led. In doing so, he develops an image of “the community under the
Word” and bolsters an impressive portrait of what pneumatic and
confessional Christianity might have looked like. He also casts the
juxtaposition of Peter and the Beloved Disciple in John into sharp relief and
3 See Menoud (1978, 410f-11; emphasis mine). This is the first reference to the term,
“Christocracy,” of which I am aware.
4 Käsemann (1968, 39-40).
argues that we have in this presentation a corrective to rising institutionalism

in the name of Jesus’ original intention for the Church. It is further ironic,
according to Käsemann, that the canonized Christian scriptures contain the
Fourth Gospel, which teaches that Christ continues to lead, through the Holy
Spirit, beyond the confines of a closed canon.5
The Johannine critique of rising institutionalism, however, is not simply
deconstructive; it is also highly reconstructive in its vision and operation.
The Beloved Disciple is presented as an invariably positive example for
authentic discipleship and effective leadership, and Peter as the chief of the
apostles is not only corrected rhetorically, but he also is presented in such a
way as to point the way forward for future Christian leaders in constructive
ways. In doing so several echoes of Matt 16:17-19 are presented in the
Gospel of John, but one of them is especially rife with consonant overtones.
The emphasis that flesh and blood had not revealed the Lord’s identity to
Peter, but the heavenly Father by means of revelation, may deserve more
attention than it has received. Not only does John’s egalitarian, familial, and
pneumatically mediated presentation of Christocracy present a manifesto of
Jesus’ original intentionality for the Church and its leadership, but it does so
in a way that resonates with Matt 16:17, perhaps highlighting a third
candidate for the “rock” upon which the Church is founded. Therefore,
rather than a structural office, or a proper confession of Gospel faith—as
valued as these assets might be—perhaps a third rock of the Church
deserves consideration as pointing to the unmediated and dynamic workings
of Christ through the Holy Spirit at work in the Church and in the world. It
is to this reality that Peter’s confession in John points.
The hermeneutical and ecclesial implications of these matters raise
considerable questions: Was there only one apostolic view of leadership, or
were there several? Was the charismatic and institution-challenging ministry
5 While Käsemann errs in failing to see John’s openness to revelation as potentially

orthodox, he well notes the synthesis that the inclusive canon insures: “However, the
reception of the Fourth Gospel into the canon is but the most lucid and most significant
example of the integration of originally opposing ideas and traditions into the
ecclesiastical tradition” (1968, 76). Two further corrections of his views merit
consideration: first, Johannine and institutional developments are more plausibly located
in the last two decades of the first century CE rather than the second century CE proper
(see “A Historical Outline of Johannine Christianity,” in Anderson 2006, 196-199);
second, the relation between the Johannine tradition and institutionalizing tendencies was
probably more dialectical than adversarial (see Anderson 2006, 100-26). Sketching the
particulars of those engagements is one of the primary interests of this study.
of Jesus furthered or altered by later developments within gospel traditions?

Is one model superior to others, or are there strengths and weaknesses with
every biblical model of leadership? How can effective leadership in the
Church further the leadership of Christ, whether it be through structural or
charismatic approaches to governance? And, how can the dynamics
underlying the gospel traditions inform the faith and practice of Christian
leaders in later generations?
In 1995 Pope John Paul II sent an encyclical to the worldwide church,
featuring the prayer of Jesus in John 17 that his followers might be one (ut
unum sint). In sections 94-96 he extends his exhortation to the larger
Christian movement, asking how he might effectively exercise his Petrine
responsibilities when many believers outside the Roman Catholic Church do
not respect papal authority. Cardinal Kapser then forwarded four leading
paragraphs to theologians and pastoral leaders of other denominations
globally asking what sort of “new day” might be possible for a greater
Christian ecumenism. Perhaps a fresh look at the first-century discussions of
these issues might provide bases for a new situation among the churches, or
at least better questions to be asking, whence better answers come.
1. Ecclesial Developments in the Matthean and Johannine Traditions

While Acts and the epistles of Paul provide a good deal of information about
leadership issues in the early church, the gospel traditions also contribute in
their own ways. Of particular significance is the fact of their connecting
approaches to church organization and leadership to the example and
intention of Jesus. Especially within the Matthean and Johannine traditions
particular ecclesial developments can be observed. Some of these are
similar, and some show signs of parallel developments in distinctive ways.
Given the likely inference of Matthew’s being based on the Gospel of Mark,
its tradition was probably finalized in the late first century (ca. 90 CE).
Interestingly, as well as emphases on discipleship, righteousness, and Jesus’
being the Jewish Messiah, Matthew contains a great deal of distinctive
ecclesial material, casting valuable light upon organizational developments
within Matthean sectors of early Christianity. Consider, for instance, the
following ecclesial developments in the Matthean tradition.
1.1 First, the emergence of structural authority may be seen in the addition
of Matt 16:17-19 to Peter’s confession in Mark, based upon the memory of
Peter and his apostolic leadership. Elements of that development include the
following:
• Peter is blessed by Jesus in having made the inspired confession about
Jesus being “the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”
• “Flesh and blood” are not the source of authentic faith, but Jesus’ Father
in heaven.
• Upon the “rock” of Peter’s legacy (his person, confession, or perhaps his
openness to revelation?) will the Church be built, and the gates of Hades
will not prevail against it (despite the death of Peter and the Apostles, the
Church will go forward).
• The keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are entrusted to Peter (and his
followers), the authority to bind and loose on earth is accorded also in
heaven, and the extension of the authority to bind and loose is extended to
the community in Matt 18:18.
1.2 Second, the development of a structure of accountability may be seen

in Matt 18:15-18. Added to the parable of the lost sheep (Matt. 18:10-14),
which in Matthew carries the emphasis upon the will of the Father that none
should perish, the following points are made:
• If a brother sins, the grieved party should confront him first, directly and
alone, in order to restore the offending party privately.
• If he does not listen, one or two witnesses may be taken along in order
that the concern might be confirmed by more than one testimony.
• Only if he refuses to listen a second time should the matter be then
brought before the whole “church.”
• Only if he refuses that ultimate measure of corporate accountability
should he be regarded as a Gentile and a tax collector.
1.3 Third, emphases upon grace, forgiveness, and tolerance are made in
addition to structures of organization and accountability. These
developments suggest that the Matthean tradition had been able to soften the
harder edges of its structural developments, and such measures argue for the
workability of its approach.
• Following Matt 18:15-18, verses 19-20 add emphases upon binding and
loosing (vss. 18-19 connect the passage with 16:17-19), broaden the theme
to include agreement between believers on earth, and assure readers of
Christ’s spiritual presence where two or three are gathered in his name.
• Peter is asked to forgive seven times seventy in vss. 21-22, and the
parable of the unforgiving servant is added as a counterbalance in verses 23-
35.
• The parable of the weeds (tares) is added to the parable of the sower
(Matt. 13:24-30), calling for believers not to uproot the “tares” because the
whole crop will be damaged; judgment is well left to God at the end of the
age.
• The parable of the workers in the vineyard is added (Matt. 20:1-16)
emphasizing tolerance for “late-comers” entering into the work of the
Kingdom.
In these and other passages distinctive to Matthew, not only is the

emergence of structures of authority and accountability observable, but so
also is the emphasis upon graciousness and toleration. In that sense, it is not
only the Johannine tradition that shows itself to be laced with dialectical
self-correction, but the Matthean tradition likewise shows such a feature.
This combination shows the Matthean tradition’s capacity to balance itself
and to retain a degree of familiality and functionality. And yet, no approach
to organization is without its limitations, and even strengths have their own
sets of resultant weaknesses. Nonetheless, one can see clearly Matthew’s
impact upon emerging traditions such as the monepiscopal approach of
Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, and other early Christian writings
(Brown and Meier 1983). Within these developments the place of Peter
would have been associated with the bridging of Jewish and Gentile parts of
the church, and his name would eventually become associated with
structural approaches to ecclesial leadership.6
While the Gospel of John is the most distinctive of all the Gospels, it is
not a derivative gospel. According to Käsemann (1968, 1), “Historical
criticism has demolished the traditional opinion that the Fourth Gospel was
written by John, the son of Zebedee. However, historical criticism has not
offered us an acceptable substitute for that outdated view.” On his second
6 Pheme Perkins (2000), for instance, emphasizes the role of Peter as a bridge between
Jewish and Gentile Christianities. On the place of Peter in the early church see Thiede
1988; Cullmann 1953; Hengel 2006; Karrer 1963; Nau 1992; and T.V. Smith 1995; of
central interest in these and other Petrine discussions is the question of ecclesial authority
with reference to his memory. Note also the development of Matthean ecclesiology in its
own right, including the authority to bind and loose: Bornkamm 1970; Campenhausen
1969; Kingsbury 1979; Schmithals 1969; and Schweizer 1961.
point, when all of Bultmann’s criteria for identifying sources are plied out
within John 6—arguably the showcase of John’s diachronic composition,
the empirical evidence is dismally meager (Anderson 1996, 48-166).
Likewise, Markan dependence theories must be constructed upon data
consisting of hundreds of parallels and echoes between John and Mark—of
which none are identical. Most plausible is an inference of John’s dialogical
autonomy, representing an independent tradition developing in its own
dialogical ways. While new evidence might call into question Käsemann’s
first point, especially in the Fourth Gospel’s later material7 organizing and
ecclesial interests may clearly be inferred. Therefore, in the Johannine
tradition, while “ἐκκλησία” does not occur in the Johannine Gospel (the
word ἐκκλησία appears only in Matthew among the Gospels; it does appear
in 3 John 6, 9, and 10) the following Johannine ecclesial developments may
be observed.
1.4 Images for the Church are developed with organic and fluid metaphors
and associations.
• Jesus is presented as the Shepherd of the flock and the Gate of the
sheepfold (John 10:1-18), who alone allows access to the fold, and who
distinctively poses the ultimate example of leadership as he lays down his
life for his own.
• Jesus is presented as the true vine (John 15:1-8), and the connectedness
of the branches to the vine is the only life-producing way forward for
abiding in him and he in the believer.
• The Beloved Disciple leans against the breast of Jesus, and intimacy with
the Lord becomes a model of ideal discipleship (John 13:23).
• The Mother of Jesus is entrusted to the Beloved Disciple as a familial
and relational model of authority and governance (John 19:26-27).
1.5 Approaches to guidance and leadership are developed within the

