An explanation of Matthew 16:13-18 with regard to "the Anointed One" and "the Rock" and "the key of David"

[adrift]

The reason I say Peter was not sure who Jesus was is because:

For me, if I was afraid of someone or something as Peter was, I would cling to what I knew as truth- Jesus GOD’s Word incarnate.

You can know what truth is but not have the moral conviction to stand up for what you believe. Those with Jesus in the garden all ran away. If you are afraid you either as they say flight or fight. They were unable to fight. Jesus stopped them from that. The only thing left was flight. To be confronted with knowing Jesus Peter did not fight but denied knowing Jesus a form of flight.

 

[schaick]

But see you have a problem there. You are correct Christ calls Peter Petros. What does Petros translate into Rock, what does rock translate into to Father. It all adds up!

What did Jesus say? You are Peter and Upon this Rock I will build my Church.

Now go back to the story about the Man who build his house on Sand. Jesus said he is the Corner stone. Now the go back to Peter and upon this rock I will build MY HOUSE and the Gates of Hades will not prevail.

Who is the Cornerstone? Christ!! His house is solid, He is the cornerSTONE. It is not built on Sand it is build on Rock!! Why can the house never fail. Simple what does a cornerstone of a house do? It is the foundation. The foundation is what anything is made up of. If you have a solid foundation you will last forever!

I agree absolutely that Christ is the cornerstone.

We are told it was not just Peter but the apostles and prophet that Jesus built HIS Church on:

Ephesians 2
19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

I simply do not believe that Jesus’ entire Church is built on one man Peter-that he is the rock that Jesus is talking about.

You mention the completion of Jesus’ Church. Jesus says as I will build making it seem as a future event. But in we see in Ephesians the church is built, BUT then again we do see a continuing of building in the following:

1 Peter 2
4As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

 

[schaick]

Doubt or fear? I see his actions as one who was fearful. Even after the resurrection the Apostles were afraid until the decent of the Holy Spirit upon them.

Did John recognise Jesus. We know about John that
John proclaimed

John tells us how he recognized Jesus

But still John was not sure

Funny I see that not as John being not sure about who Jesus is but, almost as a sarcastic remark.

John did not back down from Herod, he stood his ground as to what was right and wrong. If he had backed down would Herod have been put John in prison?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I agree absolutely that Christ is the cornerstone.

We are told it was not just Peter but the apostles and prophet that Jesus built HIS Church on:

Ephesians 2
19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

But Jesus did not change the names of the other apostles, the only apostle that He changed the name of is Simon. And the name that He chose for Simon was Kepha-“rock”. As you have properly asserted this name had been reserved in the Bible for God alone-what does THAT signify?

I simply do not believe that Jesus’ entire Church is built on one man Peter-that he is the rock that Jesus is talking about.

Its in the Bible, Jesus said it, not us…

Luke 22:[28] "You are those who have continued with me in my trials;
[29] and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom,
[30] that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
[31] “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you(all), that he might sift you(all) like wheat,
[32] but I have prayed for **you **(Simon-Peter)that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

And why not? God created the entire human race from one man. He formed our spiritual older brother(Israel) from one man. He freed them through the leadership of one man-Moses.

God throughout Israel’s histroy placed approved men over His people to teach and to act in His name and with His authority. If the Old Covenent was merely to be a shadow of the New, why should it be a surprise that God still places a man not just merely with His given authority but who is also filled with God’s Spirit?

 

[adrift]

Funny I see that not as John being not sure about who Jesus is but, almost as a sarcastic remark.

John did not back down from Herod, he stood his ground as to what was right and wrong. If he had backed down would Herod have been put John in prison?

Sarcastic? In what way? Why would he ask Jesus a question that was sarcastic?

 

[schaick]

But Jesus did not change the names of the other apostles, the only apostle that He changed the name of is Simon. And the name that He chose for Simon was Kepha-“rock”. As you have properly asserted this name had been reserved in the Bible for God alone-what does THAT signify?

Its in the Bible, Jesus said it, not us…

Luke 22:[28] "You are those who have continued with me in my trials;
[29] and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom,
[30] that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
[31] “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you(all), that he might sift you(all) like wheat,
[32] but I have prayed for **you **(Simon-Peter)that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

And why not? God created the entire human race from one man. He formed our spiritual older brother(Israel) from one man. He freed them through the leadership of one man-Moses.

