Reflection Paper on Matthew 16:13-20
Having studied this pericopé for the whole semester, examining it, word for word, verse by verse, feels like it’s now running up my veins, streaming through my senses and reverberating in my brain. Its kind of weird, but this pericopé seems almost a part of me now. For one thing, it has my name on it, though, not referring to me, of course.
Upon reading the passage, my point of reflection would be on Peter’s role in relation to Jesus’ church especially in our church of today. Jesus chose Simon to be the foundation of the Church, an ordinary fisherman, except that when Jesus choose him, change his name to Peter i.e. “rock” that would serve as the strong base for Jesus’ church.
Peter was a nobody during his time, a simple fisherman, an idealistic yet a humble man with his weaknesses and frailty (cf. Lk. 5:8, 22:56-62;Mt. 26:69-75, 16:22, Mk. 14:66-72; Jn 18:15-18). But how could Jesus build the church’s foundation with such kind of man, whom he also calls “Satan”, and who denied him three times. Yet still, Jesus called him the “rock”, a strong foundation. For me this is the beauty of the Jesus’ Church, with its glory and divinity, we found out that its foundation is very human in the very person of Peter. It a very human Church composed of not only of saints but mostly if not all, of sinners.
In today’s times where the Church is plague with sex scandals, of disreputable priests and religious and much more, we have a plethora of people whining and belligerent that the Church and the people in it must be holy and blameless. True enough, but one thing I could say is that, these people failed to look at the very human Peter, a sinner, weak and frail, but as the strong foundation of the Church.
The call for us today is to be a “Peter” in our modern day living as a church; in spite of all our weakness, failures, and frailties in life may we grow strong in faith, zeal, and love for this Church. The challenge for us is to be “living stones” built on one another to become one Church (cf. 1 Peter 2:5) where Christ as our true rock foundation and the center of our lives. AMEN.
Redaction Criticism
Matthew 16:13-20 can also be found in Mark 8:27-30 and Luke 9:18-21. Since around 80 percent of the Matthean gospel derives itself from Mark (NJBC 40:5), which serves as its backbone, we decided to use the Marcan text as the point of comparison for this Matthean version. In Mark and Luke, the story contains only 4 verses, while in Matthew it has 7 verses. Notably, Matthew has the longest version, inferring that the author added 3 verses from the original texts. Examining the three versions, we can see that all of them follow, more or less the same sequence in the gospel narratives.
This pericopé in the three gospels is preceded by Jesus speaking about his suffering and death then followed by the transfiguration; however, its anteceding pericopés somehow vary. It is noticeable that all three placed it, almost after the miracle feeding of the four thousand (Luke has five thousand); in which we agreed that this pericopé somehow points to the messianic identity of Jesus. We also noticed that Matthew drops Mark’s pericopé of Jesus healing the blind man at Bethsaida (vv. 22-26). By dropping Mark’s messianic secret motif, he doesn’t need anymore the gradual healing of the blind in which he thinks has its magical overtones.
[2] The first major change appears in Mt. 16:13, whereas Mark 8:27 says ("Who do men say that I am?"), Matthew changes Mark’s “I am” to “the Son of Man”. Here, we postulate that Matthew is using words from the Old Testament “Son of Man,” reflecting his Jewish influence. He wants to present Jesus as the Messiah who has come. Matthew has acquired this title for Jesus, most probably, from his other source. The first addition in this pericopé is Matthew’s insertion of “Jeremiah” in verse 14. Here Matthew adds the prophet’s name because he is the prophet who in his own experience of rejection and suffering announces the rejection and suffering of the Messiah (NJBC 42:105). Obviously, we supposed that Matthew adds this, to point and support the next pericopé about Jesus’ prediction of his impending death and suffering (vv. 21-28). The subsequent Matthean addition is in verse 16, wherein he adds to Mark’s “the Christ” with “the Son of the Living God.” Here, we presupposed that Peter’s confession of the person of Jesus reflects the Matthean community’s idea of the Son-Messiah identity of Jesus. The Son of Man and Son of God in this pericopé form the highpoint and central teaching of Matthew’s Christology.
