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

[ParkerD]

This thread is an attempt to comply with the forum rules about answering an off-topic question by posting a new thread. The following provides answers that have to do with Matthew 16:13-18. (For those who may look at this thread, please be aware that I have very limited time and may or may not have time to respond to comments or questions, but I certainly am aware and respect that others have different views about this subject):

To glean the meaning of the passage in Matthew 16:13-18, one would want to consider the circumstances and also other passages that relate to the passage recorded there, as also the careful consideration of the original intent of the Speaker.

When Peter used the words as translated into English, “thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” in answer to the Savior’s question of “whom say ye that I am?”, then he was making a very important declaration not only of belief, but of knowledge which the Lord said had been revealed to Peter by “my Father which is in heaven.” Peter was not relying on “flesh and blood” to have that knowledge brought to his soul and mind, but he did have a very important background, which is communicated by his use of the words “the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

The words “the Christ” mean “the Anointed One” and mean that Peter was familiar with the Jewish prophecies about the promised Messiah, the Anointed One. In other passages, the words are “the very Christ” or “that Christ”.

The promised Messiah was also known to be “the Rock” as a very familiar metaphor from the following Old Testament passages, for example:

Deut. 32: 4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

15 But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
18 Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.

2 Sam. 22: 2-3, 32, 47
2 And he said, The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer;
3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.
• • •
32 For who is God, save the Lord? and who is a rock, save our God?
• • •
47 The Lord liveth; and blessed be my rock; and exalted be the God of the rock of my salvation.

Psalms 78:35 And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer.

Ps. 18: 2, 31, 46
2 The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.
• • •
31 For who is God save the Lord? or who is a rock save our God?
• • •
46 The Lord liveth; and blessed be my rock; and let the God of my salvation be exalted.
Ps. 62: 2, 6-7
2 He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved.
• • •
6 He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved.
7 In God is my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength, and my refuge, is in God.

The above passages ought to be considered along with Peter’s words in his epistle where he confirmed his knowledge of the Savior’s exact position as the “Rock” or the “stone which the builders disallowed”:

1 Peter 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Peter thus says Christ is “a living stone” and as such is “precious” when he writes his epistle. He doesn’t say he himself is the “rock”, even though his name (Simon called Peter) connotes one who had rock-solid belief in Christ and thus a rock-solid testimony.

Note here that I am aware of the “petra” and so forth tangents, but they are tangential and do not consider the circumstance presented where Peter is saying that Jesus is the Anointed One who is the Promised Messiah and thus the Rock of salvation.

To be continued next post.

 

[ParkerD]

Continuation:

The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Holder of the key of David, who holds the key to the gates of hell as noted by John in Revelation 3:7 and as prophesied by Isaiah in Isaiah 22:22-23, which is a prophecy about the crucifixion and atonement of the very Messiah, Jesus Christ the Lord who surely shall “open, and none shall shut.”

No man does this. The Son of God, the Redeemer of mankind, the Promised Messiah does this. He opens the doors of the prison to them that are bound as stated by Jesus Himself when He read from Isaiah 61:1 in the synagogue early in His ministry, saying “this day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears” (Luke 4:21). This is not just an earthly promise. It is the promise of rescue in the spirit world, and is attested by Peter when he wrote of Jesus visiting the spirits in prison to teach them His gospel of salvation.

Jesus Christ, the Lord, wants our hearts to turn to Him in faith and living belief. The gates of hell will not prevail against anyone who becomes His follower through turning their heart to Him, and further–He knows and knew that His capacity to redeem and save through His marvelous grace encompasses all humankind except the sons of Perdition, as He noted in His great Intercessory prayer.

This saving mission is not exclusive to one religion. He was not charging Peter with the mission of being the foundation of His congregation of believers. He was saying that He Himself was indeed that foundation, just as had been said repeatedly in what became compiled as the Old Testament–passages with which He and Peter were very familiar.

Nor is the passage referring to “Peter’s confession of faith”. It has far more significant meaning than a confession of faith. It is the foundation that leads to the change in the human heart that must happen for a person to be built up into a new creature, an enlarged person with that new life that begins when they not only confess Christ but covenant to follow Him and allow Him to change their heart and soul.

This can happen for Catholics, for Protestants, for others whose beliefs differ in many details but who believe in Christ as the Promised Messiah and the Son of God–the Redeemer and Savior of the world.

 

[Spencerian]

ParkerD:

I’d love to help with the Catholic view on this…if you can state *one concise initial question *from the two starter posts. Being barraged by numerous Scripture verses initially serves only to dissuade others from answering you at all.

