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

  • Thread starter Thread starter ParkerD
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Parker:

You should know and realize that the Jews of Jesus’ time expected a “political” Messiah. That is a leader, from God, who would throw off the yoke of Roman oppresion and lead and return ALL of the Jews to the time of David and before the split between Israel and Judah… In reality they awaited a zealot Messiah. The Jews of today still await this Messaiah.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
Just so I understand what you are saying to Parker -to understand the Holy Bible we are not to go read the Holy Bible but go to the Church instead?

I think the verse you mention is actually talking about the many actions, miracles performed by Jesus:

John 21
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
Hi schaick, I do not believe that I said that you are not to read the bible. If so I would like to see where I said such a thing. But I will agree with one think that you are saying, yes in order to understand the bible we must learn it from the Church. Yes that is true.

The bible tells you that. Where in the bible does it say that the bible is the Pilar of all truth? It doesn’t! The bible tells you that the Church is the pilar of all truth.

The bible tells you that in order to understand what is being taught you must be led by the advocate the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truths. Not the bible. The bible is not the advocate the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the living Church that speaks through the leaders Christ appointed to teach in his name.

The bible can not teach, the bible cannot explain. That is why Jesus left us the Church not the bible. There was no such thing as a bible, there was only the Church.

The bible says to stick with the teachings of the early Fathers of the Church, It is not the bible alone. The bible does not hold the fullnes of the truth.

John 12:25 Not everything Jesus said was recorded in scripture.

Romans 10:17 Faith comes from what is HEARD

1 Cor 15:1-2 hold fast to traditions whether ORAL or by letter

2 Tim 1:1-3 follow my SOUND words GUARD the truth

2 Peter 1:20 no prophecy is a matter of PRIVATE INTERPRETATION

2 Peter 3:15-16 Pauls letters can be difficult to grasp and interpret

Just to name a few.👍
 
Adrift,
I realize and had already emphasized that Peter knew through inspiration from God that Jesus is the Christ. “The Christ” means “the Anointed One”, and was a known reference to “the Messiah.”

Peter showed that he understood the Biblical prophecy that the Jews would reject the Messiah when he quoted the ancient text in his epistle as found in 1 Peter 2:6-8. The Messiah was known by him (Peter) to be “a chief corner stone, elect, precious,” (fulfilling Isaiah 28:16) …“the stone which the builders disallowed,” “a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence” (fulfilling Isaiah 8:13,14):

13 Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.
14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

I have already twice posted several passages that show the prominent use of the metaphor of the Rock of salvation. This was a principal metaphor starting from the time of Moses, for the Savior and Redeemer of Israel.
What I understood you to say is that when Jesus named Simon Peter it would have been understood that Jesus was referring to the Messiah being a rock in the scriptures. That your interpretation was the common interpretation.
I dispute this notion. The scriputres you provided are about God not about the Messiah.
You have provided no documentation that the Jews, that would include all the Apostles ,would have understood it the same way you are now interpreting.Jesus was not referring to the Scriptures when He renamed Simon. Jesus was not just giving Simon a nick name. To suggest this is to ignore the whole passage as it is stated.
 
Parker:

You should know and realize that the Jews of Jesus’ time expected a “political” Messiah. That is a leader, from God, who would throw off the yoke of Roman oppresion and lead and return ALL of the Jews to the time of David and before the split between Israel and Judah… In reality they awaited a zealot Messiah. The Jews of today still await this Messaiah.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
Exactly, thank you. They weren’t, and aren’t, waiting for God Himself to come to the earth in human form.
 
What I understood you to say is that when Jesus named Simon Peter it would have been understood that Jesus was referring to the Messiah being a rock in the scriptures. That your interpretation was the common interpretation.
I dispute this notion. The scriputres you provided are about God not about the Messiah.
You have provided no documentation that the Jews, that would include all the Apostles ,would have understood it the same way you are now interpreting.Jesus was not referring to the Scriptures when He renamed Simon. Jesus was not just giving Simon a nick name. To suggest this is to ignore the whole passage as it is stated.
Adrift,
I think Jesus knew the teachings and prophecies of the ancient prophets very well, and had them constantly on His mind and used them at will in His teaching.

An allusion can be made using a single metaphorical word. This is part of the power of poetic language. The allusion is supposed to bring to the mind of one who is “of like mind” with the person using the allusion, a whole breadth of understanding that the allusion brings to mind. (Other people can miss it altogether.)

Allusions are used quite a bit in poetry and literature. This is perhaps largely a lost art today, but a student of literature is familiar with the use of allusions. Shakespeare used them often, as did Keats and many other writers. The Savior used allusions quite often in His teaching, and Peter used the allusion I have noted about the “stone the builders disallowed” and the “rock of offense”, in his epistle.
 