Johannine narration in pneumatic and dynamic terms.
7 For the particulars of a new synthesis of Johannine composition see the references in notes
19, 26, and 29, below—including an overlooked first-century clue to John’s authorship.
For an extended theory of John’s dialogical autonomy and interfluential relations with
other traditions, see Anderson 2006, 37-41 and 100-126.
• Jesus will not leave his disciples comfortless as orphans, but he will send
another παράκλητος, the Spirit of Truth, who will be with them and in them
(John 14:16-21).
• The παράκλητος, the Holy Spirit, will teach Jesus’ disciples all things
and will bring to their remembrance all that he has said unto them (John
14:26-31).
• The παράκλητος, the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father and
is sent also by the Son, will bear witness of Jesus, and Jesus’ disciples will
bear witness also of him (John 15:26-27).
• The παράκλητος, the Spirit of Truth, will convict the world of sin and of
righteousness, and he shall take what is of Jesus and will disclose it to his
followers (John 16:7-15).
1.6 Aspects of universality and plurality are emphasized with relation to

the scope of and inclusion of outreach and leadership.
• The Light enlightening everyone was coming into the world (John 1:9),
and to as many as received him he gave the power to become the children of
God (John 1:12).
• Jesus reminds his disciples that he has many sheep that are “not of this
fold,” who must be brought into the singular flock and its singular Shepherd,
as they hear his voice (John 10:16) and are (at least potentially) taught by
God (John 6:45).
• Those making pivotal Christological confessions include Nathanael
(John 1:49), not one of the Twelve, and Martha (John 11:27), a woman.
• Jesus’ disciples (plural) are inspired by Jesus (as he breathes on them and
commands them to receive the Holy Spirit), they are apostolized (as he is
sent from the Father, so he also send them), and they are given the
responsibility to be forgivers of sins (lest others remain bound by their not
forgiving; John 20:21-23).
In these and other ways, the Johannine tradition develops

ecclesiologically in its own trajectories, although it does so in ways that are
indeed parallel to those of the Matthean tradition. Jesus prays to the Father
that his disciples will be kept in the world but not of it, and he prays that
they will be one (John 17:1-26). He extols them to love one another as a
“new commandment” (John 13:34-35), and by the time the Epistles are
written, the new commandment has become an “old” commandment, that

has been known since the beginning (1 John 2:7; 2 John 5).8 While the
Johannine approach to ecclesiology develops in its own autonomous way, its
parallels to the Matthean view appear to be decidedly different. Whether
those differences were intended to be complementary or corrective is
another question, but there at least appears to have been some degree of
dialectical contact between the later Matthean and Johannine traditions on
this matter.
2. Matthean and Johannine Ecclesiologies in Dialogue?

The individuated character of the Johannine tradition is in no way a factor of
inferred sectarianism or being “beyond the pale,” as some interpreters have
claimed. The Johannine tradition has its own originative history of
development, and it reflects an autonomous Jesus tradition developed in its
own independent way (Anderson 2006, 37-41). On the other hand,
independence does not imply isolation. At this point, one agrees with
Raymond Brown that one of the significant partners in dialogue for
Johannine Christianity was the “Great Church” or “Apostolic Christians.”9
Here and elsewhere, Brown argues that the Johannine Community was not
on the fringe of the church (versus Käsemann 1968), but was not far from
the mainstream of Christian activity. Brown also develops convincingly the
view that the Beloved Disciple in John serves an important function as the
model of ideal discipleship for later generations of Christians. Nonetheless,
when compared with the rest of John, Matt 16:17-19 appears to have several
parallels in John—which are all different.10 This may suggest that these were
corrective parallels, not just complementary ones. Consider, for instance, the
following comparisons and contrasts.
8 Urban von Wahlde’s treatment of the love commandments shows how Johannine
Christianity sought to hold itself together on the basis of this appeal (1990). See also
recent developments of Johannine ecclesiology (Ferreira 1998) and leadership (Kenney
2000). For other treatments of Johannine ecclesiology, see: Grayston 1967; Kysar 1981;
Painter 1978 and 1981; Pancaro 1969; and Schweizer 1959.
9 See, for instance, Brown (1979, 81-91; and 1982, 3-146, 701-51).
10 For a somewhat different presentation of the comparison-contrasts, see Anderson (1996,
240).
Table 1:
Matt 16:17-19 and John’s view of “Christocracy”
1) Peter’s authentic confession is “blessed” and considered inspired (Matt. 16:17),

but in John “blessedness” is equated with serving others (John 13:17) and believing
without having seen (John 20:29).
2) Apostolic leaders are not only men in John, but also include women (John 4:7-
42; 20:14-16; 12:1-8), as the Samaritan woman reaches her people with the Gospel,
as Mary Magdalene is the apostle to the apostles, and as Mary the sister of Lazarus
anoints the feet of Jesus.
3) Instead of being only presented by Peter, confessions of faith in John are made
by Nathanael (John 1:49) and Martha (John 11:27)—neither of which is one of the
Twelve, and one of which is a woman.
4) “Flesh and blood” cannot recognize that kingly Messiah in Matthew, but in John,
the flesh profits nothing (John 6:63) as discipleship leads to the Cross (John
6:51c)—the willingness to suffer martyrdom is the associated meaning implied by
ingesting the “flesh and blood” of Jesus in John 6.
5) The image of the “church” in Matthew is “petrified,” while in John it is more
fluid (“flock” John 10:1-30; “vine and branch” John 15:1-8) and exemplified by the
Beloved Disciple’s intimate relation to Jesus (John 13:21-24).
6) As the Father sends the Son, so he sends his disciples (plural) with inspired
empowerment (John 20:21-22); those who know what the Master is doing and who
do his work are his “friends” (John 15:14-15) and partners in ministry.
7) Authority (responsibility) to loose and bind is given to a plurality of followers of
Jesus in John (John 20:23), not just Peter and a narrowed group of successors.
8) While institutional keys serve as a metaphor of instrumental ecclesial influence
and authority, entrusted to Peter (and those who follow in his wake), the entrustment
of Jesus’ mother to the Beloved Disciple (and by extension to all believers) serves as
a metaphor of relational and familial ecclesial influence and authority.
9) Jesus gives Peter authority in Matthew, but in John (John 6:68-9) Peter gives
authority to Jesus, affirming his words as the source of eternal life.
By contrast, the revelatory work of the Father in Matt 16:17 is echoed

pervasively in John, so we clearly have inter-traditional consonance as well
as dissonance. If there were some form of engagement between the
Matthean and Johannine traditions evoking such an inter-tradition dialogue,
however, they need not have been written, literary contacts.1 The fact that
these similarities are also different enough to resist literary-dependence
characterization points to other modes of engagement. The first possibility
to be considered is that we have an interfluential set of contacts as factors of
secondary orality. Put otherwise, the formers of these traditions may have
been answering echoes of the other, which they had heard about informally
from other sources. In fact, it is hard to imagine that such contacts did not
happen. If Matthean organizational structure had even a small impact on
third-generation Christianity, and from its impact upon Ignatius and his
impact on the churches of Asia Minor it seemed to have been considerable,
it is impossible to imagine that Johannine leaders did not run up against
structuralizing tendencies among those who were seeking to hold their
communities together.
Likewise, as Matthean Christianity developed, it is hard to imagine that it
would not have been aware of Johannine ecclesial developments in Asia
Minor, or wherever they took hold. One can infer subtle Johannine echoes in
Matthew’s emphasis upon the pneumatic presence of Christ within the
corporate gathering of believers (Matt. 18:19-20) and the Johannine
emphasis upon Jesus as the Mosaic prophet from Galilee, as well (Matt.
21:11, 46). Matthean-Johannine interfluentiality is a likely explanation for
the general similarities here and elsewhere (Anderson 2006, 119-126). In
that sense, we appear to have two parallel ecclesial developments, rooted in
independent gospel traditions that appear to have evolved in dialogical
relationship to each other, either directly or indirectly. Total isolation from
each other is less than plausible.
A second point here needs also to be made. Far from seeing John’s
dialectical engagement of Matthean ecclesiology as proof that it did not
1 Graham Stanton also points out several cases in which the Gospels of Matthew and John
have been found together in second-century Oxyrhynchus manuscript finds (Stanton 1999,
54). Says Stanton: “We can be almost certain that in spite of their obvious differences,
Christian communities in this area used both Gospels at the same time. What are we to
make of this fact? What is the significance of this fact? Were the differences between
Matthew and John simply ignored, or were they held together in tension?” This essay
builds a fuller scenario of what was alluded to in my response to Professor Stanton on this
matter (Anderson 1999b, 67-69). See also impressive parallels between Johannine and
Matthean Christologies in arguing Jesus as the Prophet like Moses based on Deut 18:15-
22 (Anderson 1999a).
originate from within the apostolic band,2 the opposite is equally arguable, if
not more so. If indeed the Jesus of history was a charismatic prophet,
seeking to challenge institutions with the dynamic reign of God and the
transformative work of the Spirit, it is the Matthean addition to Mark’s
confession of Peter that must be seen as an innovation, not Johannine
pneumatism.3 Thus, the Johannine challenge to Petrine hierarchy may have
conveyed an apostolic opinion from within the apostolic band, rather than
requiring a non-apostolic designation as a result. In posing a parallel
approach to ecclesial operation which is pneumatic, egalitarian and
informal, the Johannine rendering offers an alternative approach to the
means by which the risen Christ continues to lead the Church, with its own
claims to apostolic origin and insight. This is made especially clear in the
juxtaposition of Peter and the Beloved Disciple in John.
3. Peter and the Beloved Disciple in John—Typifying Distinctive

