A question about Peter being the rock

[Bishopite]

apophasis;2064171.:

the chair of Peter

" is explicitly taught in Scripture, then I must conclude that it’s uniquely Roman and extrabiblical. Obviously the doctrine has served the church at Rome quite well. Can’t argue that.

So all theological truth has to be explicitly found in Scripture?

Like James 2:24…“Not by faith alone?”

Or is implicit truth just as “Scriptural” as explicit truth?

Is Sunday School explicitly found in Scripture?

 

[Randy_Carson]

“Keys” are used for unlocking, not forgiving. Forgiving required shed blood via a substitutionary sacrifice. Forgiveness of sins is not something they did, but what they proclaimed based on that, once for all, sacrifice (Acts 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Col. 1:14)

This is incorrect. From

newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

Power of the Keys

The expression “power of the keys” is derived from Christ’s words to St. Peter (in Matthew 16:19). The promise there made finds its explanation in Isaias 22, in which “the key of the house of David” is conferred upon Eliacim, the son of Helcias, as the symbol of plenary authority in the Kingdom of Juda. Christ by employing this expression clearly designed to signify his intention to confer on St. Peter the supreme authority over His Church.

I. THE FATHERS

(1) In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church’s power to forgive sins. The application is a natural one, for the promise of the keys is immediately followed by the words: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth”, etc. Moreover, the power to confer or to withhold forgiveness might well be viewed as the opening and shutting of the gates of heaven. This interpretation, however, restricts the sense somewhat too narrowly; for the remission of sins is but one of the various ways in which ecclesiastical authority is exercised.

It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded. In their references to the potestas clavium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montanist and Novatian heretics the power inherent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[guanophore]

“Keys” are used for unlocking, not forgiving. Forgiving required shed blood via a substitutionary sacrifice. Forgiveness of sins is not something they did, but what they proclaimed based on that, once for all, sacrifice (Acts 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Col. 1:14)

Don’ t you think that lack of forgiveness is what keeps humanity locked up in sin? If we fail to accept God’s forgiveness, we are still dead in our sins (imprisoned). If we fail to forgive the sins of others, we imprison ourselves. I think forgiveness is a key to kingdom living.

I agree that Jesus meant for the apostles to proclaim what had already been done, but He also gave them the authority to actually grant or withold forgiveness in His name:

" If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." John 20:23

But I think there is more to this authority than just forgiveness of sins. I think He intended for the apostles to define and protect that deposit of faith He had given to them:

18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 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." Matt 16:18-19

Matt 18:18
18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Or what do you think the Apostles were going to bind and loose?

John 20:23 This was also stated for the whole church in the context of discipline. It is not unique to Peter.The first two pertain to appointing ELDERS, not their “replacements.” And one of the qualifications for an elder was that he was to be able to teach (1 Tim. 3:2). As I said before, you don’t continue to build a foundation, which the Apostles are (Eph. 2:20-21). The last verse pertains to choosing men for a specific duty so as not to interrupt the Apostles themselves from prayer and “ministering the Word.”

Yes, and my point is that those who were chosen for this ministry were chosen by the Holy Spirit, through a process of discernment. The Apostles then confirmed the choice through the laying on of hands.

NONE of those verses state anything about Apostolic succession.Then you have yet to show me where “more than this” is explicitly expressed, taught and demonstrated in subsequent Scripture.

I moved this topic to another thread about Apostolic Succession, because it seems to diverge from this thread. The Succession, although connected to Peter being the rock, extends quite beyond Peter.

“…and upon this rock I will build My church,” to me, clearly refers to the divine revelation given by the Father concerning Jesus, not Peter.

Well, both things are true. But, at least you got half of it!

And once Peter “unlocked” “the kingdom of heaven” through preaching the gospel (good news) of Christ to his fellow Jews and then the Gentiles, those “keys” did not need to be handed down to any so-called “successor.” The job was done. The “binding and loosing” was not unique to Peter and was in the context of church discipline.

Ok, then we are in agreement that there is more to the appointment than just being the first to preach the gospel after Pentecost. So, to whom is given the gift of binding and loosing, and what discipline are we talking about? Perhaps this should be taken up in another thread as well?