Sorry to say, but the language of the area was not Greek. It was Aramaic. The area was not Hellenized since many Jews who came to Jerusalem for the Passover needed interpreters to speak to the locals, Maybe some of the Romans, and some of the scribes and priests may have spoken Greek, but the Apostles spoke only Aramaic and maybe Hebrew. Paul, though, being a well learned man did speak Greek, along with Hebrew and Latin, and maybe Aramaic also. Read the contemporary historians who commented on the area, such a Pliny the younger, Clio, Herodotus, etc.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
I don’t understand your statement. If only aramaic /hebrew was used why did the Jews that came into the land need interpreters?

I am not saying that Jesus did not speak Aramaic.

Not every Jew would have to know Greek, especially those that stayed in their immediate villages. To get along with everyday business of living in a land controlled by people that speak Greek they had to have known Greek.

jerusalemperspective.com/Default.aspx?tabid=27&ArticleID=1604
*The land of Israel was under the influence of Greek culture from the time of its conquest by Alexander the Great at the end of the fourth century B.C.E. Although scholars have divergent views regarding the influence of Hellenism on religious works, literature and everyday life in first-century Israel, it is generally accepted that the Greek language was used by many of the inhabitants.

Latin was also used to some extent in the land of Israel in the time of Jesus. For example, John 19:20 and a few manuscripts of Luke 23:38 record that the sign above the cross was written in Hebrew, Latin and Greek, and the names of the Roman legions which served in the land were sometimes inscribed in Latin over wells and on garrison buildings. Apparently, however, Latin was used only by the Romans for matters of army administration. Civil administration was conducted entirely in Greek, and inscriptions written by non-Jews that have been found in Israel are all in Greek.*

answering-islam.org/Bible/nt-languages.html
This led to the translation of the Old Testament into Koine Greek (as opposed to classical Greek of the philosophers) in the Septuagint (LXX) in Alexandria in the middle of the third century B.C. This is affirmed in the Interpreter’s DICTIONARY of the BIBLE (Vol. R-Z, p. 277, Abington:1962):

“NT Koine is not simply the everyday Greek of an Eastern people in the first Christian Century; its religious vocabulary derives ultimately, not from the Greek world, but from the Hebrew world of the OT through the medium of LXX Greek.”
The situation in NT times was similar to what we have today, but with different languages. The Jews used the ancient Hebrew when reading their prayers and scrolls in the synagogue, but needed a modern Koine Greek translation to understand what they were reading. Most quotations in the NT from the OT are from the Greek LXX which explains some of the differences in wording between the Hebrew and the Greek in our present day translations.

The Jews of NT times spoke Aramaic at home and in conversations. Aramaic was similar Hebrew and Arabic. (al-Rahmaan, al-Rahiim, in the Fatiha of the Quran were probably derived from the Aramaic language). In business life and official writings they used the common Koine Greek that all peoples in the area used for hundreds of years. They actually thought and talked in at least two or three languages as people do today. The Roman occupiers of the Holy Land at that time spoke Latin and Greek. Evidence of the three languages used in that time is found in the New Testament itself in the Gospel of John 19:19-20: (NIV)

“Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, The King of the Jews. Many 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.”
There are other evidences such as “talitha cumi”, little girl arise, and “maranatha” Lord come, in Aramaic. These show that the people were multi-lingual. Greek was the main means of communication but the heart language of the people was Aramaic. The language of formal worship was Hebrew, most likely with Aramaic interpretation and explaination. The New Testament and Gospels, which were written for Jews scattered all over the Mediterranean world were naturally written in the common language of Koine Greek so that all could understand and benefit. Koine Greek was much more expressive and more easily translated into western Latin based languages and therefore the entire world benefited
 
To any general reader who is Catholic,

I seem not to be able to get an answer to the question of whether Catholics regard Simon Peter and John the Baptist and Andrew as Jews who had the same misconceptions about the Messiah that the general Jewish population had, even though they called Jesus the Son of God and the Messiah early on in His ministry?

As another example, when Simeon perceived that the Christ, “thy salvation”, had been born, and did so by revelation “by the Holy Ghost” (see Luke 2:25-32), do Catholics think Simeon had the same misconception that the general Jewish population had?

