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

[BrianH]

I get a 186 for Saul/Paul
I get 168 for Cephas/Paul
Blue Letter Bible search

I do not see Peterine primacy in this letter:shrug:

*1Clem 5:3
Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles.

1Clem 5:4
There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one
not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to
his appointed place of glory.

1Clem 5:5
By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the
prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in
bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in
the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the
reward of his faith,

1Clem 5:6
having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached
the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony
before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the
holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.

1Clem 6:1
Unto these men of holy lives was gathered a vast multitude of the
elect,

1Clem 47:1
Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle.
1Clem 47:2
What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel?*

 

[Nicea325]

I get a 186 for Saul/Paul
I get 168 for Cephas/Paul
Blue Letter Bible search

I do not see Peterine primacy in this letter:shrug:

*1Clem 5:3
Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles.

1Clem 5:4
There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one
not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to
his appointed place of glory.

1Clem 5:5
By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the
prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in
bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in
the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the
reward of his faith,

1Clem 5:6
having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached
the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony
before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the
holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.

1Clem 6:1
Unto these men of holy lives was gathered a vast multitude of the
elect,

1Clem 47:1
Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle.
1Clem 47:2
What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel?*

Is the above the letter to the Corinthians?

Pope Clement I

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us , let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

Clement does not seem to be begging,but moreover,his tone is more demanding.

Letter of Clement to James

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” ( Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

 

[mark_a]

I’m just curious, why would an LDS or any other non-Catholic so-called non-Protestant Christian even care about the Catholic view of the rock and/or the keys?

 

[BrianH]

Is the above the letter to the Corinthians?

Pope Clement I

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us , let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

Clement does not seem to be begging,but moreover,his tone is more demanding.

Letter of Clement to James

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” ( Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

What Clement and what James is the 221AD letter addressed from and to?

I think the letter might need to be read in a little more context than tidbits from chapter one attached to chapters 58-59 and then finally chapter 63. IMO In the letter it is called “advice”. I suppose it is highly subjective depending upon perspective

I did want to point out though that essentially Peter and Paul seem to be regarded roughly the same in terms of what is actually written.

 

[adrift]

Adrift,
I happen to love the Bible–the New Testament as well as the Old Testament. Here are some verses that do not support what you wrote about Jesus or others not still calling Simon, “Simon”:

Your are right. However, it does not negate that Jesus changed his name. That you did not provide another time that a name was changed and the name wasn’t a big deal.

John 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
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, Feed my sheep.

This scripture is interesting. Notice that the scripture identifies him as Simon Peter. Jesus calls him by Simon. This is a process of not only forgiving him for his denial but charging him to “Feed my sheep”. Again reaffirming his role as leader of Jesus Church. In verse 20 right after this he is referred to as Peter without the Simon.

Acts 10:5 And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter:

I am assuming that you are not trying to say that when it says surname it means his last name. Other translations are:
Acts 10:5 And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, called Peter:

This translation makes clear that he was called Peter. His name was changed and he was Identified not only as Simon but Peter as well. Most often he is called Peter only. They called him Peter because of what Jesus said “Your name is Peter”.

 

[Nicea325]

What Clement and what James is the 221AD letter addressed from and to?

I think the letter might need to be read in a little more context than tidbits from chapter one attached to chapters 58-59 and then finally chapter 63. IMO In the letter it is called “advice”. I suppose it is highly subjective depending upon perspective

I did want to point out though that essentially Peter and Paul seem to be regarded roughly the same in terms of what is actually written.

Two different Clements. I have read the letter in its entirety and Clement also shows great support of Apostolic Succession as well. Sorry,but the tone is far to demanding to be considered advice. Even if it were “advice” there is not a single protest or complaint by the church at Corinth telling Clement he has no such authority to “advice” or more important “disobey” him or the church at Rome,if they do not reinstate their leaders.Why would a distant church located Rome be telling another church thousands of miles away it must be obedient? You call that advice? I don’t!

*Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us *, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . *. . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]). *

 

[ParkerD]

I’m just curious, why would an LDS or any other non-Catholic so-called non-Protestant Christian even care about the Catholic view of the rock and/or the keys?

Mark A,
That’s a fair question. As I noted in the original post, I was following the rule to not divert a topic of a thread, but yet answering a question thoroughly that had come up in another thread. The one who had asked the question has looked at this thread, so now they have the answer and that was why I had taken the time to start this thread.

 

[BrianH]

Two different Clements. I have read the letter in its entirety and Clement also shows great support of Apostolic Succession as well. Sorry,but the tone is far to demanding to be considered advice. Even if it were “advice” there is not a single protest or complaint by the church at Corinth telling Clement he has no such authority to “advice” or more important “disobey” him or the church at Rome,if they do not reinstate their leaders.Why would a distant church located Rome be telling another church thousands of miles away it must be obedient? You call that advice? I don’t!