So unless you can show me where “the chair of Peter” is explicitly taught in Scripture, then I must conclude that it’s uniquely Roman and extrabiblical. Obviously the doctrine has served the church at Rome quite well. Can’t argue that.

It is not uniquely “Roman”, though we do find that there is much more written about it in the early fathers than we find in scripture. The Orthodox, who do not consider themselves at all “Roman” are in agreement about these doctrines. However, since you reject these testimonies of truth, I will not belabor myself to bring them here.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Bravo, Guano!

 

[Sean_Boyle]

apophasis;2064171.":

the chair of Peter

" is explicitly taught in Scripture, then “I” must conclude that it’s uniquely Roman and extrabiblical. Obviously the doctrine has served the church at Rome quite well. Can’t argue that.
Notice the highlighted word. I do not follow Paul or Apop. I follow Christ!

The bible in uniquely Roman. The bible serves the Church quite well. I fleshes out the extrabiblical teachings that exist today as I has throughout history:thumbsup: .

 

[Trento]

Notice the highlighted word. I do not follow Paul or Apop. I follow Christ!

The bible in uniquely Roman. The bible serves the Church quite well. I fleshes out the extrabiblical teachings that exist today as I has throughout history:thumbsup: .

When the auther of Sola sciptura saw what was happening to his reformation it sounded like he was sorry here.

“There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams.”

Martin Luther
The Facts about Luther, 356​

Well, what is happening when you have thousands of Christian groups professing different beliefs and all claiming to follow “the Bible”? Disunity among Christians is among the largest scandals of all because it contradicts the very Scriptures that all true Christians claim to reverence. Before his arrest, Our Lord is recorded as praying the following prayer, which is sometimes referred to as a “priestly prayer for unity”. Here are some passages of that prayer from the Gospel of John (all emphasis of either caps or bold in the citations of this essay are those of the author unless otherwise noted): These things Jesus spoke: and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said: the hour is come. Glorify thy Son, that thy Son may glorify thee. As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he may give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him. Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent…I pray for them. I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me: because they are thine. And all my things are thine, and thine are mine: and I am glorified in them. And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou hast given me: that they may be one, as we also are. While I was with them, I kept them in thy name. Those whom thou gavest me have I kept: and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition: that the scripture may be fulfilled. And now I come to thee: and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy filled in themselves. I have given them thy word, and the world hath hated them: because they are not of the world, as I also am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from evil. They are not of the world, as I also am not of the world. Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. 17:20. And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me. That they may all be one, as thou Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them: that they may be one, as we also are one. I in them, and thou in me: that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me.

It is difficult if not impossible to see how thousands of denominations can be anything but schism practically institutionalized within Christianity over the last five hundred years. **How is this situation in any way keeping in accord with the clear wishes of the Lord that His believers be one **as He and the Father are one?

 

[guanophore]

Peter denied (betrayed) Christ three times. Read the Gospels. Here is a list of synonyms for your edification. They can be found at dictionary.com

Synonyms for betrayed: abandon, be unfaithful, bluff, break faith, break promise, break trust, break with, commit treason, cross, deceive, deliver up*, delude, desert, double-cross, finger*, forsake, inform against, inform on, jilt, knife*, let down, mislead, sell, sell out, take in*, trick, turn in, turn informer

It can be argued that Christ told all of the apostles that Satan was after each of them - not just Judas, whom he’d already taken. The plural pronoun umav shows that those words were not spoken to Peter alone.

Paul publically rebuked Peter on his less than accurate teachings. Why? Why does the Catholic Churh insist on Peter? It’s because they misunderstand.

Yes - and James (as well as others) told us what to do with those wolves. Are you united with Him? Should not protecting and feeding the flock be of our utmost concern? Maybe it’s that we are all only concerned with what we’ll get out of it, that we’re willing to turn away and just let things happen so that we don’t loose the church.

I believe that Paul rebuked Peter for his hypocritical behavior. While it is right that a leader should “practice what they preach” his personal failure does not nullify the message itself.

