Peter’s confession

 

  Now when Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he began asking his disciples, saying, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!” 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it! Mt 16:13–18 LEB

Caesarea Philippi was located in the northern part of the Old Testament region of Bashan, the “place of the serpent,” at the foot of Mount Hermon. The linguistic note is intriguing since Bashan/Bathan both also mean “serpent,” so that the region of Bashan was “the place of the serpent

As we saw earlier, the divine serpent (nachash, another word so translated) became lord of the dead after his rebellion in Eden. In effect, Bashan was considered the location of (to borrow a New Testament phrase) “the gates of hell".

Joshua 12:4–5 unites all the threads: “Og king of Bashan, one of the remnant of the Rephaim, who lived at Ashtaroth and at Edrei and ruled over Mount Hermon.”

Just the name “Hermon” would have caught the attention of Israelite and Jewish readers. In Hebrew it’s pronounced khermon. The noun has the same root as a verb that is of central importance in Deuteronomy 3. and the conquest narratives: kharam, “to devote to destruction.” This is the distinct verb of holy war, the verb of extermination. It has deep theological meaning, a meaning explicitly connected to the giant clans God commanded Joshua and his armies to eradicate.

So when Jesus tells Peter that it is “on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it” (Matt 16:18), He and the disciples are literally standing at the place known in ancient times as the gates of Hades/the Underworld. Jesus is saying, in other words, that He will conquer the forces of darkness associated with the Underworld—and that the power of the Church will overcome them. 

In Paul’s words, Christ “disarmed the rulers and the authorities, he made a display of them in public, triumphing over them by it” (Col 2:15) and “Ascending on high he led captivity captive; he gave gifts to men” (Eph. 4:8). This line from Ephesians 4:8 is made even more powerful with the knowledge that Paul is quoting Psalm 68:18; in Psalm 68. the mountain God ascends and conquers is none other than Mount Bashan (Psa. 68:15). (Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, First Edition. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015)

Even in these redemptive re-creation accounts that portray God’s victory as an overcoming of monstrous powers, the idea conveyed is not at all that God was obliged to wrest world dominion as the spoils of battle from the clutches of eternal rivals. 

The absolute lordship of God is the presupposition and explanation of his triumph, not its sequel. The battle, therefore, is not the means by which God acquires the throne, but is rather a sovereign exercise of that imperium which belongs to him as the Creator who sits enthroned from the Flood, yea from everlasting (Ps. 29:10). The battle and the conquest are in fact acts of divine judgment against transgressing subjects. (Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2006), 36–37.)

The functions of Torah are totally subsumed by Jesus: he reveals God’s will, he judges, he offers the spirit, he gives light, he sets free, he gives life. What; Torah was as a text, Jesus is as living Son: God’s Word.

David Arthur deSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods and Ministry Formation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 422.

 “Son of Man” has an “inclusive” dimension: The way of the Son of Man prefigures the way of the church (John 21:18–22,Jn.8:12. 12:26. 13:36, 37. Num. 14:24. 1 Sam. 12:20. Mt. 10:38. 16:21-25. 19:28. Mk. 8:33-38. Lk. 9:22-26.)

If the Son of Man is the one to whom all authority is given in heaven and on earth, that means that his authority is valid wherever he is with his own—always, until the end of the world. Thus for him our narrative not only calls attention to the spectacular presence of God back then in the Son of Man; at the same time it calls attention to the reality in which the Son of Man makes it possible for the church to live. (Ulrich Luz, Matthew: A Commentary, ed. Helmut Koester, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 2001), 29.)

Even before but especially after the passion, the “true temple” is wherever Jesus “goes before” (προάγω, Mk. 14:28; 16:7) his disciples—much as the “face” or “presence,” “went before” the people in the wilderness, and as Yahweh was to “go before” them again, according to (Deutero-) Isaiah (Isa. 40:3; 42:16, 24; 43:16, 19; 45:13; 48:15, 17; 49:9, 11; 51:10; 53:6; 55:3, 7, 8, 9.). right worship—formerly characterized by racial exclusiveness and false priorities—is redefined for all human-kind as taking up the cross and following Jesus. (Mark.1:2, 3; 2:23; 6:8; 8:3, 27; 9:33, 34; 10:17, 32, 46, 52; 11:8 12:14.) (Harry L. Chronis, “The Torn Veil: Cultus and Christology in Mark 15:37–39,” Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982):101- 111.)

And Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!” 

The expression τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος, “the living God,” is an OT expression (cf. Deut 5:26; Pss 42:2; 84:2), found elsewhere in Matthew in Mt. 26:63 (cf. Mt.22:32) and frequently in the NT (see 1 Tim 3:15; 4:10 [where it furthermore modifies the noun ἐκκλησία, “church”]; Acts 14:15; Rom 9:26; 2 Cor 3:3, 6:16; 1 Thess. 1:9; Heb. 3:12; 9:14; 10:31; 12:22; 1 Peter 1:23; Rev 7:2; 15:7; cf. John 6:57; Rev 1:18; 4:9). It describes the true God, as opposed to the gods of the world who were not alive, such as the deities of the region of Caesarea Philippi. ( Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28, vol. 33B, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1995), 468–469.)

In John’s Gospel, on the other hand, people like Andrew and Nathanael are talking about Jesus as the Messiah and king of Israel from the very first chapter onwards. At first sight this looks like an obvious case of John having written without regard for the historical sequence of events: he wants to get the truth of Jesus clearly proclaimed in his first chapter. 

However, although that might be the explanation, the question has to be asked: is it in fact historically plausible to view Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi, as it is described in the Synoptics, as the first recognition by Jesus’ disciples of his messiahship? Had the idea not dawned before then? (According to Luke, people had talked about John the Baptist as possibly the Messiah Lk.3:15, Lk.2:25,26 cf.Jn.11:27). 

This seems most unlikely historically, and it is much more likely that from a very early stage people followed Jesus hoping that he might be the one they were looking for.

However, there is no need to choose between them: it is entirely possible that Caesarea Philippi was a reaffirmation of faith from Peter, in face of much doubt and controversy, not the first breakthrough into an appreciation of Jesus’ messiahship. John has Peter make precisely such a reaffirmation in (Jn. 6:69 KJV, cf. Mk.14:61) (David Wenham, “A Historical View of John’s Gospel,” Themelios 23, no. 2 (1998): 10.)

And, by the saying of our Lord, “Feed my lambs,” we must understand a renewal as it were of the apostleship already given to him, washing away the disgrace of his fall that came in the intervening period and obliterating his faintheartedness that arose from human infirmity. Cyril of Alexandria. Commentary on the Gospel according to S. John. John 21:15–17 cf. And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time...(Jon.1:1; John 21:15, 16, 17, Jon 3:1)  Fausset,and Brown,Commentary

The most enigmatic part of John may be verses Jn.1:47–51. Jesus calls Nathanael “an Israelite in whom there is no deceit”—a play on the two names for the patriarch Jacob/Israel, since “Jacob” meant “deceiver” Jn.1:47... It has been pointed out that a seat under a fig tree was often a place of prayer, but perhaps more significant are those passages that speak about the coming age of blessing when every Israelite will sit in peace under his own fig tree (e.g., 1 Kgs. 4:25; Mic. 4:4, 1 Macc. 14:12), at least one of which appears in a seemingly messianic context (Zech. 3:10). 