[3] Another reason why Matthew adds this is to avoid the nationalistic and military overtones of the title Messiah (NJBC 42:105).We figured out that verses 17-19 were additions of Matthew to Mark’s silent Jesus. We also noted before that these verses were not Matthean invention. Rather, we speculated that this text is already circulating in the oral tradition of the Matthean community, which Matthew might have plucked. Finally, Matthew rejoins Mark in verse 20 as he “strictly” commanded his disciples to tell no one that he is the “Messiah”. Matthew still uses the word “Messiah”, as properly understood in its context. This is an affirmation of Matthean Theology rather than that of Marcan messianic secret; wherein the “church” founded by Jesus has an insider knowledge that distinguishes it from Israel
[4].
Lastly, we could say that this pericopé has reflected the sentiments existing in the Matthean community. Matthew’s changes and insertions to the Marcan text reflect all of these. Truly, Matthew 16:13-20 is a manifestation of the assimilated oral tradition of gospel formation circulating in the Matthean community into the author of the Matthean Gospel.
---------------------------------
[1] Text used is the New Revised Standard Version.
[2] John P. Meier, Matthew, (Delaware, USA: Michael Glazier, Inc. 1980) Vol. III. p. 178.
[3] Ibid. p. 180.
[4] Keck Leanders et. al. (eds.), The New Interpreter’s Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon, 1998), Vol. III. p. 347.
Lexical Analysis
“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,”
In Matthew 16:18, clear enough, Jesus calls Peter the “rock” in which he will build his church. The original Greek word used in this text is petra, which is a feminine of the Greek word petros, in which in both cases these words may mean a mass or piece of rock larger than a stone ( liqos). The words petra/petros is used either literally or figuratively. Moreover, Petros is also a name of one of the apostles, which is comparatively similar to the Aramaic word אפיכ, which in is Khfas (Cephas) in Greek.
The writer of Matthew uses the word 5 times in his work and one of them is the cited pericopé (i.e. Matt. 16:18). Aside from Matthew 16:18, in all the Matthean usage, only 2 verses, i.e. in The Parable of the Two House Builders (Matt. 7:24,25), make use of the word petron which connotes it as a strong rock foundation. However, Matt. 27:51 and Matt. 27:60 uses petrai and petra respectively but both imply the literal meaning of these as being a mass of big stone.
In Luke‘s gospel, the word “rock” was used three times. Of these, only Luke 6:48 (Matt. 7: 24-25) suggest rock as a strong foundation. While in the Old Testament, the prophet Isaiah used the word “rock”, comparing the Lord to it because of His holiness (Is. 8:14) and he also uses “cornerstone” as the strong and firm foundation where Zion is built as well as indicating strong in faith (Is. 28:16). In the Pauline Letters, in 1 Corinthians 10:4, St. Paul uses the word spiritual rock, petra, whom he addresses as Christ himself where the people drank! In the Book of Revelation (6:15-16), the words petras/petrais were also used in which it describes the “rock” as a place of refuge where the kings of the earth and among others hid themselves.
Of the 16 usage of the work “rock” in the Bible (i.e. 2 from OT and 14 in the NT), 12 of these verses uses “rock” in a literal sense but with figurative meaning that suggests strength, immovability, firmness, and hardness. These verses give me a notion that the same suggested meaning is probably the same in the word petra in Mat. 16:18.
