Hermeneutical Presuppositions and Exegesis:
A Hermeneutical Case Study (Is Exegesis Without Presuppositions Possible?)
A Case Study of Matthew 16: 17-19; J.A. Burgress, A History of Matthew 16: 17-19, 17811965. e.g. (a) Kingdom - Reign/Realm/Sovereignty; (b) Psallo - Singing and Worship in New
Testament (is silence permissive or prohibitive?).
The profound deficiency in contemporary exegesis is hardly more apparent than studies dealing
with Matthew 16: 17-19 Compare the classical article by Bultmann and that of Stanton,
"Presupposition in NT Criticism," in NT Interpretation, (ed. I. H. Marshall, Eerdmans, 1977, pp.
60-71; D.A. Carson, "Unity and Diversity in the NT: On the Possibility of Systematic Theology,"
in Scripture and Truth, eds. D.A. Carson and J.D. Wood-bridge (1983, esp. 65-95, 368-75); D.A.
Carson, "Hermeneutics: A Brief Assessment of Some Recent Trends," Themelios 5/2 (Jan.
1980): 12-20).
The development of historical-critical exegesis in the l8th/19th/20th centuries has made it more
difficult if not impossible, to establish what the ‘church’ is (see Strauss, “People of God”). This
is the case for at least two reasons: (1) Hermeneutical presuppositions challenge the unity of
scripture; and (2) because doubts have been raised concerning the authenticity of the words of
Jesus, “. . .the faith of the exegete has a decisive significance in the evolution of the exegetical
facts in a range of central questions” (0. Kuss, Jesus und die Kirche im neuen Testament,
Regensburg, l963, p. 321). Over five decades ago, Linton affirmed that "One cannot deny that
debate about the 'primacy passage' in Protestant scholarship was conditioned by the fact that this
passage—— was the very cornerstone of Catholic theology in support of the papal primacy."
(Linton, Pas Problem der Urkirke in der neueren Forschung, Uppsala, 1932; his thesis has since
been refuted.) It must be acknowledged that if we cannot defend the credibility of the data which
declares the origin of the church, then the nature of the unity of the church will be no less illusive
(Ephesians 4: 3ff).
Fundamental for our study is awareness of the reasons for the sharp clash of opinions concerning
this classical passage which claims to present Jesus' words to Peter recorded in Matthew 16: 1719. The commentaries of both Roman Catholic and Protestant persuasion reveal diverse
prejudices of their authors.
In 1938, K. J. Schmidt spoke of Protestant efforts "to excise the 'locus classicus' for the papal
primacy" (TDNT 3 (1965): 519; (see Per Guldbeck's essay on this passage, A Historiography of
Exegesis). Linton rightly claimed that Protestant interpretation is conditioned by "the course of
the critical study of the Bible. . . .A critical attitude against Matthew 16: 17-19 was already
bound to the assumptions of the two-source theory, for in that case the primacy passage appears
as an addition by Matthew." (Linton, Problem, p. 158; E. Massaux, Influence de I'Evangile de S.
Matt. sur la litterature chretienne avant S. Irenee, 1950; compare Streeter, Synoptic Problem and
Bultmann's History of the Synoptic Problem; Stonehouse's Studies and R. Gundry's Matthew,
which is filled with highly imaginative redaction criticism; see also R.T. France and D. Wenhem,
ed. Gospel Perspectives, Volumes I/II, 1981, esp. 83-145). International scholarship has spoken
of an 'axiom' within historical-critical theology that Matthew 16: 17ff could have been created
only by the early church (A. Oepke, "Der Herrenspruch uber die Kirke, Matthew 16: 17-19 in der
1
neuesten Forschung" Studia Theologicae 2 (1948): 110; note that even the Banian Catholic
Schnackenburg in Die Kirche im neuen Testament, 1961, p. 56, rejects the passage as originating
with Jesus.
In a 1941 article, Bultmann asserted that the post-Easter origin of Matthew 16: 17-19 had been
accepted as a reliable result of historical criticism for two to three generations. But what is the
origin of his premises? Do they derive from data or are they deduced from presuppositions, then
set forth as necessary critical conclusions of historical critical studies?
One fundamental assumption controls what the scholar will allow Jesus to know or say or do.