Jesus also promises greater wonders than mere insight into Nathanael’s character—“You shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man” (Jn.1:51). This clearly alludes to Jacob’s dream about the ladder to heaven (Gen 28:10–12). But how does the order “ascending and descending” apply to Jesus? Perhaps it is a cryptic foreshadowing of the cross and resurrection—angels accompanying Jesus to bear his body to heaven, in keeping with typical Jewish belief, and returning to announce his resurrection (as in Matt 28:2 par.). (Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey, 2nd Edition. (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2009), 254–255.)

Beth-el means “House of God.” It was the name given by Jacob to the place where he met God.

Christ implied that this bridge between heaven and earth was a type of Himself, God and man, the only way to the Father (John 1:51; cf. John 1:1, 14; 14:6). The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible:49 

A House on Rock and a House on Sand

the house of God. This “house” is the place where God meets the unworthy in grace. It was so with David (1 Chron. 22:1). It is so for us. Our “place of worship” is where God manifests Himself to us in grace. “The God of all grace” is emphatically “the God of Jacob” (Ps. 146:5).Ethelbert W. Bullinger, The Companion Bible:41 

In John 6:17–21, Jesus comes to the disciples (Jn.6:17), they receive him (Jn.6:21), and they immediately arrive at their destination (John uses the verbs ἔρχομαι and λαμβάνω, as in Jn.1:11–12). The event thus echoes the language of Jn.1:11–12, that Christ has come, and those who receive him are given eternal life. John Ronning, The Jewish Targums and John’s Logos Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 182.

John 20:22–23 highlights the importance of forgiveness in the post-resurrection ministry of Christ and his disciples, using language which harks back to Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, in which Jesus empowered first Peter and then all the twelve to bind and loose (‘forgive or not forgive’, based on the presence or absence of repentance, as in Ex. 34:7) according to the divine will.

 Even Paul’s favorite term for spiritual gifts (charismata) suggests the idea of ‘gracious gifts’, echoing the element of graciousness in the personality profile of God’s image revealed at Sinai. Exodus 34:6–7.(R. Ward Wilson and Craig L. Blomberg, “The Image of God in Humanity: A Biblical-Psychological Perspective,” Themelios 18, no. 3 (1993): 9-10.)

Given contemporary Jewish use of the expression, “binding and loosing” likely refers to authoritative teaching. Hence the exercise of the keys seems to be what is sometimes called “the ministry of the word.” At least in the context of Matt.18:18, furthermore, “binding and loosing” pertains especially to admission to and expulsion from the kingdom.

 Hence the exercise of the keys in the church through faithful and authoritative teaching and response to it determines kingdom membership. More precisely, the use of the future perfect (“shall have been bound/loosed”) indicates that what is first true in heaven becomes manifest on earth.

 The judgment once and for all rendered in heaven on account of Jesus’ vicarious death becomes effective on earth through the exercise of the church’s keys.

Third, this sense that the church is the community where the kingdom of heaven touches and manifests itself on earth is confirmed in Matt.18:19–20: “I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”

 In the humble assembly of the church on earth the power of God in heaven is revealed. No wonder that this is the case: the king of the kingdom of heaven, Jesus himself, promises to be among this assembly. (David VanDrunen, “Bearing Sword in the State, Turning Cheek in the Church: A Reformed Two-Kingdoms Interpretation of Matthew 5:38–42,” Themelios 34, no. 3 (2009): 330.)

In Mark 8:29 Peter confesses that Jesus is the Messiah, but in the passage which follows Peter makes evident that he falsely identifies him with a Jewish Messiah in which there is no place for suffering and death (Mark 8:31ff.).

Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2011), 458.

This interpretation is demanded by the sequel in the passage which follows (Mt. 16:22–23). There Jesus calls Peter by another name: Satan. Just as Peter had spoken by revelation from the Father, he now becomes the mouthpiece of the devil. In confessing Jesus to be the Christ he was the rock, in tempting Jesus to refuse the cross he is Satan. 

He is called Satan only in direct reference to his word of seduction. Apart from that expression the designation does not apply. Jesus is not declaring that Peter the man is a Satan in terms of all his personal qualities, nor is satanicity a character indelibilis. Peter is Satan as he speaks for Satan. [This would require by analogy that we understand that] Peter is the rock as he speaks for God. ( Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: T. Nelson, 1998), 821–822.)

Jesus rebukes Peter for his impetuous action by commanding him to put his sword away, and by pointing out that he must fulfill the will of the Father (Jn.18:11). Jesus’ question to Peter—“Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given to me?”—is the climactic moment in this scene and, as in previous scenes, there is neither a response from Peter nor an explanation by the narrator. The setting shifts without a word about Peter’s misunderstanding. The reader needs no explanation; the narrator intends this silence as an implicit criticism of Peter’s inability to see the divinely-prescribed destiny of Jesus.(Christopher W. Skinner, Reading John, Cascade Companions (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2015, 111) 

Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah

Commentators have offered little to explain the difference between Matthew’s Βαριωνᾶ the son of Jonah and John’s identification of Peter as ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωάννου the son of John (Jn.1:42), but it is explicable if Matthew is intentionally linking the saying of Mt.16:17–18 with the psalm of Jonah. 

it seems more than coincidental that the reference to Peter as the son of Jonah comes soon after the assertion in Mt.16:4 that a sign will not be given this generation except the sign of Jonah. The significance of Jonah for Matthew’s theology is underscored by the fact that Matthew has three references to Jonah in contrast to Luke, who has just the one (Lk.11:29–32). The specific identification of Peter as a “son of Jonah” in Mt.16:17 is illuminated in Mt.16:22–23, where Peter is described as a stumbling block to Jesus and the things of God, perhaps referring to his namesake Jonah, who initially refused to go to Nineveh. Jon. 1:11–12 cf. Matthew 14:28–33, and And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time...(Jon.1:1; John 21:15, 16, 17, Jon 3:1 )  Fausset,and Brown,Commentary

The fact that Mt.12:40 and Mt.16:18 are part of Matthew’s special material also suggests that they might best be understood from a common theological frame of reference. We would suggest that the theme of resurrection helps prepare and explain the presence of another passage that is special to Matthew, Mt.27:51b–53.

Our argument is that the raising of the saints in Mt.27:51b–53 is Matthew’s proof that Jesus descended into the earth (Mt.12:40) and that the gates of death (Mt.16:18) have been overcome. This interpretation is theologically coherent within Matthew’s Gospel in that it accounts for the three sayings that are unique to Matthew, plus it is coherent with additional material that reflects the theology of the first evangelist. 

For example, Joseph is commanded to name the baby Jesus “because he will save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). The personal pronoun foreshadows the saying in Mt.16:18 when Jesus says, “I will build my assembly/people of God.” Matthew portrays Jesus as the new Moses, and, as such, he is building his new people. This interpretation also provides the framework for understanding the basis from which the theology developed: Matthew’s use of the Greek version of Jonah.

Matthew affirms the presence of Jesus in Hades in Mt.12:40; (2) Jesus promises that the gates of Hades will not be able to contain the Church in Mt.16:18, and surely it is no coincidence that the first of the three passion predictions immediately follows this promise in Mt.16:21; and (3) in Mt.27:51b–53 we have Jesus’ promise fulfilled by the raising of the saints upon his death. (Tim McLay, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2003), 159–169.)

