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.
Bauer, William. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Bock, Darrell. Jesus According to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Publishers, 2002.
Brown, Raymond. Peter in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars. London: G. Chapman, 1974.
Cullman, Oscar. "Pevtro', 'Khfa," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.
Draper, H. Mudie. "Did Jesus Speak Greek?" The Expository Times. Vol. 67, 1995-1996: 317.
France and Wendam, R.T. And David. Gospel Perspectives, Vol. 5. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1981.
Hagner, Donald. Matthew 14-28,-Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Publishers, 1995.
Gundry, Robert. Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
Gundry, Robert. The Narrative Framework of Matthew xvi.17-19: A Critique of Professor Cullman's Hypothesis. NT 7, 1964.
Keener, Craig. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999.
Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines. San Francisco: Harper Publishers, 1978.