God throughout Israel’s histroy placed approved men over His people to teach and to act in His name and with His authority. If the Old Covenent was merely to be a shadow of the New, why should it be a surprise that God still places a man not just merely with His given authority but who is also filled with God’s Spirit?

Jesus never said HE was building HIS Church on Petros. HE said HE was building it on “this rock”. Look at every other verse and the rock is Jesus.

Please consider this a sincere question: Do Catholics to support the papacy have to say that the rock is Peter? Would the whole Catholic Church collapse if it was realized that in fact the rock is the truth /fact that Peter uttered?

We read in Ephesians 2 that the foundation of the Church is the Apostles, Prophets and Jesus as cornerstone.

What exactly did the apostle and prophets do? They proclaimed the truth about who Jesus is. Every true Christian Church has as it’s foundation the truths of what the Apostles and Prophets said with Jesus as their cornerstone.

How do Catholics understand the following?:

Ephesians 2
19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

You asked WHY then did Jesus call Peter rock? We don’t really know. Maybe Jesus knew Peter would be the first to make the statement *“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” *.

Was Paul’s statement simply the first* “rock” *placed in the foundation?

In Luke 22 Jesus was talking to all disciples about giving them the kingdom. Then he addresses Peter about praying for Peter’s faith to not fail.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Dude, I LOVE your little “you cannot pass” Gandalf sign at the bottom. That just rocks! Big LOTR fan here, too. Love it! “Flame of udun!”

But Jesus did not change the names of the other apostles, the only apostle that He changed the name of is Simon. And the name that He chose for Simon was Kepha-“rock”. As you have properly asserted this name had been reserved in the Bible for God alone-what does THAT signify?

Its in the Bible, Jesus said it, not us…

Luke 22:[28] "You are those who have continued with me in my trials;
[29] and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom,
[30] that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
[31] “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you(all), that he might sift you(all) like wheat,
[32] but I have prayed for **you **(Simon-Peter)that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

And why not? God created the entire human race from one man. He formed our spiritual older brother(Israel) from one man. He freed them through the leadership of one man-Moses.

God throughout Israel’s histroy placed approved men over His people to teach and to act in His name and with His authority. If the Old Covenent was merely to be a shadow of the New, why should it be a surprise that God still places a man not just merely with His given authority but who is also filled with God’s Spirit?

 

[adrift]

Jesus never said HE was building HIS Church on Petros. HE said HE was building it on “this rock”. Look at every other verse and the rock is Jesus.
.

Your name is Cephus and upon this cephus I will built my rock. This is what Jesus said.

To say that Jesus never said he was not building His Church on Peter ignores what Jesus said.

Diagram the sentence.

The subject is name. The verb is is the direct object is Peter. and is a conjunction joins clauses or sentences or words. Here is joins the sentence Upon this rock I will build my Church. Upon this rock is joined to the first sentence and refers back to object of the first sentence. That is Jesus is making the statement the HE IS building His Church on His apostle Simone who He renames Peter.

Please consider this a sincere question: Do Catholics to support the papacy have to say that the rock is Peter? Would the whole Catholic Church collapse if it was realized that in fact the rock is the truth /fact that Peter uttered?

But this is not the fact. Will your faith collapse when you realize that Jesus established the Catholic Church and none other has existed until the sad splits? Even after the splits it still exits as Jesus intended and protected.

You asked WHY then did Jesus call Peter rock? We don’t really know. Maybe Jesus knew Peter would be the first to make the statement “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” .

My son would ask do you have a mouse in your pocket
I don’t know who the we you refer to but Catholic know. Are you saying you don’t know why Abraham was renamed as well as Sarah? You don’t know why Jacob was renamed? It is hard for me to understand why you would dismiss this name change as We don’t really know:shrug:
I know. He was establishing Peter’s role. He was putting him in the leadership role with the authority of the keys of heaven. The authority he would need to lead Jesus Church.

 

[adrift]

Hi, Rinnie,

I think there is another disconnect with regards to 1 Timothy 3:15–

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

Once again we have a case where there is ambiguity in the translation, as to what the descriptive words at the end of the sentence are referring back to.

It seems to me that given all of Paul’s writings, “the pillar and ground of the truth” refers back to the words, “the living God” which words are shown in the next verse to mean “Jesus Christ.”

.

I find no ambiguity in the translation.