Models of Christocracy
On one hand, some scholars will claim that John’s portrayal of Peter is no
more strident than other portrayals in the New Testament, and that this is
insignificant theologically.4 This view, however, is inadequate, textually and
2 This appears to be one of the reasons Raymond Brown changed his view on John’s
apostolic authorship. While his commentary (1966, 1970) argues for the traditional view
of John’s authorship, connecting it with John the Apostle or someone like him, his
commentary on the Johannine Epistles (1984) and his book, The Community of the
Beloved Disciple (1979) poses the view that the author was an unknown eyewitness, but
not one of the Twelve. He develops this thesis explicitly in his new introduction to John
(2003) edited by Francis Moloney. While Brown may be correct, the basis for his view is
itself weak; assuming there was ever a singular apostolic view on important matters of
faith and practice is itself a questionable inference. Therefore, both the Matthean and
Johannine trajectories deserve at least potential consideration as apostolic modes of
Christocracy—one more structural, and the other more charismatic.
3 Consider, for instance, Martin Hengel’s monograph (1981) on Jesus as a charismatic
prophetic figure. Here the Johannine presentation of Jesus as a pneumatic teacher has been
ironically overlooked by modern Jesus scholars, who while believing in the pneumatism
of the historical Jesus have rejected the Johannine tradition precisely because of this
distinctive feature (Hengel 1989; Anderson 2006, 171-173).
4 This is the view that is argued in the collection or essays on Peter in the New Testament
(Brown et. al. 1973). In the Johannine essay (pages 129-147), the overall point is made
that despite Peter’s less-than-optimal presentation of Peter in John, this is similar to his
uneven presentation in all the Gospels. Despite the ecumenical interests underlying this
endeavor, the real tension in John still stands. Put otherwise, the Johannine critique of
hermeneutically. On the other hand, some have seen this juxtaposition as

sharply rhetorical.5 While Peter is portrayed in John as the lead disciple, his
leadership is portrayed far more ironically here than anywhere else in the
New Testament. In no fewer than three prominent scenarios he is portrayed
as misunderstanding Jesus’ instructions (a highly rhetorical device—
especially when related to the character of service and pastoral leadership—
John 6:67-70; 13:6-17; 21:15-17), and when placed side-by-side with the
Beloved Disciple, he is pervasively portrayed in less favorable light. The
juxtaposition of Peter and the Beloved Disciple in John is highly significant
ecclesiologically, reflecting a Johannine corrective to rising institutionalism
in the name of the original intentionality of Jesus for his church.6
The issues at stake here, though, were far more weighty than struggles
between personalities, and even ecclesial approaches. The Johannine
concern was nothing short of emphasizing a pneumatic and familial mode of
Christocracy—the effectual means by which the risen Lord continues to lead
and guide the Church. An institutional mode of Christocracy was clearly
central to the organizational concerns of Ignatius, Clement, and others
around the turn of the century, but this development did not go
unchallenged. By the second and third centuries anti-Petrinism becomes a
prevalent factor in church relations, but even before the turn of the first
century CE one may infer several correctives to some of the ill effects of
centralized authority. Within the Matthean tradition itself, for instance, we
see a counterbalancing of authority to judge with the responsibility to be
gracious. Peter (and those who follow in his wake) must forgive 7 times 70,
and one must be careful about judging because by that same standard will
one also be judged.7 While Peter is presented constructively in John as
Petrinism may not have been unique, but this is different from concluding that it was
nonexistent.
5 See Agourides 1968; Käsemann 1968; Maynard 1984; Droge 1990, and Snyder 1971.
6 See, for instance, the monumental work of Terrence Smith (1985). It may likewise be
argued that ambivalent portrayals of Peter from the middle first century on suggest not the
absence of tension, but its presence, as far as ecclesial structures are concerned. During the
two centuries between Paul’s confrontation of Peter at Antioch and the reinstatement of
Cyprian as Bishop of Alexandria, favorable and unfavorable portrayals of Peter suggest
intramural debates— not so much about the person— but about his influence and the
structures of leadership erected and wielded in his memory.
7 At this point I at least somewhat agree with Stanton’s critique (1999, 55), where he points
out that judging Matthean and Johannine ecclesiologies to be hierarchical/structural and
familial/egalitarian does not do justice to either tradition. This critique is well taken. And
affirming Jesus’ singular authority, his juxtaposition alongside the Beloved

Disciple in John bears with it suggestive implications.
Table 2:
Peter and the Beloved Disciple in John
1) Peter is called by Jesus, along with Andrew, another unnamed disciple (not
necessarily the Beloved Disciple), Philip and Nathanael; they leave the Baptist to
follow Jesus (John 1:35-51).
2) Despite other disciples breaking off and following Jesus no longer, Peter is
presented as staying with Jesus and making a believing confession affirming Jesus’
singular authority (John 6:66-70).
3) At the Last Supper Jesus washes Peter’s feet, and Peter initially objects but then
invites a thorough cleansing; Jesus asserts that the apostle is not greater than the one
who has sent him. Serving the other is the blessed way of leadership (John 13:1-17).
4) Upon hearing that one of the Twelve would betray Jesus, Peter inquires to the
Beloved Disciple, leaning against the breast of Jesus, if this were he; it is Judas,
though, not Peter (John 13:18-32).
5) Peter affirms his loyalty to Jesus, promising to be loyal to the end; Jesus then
predicts his threefold denial after the cock crows (John 13:33-38).
6) Simon Peter draws a sword and cuts off the right ear of Malchus, the servant of
the High Priest; Jesus commands him to put away the sword, claiming that Peter has
mistakenly sought to prevent his drinking of the “cup” the Father has in store for
him (John 18:10-11).
7) Simon Peter enters the courtyard of the High Priest, along with an unnamed
disciple (not necessarily the Beloved Disciple) who was known to the High Priest;
Peter denies Jesus the first time when asked by the gate-keeping woman whether he
was one of Jesus’ followers, claiming that he was not (John 18:15-17).
8) Peter’s second and third denials come in response to questions from a group and
from a relative of Malchus, whose ear he had severed; then, the cock crows (John
18:25-27).
yet, the general proclivities do seem to have existed, and it may have been the expression
of a traditional approach that garnered both favorable and unfavorable responses. This
appears to have been the case with reference to the situation illuminated by the Johannine
Epistles.
9) Despite the fact that the Beloved Disciple and the women are present at the
crucifixion, Peter is not; Jesus entrusts his mother to the Beloved Disciple (John
19:26-27).
10) Mary Magdalene reports to Peter and the Beloved Disciple that the tomb is
empty; they run to the tomb, the Beloved Disciple arrives first but allows Peter to
enter first; there they see the clothes of Jesus folded, and they believe (John 20:1-
10).
11) Peter and other disciples (including the sons of Zebedee) go fishing but catch
nothing; Jesus appears and instructs them to cast their nets on the right side of the
boat, whereupon the catch of fish is great (John 21:1-6).
12) The Beloved Disciple recognizes first that it is the Lord and points his identity
out to Peter; Peter puts on his clothes, jumps in the water, swims to shore, helps
unload the fish, and they all dine with Jesus on the shore for the third post-
resurrection appearance of Jesus (John 21:7-14).
13) Jesus inquires three times as to whether Peter loves him, instructing him to
feed/tend his sheep/lambs; Peter is troubled that the Lord asks him three times, and
he affirms his love for Jesus (John 21:15-18).
14) Then Jesus predicts the death by which Peter would die, evoking Peter’s
invidious question about the fate of the Beloved Disciple; the narrator alludes
implicitly to the death of the Beloved Disciple and explicitly to his having been the
author of the Johannine narrative (John 21:18-24).
Assuming this set of presentations was intentional, a number of John’s

