article21

§16 Peter’s Messianic Declaration (Matt. 16:1–28)

16:1–4 / Only here and in Matthew 3:7 do the Pharisees and the Sadducees come together in a common cause. In the earlier setting they went out to the Jordan to find out for themselves what John the Baptist was doing. Here they combine forces to tempt Jesus to show them some spectacular sign from heaven that will authenticate for them his divine mission. He answers them by pointing out that only an evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign. No sign (except the sign of Jonah) will be given.

Since elsewhere in the New Testament the Sadducees are not found outside of Judea, some have questioned whether or not they would stray so far from Jerusalem and the temple. One’s response to such conjectures is determined by the larger question of textual reliability. It seems perfectly reasonable to accept the text as it stands and understand the two groups together as a sort of official representation of Judaism.

Most English translations note that verses 2b–3 are missing in a number of early manuscripts. Some scholars see the verses as a later addition from a source similar to Luke 12:54–56. Others argue the deletion of the verses on the basis that in parts of the world like Egypt, a red sky in the morning does not indicate stormy weather. The UBS Greek text encloses the passage within square brackets, indicating that including the section is the least unfavorable alternative.

The proverbial statement that Jesus employs simply says that a red sky in the evening promises good weather and a red sky in the morning indicates a coming storm. Jesus’ concern is not to teach climatology, but to state in no uncertain terms that though his opponents are able to interpret the appearance of the sky, they are totally unable to read the signs of the times. In asking for spectacular proof from heaven, they show that they are spiritually unable to grasp what is taking place in the life and ministry of Jesus. They are hypocrites, because while pretending to pose a reasonable request they are in fact a wicked and adulterous generation (v. 4). Prophets of the Old Testament used the figure of adultery to describe Israel in its infidelity to God (cf. Hos. 2:2ff., 9:1; Ezek. 16). Miracles were never intended to compel faith. To perform a miracle for an “immoral generation” (Norlie) would be out of the question. The only sign given was the sign of Jonah. Though some have understood this to be Jesus himself, as a prophet like Jonah, it is preferable to take the sign of Jonah as a reference to the resurrection.

16:5–12 / Leaving behind the Pharisees and Sadducees, Jesus and his disciples go across the lake. Jews traveling in predominantly gentile territory would take their own bread in order to avoid eating food that was not ceremonially clean. On this occasion the disciples had forgotten to take bread. Jesus warns them to be on their guard against the yeast (leaven) of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Discussing this remark among themselves, they conclude that Jesus must be talking about their failure to bring an adequate supply of bread.

Jesus knows what they are thinking and rebukes them for their lack of faith (v. 8). He reminds them of the abundance of bread that they collected after the feeding of the five thousand and again following the feeding of the four thousand. That he was able to take care of their physical needs was abundantly clear. This should indicate to them that the statement about guarding against the leaven of the religious leaders had nothing to do with literal bread. Then the disciples understood that he was warning them against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

In Old Testament ritual, leaven was regularly excluded (Exod. 34:25; 23:18). Paul counsels the Corinthians to get rid of the old leaven that they may be “a new batch without yeast” (1 Cor. 5:7). Throughout the New Testament, except in Matthew 13:33, leaven symbolizes something evil. In the present context Jesus is speaking of the teaching and influence of the Jewish religious orders. A parallel passage in Luke identifies the leaven of the Pharisees as hypocrisy (Luke 12:1). The Pharisees were bound up in a legalism that missed the entire point of God’s intention (cf. Matt. 5:20). Fenton writes, “The band of disciples must be on their guard against a self-conscious religiosity that demands guarantees, when it is God’s desire to break in unexpectedly through the fixed notions of their system” (pp. 333–34). The Sadducees were guilty of identifying the kingdom of God with material possessions and pinned their hopes on achieving it by political action (Barclay, vol. 2, p. 132). Rigid legalism and political opportunism are twin evils that permeate society and can never be used in the pursuit of righteousness.

16:13–14 / We come now to a critical juncture in the ministry of Jesus. He has withdrawn with his disciples to the northern region of Caesarea Philippi. There he questions them regarding people’s understanding of who he is; then he directs the question to the disciples themselves. Peter, answering for the disciples, declares him to be “the Christ” (or Messiah), “the Son of the living God.” It is upon this basic truth that Jesus will build his church. Now that the true identity of Jesus is clear, he will begin very shortly to teach his disciples that his role as Messiah leads first to death (16:21) and then to exaltation (16:21, 27–28; cf. 17:1–9).

