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

[adrift]

Adrift,
I’ve already demonstrated that it wasn’t a “name change,” and so did an excellent post by PaulDupre earlier on.
.

:bigyikes:

I am flabergasted that you made this statement.

PaulDupre was answering the statement that you made here. Specifically the underlined part.

Adrift and FightingFat,
The scripture does indeed support my view point, and anyone can find many articles on the internet through using Google that have the same view point or similar ones.

Simon was given the designation of “Peter” and was afterward called “Simon Peter” or “Simon” as often as he was called Peter.** This is not the same kind of case as with “Abram Abraham” or with “Jacob Israel” or with “Saul Paul” (of course).** It 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.

All of the Twelve received the authority to bind and loose–not just Peter. So, yes, they held the keys to do that, and were given those keys by Christ, but that is not the same thing as Christ holding the key of David.

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”.

He was disputing your claim not agreeing.

Your claim that you have proven there was not a name change is false.

 

[adrift]

What is clear to anyone that reads the Bible is that the keys were specifically given and mentioned only in relation to Peter. The power of “binding and loosing” is then later mentioned and given to all of the apostles.

Matthew 16:19
19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 18:18-19
18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

19Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

:clapping:

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkerD
Eddy,
Certainly Peter said that there should be a replacement apostle for Judas Iscariot. But he did not choose the replacement apostle, thus showing that he was not “in charge.”

Care to tell us the name of the mysterious person who did choose the replacement for Judas? You seem to be fishing in a lake,which has no fish…:ehh:

 

[ParkerD]

Care to tell us the name of the mysterious person who did choose the replacement for Judas? You seem to be fishing in a lake,which has no fish…:ehh:

That was actually my point–thanks.

Without revelation to guide the precise selection of the new apostle and the whole succession plan which was obviously going to be needed and would have been planned for in advance, then the fishing that is done is in the wrong lake.

The Lord chose the new apostle. That is what Peter said.

 

[ParkerD]

:bigyikes:

I am flabergasted that you made this statement.

PaulDupre was answering the statement that you made here. Specifically the underlined part.

He was disputing your claim not agreeing.

Your claim that you have proven there was not a name change is false.

Adrift,
PaulDupre’s final sentence was

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”.

He made no distinction between the two situations. He wrote “equally comfortable” and used the words “given name” “or the surname”. He noted that Peter calls himself “Simon Peter.” That was my original point. He confirmed the same point I had already made.

 

[ParkerD]

Sorry,but the above is poor exegesis. And the fact it is in the future tense debunks Peter receiving the keys? You mean Jesus said something He had no intensions of fulfilling? Peter did receive them and the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone.

Jesus gave all the 12 keys? Really? In Matthew 18:18 all the disciples are given the power of binding and loosing, but the context of that verse suggests that there the power of excommunication alone is intended. The keys are those to the kingdom of heaven and that Peter’s exercise of authority in the church on earth will be confirmed in heaven.

Nicea,
I wasn’t “debunking” that Peter received keys. I was writing that such an important event as a singular and once-and-only giving of the keys to Peter would have been written about and been noted in Peter’s own writings. It would have been a singularly important event, as I noted.

What I disagree with is that “the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone.” This is an assumption that is easily made, but not given the context of Matthew 16-18 since 18:18 confirms the giving of power to the Twelve that was talked about in the same sentence as the sentence about the keys.

If the keys are “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” and that does not mean that it is the power to bind on earth that which shall be bound in heaven (which includes the power of deciding about “excommunication” as someone noted), then “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” cannot be passed on to anyone, and are still held by Peter, and he is in heaven with those keys still in his possession. If that is the case, then no one else has ever held those keys.

Peter never wrote that he was giving those keys to anyone, nor that they would transition to anyone else.

 

[eddy714]

Eddy,
Certainly Peter said that there should be a replacement apostle for Judas Iscariot. But he did not choose the replacement apostle, thus showing that he was not “in charge.”