distinctive theological emphases become explicable:
3.1. The juxtaposition of Peter and the Beloved Disciple betrays not
primarily a conflict of personalities, but a conflict of ecclesiologies. Peter
(representing institutional leadership) misunderstands the basic character of
servanthood and sacrificial love for the flock, while the authority of the
Beloved Disciple (representing John’s view of ideal discipleship) hinges
upon intimacy with Jesus (leaning upon his breast) and abiding with him till
the end (he is present at the crucifixion).
3.2. The reference to the Beloved Disciple as the apostolic source of John’s
witness serves less as an emphasis upon the historicity of its detail, and more
as an appeal to the original intentionality of Jesus for his church. Therefore,
the redactor’s emphasis is ecclesial and theological in its reference to
historicity and eyewitness derivation.
3.3 The entrustment of the Mother of Jesus to the Beloved Disciple serves a
parallel function for John’s familial and pneumatic ecclesiology, as does the
entrustment of instrumental keys to Peter for Matthew’s institutional and
hierarchical ecclesiology. Note, however, the different character of ecclesial
authority implied.
3.4. The emphasis upon the present leadership of the παράκλητος in John
14-16 provides a manifesto of radical Christocracy—the effective means by
which the risen Christ intends to lead his church. Rather than leading by
proxy, or vicariously, the present Christ leads through the sending of the
Holy Spirit, to whom all believers have access.
3.5. The commissioning of believers in John 20:21-23 advocates the
broadening of the apostolate—all believers are breathed on (inspired) by
Jesus, they are sent by him with the same apostolicity with which Jesus is
sent by the Father, and they are given the responsibility (not just the
privilege) to be forgivers of the sins of others.
3.6. Even women play apostolic roles in John. The Samaritan woman
becomes the “apostle to the Samaritans,” and Mary Magdalene becomes the
apostle to the disciples after the resurrection. Likewise, those who are not
members of the Twelve, such as Nathanael are given elevated roles of
leadership within the company of the Lord.
3.7. Authentic worship in Spirit and in Truth is the kind of worship Jesus
came to inaugurate, and it is efficacious regardless of locale and form.
Neither Judeans nor Jerusalo-centric Christians have any spiritual advantage
over those who worship in the more remote sectors of the Christian
movement.
3.8. John’s insistence that Jesus himself never baptized (John 4:2) and the
omission of the institution of the eucharist at the last supper in John suggest
a corrective to the functional legitimization of Christian institutionalization.
Their historical origin lies not with Jesus’ ordinances, but with the
organizing work of (some of, not necessarily all of) his followers.8
8 Here the Johannine aside and omission support the criterion of dissimilarity as advocated
by critical scholars. Note the analysis of James Dunn (1990, 124-149 and 341-366), where
pan-liturgism in the early church is challenged as something of a fiction. Likewise, see
Clifton Black (1986). While some formal developments did indeed occur, the mistake is to
assume that they were uniform and universal. John’s tradition appears to have maintained
a good deal of informality, which becomes something of a challenge as to how to hold
3.9. True shepherding consists of loving the sheep agapeically and laying
one’s life down for them—not fleeing in the face of danger as does the
hireling. Not only does the motif signify the leadership of Israel who care
for themselves but not the sheep (Ezekiel 34), it also implies a critique of
Christian leaders who may happily cling to the privileges of positional
leadership during good times, but who may go underground during times of
persecution. Whereas 1 Pet 5:1-4 calls for resisting the use of position for
gain, John calls into question the legitimacy of positional leadership
altogether. The essential element of Christian leadership is sacrificial love
and service.
While the Gospel of John was finalized last among the canonical
Gospels, and while it is the most theological among them, much of its
ecclesial content and presentation appears less developed and non-formal.
John’s primitivity is thus as marked as its lateness. With the ministry of the
Beloved Disciple probably extending into the 90’s, the appeal for an
egalitarian and Spirit-based mode of Christocracy had an enduring advocate.
However, following his death, and in the light of schismatic tendencies
resulting from Roman persecution under Domitian (81-96 CE) and an
assortment of other pressures, the Johannine Elder and others were forced to
assume more of a leadership role.9 Thus, the intramural motivation for
finalizing and circulating the witness of the Beloved Disciple must be
understood in the light of the events and tensions underlying 3 John. This
relates to dealing with the likes of Diotrephes and his kin.
4. Diotrephes and His Kin

While a dialectical history of engagement between Johannine and Matthean
views of church organization and community life seems likely, it would be
wrong to construe the Johannine critique of rising institutionalism in the late
first-century church as the direct countering of a Matthean text, proper.
Indeed, as Graham Stanton (1999, 53-56) has well pointed out, John and
Matthew might not be all that far apart in terms of hierarchy and
institutionalism versus familiality and egalitarianism. I might even point out
communities together in the light of the situation of the Epistles (Brown 1979, 1982,
1984).
9 For a plausible theory of Johannine composition, see “Appendix I; A Two-Edition Theory
of Johannine Composition” (Anderson 2006, 193-95).
that the very reason they were in dialogue might be a reflection of their
proximity to each other, rather than distance, as illustrated above. Indeed,
sociologists have even established that territoriality exists only among
members of like species. Therefore, Matthean ecclesiology reflects as much
graciousness and familial operation (see my response to Stanton, Anderson
1999b, 67-69) as it does structure and accountability development. All it
takes, though, is one strident appeal to Petrine authority, perhaps even as an
indirect reference to a Matthean theme, for the Johannine Elder to have
gathered the Johannine Gospel together as a means of setting the record
straight. Arguably, Diotrephes the “primacy-lover” was the trigger for such
a dialectical response.10
While it is impossible to know much about who Diotrephes was, or why
he refused to welcome the Johannine brethren, several things are clear from
the Elder’s perspective. First, Diotrephes asserts his own primacy; second,
he does not acknowledge the Elder’s authority; third, he is charged with
spreading false claims against Johannine Christians; fourth, he refuses to
welcome the brethren; fifth, he obstructs those who try to do so; and sixth,
he casts them out of the church if they do (3 John 9-10). Of course, this is
simply what we learn from the Elder’s complaints against Diotrephes; from
Diotrephes’ perspective, his actions and their motivations may have been
different.
In response to this, the Johannine Elder explains his actions to Gaius.
First, the Elder has already written to “the church”; second, he promises to
call attention to what Diotrephes is doing if he is able to make a visit; and
third, he encourages Gaius to extend hospitality despite its having been
denied him. More indirectly, he cites contrasts to Diotrephes rhetorically
(Watson 1989): he cites the truthful and upstanding example of those who
have indeed extended hospitality to others (vss. 3-8) and extols the virtues of
those like Demetrius who imitate what is good, not evil (vss. 11-12) as a
direct contrast to Diotrephes. If the Elder is willing to go to those lengths to
settle this particular abuse of positional authority, even if warranted, his
10 Here I agree with Bultmann that the evidence is strong for the author of the Johannine
Epistles to have been the final redactor of the Gospel. I see him, though, not as elevating
Peter’s memory in chs. 21 and 6, but as co-opting it in service to putting forth a pneumatic
approach to Christocracy as laid out in chs. 15-17, that were also added to the final edition
of the Gospel.
binding up the testimony of the Beloved Disciple and passing it along for a
more general impact among the churches is a highly plausible inference.
While attempts to explain the relationship between the Elder and
Diotrephes abound, this much is clear: Diotrephes appears to be exercising
some sort of local control over his congregation at least, and he refuses to
welcome Johannine Christians. Whether his community was a small house
church or a larger community of faith, he apparently possessed enough
authority to excommunicate his own church members, and in that sense was
exercising monepiscopal authority, perhaps in a proto-Ignatian way.11 While
hospitality was the occasion for the conflict, this quickly led to a challenging
of the bases for such. Might he have employed the Matthean Keys to the
Kingdom motif as a legitimation of his authority? This is by no means an
unlikely inference. Just as Matt 10:2 adds πρῶτος (first) to the calling of
Peter (see Mark 3:16), the reference to Diotrephes as ὁ φιλοπρωτεύων (3
John 1:9; “the firstness- or primacy-loving one,” the only time the word
occurs in the New Testament—a rare combination of φιλέω and πρῶτος)
suggests an indirect reference to emerging Petrine associations with
apostolic primacy. Matthew also adds ἀποστόλων to the naming of “the
Twelve,” connecting apostolic authority to the calling of the Twelve,
beginning, of course, with Peter; the only time ἀπόστολος is mentioned in
John (13:16) it is with within the context of Jesus’ confrontation of Peter on
aspects of servanthood and leadership. The point here is that if Diotrephes
were trying to hold his community together (as Ignatius soon would advise
leaders among the Asia Minor churches—and perhaps he already was) by
asserting his episcopal authority over his community, Petrine authorization
would have been the likely coin to have been employed in doing so. Further,
it is the very marshalling of one coin of apostolic authority which may have
11 The significance of this point is that while there will continue to be disagreement as to
whether Diotrephes was an early monarchial bishop, or simply a leading presbyter in a
local church (on the identity and character of Diotrephes see Donfried 1977; Lohse 1983;
Lieu 1986; Malherbe 1983; Miranda 1972; Mitchell 1998; Polhill 1970; Traeger 1987; and
Käsemann 1968), his wielding of ecclesial authority is experienced as problematic. Either
as a “monarchical bishop” (von Harnack 1904, 1905) or as a “house-church leader”
(Johnson 1993), his appropriation of Petrine authority to bring order to his local setting is
a likely conjecture. The thesis of Kevin Quast (1989, 169) is that the Johannine redactor,
in adding chapter 21 to the Johannine Gospel, has co-opted Petrine authority for his
purposes as well.
evoked another—a parallel claim to the same on behalf of the Johannine

