Matthew 16:13-20

Who Do You Say I Am?

Matthew 16:13-20     Peter Professes His Faith in Jesus

(Mk 8:27-30; Lk 9:18-20)

Matthew relied heavily on the narrative of Mark, but with differences.  Since the initial appearance of Mark’s Gospel, Christian communities were beginning to ask new questions and to face an ever-changing future.  Matthew reinterpreted the tradition – and added further elucidation – to make clear its relevance to his own day.

Like Mark, Matthew would situate the following incident in an area north of the Sea of Galilee, close to the city of Caesarea Philippi, recently constructed near the source of the Jordan River.  The district had formerly belonged to the Northern Kingdom of Israel.  It was a very ancient religious site, which, at the time of Jesus, honoured the pagan god Pan.  The district was predominantly Gentile, though some Jewish settlers would have lived and worked there.  Politically, the district was out of the Galilean territory ruled by Herod Antipas, and was governed by Herod Philip.  The influence of the Jewish Sanhedrin did not extend into that district.

Perhaps, after his confrontation with Pharisees and Sadducees, Jesus felt that it was safer to withdraw to neutral territory.  Ministry in Galilee had become increasingly difficult, and even dangerous – though he would return there briefly before making his journey southwards towards Jerusalem.  In some ways, the time had become a time of crisis, a time for taking stock and for adopting new tactics.

13 Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi.  
He was asking his disciples,
“Who are people saying the Son of Man is?”?” 

In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus’ question was more personal and referred immediately to his own status: “Who do people say I am?”  Matthew’s question was more theological.  Already, Jesus had identified himself as the Son of Man.  He wished to tease out further the implications of the title.

14 They answered, “Some John the Baptist,
others Elijah,
still others Jeremiah,
or one of the prophets.”

Earlier in the narrative, Herod had stated his belief that Jesus was the Baptist returned to life [14:2].  Elijah was widely expected to return to earth before the advent of the Day of the Lord.  Later, Jesus would identify John the Baptist as “Elijah” [17:12].  The names were ominous: John the Baptist had been killed by Herod; Elijah faced fierce opposition from Jezebel and her husband Ahab; Jeremiah was ridiculed and imprisoned and, according to tradition, martyred.

15 Jesus said to them, “You, who do you say I am?”  
16 Simon Peter answered him and said,
“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Peter called Jesus not only the Christ [Messiah], but also the Son of the living God.  The title Christ had occurred frequently in Matthew’s infancy narrative, but no one, so far in the narrative of Jesus’ adult life, had applied the title to Jesus (except Matthew himself [11:2]).  The Gadarene demoniacs had challenged Jesus as Son of God [8:29].  More particularly, all the disciples in the boat, after Jesus had walked on the water and Peter had nearly drowned, “fell down worshipping him, and saying, ‘You really are son of God’.” [14:33]. Peter connected all three titles: Son of Man, Christ [Messiah], and Son of God.

As Matthew told the story of Jesus’ baptism, the voice from heaven proclaimed, publicly, that Jesus was my Son, the beloved. In him I am well pleased.  The voice was heard by John and, presumably, by any nearby disciples of John.  Whether the story had circulated, and whether Peter had ever heard it, is unknown.  The title may have originated in Peter’s own questioning mind.

17 In answer Jesus said to him, “You are blessed, Simon Bar Jonah,
because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you
but my Father in the heavens.

Following Mark’s lead, Matthew had placed Peter’s comment right at the centre of his narrative.  But he reworked it so as to make it the theological highpoint of his Gospel.  (Peter’s words were right; though the disciples were yet to discover their deeper significance.)

In Mark’s Gospel [Mark 8:29], Peter had proclaimed Jesus to be simply the Messiah; and his answer met with an immediately ambivalent reception from Jesus.  (Mark had his own reasons for understating the fact of Jesus’ being Messiah).  Matthew had Jesus confirm Peter’s comment by stating that his insight was not mere human deduction but the fruit of direct inspiration from God.

18 Now I say to you, You are Peter,
and on this rock I shall build my Church.  
The gates of Hades shall not be strong enough against it.

Matthew’s is the only Gospel to have these words, though their connotations of Peter’s special role and status have echoes elsewhere in the Gospels, particularly in those of Luke and John.

Earlier in his Gospel [10:2], Matthew had made the point that Simon was known also as Peter, though he gave no hint as to when or how he had acquired the extra name.  The connection is not immediately obvious in the English language: in many other languages, the name Peter means rock.

The word translated as Church comes from a Greek word, which means literally, “called out” (and, by extension, “chosen”).  It often referred to a group of people especially chosen and gathered for a common purpose.  Its meaning was not all that different from the word “synagogue”, which meant “brought together” for a common purpose.  Clearly, however, Matthew wished to distinguish the Church from the Synagogue. 

