Interpreting Matthew 16:13-20...Correctly

 

Introduction 

Biblical interpretation can sometimes be very simple. Sometimes it can be very difficult. 

What looks like a fairly straightforward sentence in English, say “God is love” (1 John 4:8), can lead to confusion because the three words “God”, “is”, and “love” all require definition and clarification. 

Is it drawing an equivalence between “God” and “love”, suggesting an interchangeability?

Is it saying something about a quality that God possesses, or expressing something about his character?

Or is it saying something about the nature of God?

Is it all, some, none?

Reading the whole sentence might give us some more clarification:

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. (1 John 4:7-8, ESV)

Taken in the broader context, we can see that the short phrase “God is love” is presented as something of an explanation about what “love” is, showing multiple uses of the variations that are often translated as “love”.

First, we have the adjective form that is translated as “beloved” (agapetos), followed by verb form rendered  “let us love” (agapao) then moving to a specified noun form (hē agape), and that is just in the first few words of verse 7; in fact in these two verses alone, 6 times the various forms are used in their various ways. But every use is laden with meaning as the author employs them. In fact the form used, in contrast to any of the other words from the original Greek that get translated by our single English word “love”, has a specific use that is dependent upon either the author, or the context in which it is used.

Now, I say this not to suggest that we cannot have any certainty about what John means when he says that “God is love”, but rather to point out that we cannot make assumptions about what a text means without actively and intentionally seeking to understand what he means when he makes the statement. 

Instead, when we read the biblical text, or any text in particular, there are certain tools that must be employed.

An Aside…

Gordon Fee writes in the opening chapter of his book on the basics of biblical interpretation,

…Christians should learn to read, believe, and obey the Bible. …[We (Fee and his co-author)] especially agree that the Bible need not be an obscure book if read and studied properly. In fact we are convinced that the single most serious problem people have with the Bible is not with a lack of understanding but with the fact that they understand many things too well! For example, with such a text as “Do everything without grumbling or arguing” (Phil 2:14), the problem is not understanding it but obeying it — putting it into practice.[1]

A problem that one might detect in Fee’s statement is that his way of describing the Bible assumes that it requires one to “put it into practice”, namely that the Bible is written as an instruction manual that requires application. In fact this may play into certain evangelical misunderstandings of Scripture seen in the treatment of the word “Bible” as an acronym: B.I.B.L.E.: Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.

In fact the overall modern evangelical approach to Scripture in general, especially when couched in the terms that one must “read, believe, and obey the Bible”, may be entirely erroneous. In fact this approach may betray a distortion of the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura–that Scripture is the sole, infallible rule of the faith–but instead embodies what has been described as Solo Scriptura, that Scripture is the sole basis of authority.[2] 

Now, lest I be misunderstood, this recognition is not to deny either the authority of Scripture or its divine origin, rather it is to point out the fact that our entire approach to the Bible may be starting on the wrong foot because it fails to ask an important question: what is Scripture for?

The Apostle Paul dared to answer the question, even though the inquiry isn’t directly made when, in writing what is likely one of his final letters to his protege Timothy, he says that.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. -2 Timothy 3:16-7, ESV  

Most often, when this passage is raised, it is often used in terms of the discussion of the ontology of Scripture as some translations render the ESV’s rendering of the underlying Greek adjective theopneustos as “breathed out by God” in comparison to the KJV’s “given by inspiration” or the NIV’s rather direct and almost transliterated “God-breathed”. The singular use of the term in the New Testament at 2 Timothy 3:16 appears rather cryptic as it is often used in Greek to describe divine visions or wisdom only attributable to God.[3] In the Jewish view, only the law–as direct revelation–has ultimate authority, with subsequent works having only a secondary authority in terms of their relationship to that initial revelation, however Paul appears to collapse this distinction by applying it to all of Scripture.[4] And while that may be important, what really matters is that Paul sees a four-fold purpose for Scripture: for teaching (didaskalia, instruction or precepts); for reproof (elegchos, a proof or evidence); for correction (epanorthosis, a return to an upright state); for training (paideia, teaching virtue). 

