Proper 16, Year A
Exodus 1:8-2:10
Psalm 124
or
Isaiah 51:1-6
Psalm 138
Romans 12:1-8
Matthew 16:13-20
Matthew 16:13-20
For this week, I won’t be able to give a complete
analysis and preaching commentary, so instead I’ve shared a few reflections of
my own and commentaries from others on particular words and phrases which are
key to the passage (“Rock,” “Messiah,” Keys to the Kingdom,” etc.). I hope it
will be helpful.
As a general starting point, the Gospel reading for
today is joined at the hip with the one that follows next Sunday. If you tend
to bounce around in your selections from the Lectionary, you probably shouldn’t
do that for the next two weeks. This week, Jesus asks his disciples who the
person on the street believes him to be, and Peter (after some prodding) says
you are the Christ (and Jesus comments on that). Next week, Jesus goes on to
say that he (the “Son of Man” in Luke and Mark) must go to Jerusalem, suffer,
die, and be raised. Those two conversations are thematically and homiletically
connected and should be held close in your preaching.
Let’s start
with the place: “Caesarea Philippi”
“Although
Luke seems uninterested in locating this event, both mark and Matthew place it
at Caesarea Philippi, twenty miles north of the Sea of Galilee on the slopes of
Mt. Hermon. Formerly known as Paneas, an
ancient Greek worship center. The area was now a part of the tetrarchy of
Philip, one of Herod’s sons. Philip named the place for Tiberas, and it became
known as Philip’s Caesarea to distinguish it from the Caesarea on the
Mediteranean that Herod had built, or rather rebuilt, to honor Caesar Augustus.
The population was mostly Gentile.”[1]
On the
Questions that Jesus asks:
“This need to know Jesus’ identity is aimed at
knowing where Jesus comes from and what his family of origin is, so as to place
him in the honor scale of the times. If he is the son of a carpenter from Nazareth
of Galilee then his power and status will be limited, but if he is the Messiah,
the Son of the living God as Peter identifies him in v. 16, then he has all the
power and honor necessary to justify his behavior. This tradition may be
suggesting the church’s struggle for Christological definition in a time when
the society around it was perhaps questioning such claims.”[2]
On Peter’s
response:
“Matthew’s
version of Peter’s confession combines the title ‘Son of God,’ used earlier at
14:33 and “Messiah,” used here for the first time. This elaboration of the
confession beyond that of both Mark and Luke probably reflects the Christology
of Matthew’s church.”[3]
(More
on this below.)
On Peter and “the
Rock”
This is going to be more lengthy, because it has a
lot of history and there have been a lot of people, for centuries, who have
been weighing in on the meaning of Peter and the rock.
The key to the significance of Simon Peter in the
New Testament and throughout history is tied to this episode. That’s
interesting, because it is found only here in Matthew and nowhere in the other
Gospels. The critical piece is verse 18, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my
church…” There
have been many interpretations of this down through history. Here are three:
(1) It refers to Peter as the “rock” or first bishop of the church. This
was the Roman Catholic interpretation from the third century on and was
employed as a proof text for apostolic succession, but it is not hinted at
anywhere in the context or even in the epistles: it was not a first-century concept.
(2) The majority of Protestants since the Reformation have taken this to
be a reference to the faith statement
of Peter, not to the self of Peter.
This is more likely, but not without its own problems. It neglects the
wordplay, which is even more pronounced in Aramaic, which has only one form for
“Cephas” (rock).
(3) An alternative has been to take “this rock” as a reference to Jesus
himself, but to me, that’s a bit fanciful and I can’t see any evidence for that
in the context.
It is clear that in the hands of Matthew the Gospel
writer, Peter is not portrayed as just an individual, but as a stand-in for the
entire Christian community. He represents the Hebrew concept of a “corporate
identity” in which the leader was identified with the corporate body (e.g., the
king or high priest representing the nation before God). This is still in
keeping with the Catholic notion of the Pope representing the entire body of
Christ, the biblical concept is more equalized. In Matthew 18:18-20, Jesus passes
on the same authority to the church that is here given to Peter. In this view
Peter--as the rock--becomes the first of the building blocks upon which Christ,
the chief cornerstone (to continue the metaphor), will build his church (see
Eph. 2:19-20).[4]
I would recommend for protestant preachers today
that they at least share the two basic divisions in interpretation (numbers one
and two above) even though there are problems with both, because today, the average
Protestant knows only the Catholic
interpretation and doesn’t any longer recall the four-hundred-year Protest
alternative. Who knows which (if either) is correct, but it’s good for the
average pew sitter to know the options.