The issue is not one of conservativism, liberalism, neo-orthodoxy or otherwise, but ultimately we
are dealing with epistemological presuppositions of all critics. Often their presuppositions derive
from a positivistic model of so-called scientific criticism which stems from the 19th century
fracturing of faith and history, value and fact. Until the end of the 19th century a positive
conviction concerning Matthew 16: 17-19 predominated, even in German universities. But the
works of Holtzmann, Weiss and Wellhausen shifted the "critical scholarship" to a negative
judgment. Contemporary scholars such as Bornkamm, Bultmann, Dibelius, Hirsch, Klostermann,
Kummel, Schweizer, Strathmann, and Beare combat the authenticity of the passage by assuming
that it is a product of the early church. (R. Bultmann, "Die Frage Nach der Echtheit im Matthew
16: 17-19" Theologiche Blatter 20 0941): Column 266, and O. Cullmann, Peter, pp. 183ff. for
surveys.)
Critical Presuppositions vs. Textual Criticism
Schmidt's verdict is emphatic that on "textual grounds there is no objection to Matthew 16: 18."
The latest edition of Nestle-Aland does not give a single variant for Matthew 16: 17-19.
Therefore, rejections must obtain from critical presuppositions, not textual data. (Note
Metzger's, Commentary on Greek Text and Nestle-Aland's Greek New Testament.)
Historical Critical Assumptions and Literary Criticism
Even on the assumption of the Two-Source Theory that Matthew 16:17ff is an addition to the
Markian tradition (presupposed to be the earliest), no necessary judgment is entailed concerning
either the age or authenticity of the "Interpolation." Cullmann carefully asserts that Matthew
gives us no grounds for "even posing the question of genuineness in this context." (Peter, p. 190)
Even Bultmann does not declare either Luke 10 or 15 as inauthentic simply because they appear
only in Luke. "Literary criticism is in any case so uncertain that the cautious critic must direct
his attention to material (content) criticism." (Schmidt, 'ecclesia' TDNT p. 520; Bultmann,
History of Synoptic Problem, pp. 190, 192, 212).
Presuppositions of Statistical Usage
Bultmann declares that "Doubts are raised already by the fact that the word ekklesia occurs only
in Matthew 16:18 and 18:17." The reasons for this are not as clear as the emphatic repudiation.
Logically it is questionable whether the presupposition of in-authenticity is the obvious and
necessary explanation of the limited us of ekklesia (a hapax legomenon can be authentic too).
2
Rationally, if not, why not? On the basis of vocabulary statistics critics cannot decide the
question of whether Matthew 16:17-19 is authentic or inauthentic. (Bultmann, Frage, Column
207; also F.W. Beare, Matthew, Oxford, 1981, p. 353).
Cultural-Coloring and Critical Glasses
The early Palestinian origin of Matthew l6:18ff is assumed by both. Cullmann and Schmidt. The
"thoroughly Semitic flavor" would support the antiquity of the linguistic data. Strangely enough,
Bultmann, et al. believes in the 'Semitic origin' of Matthew l6:18ff and arrives at the judgment
that Matthew 16:17-19 can be traced back to 'ancient Aramaic transmission' (Bultmann, History
of Synoptics, pp. 149, 2.77).
Bornkamm also reveals how his critical assumptions control his decisions regarding the data
under scrutiny. He says, "I also maintain that this is post-Easter. . .despite the linguistic and
historical proofs which witness to its great antiquity." Beare also acknowledges a possible early
Aramaic source, but considers its place of origin to be the Palestinian church and not Jesus. Thus
far all the ‘evidence’ supports the antiquity of this pericope of Scripture but does not 'prove' its
authenticity. We must now turn to the specific content of the passage, (cf. Structuralism and its
emphasis on surface and deep structures of meaning contain presuppositions in its handling of
the text, Schmidt, p. 520; also Bornkamm, Uberlieferung und Auslegugn 1960, p. 4lff.)
Content Criticism
During the recent decades exegetes have thrown much light on the content of Matthew 16: 17ff.
Schmidt's assertion still seems valid. Basically, all objections to the ekklesia saying in Matthew
lead to the discussion of material criticism. Two new problems arise at this level of discussion:
(1) Relationship of Jesus and Church, and (2) Peter and his role in the Church (see Schmidt, p.
250; Beare, p. 353; and Strauss, Eastern/Western Catholicism, esp. analysis of Peter in the NT).
Each of these areas are also shrouded with presuppositions which color the understanding of the
data (cf. Early Catholicism thesis from Harnack, Baur to Vol. I/II and beyond).
Bornkamm's 'decisive factor' against the authenticity is "the fact that the ekklesia sayings cannot
be understood in terms of the traditional Jewish idea of the ‘people of God’" (Bornkamm, p. 42).
