Jesus’ Promises to Simon Peter

Matthew 16:13–23

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 (pétros), and on this rock (pétra) 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.
From that time Jesus began to show his dis­ci­ples that he must go to Jerusalem and suf­fer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, say­ing, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall nev­er hap­pen to you.” But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hin­drance to me. For you are not set­ting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

Unlike oth­er peo­ple who thought Jesus was “John the Bap­tist, Eli­jah, Jere­mi­ah or some oth­er prophet”, Simon con­fessed: “You are the Christ¹, the Son of the liv­ing God!”

This was not a fun­da­men­tal­ly new insight. Andrew had already told his broth­er Simon at the very begin­ning: “We have found the Mes­si­ah.“² While Andrew’s first con­fes­sion was based on the tes­ti­mo­ny of John the Bap­tist, Simon con­fessed Jesus as the Mes­si­ah after he had already been with him for more than a year and had to realise that Jesus did not cor­re­spond to the polit­i­cal image of the Mes­si­ah that he, like most Jews, had. But every­thing he heard about Jesus and every­thing he saw of his life gave him, with God’s help, the cer­tain­ty of Jesus’ Mes­si­ahship. Jesus said that this was made know to Peter not by flesh and blood, but by the Father in heav­en.

In the sit­u­a­tion described next, Simon refused to accept that Jesus would have to suf­fer and die. Jesus there­fore stern­ly admon­ished him.³ Simon’s reac­tion shows how strong­ly he was still attached to the Jew­ish Mes­sian­ic expec­ta­tion at that time, in which peo­ple longed for a vic­to­ri­ous Mes­si­ah, but did not want to know any­thing about his suf­fer­ing and death.

The Rock

And I tell you, you are Peter (pétros), and on this rock (pétra) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not pre­vail against it.

Jesus respond­ed to Simon’s con­fes­sion with a state­ment about him. Simon had said, “You are the Mes­si­ah.” Jesus replied, “You are Peter.” He remind­ed him of the name he had already giv­en him at their first meet­ing. The Ara­ma­ic word Kefa, which Jesus used in his moth­er tongue,⁴ has the same mean­ing as the Greek word pétros: stone.

The Catholic New Tes­ta­ment schol­ar Rudolf Pesch⁵ writes about this:

The fact that kefas-pet­ros comes from the Ara­ma­ic word kefa, a mate­r­i­al des­ig­na­tion, is undis­put­ed. Just like the Greek word pétros, there is no evi­dence that the name was used in pre-Chris­t­ian times as a per­son­al name, prop­er name or epi­thet. Kefa means “stone, ball, lump, boul­der”; “rock” is only attest­ed as a sec­ondary mean­ing in the Tar­gu­mim in trans­la­tion of the Hebrew word sela’. “That an Ara­ma­ic before East­er did not asso­ciate rock/pétra but ‘stone, ball, lump, clod’ when he heard the epi­thet kefa’⁶ is taught in par­tic­u­lar by the Greek ren­der­ing of the epi­thet as pétros instead of pétra. While pétra means “a rock that has grown over time, rocky moun­tain ranges, cliffs, iso­lat­ed rocky out­crops, also grot­tos”, pétros means “from Homer through to LXX and Jose­phus up to New Tes­ta­ment times stone […]; from the small stone, fire and sling stone, to the larg­er, torn loose boul­der.“⁷

Simon is a stone, an impor­tant stone in the edi­fice of the church. But he is not the rock on which the Church is built. Peter’s con­fes­sion of Jesus as the Mes­si­ah, the Son of the liv­ing God, is the last­ing foun­da­tion of the church of Jesus’ dis­ci­ples.

Paul writes in 1 Corinthi­ans 3:11:

For no one can lay a foun­da­tion oth­er than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

In 1 Peter 2:4 Peter calls Jesus the

[…] liv­ing stone reject­ed by men but in the sight of God cho­sen and pre­cious.

Chris­tians are to be built on him as liv­ing stones.

In the wider con­text, Peter quotes in com­bi­na­tion sev­er­al Old Tes­ta­ment pas­sages on the theme of stone / rock (Isa­iah 28:16; Psalm 118:22 and Isa­iah 8:14) and applies them to Jesus. In verse 8 he calls Jesus

[…] a stone of stum­bling, and a rock of offence.