“Fallible man” is who I consider to have advised that only Peter was given keys. There is not such a teaching in the Savior’s words.

The Bible is Jewish, not Catholic. Jesus was a Jew, not a Catholic. Peter was a Jew, not a Catholic.

Have a great day. If you want to talk about my comment, then my comment had to do with leadership transition and a leadership transition model. That is where a discussion about the Savior’s intent with giving keys to the apostles would need to head, if talking about the “primacy of Peter”.

The Bible is Catholic not Jewish scripture was Jewish and that is what Jesus based his teachings on while the apostales where writing his teachings and traditions on the Gospel.
And when I say its Catholic it means universal and with Jesus crucifixion it was made for the sins of the world not for sins of the Jews. And the Bible is universal because you have it and other people do right, and you read from it and study from it so then its Catholic dont you think? But remeber the only interpretaion comes from the pillar of truth.

 

[rinnie]

Nicea,
I wasn’t “debunking” that Peter received keys. I was writing that such an important event as a singular and once-and-only giving of the keys to Peter would have been written about and been noted in Peter’s own writings. It would have been a singularly important event, as I noted.

What I disagree with is that “the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone.” This is an assumption that is easily made, but not given the context of Matthew 16-18 since 18:18 confirms the giving of power to the Twelve that was talked about in the same sentence as the sentence about the keys.

If the keys are “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” and that does not mean that it is the power to bind on earth that which shall be bound in heaven (which includes the power of deciding about “excommunication” as someone noted), then “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” cannot be passed on to anyone, and are still held by Peter, and he is in heaven with those keys still in his possession. If that is the case, then no one else has ever held those keys.

Peter never wrote that he was giving those keys to anyone, nor that they would transition to anyone else.

Hello my little love muffin. Do ya miss me

Okay now hold on, I have a problem with what you just said. Now while I agree that the Apostles were all given the power of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, I do not see where they were all given the keys to the kingdom. Unless our scripture is different.

Let me show you mine. IT says Jesus said to HIM, now him would not be all of the apostles to begin with would you not agree, Now next Jesus said I give to YOU Peter. Now you Peter is means one person do you not agree. Now if Jesus wanted all of the Apostles to have the keys to the kingdom why did he just mention Peter by himself?

 

[eddy714]

Nicea,
I wasn’t “debunking” that Peter received keys. I was writing that such an important event as a singular and once-and-only giving of the keys to Peter would have been written about and been noted in Peter’s own writings. It would have been a singularly important event, as I noted.

What I disagree with is that “the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone.” This is an assumption that is easily made, but not given the context of Matthew 16-18 since 18:18 confirms the giving of power to the Twelve that was talked about in the same sentence as the sentence about the keys.

If the keys are “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” and that does not mean that it is the power to bind on earth that which shall be bound in heaven (which includes the power of deciding about “excommunication” as someone noted), then “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” cannot be passed on to anyone, and are still held by Peter, and he is in heaven with those keys still in his possession. If that is the case, then no one else has ever held those keys.

Peter never wrote that he was giving those keys to anyone, nor that they would transition to anyone else.

Of so you finally accepted that the Keys were given to Peter.

I will get to this when I get home ( cause i’m at work right now)

And does this affect you in your current belief?

 

[adrift]

Adrift,
PaulDupre’s final sentence was

He made no distinction between the two situations. He wrote “equally comfortable” and used the words “given name” “or the surname”. He noted that Peter calls himself “Simon Peter.” That was my original point. He confirmed the same point I had already made.

Your point was that it was not a name change. Equally comfortable refers to the given name and the changed name. Your argument was because Simon continued to be used it was not a change in name. He pointed out that Jacob continued to use Jacob but that did not mean that his name had not been changed.

There are four times that names were changed. Those were Abraham, Sarah, Jacob and Pete. It was a significant event. That Jesus chose to call him rock was symbolic. What Jesus said was your name is Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church. I will give you the keys to heaven.

 

[wwolverine]

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:

Well said onenow1.