What’s important here is the fact that the source, not the method, is emphasized. Jesus himself, in interacting with his opponents, appears to emphasize the fact that the source of revelation is silenced in favor of what has been revealed when he asks them, “...have you not read what was said to you by God…?”(Matthew 22:31) Jesus appears to see no distinction between the source of the message (God) and the means of conveyance (the written word), nor does he assume that someone should mishear what has been said. The question then seems to be how do we get behind the means of mediation to hear the one who has spoken so clearly?

Tools of the Trade

The primary tool that one must employ is recognition: our approach to the text is often in terms of our immediate context. Our culture, our experiences, our ideas, our traditions often come with us when we approach the text, and often–unintentionally–influence how we read the text.[5] An additional aspect of this is the fact that we often read the text in translation, and translations are themselves a particular level of interpretation, even down to where one places a punctuation mark or chooses a particular word can cause one to grab hold of a concept foreign to either the original audience or even the intention of the author.[6] Does this mean that translations are incapable of conveying the meaning of the text? Not at all. What it does mean is that we need to be very careful before drawing particular conclusions about the text.

I noted that things like culture, personal experience, and even religious tradition can interfere with our reading of the text. These can shade how we read, or even attempt to approach the text. They can function like a fence that limits our approach, sometimes even obscuring the text as one peeps out through the slats, sometimes only catching fleeting glimpses of what lies beyond. That’s not to say that the fences are all bad or wrong. They provide important boundaries, but when they become definitional of the text they can erode the meaning, as Fee puts it,

…[The] cults, … have an authority in addition to the Bible. But not all of them do; and in every case they bend the truth by the way they select texts from the Bible itself. Every imaginable heresy or practice, from the Arianism (denying Christ’s deity) of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, to baptizing for the dead among Mormons, to snake handling among Appalachian sects, claims to be “supported” by a biblical text.[7]

Fee rightly points out that there is a selectiveness used by heretical, heterodox, and even otherwise orthodox groups, usually having what is sometimes referred to as “controlling texts” that are interpreted in a certain way and then these become the filter through which the rest of Scripture is interpreted. But that’s not to say that the cults get everything wrong because they can often see things in the text that our own traditions, our own “controlling texts” can prevent us from seeing.

One such text that often controls us is Matthew 16:13-20.

A “Rock” and a Hard Place

Most knowledgeable people will immediately recognize the mention of Matthew 16:13-20 and most Catholics will recognize it as the statement of Peter’s alleged primacy, and as the justification for the establishment of the papacy, of which most defenses for the various doctrines and dogmas around it emerge.

In fact, most commentators at this point simply just concede the point. For example, R.T. France on the reading of v18 states that, “The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much as Jesus’ declaration about Peter as v16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus.”[8] And while France downplays Roman Catholic claims about that what is said about Peter applies to later bishops of Rome denying that they can be founded here, he also downplays that what is said here can apply to his confession in response to Protestants.[9]

Davies and Allison, in their entry in the International Critical Commentary series uncritically repeat France’s statement as a given.[10] Donald Senior, in his Abingdon commentary, without any apparent reference to France, comes to the same conclusion: “Jesus calls Simon by his discipleship name, “Peter,” giving him, in effect, a new identity, and promising that on this “rock” he will build his “church” (16:18).”[11] David Turner, in his excursus on this passage notes that Jesus is clearly making a pun focusing on Peter’s unique role as a “model disciple”, but also emphasizes the fact that Peter is acting as a spokesman for the group and is not acting alone.[12]

I present this brief summary so that one can see that there is a general consensus on the issue of Matthew 16:13-20, and specifically v18, particularly across Protestant scholarship. But, primarily it’s Turner’s point that Simon Peter is presented as a “model disciple” that we need to look at more closely. 

What is rarely mentioned in these discussions is that Matthew stands as something unique: a singular testimony to this assumed promotion of Simon Peter by Jesus. I say that it is singular because, neither Mark nor Luke contain it in their recounting of this event. Additionally, while this is the moment where most commentators will say that the nickname “Peter/Cephas” is given to Simon, John places this early on in his gospel, upon his initial introduction. 

That’s not delegitimize Matthew’s recounting but it does cause us to potentially reconsider any assumptions, especially since Matthew is only second to John in terms of direct interactions with Peter and shares an instance of a specific confession (cf John 6:66-71). But this had led some scholars to question exactly what Matthew's preoccupation with Peter was. 