Here Peter uses the Greek word pétra for the rock, which we also find in Matthew 16:18 for the rock on which the church is built. Peter calls Jesus the rock. Since this use of the word also fol­lows from the Old Tes­ta­ment verse quot­ed, this argu­ment is cer­tain­ly not too strong. But it is inter­est­ing that in this con­text Peter does not men­tion at all that he him­self is the rock on which the church is built. This sug­gests that Peter did not see him­self in this way.

The Old Tes­ta­ment speaks of Yah­weh as the Rock in numer­ous places. We offer only a selec­tion here:

Trust in the LORD for ever, for the LORD GOD is an ever­last­ing rock. (Isa­iah 26:4)

For who is God, but the LORD? And who is a rock, except our God? (Psalm 18:31 — in the same Psalm also vers­es 2 and 46)

And you are my wit­ness­es! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any. (Isa­iah 44:8b)

Oth­er pas­sages: Deuteron­o­my 32:4, 18, 30; Psalm 19:14; 28:1; 42:9; 78:35; 144;1; Isa­iah 17:10 …

There is, how­ev­er, a pas­sage in which not God but a man is sym­bol­i­cal­ly called the “rock”:

Lis­ten to me, you who pur­sue right­eous­ness, you who seek the Lord:
look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the quar­ry from which you were dug.
Look to Abra­ham your father and to Sarah who bore you;
for he was but one when I called him, that I might bless him and mul­ti­ply him. (Isa­iah 51:1–2)

Here Abra­ham is “the rock from which you were hewn.” Here the rock does not have the func­tion of the foun­da­tion on which a house is built, but of the “mate­r­i­al” from which the peo­ple of Israel came into being. One can­not there­fore see this pas­sage as a par­al­lel to Jesus’ word to Peter. More­over, in the peo­ple of Israel there was nev­er the idea of an “Abra­ham­ic office” sim­i­lar to the “Petrine office” among Catholics.

To jus­ti­fy that the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 meant Peter, one could cite Eph­esians 2:20 and Rev­e­la­tion 21:14.

… built on the foun­da­tion of the apos­tles and prophets, Christ Jesus him­self being the cor­ner­stone, in whom the whole struc­ture, being joined togeth­er, grows into a holy tem­ple in the Lord. In him you also are being built togeth­er into a dwelling place for God by the Spir­it. (Eph­esians 2:20–22)

And the wall of the city⁸ had twelve foun­da­tions, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apos­tles of the Lamb. (Rev­e­la­tion 21:14)

In Eph­esians 2:20 Paul writes about the unique posi­tion of the apos­tles in the church. It was they who, togeth­er with the prophets, laid the foun­da­tion for the doc­trine of the church, which is built on Jesus and finds in him its key­stone that holds every­thing togeth­er. We find this teach­ing in the writ­ings of the New Tes­ta­ment. More on this in sec­tion 5.2. There is no men­tion here of a per­ma­nent insti­tu­tion of a Petrine or apos­tolic min­istry.

Rev­e­la­tion 21:14 goes in the same direc­tion. This pas­sage also speaks about the last­ing unique impor­tance of the apos­tles, not about the fact that the apos­tles must have suc­ces­sors who would lat­er take over the func­tion of the foun­da­tion. Nei­ther in Eph­esians nor in Rev­e­la­tion is Peter sin­gled out.

Excursus: On the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 in the course of history

In the “Evan­ge­lisch-katholis­chen Kom­men­tar zum Neuen Tes­ta­ment” Ulrich Luz dis­tin­guish­es between three dif­fer­ent inter­pre­ta­tions of this pas­sage:⁹