The importance of this passage is clearly seen in the attention given to it by commentators. Many writers are convinced that the material goes back to the Aramaic-speaking community but contains a number of postresurrection additions. Schweizer, for instance, says that the sayings do not derive from either Jesus or Matthew, but “probably from the early community that identified itself with Peter” (p. 338). On the other hand, Gundry argues on the basis of structure, diction, theological motifs, Old Testament phraseology, and echoes of other Matthean passages that verses 17–19 were composed by the evangelist himself in order to portray Peter as a representative disciple who understood Jesus to be the Christ (pp. 330–36). When widely divergent interpretations are offered it is probably the part of wisdom to be on the lookout for tendentious handling of the data.

The town of Caesarea Philippi lay on the southwest slopes of Mount Hermon, about twenty-five miles north of the Sea of Galilee. From early times it had been a sacred place for the worship of a Canaanite ba’al. The Greeks turned it into a shrine of Pan, the goat-man god of fertility, naming it Paneas. It was rebuilt by Philip, the son of Herod the Great, and named Caesarea in honor of Augustus. In order to distinguish it from the coastal city of the same name (Caesarea Maritima) it was distinguished Caesarea Philippi (that is, “of Philip”).

The question that Jesus poses to his disciples is, Who do people say the Son of Man is? As the parallel in verse 15 indicates, Son of Man refers to Jesus himself and not someone yet to come. Throughout the Synoptic Gospels (fourteen times in Mark alone) it is Jesus’ self-designation. The purpose in posing this question is not simply to learn what others are saying but to correct in the minds of the disciples a misconception of Jesus’ role.

The disciples respond to Jesus’ inquiry, saying that some believe him to be John the Baptist, while others say Elijah or Jeremiah or one of the other prophets. It is significant that all four answers reflect the popular view that Jesus is a spokesman for God. Those who heard him had no doubt that his was a message with supernatural authority. In Jewish apocalyptic, the reappearance of famous individuals prior to the arrival of the Messiah was common. The writer of 2 Esdras has the Lord say, “I will raise up the dead from their places … I will send you help, my servants Isaiah and Jeremiah” (2 Esdras 2:16, 18; cf. 2 Macc. 15:14f.). Through Malachi, God promises, “I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes” (4:5). From Matthew 11:14 and 17:10–13 we learn that John the Baptist was interpreted as Elijah returned from the dead. Elijah was in many ways the greatest of the prophets, and Jeremiah was often listed first among the latter prophets in the Jewish Bible.

16:15–16 / But Jesus’ primary concern was who his own disciples thought he was. But what about you? he asked them. Who do you say I am? This was the critical question. It was Simon Peter who answered, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Christos is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word for Messiah (“the anointed one”). Used with the article it refers to the central figure of Old Testament expectation. By his confession Peter is saying that Jesus is the One who comes in fulfillment of Israel’s hopes and dreams. He is the Son of the living God. Some modern writers would agree with Beare’s conclusion that this title is a “Christological confession cast in the language of the early church” (p. 352). Gundry, however, on the basis of Matthew’s “they will call him Immanuel, which means, God with us” (Matt. 1:23) and the account of the virgin birth, argues that the title has the stronger connotation of essential deity (p. 330). Though in the Hellenistic world the idea of divine sonship was quite common (used extensively of kings and emperors), Peter’s use of the title was deeply rooted in a Hebraic background. When Jesus accepts Peter’s ascription, Son of God, he reveals his own consciousness of a unique and intimate relationship to his heavenly Father.

16:17–19 / You are indeed highly favored (Blessed are you, Gk. makarios; cf. the opening expression in each of the beatitudes, 5:3–11), Simon son of Jonah, for the truth you have just spoken came by revelation from God. There is no indication prior to this time that the name Peter was ever used. As first used, it was a nickname. Simeon was the Jewish name, which in Greek becomes Simon. The Semitic bar-yônā (Gk. Bariōna; son of Jonah) has caused some difficulty. In John 1:42 Simon is said to be the son of John (hyios Iōannou). Cullmann suggests with some caution that the patronymic may conceal an Aramaic designation for “terrorist” (Peter, p. 23). Others conjecture a shortened form of Johanan (equivalent of John). It is more likely that Simon is being designated a spiritual son of the prophet Jonah (cf. 12:39). The prophetic function is in the foreground. As with every true prophet, the revelation has come directly from God and not through human channels (“flesh and blood,” AV, is a rabbinic phrase used to denote human beings in their weakness). Peter was not emboldened to declare Jesus to be the Messiah, son of the living God, on the basis of human information. It came in response to direct revelation from God himself.