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us *, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . *. . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

Hello again
Your quote is hard to follow. I do not have that version or translation. Which one is it?
This is the one I use
earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-hoole.html
It seems like it is from a website that cut and paste and I wonder what translation it cut and paste from?
As far as why they would be doing this, I remember Father Ambrose talking about this as well. What we know about Clement is that he was a co-worker with Paul. Paul wrote to Corinth on several occasions and it is natural that his co-worker (probably a student) would be sought for his support and counsel. While Clement is from Rome there is not much in the letter to show that was especially persuasive because Clement never mentions that as being a factor in the letter. Which to me is a rather odd thing to do if it was so important.

The early church wrote communities far away. Paul, Peter, John, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp and many other did. That part is not unusual at all as best as I can tell.
Some letters are very strongly worded, some less so. Lets remember that even Rome received letters from outside communities. I am having a lot of deja vu but I cannot remember if it was you I had this conversation with or not…or well I am old

Now you go onto Apostolic Succession. Whiplash change of topic
Thats a bit anachronistic in my view again. What it says is essentially the Apostles appointed people, which no one denies I do not imagine, but then that the local congregations choose their next round of leaders. At least thats what it says
They men have to be approved by their local church. The selection of bishops and deacons was a matter of congregation polity until the 4th century.
catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?id=25573

americancatholiccouncil.org/catholic-democracy/
*From New Testament times the Christian community elected their own leaders, as, for example, in the case of choosing Deacons (Acts 6:3), and continued this practice. We find corroboration in two other 1st-century documents, the Didache and Clement of Rome’s First Letter: “You must, then, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons…,” bishops should be chosen “with the consent of the whole Church….”

Early in the 3rd century Hippolytus made it clear that it was an “apostolic tradition,” which was still practiced, for the entire local community along with its leaders to choose its own deacons, presbyters, and bishop. His testimony was closely followed by that of St. Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258 A.D.), who often referred to the election of bishops by the priests and people. He himself was elected and consequently made it his rule never to administer ordination without first having consulted both the clergy and the laity about the candidates: “From Cyprian to the priests, deacons, and all the people, greetings! In the ordaining of clerics, most beloved brethren, it is our custom to take your advice beforehand and with common deliberations weigh the character and qualifications of each individual.” Cyprian also reported a similar democratic custom prevailing in the church of Rome: “Cornelius was made bishop by the…testimony of almost all the people, who were then present, and by the assembly of ancient priests and good men.”*

Oh the quote from Clement’s Letter to Corinth
I]44:2 and on this account, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned as bishops and deacons: and then gave a rule of succession, in order that, when they had fallen asleep, other men, who had been approved, might succeed to their ministry.

44:3 Those who were thus appointed by them, or afterwards by other men of good repute, with the consent of the whole Church,

 

[PaulDupre]

Just as a point of clarity, the Lord first gave Jacob the new name Israel in Gen 32:28. Throughout the rest of the OT (Genesis, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Amos, Obadiah, Micah, and Malachi) Jacob is consistently called Jacob, more often than Israel, when refering to him personally. There are hundreds of instances.

In the NT, he is called Jacob 25 times, but is only called Israel once (in Rom 10:21). The other 76 references to Israel are in the context of the nation of Israel or the people of Israel or the children of Israel, etc, using Israel as the name of a people, not of the person Jacob.

And the true God is called “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” more often than “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel”.

The upshot of all this is that Simon is called Peter at least as consistently as Jacob was called Israel. It seems that the bible authors felt equally comfortable using either the given name (Jacob or Simon) or the surname (Israel or Peter). Significantly, Peter calls himself “Simon Peter”.

 

[eddy714]

Just as a point of clarity, the Lord first gave Jacob the new name Israel in Gen 32:28. Throughout the rest of the OT (Genesis, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Amos, Obadiah, Micah, and Malachi) Jacob is consistently called Jacob, more often than Israel, when refering to him personally. There are hundreds of instances.

In the NT, he is called Jacob 25 times, but is only called Israel once (in Rom 10:21). The other 76 references to Israel are in the context of the nation of Israel or the people of Israel or the children of Israel, etc, using Israel as the name of a people, not of the person Jacob.

And the true God is called “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” more often than “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel”.

The upshot of all this is that Simon is called Peter at least as consistently as Jacob was called Israel. It seems that the bible authors felt equally comfortable using either the given name (Jacob or Simon) or the surname (Israel or Peter). Significantly, Peter calls himself “Simon Peter”.

That clarifies a lot

Good Job

 

[wwolverine]

Rock, pebble, stone, what do they all mean? What are their significances?