Again, we recall that the name Peter comes from petros a masculine form of petra.[1] There is a play of words in the Greek text that assumes an identity of petra and petros, which is only assured by the Aramaic. (TDNT 834) Here we see that the meaning of “rock” was assumes in the identity of Peter. Indeed, when Jesus gave Simon the name Peter, it is a rabbinic style wherein this change of named implies a change mission. (TDNT 835) By comparing Peter to a rock, Jesus tell us that Peter is the strong and firm “rock” foundation where in he will build his community of the new covenant. This unique privilege was handed over to Peter, however; strictly only Christ himself is the petra. Although Peter is the foundation, Jesus is the builder of the Church. (Interpreter’s Bible, p. 345) Peter became the petra only as he is enfolded within the revelation in Christ. The antecedent of “rock” is taken to be Peter’s divinely inspired confession of Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”[2] (vv. 16-17)
The passage seems to present us that Jesus gave Peter a leadership role or as representative of the twelve apostles. The use of the two different forms of the Greek words of “rock” would be explained by the masculine petros being used of Peter as an individual and petra being used of him as the representative of the larger group. The foundation of the church is not much relying on Peter as an individual but to the group where he belongs to, in which, apparently manifest a leading role in the apostles. The strong foundation i.e. “petra” which is presented here is not solely given to Peter but also to the other apostles. The truth here is that: The foundation of the church is the revelation of God given through his apostles, and the Lord of the church is the cornerstone of that foundation[3]. _______________________________
[1] John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentaries, (Chicago, USA: Moody Bible Institute) Matthew XVI-XXII. p. 28.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid., p. 29.
Form Criticism
Matthew 16: 13-20
In examining the nature or literary genre of Matthew 16:13-20, distinctively enough, there are stylistic features that can be found in this pericopé such as the simple narration of the, the text being able to stand on itself and the story rotating only on one incident would lead to a presumption that such pericopé belong to the literary genre as “stories about Jesus.”
Again, we can read that this pericopé begins with Jesus and his disciples coming into the area of Ceasarea Philippi (v. 13). There was no indication of any change in location or in time, neither also in verses 21-28, but only until the chapter 17 (scene of the transfiguration), leading to an inference that the verses 13-28 happened in the said area of Ceasarea Philippi. The whole account only involves Jesus and his disciples, and there were no mention of other personages or change in characters in the story. Jesus is narrated here asking his disciples about his identity, which clearly indicates the subject matter of the pericopé.
The whole plot of the pericopé could be summed up to this: “Jesus with his disciples coming into the region of Caesarea Philippi, ask his disciples about his identity and in response, Peter’s identification of him as the Messiah, the Son of the Living God, likewise, naming Peter as the “Rock” foundation where he will build his Church.” The climax of the stories can be found in verse 16 wherein Peter said his famous confession of Jesus’ identity. This verse somehow summarized the whole theme of the pericopé.
In stage II of gospel formation, we presume that the function of Matthew 16:13-20 reflects the sentiments of the Jewish-Christian community of the messianic fulfillment in Jesus. This Jewish-Christian Community still holds to that believed that Jesus was really the “Messiah” the Son of the Living God and this must how it was circulated in the Jewish-Christian community. When Matthew wrote his gospel, his Jewish background may have greatly influenced him, being a Jew himself. It may also present the community perception on the leadership or headship of Peter, as the “rock” foundation of Jesus’ church.
This pericopé, present also in Mark and Luke may take a historical footing by multiple attestations. However, since Matthew’s version is longer, we can say that, Matthean addition may not be historical otherwise. Somehow, what we can say that really belongs to stage 1 of gospel formation is that for sometime Jesus did went all alone with his disciples in a secluded place (Luke did not mention Ceasarea Philippi) and had a discourse with them about his identity and that Peter rightly acknowledged him as the Messiah.
In the life situation of Jesus, we can see that, basing on Matthean texts, after his public ministry, preaching, healings, and other works of miracles, the time has already come to foretell his impending death and suffering (vv. 21-28) and in between, we have Jesus asking his disciples, that after all the things he has done, who do people say he is! And also he asked them of who is he for them. And we can read here that it was Peter who was able to understand that he was the Messiah. Perhaps, Peter’s response comes from his deep reflection of his witnessing to the life and ministry of Jesus.
In the oral transmission of this gospel narrative, we believe that the story that circulates at that time may have been similar to the version of Mark (i.e. Matthew 16:13-16). We stipulate, however, that the additions and/or changes found in Matthew 16:13-16 vs. Mk 8:27-30, i.e. from the “I am” to “Son of Man” in v. 13 of Matthew, the addition of Jeremiah in v. 14 and “Son of the Living God” in verse 16, may have develop in the oral transmission of this story, reflecting the very attitude of a Jewish-Christian community.