1. The “Eastern” interpretation: Peter’s confession or faith is the foundation rock of the Church.

Accord­ing to Luz, this inter­pre­ta­tion is

[…] already present in Ori­gen and then char­ac­teris­es the whole of Greek exe­ge­sis. Peter’s con­fes­sion “is not pecu­liar to Peter alone, but hap­pened for all men: By call­ing (Jesus) his con­fes­sion a rock, he made it clear that on it he would build the Church” (Theodore of Mop­sues­tia, sim­i­lar­ly Euse­bius, John Chrysos­tom and oth­ers). The inter­pre­ta­tion is based on the con­text of v 18: in response to Peter’s con­fes­sion of faith, Jesus had called him blessed and assured him of the promise in v 18. […] Through Ambrose, Hilar­ius and the Ambrosi­aster it also became known in the West and was then rep­re­sent­ed in the West­ern inter­pre­ta­tion through­out the Mid­dle Ages along­side the Augus­tin­ian inter­pre­ta­tion. […]

2. The Augustinian interpretation: Christ is the foundation rock of the Church.

This inter­pre­ta­tion also has its roots in Ori­gen, who first point­ed to 1 Corinthi­ans 10:4 as a par­al­lel pas­sage, in Ter­tul­lian and in Euseb. Its real father, how­ev­er, is Augus­tine, who has advo­cat­ed it over and over again: “For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra”. The rock which Peter con­fessed is Christ (1 Cor 10:4). “… and on this foun­da­tion Peter him­self also built. For oth­er foun­da­tion can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus.” (1 Cor 3:11)¹⁰ […] The Augus­tin­ian inter­pre­ta­tion became the para­mount one in the Mid­dle Ages in the West. […]

3. The Roman interpretation: Peter, and after him the Pope, is the foundation rock of the Church.

The most impor­tant foun­da­tion­al texts from the 5th cen­tu­ry are the third and fourth ser­mons of Leo the Great on the anniver­sary of his con­se­cra­tion as bish­op. […] In Peter also rests the author­i­ty of the Pope, for all that the Pope orders is to be attrib­uted to Peter’s present effi­ca­cy through him. Peter is there­fore not pri­mar­i­ly the “first pope”, but as “Petrus vivus” he is present in his suc­ces­sors. It is sig­nif­i­cant for the sub­se­quent peri­od that the “papal” inter­pre­ta­tion of our text is found pri­mar­i­ly and almost exclu­sive­ly in decrees. […] The papal inter­pre­ta­tion only found its way into Catholic exe­ge­sis with the Counter-Ref­or­ma­tion. […]

Summary

The usu­al expla­na­tion in the Catholic world today, that the rock on which the Church is built is Peter and the popes, does not cor­re­spond to the inter­pre­ta­tive tra­di­tion of antiq­ui­ty and the Mid­dle Ages. The tra­di­tion­al inter­pre­ta­tion saw in the rock either (1) Peter’s con­fes­sion of Jesus as the Mes­si­ah and Son of God or (2) Jesus Christ him­self. These two inter­pre­ta­tions both point to Jesus, not the Pope, and also cor­re­spond to the bib­li­cal con­text. The “papal” inter­pre­ta­tion (3) was used almost exclu­sive­ly to sup­port the papa­cy until the Counter-Ref­or­ma­tion, but not in exeget­i­cal texts.

The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven

Is the pri­ma­cy of juris­dic­tion¹¹ meant by the keys of the king­dom of heav­en? Is this only about Peter or also about his suc­ces­sors?

We can find events in Peter’s life in which he indeed had a key func­tion.

• In Acts 8:4–25 we read about the first step of the Church beyond Judaism. Peter and John laid hands on the new­ly con­vert­ed Samar­i­tans. They were thus ful­ly accept­ed into the church of Jesus’ dis­ci­ples.
• The next “expan­sion” of the church, when Gen­tiles were also received, also took place with Peter’s sig­nif­i­cant par­tic­i­pa­tion, accord­ing to Acts 10–11.
  
• The admis­sion of the Gen­tiles also raised the ques­tion of the sig­nif­i­cance of the Old Tes­ta­ment law for the Gen­tile Chris­tians. Peter was also sig­nif­i­cant­ly involved in this deci­sion.¹²
  

So we find enough points in Peter’s life where this “key pow­er” becomes vis­i­ble. Peter unlocked, so to speak, the king­dom of heav­en for the Samar­i­tans and the Gen­tiles. There is no need to search for a mean­ing of this word for pos­si­ble fol­low­ers of Peter.