In your righteousness deliver me and rescue me;
incline your ear to me and save me.
Be for me a rock of refuge to resort to always;
you have ordained to save me,
because you are my rock and my fortress. Ps 71:2–3 LEB

The coming Messiah is called “a rock of stumbling” (Isa 8:14). He cannot be ignored; all who come into contact with him are made aware of their sin and misunderstanding about God’s way of providing salvation. Some stumble and are broken to repentance; others fall and are crushed by the rock itself (cf. Mt. 21:42ff.; Rom. 9:32ff.; I Pet. 2:8).

When Israel strays, Isaiah exhorts them to “look to the Rock from which you were hewn” (Isa. 51:1). Perhaps he is alluding to Deut. 32:4. Yahweh gave birth to Israel through Abraham’s faith in him. Isaiah encourages the people to trust in Yahweh; as a result they shall have perfect peace (Isa 26:4ff.).(John E. Hartley, “1901 צור,” ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 762.)

There is much controversy regarding the meaning of “rock” in the words of Christ, “Upon this rock I will build my church.” The Roman Catholics and others take the rock to be Peter. But the difference in gender and exact meaning between “Petros,” translated Peter, and “petra” translated rock makes this idea untenable. In classical Greek the distinction is generally observed (see “petra” in Thayer’s Lexicon), “petra” meaning “the massive living rock,” and “petros” meaning “a detached, but large fragment.”

Others take “Petra” as meaning the faith of Peter; still others Peter’s confession.

We regard Christ here as using a play upon words. We take “petra” as referring to Christ divinely revealed and implanted in the hearts of men (Col. 1:27). We think this interpretation is borne out by 1 Cor. 3:11. This passage speaks of the foundation of the church at Corinth. This foundation had been laid by the preaching of the gospel and the divine revelation and implanting of Christ in the heart. cf. Galatians 4:25–27

Thomas Paul Simmons, A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine: A Logical Arrangement and a Diligent Treatment of the Teachings of God’s Holy Word, Systematic, Calvinistic, Baptistic, Premillennial, Third English Edition. (Russell, KY: The Baptist Examiner, 1955), 354–355.

If by “this rock” Jesus had Peter himself in mind, he could easily have said, ἐπί σου, “on thee” will I build my church; or, “on thee, Peter,” adding his name. (R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), 625.)

Others by this rock understand this confession which Peter made of Christ, and this comes all to one with understanding it of Christ himself. It was a good confession which Peter witnessed, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God; the rest concurred with him in it. “Now,” saith Christ, “this is that great truth upon which I will build my church.” Take away this truth itself, and the universal church falls to the ground. 

Moreover, the statement that the rock is Peter is true only as we keep in mind what that apostle has just said; it is not Peter simply as Peter but Peter who has confessed Jesus as the Messiah who is the church’s foundation on whom the church is to be built. We must not separate the man from the words he has just spoken. From the earliest times it has been recognized that Peter’s faith is important for an understanding of the passage. 

Thus Chrysostom cites the words: 

“upon this rock will I build my Church” and immediately goes on, “that is, on the faith of his confession”. 

Any interpretation that minimizes the importance of the faith that found expression in Peter’s words is to be rejected.

As Hill, for example, does. He says, “Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g. his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias”; 

he makes no attempt to give a reason for separating the words of the confession Peter has just made from the man who made them. And it leads him to say things like “Peter has authority to make pronouncements (whether legislative, as ‘chief rabbi’ … or disciplinary) and these will be ratified by God in the Last Judgment” (Mt.16:19). 

Peter! The Peter of verses (Mt.16:22–23; 18:21; Gal. 2:11–14) the chief rabbi with his pronouncements ratified by God at the last judgment? ( Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1992). 423)

A scribe’s education began as early as in his fifth year. At thirteen he became a “son of the precept,” Bar-mitsvah. If deemed fit, he became a disciple. At thirty he was admitted as a teacher, having tablets and a key given him.

 His functions were various; he transcribed the law (here the greatest accuracy was demanded); he expounded the law, always with reference to authority—he acted as judge in family litigation, and was employed in drawing up various legal documents, such as marriage contracts, writings of divorce, etc.

the keys of the kingdom of heaven] This expression was not altogether new. To a Jew it would convey a definite meaning. He would think of the symbolic key given to a Scribe when admitted to his office, with which he was to open the treasury of the divine oracles.

 Peter was to be a Scribe in the kingdom of heaven. He has received authority to teach the truths of the kingdom.

whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven] To bind (cp. Mat. 23:4) is to impose an obligation as binding; to loose is to declare a precept not binding. Such expressions as this were common: “The school of Shammai binds it, the school of Hillel loosest it.” 

The power is over things, not persons. The decisions of Peter as an authorized Scribe of the Kingdom of God will be ratified in heaven. 

A. Carr, The Gospel according to St Matthew, with Maps Notes and Introduction, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1893), 75,135.

Their argument, that the external authority of the pope is conferred in the words of Christ, “On this rock I will build My Church,” understanding the rock to mean St. Peter and his authority, I have refuted many times, and now I will say only this: 

First, they must prove that the rock means authority. They will not do this, nor can they do it, so they just give voice to their own inventions, and all their drivel must be divine command.

Theodore E. Schmauk and A. Steimle, “The Papacy at Rome an Answer to the Celebrated Romanist at Leipzig 1520,” in Works of Martin Luther with Introductions and Notes, vol. I (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915), 380.

The apostle’s legitimacy appears not in the power of his personality, not in his spiritual experiences, not in his commissioning by the right ecclesiastical authorities, but only in the extent to which his life and preaching represent the crucified Jesus.(C. K. Barrett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Black’s New Testament Commentary (London: Continuum, 1973), 30.)

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. It is difficult to imagine “the Rock” betraying and abandoning Jesus in his hour of greatest need, except as a parable. Perhaps this explains Jesus’ nickname for Peter. 

He was not really a rocklike personality, so Jesus gave “Rocky” an ideal to strive for. By Paul’s time the nickname had already stuck, but perhaps Paul used it sarcastically. The “pillar/rock” should not collapse or give in to pressure (as Gal. 2:11–14 suggests about Cephas) cf. Acts 10:13–17 but should measure up to the nickname’s image.cf. Mark 3:16–17. (John J. Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K., 2012), 91.)

None of this requires that conservative Roman Catholic views be endorsed (for examples of such views, cf. Lagrange, Sabourin). The text says nothing about Peter’s successors, infallibility, or exclusive authority. These late interpretations entail insuperable exegetical and historical problems—e.g., after Peter’s death, his “successor” would have authority over a surviving apostle, John. 

What the NT does show is that Peter is the first to make this formal confession and that his prominence continues in the earliest years of the church (Acts 1–12). But he, along with John, can be sent by other apostles (Acts 8:14); and he is held accountable for his actions by the Jerusalem church (Acts 11:1–18) and rebuked by Paul (Gal 2:11–14). He is, in short, primus inter pares (“first among equals”); and on the foundation of such men (Eph 2:20), Jesus built his church. 

That is precisely why Jesus, toward the close of his earthly ministry spent so much time with them. The honor was not earned but stemmed from divine revelation (Mt. 16:17) and Jesus’ building work (Mt.16:18). ( D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 368–369.)

