TEXT [Commentary]

10. Peter’s confession and Jesus’ promise (16:13-20; cf. Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-21)

13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”[*]

14 “Well,” they replied, “some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, and others say Jeremiah or one of the other prophets.”

15 Then he asked them, “But who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah,[*] the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “You are blessed, Simon son of John,[*] because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being. 18 Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’),[*] and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell[*] will not conquer it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you forbid[*] on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit[*] on earth will be permitted in heaven.”

20 Then he sternly warned the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

NOTES

16:13-14 Caesarea Philippi. This was located at the headwaters of the Jordan River about twenty-five miles north of the Sea of Galilee. As noted previously, it is unclear exactly where Jesus was when he began this trip (15:39; 16:5).

Who do people say that the Son of Man is? Jesus’ first query of the disciples concerned the popular consensus about his identity (cf. Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-21).

some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, and others say Jeremiah or one of the other prophets. These answers reveal something of the messianic speculation that existed in the first century. Herod Antipas had already superstitiously identified Jesus as John the Baptist, raised from the dead (14:2). The view that Jesus was Elijah was evidently based on Mal 4:5, which speaks of God sending Elijah before the eschatological day of the Lord (cf. 27:45-49). The speculation that Jesus was Jeremiah or another of the prophets is harder to explain (cf. 21:11). Perhaps the association of Jesus with Jeremiah is due to Jeremiah’s preaching of judgment and opposition to the Temple leaders of his day (cf. 2 Esdr 2:16-18; 2 Macc 15:12-16). There is also indication that Deut 18:15-18 was understood messianically by some Jews in Jesus’ day (cf. John 1:21, 25; 6:14-15; 7:40). These views of Jesus were positive, but they proved to be inadequate. The crowd may have viewed Jesus as a prophetic messenger of God, but as the ensuing narrative shows, their understanding was extremely superficial and fickle (27:15-26).

16:15-17 But who do you say I am? Jesus’ second query probes the disciples’ understanding of his identity.

Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” This implies that Peter answered for the group in 16:16 and that Jesus spoke to Peter as spokesman for the group in 16:17-19 (cf. 15:15; 19:27). Peter’s remarkable answer links Jesus’ messiahship (see 1:1, 16-18; 2:4; 11:2; 16:20; 22:42; 23:10; 24:5, 23; 26:63, 68; 27:17, 22) to his divine sonship (see 2:15; 3:17; 4:3, 6; 8:29; 11:27; 14:33; 16:16; 26:63; 27:40, 43, 54; 28:19). The likely OT background for the linkage of the terms Messiah and Son of God is found in 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 17:13; Pss 2:6-8, 12; 89:27). At this answer Jesus pronounces Peter’s blessedness (cf. 5:3).

You are blessed, Simon son of John, because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. Peter’s awareness of Jesus’ true identity in the context of confusion among many Jews (16:14) was not due to any special brilliance on Peter’s part but to God’s special revelation to him (cf. 11:25-27; 13:10-17). It is ironic that Peter described Jesus as the Son of the living God, since later, in Jerusalem, the high priest demanded in the name of the living God that Jesus tell whether he was the Messiah, the Son of God. The high priest’s question thus reprises the main themes of Peter’s confession. If Peter’s faithful confession is the Christological high point of the Gospel, the high priest’s angry question is certainly the low point. The expression “the living God” implicitly distances the true God of Israel from the false gods of the nations (cf. Deut 5:26; 2 Kgs 19:4; 1 Sam 17:26; Ps 42:2; 84:2).

16:18 you are Peter (which means “rock”), and upon this rock I will build my church. Jesus’ response to Peter’s resounding confession continued with a pronouncement of Peter’s foundational authority in the church that Jesus would build. The word “church” occurs only twice in the Gospels, here and in Matthew 18:17. Though many Protestants think otherwise, Jesus played on the name of Peter in order to speak of him (as spokesman for the disciples) as the foundation of the nascent church (cf. Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14). This is the more natural understanding of Jesus’ words, much to be preferred over reactionary views that take the rock to be Jesus himself or Peter’s confession of Jesus. (The NLT’s parenthetical “which means ‘rock’” supports this interpretation, although the Gr. text does not contain the clause as noted in NLT mg.)

all the powers of hell. Lit., “the gates of Hades” (NLT mg), which probably refers to the domain of Satan and death (cf. the “gates of Sheol” in Isa 38:10; Wis 16:13; 3 Macc 5:51; Psalms of Solomon 16:2; and “the gates of death” in Job 38:17; 1QHa 14:24; 4Q184 1:10). Jesus promises that the church he will build on the foundation of the apostles will not be destroyed by the evil powers arrayed against it.

16:19 I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus’ linkage of the church and the keys of the Kingdom in 16:18-19 indicates that the church is the agency of Kingdom authority on the earth.

forbid . . . permit. Keys seem to symbolize authority (cf. Isa 22:22; Luke 11:52; Rev 1:18), and the authority concerns forbidding and permitting. This language of “forbidding” and “permitting” (lit. “binding” and “loosing”) is highly unique and controversial. It is debated whether this language refers to evangelism, exegetical and doctrinal pronouncements, or church discipline. It is also hard to determine whether Jesus promised that the church’s decisions would be ratified in heaven, or that heaven’s decisions would be ratified by the church (cf. 18:18; John 20:23).

16:20 not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. After this remarkable revelatory moment, it is striking that Jesus forbade the disciples to make him known as the Messiah (cf. 8:4; 9:30; 12:16; 17:9). Jesus evidently did this in order to reduce the excitement of the crowds who tended to view the Messiah as a merely political figure. This may also be due to the increasing opposition of the religious leaders and the principle of God’s sovereignty (11:25-27; 13:10-17). The commentary below discusses the difficulties of 16:18-20 more fully (cf. Burgess 1966).