This is a letter from Paul to Timothy of instruction.
What is being said?
But if I tarry long
If I am delayed in visiting
that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God
Paul is giving instruction on how to behave.
Where? In the House of God.
Paul explains what is the House of God
which is the church of the living God
Paul further states that House of God is
the pillar and ground of the truth.

Take out the explanation of what the House of God is and it becomes clearer.
“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God the pillar and ground of the truth.” Hence the the pillar and foundation of truth. is the House of God which is the Church of the living God.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Jesus never said HE was building HIS Church on Petros. HE said HE was building it on “this rock”. Look at every other verse and the rock is Jesus.

“Petros” is the obvious masculine transliteration in the Greek of the Aramaic word “Kepha”. “Kepha” is the word that Jesus used because all of the apostles were poor Jewish fishermen who did not learn Greek. They did not have the money to go to school to learn it and to them to even step into a Greek town would make them “unclean” according to Jewish customary Law. You’re verbal gymnastics is pointless. The “Kepha”(Rock) that Jesus is speaking about and to whom He was speaking to is Simon-Peter.

If Jesus was merely pointing to Himself then it would be meaningless to change Simon’s name to Kephas. The language is clear for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

Your statement is making my point for me. What is Jesus telling us by giving Simon a name that would seemingly be reserved for Himself?

Please consider this a sincere question: Do Catholics to support the papacy have to say that the rock is Peter? Would the whole Catholic Church collapse if it was realized that in fact the rock is the truth /fact that Peter uttered?

No, because we don’t need to jump through verbal hoops to demonstrate our belief. We have the testimony not only of the Bible but also the witness of the ECF’s

We read in Ephesians 2 that the foundation of the Church is the Apostles, Prophets and Jesus as cornerstone.

What exactly did the apostle and prophets do? They proclaimed the truth about who Jesus is. Every true Christian Church has as it’s foundation the truths of what the Apostles and Prophets said with Jesus as their cornerstone.

If that’s true then you would be Catholic. I suggest that you should read “The Four Witnesses” by Rod Bennet and “The Teachings of the Church Fathers” by John R. Willis. John Calvin himself proclaimed that the Church, for the first 600 years, remained “undefiled.” Examine this Church and see if it resembles your own.

How do Catholics understand the following?:

Ephesians 2
19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

This does not refute the Catholic position. So what’s your point?

You asked WHY then did Jesus call Peter rock? We don’t really know. Maybe Jesus knew Peter would be the first to make the statement *“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” *.

That’s not what the Bible says. Yes, Jesus called Simon “Kephas” because Simon made the proclamation. How did Simon make that proclimation?

“Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven…”

Essentially Jesus is telling the apsotles that there is no way that Simon could’ve known this on his own; DAD gave him the answer! Therefore Jesus knew that the Father had chosen Simon to be Jesus’ representitive once Jesus was gone, hence the changing of his name.

The changing of the name is singular in that God is the only one who can change our names and every time God has changed someone’s name in scripture it meant that God had singled out that person for a special purpose.

That Jesus had given Simon the name “Kepha”(rock) should be self-evident. Simon, by the Father’s choice, was at that point mystically united with Christ. This is fully realized at Pentecost when it is Peter who is the first to speak to the crouds, Peter is the first to heal in Christ’s name, Peter is the one who selects the candidates to replace Judas, Peter is the first to lay judgement, Peter is the one who speaks for the group in Acts 15.

The fact that Peter’s name is mentioned more in the Bible than any other name in the NT, far and above any other apostle, should scream at you that Peter’s mission and authority is unique.

In Luke 22 Jesus was talking to all disciples about giving them the kingdom. Then he addresses Peter about praying for Peter’s faith to not fail.

Then He tells Peter to, “stregnthen your brothers”.

No other apostle other than Peter did Christ say, “Feed my lambs…Tend my sheep…Feed my sheep.”

Why is Peter the only one who Christ gave this command to?

 

[Javl]

Jesus never said HE was building HIS Church on Petros. HE said HE was building it on “this rock”. Look at every other verse and the rock is Jesus.

Yes, Jesus is the rock, the rock of faith that is. But, he is NOT Kepha(s). Simon bar Jonah ( Peter ) is. In that passage, Jesus is speaking directly to Simon-Peter in Aramaic ( and not Greek ) and what Jesus tells Simon-Peter is literal, not symbolic. If Simon-Peter is not the rock on which jesus had built His Church, then why did Jesus change Simon’s name to Peter? Why only Simon and not any of the other Apostles? And, why did Jesus talk to Simon-Peter alone and give him the authority to "bind and loose? Also, why did Jesus put Simon-Peter in Charge, if He did not designate Simon-Peter as the base ( rock ) of His Church?