This is, of course, no necessary argument against the authenticity of the passage. Why must
Jesus simply repeat traditional rabbinic ideas? The Traditio-Historical argument is dubious at
best.
The eschatological issues are also often employed against the authenticity of Matthew 16: 17ff.
Jesus spoke of the coming kingdom of God; he did not speak of the coming Church. Bultmann
claims that believers lose their "radical eschatological" characters if one maintains that Matthew
16:18ff is an authentic word of Jesus (Bultmann, History, p. 150). Ultimately the discussion
centers on the meaning given to the term 'Church'. Does one mean simply a group of believers or
an organized structure? In final analysis his "eschatological" argument derives from a specified
philosophical or dogmatic horizon of understanding, not exegetical details from the pericope.
Ecclesiological Horizon
3
Closely related to the eschatological argument is the ecclesiological perspective. Essentially the
logic of the case runs like this: Jesus came to confront all Israel; if He intended to confront only
Jewish people, his disciples would have been a sect or cult like the other Jewish sectarian groups,
egs. Qumran, Essenes, etc. This essential position is traceable from Holtzmann (1911) through
Bultmann (1941) down to Beare (1981). The synoptic data on discipleship contradicts this
"established paradigm" of scholarly judgment. Those who defend the authenticity of Matthew
16:17ff refer in particular to the calling, shaping and sending of the Disciples as an
announcement of the "new Israel" (e.g. Matthew 21:33f; 22:lff) as the remnant of a new, true
people of God (note Strauss, Theology of the Prophets; Creation/ Covenant; and Hasel,
Remnant).
If Jesus is the promised Messiah, He is the Messiah and Shepherd of the flock (Strauss, Christ:
Incarnational Paradigm). "The question of the founding of the church by Jesus Himself is really
the question of His Messiahship" (Schmid, pp. 521-22). Oepke agrees with- Linton, Cullmann,
and Schmidt: "The Messiah without a church. . .'such a concept is absurd." (Oepke,
Herrnspruch; Cullmann, Peter p. 213; and Trilling, Pas wahre Israel, p. 61) Yamauchi has also
destroyed the very possibility of Bultmann's explanation in terms of Mandate texts (Gnosticism).
This is important, as Bultmann is not convinced by any of the above explanations, while he sets
forth a highly imaginative, fictive hermeneutic regarding the relationship between Jesus and the
church. Once more, let us note that we are not dealing with strict exegesis alone. Each of the
above mentioned scholars show signs of making hermeneutical decisions before engaging in
detailed exegesis.
Possibility of Prophecy
Another detail in this hermeneutical hassle is that of ‘prophecy.’ Is it possible or not? One's
answer will be largely predetermined by unstated hermeneutical principles, i.e. whether
prophetic predictions are possible or impossible. One's world-view will be the ultimate arbitrator
in the decision making arena. Redating or restructuring the Scriptures will not resolve its
constant claim that God's immanence is visible in the prophetic phenomena.
From the first scientific revolution to the Newtonian world-machine and Hume's attack on
miracle, hermeneutics have progressively become shaped by naturalistic presuppositions.
The Peter Principle
The argument from psychology affirms that Peter was no 'Rock'; and that he did not play a
central role in the early church (Linton, Problems of the Early Church in Recent Research, p.
161, 75; Schmid, Ekklesia, p. 523). Such decisions are highly precarious at best. Yet Beare
wrote in 1981—"Even more formidable is the objection that Peter never in fact enjoyed any such
primacy in the administration of the early church as is here assigned him." Here Beare refers to
Acts 11:2; 15: 1-29; Gal. 2:Iff (Beare, Matthew, p. 354). If Peter had no such authority in the
early church, then the origin of this primacy passage in the early church seems the last place to
look for an acceptable explanation of its Sitz in Leben.
4
Content criticism is the area of historical criticism which is least of all determined by content in
an objective sense. If this is the case, then dogmatic and philosophical premises act as
hermeneutical predeterminents. Exegesis without presuppositions is not possible for either
Evangelicals or non-Evangelicals.Intellectual differences stem from hermeneutical
predispositions regarding scientific method, scientific historiography, scientific linguistics,
scientific semantics, etc. Without a unified hermeneutic, there cannot be a unified result. This is
one of the greatest challenges before the church today, certainly our Restoration Heritage.
Hermeneutical consensus is essential for theological unity! "Our concern is unity in diversity
and not diversity in contradictions."
James D. Strauss
5