FULLER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

AN EXEGESIS OF MATTHEW 16:13-28

SUBMITTED TO DR. JOSHUA STIGALL

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
BI500 INTERPRETIVE PRACTICES

BY
BRIAN P. RODEN
DECEMBER 11, 2015
 SURVEY

Matthew 16:13–28 marks a pivotal point in Matthew’s narrative. After having followed Jesus for

some time now in His Galilean ministry, Simon Peter, speaking on behalf of the disciples, makes

the declaration that Jesus is not merely a prophet, but the Messiah, the Son of God. After this

recognition of His true identity by the disciples, Jesus begins to elaborate on what being the

Messiah—and, consequently, a follower of the Messiah—entails, setting His sights toward

Jerusalem and His death.

This passage contains several well-known phrases, each of which raises questions that

impact interpretation. Does “the gates of Hades” (Matt 16:18, NIV) refer to the battlements of

the kingdom of Satan or to the realm of the dead? Does the binding and loosing in v. 19 pertain

to establishing doctrine and practice, taking authority over spirit beings, or administering church

discipline? Does Jesus’ statement in v. 28 mean He believed His second coming would occur

before the last of the disciples present on this occasion died, or may it have referred to disciples

seeing a vision of Christ’s kingdom, as John did on Patmos?

Perhaps the most debated statement in this passage is Jesus’ declaration, “on this rock I

will build my church.” Exegetes throughout church history have offered different explanations of

the rock’s identity, varying from Peter, to his confession of Jesus’ divine Messiahship, to the

person of Christ himself. In this paper, I will attempt to show that the foundational rock to which

Jesus refers is Peter himself, with those who share Peter’s confession of faith also being used in

building the church.

1
 2

HISTORICAL AND LITERARY CONTEXT

This episode takes place in the region of Caesarea Philippi, approximately twenty-five miles

north of the Sea of Galilee. Although just within the boundaries of ancient Israel (near the Old

Testament Dan on the northern border), in the first century it was predominantly Gentile in

population.1 An underground shrine to the Greek god Pan and a temple to Augustus Caesar built

by Herod the Great made it a place of pagan worship. This setting provides a contrast between

the mythological gods and divinized human beings, on the one hand, and “the Son of the living

God” (v. 16) on the other.

Literarily, this pericope follows closely after the Pharisees’ demand for a sign (Matt

16:1), which comes just after the feeding of the four thousand (Matt 15:29–39). No matter how

many miracles they witnessed, the Pharisees always demanded more proof of Jesus’ identity.

Jesus’ disciples, however, had seen enough evidence to recognize Him as the awaited Messiah.

The following passage in Matthew’s narrative (Matt 17:1–13) tells of Christ’s transfiguration.

After declaring that Jesus is the Son of God, Peter, along with James and John, has the privilege

of seeing Christ in His divine glory. In contrast to the religious leaders who ask for a sign before

they will believe, the disciples proclaim their belief first, and then receive a confirming

miraculous sign afterward.

FORM, STRUCTURE, MOVEMENT

This pericope consists of two distinct sections. In vv. 13–20, Jesus asks the disciples who people

say He is, and reply with a list of prophetic figures. Jesus then makes the question more personal,

1
Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 424.
 3

specifically seeking the disciples’ opinion as to His identity, and Peter responds with a positive

statement recognizing Jesus as the Messiah. Jesus proclaims a blessing upon Peter, giving him

information about his future role in the church. The section concludes with a command for the

disciples not to divulge His identity to outsiders.

Verses 21-28 may not immediately follow vv. 13–20 time-wise. The phrase “from that

time on” (ἀπό τότε, “from then”) in v. 21 could mean that what follows happened the same day,

or it could simply mark the incident as a turning point, with the following material occurring

days or weeks later. Regardless of the exact chronological timing, Jesus here builds off His

disciples’ recognition of His identity and begins to unpack what that entails, explaining His

coming suffering and death. Then, in contrast to his declaration of faith in v. 16, Peter responds

negatively, correcting his master (v. 22). Jesus rebukes Peter, calling him Satan and a stumbling

block—the antithesis of Jesus’ blessing upon Peter in v. 17. Finally, whereas in vv. 18–19 Jesus

gave instructions specifically to Peter, here He teaches the disciples as a group concerning the

cost of following Him.