And yet, despite Peter’s prominent role in the Bible, we don’t have as detailed a biography for him as we might like. He makes it farther into the book of Acts than the other disciples, most of whom disappear in the second chapter as soon as the Holy Spirit descends. Unlike them, Peter remains an important character for much of the subsequent narrative. But even he vanishes halfway through the book. 

In Acts 15, after making a speech at the Jerusalem council, Peter is never mentioned again. This happened around AD 49. 

Any claims about the later activities of Peter must therefore be deduced from vague hints within other biblical books, or be drawn from extrabiblical traditions about the apostle.(Bryan Litfin, After Acts: Exploring the Lives and Legends of the Apostles (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2015), 145.)

In Peter, in the saying about the founding and the ensuing building of the Church, the NT view of the rootage of what continues in what is once-for-all finds almost classical expression. Hence the task of Peter can be understood only in terms of the high-priestly prayer, which says that the new generation will believe through the word of the apostles, Jn. 17:20.

 For the foundation of the Church is simply the attestation of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and of the identity of the Christ who promises and the Christ who is exalted. The apostles are the one foundation on which the community is built, Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14. Among them Peter is the first and chief eye-witness of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

The fact that he had cause to “fear” the representatives of James shows plainly that there could be no question of a Petrine primacy at this period; if there was any primacy it was in the hands of James.

Roman Catholic critics of Cullmann, Petrus, rightly perceive that the decisive pt. in the question of primacy is the historical role allotted in this work to James. Their most important counterargument in trying to weaken James’ leadership relates to the term φοβούμενος in Gal. 2:12.

 They give it the sense of “fear of difficulties,” in this case with subordinates. But this is not in keeping with the use of the verb in other passages, where it always means fear of higher authority. Furthermore, the fact that Peter fears higher authority at the decisive moment agrees with the picture presented in the Gospels. (Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–). 107,108 )

More Writings from the "PETRA" = Fide School

When the church, represented in the apostolic succession of bishops, claims to have been guided by the Holy Spirit to grant inerrant and infallible power to one of its own members, whether the church approves or disapproves, then all theological bets are off. The penultimate has become the ultimate, time has become eternal, and one no longer sees “in a mirror dimly” (1 Cor 13:12). The end-time, the “eschaton,” is realized in the papacy. (Eric W. Gritsch, Toxic Spirituality: Four Enduring Temptations of Christian Faith (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2009), 65.)

But to allow this passage its natural meaning, that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built, is by no means either to affirm the papacy or to deny that the church, like the apostles, rests upon Jesus as the bedrock of its existence. Jesus is after all the builder, and all that the apostles do they do through him. (Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28, vol. 33B, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1995), 470.)

that Matt 16:17–19 does not envisage a succession of Peter’s office is much more than simply a Protestant thesis today; it corresponds to the tendency of the text itself. The rock, the foundation, is fundamentally different from what is built on it, the house. The rock remains; the house built on it gets higher. 

“The idea of a constantly growing foundation is … an internal impossibility.cf.(Mal. 3:6, Heb.13:8)” 

That view is confirmed by historical development. 

While a succession in the sense that office bearers were appointed by apostles in the local churches—for example, elders, bishops, or deacons—is clearly documented by the end of the first century, there is no evidence for a succession of the apostles in their apostolic office that is valid for the whole church. (Ulrich Luz, Matthew: A Commentary, ed. Helmut Koester, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 2001), 369.)

And I also tell you: your name is Peter [a stone]; but upon this rock foundation I will build my church and the powers of Hades will not triumph over it.

If Peter’s confession in Mt.16:16 about the person of Jesus (“You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God”) was the result of divine revelation, not natural intuitive powers (“flesh and blood,” Mt.16:17), here in Mt.16:18 Jesus himself gives a second revelation (implied by κἀγώ, “I also”), this time about his work—his building of his community and its withstanding of the incontestable power of Satan, evil, and death (αὐτῆς,"it" refers back to ἐκκλησίαν,"church" not πέτρᾳ,"rock").

If there is an Aramaic substratum to this logion, the wordplay would have involved the term kepaʾ, since this word can mean both “stone” and “rock.” 

But the exegete must engage with the Greek as it stands, not with a putative-conjectural, hypothetical, reputed Aramaic original. 

(Peter as first confessor) has the advantage of tying Mt.16:18 to Mt.16:16–17. As the first among the Twelve to enunciate what had been revealed by the Father (Mt.16:17), Peter and his confession formed the bedrock for the edifice of Christ’s church. On this view Petrine primacy is temporal, not official. Peter himself later explicitly distinguishes between Christ as the “cornerstone” (ἀκρογωνιαῖος) of the church (a view shared by Paul, 1 Cor. 3:11; Eph.2:20), and all believers (including Peter himself) as “living stones” (λίθοι ζῶντες) who together constitute the “spiritual temple” (οἶκος πνευματικός), the church (1 Pe 2:4–6).

It must be observed that Jesus does not say ἐπί σοι (“on you”) or ἐπί σοι ὡς πέτρᾳ (“on you as a rock”). And there is the antecedent improbability that so significant an edifice as a messianic community, constructed by the Messiah himself, should be erected on so insecure a foundation as a mere mortal, even though Peter was the recipient of divine revelation.

 The messianic confession of Peter (Mt.16:16). The Greek does not require that the referent in πέτρος,"Peter" and πέτρα,"rock" be identical; indeed, the presence of the demonstrative ταύτῃ,"this" is decidedly awkward (in a move from second to third person) if it refers back to Πέτρος,"Peter". Rather, it looks back to an implied τοῦτο,"this" (= the content of the confession of Mt.16:16) with ἀπεκάλυψεν,"revealed" in Mt.16:17 in a case of “construction according to sense.” Significantly, the early history of the church indicates that the earliest, foundational Christological confession was in fact “Jesus is the Messiah” (ὁ Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς,  

 When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with proclaiming the word, testifying to the Jews that the Messiah was Jesus. Acts. 18:5

for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the scriptures that the Messiah is Jesus.Acts.18:28 

“Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified.” Acts. 2:36

And every day in the temple and at home they did not cease to teach and proclaim Jesus as the Messiah. Acts. 5:42

[And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”]Acts. 8:37 KJV 

Saul became increasingly more powerful and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Messiah. Acts. 9:22 

explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer and to rise from the dead and saying, “This is the Messiah, Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you.”). Acts. 17:3 

This view, held (with variations) by Ambrose, Chrysostom, Calvin, and Zwingli, has recently been defended by C. C. Caragounis, Peter and the Rock (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989). ( Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: An Essential Reference Resource for Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 141,142 )

If Christ be not the Son of God, Christianity is a cheat, and the church is a mere chimera; our preaching is vain, your faith is vain, and you are yet in your sins, 1 Cor. 15:14–17. If Jesus be not the Christ, those that own him are not of the church, but deceivers and deceived. Take away the faith and confession of this truth from any particular church, and it ceases to be a part of Christ’s church, and relapses to the state and character of infidelity. 

This is articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesia—that article, with the admission or the denial of which the church either rises or falls; “the main hinge on which the door of salvation turns;” those who let go this, do not hold the foundation; and though they may call themselves Christians, they give themselves the lie; for the church is a sacred society, incorporated upon the certainty and assurance of this great truth; and great it is, and has prevailed. ( Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994, 1696.)