Matthew appears to use Peter as a spokesman for the band of disciples as he is the voice who primarily speaks for them.[13] But it is not just that he speaks for them, in some respects he serves as a “type”, not an idealized image of the disciples, as an example of the “typical” disciple.[14] This idea is brought more into view when the mention of the “keys” which is paralleled with the function of “binding and loosing” (16:19) is applied to the wider group of disciples later in the gospel (18:18).[15]

An additional point of consideration is the fact that when it comes to the foundations of the church, the Apostle Paul, sees the foundation of the church as Jesus himself  (1 Cor. 3:11) and that the “apostles and prophets” collectively are a part of the foundation (Eph. 2:20-1) but not definitional of it.[16]

Looking across the breadth of the New Testament, aside from the singular appearance in Matthew of an association with Peter, the broad consensus of the apostolic testimony is that whenever a “foundation” or anything similar is mentioned for the church, it almost always is associated with Christ, and not Peter; in fact when the First Epistle of Peter speaks of such structure, the term petra is applied to Christ.[17] This brings into question the entire originality of the statement to Matthew’s gospel itself.

If the saying isn’t original to Matthew, and is an interpolation either in its entirety or in partiality, this certainly gives those who argue against the reading as proponents use it ammunition for their cause. However there is no physical evidence from Matthew to evidence such a conclusion, which would give the proposition a better footing. However, as many questions as such would answer, its undisputed presence in the manuscript tradition makes such unlikely, unless we look at circumstantial evidence.

As previously noted, even the Epistle of Peter fails to assume the way that papal interpreters would wish the text was understood. Also, there is a lack of recognition among other apostolic witnesses, including the Book of Revelation, which presents the entry to the Holy City as being through TWELVE gates, and the foundation of the city being TWELVE stones.[18] Perhaps an even more stunning example is found in the Shepherd of Hermas, where the church is again constructed, but no reference of Petrine primacy or even a notion of the Petrine promise is evidenced.[19] More specifically, the use of hē petra is specifically applied to Christ.[20] And while later apologists like Irenaeus and Tertullian only give passing evidence to the reading, they do not give evidence to its later, and anachronistic, understanding.[21]

A Possible Detour

Matthew’s gospel creates connections between Jesus and David in order to demonstrate his legitimacy, beginning with his opening genealogy and parallels with Davidic acts.[22] And while David is forbidden from building an actual temple it is prophetically revealed that he will have a son who will build a temple, even though David is pictured in Qumranic material as a the builder of an eschatological temple.[23]

Moreover, parallels in Rabbic literature clearly see a figure related to David, a man named Eliakim, who receives keys, as a high priest and language similar to what is found in Matthew 16 is used to describe his function and duties, thus drawing a connection between Peter and this figure.[24] The result being that Peter (and his apostolic fellows) and successor(s) possess priestly authority.[25]

This reading, while having some contextual basis, is still dependent on assumptions that could best be described as anachronistic and in conflict with the broader testimony and assumptions of the New Testament. Which brings us to the article that we need to discuss.

Right Out of the Gate…

In 2025, following the death of Pope Francis and the election of the first “American” pope, Pope Leo XIV, a Byzantine Catholic by the screen name of Brosephus posted an article that is a “brief article on a foundational text for the bishop of Rome in particular, and apostolic succession in general”, wherein he offers an , “exegetical examination in order to better understand this passage in its historical context and to observe a few developmental trajectories from similar texts”.

Now, while he says that he is going to focus broadly on Matthew 16:13-20, it nevertheless narrows onto v16, writing,

There are two thematic parts of this pericope. The Christological statement by Peter and the ecclesial proclamation by Christ. The two are intricately intertwined because the latter makes no sense without the establishment of the former. Meaning, if Jesus is not the (Davidic) Messiah, then Peter’s position within the Kingdom is hollow.