Luke 22:31–34

“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 broth­ers.” Peter said to him, “Lord, I am ready to go with you both to prison and to death.” Jesus said, “I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you deny three times that you know me.”

Jesus here encour­ages Peter, even after the denial and the sub­se­quent repen­tance, to see his respon­si­bil­i­ty towards his broth­ers and to strength­en them. In the first chap­ters of the Acts of the Apos­tles we can read how Peter did this. There is no men­tion here of a pos­si­ble suc­ces­sor to Peter. In a broad­er sense, of course, every dis­ci­ple of Jesus has the task of strength­en­ing his broth­ers.

John 21:15–19

When they had fin­ished break­fast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He said to him a sec­ond time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was griev­ed because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know every­thing; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. Tru­ly, tru­ly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress your­self and walk wher­ev­er you want­ed, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and anoth­er will dress you and car­ry you where you do not want to go.” (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glo­ri­fy God.) And after say­ing this he said to him, “Fol­low me.”

This pas­sage is also to be seen in con­nec­tion with Peter’s denial of Jesus three times. Because Peter has denied Jesus three times, he is asked by Jesus three times whether he loves him. The three­fold request, “Feed my sheep!” shows that the rela­tion­ship with Jesus has been ful­ly restored and that he is again to care for his broth­ers and sis­ters in the faith. The sub­se­quent words in which Jesus announces Peter’s mar­tyr­dom show that this is about Peter, not about some­one who is his suc­ces­sor. The inter­pre­ta­tion from the bull “Unam Sanc­tam” quot­ed at the begin­ning of this trea­tise is there­fore com­plete­ly unfound­ed.

Jesus entrust­ed Peter with the respon­si­bil­i­ty for his broth­ers and sis­ters after Peter affirmed his love for Jesus. Lov­ing Jesus is the uncon­di­tion­al pre­req­ui­site for any author­i­ty that can exist in the Church. If some­one does not love Jesus, then Jesus can­not entrust that per­son with the care of his dis­ci­ples. Love, how­ev­er, is not passed on through an “office”.

Peter was not the only shep­herd in the ear­ly church. He him­self writes:

So I exhort the elders among you, as a fel­low elder and a wit­ness of the suf­fer­ings of Christ, as well as a par­tak­er in the glo­ry that is going to be revealed: shep­herd the flock of God that is among you, exer­cis­ing over­sight, not under com­pul­sion, but will­ing­ly, as God would have you; not for shame­ful gain, but eager­ly; not dom­i­neer­ing over those in your charge, but being exam­ples to the flock. And when the chief Shep­herd appears, you will receive the unfad­ing crown of glo­ry. (1 Peter 5:1–4)

Peter is only a fel­low elder. The chief Shep­herd is Jesus Christ.

1. or Mes­si­ah ↩
2. John 1:41 ↩
3. When Jesus calls Peter Satan, this does not mean that Peter was the dev­il or was pos­sessed by him. We have to under­stand the word Satan in its orig­i­nal Hebrew mean­ing as “adver­sary”. Because Peter spoke against the suf­fer­ing and death of Jesus, he became his adver­sary. ↩
4. cf. John 1:42 ↩
5. Rudolf Pesch, Simon-Petrus, 1980, p. 29, Greek, Hebrew and Ara­ma­ic words tran­scribed. ↩
6. Pesch cites here: P. Lampe, Das Spiel mit dem Petrusna­men, MATT XVI. 18, in: NTS 25 (1978/79), p. 238. ↩
7. Anoth­er cite from Lampe, p. 240. ↩
8. The new Jerusalem ↩
9. Ulrich Luz, Das Evan­geli­um nach Matthäus, Vol. II, Mt 8–17, 4th Edi­tion, 2007, p. 476–479 ↩
10. Com­pare: Augus­tine, Lec­tures or Trac­tates on the Gospel accord­ing to St. John (Trac­ta­tus in Ioan­nis Euan­geli­um) Trac­tate CXXIV:5 — https://bkv.unifr.ch/en/works/cpl-278–1/versions/lectures-or-tractates-on-the-gospel-according-to-st-john/divisions/1238 ↩
11. This term refers to the high­est legal author­i­ty in the church. ↩
12. Acts 15:1–21 ↩