It is important at this point to draw attention to the fact that many critical scholars do not accept the response of Jesus in verses 17–19 as genuine. Beare is of the opinion that “this group of sayings does not commend itself as a genuine utterance of Jesus” but “originated in some debate with the Palestinian community” (pp. 353–54). The most common arguments supporting this contention are (a) elsewhere in the Gospels Jesus does not speak of founding a church (only here and in Matt. 18:17 is ekklēsia used); (b) the rest of the New Testament provides no indication that Peter enjoyed the administrative privileges recorded here; and (c) only a few verses later (v. 22) Peter indicates that he really does not understand Jesus.

Gundry, however, in an extended discussion (pp. 333–36), argues persuasively that verses 17–19 are “an expansive composition [in the Greek language] by the evangelist himself” designed “to portray Peter as a representative disciple” (pp. 330–31). That contemporary scholars are so distinctly divided in their conclusions provides strong incentive to accept the traditional understanding that the verses in question do provide a reliable account of what Jesus actually said.

In response to Peter’s You are the Christ, Jesus says, And I tell you that you are Peter [petros], and on this rock [petra] I will build my church (v. 18). This saying (along with the verse that follows) has become the foundation for the Roman Catholic position on the papacy and the church. The crucial question is the identity of the “rock” on which the church is to be founded. Jesus’ statement involves a wordplay between petros (an isolated rock or stone) and petra (a rock ledge). Behind each word is the Aramaic kep̱ā’ (without distinction in gender), but if Gundry is right in his assertion that Matthew wrote the account in Greek, we are no longer “shackled by the need to suppose an Aramaic substratum” (p. 334). In either language the pun is present. Most modern scholars hold that Peter himself is the rock, in the sense that he is the first to identify fully and completely Jesus as Messiah. It is upon this foundation that the church is built. Christ’s church (Gk. ekklēsia) is the new Israel, the New Testament counterpart to the Old Testament congregation of the elect (qāhāl). It consists of those who, like Peter (who was the first), acknowledge Jesus to be the Christ. Cullmann rejects all Protestant attempts to evade the Roman Catholic exegesis that Jesus is here appointing the impulsive and enthusiastic disciple Peter to be the foundation of his ecclesia (TDNT, vol. 6, p. 108). Yet the argument that had that been Jesus’ intention it would have been simple to say, “And upon you I will build my church,” is highly persuasive.

Some have taken the rock to be Peter’s faith. Stendahl, however, holds that any distinction between Peter and his faith “presupposes a sophistication of a sort not to be expected in our text” (p. 788). Others have interpreted the rock as the truth about the messiahship of Jesus that was revealed to Peter. Acknowledging that it is impossible to separate Peter from his confession, this interpretation best answers the difficulties that are normally raised.

Against the church (that great company of those who confess the messiahship of Jesus) not even death itself (“the gates of hell,” AV [or Hades]; cf. Isa. 38:10) will prevail. The image pictures the impotence of Hades (the place of departed spirits) to imprison in death those who belong to the messianic community. The promise of resurrection is deeply embedded in this promise regarding the church.

Peter is now told that he is to receive the keys of the kingdom. What he prohibits on earth will be prohibited in heaven, and what he permits on earth will be permitted in heaven (v. 19). The background is Isaiah 22, which prophesies the dismissal of Shebna the steward and his replacement with Eliakim the son of Hilkiah. Of the latter God says, “I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open” (Isa. 22:22; note v. 15). The keys that Peter is to receive represent the authority to determine what kind of conduct is worthy of those who live under the rule of God and what kind of conduct is not. To bind and to loose were technical terms used by rabbis indicating the authority to lay down binding rules or to declare exemption from them. This authority is not Peter’s alone, for the same role is assigned to the other disciples in Matthew 18:18 (cf. John 20:23). Decisions made on earth by the leadership of the early church carry with them a divine sanction. Apostolic pronouncements will be ratified in the final judgment.

16:20 / Jesus gave strict orders to his disciples that they tell no one that he was the Christ. There was still much that they needed to learn about his messiahship, specifically that he must go to Jerusalem and be put to death (cf. v. 21). If his own disciples did not yet understand fully what messiahship entailed, how quickly would others of the Jewish faith rush to make him the fulfillment of their nationalistic hopes and dreams? Ill-informed action like this would make his role that much more difficult. Better to keep silent for now.