“Gates of
Hell”
Verse 18 says, “the gates of
hell shall not prevail against it.” The “gates of hell” was a common Jewish
euphemism for death’s inevitable and irrevocable power. Jesus is saying that
Satan will not be triumphant over the church, and his sphere of operations,
death, will be defeated (cf. 1 Cor. 15:26, 54-55). The church would undergo
persecution and martyrdom, but the church would be triumphant.
“Keys of the
Kingdom”
Verse 19 promises, “I will
give you [singular] the keys of the kingdom,” which is another phrase frequently
used of apostolic succession by the medieval church (each Pope inherits the
“keys to the Kingdom”). But again, this may be a statement made to Peter, but
intended for the entire church, and
not just Peter. Peter carries a corporate identity for the whole church in Matthew.
He is the central figure (even with faults) in the early church and he embodies
that community in his leadership.
Who do people
say…?
There’s an odd difference between the way that this
story is framed in Mark and in Matthew. In Mark’s version (8:29)
Jesus asks them
“who do people say that I am?” But here in Matthew, he asks, “Who do people say
the Son of Man is?” In Mark’s gospel,
this is the first time that anyone human (other than the reader) has referred
to Jesus with any kind of Christological title. So, it is a breakthrough just
to get the words out. Mark (therefore?) adds nothing to the name after the
pronouncement. No commentary or explanation follows. In Matthew’s Gospel, on
the other hand, the disciples have heard Jesus refer to himself with
Christological titles already, and have even themselves once called him the
“Son of God” (v. 14:33). So for Matthew’s readers the title is not the important thing here; is the interpretation of the title, which follows and gets deep into a
theological Christological thicket. Matthew’s emphasis “is
not on the identity of Jesus but on the formation of the church: it is the
confession of faith in Jesus as messianic representative of God’s kingdom that
separates the new community Jesus is forming from those who oppose and reject
it….”[5]
“Messiah”
“The phrase occurs only in
Jesus’ own sayings and always with reference to himself. In each of the gospels
it is his most common self-designation. It is found in all the strata and
sources of the Gospel tradition. ‘Son of…’ is a Semitic way of saying ‘belonging
to the category of…’ ‘Man’ is the generic collective, ‘humanity.’ ‘Son of Man’
thus means, ‘belonging to the category “human being,” member of the human race.’
The phrase was originally a Hebraic way of referring to a human being, usually
in contrast to God, i.e., a ‘mortal’…Daniel 7:13 is a key passage in the
development of New Testament usage…”[6]
v19
“Loosed” “Bound” (Findlayson[7])
The intended meaning of this saying is allusive.
Carson nicely summarizes the 5 problems areas:
i] What is the translation of the two periphrastic
constructions formed by the future verb to-be and the perfect passive
participle, “will be bound” and “will be loosed”, NIV?
ii] Does o}, “whatever”, refer to
things or people?
iii] What do the subjective verbs dysh/V,
“bind”, and lush/V, “loose”, actually mean?
iv] “Does this promise apply to Peter only, to the
apostolic band, or to the church at large?”
v] “How is the contrast between heaven and earth to
be understood?” We probably need to add a sixth question: for what purpose is
Peter to use the keys?
[1] Fred Craddock, Preaching Through the Christian Year A,
p. 417.
[2] Osvaldo D. Vena, Lectionary Homiletics, Vol. XIX, Number
5, p. 33.
[4] This paragraph has been
adapted from a now-unknown source.
[7] Brian
Findlayson, http://www.lectionarystudies.com/studyg/studyn/sunday21agn.html
-------------------------------------------------
Detailed exegesis and translation notes
Matthew 16:13-28
(Mark 8:27-33; Luke 9:18-22)
-------------------------------------------------
Detailed exegesis and translation notes
Matthew 16:13-28
(Mark 8:27-33; Luke 9:18-22)
13 Now when Jesus came into the
district[1] of Caesarea Philippi,[2] he asked his disciples, “Who
do people say that the Son of Man[3] is?”[4]
14 And they said, “Some say
John the Baptist, but others Elijah,[5] and still others Jeremiah[6] or one of the prophets.”