I realize these may be sensitive questions, so if no one responds it will be OK–I think I will understand the reluctance. Peace to all.
Hi Parker - I have been mulling this around in my head for a couple of days now. I am not sure if I am answering this correctly - I am not exactly sure of the question - though I am not reluctant to answer due to sensitivities.😉

I think if we read the Bible and other writings from that time period we can get a very good idea what life was like and into what kind of a world Jesus came. We can all agree on this, I would think.
Now, Peter and Andrew and all the other Jews were awaiting the Messiah. We know this from Jewish scripture. We know the prophecies. We know that the Jews were awaiting Elijah (and still are) to precede the Messiah and did not recognize him in John the Baptist.
What we are not discussing (so far) is that Jesus was *radically different *than what anyone could have expected! Including the Apostles.
Even today, 2,000 years later, nobody can match His deeds and His words. I don’t think the prophecies of the OT give/gave enough detail so that the people really knew what to look for. Yes, their are many scriptural passages that predicted His birth and suffering etc, but what Jesus did on earth was beyond anyone’s comprehension. All this talk about “love!”
The fact that Jesus reprimanded authority figures about living their faith with gestures but not with their hearts, they must have said “HUH?!”
Love your neighbors as well as your enemies -“YOU’VE GOT TO BE KIDDING!”
The message of the Messiah is for all - “NO WAY! WE ARE GOD’S CHOSEN PEOPLE!”
Peter and the Others believed and loved Jesus. However, they were very human in their understanding, as we know from Peter denying our Lord despite his “knowing” that Jesus was the Messiah.
I believe (and this is my personal opinion) that when the Apostles saw the Resurrected Christ and He stayed among them and passed the Church on to them, that it all came together. It took all of the events - Jesus’ ministry, His Death, His Resurrection, Pentecost, His Ascension - for the Apostles to fully understand the definition of Messiah.
But, as Jesus knew, very few would accept His Message.
 
To any general reader who is Catholic,

I seem not to be able to get an answer to the question of whether Catholics regard Simon Peter and John the Baptist and Andrew as Jews who had the same misconceptions about the Messiah that the general Jewish population had, even though they called Jesus the Son of God and the Messiah early on in His ministry?

As another example, when Simeon perceived that the Christ, “thy salvation”, had been born, and did so by revelation “by the Holy Ghost” (see Luke 2:25-32), do Catholics think Simeon had the same misconception that the general Jewish population had?

I realize these may be sensitive questions, so if no one responds it will be OK–I think I will understand the reluctance. Peace to all.
I am not Catholic but I am a trinitarian Christian.

I am convinced John the Baptist knew right away who Jesus was:

Matthew 3
11"I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 12His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

13Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”

Andrew seems strong and steady, understanding from the beginning:
John 1
40Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. 41The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ). 42And he brought him to Jesus.
Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter).

We know that some doubted:
Matthew 28
16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.

We know that Peter doubted as as the Jews did because he denied Christ 3 times.

**Reading Luke 24 we see that some still had no idea what was going on:
19"What things?" he asked.
“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. "He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive

Until:
Luke 24
52Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. 53And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.**
 
I am not Catholic but I am a trinitarian Christian.

I am convinced John the Baptist knew right away who Jesus was:

Matthew 3
11"I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 12His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

13Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”

Andrew seems strong and steady, understanding from the beginning:
John 1
40Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. 41The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ). 42And he brought him to Jesus.
Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter).

We know that some doubted:
Matthew 28
16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.

We know that Peter doubted as as the Jews did because he denied Christ 3 times.

**Reading Luke 24 we see that some still had no idea what was going on:
19"What things?" he asked.
“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. "He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive

Until:
Luke 24**
52Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. 53And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.

schaick - I am so glad you brought this up as I have never thought about it. After reading again about John the Baptist, it is clear that he was chosen before birth to lead people to Jesus. His parents Zachary and Elizabeth were just and religious, and followed the commandments of God.
The angel that appeared to Zachary told him that his son would be great before the Lord, filled with the Holy Ghost, would convert many, and would go in the spirit of Elias.

Obviously, the knowledge that John the Baptist had about Jesus being the Messiah was bestowed upon him by God before his birth and did not come from “knowledge” acquired in his life.

This is really interesting.
 
shaick:

The Jews that lived outside of Israel/Judah ( e.g.: Greece ) being Hellenized spoke only Greek. very few spoke Aramaic or Hebrew. These are the ones that needed interpreters ( scribes, lawyers ) Koine Greek was the lingua franca of the traders and merchants, along with Latin, although they all probably spoke Aramaic for and with the locals.

Aramaic was the predominant language of the locals since the majority of the people were illiterate. Now if, as you say, Greek was the dominant language then why did Jesus speak Aramaic to the peoples, his disciples and the Apostles? Why did He call Peter “rock” in Aramaic and not Greek or Latin?

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
shaick:

The Jews that lived outside of Israel/Judah ( e.g.: Greece ) being Hellenized spoke only Greek. very few spoke Aramaic or Hebrew. These are the ones that needed interpreters ( scribes, lawyers ) Koine Greek was the lingua franca of the traders and merchants, along with Latin, although they all probably spoke Aramaic for and with the locals.

Aramaic was the predominant language of the locals since the majority of the people were illiterate. Now if, as you say, Greek was the dominant language then why did Jesus speak Aramaic to the peoples, his disciples and the Apostles? Why did He call Peter “rock” in Aramaic and not Greek or Latin?

