Matthew 16:13-20 While the Confession

Matthew 16:13-20

While the confession of Peter is found in all three of synoptic gospels (Matthew 16:13-20, Mark 8:27-30, Luke 9:18-21), the Book of Matthew offers the gospel center of the Galilean ministry.

The verses that recognize Jesus as the Messiah with the acknowledgement of his disciples are preceded by the biblical history of those questioning his reign. Before the establishment of the Christ, the communal religious leaders rejected Jesus (Matthew 16:1-4) while his disciples failed to exhibit enough faith to even head his most simple tenants (16:5-12). The fourteenth chapter of Matthew supplied an informative view of Jesus' teachings, followed by a new reception of his theology and his role in the established religious world (16:1-12). The beginning of Matthew 16:13-18 reveals the transforming perspective of the disciples towards Christ, who becomes fully established in a formative, substantive plan revealed in a swath of thematic problems, lexis, setting, historicity, and context.

The Revelation of the Gospel Occurs in Pagan Territory (16:13), where Jesus has taken his disciples from the lands dominated by the Jews in hopes escaping the crowds, most likely in an attempt to contract private time for thought. En route, they have traveled together from the Lake of Galilee to the Jordan River on the edge of ancient Israel. The area, the name of which was recently changed to Caesarea Philippi, was a pagan territory famous for its grotto where people worshiped the Greek god Pan, its earlier name's sake. Matthew affirms Mark's belief that God moves where he wills, paralleling not only the theme of universality in the Gospels, but also the location to which Jesus lead them (Matthew 1:3, 5-6; 2:1-12; 3:9; 4:15).

Once established in Pan, Jesus directly questions his disciples about his role and acceptance amongst the common people, those at the heart of his mission (16:13).

In contrast to his previous trends of faith toward Christ, the apostle Simon chooses this opportunity to exhibit faith in the acts of holy healing he has seen with his own eyes, proclaiming with no question that Jesus is the Christ and also Son of the Living God (16:16). Jesus serves this affirmation to divine providence, affirming his role in the "flesh and bones" that man himself could not muster, only an act decreed by God (16:17).

While popular recognition of Jesus failed to cement his acceptance as a prophet (16:14), the next two verses concretely reflected the disciples' metamorphoses to total faith in Jesus as the Christ, Son of God (16:15-16). Of the three Synoptic Gospels, only Matthew reveals a true concern with the correlation of Jesus and the Jewish religion. This basis for understanding was developed and supported in previous books (Isaiah 9:7; Jeremiah 23:5), reflecting a long promise that Israel's savior would descend from the dynasty of King David. Matthew struggles with this relationship, as did his followers and many throughout Christian history, particularly the early Gnostics, but his gospel provides the foundation for the ultimate Christian revelation as Christ as the trinity-specific Lord and savior.

Historically, the Jews were awaiting the Messiah, or "anointed one," a moniker that Matthew bestows upon Jesus as "Christ,"

proclaiming his arrival.

Yet, while Matthew proclaims the arrival of the Messiah, the disciples are still forced to reckon with general disbelief.

A contextual analysis of the current-day Israel illuminates this hesitation, as the Jews expected a civic leader whose politics would ultimately grant religious success; meanwhile, Jesus preached from the commonplace about faith and testament.

While many expected a king of the would-be empire of Israel, Jesus arrives humbly, using his own suffering and death to save the very people he assured would reject him.

Yet Matthew recognizes him in these verses as the Messiah, a different kind than anticipated; Jesus comes to the disciples as one, instead, who heals the inform, teaches the wisdom of the Torah as a mechanism of freedom and salvation, and proclaims the land as the Kingdom of (his) God.

Matthew 16:16 affirms Christ as Jesus in the flesh, and also establishes the foundations for the trinity by declaring him as the Son of God; this theme is embellished through his Gospel. (Matthew 16:16, also 2:15; 4:3, 6; 8:29; 14:33; 26:63; 27: 40, 43). While Jesus Christ not only receives union with the Father God, Matthew reiterates the role of Christ as son to God, his inherently lower servent, twenty-three times during the course of his Gospel.

This affirmation is important, because only the disciples acknowledge his kinship to God the Father outside of the biblical and religious tool of divine revelation (16:17).

Accordingly, Matthew's interpretation of Jesus is inherently messianic, with an important understanding of Jesus the man, Son of God, savior, and bearer of divine power.

Therefore, it can be said that in Chapter 16, Matthew essentially presents the most messianic understanding of Jesus, who as Son of God, reveals God's will and bears divine authority.

After expressing gratitude and pride in the faith of Simon Peter, Jesus then proclaims, "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it." (16:18) The exegetical dilemma provided by 16:18 is to establish what the "rock" of which Jesus speaks actually is. Historically, Rome has connected Simon's last name, what we call Peter (Pevtro), and the word rock (pevtra) with liturgical emphasis, contesting that it implies that Simon himself is the rock. At the same time, most Protestant scholars reject this claim, largely positioning themselves into two different theoretical camps. The possible interpretations they derive from the Pevtro: Pevtra relation are that the rock is Jesus or the rock is the confession of faith itself.

The deconstruction of Matt 16:17 is centered on this debate.