Please consider this a sincere question: Do Catholics to support the papacy have to say that the rock is Peter? Would the whole Catholic Church collapse if it was realized that in fact the rock is the truth /fact that Peter uttered?

All Catholics accept and support the Pope and do say that the rock on which Jesus built His Church is Peter. And, NO, The Church would not collapse but it would be in one chaotic mess, such as is Protestantism today ( over 30,000 different denominations. ).

We read in Ephesians 2 that the foundation of the Church is the Apostles, Prophets and Jesus as cornerstone.

What exactly did the apostle and prophets do? They proclaimed the truth about who Jesus is. Every true Christian Church has as it’s foundation the truths of what the Apostles and Prophets said with Jesus as their cornerstone.

How do Catholics understand the following?:

Ephesians 2
19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

You asked WHY then did Jesus call Peter rock? We don’t really know. Maybe Jesus knew Peter would be the first to make the statement *“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” *.

Was Paul’s statement simply the first* “rock” *placed in the foundation?

In Luke 22 Jesus was talking to all disciples about giving them the kingdom. Then he addresses Peter about praying for Peter’s faith to not fail.

We do know why Jesus called Simon bar Jonah ( Peter ) “rock”, because He knew of Peter’s steadfastness and ability to unify and lead, even though Peter had denied Jesus three times. We also should know and realize this when Jesus told Peter that His Father revealed Jesus and His purpose to Peter, and not the others. Peter was the one chosen to lead and unify.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[rinnie]

Hi, Rinnie,
I hope you are having a wonderful day.

I think there is another disconnect with regards to 1 Timothy 3:15–

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

Once again we have a case where there is ambiguity in the translation, as to what the descriptive words at the end of the sentence are referring back to.

It seems to me that given all of Paul’s writings, “the pillar and ground of the truth” refers back to the words, “the living God” which words are shown in the next verse to mean “Jesus Christ.”

By the way, the word “Abram” and “Abraham” mean “exalted father”.

The way I view it (which perhaps only one or two if any who will ever read this might agree with) is that Abraham sets an example wherein his relationship to God sets an example or a pattern. Just as he was to be the father of a multitude, so other fathers who enter into a covenant relationship with God should become a “father of a multitude” (through their posterity).

The relationship of Peter to the “cornerstone” also sets a covenant pattern and example of a relationship–to be rock solid in integrity, trustworthy in our covenant relationship with the “Cornerstone”, the “Rock of salvation”.

Hi Love, Yes a wonderful day. Wed is my day off and almost always I spend the whole day with just my Mom. We are always blessed with a wonderful day. We have alot of fun together. She isn’t my Mom anymore she is my best Friend now.

But back to the question now let me explain it in Catholic Terms

Okay you are correct in what you said first exalted Father is indeed what rock translates into. And exalt means to raise in status. And we do raise the Pope is Status. So that would indeed fit.

Now you are also correct in what you said about the Church and Christ being one. We do believe that the Church is the Pilar in all truth, and we also believe that the Church is indeed the living Christ. That is how we know, this actually is scripture. And then when of course you read what happend to Paul. Who was Paul persecuting the Church right? So Paul said who are you, Jesus said ME the one you are persecuting. So yes it fits. We do believe that the Church and Christ are indeed one. Just like the bride is joined to the bride groom Christ and his Church become one.

And I agree also the relationship of Peter to Christ. I think that is a beautiful way of putting it by the way.

But remember Peter is never referred to as the cornerstone only Jesus is. The cornerstone is the main part of the foundation

Another thing to remember also is Peter betrayed Jesus 3 times. Now remember when Jesus came back and asked Peter to feed the sheep, he said this 3 times also. Now Peter knew WHY Jesus was doing this.

Which is another reason we know that his faith was great. And he also remembered Jesus telling him he would betray him also. But think about it when Jesus asked him 3 times Peter seemed to be getting a little upset. But remember what he said, He said Lord you know everything. (he knew God even know’s what you are not only thinking, he knows what you will do) which again is why Jesus knew Peter would do well!

As always a Parker a pleasure talking to you.

 

[rinnie]

Jesus never said HE was building HIS Church on Petros. HE said HE was building it on “this rock”. Look at every other verse and the rock is Jesus.

