Posted on 03/02/2010 1:33:02 PM PST by NYer
While a student at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, I had the privilege of having Dr. Scott Hahn as one of my Scripture professors. One thing he taught us is to look out “rumble strips” in the Bible. Imagine yourself cruising along, when suddenly you feel seismic vibrations in your car and hear that annoying muffled sound—you’re fast approaching a toll booth and the rumble strips are telling you to slow down and pay attention. So it is with passages in scripture which seem to disrupt the otherwise smooth narrative of salvation history. They seem to be randomly inserted in the text and can be downright perplexing in terms of their purpose and point, yet if we stick to our belief that Scripture is inspired, then we cannot neglect even those passages that seem to be, well, rather uninspiring. Like the rumble strips, these passages beg to be noticed and insist that we slow-down our reading pace and take a careful look at where we are in the story and what lies ahead of us.
One such passage is the episode of Peter’s mother-in-law, found in the three Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Peter’s mother-in-law appears suddenly and, having been healed and cooked up a meal, vanishes from our view. At first blush, it may seem that the episode simply recounts a typical stop on Jesus’ healing campaign. But I find myself asking: What is the significance of Peter’s mother-in-law? Why do the Evangelists pull her from anonymity when countless others are healed by Jesus yet go unmentioned? Why do the Evangelists neglect to give us her name and only describe her in terms of her relation to Peter? Could the episode of Peter’s mother-in-law facilitate some further understanding of the development of Peter’s relationship with Jesus?
I feel it is significant that, at the beginning of the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is associated with possessions of Peter and only later in these Gospels is he portrayed in a fuller relationship with Peter himself. We need not begin our story about the primacy of Peter in typical fashion with those familiar verses of Matthew 16 and John 1:42 instead, we may be able to begin the story of Peter’s primacy with Jesus’ use of Peter’s property.
All three of the Synoptic Gospels include the account. The healing occurs toward the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, right around the time he calls his first disciples. In Mark (Mk 1:29-31), the healing occurs after Jesus exorcises the unclean spirit, who is the first to declare of Jesus, “I know who you are, The Holy One of God” (Mk 1:24). According to Mark, immediately after Jesus’ identity as the Messiah is proclaimed by the spirit, he moves into Peter’s house where he performs his first recorded healing. After healing Peter’s mother-in-law, Jesus begins his main healing ministry in Galilee and begins teaching in the synagogues.
In Matthew (Mt 8:14-15), the healing occurs AFTER Jesus begins his healing ministry and after the Sermon on the Mount. In Mark, Jesus heals Peter’s mother-in-law BEFORE beginning his healing ministry.
In Matthew’s account, only Peter is mentioned as the owner of the house, whereas in Mark the house is said to belong to both Peter and Andrew. Also different in Matthew’s account is that, among the apostles, only by Peter is Jesus’ Messianic identity proclaimed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16). Earlier in Matthew, some had called Jesus the “Son of David” (Mt 9:27), and two demons asked what the “Son of God” (Mt 8:29) wanted from them. However, according to Matthew, the first explicitly clear declaration of Jesus’ Messianic identity comes from Peter, and we can infer from Jesus’ subsequent reaction to Peter that this declaration was of an altogether different sort than the previous two.
In Luke (Lk 4:38-39), the healing occurs right after the proclamation of the Kingdom and the exorcising of the unclean spirit, who declares (just as it did in Mark), “I know who you are, the Holy One of God” (Lk 4:34). Curiously, the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law occurs BEFORE the calling of the first disciples, whereas it occurs AFTER the calling in Mark and Matthew. And finally, just as Mark does, Luke has Jesus proceed to teach in the synagogues.
Okay, so what? I want to suggest that Mark and Luke are interpretive keys to one another. In both Mark and Luke, we find Jesus associating with possessions of Peter: his house and, in Luke 5:3, his boat. In Mark, Christ’s healing ministry begins in Peter’s house and only afterwards does the healing ministry extend to the greater public. In Luke, Christ enters Peter’s house prior to calling the first disciples, which signals an association with Peter before an association with the others. In both accounts, immediately before and after associating with Peter’s home and performing a healing inside of it, Jesus is teaching in the synagogues.