The title Kyrios-Lord for Jesus also has an ecclesiological significance. Since the term Kyrios presupposes the relationship between the “lord/master” and those under the lordship of the former, the recognition of Jesus as ho Kyrios inevitably leads to the identity of the community of those who recognize Jesus as such regardless of their ethnic origins. Thus, the “people of God” is no longer defined by the traditional notion of ethnic Israel (Yamazaki-Ransom, 3).

B. Witherington and K. Yamazaki-Ransom, “Lord,” ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Second Edition (Downers Grove, IL; Nottingham, England: IVP Academic; IVP, 2013), 534.

The idea of God’s “building” a new people for himself is foundational for understanding Paul’s application of this terminology (e.g., Jer. 24:6; 31:4; 33:7 [Gentiles are included in Jer. 12:16]). Jesus affirms that he will build or establish this new community (Matt 16:18), and Paul sees himself as the Lord’s agent continuing this work (Rom.15:15–21; cf. 1 Cor. 3:9; 2 Cor. 10:8; 12:19; 13:10).

 Building the church involves founding, maintaining, and maturing Christian congregations. Believers have an important part to play in the process as they minister God’s truth to one another in love (1 Cor. 14:3–5, 12, 17, 26; 1 Thess. 5:11; Eph. 4:12, 16). Even in matters of food and drink, they have the opportunity to “build up one another” and so “build” or strengthen the church (1 Cor. 8:1, 10; 10:23). Love and edification belong together in Paul’s thought.(David G. Peterson, Romans, ed. T. Desmond Alexander, Thomas R. Schreiner, and Andreas J. Köstenberger, Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2021), 495.)

that it is not given to men to judge the heart, and that God alone in the day of judgment will infallibly remove from the church all elements which, while simulating its outward appearance, do not belong to it in the inner spiritual reality.

Geerhardus Vos, The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church, ed. John H. Kerr, Second Edition, Revised. (New York: American Tract Society, 1903), 168.

To the same context belongs the saying about building the temple, Mk. 14:57 f. and par.; cf. Mk. 13:2; Jn. 2:19 . It is an exact par. to Mt. 16:17–19. Acc. to the Synoptic tradition one may assume that Jesus proclaimed the building of a temple not made with human hands. The ref. could only be to the new people of God which He would establish. As in Mt. 16:17, we have the image of building, which makes the material parallelism between the sayings even clearer (Oskar Cullmann, “Πέτρος, Κηφᾶς,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 107,108 )

His promise to build a “temple not made with hands” (Mk. 14:58)—that is, to build his “church” (Mt. 16:18)—presupposes some of the scriptural references that were used in Qumran. The Messiah, however, will be the Lord of the Temple. This Temple saying of Jesus is very well attested (Mk. 14:58 and parallels; Mk. 15:29 and parallels; cf..Jn. 2:19; Acts 6:14; Mt. 16:18).

In the trial of Jesus it served as a testimony for the claim of messiahship. After the witnesses had failed to report the claim correctly, the high priest directed the decisive question to Jesus: “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” (Mk. 14:61 cf.Jn. 6:69). The oracle of Nathan stands behind this question; as in 4QFlorilegium it is related to the messianic son of David (cf. Mk. 12:35–37; Rom. 1:3–4). 

This connection explains the messianic implications of the Temple saying of Jesus. The son promised to David by Nathan will build a house for God (2 Sam. 7:13). This is the “temple not made with hands” as promised by Jesus. It will be a “sanctuary of man,” as the Temple which the hands of God will build (4QFlor 1). Jesus could call it his “church” (Mt. 16:18). That is why he could confirm the confession of Peter (“You are the Christ, the son of the living God!”) by the announcement to build his church (Mt. 16:17–18).

[I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them that they may dwell there and be troubled no more by their] enemies. No son of iniquity [shall afflict them again] as formerly, from the day that [I set judges] over my people Israel (2 Sam. 7:10).

This is the House which [He will build for them in the] last days, as it is written in the book of Moses, In the sanctuary which Thy hands have established, O Lord, the Lord shall reign for ever and ever (Exod. 15:17–18). 4Q174 Frags. 1 i, 21, 2

Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, Revised and extended 4th ed. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 353.

This church, the new temple not made with hands, consists of people who want to return to the Lord. This is revealed by the time span of three days, which most probably points to Hosea 6:2 the one of Israel who repents will be “raised” by God “on the third day.” Matthew 16:18 is dependent on Isaiah 28:16; God will lay a sure foundation and a precious cornerstone on Mount Zion.   

For Thou wilt set the foundation on rock
and the framework by the measuring-cord of justice;
and the tried stones [Thou wilt lay]
by the plumb-line [of truth],
to [build] a mighty [wall] which shall not sway;
and no man entering there shall stagger. 

Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, Revised and extended 4th ed. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 209.

This foundation of God and its members stand in opposition to those who made a covenant with death cf. Rom. 8:2,2 Cor.3:7 and who have their refuge in lies—they will be swept away (Isa. 28:15–19). But the foundation of God will remain firm during the final catastrophe (1QH 6.29), untouched by the “gates of Hades” (šaʿărê māwet, 1QH 6.24; cf. 3.17–18). 

In my view Jesus also had Isaiah 28:16 in mind when he announced a temple and a church on the rock, against which the gates of Hades cannot prevail (Mt 16:18; cf. Isa 28:15). But for Jesus the second part of Isaiah 28:16 was important as well: “He who believes will not be in haste” (yāḥîš = he will not yield to the assault of evil).

Faith participates in the strength and stability of the firm foundation of God to which it is directed. In a further word to Peter, Jesus alluded again to this Isaianic passage: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren” (Lk. 22:31–32).

[Peter also restrained himself in this inquiry of our Lord’s by answering cautiously, for he remembered earlier on, when Christ’s passion was drawing near, he had attributed greater constancy to himself than he possessed. Bede HOMILIES ON THE GOSPELS 2.22.] 

However, he must face the heavy attacks of Satan and Hades (cf. Isa 28:15). Jesus, acting as an intercessor, will lay his hands upon the rock; he will ask that Peter’s “faith may not fail” (Isa. 28:16b). cf.( Jn. 21:15–17; 1 Cor. 1:9; Phil. 1:6; 1Th. 5:24; 2 Tim. 2:13)

Later on, Isaiah 28:16 became important scriptural testimony for the fundamental role of Jesus in relation to the church. He was believed to be its foundation (1 Cor. 3:11; Rom. 9:33; 10:11; 1 Pet. 2:6, 8; Mt. 21:42), the precious cornerstone laid by God in Zion. As the Epistle to the Hebrews suggests, the Christian vision of the heavenly Jerusalem and city of God, being the goal of Christian pilgrimage and the final refuge and resting-place, is a development of Isaiah 28:16 (cf. Heb 11:10; 12:22; 13:14) and also the attitude of hope and faith directed toward it. I think that the famous “definition” of faith in Hebrews 11:1 has Isaiah 28:16 as its scriptural background. (James H. Charlesworth, Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls: With Internationally Renowned Experts (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1992), 98,99.)