17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed[10] are you, Simon son of
Jonah![11] For flesh and blood[12] has not revealed this to
you, but my Father in heaven.
18 And I tell you, you are
Peter,[13] and on this rock[14] I will build my church,[15] and the gates[16] of Hades[17] will not prevail against it.[18] 19 I will give
you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,[19] and whatever you bind[20] on earth will be bound in
heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”[21] 20 Then he
sternly ordered[22] the disciples not to tell
anyone that he was the Messiah.[23]
[1] “The district” (méros), neut. noun. A part or region of something (John 21:6). Sometimes “Coast”
(Matt 15:21; Matt 16:13; Acts 19:1).
[2] “Caesarea Philippi” A city
in N Palestine, about twenty miles from the Sea of Galilee, on the S slopes of
Mt. Hermon, near the primary source of the Jordan River. An ancient site of
Baal worship by the Canaanites. With the coming of the Greeks, it became a cult
center for the god Pan, and the city became known as “Paneas.” Augustus Caesar
gave the town to Herod the Great, who built a temple there dedicated to the
Roman emperor. Herod’s son, Philip the tetrarch, renamed the city Caesarea
Philippi. It is now known as Banias. Possibly the same as Baal Gad. Matt 16:13;
Mark 8:27. Given its multi-ethnic/religious history, it is a very interesting
choice for Jesus’ theological discussion of who he is. “After the fall of Jerusalem,
Titus and his troops returned to Caesarea, where Josephus reports he had some
of the Jewish captives thrown to wild animals. (The Jewish War 3.9.7.,
44-44; 7.2.1. 23-24). Matthew’s preservation of this location (dropped by Luke)
may be only incidental, but since he did omit Mark’s setting on the road,
Matthew may have wished to emphasize that the significant scene took place in a
setting with older nationalistic and religious associations, Jewish and pagan.
He brings the scene of Jesus’ confession as the Jewish Messiah into the shadow
of a Caesar temple, where the Roman destroyers of Jerusalem had celebrated
their victory, a revered site long associated with both pagan and Jewish
revelatory events (cf. 1 Enoch 12-16)” (Eugene Boring [Matthew, New
Interpreter’s Bible], p. 342).
[3] “Son of Man” (huion tou anthrōpou).
Matthew differs from both Mark and Luke who have “who I am?” (See comments below
for Boring and Craddock on meaning of Son of Man.) This is the first time that
Jesus (whether by himself or through or Matthew, the writer) is directly identified
with the SoM. Mark doesn’t do it until much later in his Gospel (Mark 8:31).
The title (or role) of SoM comes from Daniel 7; 1 Enoch 14, and 4 Ezra, and was
not widely understood as a messianic title in Jesus’ day. In Mark it meant both
an earthly Son of man (the words can
equally be translated “child of humanity”) and an apocalyptic son of man. “As the earthly Son of Man, Jesus has
authority over the institution of the Sabbath, and the power to forgive sins…As
the apocalyptic Son of Man, Jesus is the final judge. In V. 13, Matt. Is
identifying Jesus as the earthly Son of Man” (Osvaldo D. Vena, Lectionary Homiletics, Vol. XIX, Number 5, p. 33.
[4] “That the Son of Man is.”
Some manuscripts have “That I the Son
of Man is.” The word “I” was apparently added from the parallel passages in
Mark 8:27 and Luke 9:18. Here in Matthew the manuscripts that include it have
it in different places. Metzger notes that “Both the variety of positions of με
in the witnesses that include it and the fact that in the parallel passages the
word is firm indicate that it was originally absent from Matthew’s account”
(United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,
Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New
Testament [4th Rev. Ed.], 34 [London; New York: United Bible Societies,
1994], p. 34).
[6] Jeremiah is the one name not found in the parallel versions of Luke
and Mark. “Perhaps it is due to Matthew’s treatment of Jeremiah as an important
prophet of Israel as suggested by the other two references to him in 2:17 and
27:9” (Osvaldo D. Vena, Lectionary Homiletics, Vol. XIX, Number 5, p. 33).