If, by the Catholic interpretation, Simon Peter is the rock, the limitations are called into strict question. Catholics surmise that Christ meant for a new lineage to be born into the Christian church, with parameters extending as far those granted the line of David, with other gospels supporting their beliefs (Luke 22:32 and John 21:15-17). The other gospels credit Simon Peter as the apostolic prince, critical not only to their view of Christian bloodlines, but also preeminent in establishing the role of Pope and securing the power of the Vatican.

The Protestant interpretation, like the Catholic one, also provides for a foundation of power and influence, compatibly detracting from that of Rome. While the Bishop of Rome took his potent roots in the Simon Peter patriarchy, the ending of the patristic age imbued those questioning the Vatican with a reenergized spirituality for the teachings of the Gnostics.

Instead, the Protestants challenge the role of the bishop as equal in power to the apostle Peter, and their idea was supported by the papacy, a demographic seeking to consolidate its power in the early modern Christian church.

Great thinkers in the Christian Church challenge the bishop's right to power as inherited through this verse, particularly Augustine, who affirmed the role of Jesus as the rock, and Cyril, who deemed it the declaration of faith.

For many of them, the "living apostle" that the Catholic church defines by Matthew 16:18 is subverted by what they deem the accurate meaning to be -- profession of faith as holding keys to the kingdom.

Although context and history are critical to the interpretation of these verses, form and structure are equally integral to the exegesis. While the early verses are supported in other chapters and books, verses 17-19 are out of the ordinary, demanding careful examination as such.

Matthew structures the verses with a height of parallelism, correlating the questions in13 and 15 with each other adeptly, the first seeking answer that carries itself throughout the passage.

Verses 17-19 are written in couplets, a poetic tool unique to this passage of Matthew:

(17) Blessed are you, Simon Barjona,

because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven [has revealed this to you].

(18) And I say to you that you are Peter,

and on this rock I will build my church, and [the] gates of Hades will not overpower it.

(19) I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.

(NB: NASB, "Barjona" v. "Pevtra.")

The text, which reveals Christ as the Son, is reiterated later in 18:18, and Matthew uses the couplets to draw the attention of the reader and faithful to this important detail, critical to the biblical scene of Jesus coming before the Sanhedrin.

It is also important to draw attention to the modern translations of this, as they play out on the interpretations of current church practice in terms of theology. While the NIV acknowledges "Pevtra" as the original after Simon, "Barjona" is substituted by the NASB, cementing a liturgical opinion on the much-debated dilemma.

The same parallels that play an important part in the verse itself are also necessary in examining the greater context of the passage. In his exegesis, Cullman associates what he deems an "exact" parallel between Matthew 16:17-19 and Luke 22:31-34.

He finds that this is evidenced by Peter's solemn vow that he will go with Jesus to prison and onto death, the prediction of Peter's betrayal, and Jesus' command to Peter to encourage conversion.

Opposing debate comes from Robert Gundry, who contests that parallel is neither direct nor intended.

Gundry makes this point by saying that while Luke is blessed by God, he is not done so by the divine act of blind devotion that encapsulated the Matthew account of Simon Peter.

Additionally, if not more importantly, Luke warns of the coming three-fold betrayal of Christ by Peter, while Matthew only speaks of his blessing.

"The major objection by Cullman against Matthew's narrative framework fails to recognize that Jesus' congratulatory words refer to the bare confession of Jesus' messiahship -- apart from misconceptions, which were not erased until after the resurrection anyway -- and that Jesus' rebuke refers only to Peter's subsequent protest against Jesus' death. Furthermore, although he doubtlessly intended the apostles to make a connection between suffering and Messiahship, Jesus did not connect the two concepts here. ... The congratulations and the rebuke, then, are not incompatible when the two parts of the narrative are properly distinguished and viewed in chronological sequence."

Morever, Jesus' statement as recounted by Matthew, "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church ... I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" contrasts strictly to the Catholic interpretation of "rock" as meaning Simon Peter himself, if Peter is going to be the source of ultimate disloyalty as Christ predicts.

While the debate over the word choice, poetic framework, lexicography, and theological foundations for Matthew 16:13-17 continue ad infinitum, the last important analysis for a basic exegesis on the passage is consumed by its validity. Popular Christological belief affirms the temporal positioning of Mark as a basis for both Luke and Matthew. The original Greek reveals Jesus' question to the disciples is identical in all three synoptic gospels: uJmei'" deV tivna me levgete ei ai. While minor differences exist between Mark and Matthew, in actual word choice, particularly in regards to the charge of silence (8:30), Matthew veers from the Marcan very little.

Matthew translates Mark's "kaiV ejpetivmhsen aujtoi'" to "maqhtai," to drive home the point that Christ is in fact the Son of God.

Additionally, the tools known as "Mattheanisms," or words and descriptions commonly adopted in Matthew, are clear in all NIV, NASB, and greek version of the text, particularly the use of "blessed."

The greek word ejkklhsiva (18:17) is unique to Matthew, also supporting the originality of the text. However, it is the use of the image and lexis of "rock" that affirms the validity of the passage.

Although these seemingly minor details could be easily overlooked, it is their importance as "Mattheanisms" to which theological scholars grant them credence.

The original Greek, NIV, and NASB versions of the passage of Matthew 16:13-17 are rife with lexicological curiosities, thematic complexity, and literary tools used for significant theological debate. The exegetical analysis of Matthew without examining these is impossible, while their proper inclusion and usage are interminable. Because of these details, these verses of Christological preeminence for their establishment of the foundation of Christ as the accepted Son of God are as interesting to academic scholars as to theologians.