I also don’t think it is the Catholic Church that “insists” on Peter. It is Jesus. Jesus chose Peter, and appointed him. After Peter denied Him, he restored Peter to grace and sent him to strengthen his brethren. Why are you so hostile toward the Lord’s chosen?

 

[apophasis]

guanophore:

Don’ t you think that lack of forgiveness is what keeps humanity locked up in sin?

NO! The forgiveness of sins has already been divinely provided via the substitutionary, blood sacrifice of Christ. What keeps humanity “locked up in sin” or better, “under” sin is UNBELIEF:John 8:24 “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.”

Acts 10:43 “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

Acts 13:38 "Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,The primary issue for humanity is not their sins, but their steadfast unbelief in the One through whom all sins are divinely forgiven. This state of unbelief extends to the religious and nonreligious alike: Jew or Gentile, Catholic, Protestant, or Pagan.

I agree that Jesus meant for the apostles to proclaim what had already been done, but He also gave them the authority to actually grant or withold forgiveness in His name: " If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." John 20:23

It is true He gives them here the power to forgive or retain sins of men. So either He, at that time, also gave them a special, even divine, unfailing insight into all men’s hearts, OR, it simply means the remission of sins which they “proclaim” must be conditionally proclaimed.

I doubt that anyone can honestly subscribe to the former alternative. No mere man (save the Theanthopic-Man) possesses omniscience in respect to the motives of men’s hearts. So I believe what Christ here commits to His disciples is the right, authoritatively, to declare in His name, that there is total forgiveness for a man’s sins (based on the cross of Christ), and on what condition (faith in Him alone) sin will be forgiven.

Nowhere do we ever see in Scripture men coming to the Apostles for the purpose of having their sins absolved by them personally. Instead the Apostles declare the forgiveness of sins conditioned upon personal belief in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. I do not see where Scripture supports your interpretation of Jn. 20:23.

Or what do you think the Apostles were going to bind and loose?

Read the problems that arose in the churches in the Epistles. Their correcting and teaching was certainly binding and loosing.

Yes, and my point is that those who were chosen for this ministry were chosen by the Holy Spirit, through a process of discernment. The Apostles then confirmed the choice through the laying on of hands.

But they were not their “replacements” (successors). Christ alone chose His Apostles (Acts 1:2), and one of the qualifications was having to have personally seen Him after His bodily resurrection (Acts 1:3, 8). They were His eyewitnesses. Appointed “elders” in the various churches the Apostles planted could have hardly met even this one requirement.

I moved this topic to another thread about Apostolic Succession, because it seems to diverge from this thread. The Succession, although connected to Peter being the rock, extends quite beyond Peter.

However, it wouldn’t even be an issue if it wasn’t for the Roman notion of the “supremacy of Peter” and how it applies it to its Popes.

It is interesting to note on the Matt. 16:18 passage that Jesus named Simon “Cephas” (Peter) long before that particular episode (Jn. 1:42). And with that in mind you can see that Jesus there is merely making a play on words (clearly seen in the original Greek). Peter (petros), who is hardly at that point in time able to live up to his new moniker (see vs. 23) is divinely revealed the “petra” on which Jesus will build His church. One simply can’t get around the fact that the context is who Jesus is - not Peter. But, we’ve been through all that, right? I’ll check out the other thread.

You guys can have the last word on this one. I’ll see you on another thread

 

[Mannyfit75]

NO! The forgiveness of sins has already been divinely provided via the substitutionary, blood sacrifice of Christ. What keeps humanity “locked up in sin” or better, “under” sin is UNBELIEF:John 8:24 “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.”

Acts 10:43 “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

Acts 13:38 "Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,The primary issue for humanity is not their sins, but their steadfast unbelief in the One through whom all sins are divinely forgiven. This state of unbelief extends to the religious and nonreligious alike: Jew or Gentile, Catholic, Protestant, or Pagan.It is true He gives them here the power to forgive or retain sins of men. So either He, at that time, also gave them a special, even divine, unfailing insight into all men’s hearts, OR, it simply means the remission of sins which they “proclaim” must be conditionally proclaimed.