We know that vv. 17-19 cannot be found in the parallel gospel of Mark and Luke; but was believed to had been placed by Matthew, probably out of an earlier source, to provide a story foundation for the post-Easter Authority and leadership of Peter in the Church (NJBC 42:105). However, we may also believe that one probable reason why Matthew inserted these verses was that this was already in the sentiment of the Jewish-Christian community. They were aware of Peter’s identification of Jesus as the Messiah and they also see him as the leader of the Church (NJBC 42:105). With this it might be probable that Jesus identification of Peter as the “rock” foundation of his Church was not purely an invention of the author of Matthew but somehow already existed in the oral transmission of this story that in some way was pick up by the writer of Matthean Gospel. With this we can say that Matthew 16:13-20 is a product of the merging between the oral tradition that circulates in the Jewish-Christian community and that of stage 3 in the gospel formation wherein the author received his many influence.
Verse by verse summary
In verse 13, Jesus is asking his disciples what the people think of him. Verse 14 shows that people identified Jesus as a prophet. In verse 15, Jesus is asking again his disciples their own understanding of his identity. In verse 16, Peter makes his confession. In verse 17, Jesus recognizes it as the Father’s revelation to Peter. While in verse 18, he identifies Peter as the rock foundation of the church. Hence, in verse 19, he bestows upon Peter the authority over His church. Finally, in verse 20, he orders his disciples to be silent
As a conclusion, it is deduced that the main point of this pericopé is Peter’s identification of Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the Living God, as revealed by the Father and in turn Jesus’ identification of Peter as the Rock foundation of His church.
Delimitation of the text
We consider Matthew 16,13-20 to be a single pericopé because of stylistic and dramatic considerations. We use these criteria for it is both narrative and doctrinal. This pericopé belongs to chapter 16, which is comprised of 5 pericopés, wherein three different locations were mentioned. The verse preceding the first pericopé (Mat.15, 39) states that Jesus came (ηλθεν) into Magadan (Magdala). Next would be Jesus and his disciples (vv.5-12) coming (ελθοντες) to the other side of the lake. Then, Mat. 16:13 begins with Jesus and his disciples coming into (ελθων είς) the area of Ceasarea Philippi. However, we noticed that in verses 21-28, Matthew neither indicated any change in location nor in time only until the chapter 17 (scene of the transfiguration), leading to an inference that the verses 13-28 happened in the said area of Ceasarea Philippi.
Another criterion would be the lexical clue, wherein we can see it in Jesus’ manner of questioning and the answers given by his disciples. Jesus used the verb είναι (to be) and also the use of συ ει (you are) by Him and Peter. Both appeared twice in the pericopé, είναι in vv. 14, 16, and συ ει in vv. 16, 18. These lexical clues lead us to a thematic conclusion that Jesus is inquiring his disciples about his identity. In answer to his first question, His disciples gave different names he is identified with by the people, and on the second question, Peter identified Him as the Messiah (χριστος), the Son of the Living God where in reply, he also identified Peter as the Rock (πετρα) foundation of the Church. We know that vv. 17-19 cannot be found in the parallel gospel of Mark and Luke; but was believed to had been place by Matthew, probably out of an earlier source, to provide a story foundation for the post-Easter Authority and leadership of Peter in the Church (NJBC 42:105) The identification by Peter of Jesus and vice versa vividly expresses the theme. Also, we notice that the characters involve in this pericopé are Jesus and his disciples and there were no mention of other personages or change in characters in the story. Lastly, in verse 20, “Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.” Matthew sums up this main revelation. With Jesus ordering his disciples to be silent about his Messiahship, it assumes that this is the end of the subject matter, where it also ends the pericopé. We therefore assert that Matthew 16:13-20 can stand on its own.
Peter the Rock
MATTHEW 16: 13-20 8(from the New American Bible)
13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi
9 he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist,
10 others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16
11Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood
12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,
13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
20
15 Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.