So, in Mark and Luke we find Jesus moving quickly to the synagogues after having healed Peter’s mother-in-law. In Luke there is a sudden transition from the synagogues to the lake of Gennesaret (Lk 5:1-11). Here, having called the disciples, Jesus proceeds to teach…but from where? Given the choice of two empty boats, Jesus opts for Peter’s (Lk 5:3). So in the Lucan narrative we have the following parallel movements in Jesus’ ministry: (1) from the synagogue (4:31-37) to Peter’s house (4:38); (2) teaching in the synagogues (4:44) to teaching in Peter’s boat (5:1-4). I interpret this transition as indicating an authoritative move from traditional places of teaching (synagogues) to a new forum of teaching (spaces owned by Peter). Moreover the dynamic I see in Mark and Luke consists of Peter’s spaces becoming forums of healing (Mark) and teaching (Luke.
In Matthew, there is no affirmative declaration of Jesus’ identity as the Christ, but only adumbrations (Mt 4:3-6; 8:29; 9:27; 12:23; 14:33) until the dramatic moment when, from Peter alone, we have the full confession of Jesus as “The Christ”
If, as many scholars think, Matthew and Luke are based largely on Mark’s narrative, we find that the simple story in Mark about Peter’s house as the origin of Jesus’ healing ministry is developed by both Matthew and Luke into foreshadowing of Peter’s primacy among the apostles. In Luke, it points toward Jesus’ didactic mission, where Peter’s house, boat, and eventually Peter himself host the proclamation of the Kingdom (4:14-21). Matthew wants us to know that the house in which the healing of the mother-in-law occurred is specifically Peter’s. This draws attention to the early relationship between Jesus and Peter, which is further developed in Matthew 16-17 where the declaration of Jesus’ identity comes from Peter’s own mouth.
Bringing it all together, the Synoptic Gospels present Jesus moving his healing and teaching from the synagogues to Peter’s spaces (house and boat), and from Peter’s spaces to his family, before finally transferring these powers to all the apostles and chiefly to Peter whose faith and ministry is to be the foundation of the Church. I suspect that the account of Peter’s mother-in-law is like a rumble strip, strategically placed in our path in order to grab our attention and prompt us to pay attention to what lies ahead. The healing of Peter’s mother-in-law as narrated in the Synoptics may give us stronger scriptural ties between the primacy of Peter and the Church’s missions of healing and teaching.
While a student at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, I had the privilege of having Dr. Scott Hahn as one of my Scripture professors. One thing he taught us is to look out “rumble strips” in the Bible. Imagine yourself cruising along, when suddenly you feel seismic vibrations in your car and hear that annoying muffled sound—you’re fast approaching a toll booth and the rumble strips are telling you to slow down and pay attention. So it is with passages in scripture which seem to disrupt the otherwise smooth narrative of salvation history. They seem to be randomly inserted in the text and can be downright perplexing in terms of their purpose and point, yet if we stick to our belief that Scripture is inspired, then we cannot neglect even those passages that seem to be, well, rather uninspiring. Like the rumble strips, these passages beg to be noticed and insist that we slow-down our reading pace and take a careful look at where we are in the story and what lies ahead of us.
One such passage is the episode of Peter’s mother-in-law, found in the three Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Peter’s mother-in-law appears suddenly and, having been healed and cooked up a meal, vanishes from our view. At first blush, it may seem that the episode simply recounts a typical stop on Jesus’ healing campaign. But I find myself asking: What is the significance of Peter’s mother-in-law? Why do the Evangelists pull her from anonymity when countless others are healed by Jesus yet go unmentioned? Why do the Evangelists neglect to give us her name and only describe her in terms of her relation to Peter? Could the episode of Peter’s mother-in-law facilitate some further understanding of the development of Peter’s relationship with Jesus?
I feel it is significant that, at the beginning of the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is associated with possessions of Peter and only later in these Gospels is he portrayed in a fuller relationship with Peter himself. We need not begin our story about the primacy of Peter in typical fashion with those familiar verses of Matthew 16 and John 1:42 instead, we may be able to begin the story of Peter’s primacy with Jesus’ use of Peter’s property.
All three of the Synoptic Gospels include the account. The healing occurs toward the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, right around the time he calls his first disciples. In Mark (Mk 1:29-31), the healing occurs after Jesus exorcises the unclean spirit, who is the first to declare of Jesus, “I know who you are, The Holy One of God” (Mk 1:24). According to Mark, immediately after Jesus’ identity as the Messiah is proclaimed by the spirit, he moves into Peter’s house where he performs his first recorded healing. After healing Peter’s mother-in-law, Jesus begins his main healing ministry in Galilee and begins teaching in the synagogues.
In Matthew (Mt 8:14-15), the healing occurs AFTER Jesus begins his healing ministry and after the Sermon on the Mount. In Mark, Jesus heals Peter’s mother-in-law BEFORE beginning his healing ministry.
