How do Protestants interpret Matthew 16:13–20? The verses read like this:


  13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
  14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
  15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
  16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
  17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. [NIV]


I am familiar with how Catholics interpret this passage and often quote it as the reason the Papacy exists and is ordained by Jesus himself.

However, the verse is perplexing to me because it does seem to imply some sort or emphasis on Peter being special to the Church, but Protestants reject the Papal authority, so how would they interpret this passage? I am looking for the answer that speaks from most Protestants, since I think most Protestants agree that the Papacy does not have the authority it claims. Perhaps if Martin Luther or another famous reformer had anything to say on it would be good.
It is worth pointing out that even if you take the stance that the verse is saying that Peter had some kind of special status, there is nothing that indicates that that authority is continued in his line.  Every other place I can think of where a lineage related authority is granted, it is pretty clearly laid out by God in scripture.  (For example the establishment of the Levitical priests.)  In this passage, there is no such establishment of authority through lineage.