______________________________________
8 [13-20] The Marcan confession of Jesus as Messiah, made by Peter as spokesman for the other disciples (Matthew 8:27-29; cf also Luke 9:18-20), is modified significantly here. The confession is of Jesus both as Messiah and as Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16). Jesus' response, drawn principally from material peculiar to Matthew, attributes the confession to a divine revelation granted to Peter alone (Matthew 16:17) and makes him the rock on which Jesus will build his church (Matthew 16:18) and the disciple whose authority in the church on earth will be confirmed in heaven, i.e., by God (Matthew 16:19).
9[13] Caesarea Philippi: situated about twenty miles north of the Sea of Galilee in the territory ruled by Philip, a son of Herod the Great, tetrarch from 4 B.C. until his death in A.D. 34 (see the note on Matthew 14:1). He rebuilt the town of Paneas, naming it Caesarea in honor of the emperor, and Philippi ("of Philip") to distinguish it from the seaport in Samaria that was also called Caesarea. Who do people say that the Son of Man is?: although the question differs from the Marcan parallel (Mark 8:27: "Who . . . that I am?"), the meaning is the same, for Jesus here refers to himself as the Son of Man (cf Matthew 16:15).
10 John the Baptist: see Matthew 14:2. Elijah: cf Malachi 4:1; Sirach 48:10; and see the note on Matthew 3:4. Jeremiah: an addition of Matthew to the Marcan source.
11 The Son of the living God: see Matthew 2:15; 3:17. The addition of this exalted title to the Marcan confession eliminates whatever ambiguity was attached to the title Messiah. This, among other things, supports the view proposed by many scholars that Matthew has here combined his source's confession with a post-resurrectional confession of faith in Jesus as Son of the living God that belonged to the appearance of the risen Jesus to Peter; cf 1 Cor 15:5; Luke 24:34.
12 Flesh and blood: a Semitic expression for human beings, especially in their weakness. Has not revealed this . . . but my heavenly Father: that Peter's faith is spoken of as coming not through human means but through a revelation from God is similar to Paul's description of his recognition of who Jesus was; see Gal 1:15-16, ". . . when he [God] . . . was pleased to reveal his Son to me. . . ."
13 You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church: the Aramaic word kepa - meaning rock and transliterated into Greek as Kephas is the name by which Peter is called in the Pauline letters (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:4; Gal 1:18; 2:9,11,14) except in Gal 2:7-8 ("Peter"). It is translated as Petros ("Peter") in John 1:42. The presumed original Aramaic of Jesus' statement would have been, in English, "You are the Rock (Kepa) and upon this rock (kepa) I will build my church." The Greek text probably means the same, for the difference in gender between the masculine noun petros, the disciple's new name, and the feminine noun petra (rock) may be due simply to the unsuitability of using a feminine noun as the proper name of a male. Although the two words were generally used with slightly different nuances, they were also used interchangeably with the same meaning, "rock." Church: this word (Greek ekklesia) occurs in the gospels only here and in Matthew 18:17 (twice). There are several possibilities for an Aramaic original. Jesus' church means the community that he will gather and that, like a building, will have Peter as its solid foundation. That function of Peter consists in his being witness to Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the living God. The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it: the netherworld (Greek Hades, the abode of the dead) is conceived of as a walled city whose gates will not close in upon the church of Jesus, i.e., it will not be overcome by the power of death.
14 The keys to the kingdom of heaven: the image of the keys is probably drawn from Isaiah 22:15-25 where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given "the key of the house of David," which he authoritatively "opens" and "shuts" (Isaiah 22:22). Whatever you bind . . . loosed in heaven: there are many instances in rabbinic literature of the binding-loosing imagery. Of the several meanings given there to the metaphor, two are of special importance here: the giving of authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of excommunication. It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. In Matthew 18:18 all the disciples are given the power of binding and loosing, but the context of that verse suggests that there the power of excommunication alone is intended. That the keys are those to the kingdom of heaven and that Peter's exercise of authority in the church on earth will be confirmed in heaven show an intimate connection between, but not an identification of, the church and the kingdom of heaven.
15 Cf Mark 8:30. Matthew makes explicit that the prohibition has to do with speaking of Jesus as the Messiah; see the note on Mark 8:27-30.