Please consider this a sincere question: Do Catholics to support the papacy have to say that the rock is Peter? Would the whole Catholic Church collapse if it was realized that in fact the rock is the truth /fact that Peter uttered?

We read in Ephesians 2 that the foundation of the Church is the Apostles, Prophets and Jesus as cornerstone.

What exactly did the apostle and prophets do? They proclaimed the truth about who Jesus is. Every true Christian Church has as it’s foundation the truths of what the Apostles and Prophets said with Jesus as their cornerstone.

How do Catholics understand the following?:

Ephesians 2
19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

You asked WHY then did Jesus call Peter rock? We don’t really know. Maybe Jesus knew Peter would be the first to make the statement *“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” *.

Was Paul’s statement simply the first* “rock” *placed in the foundation?

In Luke 22 Jesus was talking to all disciples about giving them the kingdom. Then he addresses Peter about praying for Peter’s faith to not fail.

Hi Schaick, I can understand how you would say this, But actually he did. He did not actually say Peter or Petros he did indeed say Rock. But Petros translates to Rock the Same as Peter translates to Rock. So it would be like calling your Grandmother, gram, na na or granny. Just different words for the same Person.

Now check out what you said in Eph 2. I agree the Apostles are part of the building and part of the foundation we could say, but remember Christ is the CHIEF CORNERSTONE. See what I mean? Just like of course Jesus is not a real stone (but I guess of course he could be anything he wanted) but you know what I mean, But just as he is not a real stone and Peter is not a real rock we see that both words translate to other meanings,

So Peter is the Rock the Father chosen by Christ to lead the family in Church. He is led by the Church the Livng Christ by the Power of the Holy Spirit. Now of course all of the Apostles also have this Power given to them by Christ. They all have the power of the HS to teach, and help us. But only Peter has the keys to the kingdom here on earth.

Now here is another thing, As far as Maybe Jesus knew Peter would be the first to reveal who he was? There is no Maybe about it. God knows everything. He knew it would be revealed to Peter first. God knows everything.

Now I am not sure what you are asking in Luke 22 could you be more clearer. Thanks

 

[Javl]

Parker, shaick, and all LDS:

Please read the following:

Let us again examine the text and context of the important dialogue handed down to us by the evangelist Matthew. After asking: “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” (Mt 16:13), Jesus asked his apostles a more direct question: “But who do you say that I am?” (Mt 16:15). It is already significant that Simon answered in the name of the Twelve: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:13-16). One might think that Simon made himself the spokesman for the Twelve by force of his own more vigorous and impulsive personality. Possibly this factor came into play to some extent. However, Jesus attributed his answer to a special revelation from the heavenly Father: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father” (Mt 16:17). Above and beyond factors of temperament, character, ethnic background or social status (“flesh and blood”), Simon was the beneficiary of an illumination and inspiration from on high that Jesus identified as “revelation.” In virtue of this revelation Simon made a profession of faith in the name of the Twelve.

Here is Jesus’ declaration, which in the very solemnity of its form manifests the binding and constitutive meaning that the Teacher intends to give it: “And so I say to you, you are Peter” (Mt 16:18). The declaration is indeed solemn: “I say to you.” It involves Jesus’ sovereign authority. It is a word of revelation, of effective revelation in that it accomplishes what it says.

A new name was given to Simon, the sign of a new mission. That this name was given is confirmed by Mark (3:16) and Luke (6:14) in their accounts of the choice of the Twelve. John also speaks of it, indicating that Jesus used the Aramaic word Kephas , which in Greek is translated as Petros (Jn 1:42).

We should remember that the Aramaic word Kephas which Jesus used, as well as the Greek word Petros which translates it, means “rock.” In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus gave the example of the “wise man who built his house on rock” (Mt 7:24). Addressing Simon, Jesus declared to him that because of his faith, a gift from God, he had the solidity of rock upon which an unshakable edifice could be built. Jesus then stated his own decision to build on this rock just such a building–his Church.

In other passages of the New Testament we find similar although not identical images. In some texts Jesus himself is not called the “rock” on which something is built, but the “stone” which is used in building, the “cornerstone” which ensures the solidity of the structure. The builder then is not Jesus, but God the Father (cf. Mk 12:10-11; 1 Pet 2:4-7). Thus the viewpoints are different.

The Apostle Paul expresses yet another perspective when he reminds the Corinthians that “like a wise master builder” he “laid the foundation” of their Church and then indicates that this foundation is “Jesus Christ” (cf. 1 Cor 3:10-11).