We can clearly see the track that he is going to take as described above: the role of Peter (and any successors) as priests in a re-established Davidic kingdom. But, here we see the problem of interpretation arising: Matthew not being read in light of either the parallels which do not include the statement nor the broader testimony of the New Testament.[26]

Brosephus seems to assume that Matthew’s purpose–assuming that the saying is original to the text–is to make an "ecclesiastical proclamation”, that it says something about the structure of the church and Peter, and his successors, roles in it. That is an awful lot of weight for a few sentences to bear. This is especially important when he concedes elsewhere, “that the Gospels are copying each other, and there is certainly a reliance on other writings and/or oral tradition.” This would assume that there is evidence in the immediate tradition (both biblical and immediately post) that we could locate at least similar sentiments as he would hope to find in his interpretation of the text. But he also recognizes, returning to the article under consideration, that Peter often serves as the spokesman for the group. The reason for this was possibly because he was the oldest, age-wise, of the group according to tradition.

Using various lexical sources, Brosephus seeks to remove any doubt that the word-play used by Jesus in any way diminishes the identification of the “rock” with Peter, writing, “it is abundantly clear that there is an intentional play-on-words. Jesus changed Simon’s name to Petros to make an identity statement via a pun to establish Simon Peter’s role as the foundational petra of Christ’s church.“

This assumes that Jesus indeed “changed” Simon’s name, but there is no indication that this is what has happened. In fact, looking at the lists of disciples, the name “Peter” is attributed to Simon bar Jonah in order to distinguish him from another disciple named Simon who is also known as “the Zealot” (Matt 10:1-4) a point that many of these discussions often avoid. In fact, when read against his portrayal in the gospels and the New Testament, Simon Peter is often shown to be less than a “rock”, which indicates that the name was perhaps given as something for him to aspire to. As John Pilch explains,

The nickname is like a parable: something else and other is meant. In the Middle East, saying one thing and meaning another is a common strategy in communication.[27]

Moreover, Paul appears to use the name sarcastically when he speaks of Peter’s collapse in Galatians before the representatives of James, thus indicating some work that still needed to be done on his part to strive towards that ideal.[28]

And while Brosephus spends much of the article chasing many of the exegetical escape routes that are often used to get around the interpretation he prefers, he fundamentally fails to do what he claimed to set out to do: exegete the text. Instead, his article demonstrates the circular reasoning used by Catholic interpreters in how they not merely understand the text in question, but make application of it. And part of this may be the result of problems with the Bible itself.

The Bible as the Problem

I want to be clear: I am not blaming the Bible for creating the problem but rather recognizing that the Bible is the problem. 

We often get it handed to us without any explanation of where it came from or how it came to be in our possession. It is an alien object filled with strange and often disturbing ideas and it appears to make demands that are difficult to implement. Moreover, at places there are apparent contradictions and even places where there appear to be discontinuities or outright abolishments. 

We often read it inside of our traditions, traditions which are often completely disconnected from the context that produced the biblical texts. To read later ecclesial concerns backwards into the text assumes that was the intention of the author when he wrote and it strips the text of its original meaning, meaning that is often ignored.

Another aspect is the fact that the Bible has been editorialized through translation, something I pointed out earlier. Not just through English translation, but also into other languages where the translator has to make decisions.

The earliest example of this that we can point to is the translation of the Hebrew “Old Testament” into Greek, which is often referred to as the Septuagint (LXX). This translation heavily influenced how the early church read the biblical text as well as the terminology that it uses. More importantly, as the movement of the faith was slowly overtaken by European as opposed to Asian interests, the additional layer of the Latin translation by Jerome also complicated matters, especially since it is the Latin translation that so heavily influences how Roman Catholics interact with the text. This is not to disparage Jerome’s work because he learned Hebrew to create his translation; instead it is to recognize that the result of his work still has influence today that is often unrecognized.

But this also recognizes an additional level that often goes without saying: the role of other interpreters and how their understanding of the text often influences our reading of the text, often assuming that their interpretation is both accurate and authoritative. But this is also where our particular tradition can play a role, causing us to read them in a way that they wouldn’t recognize.

For example, a patristic would use the word often translated as “catholic” in a way that causes someone who happens to be Catholic (Roman or Orthodox) in terms of their particular tradition and often reads any terms that they use (ie Eucharist) in light of that tradition. As a result, someone can read them as endorsing the later developed dogmas of their particular tradition backwards into the text.

The point that I’m driving at here is that people on both sides of the aisle attempt to fit the Bible–Scripture– into their tradition, rather than it serving as the judge of their tradition.