This was the first of only two times that the word Church would occur in any of the Gospels, and the other occasion would similarly be in Matthew’s Gospel [18:18].

Hades was the Greek underworld, the abode of the dead, and particularly the abode of demons.  Gates were obviously the points of entry into towns and cities.  They were the city’s static defensive fortifications against intruders and enemies.

Jesus made the point that Peter was personally the firm foundation (the rock) of the Christian community – not just Peter’s faith, but the individual person named Peter.  The image of the Christian community as a building was common in early Christian literature, and had been used effectively by Paul.  (No sense of a literal building was ever intended!)

Jesus called the Church my Church – not the Father’s, but his.  As he had called the first disciples, he would continue to call others into his community.

The defensive fortifications (the power of death and the demonic world) – the gates of Hades – would not withstand the power of the Kingdom of God present in Jesus’ Church.  Whilst the image is an aggressive image, Jesus had made clear that his power would be exercised through his non-violent love. Others have interpreted the phrase as meaning that the belligerent power of death and the demonic would not be able to overcome the Church.  The first interpretation is preferable: Jesus, present in his Church, would overcome death and the demonic.

19 I shall give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens.

In the mindset of the time, the one with the keys was the one who exercised power within a community, either a kingdom or a palace (or even the patriarch of every family in his home).

Jesus accordingly spoke directly of Peter’s role within this community.  He would exercise the power of the key-bearer.  Already, Jewish literature had made explicit reference to the key-bearer as the master of King Hezekiah’s household.  Speaking through Isaiah, God spoke thus:

On that day I will call my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah...
...I will commit your authority to his hand
and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem
and to the house of Judah. 
I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; 
he shall open, and no one shall shut;
he shall shut, and no one shall open. [Isaiah 22:20-22]

Beyond the broad reference to authority within the household, and the responsibility to open and to shut, nothing more explicit was said.  Following his recent warning that the disciples beware the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees [16:6,12], Jesus foreshadowed the transfer of authority within Israel from the current leaders to Peter.

Within Christ’s Church, Peter would have authority, and the right to open and to shut.  In the Hebrew mind, references to opposite poles – opening and shutting – were not taken literally but referred, rather, to everything in between.  So Peter had a broad, but quite undefined, responsibility.  Later, Jesus would criticise the misuse of a similar responsibility by scribes and Pharisees [23:13].

… Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in the heavens,
and whatever you unloose on earth will be unloosed in the heavens.”

The point, just made in Isaiah’s prophecy, about opening and shutting applied equally to Jesus’ use of binding and loosing.  Jesus was not referring to literal binding and loosing but to a general, unspecified authority.  The same authority to bind and to loose would be conferred later in the narrative to the disciples in general, where at least one application of the terms would become clearer [18:18].

20 Then he charged his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

Jesus’ reason for imposing silence was because he would have more to say about the implications of the title.


Peter in the Church

Since the conclusion of Jesus’ discourse on the parables, Matthew had deliberately included many references to disciples, highlighting their presence, their deeds and their comments.

He had explicitly included in his narrative two references to Peter that were not included in other sources, either Mark’s Gospel or the source that Matthew shared with Luke.  These were the stories of Peter’s challenge to Jesus to bid him walk on water, and Jesus’ remarkable response to Peter’s confession.   They were stories already circulating in Matthew’s community or deliberately added by Matthew himself.  

Peter’s little faith was not a failing of Peter alone.  The criticism was made equally of the other disciples.  Peter’s authority to bind and to loose likewise would be shared, later in the narrative, by other disciples.

However, the role of rock foundation for Jesus’ Church and that of key-bearer of the Kingdom were special to Peter.  Jesus did not clarify his intent in using such terms, but they obviously meant something.

What may have been Matthew’s motivation for writing that way?

The Christian community had grown in size over the twenty years since Mark had written his Gospel.  It had encountered problems not foreseen by Mark.  These problems arose from within the community itself, as well as from pressures generated by the local synagogue(s) and the general imperial bureaucracy under which they lived.

Matthew had an obvious concern about teaching.  It was important for him to emphasise the presence of the disciples whenever Jesus taught.

In the narrative of the Gospel, the disciples represented the community as a whole: what Jesus said to them he said to the community.  Yet, sometimes, in Matthew’s mind, disciples, as individuals, and Peter, particularly, had special roles within the broader community.  

Perhaps Matthew and his community were beginning to recognise the importance of organisation and the clear exercise of authority.  Roles and responsibilities needed to be clarified.

The responsibilities of the original disciples –  witnesses to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus – and the special place and responsibility of Peter among them, needed to be replicated in some way in the continuing community.  What those responsibilities were, and how they would be carried out, would be one facet of the ongoing work of Jesus alive and present within the community until the end of the age [28:20]. 


Next >> Matthew 16:21-28