That the Lord Christ is thus the foundation of the church, is testified unto, Isa. 28:16: therefore this is what the LORD God says: “Look! I am laying a foundation stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation: Whoever believes firmly will not act hastily. But the interpretation and application of the last words of this promise by the apostles, leaves no pretense unto this insinuation. “He that believes on him shall not be ashamed” or “confounded,” Rom. 9:33, 10:11; 1 Pet. 2:6; that is, he shall be eternally saved—which it is the highest blasphemy to apply unto any other but Jesus Christ alone. 

He, therefore, is alone that foundation which God hath laid in and of the church. See Ps. 118:22; Matt. 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:4; Eph. 2:20–22; Zech. 3:9. But this fundamental truth—of Christ being the only foundation of the church—is so expressly determined by the apostle Paul, as not to need any farther confirmation, 1 Cor. 3:11: “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” cf. Luke 23:53; 1 Cor.10:3–4 (John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 35.)

Granted that it is said, “On this rock I will build my church” [Matt. 16:18], certainly the church is not built upon the authority of a human being but upon the ministry of that confession Peter made, in which he proclaimed Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of God.

 For that reason Christ addresses him as a minister: “On this rock,” that is, on this ministry. Furthermore, the ministry of the New Testament is not bound to places or persons like the Levitical ministry, but is scattered throughout the whole world and exists wherever God gives God’s gifts: apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers [cf. Eph. 4:11]. 

That ministry is not valid because of the authority of any person but because of the Word handed down by Christ. Most of the holy Fathers (Origen, Ambrose, Cyprian, Hilary, Bede) interpret the statement “On this rock …” in the same way, that is, as not applying to the person or superiority of Peter. Thus Chrysostom declares: “Christ says ‘on this rock,’ not ‘on Peter.’ For truly he has built his church not upon the man but upon Peter’s faith.

 But what was that faith? You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And this from Hilary: “The Father revealed this to Peter so that he might declare: ‘You are the Son of the living God.’ Upon this rock of confession, therefore, the church is built. This faith is the foundation of the church.” (Robert Kolb, Timothy J. Wengert, and Charles P. Arand, The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2000), 334–335.)

Yet, as Luz points out, this “Roman” interpretation was not common prior to the Catholic Counter-Reformation, when the text became useful in debates against Protestantism. Prior to the emergence of this “Roman” interpretation, the referent of the “rock” was more commonly taken to be either the confession of faith in Christ, which was the predominant interpretation of Eastern Orthodox Chrisitanity, or Christ himself (this latter was Augustine’s reading of the text).

 One of the earliest candidates for the referent of “rock” was the typological interpretation: faith itself. The rock upon which Jesus would build his church would be the faith of disciples who follow Jesus as Lord. (Jeannine K. Brown and Kyle Roberts, Matthew, ed. Joel B. Green, The Two Horizons New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2018), 152.)

This raises the larger and more principial question, namely, while the church at Rome was no doubt influential, why is there no indication in the first couple of centuries of the Christian era that the rest of the church recognized the Roman church as supreme or acceded to Rome any sovereignty over Christendom? The Roman Catholic apologist H. Burn-Murdock admits as much in his The Development of the Papacy (London: Faber & Faber, 1954), 130f., when he writes: 

“None of the writings of the first two centuries describe St. Peter as a bishop of Rome.”  

Martin Luther, What Luther Says (Saint Louis: Concordia, 1959), 2:1070, para. 3412: “The pope is the archblasphemer of God in that he applies to himself the noble passage which is spoken of Christ alone. He wants to be the rock, and the church should rest on him.… Therefore we must see to it that we stay with the simple meaning, namely, that Christ is the Foundation on which the church is to stand.” Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: T. Nelson, 1998). 817

A genuine Catholic consults the Apostolic Tradition, as found in the Fathers of the Church. If the Fathers agree in their verdict, their voice is apparently the voice of the Church. But if it does not agree, the voice of the Fathers is only their personal and subjective opinion, and not the voice of the Church, and can never become such. 

Now, the French divine Launoy has taken the trouble to count the voices of the Fathers on this point, and finds that forty-four explain the “Rock” as “the belief in Christ’s divinity,” just confessed by Peter, or as “the person of Christ;” and only seventeen understand it of the person of Peter. Thus we are at liberty to explain the passage as we like. But however we may explain it, we are not warranted to make a dogma of our subjective interpretation. (J. J. Overbeck, A Plain View of the Claims of the Orthodox Catholic Church (London: Trübner & Co., 1881), 19–20.)

For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ.

Therefore,” he saith, “Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock” which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;” that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, “will I build My Church.” I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee.

Augustine of Hippo, “Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament,” in Saint Augustin: Sermon on the Mount, Harmony of the Gospels, Homilies on the Gospels, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. R. G. MacMullen, vol. 6, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1888), 340.

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: “On him as on a rock the Church was built.” But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received “the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” For, “Thou art Peter” and not “Thou art the rock” was said to him. But “the rock was Christ,” in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. ( Augustine of Hippo, The Retractations, ed. Roy Joseph Deferrari, trans. Mary Inez Bogan, vol. 60, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1968), 90–91. )

 What then saith Christ? “Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas.” “Thus since thou hast proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begat thee;” all but saying, “As thou art son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father.” Else it were superfluous to say, “Thou art Son of Jonas;” but since he had said, “Son of God,” to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begat Him, therefore He added this, “And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;” that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” “And if not against it, much more not against me. So be not troubled because thou art shortly to hear that I shall be betrayed and crucified.”

John Chrysostom, “Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople on the Gospel according to St. Matthew,” in Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. George Prevost and M. B. Riddle, vol. 10, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1888), 333.

All things are delivered unto Me of the Father, and no one knoweth the Son but the Father, neither knoweth any one the Father save the Son. What then is this truth, which the Father now reveals to Peter, which receives the praise of a blessed confession? It cannot have been that the names of ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ were novel to him; he had heard them often. Yet he speaks words which the tongue of man had never framed before:—Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 

For though Christ, while dwelling in the body, had avowed Himself to be the Son of God, yet now for the first time the Apostle’s faith had recognised in Him the presence of the Divine nature. Peter is praised not merely for his tribute of adoration, but for his recognition of the mysterious truth; for confessing not Christ only, but Christ the Son of God. 

It would clearly have sufficed for a payment of reverence, had he said, Thou art the Christ, and nothing more. But it would have been a hollow confession, had Peter only hailed Him as Christ, without confessing Him the Son of God. And so his words Thou art declare that what is asserted of Him is strictly and exactly true to His nature. Next, the Father’s utterance, This is My Son, had revealed to Peter that he must confess Thou art the Son of God, for in the words This is, God the Revealer points Him out, and the response, Thou art, is the believer’s welcome to the truth. 

And this is the rock of confession whereon the Church is built. But the perceptive faculties of flesh and blood cannot attain to the recognition and confession of this truth. It is a mystery, Divinely revealed, that Christ must be not only named, but believed, the Son of God. Was it only the Divine name; was it not rather the Divine nature that was revealed to Peter? If it were the name, he had heard it often from the Lord, proclaiming Himself the Son of God. What honour, then, did he deserve for announcing the name? No; it was not the name; it was the nature, for the name had been repeatedly proclaimed.

This faith it is which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven. This faith is the Father’s gift by revelation; even the knowledge that we must not imagine a false Christ, a creature made out of nothing, but must confess Him the Son of God, truly possessed of the Divine nature. 

