BOOK OF THE MONTH
PETER – APOSTATE OR TRUE DISCIPLE?
Robert H. Gundry, Peter: False Disciple and Apostate according to Saint Matthew (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2015. $20.00. pp. xx + 119. ISBN: 978-0-8028-7293-7).
The question posed in the title of this review is the one Gundry seeks to answer in his new
book, but specifically in regard to the presentation of Peter in the Gospel of Matthew. His
provocative answer to that question is that for Matthew, Peter is portrayed and understood as
a false disciple and apostate. For some, such an answer will be seen as irreconcilable with
certain faith commitments. Gundry, however, rightly replies in anticipation that such
concerns are not determinative for assessing Matthew’s representation of the figure of Peter.
Here one must agree with Gundry, and also concur with his approach that seeks to use the
tools of exegesis to answer the question he has posed. Moreover, it should be noted that
Gundry has written with great clarity, and that one can follow his train of thought in a
straightforward manner. That is something which a number of studies would do well to
follow.
It is, however, in relation to the details of his exegesis that Gundry’s argument often
fails to convince. The result is that, despite the clear prose presented by a seasoned scholar of
Matthew’s Gospel, one is not able to journey with Gundry toward the conclusion he offers.
Gundry discusses in detail the unique Matthean incident of Peter walking on the water with
Jesus (but sinking due to his lack of faith). Here, among other things, Gundry states, ‘in view
of nondisciples’ addressing Jesus with “Lord” … and in view of false disciples’ addressing
Jesus at the last Judgment with “Lord, Lord” (7:21-22; 25:11[this latter unparalleled]), it is
too much of a stretch to regard Peter addressing him with “Lord” (14:28, 30) as an implied
confession of faith in Jesus’ deity or messiahship.’ (p. 10). Here, Gundry sets up a false
dichotomy between false or non-disciples using the address ‘Lord’, and Peter at this point in
the narrative failing to express faith in the ‘deity or messiahship’ of Jesus. Since Peter does
not fall into the latter category, Gundry leaves the implication hanging that he should be seen
as representative of the former group of non-disciples, or even worse false-disciples. Gundry
enlarges on this suggestion by noting Jesus words spoken to Peter ‘O you of little faith, why
did you doubt’ (Matt 14.33). Here Gundry argues that, ‘there is not even partial praise, only
rebuke’ (p. 12). Perhaps the weakest part of this argument is that the disciples’ confession
‘you are truly God’s son’ (Matt 14.33) is understood by Gundry as excluding Peter as being
one of those speaking (pp. 12-13). This becomes an important observation for the way in
which Gundry reads Peter’s so-called Caesarea Philippi confession. When Peter makes the
declaration ‘you are the Christ the son of the living God’ (Matt 16.16), since on Gundry’s
reading of Matt 14.33 Peter was not part of the group of disciples who made a similar
confession earlier, he states ‘Matthew has Peter playing catch-up to his fellow disciples’ (p.
16). In this way, Gundry reads what most commentators have seen as a positive declaration
by Peter, as nothing more than an ill-timed failure. Furthermore, whereas many have seen
Jesus’ response to Peter that ‘flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my father who is
in heaven’ as indicating that Peter has made his confession through divine revelation, Gundry
also reads this differently. He states, ‘Jesus attributes Peter’s confession to a revelation by
Jesus’ Father in heaven.’ So far this is correct. However, Gundry goes on to conclude, ‘So
Peter gets no credit, and the Father in heaven is identified as Jesus’ rather than Peter’s, as is
appropriate in view of Jesus as “the Son of the living God”’ (pp. 16-17). This interpretation
simply appears foreign to the tenor of the passage. Moreover, it needs to be remembered that
in Matt 11.25, Jesus praises the one he addresses as ‘Father, Lord of heaven and earth’ – note
here Jesus use of ‘Lord’, κύριε, which should not be taken as a mark of false faith, contra
Gundry’s reading of Matt 14.28, 30. More significantly, Jesus continues by praising the
Father for his direct revelation to those described as ‘babes’, rather than to those described as
‘wise and intelligent’. Therefore, divine revelation is not a way of attributing or revoking
credit from recipients, rather it signifies those who have perceived the divine purpose – which
is a blessing not a rebuke.
One of the interesting corollaries that Gundry extrapolates from his overall hypothesis
concerning the characterization of Peter in Matthew relates to the dating of the gospel.
Gundry is of the opinion that this negative portrayal of Peter as an apostate and false disciple
would not have been possible if Peter ‘had already died in the mid-60s as a martyr for the
cause of Christ’ (p. 100). For this reason, Gundry favours an early date for Matthew, and opts
for ‘a date prior to the mid-60s’ (p. 101). As to provenance, Gundry locates the composition
of Matthew in Antioch – a widely repeated suggestion. However, more controversially, with
reference to Gal 2.11-14, Gundry asks ‘might Matthew’s portrayal of Peter as false disciple
and apostate also represent an intensification of Paul’s attack on Peter in Antioch?’ (p. 103).
Many will want to weigh in on that debate – whether arguing Matthew was anti-Pauline, proPauline, or betrays little observable interest in matters Pauline.
To respond to Gundry’s argument in its entirety it would be necessary, and in fact
only fair, to interact with all of his detailed exegetical moves. This book deserves careful and
close interaction. It is a fascinating treatment, written in short compass, but with great clarity.
This review is not the place to undertake that task, although a couple of examples illustrating
exegetical concerns have been sketched. In his conclusion Gundry advances the following
statement. ‘Yes, then, scriptural diversity does go so far as to exhibit theological as well as
historical contradictions. Though Matthew does not say so explicitly, in his Gospel Peter
appears to be headed to hell’ (p. 104). Again, it is possible to be open to the first general
statement concerning theological diversity, but not to be convinced about the specific
exegetical point that the Gospel of Matthew portrays Peter as ‘headed to hell’. As Gundry
acknowledges, the Gospel does not say explicitly that Peter was an apostate. To draw that
implication appears to be a major exegetical jump. Therefore, Gundry’s work must be
assessed on the basis of the persuasiveness of the exegesis he offers in support of his overall
hypothesis. While this book is carefully crafted, clear to follow, and advances a readily
comprehensible thesis, in the end the details of the interpretative moves appear to be pressed
beyond what is implied by the text. Gundry may add weight for those who wish to see an
ambiguous presentation of Peter in the Gospel of Matthew, that is a figure who is perhaps
neither perfect, nor fatally flawed. However, it will be interesting to see if many are willing to
accept the full-force of his proposal that the Matthean Peter should be seen as a false-disciple
and apostate.
PAUL FOSTER
School of Divinity, University of Edinburgh