Through the diversity of particular viewpoints one can nevertheless notice a basic relationship allowing us to conclude that by giving him a new name, Jesus made Simon Peter a sharer in his own capacity as foundation. Between Christ and Peter there is a foundational relationship rooted in the profound reality where the divine vocation is translated into a specific mission conferred by the Messiah.

Jesus went on to say: “Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18). These words attest to Jesus’ will to build his Church with an essential reference to the specific mission and power that in due time he would confer on Simon. Jesus described Simon Peter as the foundation on which the Church would be built. The Christ-Peter relationship is thus reflected in the Peter-Church relationship. It imbues it with value and discloses its theological and spiritual meaning, which is objectively and ecclesially the basis of its juridical significance.

Matthew is the only evangelist who records these words for us. But it must be remembered that Matthew is also the only one who collected the recollections concerning Peter specifically (cf. Mt 14:28-31). Perhaps this was with reference to the communities for which he wrote his Gospel and in which he wanted to instill the new idea of the “assembly called together” in the name of Christ present in Peter.

On the other hand, the “new name” of Peter which Jesus gave to Simon is confirmed by the other evangelists, without any difference in meaning attributed to it than that given by Matthew. Moreover, there is no other meaning it could possibly have

( Continued )

 

[Javl]

( Continue )

The text of the evangelist Matthew (16:15-18) which presents Peter as the foundation of the Church has been the subject of many debates, too lengthy to repeat here. It is also the subject of denials which do not derive so much from proofs based on the biblical texts and Christian Tradition as much as from difficulty in understanding the mission and power of Peter and his successors. Without going into detail, here we simply point out that Jesus’ words as recorded by Matthew have an unquestionable Semitic tone to them, noticeable even in the Greek and Latin translations. Furthermore, they involve an inexplicable innovation precisely in the Jewish cultural and religious context in which the evangelist presents them. In contemporary Judaism the role of foundation stone was not attributed to any religious leader; however, Jesus attributed it to Peter. This is the great innovation introduced by Jesus. It could not be the product of human invention, neither in Matthew nor in later authors.

We must also point out that the “Rock” of which Jesus spoke is properly the person of Simon. Jesus said to him: “You are Kephas.” The context of this statement enables us to understand better the sense of that “you-person.” After Simon said who Jesus is, Jesus said who Simon is, according to his own plan for building the Church. It is true that Simon is called rock after the profession of faith, and that implies a relationship between faith and the role of rock conferred on Simon. However, the role of rock is attributed to the person of Simon, not to an act of his, however noble and pleasing to Jesus. The word “rock” expresses a permanent, subsisting being; therefore, it applies to the person, rather than to one of his necessarily transitory acts. Jesus’ subsequent words confirm this when he said that the gates of the netherworld, the powers of death, will not prevail “against it.” This expression can refer to the Church or to the rock. In any case, according to the logic of the discourse, the Church founded on the rock cannot be destroyed. The Church’s permanence is connected with the rock. The Peter-Church relationship in itself reproduces the link between the Church and Christ. Jesus in fact said “my Church.” This means that the Church will always be the Church of Christ, the Church which belongs to Christ. She does not become Peter’s Church. However, as the Church of Christ she is built on Peter, who is Kephas in the name and by the power of Christ.

The evangelist Matthew records another metaphor which Jesus used to explain to Simon Peter, and to the other apostles, what he wanted to do with him: “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 16:19). Here too we immediately note that, according to biblical tradition, the Messiah possesses the keys of the kingdom. The Book of Revelation repeats the expressions of the prophet Isaiah and presents Christ as “the holy one, the true, who holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open” (Rev 3:7). The text of Isaiah (22:22) which concerns a certain Eliakim was seen as a prophetic expression of the messianic age when the “key” would not be for opening or closing the house of David (as a building or as a dynasty), but for opening the “kingdom of heaven,” this new, transcendent reality proclaimed and ushered in by Jesus.

Jesus is the one who, according to the Letter to the Hebrews, “entered the heavenly sanctuary” (cf. 9:24) through his sacrifice. He possesses its keys and opens its gates. Jesus handed these keys over to Peter, who thus received power over the kingdom, power which he will exercise in Christ’s name, as his steward and the head of the Church, the house which gathers together those who believe in Christ, the children of God.