 

[wwolverine]

Who was in charge of Christ’s church? That seems to go without saying. Christ is in charge of His church. He leads it through His own direct involvement. When Matthias was chosen as the replacement apostle, the apostles prayed and said, “Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen…” (Acts 1:24)

Who was doing the choosing?
Answer–the Lord. Not Peter. Peter was completely acknowledging that the Lord was in charge.

How does that happen? By revelation–the same kind of revelation by which Peter knew and could attest that “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”

So which is Christ’s Church? The Catholic Church or the 18000 or is it more, protestant churcheS?

 

[lax16]

Who was in charge of Christ’s church? That seems to go without saying. Christ is in charge of His church. He leads it through His own direct involvement. When Matthias was chosen as the replacement apostle, the apostles prayed and said, “Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen…” (Acts 1:24)

Who was doing the choosing?
Answer–the Lord. Not Peter. Peter was completely acknowledging that the Lord was in charge.

How does that happen? By revelation–the same kind of revelation by which Peter knew and could attest that “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”

Parker - Let’s elaborate on this.

We have Jesus, who is now dead, and He is going to lead His Church through His own involvement?
What would that look like? Explain how people would react to Him. Is He leading it by coming to earth as a resurrected person or say, as the wind?
Why then did He die if He still had to lead His church? Wasn’t it time to pass it on to the people He prepared (as imperfect as they were and still are?)
Don’t you think that Jesus, being God, could live forever as man if it was God’s will and could still be here in person to lead His church?
God did not come Himself and gather up the Israelites - He chose Moses to lead them.
The Mormons don’t wander around aimlessly - they have a president/prophet and leaders.

Let’s face it, by admitting that Jesus chose Peter is admitting that the Catholic Church was the One Jesus Christ established from the very beginning. That would cause a lot of problems for all of the religions that exist in opposition to the Catholic Church.

Even the Protestants are starting to admit it!

 

[Rocky]

Parker - Let’s elaborate on this.

We have Jesus, who is now dead, and He is going to lead His Church through His own involvement?
What would that look like? Explain how people would react to Him. Is He leading it by coming to earth as a resurrected person or say, as the wind?
Why then did He die if He still had to lead His church? Wasn’t it time to pass it on to the people He prepared (as imperfect as they were and still are?)
Don’t you think that Jesus, being God, could live forever as man if it was God’s will and could still be here in person to lead His church?

Jesus is not now dead. He is most assuredly alive and sitting at the right Hand of His Father offering His eternal sacrifice to the Father as our High Priest. And He is sitting at the right Hand in His Humanity as well as in His Divinity.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea,
I wasn’t “debunking” that Peter received keys. I was writing that such an important event as a singular and once-and-only giving of the keys to Peter would have been written about and been noted in Peter’s own writings. It would have been a singularly important event, as I noted.

Where does scripture teach everything must be said explicitly? Again,you are fishing at a lake with no fish.And who says everything that was ever said and done by Jesus and the Apostles had to be written down in scripture in order make it legit? What does John 21:25 say:

There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

What I disagree with is that “the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone.” This is an assumption that is easily made, but not given the context of Matthew 16-18 since 18:18 confirms the giving of power to the Twelve that was talked about in the same sentence as the sentence about the keys.

Assumptions? Assumptions cannot be proven and facts are proven. The history of the early church and church fathers would raise their eyebrows at you. Sorry,but you adding your own biased views as to what scripture clearly says: Peter ALONE received the keys.

Provide me one church father who believed and taught all the other 11 also received the KEYS to the KINGDOM of HEAVEN?

If the keys are “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” and that does not mean that it is the power to bind on earth that which shall be bound in heaven (which includes the power of deciding about “excommunication” as someone noted), then “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” cannot be passed on to anyone, and are still held by Peter, and he is in heaven with those keys still in his possession. If that is the case, then no one else has ever held those keys.

Peter never wrote that he was giving those keys to anyone, nor that they would transition to anyone else.