Hilary of Poitiers, “On the Trinity,” in St. Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. E. W. Watson et al., vol. 9a, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1899), 111–112.

And perhaps that which Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” if we say it as Peter, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven shining in our heart, we too become as Peter, being pronounced blessed as he was, because that the grounds on which he was pronounced blessed apply also to us, by reason of the fact that flesh and blood have not revealed to us with regard to Jesus that He is Christ, the Son of the living God, but the Father in heaven, from the very heavens, that our citizenship may be in heaven, revealing to us the revelation which carries up to heaven those who take away every veil from the heart, and receive “the spirit of the wisdom and revelation” of God.

And if we too have said like Peter, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, “Thou art Peter,” etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.

Origen, “Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew,” in The Gospel of Peter, the Diatessaron of Tatian, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Visio Pauli, the Apocalypses of the Virgil and Sedrach, the Testament of Abraham, the Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena, the Narrative of Zosimus, the Apology of Aristides, the Epistles of Clement (Complete Text), Origen’s Commentary on John, Books I-X, and Commentary on Matthew, Books I, II, and X-XIV, ed. Allan Menzies, trans. John Patrick, vol. 9, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1897), 455–456.

Let us not imagine ourselves wiser than the gift of the Spirit. Let us hear the words of the great Peter, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Let us hear the Lord Christ confirming this confession, for “On this rock,” He says, “I will build my church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” Wherefore too the wise Paul, most excellent master builder of the churches, fixed no other foundation than this. “I,” he says, “as a wise master builder have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” How then can they think of any other foundation, when they are bidden not to fix a foundation, but to build on that which is laid?

Theodoret of Cyrus, “Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus,” in Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings, Etc., ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Blomfield Jackson, vol. 3, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 318.

I, too, say to thee.” Peter has confessed Jesus, Jesus confesses Peter. All the pronouns are emphatic: “I, too, say to thee that thou art Peter,” etc. What Jesus here does regarding Peter he promises to do for all who confess him as Peter did, Mt.10:32.(Jn. 1:49.6:68, 69 ; Jn. 9:22, 25, 33. 11:27.)

“To confess” is used of abiding in the faith, and walking according to truth. For other instances of this idiom see (Rom. 10:9, 10. 1 Jn.4:15). lit. confess in me. Vincent states “The idea is that of confessing Christ out of a state of oneness with him. ‘Abide in me, and being in me, confess me.’ It implies identification of the confessor with the confessed, and thus takes confession out of the category of mere formal or verbal acknowledgment. ‘Not every one that saith unto me, Lord! Lord! shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Matthew 7:21 The true confessor of Christ is one whose faith rests in him.

Jerome H. Smith, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge: The Most Complete Listing of Cross References Available Anywhere- Every Verse, Every Theme, Every Important Word (Nashville TN: Thomas Nelson, 1992), 1051,1052 

That Peter is not designed in our Lord’s words must be evident to all who are not blinded by prejudice. Peter was only one of the builders in this sacred edifice, Eph. 2:20, who himself tells us, (with the rest of the believers,) was built on this living foundation stone: 1 Pet. 2:4, 5; therefore Jesus Christ did not say, on thee, Peter, will I build my Church, but changes immediately the expression, and says, upon that very rock, επι ταυτη τη πετρα, to show that he neither addressed Peter, nor any other of the apostles.(Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible with a Commentary and Critical Notes, New Edition., vol. 5 (Bellingham, WA: Faithlife Corporation, 2014), 171.)

In which sense so ever it be taken, it makes nothing for the papists’ superiority or jurisdiction of St. Peter, or his successors. It follows, I will build my church. By church is here plainly meant the whole body of believers, who all agree in this one faith. It is observable, that Christ calls it his church, not Peter’s, and saith, I will build, not, thou shalt build. 

The working of faith in souls is God’s work. Men are but ministers, by whom others believe.

 They have but a ministry towards, not a lordship over the church of God.(Matthew Poole, Annotations upon the Holy Bible, vol. 3 (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1853), 76.)

In the first place, this image is without doubt suggested by that of the rock, which is applied to Peter’s confession. At the same time, there appears to be yet another thought present, namely that of the house-family connection. For the person in the Middle East, house means his family as well as his dwelling. That the church is a house connects it with the administration of the covenant. It is continued by God in the line of families. In Scripture, then, the church appears in this sense as the “house of God” (cf. 1 Tim 3:15; Heb. 3:6, 10:21); the members of the church are “family” (Gal 6:10; Eph. 2:19; Matt 10:25).

You are citizens along with all of God’s holy people. You are members of God’s family. Together, we are his house, built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets. And the cornerstone is Christ Jesus himself. We are carefully joined together in him, becoming a holy temple for the Lord. Through him you Gentiles are also being made part of this dwelling where God lives by his Spirit. Eph 2:19–22 NLT (Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Richard B. Gaffin Jr., trans. Richard B. Gaffin Jr., vol. 5 (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012–2016), 8.)

There are, however, other sayings belonging to the same closing period of our Lord’s ministry, in which he predicts the coming of the kingdom with a new, previously unknown power. In Matt. 16:28; Mk. 9:1; Lk. 9:27; Matt. 26:64; Mk. 14:62; Lk. 22:69, Jesus speaks of a coming of the Son of man in his kingdom, of a coming of the kingdom of God with power, which will take place in the near future, so that some of the people then living will witness it. 

A common way of interpreting these sayings is to refer them to the final coming of the kingdom at the end of the world. Those, however, who adopt this view, must assume that our Lord was mistaken as to the nearness of the event in question and hence give up the infallibility of his teaching. cf. Mark 12:24–27

From what has been said it appears that every view which would keep the kingdom and the church separate as two entirely distinct spheres is not in harmony with the trend of our Lord’s teaching. The church is a form which the kingdom assumes in result of the new stage upon which the Messiahship of Jesus enters with his death and resurrection. 

So far as extent of membership is concerned, Jesus plainly leads us to identify the invisible church and the kingdom. It is impossible to be in the one without being in the other. We have our Lord’s explicit declaration in (Jn.3:3, 5), to the effect that nothing less than the new birth can enable man to see the kingdom or enter into it. The kingdom, therefore, as truly as the invisible church is constituted by the regenerate; the regenerate alone experience in themselves its power, cultivate its righteousness, enjoy its blessings. (Geerhardus Vos, The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church, ed. John H. Kerr, Second Edition, Revised. (New York: American Tract Society, 1903), 154–159.)

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will be released in heaven.” 20 Then he commanded the disciples that they should tell no one that he was the Christ. Mt 16:19–20 LEB

Priests are given the task of guarding the house of Yahweh in the OT, but human beings are not wholly restored to the original Adamic task until the new covenant. Jesus gives the keys of the kingdom to a new Adam, Peter, and with him the entire apostolate receives the keys, and with the apostles the entire church receives the privilege of the keys. We are all guardians of the house because we are holy ones in The Holy. 

In the first century, Jewish leaders who oppose Jesus and the church forfeit their role as stewards, gatekeepers, and doormen for the house of Yahweh. They have been replaced by the true Israel, Jesus, who has conferred the power of the keys on his disciples, both Jews and Gentiles. As Hort observes, “His opening is doubtless primarily the admission of Gentiles despite Jewish resistance. His shutting is the exclusion of unbelieving Israel despite their parentage and privileges” (quoted in Hemer 2000: 161). The conflict between Jews and the church can be focused here: Who is the true steward of the house of David? Who is allowed in and who is shut out, and who decides whom to welcome and to exclude? cf. Isa. 22:22; Rev. 3:7.