Jesus indeed said to Peter: “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt 16:19). This is another simile Jesus used to show his will to confer on Simon Peter a universal and complete power guaranteed and authenticated by heavenly approval. This does not mean only the power to formulate points of doctrine or general norms of action. According to Jesus, it is the power of “binding and loosing,” that is, of doing whatever is necessary for the life and development of the Church. The opposing terms “binding-loosing” serve to show the totality of the power.

It should be immediately added, however, that the aim of this power is to open the entrance to the kingdom, not to close it: “open,” that is, to make it possible to enter the kingdom of heaven and not to place obstacles that would be equivalent to “closing” it. This is the proper purpose of the Petrine ministry, rooted in the redemptive sacrifice of Christ who came to save and to be the gate and shepherd of all in the communion of the one fold (cf. Jn 10:7, 11, 16). Through his sacrifice Christ became “the gate for the sheep,” the symbol of which was that built by Eliashib, the high priest, who with his priestly brothers worked to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem in the middle of the fifth century before Christ (cf. Neh 3:1). The Messiah is the true gate of the New Jerusalem built through his blood shed upon the cross. He entrusted the keys of this gate to Peter so that he might be the minister of his saving power in the Church.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[schaick]

I am not an LDS member. I am a trinitarian that believes in the GODHead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as the One True GOD.

About Greek versus Aramaic:
Check it out:
answer-islam.org/Jesusspoke.html

*Actually this is the furthest thing from the truth, because for one thing there is no single piece of Gospel in Hebrew and one must wonder why if Aramaic was the only language Jesus spoke, how come there is no Aramaic fragments of the Gospels in Aramaic? Also The gospels weren’t translated hundreds of years after Jesus, we have copies of the NT which date approximately 15-20 years after the authors of scripture originally penned the autographs. *

Total New Testament manuscripts = 5,300 Greek MSS, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 9,300 others = 24,000 copies. Total MSS compiled prior to 600 AD = 230.

***Magdelene Manuscript: **
“The most significant find, however, is a manuscript fragment from the book of Matthew (chapt.26) called the Magdalene Manuscript which has been analyzed by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and also written up in his book The Jesus Papyrus. Using a sophisticated analysis of the handwriting of the fragment by employing a special state-of-the-art microscope, he differentiated between 20 separate micrometer layers of the papyrus, measuring the height and depth of the ink as well as the angle of the stylus used by the scribe. After this analysis Thiede was able to compare it with other papyri from that period; notably manuscripts found at Qumran (dated to 58 AD), another at Herculaneum (dated prior to 79 AD), a further one from the fortress of Masada (dated to between 73/74 AD), and finally a papyrus from the Egyptian town of Oxyrynchus. The Magdalene Manuscript fragments matches all four, and in fact is almost a twin to the papyrus found in Oxyrynchus, which bears the date of 65/66 AD Thiede concludes that these papyrus fragments of St. Matthew’s Gospel were written no later than this date and probably earlier. That suggests that we either have a portion of the original gospel of Matthew, or an immediate copy, which was written while Matthew and the other disciples, and eyewitnesses to the events were still alive. This would be the oldest manuscript portion of our Bible in existence today, one which co-exists with the original writers!”

What is of even more importance is what it says. The Matthew 26 fragment uses in its text nomina sacra (holy names) such as the diminutive “IS” for Jesus and “KE” for Kurie or Lord (The Times, Saturday, December 24, 1994). This is highly significant for our discussion today, because it suggests that the godhead of Jesus was recognized centuries before it was accepted as official church doctrine at the council of Nicea in 325 AD There is still ongoing discussion concerning the exact dating of this manuscript… this document alone completely eradicates the criticism leveled against the gospel accounts (such as the “Jesus Seminar”) that the early disciples knew nothing about Christ’s divinity, and that this concept was a later redaction imposed by the Christian community in the second century (AD)."*

The very earliest manuscript is actually in Greek. We have no early manuscripts in Aramaic.

We know that Jesus spoke with Pilate who spoke Greek:
Mark 15;2-5; Matthew 27:11-14; Luke 23:3; John 18:33- 38

The centurian more then likely spoke Greek over Aramaic:
Matthew 8
5When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6"Lord," he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering.”

Mark 7
26The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.

Disciples spoke Greek:
John 12
20Now there were some Greeks among those who went up to worship at the Feast. 21They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, with a request. “Sir,” they said, “we would like to see Jesus.” 22Philip went to tell Andrew; Andrew and Philip in turn told Jesus.