16:21–23 / From that time on marks a new stage in Jesus’ revelation of himself to his disciples. They had acknowledged his messiahship, but now they must be prepared to follow a Messiah who would go to Jerusalem and suffer at the hands of the orthodox religious establishment. There he would be put to death, but after three days he would rise again. In verse 21 we have the first definite prediction of the passion (cf. 17:22–23 and 20:18–19 for the two other predictions in Matthew). When Jesus says that he must go to Jerusalem, he is saying that this course of action is determined by God’s will expressed in Scripture. It is the divine intention that the Messiah be put to death. Opposition comes from the elders (respected community leaders), chief priests (primarily Sadducees), and teachers of the law (or “Bible scholars” as Beck calls them). These three groups made up the Sanhedrin (the official court that governed Jewish religious and political life).

Peter takes Jesus aside and begins to reprove him (note the same Greek word, epitimaō, in 16:20), saying “may God in his mercy spare you this” (cf. hileōs in BAGD). Filson understands the expression to mean “God forgive you for saying so mistaken and shocking a thing” (p. 188). Jesus turns around (that is, turns his back on Peter) and says, “Out of my sight, you satan. You’re a stumbling block in my path because your way of thinking comes from men not from God.” It is instructive to compare Jesus’ response to Peter with his words to the tempter in 4:10. In the earlier account, he says, “Go away, Satan” (hypage satana): here he says, Get behind me, Satan (hypage opisō mou, satana): To call Peter a “satan” is a strong rebuke, but those who oppose the will and plan of God are emissaries of Satan. Although Peter had just confessed Jesus as Messiah, he had yet much to learn about what that messiahship would entail.

16:24–26 / Then (that is, after Jesus had rebuked Peter so emphatically for playing into the hands of Satan) Jesus tells his disciples that if they wish to go his way (cf. opisō mou in vv. 23 and 24) they will have to renounce self, openly declare allegiance to a crucified Messiah, and accept the consequences. At this point Jesus is speaking to men who, though acknowledging the messiahship of Jesus, were not fully aware of the consequences. To deny means “to disclaim any connection with,” “to repudiate.” Jesus is not speaking of giving up certain benefits but of denying the self. Fenton writes, “The condition of discipleship is therefore the breaking of every link which ties a man to himself” (p. 273). It is obliterating self as the dominant principle of life in order to make God that principle (Barclay, vol. 2, p. 251). For a person to carry his or her cross means to accept the sentence of death on all personal ambitions and goals. The expression is figurative and derives from the practice of the condemned criminal carrying the cross bar of his instrument of execution through the streets of the city and enduring the insults of the crowds along the way. It is worthy of note that though the first two imperatives in this charge (deny, take up) are aorist (a Greek past tense indicating finality), the third (follow) is present. This would suggest definitive action in the decision to enter into a life of discipleship and the necessity of continuing faithfulness in following through on a daily basis.

Verse 25 presents the supreme paradox of Christian discipleship. If a person tries to save his life (that is, abandon the way of total self-sacrifice), he or she will lose it; if, however, he will lose his life for Christ, he will find it. Jesus speaks of two kinds of life—physical well-being and true (or essential) existence. The immediate temptation is to look after one’s physical well-being, but when that becomes the dominant goal of existence, true life is forfeited. It is only by losing life that true life can be gained. Even if a person were to gain the whole world he or she would still come out the loser if the conquest involved giving up “higher life” (Williams). Nothing is as valuable as life in this ultimate sense. “What could a man offer to buy back his soul once he had lost it?” (Phillips). Though Jesus’ statement is ultimately eschatological, there is a profound sense in which self-interest destroys life here and now. Each decision of life is making us into a certain kind of person, and the opportunity to relive life is not open to us. Life is lost (or gained) in living.

16:27–28 / If the path of self-denial seems too severe, it will be of help to remember that the Son of Man is going to come and he will reward each person according to what he has done (cf. Ps. 62:12). Recompense is soon. In fact, there are some right there who will not taste death without seeing the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. The apparent meaning of these verses is that the second advent will occur during the lifetime of the disciples. History has demonstrated that this interpretation is inadequate. Of the various suggestions offered, the two that seem most plausible are that Jesus will shortly be transfigured before Peter, James, and John (17:1–9) and that Jesus speaks of the intermediate kingdom of Christ in and through his church (Green, p. 154). It is also possible that verse 27 refers to the Parousia (the eschatological return of Christ), and verse 28 speaks of the resurrection as the open declaration of divine sonship (Rom. 1:4 says that he was “declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead”). Both “comings” are part of the larger theological plan but separated in point of time.