I doubt that anyone can honestly subscribe to the former alternative. No mere man (save the Theanthopic-Man) possesses omniscience in respect to the motives of men’s hearts. So I believe what Christ here commits to His disciples is the right, authoritatively, to declare in His name, that there is total forgiveness for a man’s sins (based on the cross of Christ), and on what condition (faith in Him alone) sin will be forgiven.

In the Sacrament of Confession, priest forgive sins not in their own name by In the Name of the Father, Of the Son, and Of the Holy Spirit. They forgive in the Name of God. These passages refer to that.

Binding and Loosing in Matthew 16:18 has three meanings

1. Forgive sins.
2. Teach authority on Faith and Morals.
3. Issue Canonical Laws that apply to Liturgical Worship.

Nowhere do we ever see in Scripture men coming to the Apostles for the purpose of having their sins absolved by them personally. Instead the Apostles declare the forgiveness of sins conditioned upon personal belief in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. I do not see where Scripture supports your interpretation of Jn. 20:23.Read the problems that arose in the churches in the Epistles. Their correcting and teaching was certainly binding and loosing.But they were not their “replacements” (successors). Christ alone chose His Apostles (Acts 1:2), and one of the qualifications was having to have personally seen Him after His bodily resurrection (Acts 1:3, 8). They were His eyewitnesses. Appointed “elders” in the various churches the Apostles planted could have hardly met even this one requirement.However, it wouldn’t even be an issue if it wasn’t for the Roman notion of the “supremacy of Peter” and how it applies it to its Popes.

Early confessions were public confessions, the earliest record we have after the death of the Apostle contain description how a bishop would grant penance to the penitent for his sins, which he will have repay for the sins he have commited.

I think someone posted this document somewhere in this forum.

It is interesting to note on the Matt. 16:18 passage that Jesus named Simon “Cephas” (Peter) long before that particular episode (Jn. 1:42). And with that in mind you can see that Jesus there is merely making a play on words (clearly seen in the original Greek). Peter (petros), who is hardly at that point in time able to live up to his new moniker (see vs. 23) is divinely revealed the “petra” on which Jesus will build His church. One simply can’t get around the fact that the context is who Jesus is - not Peter. But, we’ve been through all that, right? I’ll check out the other thread.

You guys can have the last word on this one. I’ll see you on another thread

It is also to note that John 1:42, that Jesus did not explain the meaning of Kephas until Matthew 16:18. So this passage doesn’t contradict any of the Peter’s primacy. It still affirm that Peter is Apostle whom Jesus Christ will build upon.

 

[guanophore]

Originally Posted by guanophore
Don’ t you think that lack of forgiveness is what keeps humanity locked up in sin?

NO! The forgiveness of sins has already been divinely provided via the substitutionary, blood sacrifice of Christ. What keeps humanity “locked up in sin” or better, “under” sin is UNBELIEF:John 8:24 “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.”

Ok, I agree with you, of course, but I was not talking about the sacrifice of Christ, through which forgiveness of sins has been provided to humanity. I was talking about the application of that forgiveness to ourselves, and BETWEEN ourselves.

Acts 10:43 “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

Acts 13:38 "Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,The primary issue for humanity is not their sins, but their steadfast unbelief in the One through whom all sins are divinely forgiven. This state of unbelief extends to the religious and nonreligious alike: Jew or Gentile, Catholic, Protestant, or Pagan.It is true He gives them here the power to forgive or retain sins of men. So either He, at that time, also gave them a special, even divine, unfailing insight into all men’s hearts, OR, it simply means the remission of sins which they “proclaim” must be conditionally proclaimed.

Is not all forgiveness “conditional”? Yes, Jesus died for all, and his sacrifice is efficacious for all, however, all do not claim it, as you have made clear in these scriptures. Those who do not meet the conditions (belief) die in their sins! Their refusal to accept the forgiveness keeps them locked in their sins. I think we are talking about the same elephant, from two different ends.

