Matthew's didactic teaching blocks often present the terms of salvation as an uncompromising dichotomy, envisioning either complete loyalty or faithlessness (e.g. 10.37–9; 16.25; 24.13). However, the characters in his narrative sections, especially Peter, nuance this harsh binary to allow for a significant degree of failure. After a brief survey recent works on Matthean soteriology and the use of Peter, it is argued that two features of Peter, when combined, widen the scope of salvation. First, Matthew portrays him as occupying a ‘middle ground’ between complete obedience and absolute failure, with all indications pointing to Peter remaining in that space, as emphasised by the last references to him (27.25; 28.16). Second, this failing Peter will not only be allowed in the kingdom, but will have a position of greatness there, as demonstrated by both Matthew's overall theology of status variation within the kingdom (e.g. 19.28; 20.26–7; 5.19) and his unique Petrine accounts (14.22–33; 16.17–19; 17.24–7). Though the way to salvation is narrow (i.e. 7.14), the character of Peter widens it to allow for more failure than some texts in the didactic sections might initially suggest.

In the Journal of Roman Studies of 2015, I argued that the evidence in Tacitus for a state-directed punishment of Christians in Rome in 64 ce was too weak to sustain the historical interpretation of it as a persecution. In a reply in this journal last year, Christopher Jones argued that knowledge of Christians under that name could well have reached Rome by the mid-60s, that the vulgus of the city could well have accused such persons, and that the Tacitean account is therefore generally credible. While admitting the justice of some of his criticisms, I attempt in this reply to clarify some of my arguments and to restate my original claim that a persecution of Christians by the emperor Nero in connection with the Great Fire of 64 seems improbable given the context of the relations between officials of the Roman state and Christians over the first century ce.

Brent Shaw has recently argued that the Neronian persecution never occurred. In fact, there are no grounds for doubting Tacitus’ report of the persecution. Sources later than Tacitus (Melito, Dionysius of Alexandria) date the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul to the reign of Nero, but those reports have no bearing on the veracity of Tacitus’ account.

The goal of this essay is to reopen the unfortunately unrefined but still illuminating proposal of August Dell a century ago – a proposal to read the motif of ‘bind and unbind’ in Matt 16.19 against the backdrop of ancient magical conventions – and to corroborate this hypothesis with philological precision and contextualisation. The present study seeks to demonstrate how central the motif of ‘bind and unbind’ was to most binding spells and amulets, and how the verbs λύειν and δέειν and their cognates might have evoked the conventions of binding magic when heard in religious and ritual contexts. We see Matt 16.19 as a literary reappropriation of a typical binding spell, crafted to highlight Peter's authority to ‘bind’ and ‘break’ whatever entities he should choose. Jesus' guarantee that he/God will ‘unbind’ whatever target Peter ‘unties' is to be understood as a clear indication that Peter is endowed with an invincible potency over every other spiritual entity, symbolised by the power to break any ‘binding’ spell. The security of the church against malevolent and harmful spiritual entities is further guaranteed by Christ's promise, if read in ancient binding magical conventions: Christ will give Peter the key of the kingdom of heaven so that Peter as the key-bearer may become a figure who can channel the full potency of the keyed object.

In an infamous passage in his Letter to the Galatians (2.11–14), Paul called out Peter as a ‘hypocrite’. This passage, especially when read in light of Paul's own appeal to himself as ‘all things to all people’ in 1 Cor 9.19–23, was to cause deep trouble for later Christian interpreters, who sought to defend their movement against charges from outsiders that it had a cracked and unstable foundation in dual ‘hypocrites’. This essay will introduce this ‘pagan’ critique and the cultural force it had, and the various solutions to the inherited dilemma from their scriptures that were offered by patristic authors (Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Jerome and Augustine). In light of this context, we turn to a sustained analysis of an untranslated homily by John Chrysostom, hom. in Gal 2.11 (In faciem ei restiti), which addresses not just the hypocrisy of Peter and Paul, but also the sticky problem of the hypocrisy of the Christian who reads this text approvingly as Paul's ‘in your face’ to Peter. Chrysostom does this by engaging in a convoluted pretence of his own.