In Matthew’s account, only Peter is mentioned as the owner of the house, whereas in Mark the house is said to belong to both Peter and Andrew. Also different in Matthew’s account is that, among the apostles, only by Peter is Jesus’ Messianic identity proclaimed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16). Earlier in Matthew, some had called Jesus the “Son of David” (Mt 9:27), and two demons asked what the “Son of God” (Mt 8:29) wanted from them. However, according to Matthew, the first explicitly clear declaration of Jesus’ Messianic identity comes from Peter, and we can infer from Jesus’ subsequent reaction to Peter that this declaration was of an altogether different sort than the previous two.
In Luke (Lk 4:38-39), the healing occurs right after the proclamation of the Kingdom and the exorcising of the unclean spirit, who declares (just as it did in Mark), “I know who you are, the Holy One of God” (Lk 4:34). Curiously, the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law occurs BEFORE the calling of the first disciples, whereas it occurs AFTER the calling in Mark and Matthew. And finally, just as Mark does, Luke has Jesus proceed to teach in the synagogues.
Okay, so what? I want to suggest that Mark and Luke are interpretive keys to one. In both Mark and Luke, we find Jesus associating with possessions of Peter: his house and, in Luke 5:3, his boat. In Mark, Christ’s healing ministry begins in Peter’s house and only afterwards does the healing ministry extend to the greater public. In Luke, Christ enters Peter’s house prior to calling the first disciples, which signals an association with Peter before an association with the others. In both accounts, immediately before and after associating with Peter’s home and performing a healing inside of it, Jesus is teaching in the synagogues.
So, in Mark and Luke we find Jesus moving quickly to the synagogues after having healed Peter’s mother-in-law. In Luke there is a sudden transition from the synagogues to the lake of Gennesaret (Lk 5:1-11). Here, having called the disciples, Jesus proceeds to teach…but from where? Given the choice of two empty boats, Jesus opts for Peter’s (Lk 5:3). So in the Lucan narrative we have the following parallel movements in Jesus’ ministry: (1) from the synagogue (4:31-37) to Peter’s house (4:38); (2) teaching in the synagogues (4:44) to teaching in Peter’s boat (5:1-4). I interpret this transition as indicating an authoritative move from traditional places of teaching (synagogues) to a new forum of teaching (spaces owned by Peter). Moreover the dynamic I see in Mark and Luke consists of Peter’s spaces becoming forums of healing (Mark) and teaching (Luke.
In Matthew, there is no affirmative declaration of Jesus’ identity as the Christ, but only adumbrations (Mt 4:3-6; 8:29; 9:27; 12:23; 14:33) until the dramatic moment when, from Peter alone, we have the full confession of Jesus as “The Christ”
If, as many scholars think, Matthew and Luke are based largely on Mark’s narrative, we find that the simple story in Mark about Peter’s house as the origin of Jesus’ healing ministry is developed by both Matthew and Luke into foreshadowing of Peter’s primacy among the apostles. In Luke, it points toward Jesus’ didactic mission, where Peter’s house, boat, and eventually Peter himself host the proclamation of the Kingdom (4:14-21). Matthew wants us to know that the house in which the healing of the mother-in-law occurred is specifically Peter’s. This draws attention to the early relationship between Jesus and Peter, which is further developed in Matthew 16-17 where the declaration of Jesus’ identity comes from Peter’s own mouth.
Bringing it all together, the Synoptic Gospels present Jesus moving his healing and teaching from the synagogues to Peter’s spaces (house and boat), and from Peter’s spaces to his family, before finally transferring these powers to all the apostles and chiefly to Peter whose faith and ministry is to be the foundation of the Church. I suspect that the account of Peter’s mother-in-law is like a rumble strip, strategically placed in our path in order to grab our attention and prompt us to pay attention to what lies ahead. The healing of Peter’s mother-in-law as narrated in the Synoptics may give us stronger scriptural ties between the primacy of Peter and the Church’s missions of healing and teaching.
The one for falsely accusing me of not quoting Scripture word for word, as I not only claimed to do but proved that I did.
So ... you don't approve the translation?
BFD. That's your problem, not mine.
This is a distraction, anyway. I quoted that passage to show that St. Paul was NOT MARRIED at the time he wrote it. One might reasonably (IMO) interpret that he was single; likewise that he was widowed. But to suggest that a married man wrote that is (IMO) absurd.
You may infer as you will, there is nothing in Paul’s admonition on how to behave when gathered in assembly or how leaders should behave as indicating anything about his own marital status.
And it is typical of the type of argument that those of the Roman religion make in order to ‘support’ their churches view. Have fun with it all.
He's not married.