leadership.12
Even more elusive is the answer to the question of why Diotrephes might
have rejected Johannine Christians. Rather than infer his consternation must
have regarded theological problems, however, as Professor Käsemann has
argued, his concerns here seem to have been practical rather than
theological. Perhaps it was the egalitarian and pneumatic ethos of Johannine
Christianity13 that he objected to, and well he should have, as it threatened to
erode the hierarchical basis of his centripetal means of holding his own
community together against its centrifugal tendencies. He may also have
noted the church splits among neighboring Johannine churches, perhaps
feeling the older and familial model was ineffective and obsolete. Further,
Diotrephes may even believe the Elder has not followed church order based
in Matt 18:15-17, in that he has apparently written to “the church” before
having spoken to Diotrephes personally. Or, the rejecting of Johannine
φίλοι (friends) might have been a counter-reaction to the effect of the
Elder’s counsel (2 John 7-11) to deny hospitality to the πλάνοι (deceivers).
It could simply be an inhospitable response of like kind. Whatever the case,
the “new and improved” episcopal model employed by Diotrephes and his
kin settled authority questions within participating churches, connecting the
authority of Peter and the Keys to his own primacy and effective influence.
This makes the Elder’s threefold reference to the ἐκκλησία
understandable. While its mention in vs. 10 refers to Diotrephes’ local
congregation, the “church” that has received testimony as to Gaius’ good
standing in vs. 6 appears to be a more centralized body, which both the
Elder and Diotrephes hold in authoritative esteem. They might have even
12 Therefore, the editor’s assertion that the eyewitness and Beloved Disciple’s testimonies
are true appear to have had pointed, ideological slants to them, not simply neutral claims
regarding historical matters. Just as anti-Docetism is the first reason for asserting the
veracity of eyewitness claim in John 19:34-35, one wonders if a challenge to Diotrephes
and his kin might have played a role in the redactor’s assertion veracity of the Beloved
Disciple’s testimony (the one who leaned against the breast of the Lord) at the end of the
final edition of John (21:24). Assertions of veracity are always rhetorical—as are their
challenges.
13 Note the extensive treatments of John’s pneumatic approach to ecclesial leadership: John’s
pneumatic and egalitarian emphasis would likely have been threatening to episcopal
innovators, contra Schweizer (1961, 124): Breck 1991; Burge 1987; Ferreira 1998;
Käsemann 1968; Neyrey 1988; and N. Watson 1983. See also the implications for
democratic governance politically and ecumenically: Draper 1995 and Anderson 2005.
been competing for favor regarding one ecclesial approach over another;
episcopal and presbyterian polities did not begin their dialogues in the 16th
century!14 Therefore, the Elder’s mention that he has written to “the church,
but Diotrephes does not receive us” in vs. 9 arguably is a reference to that
more central body whence Diotrephes may have been deriving his
authorization. It may even be that the Elder’s emphasis on Johannine
hospitality shown toward the φίλοι (friends) is designed to bolster his
sector’s legitimacy in the esteem of other Christians while exposing
Diotrephes’ high-handed approach as unloving. He also appears willing to
confront Diotrephes personally, if needed, so in that respect the Elder is
willing to follow the essence of the Matthean prescription for accountability,
even if not in the recommended sequence. These factors thus provide an
important backdrop for an adequate reading of John 6.
5. The Rhetorical Presentation of Peter in John 6

All of this brings us back to John 6 and Peter’s confession. Peter’s
confession in John 6 is perhaps the most overlooked part of the chapter and
probably the least understood. Reasons for it being overlooked by scholars
are easy to understand: competition with such issues as the possibility of
underlying sources and overlaying interpolations in John 6, as well as
Johannine-Synoptic comparison/contrasts, certainly make this chapter the
“Grand Central Station of Johannine critical issues” (Anderson 1997, 1).
Verses 67-71, however, comprise a complete sub-unit, which if understood
properly, may lend valuable insights for understanding one of the central
concerns of the evangelist: clearing the ground for the larger presentation of
how Christ’s leading the Church should be carried out, as developed more
fully in John 14-17.
67 εἶπεν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοῖς δώδεκα. µὴ καὶ ὑµεῖς θέλετε ὑπάγειν;
68 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ Σίµων Πέτρος. κύριε, πρὸς τίνα ἀπελευσόµεθα; ῥήµατα

ζῶης αἰωνίου ἔχεις, 69 καὶ ὑµεῖς πεπιστεύκαµεν καὶ ἐγνώκαµεν ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ
ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ.
14 Indeed, tensions in the late first-century situation—as revealed in these biblical texts—
have tended to play themselves out throughout Christian history, not in spite of the
biblical witness, but because of it (Anderson 1991).
70 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἐγὼ ὑµᾶς τοὺς δώδεκα ἐξελεξάµην; καὶ. ἐξ
ὑµῶν εἷς διάβολός ἐστιν.
(71 ἔλεγεν δὲ τὸν Ἰούδαν Σίµωνος Ἰσκαριώτου. οὗτος γὰρ ἔµελλεν
παραδιδόναι αὐτόν, εἷς ἐκ τῶν δώδεκα.)
So Jesus enquired of the Twelve, “Can it be that you also wish to depart?”
“Lord,” was Simon Peter’s reply, “to whom shall we go? You have the
words which produce eternal life; and we have believed and have come to
know that you are the Holy One of God.”
“Is it not I,” was Jesus’ reply to them, “that have chosen you, the Twelve?
And yet one of you is a devil.”
(Now he actually meant Judas, son of Simon [Iscariot] for this one, despite
being one of the twelve, was about to betray him.)15
Interpretations of this scene vary, but by and large, most scholars seem to
agree along three basic lines: 1) John’s rendition of Peter’s confession is the
Johannine equivalent of the more reliable Synoptic presentation of Peter’s
confession in Mark 8. 2) Peter makes an exemplary confession, declaring
Jesus’ holiness and building toward an exalted presentation of Jesus, and
thus it serves as a model for salvific belief. 3) Jesus’ sharp response predicts
the betrayal of Judas, and this prophecy is fulfilled in ch. 13.
These interpretations sound reasonable enough, and, as is the case with
most commentators, we might be tempted to consider the hermeneutical
case open and shut and move on to chapter 7. However, as one examines the
evidence more closely we begin to see that there are problems with each of
these interpretations, and one might argue even further that they are not only
wrong, but diametrically so.
For one thing, Peter’s confession of Jesus as “the Holy One of God” fits
the criterion of dissimilarity better than the Markan confession of Jesus as
“the Christ.” The latter is clearly a more Hellenized and confessional
statement, whereas the words of the demoniac, if going back to someone
like Peter’s preaching (Mark 1:24; see also Peter’s reference to “the Holy
and Righteous One” in Acts 3:14), suggest something closer to what the
“historical Peter” might have said rather than more domesticated renderings.
15 This translation is crafted around Cassirer’s translation (1989).

The confessional diction here might thus be more of a factor of historical

association or traditionally authentic representation than theologizing piety.
Second, the reference here is not primarily to Jesus’ holiness, but
apparently to his thaumaturgic power as represented the identical reference
in Mark 1:24 and Luke 4:34. In John Jesus rejects Synoptic thaumaturgic
triumphalism, just as he rejected the Danielic apocalyptic Son-of-Man
triumphalism of Mark 8:32-38, also around a discussion with Peter. This
critique of Synoptic thaumaturgy also shows up in Jesus’ overturning the
Synoptic valuation of the feeding (“they ate and were satisfied”) in all five
Synoptic feeding narratives (John 6:26). Rather than correcting a back-water
signs source, the Johannine Jesus is presented as setting straight the
thaumaturgical thrust of the Markan traditions, proper. The works of Jesus
are valued as revelatory signs in John, rather than wondrous fetes. “Blessed
are those who have not seen, and yet believe,” declares the Johannine Jesus
(John 20:29).
Third, the one interpolation by the redactor in John 6 that does seem
likely is vs. 71, where the editor seeks to rescue Peter from the rejection-
saying of the Lord in vs. 70. Jesus can’t have called Peter “a devil”; he must
have meant Judas, the obvious traitor—so the editor appears to have
reasoned. Again, entirely parallel to the “get thee behind me, Satan” passage
of Mark 8:33, what Jesus is challenging is the tendency of his followers to
embrace the benefits of discipleship rather than its costs. Just as ingesting
the flesh and blood of Jesus in John 6:53-58 emphasizes the embracing of
the Cross (vs. 51), so the disciples in Mark 8 and John 6 are scandalized for
the same reason: not because they failed to comprehend his message, but
because they understood it clearly. Hope of union with Christ in resurrection
is contingent upon solidarity with Jesus and his sufferings on the Cross.
Despite the differences of imagery, on this point the Markan and Johannine
Gospels agree.
Like the outlining of “the two ways” in the Didache, the exhortation of
the two ways in John 6 functions to evoke a believing response from its
audiences: “Seek not the food which perishes, but the food that abides into
eternity.” (vs. 27) Rather than seeing this admonition, however, as targeted
at one group or crisis alone, at least four crises in the Johannine situation are
addressed by four sets of discussants. As John 6 was probably added to the
final edition of John,16 the crisis in John 9 illumined by Martyn (2003) has
already somewhat cooled. Nor was it the first or the last dialogical crisis
within the Johannine situation. Rather, no fewer than four other intramural
dialogues present themselves in a two-level reading of John 6, of which the
Johannine-Petrine engagement is likely the latest.17
Table 3:
Four Dialectical Engagements—A Two-Level Reading of John 6
Dialogue 1: The Crowd and Jesus—The Meaning of Jesus’ Miracles: Wonders or

Signifiers?
• The crowd seeks another sign (vss. 22-25)
• Jesus rebukes them for seeking a Synoptic-type valuation of the feeding:
“ate…and were satisfied” (vs. 26 Õ Mark 6:42; 8:8; Matt 14:20; 15:37; Luke 9:17)
• The crowd asks what they must do to get/work the works of God (vs. 28)
• Jesus calls for a believing response to the divine initiative (vs. 29).
Dialogue 2: Jewish Authorities and Jesus—Torah versus Revelation: The Bread of