We know that in Gospel, the word Rock is mentioned only twice ie in the parable Jesus told of the house built on sand and on Rock, and the other when He said that He will build His church on this Rock. What does it mean? Why Jesus used these words only when the name of Simon was changed to Peter? ( Peter means rock and not pebble as some non catholics say)

What does it mean when i see a land and than plan to build my house, and i say on this land I will build my house, does it mean, i will build the house on myself?

 

[ParkerD]

Rock, pebble, stone, what do they all mean? What are their significances?

We know that in Gospel, the word Rock is mentioned only twice ie in the parable Jesus told of the house built on sand and on Rock, and the other when He said that He will build His church on this Rock. What does it mean? Why Jesus used these words only when the name of Simon was changed to Peter? ( Peter means rock and not pebble as some non catholics say)

What does it mean when i see a land and than plan to build my house, and i say on this land I will build my house, does it mean, i will build the house on myself?

WWolverine,
It appears you don’t think Peter and the Savior knew the writings that have become the Old Testament. It appears you didn’t read the opening posts here, or didn’t think about the use of the word “Rock” in the Old Testament to most often be a metaphor for the coming Messiah, the Christ.

“Build my church” means “build my congregation” or in other words, “build the members of my church so that they will grow and flourish as they follow their Messiah”.

The “gates of hell” do not prevail against the rock of revealed knowledge from God, which is essential for members of the body of Christ to grow toward becoming like Him and becoming “one” with Him, nor do they or will they prevail against the Rock who is the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

 

[Nicea325]

Hello again
Your quote is hard to follow. I do not have that version or translation. Which one is it?
This is the one I use
earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-hoole.html
It seems like it is from a website that cut and paste and I wonder what translation it cut and paste from?
As far as why they would be doing this, I remember Father Ambrose talking about this as well. What we know about Clement is that he was a co-worker with Paul. Paul wrote to Corinth on several occasions and it is natural that his co-worker (probably a student) would be sought for his support and counsel. While Clement is from Rome there is not much in the letter to show that was especially persuasive because Clement never mentions that as being a factor in the letter. Which to me is a rather odd thing to do if it was so important.

The early church wrote communities far away. Paul, Peter, John, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp and many other did. That part is not unusual at all as best as I can tell.
Some letters are very strongly worded, some less so. Lets remember that even Rome received letters from outside communities. I am having a lot of deja vu but I cannot remember if it was you I had this conversation with or not…or well I am old

Now you go onto Apostolic Succession. Whiplash change of topic
Thats a bit anachronistic in my view again. What it says is essentially the Apostles appointed people, which no one denies I do not imagine, but then that the local congregations choose their next round of leaders. At least thats what it says
They men have to be approved by their local church. The selection of bishops and deacons was a matter of congregation polity until the 4th century.
catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?id=25573

americancatholiccouncil.org/catholic-democracy/
*From New Testament times the Christian community elected their own leaders, as, for example, in the case of choosing Deacons (Acts 6:3), and continued this practice. We find corroboration in two other 1st-century documents, the Didache and Clement of Rome’s First Letter: “You must, then, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons…,” bishops should be chosen “with the consent of the whole Church….”

Early in the 3rd century Hippolytus made it clear that it was an “apostolic tradition,” which was still practiced, for the entire local community along with its leaders to choose its own deacons, presbyters, and bishop. His testimony was closely followed by that of St. Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258 A.D.), who often referred to the election of bishops by the priests and people. He himself was elected and consequently made it his rule never to administer ordination without first having consulted both the clergy and the laity about the candidates: “From Cyprian to the priests, deacons, and all the people, greetings! In the ordaining of clerics, most beloved brethren, it is our custom to take your advice beforehand and with common deliberations weigh the character and qualifications of each individual.” Cyprian also reported a similar democratic custom prevailing in the church of Rome: “Cornelius was made bishop by the…testimony of almost all the people, who were then present, and by the assembly of ancient priests and good men.”*

Oh the quote from Clement’s Letter to Corinth
I]44:2 and on this account, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned as bishops and deacons: and then gave a rule of succession, in order that, when they had fallen asleep, other men, who had been approved, might succeed to their ministry.

44:3 Those who were thus appointed by them, or afterwards by other men of good repute, with the consent of the whole Church,

Give me sometime to get the source.

 

[wwolverine]

WWolverine,
It appears you don’t think Peter and the Savior knew the writings that have become the Old Testament. It appears you didn’t read the opening posts here, or didn’t think about the use of the word “Rock” in the Old Testament to most often be a metaphor for the coming Messiah, the Christ.

“Build my church” means “build my congregation” or in other words, “build the members of my church so that they will grow and flourish as they follow their Messiah”.