I doubt that anyone can honestly subscribe to the former alternative. No mere man (save the Theanthopic-Man) possesses omniscience in respect to the motives of men’s hearts. So I believe what Christ here commits to His disciples is the right, authoritatively, to declare in His name, that there is total forgiveness for a man’s sins (based on the cross of Christ), and on what condition (faith in Him alone) sin will be forgiven.

This is my understanding of what the sacrament is all about. Does someone see it otherwise? Or is it just that, when I say this is one of the “keys” to the kingdom, you are disagreeing with that?

Nowhere do we ever see in Scripture men coming to the Apostles for the purpose of having their sins absolved by them personally. Instead the Apostles declare the forgiveness of sins conditioned upon personal belief in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. I do not see where Scripture supports your interpretation of Jn. 20:23.

This is precisely what the Church teaches, that the priest speaks on behalf of Christ, extending the forgiveness bought b Christ on the cross. It is a very personal experience, though.

Read the problems that arose in the churches in the Epistles. Their correcting and teaching was certainly binding and loosing.But they were not their “replacements” (successors). Christ alone chose His Apostles (Acts 1:2), and one of the qualifications was having to have personally seen Him after His bodily resurrection (Acts 1:3, 8). They were His eyewitnesses. Appointed “elders” in the various churches the Apostles planted could have hardly met even this one requirement.However, it wouldn’t even be an issue if it wasn’t for the Roman notion of the “supremacy of Peter” and how it applies it to its Popes.

Well, we see it differently with regard to apolstolic succession. I moved the "supremacy of Peter " to another thread. I have some possibly uncatholic ideas about that.

It is interesting to note on the Matt. 16:18 passage that Jesus named Simon “Cephas” (Peter) long before that particular episode (Jn. 1:42). And with that in mind you can see that Jesus there is merely making a play on words (clearly seen in the original Greek). Peter (petros), who is hardly at that point in time able to live up to his new moniker (see vs. 23) is divinely revealed the “petra” on which Jesus will build His church. One simply can’t get around the fact that the context is who Jesus is - not Peter. But, we’ve been through all that, right?

Yes. I find that the Protestant mindset tends to be “either/or” and the Catholic tends to be both/and. I think that Jesus was talking about Himself, and Peter!

 

[JoeyWarren]

Originally Posted by apophasis forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
It is interesting to note on the Matt. 16:18 passage that Jesus named Simon "Cephas" (Peter) long before that particular episode (Jn. 1:42). One simply can’t get around the fact that the context is who Jesus is - not Peter.

Apophasis is reading the verses wrong again. Shalt and Will or futurative and contingency verbs.

Let us review:

John 1:42

And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said:

Thou art Simon the son of Jona:

Thou art is the present.

thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.

This is a contingent promise of a future name.

And this future event becomes the present event in Mathew 16:18

Matthew 16:18

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Simon actually gets the name of Peter at this point in time.

And then Jesus makes another contingency promise in Matthew 16:19

And** I will give to thee the keys** of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Later in John (Coincidence?) the promise of the keys is given in John 21:16

He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou
knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Tend my sheep.

\

You said: *And with that in mind you can see that Jesus there is merely making a play on words (clearly seen in the original Greek). Peter (petros), who is hardly at that point in time able to live up to his new moniker (see vs. 23) *

God revealed to Simon that Jesus was the promised the Messiah(Christ). Nothing else was revealed.

NAB commentary: Peter’s refusal to accept Jesus’ predicted suffering and death is seen as a satanic attempt to deflect Jesus from his God-appointed course, and the disciple is addressed in terms that recall Jesus’ dismissal of the devil in the temptation account (Matthew 4:10: “Get away, Satan!”). Peter’s satanic purpose is emphasized by Matthew’s addition to the Marcan source of the words You are an obstacle to me.

 

[JoeyWarren]

The Rebuke of Peter and the Answer of Jesus.