 

[FightingFat]

How do explain the Cephas tradition then Parker D?

 

[adrift]

Peter thus says Christ is “a living stone” and as such is “precious” when he writes his epistle. He doesn’t say he himself is the “rock”, even though his name (Simon called Peter) connotes one who had rock-solid belief in Christ and thus a rock-solid testimony.

Your connotation is off. It was a major event to have a name changed by God. I can only think of three previous to Peter’s name being changed. It was Jesus who changed his name. What you fail to include is “upon this rock I will build my Church” followed by giving him the keys, the authority to bind and loose.

This saving mission is not exclusive to one religion. He was not charging Peter with the mission of being the foundation of His congregation of believers. He was saying that He Himself was indeed that foundation, just as had been said repeatedly in what became compiled as the Old Testament–passages with which He and Peter were very familiar.

It is hard to see that Jesus was not saying that He was founding His Church on Peter when He says that He is. The scripture does not support your view point.

 

[FightingFat]

It is hard to see that Jesus was not saying that He was founding His Church on Peter when He says that He is. The scripture does not support your view point.

So does Paul, so does tradition, so does Luke, so does Mark.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD:

I’d love to help with the Catholic view on this…if you can state *one concise initial question *from the two starter posts. Being barraged by numerous Scripture verses initially serves only to dissuade others from answering you at all.

Spencerian,
Thanks for the offer. I have certainly read the Catholic view about Peter being the rock. I don’t really have a question that would need an answer about that whole topic, other than perhaps why there isn’t more emphasis placed on Christ being the Rock given the many Biblical scriptures about that. (But yet I understand that such an emphasis would sort of undercut the concept that seems absolutely essential to the basis of Papal authority.)

Peace to you.

 

[ParkerD]

Your connotation is off. It was a major event to have a name changed by God. I can only think of three previous to Peter’s name being changed. It was Jesus who changed his name. What you fail to include is “upon this rock I will build my Church” followed by giving him the keys, the authority to bind and loose.

It is hard to see that Jesus was not saying that He was founding His Church on Peter when He says that He is. The scripture does not support your view point.

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.

 

[adrift]

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 a point before I answer. Saul Paul was not a name change by God. I am not sure which is which but one is his Roman name and the other his Jewish name.
As for your other comments, Peter is not called Simon after Jesus is Resurrected. I think the Simon Peter reference is to point out the name change. To identify Peter as the same person as Simon. At any rate, after the resurrection it is only Peter.

1. Jesus changed his name.
2. A name change is always significant. As it was with Abraham, Sarah and Israel. Point to a name change that was not significant. Jesus makes a point of the name change.
3. Peter’s name change is more significant because he is names an object, a rock which Jesus states He will build His Church upon.
   Your name is Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church.

Just because there are others who agree with your interpretation does not mean it is correct. Numbers do not make right.

 

[ParkerD]

Just a point before I answer. Saul Paul was not a name change by God. I am not sure which is which but one is his Roman name and the other his Jewish name.
As for your other comments, Peter is not called Simon after Jesus is Resurrected. I think the Simon Peter reference is to point out the name change. To identify Peter as the same person as Simon. At any rate, after the resurrection it is only Peter.

1. Jesus changed his name.
2. A name change is always significant. As it was with Abraham, Sarah and Israel. Point to a name change that was not significant. Jesus makes a point of the name change.
3. Peter’s name change is more significant because he is names an object, a rock which Jesus states He will build His Church upon.
   Your name is Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church.

Just because there are others who agree with your interpretation does not mean it is correct. Numbers do not make right.

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”:

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.

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

18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.

Luke 24: 34
34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.

Acts 11: 13
And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
2 Pet. 1: 1
Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

 

[laneo]

Being a Catholic who has a hard time understanding all aspects of my faith…WHO INTERPRETED Matthew 16:18 to mean the Catholic church? I mean someone had to open it up and read it and then establish that thats the verse the CC was founded on. Correct? So who came to that conclusion?

 

[FightingFat]

Being a Catholic who has a hard time understanding all aspects of my faith…WHO INTERPRETED Matthew 16:18 to mean the Catholic church? I mean someone had to open it up and read it and then establish that thats the verse the CC was founded on. Correct? So who came to that conclusion?

Everyone up until the Reformation dude, all the early Church fathers, all the Scripture Scholars, everyone. This whole thing has only become relevant since it’s become in vogue to try and prove that Jesus didn’t found His Church with Peter in charge.