How absurd! I see,it is okay for all other types of institutions (religious or secular) to have one person succeed another due to whatever reasons arive,but it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for Peter to have done the same? How dare Jesus do something so unthinkable for His Church.

U-huh and Peter also never wrote he was NOT going to give the Keys to someone else.Your argument is circular with no beginning or end.

 

[onenow1]

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.

Hi,
Really Parker ? Matt 16:17 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.

As part of the one triune God,Jesus indeed blesses St.Peter.

Throughout our salvation history, GOD has always provided a ‘Father Figure’ to guide His people. Some examples are, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon, and Peter and the succession of Popes.

God Bless
onenow1

 

[onenow1]

U-huh and Peter also never wrote he was NOT going to give the Keys to someone else.Your argument is circular with no beginning or end.

Hi Nicea325, I think St. Peter alludes to passing on the Keys. Here : 2 Peter 1: 15-21

15 And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.

God Bless
onenow1

 

[Nicea325]

Hi Nicea325, I think St. Peter alludes to passing on the Keys. Here : 2 Peter 1: 15-21

15 And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.

God Bless
onenow1

Indeed! However, my remark to ParkerD is that Peter never states he was **NOT **going to pass on his authority.

 

[ParkerD]

Hello, all (CatholicGuyNY, Onenow1, Lax16, Rinnie, Nicea325, Adrift, Eddy, and others),

I am sorry if you have waited and wondered about responses to your kind and thoughtful comments. I appreciate those, and hope you are all well. I have been very busy today and this evening, and hope to respond some time later tonight or tomorrow morning or so. I hope this is not a disappointment to anyone, since I realize sometimes we would like pretty quick answers but yet that isn’t possible sometimes.

Have a good night, in the meantime. Enjoy your loved ones and friends around you, and the blessings of heaven.

 

[ParkerD]

This isn’t relevant. You said that Peter was "the first-named apostle, and the leading apostle after the ascension". That is a primacy:

Webster’s Online Dictionary definition of “primacy”

*Function: noun
Date: 14th century

1 : the state of being first (as in importance, order, or rank) : preeminence <the primacy of intellectual and esthetic over materialistic values — T. R. McConnell>
2 : the office, rank, or preeminence of an ecclesiastical primate*

To say that what you said isn’t primacy is to not know what “primacy” means.

Please explain this comment:

The “primacy” with no planned leadership succession that would include having the upcoming leader having learned his role through experience and preparation, would be a very poor leadership transition model. It would mean the Savior had no inkling of human nature as regards leadership and leadership transition. I don’t buy it that He had no such inkling.

CatholicGuyNY,
Sorry to have taken a while to get back to you on this set of comments.

The reason I don’t consider that the use of the word “primacy” is the correct word in relation to Peter, is that I see in the Savior’s teaching that although He singled out Peter several times, and also sometimes had Peter, James and John apart from the other apostles, He taught them that they each should be a “servant” and that they shouldn’t be seeking “rank”, and I don’t find that the apostles’ writings show a sense of “rank”, and instead show a sense of counseling together and seeking unity.

Since the word primacy has a connotation of “preeminence” (as you noted and I had in mind when I considered what that word would mean), I think it is the wrong word to describe Peter’s role. (So I disagree with the Encyclopedia of Mormonism on that particular point.)

My point with the last paragraph, which you asked that I explain, is that an effective leader always plans for their replacement unless the replacement is going to be elected or appointed and there is no transitional period. The Savior would of course know about effective leadership principles, including the transition after a leader has died such that the leader who is the successor continues to bring “success” to the organization.

The responsibilities, ministry, and learning that would take place among the Twelve Apostles would be a perfect place for the successor to Peter to be prepared for a leadership role of being Peter’s successor as the “head apostle” in counsel. The Savior prepared Peter in an earthly way to have a leadership role after the ascension, but He also was preparing each of the other apostles as well, and showed this several times and in several ways during His recorded ministry.

Peace to you and all.