COMMENTARY [Text]

The Rock of the Church. Through the centuries, there has been a great deal of discussion of Matthew 16:18. In response to Roman Catholic teaching about Peter as first pope and apostolic succession, Protestants have often argued that Jesus did not mean that Peter was the rock. Instead, it has been suggested that Jesus was speaking of himself (Lenski 1961:626) or of Peter’s confession (McNeile 1949:241) as the foundation of the church. Gundry (1994:334-335) argues that 16:18 alludes to 7:24, and that Jesus meant he would build his church on his own words. But 7:24 is so far removed from 16:18 that such an allusion is overly subtle. It is sometimes argued that Peter cannot be in view since the Greek word for Peter (Petros [TG4074, ZG4377]) is masculine, and the Greek word for rock (petra [TG4073, ZG4376]) is feminine. But this is a metaphor, and grammatical precision is not necessary. It is also argued that since petra means bedrock and petros means an individual stone, Peter is not the foundation of the church. But again, this is overly subtle and would render metaphorical speech impossible. Jesus was speaking of Peter in 16:18 just as clearly as Peter was speaking of Jesus in 16:16 (France 1985:254).

The metaphor of a foundation may refer in various contexts to such entities as Jesus’ teaching (7:24), Jesus himself (1 Cor 3:10-11), and repentance (Heb 6:1). The individual context is decisive about the entity to which the metaphor points. In this context, Jesus’ reply to Peter’s confession is a pun (the technical term is paronomasia) on the nickname he had just given Peter (4:18; 10:2). The pun concerns Peter’s unique role as the model disciple whose words and deeds frequently represent the disciples as a whole in Matthew. Peter’s future role as preacher to Jews and Gentiles (Acts 2; 10) is also projected here. Jesus was not speaking of himself as the foundation of the church, since his own metaphor describes him as the builder. Neither is Peter’s apostolic confession the foundation of the church—he as the confessing apostle is that foundation. Yet, Christ does not address Peter as a lone individual here but as the first among equals, since the context makes it clear that Peter was speaking for the apostles as a whole in 16:16 (Turner 1991). This best fits the Matthean context, and it also coheres with other New Testament texts that speak of the apostles (plural) as the foundation of the church (Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14). The Baptist teacher Broadus (1886:355-358) recognized this over a hundred years ago, and recent evangelical commentaries concur (see Blomberg 1994:251-253; Carson 1984:368; France 1985:254-256; Hagner 1995:469-471).

The real difficulty Protestants have with the Roman Catholic teaching concerning Peter is the notion of sole apostolic succession emanating from Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This notion clearly injects anachronistic political concerns into the text of Matthew, which says nothing about Peter being the first pope or about the primacy of Rome over other Christian churches. Certainly Matthew would not have endorsed the idea of Peter’s infallibility or sole authority in the church, since it is quite clear in Matthew that Peter speaks as a representative of the other apostles and often makes mistakes (15:15; 16:16; 17:4, 25; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33-35; cf. Acts 11:1-18; Gal 2:11-14). In Peter’s own words, Jesus himself is the chief shepherd, senior pastor, or pontifex maximus of the church (1 Pet 5:4). For further discussion of Peter, see Brown, Donfried et al. (1973); Cullmann (1962), Davies and Allison (1991: 647-652); Kingsbury (1979); and Turner (1991).

The Keys and Binding and Loosing. As noted above, Jesus spoke of Peter as both foundation of the church and holder of the keys of the Kingdom. The linkage of the foundation and key metaphors makes it clear that one cannot divorce the church and the Kingdom because the former is the agency by which the latter is extended on earth. The foundational ecclesiastical role of Peter and the other apostles is carried out through their handling of the keys, which is their exercise of Kingdom authority (cf. Isa 22:15, 22; Rev 1:18; 3:7; 9:1-4; 20:1-3). This authority is exercised through binding and loosing (NLT “forbidding” and “permitting”). Scholars differ in their explanations of binding and loosing. Some stress the idea that keys are a metaphor of authority over who enters the church; thus, the apostles, through their confession of Jesus, control who is permitted and who is forbidden to enter (cf. 10:7; 28:18-20). Others compare 16:19 to 18:18 and posit discipline within the church as the area of the authority described as binding and loosing. In rabbinic Judaism the motif of binding and loosing was often applied to careful interpretation of biblical law in areas of personal conduct, or halakha; the rabbis rendered authoritative opinions on what was permitted and what was forbidden.

It is not easy to decide which of the above interpretations is correct. Interpreting 16:19 along the lines of 18:18 is problematic because the context of Matthew 18 concerns maintenance of the community, not entrance into it. Further, the binding and loosing in 18:18 is a function of the community, not the apostles. The problem with interpreting the binding and loosing in terms of the rabbinic usage is that such usage is later than Matthew and occurs in a different religious context. Matthew’s imagery in 16:16-19 concerns the building of the church and entrance into it by those who, with Peter and the apostles, confess Jesus as Messiah, Son of God. The apostles, therefore, were in a real sense the gatekeepers of the Kingdom, since they were the foundational leaders of the church, the agency that extends the Kingdom on earth. Their role was to continue the authoritative proclamation of the truth of Matthew 16:16, and in doing so, they permitted those who confessed Jesus to enter the church and through it the Kingdom. Those who refuse to confess Jesus find the door closed and locked; they are forbidden entrance. (See Hagner 1995:472-474; Hiers 1985 for further discussion of the possibilities.)