Jesus has opened a door for the angel at Philadelphia. This open door is a door of access, perhaps to new areas of ministry, or to new success in ministry (cf. 1 Cor. 16:9; 2 Cor. 2:12; Col. 4:3; Sweet 1979: 102). The angel does not possess influence or money that could open doors, but he has done what he should with his “little power” (μικρὰν ἔχεις δύναμιν), holding fast to the Word of Jesus and not denying his name (Rev.3:8). 

He has guarded the Word of perseverance (Rev.3:10). He has faced persecution but has not backed down. Because of that, Jesus promises a reward. He has made use of the little he has, and he will be given more. He has walked through the doors Jesus opened for him, so Jesus will open more. 

There is pastoral wisdom here: Churches expand and extend their ministry not by manipulating the levers of the world’s power.

 Jesus has the keys, and pleasing him is the key to ensuring open doors and wide horizons. If we make good use of the little we have, we can depend on Jesus to multiple it.

Jesus promises that the Jews who have cast the Christians out of their synagogues will return to do homage to the angel of the church. It is Purim with a twist: Instead of the nations bowing before Jews, Jews who have rejected Christ will bow before the angel cf. Isa. 60:14...Jews expect the Gentiles to bow to them, but they will bow to the pastor who leads a church of Jews and Gentiles. It is best to understand these as converted Jews. (Israel. Gen.13:15. Rom. 4:13. Gal.3:16.) 

The Lord’s feet rest on his ark in the Most Holy Place (1 Chr. 28:2; Ps. 99:5; 132:7), and when Israel prostrates before the Lord in worship, they fall at his footstool. The Father promises to make Jesus’s enemies into a footstool on which he rests his feet (Ps. 110:1), and the disciples of Jesus share in the same privilege. In the early chapters of Acts, the apostles’ feet mark the location of a new temple. The Spirit falls on the disciples, consecrating the community of Jesus as holy space. 

In Christ, the apostles are elevated to thrones; they sit on Jesus’s throne as Jesus sits on his Father’s throne (Mt.20:21. Lk. 22:28-30. 1 Cor. 6:2, 3. 2 Tim. 2:12. Rev.2:26, 27. 3:21.). They are, symbolically, enthroned on the ark in the midst of the glory, their feet resting on the footstool of the earth. Thus, Christians who sell their property bring their tribute not to the temple but to the apostles’ feet (Acts 4:35, 37) and when Ananias and Sapphira lie to the Spirit about their sale, they die at the apostles’ feet (Acts 5:2, 9–10). 

Cornelius falls at the feet of Peter to worship him (Acts 10:25). The footstool of God is no longer in the temple, but at the feet of the apostles, at the feet of the church. Jesus promises that Jews will bow down at the true temple when they bow at the feet of Jesus’s angels who serve the churches in the power of the Angel-Spirit. cf. Mark 12:24–27

Peter J. Leithart, Revelation, ed. Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain, vol. 1, The International Theological Commentary on the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments (London; Oxford; New York; New Delhi; Sydney: Bloomsbury; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: An Imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2018), 192–195.  

Taking one of the stones of the place, he put it under his head and lay down in that place. And he dreamed that there was a stairway set up on the earth, the top of it reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. Gen. 28:11–12 cf. John 1:51 

Then Jacob woke from his sleep and said, “Surely the LORD is in this place—and I did not know it!” And he was afraid and said, “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven Ge 28:16–17

Reflecting on this verse, James Kugel notes that anyone who knows the Hebrew text of Gen 28:12 will immediately recognize the source of this image. For though the Bible says that in his dream Jacob saw a ladder whose top reached to the Heavens, the word for “top,” in Hebrew, rosh, is the same word normally used for “head.” And so our Slavonic text—or, rather, the Hebrew text that underlies it—apparently takes the biblical reference to the ladder’s “head” as a suggestion that the ladder indeed had a head, a man’s head, at its very top.

 The fact, then, of this biblical text’s wording—“a ladder set up on the earth, and its head reached to heaven”—engendered the heavenly “head” in our pseudepigraphon. 

J. Kugel, In Potiphar’s House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1990), 118.

Andrei A. Orlov, The Glory of the Invisible God: Two Powers in Heaven Traditions and Early Christology, ed. James H. Charlesworth, vol. 31, Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies (London; New York; Oxford; New Delhi; Sydney: T&T Clark, 2019).

what our entrance into the eternal union (city) really means; read Rev.22:14 

And in the spirit he carried me away to a great, high mountain and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God. It has the glory of God and a radiance like a very rare jewel, like jasper, clear as crystal. It has a great, high wall with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates are inscribed the names that are the names of the twelve tribes of the Israelites: on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. And the wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Re 21:10–14

Portals(gates) = entrance for union. For we must all be brought in. Once we were outside, aliens, foreigners (Eph. 2:19), dead in sin, children of wrath, not one of us a native of the city (communion with God)... Do you ask, why, then, portals at all? Because their symbolism tells so eloquently the part they play in this eternal union. Why an angel at these symbolical portals of this symbolical city? Forget not Gen. 3:24! Eternal union with God is not provided with doors into which anybody can run in any way that pleases him as so many imagine today. Eternal union with God has no doors into which “dogs” may enter (Rev. 22:15). Liars (Rev. 22:15) may claim fellowship with God (1 John 1:6) but they never attain it. This presence of an angel at the portals adds its significant part.

Abraham longed for “the city having foundations, whose Builder and Constructor is God,” Heb. 11:10. Paul knew “the foundation of the apostles and prophets” with Jesus Christ himself as the cornerstone. John saw the wall of the city “having twelve foundations, and on them twelve names of the apostles of the Lamb.” Eternal union with God rests on the Word, with reference to which the Lamb himself said while here on earth: “Heaven and earth (the old) shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” 

We now behold these foundations in the New Testament, the inspired writings of the apostles in which the Old Testament culminates. There is no union with God in eternity save for those who now rest their souls on the Word of the Lamb. For here, too, as in the case of the portals and the angels, the symbolism is intended to speak to us and is arranged with reference to our present state... Gal.4:26–31, Isa.54:11–12

    “Apostles” are they who belong to the Lamb slain for us on the cross; they are the ones that were commissioned by him to preach his Word to all nations during all ages, which they do through the New Testament which now speaks to all men, and he that hears them hears the Lamb. All of the apostles did not write, but those who were moved to write by the Holy Spirit wrote for all, wrote the Word and the doctrine which all taught. (R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Revelation (Columbus, OH: Lutheran Book Concern, 1935), 632–634. )

There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ: Col. 1:18. And he is the head of the body, the church; who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. Eph. 1:22. And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church.

nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God. 

Mat. 23:8. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren. Mat. 23:9. And call no man your father upon earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Mat. 23:10. Neither be ye called masters, for one is your Master, even Christ. 

2 Thess. 2:3. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition: 2 Thess. 2:4. Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped: so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. 2 Thess. 2:8. And then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the Spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 2 Thess. 2:9. Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders. Rev. 13:6. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851), 140.