The “gates of hell” do not prevail against the rock of revealed knowledge from God, which is essential for members of the body of Christ to grow toward becoming like Him and becoming “one” with Him, nor do they or will they prevail against the Rock who is the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

In OT and NT, there is many places where God is compared to Rock. None of the writers have seen God personally. But Jesus is God, and so why would Jesus compare Himself to a rock? and not a mountain?

I read your post and i also had a discussion with a born again christian, who told me that Peter was the pebble, and Jesus was a Rock. So if that was the case, why only Peter had a changed name and not the other apostles?

 

[ParkerD]

Simon was given the designation of “Peter” and was afterward called “Simon Peter” or “Simon” as often as he was called Peter. This is similar to “Simon Zelotes” and to “James Boanerges”. Just because Simon Peter is talked about a great deal more and therefore his name comes up more, does not mean the descriptive “name” is something out of the ordinary as an addition to his given name.

Hello, WWolverine,

Please read the above.

If you will think about it, you will note that there were two Simons and two James among the Twelve Apostles, so it makes sense that there was some kind of addition to their names to clarify which person the Savior was talking to at any point in time.

Peace to you. Have a good evening and rest of the week.

 

[mark_a]

Mark A,
That’s a fair question. As I noted in the original post, I was following the rule to not divert a topic of a thread, but yet answering a question thoroughly that had come up in another thread. The one who had asked the question has looked at this thread, so now they have the answer and that was why I had taken the time to start this thread.

Well, ok, I guess.

 

[onenow1]

Hi Parker

Matt 16
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
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

Verse 17 Jesus blesses Peter.
Verse 18 Peter= Rock. He will build His Church.

So are we to believe,Jesus, blesses St.Peter and 10 seconds later insults him by calling him a small pebble. Don’t make sense. And His Church has lasted 2000yrs. The believers,as well as the hierarchy that He built on the rock. See Acts.1: 15, Acts 2:14.

God Bless all
onenow1opcorn:

 

[adrift]

Hello, WWolverine,

Please read the above.

If you will think about it, you will note that there were two Simons and two James among the Twelve Apostles, so it makes sense that there was some kind of addition to their names to clarify which person the Savior was talking to at any point in time.

Peace to you. Have a good evening and rest of the week.

There were also two Judas but you don’t see Jesus renaming them. Not just renaming but saying

 "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The naming comes after Jesus blesses him calls him Simon SON of Jonah (so he already has a way of distinguishing between the two Simons) Tells Peter that Jesus heavenly Father has revealed it to him. And because of this revelation Jesus gives Simon the name of Peter.

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Parker

Matt 16
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
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

Verse 17 Jesus blesses Peter.
Verse 18 Peter= Rock. He will build His Church.

So are we to believe,Jesus, blesses St.Peter and 10 seconds later insults him by calling him a small pebble. Don’t make sense. And His Church has lasted 2000yrs. The believers,as well as the hierarchy that He built on the rock. See Acts.1: 15, Acts 2:14.

God Bless all
onenow1opcorn:

Hi, Onenow1,
Verse 17 does not read that Jesus is “blessing” Peter. It reads that Jesus is saying that Peter has been blessed by the Father, and that the blessing Peter received from the Father is the blessing of knowing that the Messiah (the Anointed One, the Christ) had indeed come and was with them, and that blessing came by revelation from the Father.

I never agreed that the name Peter means “small pebble.” The name Peter means “rock”. If I were to tell my son or my friend he is a “rock”, then that son or friend will understand that I mean they are “rock-solid” in some way–that they can’t be broken or be weakened.

“Peter, you are solid as a rock” and “you have been blessed from the Father to know I am the promised Christ, and thus that I am the Rock prophesied by the prophets of old, including Moses. I am the Rock of salvation. Upon this Rock of salvation and this Rock of revelation from the Father to my followers (the congregation of believers called “the church”) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

The reason the gates of hell shall not prevail against it is that Christ holds the key of David, and thus holds the key of death and hell.

And in the final scope of things, you are right that the believers in Christ that He built up through the Rock of revelation and the Rock of salvation through Him (which certainly includes many, many people throughout the world) will not be prevailed against, through either death or being held captives in the spirit world. His rescue is large in scope–indeed, infinite in scope.

 

[ParkerD]

There were also two Judas but you don’t see Jesus renaming them. Not just renaming but saying
The naming comes after Jesus blesses him calls him Simon SON of Jonah (so he already has a way of distinguishing between the two Simons) Tells Peter that Jesus heavenly Father has revealed it to him. And because of this revelation Jesus gives Simon the name of Peter.

Adrift,
Perhaps you hadn’t recalled that Judas Iscariot is always spoken of as “Judas Iscariot”. The other Judas was also called Thaddeus (see Luke 6:16 and Mark 3:18). He was the brother of James the less, also called “James the son of Alphaeus”.