Moses or the Eschatological Bread of God?
• They then taunt Jesus for another miracle and cite the scriptural precedent of
Moses having given them manna from heaven to eat (Ps 78:24; vss. 30-31)
• Jesus overturns exegesis with eschatology—it is not Moses who gave, but his
Father who gives (vs. 32)
• They request this bread that has come down from heaven, but cannot imagine
how it is connected with Jesus, whose father and mother they know (vss. 34-42)
16 Of all the theories of John’s composition, a modification of Lindars (1972, 46-54) is the
most plausible (other than the interpolation of ch. 11). Ashton largely agrees (1991, 82-
90), and a likely hypothesis is that the Johannine prologue (1:1-18) and epilogue (ch. 21)
were added to an earlier edition after the writing of the Epistles (which followed the first
edition of the Gospel) along with chs. 6 and 15-17, Beloved-Disciple references, and eye-
witness attestations (Anderson 2006, 193-195).
17 With Wayne Meeks (1997), the Johannine situation was a highly dialectical one: Brown
1979; Cassidy 1992; Käsemann 1968; Kysar 1981; Perkins 1983; Rensberger 1988; D.M.
Smith 1975; Theissen 1992; Yarbro Collins 1980. With Brown’s new introduction to John
(2003), several sets of dialogues can be inferred within the Johannine situation over three
primary periods, and the above dialogues reflect crises particular to the middle and later
phases (70-85 and 85-100 CE; Anderson 2006, 196-199). These dialogical engagements
are laid out in fuller detail in Anderson 1997, 24-57.
• Jesus claims to be the Bread of Life who gives life to the world; coming to him
fulfills the prophecy of Isa 54:13 that all will be taught by God (vss. 43-48).
Dialogue 3: The Disciples and Jesus—Ingesting the Flesh and Blood of Jesus: The
Way of the Cross versus the Ways of the World.
• After Jesus declares that the Bread he gives is his flesh for the life of the world,
the Jews grumble and ask how Jesus can give his flesh for such a purpose (vs. 52)
• Jesus declares that his followers must eat his flesh and drink his blood lest they
have no life in themselves (vss. 53-58)
• At this hard saying his disciples are scandalized and exclaim that this is a tough
teaching to “swallow” (vs. 60)
• Jesus declares that the flesh (thus trying to save one’s skin) profits nothing, but
that his words are spirit and life-producing (63).
Dialogue 4: Peter and Jesus—The Singular Source of Eternal Life: The Life-
Producing Words of the Lord, as Attested by Peter.
• After some of his disciples had backslidden Jesus turned to Peter and asked if he
too would abandon his Lord
• Peter declares that Jesus alone has the words of eternal life and that he is the
Holy One of God
• Jesus clarifies that he has not called the Twelve to the safety of election, and that
one of them is a devil for desiring such
• The clarification is made that this must have been a reference to Judas, the
traitor, rather than Peter.
Note that these four dialogues run entirely parallel to four crises faced
within the context of the Johannine situation between 70-100 CE, and
implicitly a fifth.18 The first was less of a crisis and more of a set of
18 The fifth crisis, the challenge of dealing with Roman expectation of the performance of
public Emperor laud under Domitian (81-96 CE) would actually have fit between the
second and third crises in this time-frame, and it would have been a factor of each. Having
been distanced from the local Synagogue in Asia Minor or elsewhere, Christians among
the mission churches were deprived of the Jewish dispensation allowing them to get
around Emperor worship by paying a Jewish tax (Cassidy 1992). The result of the
Synagogue-Christian debates made the Roman pressures worse. The Roman expectation,
then, impacted the assimilation stance of Gentile believers, who would have been less
worried at offering Emperor laud if perfunctory and insincere. At the penalty of suffering
otherwise, the teaching of a non-suffering Jesus became the existential appeal of
dialogues between the Johannine and the Markan traditions on the valuation
of miracles and the relation between signs and faith. Here the crowd
symbolizes those who are called to release their materialistic understandings
of bread and to assimilate the nourishment which Jesus gives and is. Second,
the Jewish leaders represent the debate with the Synagogue, which while hot
during the writing of John 9, has now cooled by the time John 6 was
produced. Here Jewish Christians are called to release the bread of the Torah
(Deut 8:3) in exchange for the realized yearning of Moses that all God’s
people would prophesy (Num 11:29) and that all would be taught by God
(Isa 53:54). Third, the acute situation of the audience, however, is saved for
last. In the face of persecution, perhaps under Domitian (81-96 CE),
Johannine Christians are called to release their hopes to preserve their
physical lives in exchange for the true and eternal life, which is only
available by means of solidarity with Jesus and his community—even in the
face of suffering. Thus, to ingest the flesh and blood of Jesus is to combat
the attraction of Docetism—if Jesus did not suffer, neither need his disciples
to do the same. Fourth, rather than presenting Peter (and those who follow in
his wake) as the recipients of coercive authority as a means of dealing with
discipline and church order in proto-Ignatian ways, Peter is presented
affirming Jesus’ singular authority, inviting his followers into fellowship
under his dynamic instruction.
This brings us back to vs. 68 where Peter begins his confession. Notice
that in John the Twelve are not called by Jesus in the beginning of his
ministry; the first time they are mentioned is in vs. 67, where all others have
fled except for this left-over dozen. The beginning of Peter’s confession sets
the stage for what is to follow. With his professing, “Lord, to whom shall we
go? You alone have the words of eternal life!” we see a movement from the
life-giving words of the Son of Man (vs. 63) to the source of the words:
Jesus himself. When contrasted with the Matthean interpolation into the
Markan confession, the Johannine account appears all the more striking. In
John 6:68 it is not Jesus who imbues Peter with authority (and those who
follow in his wake), but it is Peter who reaffirms Jesus’ sole authority.
It is seldom realized just how shocking Peter’s confession in John would
have been for a Christian audience in the late first Century, at the peak of
Peter’s post-mortem popularity. While it is doubtful that the evangelist knew
docetizing trends within the region, and this led directly to the next crises: Gentile
Christian teachers practicing and advocating an assimilative stance toward “the world”.
the Matthean rendition in written form, he certainly would have been aware
of the sentiment underlying the “entrusting of the keys” narrative.
Furthermore, if Peter’s authority is being used and perhaps misused by
institutionalizing Christianity (for example, by Diotrephes and his kin), the
juxtaposition of Peter and the Beloved Disciple throughout the Gospel of
John would have been levied at correcting an entire cluster of notions as to
how the Kingdom ought to be maintained, let alone established. Therefore,
the function of Peter’s confession in John 6:68 is indeed parallel to that of
Jesus’ response to Peter in Matt 16:17-19, although it points hearers and
readers in a different direction. The issue is one of Christocracy—the
effective means by which the risen Christ leads the Church. Rather than
being carried out, though, through an apostolic office, it is effected by an
apostolic pointing to the ongoing work of the resurrected Lord—the life-
giving word of Jesus, being manifest to all believers by means of the
inspired and dynamic work of the Holy Spirit.
6. Tübingen and Rome—Peter’s Confession in John and their

Ecumenical Implications
The real value of such a study is to help us rethink how authority of the
Church should function with reference to direction, faith and order. Along
these lines the work of Raymond Brown has been exceptional—not simply
as a biblical scholar of highest regard, but also as a leader dedicated to
serving the Church and the world through his scholarship. His book on the
churches the Apostles left behind (1984) outlines significant features of
seven distinctive ecclesial constructs in the early church, including
thoughtful contextual analyses and the outlining of practical aspects of
strengths and weaknesses for each. The value of such an approach is that it
helps interpreters in later generations appreciate the realism of the struggles
faced by first Christians and their followers, allowing biblical interpretation
to be meaningful and practical. Also helpful is his co-authored book looking
at Antioch and Rome (Brown and Meier 1983), in which cradles of early
catholicity emerged. As these writings also influenced the shape and
discussions of Christian polity from the second century to the present,
perhaps a brief consideration of Tübingen and Rome would be appropriate
for considering the ecumenical implications of Peter’s confession in John.
That being the case, Ernst Käsemann’s treatment of John 17 (1968) as
the last will and testament of Jesus for his church poses a pneumatic and
egalitarian challenge to institutionalism in the modern era, just as it did