As the late Old Testament scholar Michael Heiser has stated, 

The proper context for interpreting the Bible is not the church fathers…[It] is not the Catholic Church. It is not the rabbinic movements of Late Antiquity or the Middle Ages. It is not the Reformation—the time of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, or the Anabaptists. It is not the time of the Puritans. It is not evangelicalism in any of its flavors. It is not the modern world at all….[The] proper context for interpreting the Bible is the context of the biblical writers—the context that produced the Bible. Every other context is alien or at least secondary.[29]

This is not to say that every conclusion drawn by a particular tradition is wrong but it does serve to point out the fact that just because something is held “as tradition”, doesn’t automatically assume that it is correct, especially when that tradition is drawn in order to support pre-ordained conclusions. 

A Better Hermeneutic

We’ve noted that one of the main difficulties with interpretation is that we have a tendency to read texts within a particular consensus, another word for that is “tradition”.

One of the most valuable aspects of tradition is that it is about the conclusions that have already been drawn and demonstrated. The problem is that these conclusions have often forgotten the history behind them. This is why competing traditions can often exist and often appeal to the same proof texts for their traditions but often differing emphasis. 

 But, if we are going to gain an accurate understanding of the text, where should we begin?

Grant Osborn suggests two basic principles of context: historical and logical. About these he writes,

Under the [historical] category we study introductory material on the biblical book in order to determine the situation to which the book was addressed. Under the [logical] category we use an inductive approach in order to trace the thought development of a book. Both aspects are necessary before we begin a detailed analysis of a particular passage. The [two] contexts provide the scaffolding on which we can build the in-depth meaning of a passage. Without a strong scaffolding, the edifice of interpretation is bound to collapse.[30]

When looking at the historical category related to the text a number of sources are brought to bear: general introductions, dictionaries, sources that discuss archaeology, as well as atlases and cultural sources, not to mention considering factors such as the authors, the original audience, and themes or problems that the work is addressing.[31] Logical context focuses on the use and meaning of words in a particular context, not making assumptions that because an author uses a word one way in one particular place does not mean that the word has the same meaning everywhere else it is used, but is generally focused on identifying patterns within the text.[32]

Looking back a Brosephus’ statement that he wants to, “understand [Matthew 16:13-20] in its historical context” he spends absolutely no time speaking about the historical context of Matthew 16:13-20. 

Yet the author gives us a great deal of information in such a short text:

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. (Matthew 16:13-20, ESV)

First, Matthew gives us the setting in v13: “the district of Caesarea Philippi”. What is important about this location and why does Matthew name it? Does this question even bother to cross Brosephus’, much less anyone else’s mind?

I’ll be the first to admit that it was not a question that entered my mind, except maybe as just some throw-away line that might get me some extra points in a Bible quiz game, but we have to realize that this place, which the parallel in Mark also names, has a specific historical and cultural significance relevant to Jews in ancient Palestine due to its connection with Mt. Hermon.

Hermon is one of the highest mountains in the region and its springs and snows feed the Jordan River, but its primary feature is an ancient temple site that is likely connected to Jereboam.[33] Additionally, during the 4th century BC, a temple to the god Pan was built at a cave that is a site for one of the Jordan River’s major tributary springs, and by the time of Jesus the city of Caesarea Philippi was a primarily a city of non-Jews, and its current name–Banias–maintains its connection to its past pagan associations.[34] Just as important as its historical connection to pagan worship in the first century, second temple texts like 1 Enoch, connect Mt. Hermon and the region, once known as Bashan, to the event that precipitated the flood of Noah.[35] This association with pagan worship and the cave that centered it, a cave which was seen as a door to the underworld, likely provides the ground for what Jesus would say later, and provide important context for Peter’s identification of Jesus.

Matthew and “the rock”

Matthew’s additional uses of the word petra attract Brosephus’ attention.

The greek feminine noun petra (often rendered as “rock” or “stone”) has limited use in Matthew’s gospel, only appearing five times. Twice it appears in Matthew 7, and twice in Matthew 27. For the purpose of this discussion, we will be setting the use in Matthew 16 apart, and work backward, noting that all uses involve the use of the article.