[7] “But who do you say that I
am?” (hūmeis de tina me legete einai) Note that the conjunction
(but) is adversative and the personal pronoun (“you”) is emphatic. “But you, who do you say that I am?” Note too
that this construction is exactly the same in all three of the synoptics. “[W]hich
shows that the question was so important in the oral tradition that it needed
to be passed on without any modification” (Osvaldo D. Vena, Lectionary Homiletics, Vol. XIX, Number
5, p. 33).
[8] “The Messiah” ()
Literally, “the Christ.” When used with the article the meaning is messiah, the
anointed one, the coming one, as promised in the Old Testament.
[9] “Son of the living God.” A
Jewish concept in contrast to the non living idols which Matthew’s community
assumed to be common in the region (see note above on “Caesarea Philippi”).
[10] “Blessed” (makários), vb. neut. fem. Possibly “happy”,
“fortunate”, but more spiritual, “favored.”
[11] “Son
of Jonah” (bar-Jona). “This is the
only reference to Peter’s full name. Possibly a shortened version of Johanan =
John, Jn.1:42. Possibly also, “someone like Jonah” (Bryan Findlayson,
http://www.lectionarystudies.com). C.f., John 1:42 He brought Simon to Jesus, who
looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Cephas”
(which is translated Peter).
[12] “Flesh and blood” (sarx kai haima) “by
humans.” “Flesh and blood” was a common expression in first Century palestine
meaning “human being.” The disciples did not come to this understanding by
means of the instruction of a “mortal.” “Peter is not blessed because of a
personal attainment of insight he has achieved. Knowledge of Jesus’ saving role
comes by divine revelation, as gift, not attainment. In this, Peter is
representative of Christian faith generally (see Matt. 11:25; 1 Cor. 12:3).
[13] “You
are Peter” (sy eimi Petros).
Possibly giving Peter a special name, but more likely identifying Peter as the
person who has just made this significant statement of faith. Note that “Simon”
(vv 16 and 17) is an Aramaic name, but “Peter” is a Greek name (or at least a
Greek word [petros=rock]).
[14] “Rock” (petra) fem. dat. of the
same word as Petros; a (mass of)
rock, as opposed to smaller stone or piece of rock. “As a name, Petrus, usually refers to a
large stone, even a large hewn stone. Certainly, not a rock that can be thrown.
The meaning of this image is unclear. Is the “rock” Peter, the confession of faith,
or the content of the confession? Roman
Catholic teaching is that Peter is the rock and that Peter’s successors (the
Popes) therefore possess infallibility on matters of religion and exclusive
authority over the church. Protestants have tended to see the “rock” as the confession of Peter, not Peter himself.
The trouble is the text does say “‘on this rock,’ in the Greek is rendered ‘on
this petra,’ and the immediate context
has identified Peter as petros. But
the play on words is only understandable in Aramaic, which has the same word
for Peter (kephas) and rock (kephas)…therefore it is not clear what
Jesus really meant by this affirmation” (Osvaldo D. Vena, Lectionary
Homiletics, Vol. XIX, Number 5, p. 34). Jesus is probably saying
that Peter is the first among equals (though not superior) to the other apostles,
and upon his confession of faith,
Jesus will build his church. That is, Christ’s last-days community (“church”,
literally “assembly”) will be built (gathered-in and prepared for reign in
eternity) as others join with Peter in the acceptance of Jesus as messiah (the
anointed one sent by God to establish his eternal Kingdom).” (Findlayson)
[15] “Church” (ekklēsian)
from ék out, and kaléo, to call or summon. “This
is the first occurrence of this word in the New Testament. Originally an
assembly of citizens, regularly summoned. So in New Testament, Acts 19:39.
The Septuagint uses the word for the congregation of Israel, either as summoned
for a definite purpose (1 Kings 8:65), or for the community of Israel
collectively, regarded as a congregation (Genesis 28:3), where assembly is
given for multitude in margin” (Vincent). “Matthew means by ‘church’ the
renewed people of God constituted by the disciples of Jesus, the heir and
continuation of imperial Israel that has forfeited its standing and role
(21:43). This does not mean Matthew considered the church a replacement for
Israel, but a special community of the new covenant within or alongside empirical
Israel” (Boring and Craddock, p. 70). The only other place where Matthew has ekklesia is in 18:15-20.