“And Peter took Him and began to rebuke Him, saying, God be propitious to You. Lord, this shall never be unto you.” Matthew 16:22 To whom He said, “Get behind Me, Satan; you are a stumbling-block unto Me; for you mind not the things of God but the things of men.” Matthew 16:23 Since Jesus had begun to show unto His disciples that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things, Peter up to this point learned the beginnings of those things which were shown. But since he thought that the sufferings were unworthy of Christ the Son of the living God, and below the dignity of the Father who had revealed to him so great things about Christ,—for the things that concerned His coming suffering had not been revealed to him,—on this account he took Him, and as one forgetful of the honour due to the Christ, and that the Son of the living God neither does nor says anything worthy of rebuke, he began to rebuke Him; and as to one who needed propitiation,—for he did not yet know that “God had set Him forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood,” Romans 3:25 he said, “God be propitious to you, O Lord.” Matthew 16:22 Approving his purpose, indeed, but rebuking his ignorance, because of the purpose being right, He says to him,

continued,

 

[JoeyWarren]

“Get behind Me,” Matthew 16:23 as to one who, by reason of the things of which he was ignorant and spoke not rightly, had abandoned the following of Jesus; but because of his ignorance, as to one who had something antagonistic to the things of God, He said, “Satan,” which in the Hebrew means “adversary.” But, if Peter had not spoken from ignorance, nor rebuked the Son of the living God, saying unto Him, “God be propitious to you, Lord, this shall never be unto You,” Christ would not have said to him, “Get behind Me,” as to one who had given up being behind Him and following Him; nor would He have said as to one who had spoken things adverse to what He had said, “Satan.” But now Satan prevailed over him who had followed Jesus and was going behind Him, to turn aside from following Him and from being behind the Son of God, and to make him, by reason of the words which he spoke in ignorance, worthy of being called “Satan” and a stumbling-block to the Son of God, and “as not minding the things of God but the things of men.” But that Peter was formerly behind the Son of God, before he committed this sin, is manifest from the words, “Come ye behind Me, and I will make you fishers of men.” Matthew 4:19

 

[JoeyWarren]

Importance of the Expressions “Behind” And "Turned."

But you will compare together His saying to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan,” Matthew 16:23 with that said to the devil (who said to Him, “All these things will I give You if You will fall down and worship me”), Matthew 4:9 “get you hence,” Matthew 4:10 without the addition, “behind Me;” for to be behind Jesus is a good thing. Wherefore it was said, “Come ye behind Me and I will make you fishers of men.” Matthew 4:19 And to the same effect is the saying, “He that does not take his cross and follow behind Me is not worthy of Me.” Matthew 10:38 And as a general principle observe the expression “behind”; because it is a good thing when any one goes behind the Lord God and is behind the Christ; but it is the opposite when any one casts the words of God behind him, or when he transgresses the commandment which says, “Do not walk behind your lusts.” Sirach 18:30 And Elijah also, in the third Book of Kings, says to the people, “How long halt ye on both your knees? If God is the Lord, go behind Him, but if Baal is the Lord, go behind him.” 1 Kings 18:21 And Jesus says this to Peter when He “turned,” and He does so by way of conferring a favour. And if therefore you will collect more illustrations of the “having turned,” and especially those which are ascribed to Jesus, and compare them with one another, you would find that the expression is not superfluous. But it is sufficient at present to bring forward this from the Gospel according to John, “Jesus turned and beheld them”—clearly, Peter and Andrew—“following, and says unto them, What seek ye?” John 1:38 For observe that, when He “turned,” it is for the advantage of those to whom He turned.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Peter as a Stumbling-Block to Jesus.