originally. On this score, Käsemann is largely correct, although John’s claim
to an individuated apostolic memory has been critically undervalued in the
modern era.19 John’s dialogical autonomy, while challenging the yoking of
Peter’s authority to institutional structures, emphasizes the main interest of
all polity approaches (see Hengel 2006): facilitating the leadership of the
risen Christ in the Church, whether happening through structure or
charisma—and all points on the continuum between those two poles. Note
that while the Beloved Disciple gets it right, the Johannine narrator does not
point to him, but he also points to Christ’s leadership effected through the
accessible workings of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Johannine critique is
not simply deconstructive; it is also reconstructive. It embraces Peter while
correcting him, and it also presents him as pointing the way forward for later
Christian leaders to emulate.
Ecumenically, this presentation has great organizing potential. In 1995
Pope John Paul II issued an encyclical that is a first since the division of
eastern and western Christianity in 1054 CE. The significance even goes
back to the days of the ecumenical councils from the fourth and fifth
centuries on, as those were pivotal times of finding Christian unity, at least
somewhat effectively. What is special about Pope John Paul’s recent
overture is that it invites input as to how he as Bishop of Rome might
effectively exercise Petrine ministry when many believers outside the
Roman Catholic movement do not respect his authority. He asks whether a
new day might be possible for Christian unity and what it might look like.
On this matter, the Johannine engagement with Petrine ministry may be
exactly what the Church needs today.20
First, the first calling of all pastoral leadership, whether it be exercised
by the Bishop of Rome or a pastoral elder in a local church, is to shepherd
and feed the flock of Christ (John 20:15-17). Effective pastoral leaders
cannot wait until their authority is recognized before tending the needs of
the lambs and the sheep. Rather, it is in serving the needs of the least of
Jesus’ brethren (Matt 25:40) that one’s service to Christ is fulfilled.
19 See, for instance, a first-century clue to Johannine authorship (Anderson 1996, 274-277)
that has been totally overlooked by all sectors of the debate.
20 On this question, Cardinal Kasper helpfully sent out further invitations to Church leaders
and groups to respond ecumenically for ongoing consideration of these issues, and those
responses may yet lead to further fruitful discussions (Anderson 2005).
Therefore, all pastoral leaders are exhorted to care for the flock as their first
priority, even those that are not of a particular fold (John 10:16).
Second, the admonition to Peter by the risen Lord in John 21 (in vss. 19
and 22) is to follow Jesus. Rather than worry about position or charisma, the
first calling of every Christian leader is to follow Christ first and
consequentially to help others do the same.21 On this emphasis John and the
Synoptics are of one accord. Therefore, perhaps a means of conceiving the
catholic vocation and a new day for Christian unity—in Johannine and
Synoptic perspective alike—might begin with inviting all believers to
celebrate the fellowship of a common pilgrimage: seeking to follow
faithfully the Lord of the Church.22
Third, Peter’s directing the emphasis upon the life-giving words of Jesus
(John 6:68) embodies the central calling of every Christian leader. Whether
serving in a hierarchical structure of leadership or a charismatic and
informal one, the calling of every Christian leader is the same: to facilitate
the attending, discerning and minding of Christ’s leadership above all else.
On this matter, even the Matthean Keys-to-the-Kingdom interpolation
deserves a second or third look (Matt 16:17-19). What is meant by “this
rock” upon which the Church is built? Rather than focus on structure—the
office of Peter and those who follow in his wake (the Roman Catholic view),
or the confession of Peter—the right belief of Jesus’ biblical followers (the
Reformed view), perhaps the emphasis is upon the continuing and revealing
work of the Father, rather than the devices and scaffolding of “flesh and
blood”, that comprise the solid foundation of the Church. Whatever the case,
the ongoing receptivity and responsiveness to the Word of the Lord for the
Church for the present moment is the pressing work of Christian leaders in
every generation and context. On the importance of openness to the
revelatory work of God, the Johannine and Matthean Gospels agree.
21 If Mark’s tradition indeed had some contact with Peter’s preaching, its presentation of a
Jesus who compels his disciples with the words, “Follow me!” may indicate that Jesus’
direct word to Peter (alone in John) was taken to heart (Mark 1:17; 2:14; 8:34; 10:21).
Whatever the case, the exhortation to follow Jesus is prominent in the Matthean and
Johannine traditions alike (Matt 4:19; 8:22; 9:9; 10:38; 16:24; 19:21; John 1:43; 10:27;
12:26; 13:36; 12:19, 22).
22 If all Christian leaders, including servants of tradition and the critics in the guild, could
emphasize unity around the aspiration of the call to discipleship—however that is
understood, this would be a new day for Christian unity (Anderson 2005, 32-36).
This being the case, an adequate reading of the Johannine-Petrine

dialectic in the late first-century situation is neither polemical nor partisan.
The high calling of critical and traditional studies alike is the seeking of
truth, which is always liberating when it is found. In other words, both Peter
and the Beloved Disciple point in the Fourth Gospel to the primary calling
of every scholarly and practical reader of the text. It involves seeking to be
open to the life-producing Word of truth, which may involve words, but will
also be beyond them. This leads one to a humbled sense of modesty in terms
of one’s truth claims, and the more grounded in the truth one is the greater is
one’s awareness of one’s contingencies and shortcomings. With Peter in
John 6, we confess the need of humanity for that Word that comes from
beyond precisely when we realize the existential frailty of the best that
creaturely endeavors can muster in the presence of mystery.
7. Conclusion
In conclusion, Peter’s confession in John 6 is not simply a Johannine
elaboration on the more authentic Synoptic tradition, which extols Jesus’
exalted holiness. Nor is it a mere theological concoction, truncated from an
independent historical tradition. In the context of persecution under
Domitian, Jesus followers are rebuked for their apparent reluctance to ingest
his flesh and blood, or put otherwise, to take up the Cross and follow Jesus.
In doing so, however, the Johannine narrator launches an implicit corrective
to be considered by mainline Christianity regarding the way the Kingdom is
to be established and maintained. The life-giving Word of the Lord is the
central hope for authentic followers of Jesus, and a central motivation for
the finalizing and circulating of the Fourth Gospel was to pose a manifesto
for how the departed and risen Christ continues to lead the community of
faith. In John 14-16 the ideology of a pneumatically-mediated and familial
model of Christianity is set forth constructively by means of the παράκλητος
passages; likewise, the unity-producing desire of the Lord is set forth in the
Priestly Prayer of Jesus in John 17, calling believers to love one another and
not the world. The ground, however, required preparation for such seeds to
take root, as apostolic memory was in danger of being confined into
institutional forms and structures. The Johannine presentation of Peter’s
confession, also a part of the later edition of material despite reflecting a
primitive stage of traditional development, thus provides the deconstructive
and reconstructive impetus for such preparation. Peter’s exclamation, “You
have the words of eternal life!” indeed portrays him as reaffirming Jesus’
singular authority—put euphemistically, as returning the Keys of the
Kingdom to Jesus, where in the Johannine opinion they belonged all along.
Claims to apostolic modes of Christocracy must be considered dual, rather
than singular. This Johannine corrective to rising institutionalism in the late
first-century church, however, also resonates with Matthean familial themes
and emphasis upon the inspired source of Peter’s confession. In the light of
John 6:68 and Matt 16:17, Peter’s confession and Jesus’ response may point
to a third “rock” upon which the Church is established—the life-producing
revelatory Word of the resurrected Lord. In that sense, authentic Christian
leadership—structural, charismatic, or something in between—might yet
further the same goal: the dynamic leadership of Christ.
Works Cited
Agourides, Savas C. 1968. Peter and John in the Fourth Gospel. Pages 3-7 in StEv
IV. Edited by F.L. Cross. Berlin: Akademie.
Anderson, Paul N. 1991. Was the Fourth Evangelist a Quaker? QRT 76:27-43.
Anderson, Paul N. 1996. The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Its Unity and
Disunity in the Light of John 6. Tübingen:Mohr Siebeck [WUNT 2,78].
Anderson, Paul N. 1997. The Sitz im Leben of the Johannine Bread of Life
Discourse and Its Evolving Context. Pages 1-59 in Critical Readings of
John 6. Edited by Alan Culpepper. Leiden: Brill [BIS 22].
Anderson, Paul N. 1999a. The Having-Sent-Me Father: Aspects of Agency, Irony,
and Encounter in the Johannine Father-Son Relationship. Semeia 85:33-57.
Anderson, Paul N. 1999b. Response (to reviews of The Christology of the Fourth
Gospel by Robert Kysar, Sandra M. Schneiders, R. Alan Culpepper,
Graham Stanton, and Alan G. Padgett; pages 38-61). Review of Biblical
Literature 1:62-72.
Anderson, Paul N. 2005. Petrine Ministry and Christocracy; A Response to Ut
Unum Sint. One in Christ 40:3-39.
Anderson, Paul N. 2006. The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus; Modern
Foundations Reconsidered. New York/ London: T&TClark [LNTS 321].
Ashton, John. 1991. Understanding the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Black, Clifton C. II. 1986. The Johannine Epistles and the Question of Early
Catholicism. NovT 28:131-158.
Bornkamm, Günther. 1970. The Authority to “Bind” and “Loose” in the Church in
Matthew’s Gospel: The Problem of sources in Matthew’s Gospel. Pages
37-50 in Jesus and Man’s Hope, Vol. 1; Perspective 12:1. Pittsburgh:
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.
Breck, John. 1991. The Spirit of Truth; Vol 1. The Origins of Johannine
Pneumatology. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir Seminary Press.
Brown, Raymond E. 1966, 1970. The Gospel According to John. New York:
Doubleday [AB 29, 29A].
Brown, Raymond E. 1979. The Community of the Beloved Disciple. New York:
Paulist.
Brown, Raymond E. 1982. The Epistles of John. New York:Doubleday [AB 30].
Brown, Raymond E. 1984. The Churches the Apostles Left Behind. New York/
Ramsey: Paulist.
Brown, Raymond E. 2003. An Introduction to the Gospel of John. Edited by Francis
J. Moloney. New York: Doubleday [ABRL].
Brown, Raymond E., Karl P. Donfried and J. Reumann, eds. 1973. Peter in the New
Testament. Minneapolis/New York: Augsburg/Paulist.
Brown, Raymond E. and John P. Meier. 1983. From Antioch to Rome. New York:
Paulist.
Bultmann, Rudolf. (1967) 1973. The Johannine Epistles. Hermeneia. Translated by
P. O’ Hara, L.C. McGaughy and R.W. Funk, Philadelphia: Fortress.
Burge, Gary M. 1987. The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine
Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Campenhausen, H. von. 1969. Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the
church of the First Three Centuries. London: Black.
Cassidy, Richard J. John’s Gospel in New Perspective; Christology and the Realities
of Roman Power. Maryknoll: Orbis.
Cassirer, Heinz. 1989. God’s New Covenant: A New Testament Translation. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans.
Cullmann, Oscar. 1953. Peter: Disciple-Apostle-Martyr; A Historical and
Theological Study. Translated by Floyd V. Filson. Philadelphia:
Westminster.
Dodd, C.H. 1946. The Johannine Epistles, Moffat New Testament Commentary.
New York/London: Harper.
Donfried, Karl P. 1977. Ecclesiastical Authority in 2-3 John. Pages 325-333 in
L´Evangile de Jean. Edited by Marinus de Jonge. Leuven: Leuven
University Press [BETL 44].
Draper, Jonathan. 1991. The Johannine Community and its Implications for a
Democratic Society. Pages 115-125 in K. Nürnberger, ed. A Democratic
Vision for South Africa. Pietermaritzburg: Encounter.
Droge, Arthur J. 1990. The Status of Peter in the Fourth Gospel: A Note on John
18:10-11. JBL 109:307-311.
Dunn, J.D.G. (1977) 1990. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament. Harrisburg:
Trinity Press International.
Ferreira, Johan. 1998. Johannine Ecclesiology. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press
[JSNTSup 160].
Grayston, Kenneth. 1967. Jesus and the Church in St. John’s Gospel. London
Quarterly and Holborn Review 35:106-115.
Gundry, Robert H. 2002. Jesus the Word According to John the Sectarian. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans.
Harnack, A. von. 1904, 1905. The Expansion of Christianity in the First Three
Centuries, Vols. 1 & 2. New York: Putnam.
Hengel, Martin. [1968] 1981. The Charismatic Leader and His Followers
Translated by J.C.G. Greig. Edited by J. Riches. Edinburgh: T&TClark
[SNTW].
Hengel, Martin. 1989. The Johannine Question, Translated by J. Bowden.
Philadelphia/London: Trinity Press International/SCM.
Hengel, Martin. 2006. Die unterschätzte Petrus; Zwei Studien. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck.
John Paul II, Pope. 1995. Ut Unum Sint: On Commitment to Ecumenism. Rome:
Pauline Books & Media.
Johnson, Thomas F. 1993. 1, 2, and 3 John. New International Biblical
Commentary. Peabody, Mass.: Hendricksen.
Karrer, Otto. 1963. Peter and the Church; An Examination of Cullmann’s Thesis.
Freiburg: Herder [QD 8].
Käsemann, Ernst. (1966) 1968. The Testament of Jesus. Translated by Gerhard
Krodel. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Kenney, Garrett C. 2000. Leadership in John; An Analysis of the Situation and
Strategy of the Gospel and the Epistles of John. Lanham/New
York/Oxford: University Press of America.
Kingsbury, Jack Dean. 1979. The Figure of Peter in Matthew’s Gospel as a
Theological Problem. JBL 98:67-83.
Kysar, Robert. (1977) 1981. Community and Gospel: Vectors in Fourth Gospel
Criticism. Pages 265-277 in Interpreting the Gospels. Philadelphia:
Fortress.
Lohse, Eduard. (1979) 1983. The First Christians, Translated by E. Boring,
Philadelphia: Fortress.
Lieu, Judith. 1986. The Second and Third Epistles of John: History and Background.
Edinburgh: T&T Clark [SNTW].
Lindars, Barnabas. 1972. The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans [NCB].
Malherbe, Abraham J. 1983. Social Aspects of Early Christianity, Second Edition,
Enlarged. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Martyn, J. Louis. [1968, 1979] 2003. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel;
Third Edition. Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox.
Maynard, Arthur H. 1984. The Role of Peter in the Fourth Gospel. NTS 30:531-548.
Meeks, Wayne A. (1972, 1986) 1997. The Man from Heaven in Johannine
Sectarianism. Pages 169-205 in The Interpretation of John. Edited by John
Ashton. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Menoud, Philippe H. 1978. Jesus Christ and the Faith; A Collection of Studies.
Translated by E. M. Paul. Pittsburgh: Pickwick [PTMS 18].
Miranda, Juan Peter. 1972. Der Vater, der mich gesandt hat; Religions-
geschichliche Untersuchungen zu den johanneischen Sendungsformeln,
Zugleich ein Beitrag zur johanneischen Christologie und Ekklesiologie.
Bern/Frankfurt: Lang [Europaeische Hochschulschriften 23:7].
Mitchell, Margaret M. 1998. “Diotrephes Does not Receive Us”: The
Lexicographical and Social Context of 3 John 9-10. JBL 117:299-320.
Moffatt, James. 1936. An Approach to Ignatius. HTR 24:1-38.
Nau, Arlo J. 1992. Peter in Matthew; Discipleship, Diplomacy and Dispraise...with
an Assessment of Power and Privilege in the Petrine Office. Collegeville:
Liturgical.
Neyrey, Jerome H. 1988. An Ideology of Revolt; John’s Christology in Social-
Science Perspective. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Olsen, Birger. 1987. The History of the Johannine Movement. Pages 27-43 in
Aspects on the Johannine Literature. Edited by Lars Hartman and Birger
Olsson. Upsala: Alqvist & Wiksell [ConBNT 18].
Painter, John. 1978. The Church and Israel in the Gospel of John: A Response. NTS
25:103-112.
Painter, John. 1981. The Farewell Discourses and the History of Johannine
Christianity. NTS 27:525-543.
Pancaro, Severino. 1969. People of God’ in St. John’s Gospel? NTS 16:114-129.
Perkins, Pheme. 1983. Koinōnia in 1 John 1:3-7: The Social Context of Division in
the Johannine Letters. CBQ 45:631-641.
Perkins, Pheme. (1994) 2000. Peter: Apostle for the Whole Church. Columbia:
University of South Carolina Press.
Polhill, John B. 1970. An Analysis of II and III John. Rev.&Exp. 67:461-471.
Quast, Kevin. 1989. Peter and the Beloved Disciple; Figures for a Community in
Crisis. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press [JSNTSup 32].
Rensberger, David. 1988. Johannine Faith and Liberating Community. Philadelphia:
Westminster.
Schmithals, Walter. 1969 The Office of Apostle in the Early Church. Translated by
J.E. Steely. Nashville: Abingdon.
Schweizer, Eduard. 1959. The Concept of the Church in the Gospel and Epistles of
St. John. Pages 230-245 in New Testament Essays; Studies in Memory of
Walter Manson. Edited by A.J.B. Higgins. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
Schweizer, Eduard. 1961. Church Order in the New Testament. London: SCM.
Smith, D. Moody. 1975. Johannine Christianity: Some Reflections on its Character
and Delineation. NTS 21:222-248.
Smith, Terrance V. 1995. Petrine Controversies in Early Christianity; Attitudes