Sadly, it means that instead of studying the faith, we are more involved with apologetic!

 

[lax16]

Being a Catholic who has a hard time understanding all aspects of my faith…WHO INTERPRETED Matthew 16:18 to mean the Catholic church? I mean someone had to open it up and read it and then establish that thats the verse the CC was founded on. Correct? So who came to that conclusion?

Great question!

Studying early church history has been very helpful for me when trying to figure out “hey, who started all this?!”, but this research on Matthew 16:18 was especially helpful because it is from the work of Protestants and I always like to cross-reference my information.

This publication is definitely not promoting Catholicism, but all of the research provided by the Protestant scholars is in agreement that:

**“The long traditional teaching has been that Jesus is referring to Peter’s confession. However, scholars are pointing out more and more that the Greek and, for that matter, natural English, point to Peter being the rock that the church would be built upon.” **

christianmonthlystandard.com enter "Peter, the Rock, and the Confession (Matthew 16:17-19) into the search engine.

There’s a lot of research provided but I found it fairly easy to read and follow. I hope this helps!

 

[FightingFat]

Some further reading on the subject:

catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp

catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

And here’s some history; some quotes from ECF’s showing how early and how prevalently this was understood to be the reality of the Church on earth catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp in other words it is the TRADITION, also held in Scripture.

Just Scripture? No problem, here’s a good link to the Scriptural reality of the primacy of Peter:

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

 

[laneo]

Everyone up until the Reformation dude, all the early Church fathers, all the Scripture Scholars, everyone. This whole thing has only become relevant since it’s become in vogue to try and prove that Jesus didn’t found His Church with Peter in charge.

Sadly, it means that instead of studying the faith, we are more involved with apologetic!

Well, who was the first person to read it and state “this is the vesre, that we will reference to show evidence that the church we are establishing is the one true church”. Maybe I am questioning too much, but if some mortal human just interpreted it, how do we know he is right.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Everyone up until the Reformation dude, all the early Church fathers, all the Scripture Scholars, everyone. This whole thing has only become relevant since it’s become in vogue to try and prove that Jesus didn’t found His Church with Peter in charge.

Sadly, it means that instead of studying the faith, we are more involved with apologetic!

I wonder if the Orthodox Church(es) and the Oriental Orthodox would agree.

 

[Nicea325]

Well, who was the first person to read it and state “this is the vesre, that we will reference to show evidence that the church we are establishing is the one true church”. Maybe I am questioning too much, but if some mortal human just interpreted it, how do we know he is right.

Goes beyond the ‘first’ person,moreover,it starts with Jesus Christ. Did you know that in the NT Peter’s name is mentioned 195 times? John is second mentioned 30 times. In the first 15 chapters of the Acts of the Apostles,Peter is mentioned 56 times. Coincidence? Far from it!

 

[Nicea325]

I wonder if the Orthodox Church(es) and the Oriental Orthodox would agree.

After 1054 A.D. more likely the answered would be yes. However, I challenge anyone regardless of what Christian Church they follow,read the writings of many of the Eastern church fathers and read and see what they had to say about the primacy of Peter and Rome? If all disagreed,then we would not have any writings supporting the primacy of Peter.On the contrary,history says otherwise.

 

[BrianH]

Goes beyond the ‘first’ person,moreover,it starts with Jesus Christ. Did you know that in the NT Peter’s name is mentioned 195 times? John is second mentioned 30 times. In the first 15 chapters of the Acts of the Apostles,Peter is mentioned 56 times. Coincidence? Far from it!

Isn’t Paul mentioned more than Peter in the NT?
Historically Peter and Paul are almost always mentioned together the first two hundred years of so. I think the primacy of Peter must be traced after 200 AD from what I have read.

 

[Nicea325]

Isn’t Paul mentioned more than Peter in the NT?
Historically Peter and Paul are almost always mentioned together the first two hundred years of so. I think the primacy of Peter must be traced after 200 AD from what I have read.

If I am correct,no! Peter is mentioned first among the other Apostles. What have you read where it states primacy began after 200 A.D.? I know what you are getting at and I have heard the argument before. Many will say that there is not a lot of sources claiming or supporting the primacy of Peter/Rome. True.However,what we do have does tend to support a primacy of Peter and Rome,starting with St.Clement’s letter to the Corinthians. What many fail to understand is that the concept or belief of primacy was not all laid out after Christ death. Like all dcotrines,they taketime to dvelop,define and made official.