[16] “Gates” (πύλη, pulē). In the Old Testament the
phrase “the gates of Hades” refers to death, Job.17:16, Isa.38:10 etc. When
related to the assembled community of believers, built by Jesus the messiah, it
probably means that the church will not fade away in the passing of time, as
have other religions. Jesus may also be saying that the church will stand
against the powers of darkness. Satan and his crew (“gates” - the fortress of
evil) may attack the rock-fortress of the church, but will not succeed in their
assault. (Brian Findlayson,
http://www.lectionarystudies.com/studyg/studyn/sunday21agn.html) “The meaning
is that the realm of the dead, which no human being can conquer, is
nevertheless not stronger than the church founded on the Rock, and the church
will always endure to the end of history, because accompanied by its Lord
(28:20)” (Boring and Craddock, p. 70).
[17] “Hades.” In the OT, Hades
was known as Sheol. It is the place where the unrighteous will reside
(Matt 11:23; Luke 16:23; Rev 20:13-14). Some translations render this by its
modern equivalent, “hell”; others see it as a reference to the power of death. the
underworld. “A conservative translation of the word would be “death.” Thus “death”
will not overcome the church - it won’t die out. Still, Matthew may have in
mind powers of darkness, satanic powers” (Bryan Findlayson,
http://www.lectionarystudies.com).
[18] “Gates of Hades” The KJV has
“gates of hell.” RSV: “Gates of death.” The unseen world; most likely meaning
in this context, the gates of Death; in other words, “It shall never perish.”
Some explain it as “the assaults of the powers of darkness”; but probably the
former is the sense here.
[19] “Keys of the kingdom of
heaven.” Note that nowhere in the NT is there the vestige of any authority
either claimed or exercised by Peter, or conceded to him, above the rest of the
apostles.
[20] “You
bind” (δήσῃς), aor. subj. More like, “You may have bound.” A Jewish technical
term meaning “forbid” (loose = permit) = hindered or restricted (Findlayson). “The
imagery of binding and loosing has to do with the judgment and forgiveness of
sins, or acceptance and excommunication from the community (see 18:15-20 where
it is the whole community and not only Peter)” Vena, Lectionary
Homiletics, p. 34).
[21] “Loosed in Heaven” Cf. John
20:23 “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain
the sins of any, they are retained”; Matt. 18:18 “Truly I tell you, whatever
you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will
be loosed in heaven.” The binding and loosing is exercised for the admission to
and/or rejection from membership in the church. “The language of binding and
loosing is rabbinic terminology for authoritative teaching, for having the
authority to interpret the Torah and apply it to particular cases, declaring
what is permitted and what is not permitted” (Boring and Craddock, p. 70). These
powers Christ now transferred, and that not in their pretension, but in their
reality, to his apostles; the first, here, to
Peter, as their representative, the second, after his resurrection, to
the church (John 20:23, Edersheim). “This legislative authority conferred upon Peter can only wear
an offensive aspect when it is conceived of as possessing an arbitrary
character, and as being in no way determined
by the ethical influences of the Holy Spirit, and when it is regarded as being
of an absolute nature, as independent of
any connection with the rest of the apostles. Since the power of binding and
loosing, which is here conferred upon
Peter, is ascribed (Matthew 18:18) to the apostles generally, the power
conferred upon the former is set in its
proper light, and shown to be of necessity a power of a collegiate
nature, so that Peter is not to be regarded as exclusively endowed with it, either in whole or in part,
but is simply to be looked upon as first among his equals” (Meyer on Matthew
16:19; 18:18)” (Robertson, Word Pictures
in the Greek New Testament).
[22] “Sternly ordered” (diastellomai) aor. mid. “He warned”
- he gave orders. “Gave ... strict orders”, REB. Matthew is appropriating the
Messianic secret from Mark, his source here. The notion of secrecy about who he
is is seldom found in Matthew unless he is following Mark.
[23] Some mss. have Ἰησοῦς here, either before ὁ Χριστός (“Jesus the Christ”) or after ὁ Χριστός (“Christ
Jesus”). Most translations today leave it out. The reason, as Metzger puts it
is that “since others knew and acknowledged Jesus’ personal name, it would have
been useless to deny or affirm that he was Jesus; the point under discussion
was whether he was the Messiah (ὁ
Χριστός).” (Metzger,
Textual Commentary on the Greek New
Testament), p. 34.