The uses in Matthew 27 are in v51 and v60 respectively. The use in v51 is in reference to an earthquake which coincides with the death of Jesus and the tearing of the temple veil. The second use, in v60 is in reference to the location of Jesus’ burial site and the fact that the tomb is an excavated site. This reference, Brosephus notes, is of little consequence to the discussion.

Matthew 7, however, does provide us with a potentially relevant intersection, especially within the context of Jesus’ broader teaching and the specific example of the parable of the house in the Sermon on the Mount. This use provides the most consequential and exegetical basis for how to interpret Matthew 16.

Matthew 7:24 (ESV) reads, “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock (tēn petra).” V25 furthers the example by having the house that is built suffer through violent storms but survive because, “it had been founded on the rock (tēn petra).” Another interesting aspect is the fact that the verb translated “built” is oikodomeo, this verb also appears in chapter 16. What is relevant to this discussion is the fact that Jesus connects the foundation of the house that has been built to the words that he speaks. 

This begs the immediate question, what is so important about his words and why should they be heeded? It is because of who Jesus is. And who is he? Matthew has identified him, not merely as a descendant of David and thus the rightful king of Israel, but he is also “Immanuel”, “God with us” (Matthew 7:23).[36] But, so far, we have two points of contact between Matthew 7:24-25 and Matthew 16:18, a point that Brosephus happily concedes. However, he assumes what needs to be proven when he writes, “In Matthew 16, the pun’s purpose is to disclose that Peter is foundational for the establishment of Christ’s Church”.

If we take Matthew 7:24-25 as the foundational concept for 16:18’s pronouncement then Peter cannot be the “rock” that is spoken of because in the prior section Jesus has made his words, more specifically–by logical extension–himself the foundation that the house is built upon.

A Pun or a Punt

As noted above, there are two points of contact between Matthew 7:24-25 and Matthew 16:18: the noun with the article and the verb. This cannot be coincidental since the verb’s primary appearance is–up to this point in the gospel–limited to these two passages.[37]

Here again, we need to emphasize the fact that the “building” on the “rock” of 7:24-25  is equated to the “hearing and doing” of the words of Jesus. The fact that these are active verb forms implies willful obedience to Jesus, since they are his words. Again, the words are the foundation. The reason why Jesus is heard and obeyed is because of who he is: not merely the Son of David but Immanuel, God with us.

So when we come to Matthew 16, again we have words of recognition: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (16:16).”

Hence, it follows, given Matthew’s pattern of words = rock from 7:24-25, that it is Peter’s confession that is the foundation that the church Jesus builds will be built upon.[38] This confession has special significance given where, that is in terms of actual geography, it is uttered.

It is not made within the holy city of Jerusalem or in the territory of Judea. Instead it is made in the heart of an established and active site of pagan worship, in a place where Jews didn’t normally go, at a location where the mythological enemies of God conspired against him. Especially since this site had particular eschatological significance to Jews as the launching point of the messianic age.[39] The “pun” is indeed there, but it is not with the nickname given to Peter. Instead it is with what he says and what Jesus has stated is the only sure foundation in terms of contrast to the “rock” that stood before them.

This point is made especially clear by the mention of the “gates of hell”, since the name is associated with a cave in the immediate vicinity that was believed to provide access to the underworld, and its combined association both in the Old Testament under Jeroboam and currently (in the 1st century) with pagan worship, thus making the affair, “a cosmic confrontation, with Jesus challenging the authority of the lord of the dead.”[40]

Conclusion

I return to the beginning to reflect on the fact that the Bible is deceptively simple when it comes to interpretation. 

In one sense, there are ideas that are easy to grasp: who God is, what he wants from us, and the like. At other times, if we are not careful we can walk into a room full of rakes that do not hesitate to smack us in the face if we miss, choose to ignore, or are simply ignorant of key pieces of data that are often sitting in the text waiting for us.

Tradition can be both a help and a hindrance to the text, especially if our whole identity is wound up in that tradition and it becomes the means by which we see the text rather than the thing that is measured by the text. Tradition that cannot be challenged for coherence, both historically and logically, can make shipwreck of the faith and become like the pharisees that Jesus said, “neither enter nor allow others to enter in”, and “who will travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte… and thus make him twice as much a child of hell” (Matt 23:13,15).