Acts 6
1In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables

John 19
20Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.

 

[SirThomasMore]

In Aramiac, Jesus said to Peter, “you are now rock and on this rock I will build my Church” Seems pretty clear.

Additionally, it is clear that whenever God changed someone’s name…it was because God had special roles, duties, and authority for that person.

Abram=Abraham
Jacob=Israel
Simon=Peter

In each of these, God had plans and positions for these men to carry out.

To ignore that is to ignore the will of God.

 

[Javl]

shaick:

Just because we have none that were written in Aramaic or Hebrew does not mean that none are extant. Haven’t you heard of the Qumran Scrolls? These were written only in Aramaic and Hebrew.

Also, the Gospels were written primarily for the Jews of the diaspora, the majority of which were Greek speaking. Those Jews that lived in Judea ( Jerusalem and other villages ) had the Apostles to teach them, most of which was oral. Keep in mind too that the Gospels were written quite a while after Jesus ascended into Heaven.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[adrift]

I am not an LDS member. I am a trinitarian that believes in the GODHead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as the One True GOD.

About Greek versus Aramaic:
Check it out:
answer-islam.org/Jesusspoke.html

*Actually this is the furthest thing from the truth, because for one thing there is no single piece of Gospel in Hebrew and one must wonder why if Aramaic was the only language Jesus spoke, how come there is no Aramaic fragments of the Gospels in Aramaic? Also The gospels weren’t translated hundreds of years after Jesus, we have copies of the NT which date approximately 15-20 years after the authors of scripture originally penned the autographs. *

I found this that refutes your article

The earliest manuscript that I could find was about the 5th century. Your web site is interesting but biased.

Historically we know that Jesus would have spoken Aramaic among His friends.

 

[schaick]

Your name is Cephus and upon this cephus I will built my rock. This is what Jesus said.

To say that Jesus never said he was not building His Church on Peter ignores what Jesus said.

Diagram the sentence.

The subject is name. The verb is is the direct object is Peter. and is a conjunction joins clauses or sentences or words. Here is joins the sentence Upon this rock I will build my Church. Upon this rock is joined to the first sentence and refers back to object of the first sentence. That is Jesus is making the statement the HE IS building His Church on His apostle Simone who He renames Peter.

But this is not the fact. Will your faith collapse when you realize that Jesus established the Catholic Church and none other has existed until the sad splits? Even after the splits it still exits as Jesus intended and protected.

My son would ask do you have a mouse in your pocket
I don’t know who the we you refer to but Catholic know. Are you saying you don’t know why Abraham was renamed as well as Sarah? You don’t know why Jacob was renamed? It is hard for me to understand why you would dismiss this name change as We don’t really know:shrug:
I know. He was establishing Peter’s role. He was putting him in the leadership role with the authority of the keys of heaven. The authority he would need to lead Jesus Church.

No because it is obvious from history that the Catholic Church as you know it has transformed from the days of Peter into what it is today.

We is anyone who reads the Bible. Anyone that wants to join in, but OK maybe we are the non-Catholic Christians.

We are immediately given the reason for the name changes of Abraham, Sarah and Jacob. We see through scripture that the name changes are supported.

The reason for Peter’s name change is not mentioned. But He was the one who eventually uttered the truth about who Jesus is.

Check out these verses who is the rock?

Deuteronomy 32
4 He is the Rock, his works are perfect,
and all his ways are just.
A faithful God who does no wrong,
upright and just is he.
…
18 You deserted the Rock, who fathered you;
you forgot the God who gave you birth.
…
31 For their rock is not like our Rock,
as even our enemies concede.

Isaiah 17
10 You have forgotten God your Savior;
you have not remembered the Rock, your fortress.
Therefore, though you set out the finest plants
and plant imported vines,

Psalm 94
22But the LORD has become my fortress,
and my God the rock in whom I take refuge.

Romans 9
33As it is written:
“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”

1 Corinthians 10
4and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

Christians are all like living stone:
1 Peter 2
4As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For in Scripture it says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame."7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
“The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone,” 8and,
"A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall."They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

All the Prophets and Apostles are the foundation of Jesus’ Church:
Ephesians 2
19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

As I said before I simply choose to want a Church built on truth that Jesus is the rock the Son of the living GOD, the Chief corner stone.

I do not deny that the Apostles and Prophets are part of the sturdy foundation for Jesus’ Church or the fact that each of us is being added to HIS Church.