DETAILED ANALYSIS

The identity of the rock in v. 18 finds three major interpretations throughout church history. The

Eastern interpretation holds that the rock is Peter’s confession of faith in Jesus’ identity as

Messiah and Son of God. This view was adopted by the reformers, as it supported their anti-

papal stance, and many Protestants today still advocate it. Augustine taught that the rock was

Christ, based in part on Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 3:11 that Christ is the established
 4

foundation. The final major view is the Roman interpretation, which holds that Peter as the first

pope, and his successors in the papal office, constitute the foundation rock of the church.2

In order to determine which, if any, of these traditional understandings is most accurate,

one must consider source and tradition issues regarding the text’s authenticity, points of grammar

in the language used within the passage, related imagery elsewhere in the New Testament, and

extra-biblical factors that influenced the development of each interpretation.

Authenticity

Debate exists among scholars as to whether vv. 17–19 are Jesus’ words or a later insertion, as

this response to Peter’s confession does not appear in the parallel synoptic accounts (Mark 8:27–

29 and Luke 9:18–20). The word used here for church (ἐκκλησία, ekklēsia) appears only twice in

the Gospels, leading some to argue that Jesus never anticipated or spoke about an organized

institution, and thus would not have used this term.3 However, the Septuagint uses ἐκκλησία to

refer to the assembled congregation of Israel, and Jesus, in appointing twelve apostles, is

intentionally reconstituting the people of God. Thus it is reasonable that Jesus may have used

ἐκκλησία if He were speaking Greek in this scene; if He were speaking Aramaic, Matthew’s

word choice in translation would be reasonable based on its usage in the Septuagint.

Peter’s own later writings support the authenticity of these verses. In his first Epistle,

Peter mentions a spiritual house built using living stones (1 Pet 2:5). While the Greek words are

different (λίθος in 1 Peter and πέτρα in Matthew), they are related in that one can use building

stones (one of the usages of λίθος) for construction atop a rock foundation (πέτρα, Matt 7:24).

2
Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8-20, H (trans. James E. Crouch; H; Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 2001), 373-374.
3
Luz, 357.
 5

The usage of the stone/rock metaphor by Peter may build upon his memories of this interaction

with Jesus.

Grammatical Concerns

Some interpreters argue that the rock cannot be Peter based on grammatical issues in the Greek. I

have heard preachers say that πέτρα (petra, rock) refers to large mass of rock, and Πέτρος

(Petros, Peter) means a stone or small rock. They then proceed to argue that Jesus would not

build His church on a small, unstable rock that could easily be moved, usually while pointing out

Peter’s choleric, unpredictable temperament and later denial of Christ. There exists evidence in

Greek literature, however, of πέτρος referring to larger rock formations as well.4 Others point out

that πέτρος is a masculine noun, while πέτρα is feminine, using the grammatical gender

difference to support the conclusion that the rock is not Peter. Craig Blomberg, however, points

out that a feminine noun would not be used for a man’s name, necessitating the change to a

masculine ending. If the original exchange took place in Aramaic, which is likely, Jesus would

have used kepha both times, which eliminates the problem the difference in Greek words causes

for some.5

Furthermore, Jesus does not say, “You are Peter (a rock), but on this (other) rock I will

build my church.” The conjunction used is καί (kai), rather than δὲ (de). While δὲ can be

translated “but” or “and,” καί, with very rare exceptions, always means “and.”6 This supports

identifying “this rock” with Peter.

4
“πέτρα… Πέτρος… πετρώδης,” NIDNTTE 3:735.
5
Craig Blomberg, Matthew, NAC 22 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 252.
6
Keener, 426.
 6

Further support for Peter’s role as the foundation rock appears in v. 19. This verse is

clearly about Peter as an individual, as all the Greek pronouns translated “you” are second person

singular. Jesus says He will give Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The carrying of keys

was a symbol of authority, with the ability to open doors to allow people entrance as well as to

shut doors and deny admission. In Acts, Peter through his preaching opens the door of salvation

to the Jewish pilgrims at Pentecost (Acts 2), and to the Gentiles in Cornelius’ house (Acts 10).

He threatens to close the door to Simon the Sorcerer due to his impure motives (Acts 8:20–23).7

This focus on the person of Peter in Jesus’ response, combined with the principal role Peter plays

in the early church, suggest that “this rock” in v. 18 refers to Peter. (One should not construe this

verse, however, as appointing Peter the sole possessor of this authority to bind and loose. In

Matthew 18:18, Jesus repeats the language of binding and loosing, but with second person plural

verb forms, indicating He is speaking to the group of disciples in that instance.8)

Other New Testament “Building” Passages

While ἐκκλησία in the New Testament never refers to a church building, but rather to the

assembly of the faithful, the metaphor of the ἐκκλησία as a house or temple appears several

times. Paul writes of believers being part of God’s household, which is “built on the foundation

of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone” (Eph 2:20). He

goes on in v. 22 to say that the Ephesian believers are being built together to become a dwelling

in which God’s Spirit lives.