When it comes to interpreting the Bible, as Christians, we have a responsibility to not not merely believe the text but to be able to understand it, and not just understand it, but to actually apply the story that it is telling because it is a story that we are participating in through the work and promise of Christ.

Catholics, like Brosephus, have taken their eyes off Christ and placed them somewhere they do not belong, and have taken a text about who Christ is and what he is doing and used it as a pry bar to raise a creature to a location that he has no place in being, and overshadowing the message.

That is not to deny the role that Peter, or any of the apostolic band played, but it is to ask a simple question: are we honoring the One who truly deserves the honor by what he did in coming to save His people?

The Reformed Tradition, in that line, takes the words of John the Baptist seriously at this point: “He must increase but I must decrease. (John 3:30, ESV)”

Notes

1. Gordon D. Fee w/ Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, Fourth Edition. Zondervan. 2014. p.29-30 (ePub)

2. See Keith Mathison’s The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Canon, 2001) for more discussion on this topic.

3. “Theopnuestos”.Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Abridged in One Volume), edited by G. Kittel, trans. by Geoffrey Bromiley. Eerdmans. 1985.

4. Ibid.

5. Fee, p.31

6. Ibid, p.32

7. Ibid,p.33-4

8. R.T. France. The Gospel According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary. Eerdmans. 1985. p.254

9. Ibid.

10. W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison. The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Volume II. T & T Clark. 1991. p.627

11. Donald Senior. Matthew. Abingdon. 1998. p.258 (ePub)

12. David L. Turner. Matthew. Baker. 2008. p.406-7

13. Jack Dean Kingsbury. “The Figure of Peter in Matthew’s Gospel as a Theological Problem”. Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol 98, No 1 (1979) p.67-83. SBL Press. p.71

14. Ibid, p.72-3

15. Ibid, p.73

16. Oscar J. F. Seitz. “Upon This Rock: A Critical Re-Examination of Matt 16:17-19”. Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol 69, No 4 (1950) p.329-340. SBL Press. p.330

17. Ibid, p.331

18. Ibid, p.333

19. Ibid, p.332-3

20. Ibid, p.332

21. Ibid, p. 334n6

22. Michael Patrick Barber. “Jesus as the Davidic Temple Builder and Peter’s Priestly Role in Matthew 16:16-19”. Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol 132, No 4 (2013) p.935-53. SBL Press. p.937-9

23. Ibid, p.939-40

24. Ibid, p.944-47

25. Ibid, p.953

26. Mark 8:27-30 and Luke 9:18-22 evidence neither knowledge nor intention of this statement.

27. John J. Pilch. A Cultural Handbook to the Bible. Eerdmans. 2012. p.91

28. Ibid.

29. Michael S. Heiser. The Bible Unfiltered: Approaching Scripture on Its Own Terms. Lexham Press. 2017. p.12-3

30. Grant R. Osborne. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Second Edition. InterVarsity Press. 2006. p.51 (ePub)

31. Ibid, p.61-63

32. Ibid, p.64-65

33. Brandon Ridley. “Hermon, Mount”. The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Lexham Press. 2016.

34. Brian Algie. “Caesera Philippi”. The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Lexham Press. 2016.

35. Michael S. Heiser. “Bashan and the Gates of Hell”. Faithlife Study Bible. Lexham Press. 2016.

36. Matthew’s interpretation of Isaiah’s Immanuel prophecy is interesting and is one that has not been explored in terms of how he is making the identification but is likely dependent on an ambiguity of exactly to whom the name is applied: is it the child or is it to the LORD who gives the prophecy?

37. The verb’s next appearances are in 21:33, 21:42, 23:39, 26:61, and 27:40. The only passage of potential relevance in this list is 21:42, “Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures:  "'The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes'?” Here the verb is in the subjunctive as a verbal noun “builders”.

38. This conclusion has additional interpretive significance where another "pillar and foundation” is set in regard to a following confession.

39. Rainer Reisner. “Archaeology and Geography: Caesarea Philippi”. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Second Edition. InterVarsity Press. 2013.

40. Michael S. Heiser. Reversing Hermon: Enoch, The Watchers, and the Forgotten Mission of Jesus Christ. Defender Press. 2017. p.137 (ePub)