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
Also, (to add to your post to schaick)

Just because people could speak and/or understand Greek does not mean they could write it.
Many people can understand a language thoroughly, but that does not mean that they are educated enough in the language to be able to convey their message in writing.
Writing is a completely different skill and it must be formally taught, whereas speaking or understanding a language can come about from exposure.
 
We know that Peter doubted as as the Jews did because he denied Christ 3 times.

Luke .

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
It was of him that the prophet Isaiah had spoken when he said: "A voice of one crying out in the desert, 'Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths…He came for testimony, to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him.
 
Also, (to add to your post to schaick)

Just because people could speak and/or understand Greek does not mean they could write it.
Many people can understand a language thoroughly, but that does not mean that they are educated enough in the language to be able to convey their message in writing.
Writing is a completely different skill and it must be formally taught, whereas speaking or understanding a language can come about from exposure.
Yes, lax. You are correct. I speak some Japanese but I can’t read or write it.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
In all this back-and-forth about what language Jesus is using Protestants are missing a more obvious and more important question:

What exactly is Jesus telling the apostles and us by changing Simon’s name to Peter(Cephas or Kepha) when such a name was reserved exclusively for God?
 
In all this back-and-forth about what language Jesus is using Protestants are missing a more obvious and more important question:

What exactly is Jesus telling the apostles and us by changing Simon’s name to Peter(Cephas or Kepha) when such a name was reserved exclusively for God?
Hi GreyPilgrim. I was just thinking of something. And no disrespect to any faith or any person. But if I were Protestant I would HAVE to reject this scripture.

Because if you can accept this scripture for what it says its is plain as day that the Pope is the leader of the Christian faith.

If you look at the word Rock you know that Jesus changed Simon to Peter which Peter translates to Rock.

If you look at Abraham, Jesus changed his name from Abram to Abraham which translates to Rock.

If you add it all up Rock translates to Father. Father Abraham. Father translate to Papa, Papa translates to Pope. It all adds up to one thing. The Holy Father. Papa, Pope!

Jesus changed 2 People into the name of Father! We had Father Abraham in the O.T and the Holy Father today.

This is the way it is. No one can deny this. Rock means Father. We have God the Father first. That is the first time we ever heard of our Father. God the Father our heavenly Father. Then Father Abraham our earthly Father, The Pope our Earthly Father.

Then we have our biological Father. Ironic isn’t it. We also have 3 Fathers on this earth also. And how God the Father was made up of 3 persons also. I just thought of that.

But the point is Jesus had authority to do what he did, and he did indeed do this. He gave Peter and Peter only the keys to the kingdom. But many do not see that Jesus did indeed leave us a kingdom here on earth, or why would he give Peter the keys.

But the Pope is a successor Of Peter and this cannot be denied. And he has the keys to what Kingdom here on earth? Simple the RCC! That cannot be denied. It is a pure simple visual truth seen like Christ said, his Church on earth would be Visible for all to see.

'Who can say that they do not know of the Roman Church and the Pope! Not many!😃
 
I also find it interesting that many say that Jesus built HIS Church, as if it is done. Jesus says I will build- so I say ** HE is still building HIS Church today.**

Also some of the stats being thrown around makes one wonder how many times Jesus’ name is mentioned in the Holy Bible?

Take a look at the words petros and petra and their use in the Holy Bible:

Petros is always used when refering to Peter and nothing else - no rock.

Petra is always used when it is to mean a rock literally and Jesus figuratively:

Literally a rock:
Luke 6

48He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built.

Luke 8
6Some fell on rock, and when it came up, the plants withered because they had no moisture.

Luke 8
13Those on the rock are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away.

Jesus figuratively:
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.

1 Peter 2
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.
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!
 
And by the way Jesus said nothing about I will be building my Church.

He said You are Peter and upon this Rock I WILL BUILD my Church. And he did. He told them he would be sending the Advocate the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth.

Now if he was still building a Church why would he say he would send the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth, if it wasn’t even completed? Sorry that would contradict scripture would you not agree?

Jesus said the the CHURCH was the Pilar of All Truth. Now if the Church was not completed how could it be the Pilar of All Truth?
 
And one more thing.

The stone that the builders REJECTED will be the CORNERSTONE. Who did the Jews reject? Jesus!!!😦
 
And by the way Jesus said nothing about I will be building my Church.

He said You are Peter and upon this Rock I WILL BUILD my Church. And he did. He told them he would be sending the Advocate the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth.

Now if he was still building a Church why would he say he would send the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth, if it wasn’t even completed? Sorry that would contradict scripture would you not agree?

Jesus said the the CHURCH was the Pilar of All Truth. Now if the Church was not completed how could it be the Pilar of All Truth?
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”.
 
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
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top