7
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, PilNTC (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1992),
425.

8
Blomberg, 255.
 7

As mentioned previously, Peter’s first epistle employs the building metaphor as well. He

speaks of Christ being the cornerstone, and faithful believers in Jesus as living stones which are

being built into a spiritual house.

In the Revelation, an angel tells John he will show him the bride of the Lamb, and

proceeds to show him a city, the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:9–10). The city wall has twelve

foundations, with each foundation bearing the name of one of the Apostles (Rev 21:14). Since

Paul uses bridal language to describe the church’s relationship to Christ (Eph 5:25–27), it is not a

stretch to conclude that the New Jerusalem is the church itself, with one of its foundations being

the Apostle Peter.

In all these passages, the building materials—whether foundation stones or building

blocks raised upon the foundation—are persons, not declarations, doctrinal statements, or

confessions. While Paul does call Christ the foundation in one passage (1 Cor 3:11), more

references in the New Testament refer to Jesus as the cornerstone, with the Apostles as part of

the foundation. In this imagery, Christ is the first stone laid, setting the standard for the

alignment of the building’s walls, and the Apostles are the remaining stones of the foundation

row, in alignment with Christ. The rest of the building’s layers, in turn, align with the foundation

stones (1 Cor 11:1).

Extra-Biblical Factors

The church in Rome—the capital of the empire and the burial place of Peter—made claims of

special authority early in church history. Most of the other bishops rejected these claims. Bishop

Stephanus (254–257) specifically employed this Matthean passage to support his claims to wider
 8

authority.9 This political situation likely influenced the development of the Eastern

interpretation. By arguing the rock was not Peter, but the content of his confession of faith, the

bishops in the eastern empire could reject the Bishop of Rome’s claim to special privileges and

power.

The Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century, with its opposition to the authority

of the papal office which had developed over time, tended to adopt either the Eastern

interpretation or that of Augustine.10 It is ironic that those who argued for sola Scriptura and a

plain reading of the text would adopt interpretations that did not express the simplest reading.

They allowed their opposition to the papacy to color their reading of this passage, simply

because it had been used to support papal claims.

The Roman interpretation itself appears to be influenced not so much by Scripture as by

history. When other bishops objected to the Bishop of Rome’s claims to a place of preeminence,

the Roman church read the Scriptures retroactively, looking for a text that could legitimize their

claims to power. After the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church reinforced its position

concerning papal authority using this text, claiming that the pope’s authority “is to be ascribed to

Peter’s present activity through him.”11 This sounds dangerously close to equating Peter with the

Holy Spirit.

9
Luz, 370-371.
10
Blomberg, 252.
11
Luz, 374.
 9

SYNTHESIS

Considering all factors, one can conclude that “this rock” in Matthew 16:18 is indeed Peter. The

play on words only makes sense if Peter and the rock are interchangeable, and careful analysis

overcomes common grammatical objections to their equation. However, it is not Peter as a

human being apart from Christ that is the foundation, but Peter as enlightened and empowered by

divine revelation. When speaking out of his own human nature (“flesh and blood”), he is no

longer a solid foundation stone, but a stumbling block.

The historic Roman Catholic interpretation that the rock is Peter, goes too far however

when it vests Peter’s foundational authority in an office which can be passed down to successors.

There is no explicit nor implicit indication in the text that Jesus had in mind anything beyond

Peter’s own key role in the early church. Peter did not receive his understanding of Christ

through human agency; therefore, while he can proclaim the truth about Christ so that others may

believe, he can personally transfer neither the divine revelation, nor the authority divinely given

him, to another person.

REFLECTION

No one can repeat Peter’s foundational function as the rock, since a foundation can only be laid

once. Believers who share Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God can,

however, be used by Christ to build His church. For this to happen, Christians today must

constantly look back and make sure they are in alignment with the Apostles’ teaching as set forth

in Scripture. Deviations from the line set by the cornerstone and apostolic foundation give rise to

pseudo-Christian groups such as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, or to a universalism that is

 10

scripturally unsupportable. To be a disciple, one must also go beyond recognizing Jesus as

simply a prophet, a great teacher, or someone who taught others to love. One must acknowledge

His true identity and proclaim it to others. Only with such faithful witness will the next row of

living stones be added to the spiritual house.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Blomberg, Craig. Matthew. New American Commentary 22. Nashville: Broadman & Holman
Publishers, 1992.

Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009.

Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 8-20. Translated by James E. Crouch. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN:
Augsburg, 2001.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand
Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1992.

Silva, Moisés, ed. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis. 2nd
ed. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014.

11