Next we must inquire how He said to Peter, “You are a stumbling-block unto Me,” Matthew 16:23 especially when David says, “Great peace have they that love Your law, and there is no stumbling-block to them.” For some one will say, if this is said in the prophet, because of the steadfastness of those who have love, and are incapable of being offended, for “love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things, love never fails,” 1 Corinthians 13:7-8 how did the Lord Himself, “who upholds all that fall, and raises up all that be bowed down,” say to Peter, “You are a stumbling-block unto Me”? But it must be said that not only the Saviour, but also he who is perfected in love, cannot be offended. But, so far as it depends on himself, he who says or does such things is a stumbling-block even to him who will not be offended; unless perhaps Jesus calls the disciple who sinned a stumbling-block even to Himself, as much more than Paul He would have said from love, “Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to stumble, and I burn not?” 2 Corinthians 11:29 In harmony with which we may put, “Who is made to stumble, and I am not made to stumble?” But if Peter, at that time because of the saying, “God be propitious to You, Lord, this shall not be unto You,” Matthew 16:22 was called a stumbling-block by Jesus, as not minding the things of God in what he said but the things of men, what is to be said about all those who profess to be made disciples of Jesus, but do not mind the things of God, and do not look to things unseen and eternal, but mind the things of man, and look to things seen and temporal, 2 Corinthians 4:18 but that such still more would be stigmatized by Jesus as a stumbling-block to Him, and because stumbling-blocks to Him, as stumbling-blocks to His brethren also? As in regard to them He says, “I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink,” Matthew 25:42 etc., so also He might say, “When I was running ye caused Me to stumble.” Let us not therefore suppose that it is a trivial sin to mind the things of men, since we ought in everything to mind the things of God. And it will be appropriate also to say this to every one that has fallen away from the doctrines of God and the words of the church and a true mind; as, for example, to him who minds as true the teaching of Basilides, or Valentinus, or Marcion, or any one of those who teach the things of men as the things of God.

 

[Seagirt]

Funny how sola Scriptura can allow anyone to exegete Scripture in any way or fashion that they wish and come up with diametrically opposing views. Here is a list of Protestant theologians who know koine Greek, know how to look at it objectively and who have concluded that Peter IS the Rock.

Gerhard Maier
leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian

Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which — in accordance with the words of the text — applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.

“The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate”
Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context
(Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58
JPK pages 16-17

Donald A. Carson III
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
(two quotations from different works)

Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock”. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.

The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368
JPK pages 17-18

The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.

Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78
JPK page 18

Excellent Post. Good Protestant Commentators will admit that Peter is the rock. It is also a play upon words / a pun; it doesn’t have to mean cornerstone— just foundation. It also ties in with ISAIAH:22 — in which the Prime Minister is confirmed by the King who must leave the country and designate a successor. Both CA and Stephen K. Ray have written clearly on this Petra question.

 

[Nancie_Lew]

Excellent Post. Good Protestant Commentators will admit that Peter is the rock. It is also a play upon words / a pun; it doesn’t have to mean cornerstone— just foundation. It also ties in with ISAIAH:22 — in which the Prime Minister is confirmed by the King who must leave the country and designate a successor. Both CA and Stephen K. Ray have written clearly on this Petra question.

Peter isn’t the only rock.

Ephesians 2:19
having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone.

Revelations 21:14
Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations,and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb

 

[Mannyfit75]

Peter isn’t the only rock.

Ephesians 2:19
having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone.

Revelations 21:14
Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations,and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb

Only in Matthew 16:18 Simon Peter is the Rock. Kepha in Aramaic.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Peter isn’t the only rock.

Ephesians 2:19
having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone.

Revelations 21:14
Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations,and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb

Agreed, Nancie.

In different contexts, the term can be applied in any number of ways. The verses you quoted are valid, too. But they don’t invalidate what Jesus said about Peter.

Peter isn’t literally a rock - he’s human being - and the metaphor can be applied in different ways in different contexts.

For example, the Church is called the Body of Christ. It is also called the Bride of Christ. Does this mean that Christ is married to himself or to his own body? No.

The context of the metaphor is important. In the case of Matthew 16:18, Jesus declared that Peter would be the foundation of the Church that Jesus planned to build, and so he was.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Nancie_Lew]

Only in Matthew 16:18 Simon Peter is the Rock. Kepha in Aramaic.

Verse 18 Jesus says "thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church. The name Peter is translated from the word “petros” which very simply means “rock”. But right after that Jesus says “upon this rock will I build my church”. The word “rock” is translated from the Greek word “petra” which is the feminine tense of the word “petros”. The feminine tense of a word in the Greek is used when that word is intended figuratively.

gideonsword.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=100&sid=fff51730985d0f12be4270e969bf280b