Deal with it.
You may not direct me when to say “eisegesis”, for you do not understand its derivation. There is no such word as “isogesis” and nothing in your links support your thesis.
In your first link, the author tries to say that the prependent “iso” means “isolate.” It does not. He confuses iso as derived from “isolate,” which is a word in the midst of other “iso-” words, but is unrelated to them. “Isolate” is Anglicization of the Latin word “insula” and has nothing to do with the meaning of the particle “iso” — which, as a PhD scientist, I recognize immediately denotes “equal to” or “homeo” = “same as” (throughout) as related to the postpended “-bar” or “-mer” or “-spondylus” or “-therm” and so forth. If there was such an invented term as isogenesis, it might mean “precisely translate,” not “precisely interpret.” Your point here is invalid.
On your second link, the offering is only a likewise misspelling of the word “eisegesis” (but giving an equivalent meaning associated with eisegesis), so it is not an authority for the existence of “isogesis” — another invalid assumption.
In your third link, the author cannot spell “symptomatic,” so why should he be able to spell “eisegesis”? He spells exegesis as “exogesis” also. No score here for your claim.
And the last link page does not display the character string “isogesis” anywhere, so it adds zero to your argument.
Furthermore, you claim, quite incorrectly:
“..as there is NO scripture that has Jesus giving anyone His power or His authority or His infallibility.”
In this you demean the investing of His disciples with His delegated authority that as they are going, they are to make disciples from (apo) all peoples (metonomy) by close individual personal supervision. They are to immerse these proven and tested committed disciples (not merely “converts” and most certainly not infants) in the name (by the authority of) The Father, (by the authority of) The Son, and (by the authority of) The Holy Ghost (as a proof of a good conscience, not as a means of salvation). They are then, by Christ’s command and under His authority, to publicly congregate the learners for didactical teaching as to how to keep watchfully secure and infallibly preserve all the commandments given by The Christ. Then doing this, they would be (invisibly) accompanied by Him, throughout the age.
And in doing so, they, and their disciples, may loose on earth which is already permitted to be loosed in The Heaven, and that they may have the power to bind on earth that which is already bound in The Heaven. Peter himself has been given the keys (the Gospel to be preached and believed) of the kingdom of heaven (the temporal kingdom containing both unregenerated and regenerated converts), that is, the earthly church; but Christ is the Door to the Kingdom of God, and is The Only One Who can and may admit or deny any human into that Kingdom.
The authority by which this is written is by the authority of the Word of The God, not “ecclesiastical.” This is correct exegesis, not eisegesis, and which authority is available to anyone who is a steward of the Father’s earthly estate, who exercises it exactly according to the commandment of Christ and the Will of Him Who sent The Savior to the fallen earthlings.
Do _your_ homework first.
(From a redeemed sinner, with the best of respect, hopefully not too pompous. Ecclesiastes 7:16-18)
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Click here for more guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Obviously ... at least at one time. But there's no mention of the wife ... or kids. So we don't really know anything about her. Perhaps she had died. We don't really know, do we?
My husband came up with a very simple meaning as to why Peter’s mother-in-law was mentioned:
Jesus shows us that we need to be kind to our mother-in-law, and she will be kind to us in return.
The author is looking desperately for scripture to support a tradition that lacks any biblical substance
Regardless of whether or not that applies to the original post, that is nonetheless a perfect exegesis of the false gospel of sola scriptura.
Paul indicates in I Cor. 7:8 (and the Corinthian letters are pretty early) that he was single, “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.” Therefore if he was married earlier, he had to have been a widower by then. There is never any mention of a wife though, very unlike the snippets about Peter. So it’s possible he was a life-time bachelor, though, that would be quite unusual for a Pharisee.
Paul also mentioned Peter, (along with Jesus’ brothers and other apostles) in the present tense as being married, “Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?” (I Cor. 9:5)
Of course Roman Catholic tradition...developed hundreds of years later, says that Peter had to be single (and Jesus couldn’t of later had brothers....or else somehow Mary’s virtue would be sullied after Jesus birth, by being a normal married woman...), so therefore scripture is wrong and has to bend. After all, we KNOW that stories independently passed down through the centuries by who knows who (Tradition) are more authentic that eyewitness-written history....
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
For the record, Mary having no other children has nothing to do with her reputation being sullied. It is a doctrine which is directly connected to Jesus as the Word Incarnate and Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant prefigured by the Ark of the Covenant which could not be touched by humans.
The problem is when one doesn’t understand how and why such doctrines were formulated and declared. It is all about Jesus and defense of Him as truly God and truly man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.