towards Peter in Christian Writings of the First Two Centuries. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck [WUNT 2,15].
Snyder, Graydon F. 1971. John 13:16 and the Anti-Petrinism of the Johannine
Tradition. BR 16:5-15.
Stanton, Graham. 1999. Review of The Christology of the Fourth Gospel by Paul N.
Anderson. RBL 1:53-56.
Streeter, Burnett Hillman. 1929. The Primitive Church; Studies with Special
Reference to the Origins of the Christian Ministry. London: Macmillan.
Taeger, Jens Wilhelm. 1987. Der konservative Rebell Zum Widerstand des
Diotrephes gegen den Presbyter. ZNWKAK 78:267-287.
Theissen, G. 1992. Social Reality and the Early Christians; Theology, Ethics, and
the World of the New Testament. Translated by M. Kohl, Minneapolis:
Fortress.
Thiede, Carsten P. (1986) 1988. Simon Peter; From Galilee to Rome. Grand Rapids:
Academie.
Wahlde, Urban C. 1990. The Johannine Commandments. New York/Mahwah:
Paulist.
Watson, Duane E. 1989. Epistolary Rhetoric in 3 John. CBQ 51:479-501.
Watson, Nigel M. 1983. Risen Christ and the Spirit/Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel.
AustBibR 31: 81-85.
Yarbro Collins, A. 1980. Crisis and Community in the Gospel of John. CTM 7:196-
204.
panderso@georgefox.edu

You Have The Words of Eternal Life Is P

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

You Have The Words of Eternal Life Is P

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

‘YOU HAVE THE WORDS OF ETERNAL LIFE!

Is Peter portrayed in John 6 as returning the Keys of the Kingdom back to

Neotestamenica 41.1 (2007) 6-41

engagement with a Matthean text, as secondary orality and gospel-tradition

Hierarchical christocracy, which is expressed here and there in different

argues that we have in this presentation a corrective to rising institutionalism

5 While Käsemann errs in failing to see John’s openness to revelation as potentially

of Jesus furthered or altered by later developments within gospel traditions?

1. Ecclesial Developments in the Matthean and Johannine Traditions

1.2 Second, the development of a structure of accountability may be seen

In these and other passages distinctive to Matthew, not only is the

1.5 Approaches to guidance and leadership are developed within the

1.6 Aspects of universality and plurality are emphasized with relation to

In these and other ways, the Johannine tradition develops

written, the new commandment has become an “old” commandment, that

2. Matthean and Johannine Ecclesiologies in Dialogue?

1) Peter’s authentic confession is “blessed” and considered inspired (Matt. 16:17),

By contrast, the revelatory work of the Father in Matt 16:17 is echoed

3. Peter and the Beloved Disciple in John—Typifying Distinctive

hermeneutically. On the other hand, some have seen this juxtaposition as

affirming Jesus’ singular authority, his juxtaposition alongside the Beloved

Assuming this set of presentations was intentional, a number of John’s

4. Diotrephes and His Kin

evoked another—a parallel claim to the same on behalf of the Johannine

5. The Rhetorical Presentation of Peter in John 6

67 εἶπεν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοῖς δώδεκα. µὴ καὶ ὑµεῖς θέλετε ὑπάγειν;

68 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ Σίµων Πέτρος. κύριε, πρὸς τίνα ἀπελευσόµεθα; ῥήµατα

15 This translation is crafted around Cassirer’s translation (1989).

The confessional diction here might thus be more of a factor of historical

Dialogue 1: The Crowd and Jesus—The Meaning of Jesus’ Miracles: Wonders or

Dialogue 2: Jewish Authorities and Jesus—Torah versus Revelation: The Bread of

6. Tübingen and Rome—Peter’s Confession in John and their

egalitarian challenge to institutionalism in the modern era, just as it did

This being the case, an adequate reading of the Johannine-Petrine

Smith, Terrance V. 1995. Petrine Controversies in Early Christianity; Attitudes

You might also like