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.
Adrift,
Indeed they did, but that was not because they didn’t have scriptural background that would have taught them about the Rock of salvation, and would have allowed them to recognize the Messiah and the fulfillment of the prophecies concerning Him, just as He pointed out to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus after His resurrection. Peter was not in the dark about those prophecies.

I think you may not understand the word “metaphor.” Surely you aren’t saying that Peter was literally a rock. So it is not a “twisted meaning” to figure out which metaphor is being used, and what it means.
You have not provided documentation that a Jew of that time would have expected the Christ to be the “rock of salvation”.

I understand what a metaphor is. I am saying that Jesus named Simon Rock. It is that which is being twisted. Simon was renamed Rock.
 
Adrift,

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” and is “a chief corner stone” and “made the head of the corner” when he writes his epistle.

In the Matthew 16:16 situation, when Peter says “thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Peter is saying that Jesus is the Anointed One who is the Promised Messiah and thus the Rock of salvation. Peter knew it by revelation, and the Savior knew that Peter knew what he was saying by revelation and by having read and understood the prophecies concerning Him now that he was hearing and seeing the very fulfillment of those prophecies.
 
Parker:

Yes, Jesus is the “rock” of our faith. But Peter is the rock on which Jesus built His Church. Why else would He rename and call Simon bar Jonah “Cephas” ( rock in Aramaic )? He singled Peter out as the pre-eminent of the Apostles and designated him as the leader, and rock, of His Church when He told Peter “Feed My lambs, feed My sheep” three times ( Jn21:15-17 ). If Jesus was the rock on which He built His Church then there was no need for Him to rename Simon.

Also, Peter was not renamed because his faith was like a “rock”, as many Protestants state. What about the other Apostles whose faith was also like a “rock”? Each one of them ( except for John Jn 21:20-24 ] ) died a martyr because their faith was like a “rock”. No matter which way you slice it, the Church was built upon Peter.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem

P.S. Jesus is called the “cornerstone” of His Church.
 
Adrift,

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:

D.
The passages you provide the Jews would tell you are about God not the Messiah. The Jews did not expect God to come in human form. Peter would not have seen these passages to mean what your modern interpretation sees.
 
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.
 
How do you know your church is teaching the truth unless you go and check it against what GOD is saying?
May I remind you that the Church can do no other than tell the truth as given it by Jesus and the Apostles. The Church is the one who assembled the Bible and made it available to all believers. It is the word of God. If the Church had wished, it could have altered, or changed, added, or subtracted, to the scriptures to make it fit its wants and desires. It had many opportunities to do so and none would have been the wiser. But the Church is true to Jesus and His commission, and for this the Church is reviled, cursed, abased,etc., and all for upholding the truths of God. It should be the other way around, that your church should be checked as to whether or not it not only listens to God, but does what He says and not live in a world of blatant error.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
The passages you provide the Jews would tell you are about God not the Messiah. The Jews did not expect God to come in human form. Peter would not have seen these passages to mean what your modern interpretation sees.
Adrift,
Peter and of course, Jesus, would have been familiar with the following passage which is a prophecy of the “anointed one, David, the King of Israel”:

Psalm 89:

15 Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound: they shall walk, O Lord, in the light of thy countenance.
16 In thy name shall they rejoice all the day: and in thy righteousness shall they be exalted.
17 For thou art the glory of their strength: and in thy favour our horn shall be exalted.
18 For the Lord is our defence; and the Holy One of Israel is our king.
19 Then thou spakest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the people.
20 I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:
21 With whom my hand shall be established: mine arm also shall strengthen him.
22 The enemy shall not exact upon him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him.
23 And I will beat down his foes before his face, and plague them that hate him.
24 But my faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him: and in my name shall his horn be exalted.
25 I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers.
26 He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.
27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.
28 My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.
29 His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.

If you are saying that Christ would say that His Father is the rock of His salvation, then I would agree with that based on this Messianic Psalm. But Jesus is the Firstborn, the Holy One of Israel, the Anointed One (the Christ), who is the Rock of our salvation.
 
Adrift,
Peter and of course, Jesus, would have been familiar with the following passage which is a prophecy of the “anointed one, David, the King of Israel”:

Psalm 89:

15 Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound: they shall walk, O Lord, in the light of thy countenance.
16 In thy name shall they rejoice all the day: and in thy righteousness shall they be exalted.
17 For thou art the glory of their strength: and in thy favour our horn shall be exalted.
18 For the Lord is our defence; and the Holy One of Israel is our king.
19 Then thou spakest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the people.
20 I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:
21 With whom my hand shall be established: mine arm also shall strengthen him.
22 The enemy shall not exact upon him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him.
23 And I will beat down his foes before his face, and plague them that hate him.
24 But my faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him: and in my name shall his horn be exalted.
25 I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers.
26 He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.
27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.
28 My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.
29 His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.

If you are saying that Christ would say that His Father is the rock of His salvation, then I would agree with that based on this Messianic Psalm. But Jesus is the Firstborn, the Holy One of Israel, the Anointed One (the Christ), who is the Rock of our salvation.
What he is saying is what he said in his post, which you didn’t respond to-“The Jews did not expect God to come in human form. The Jews did not expect God to come in human form. Peter would not have seen these passages to mean what your modern interpretation sees.”
 
:

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

.
What are you trying to say here? That Peter does not mean rock? The Greek word petra is feminine. It would be unthinkable to use the feminine referring to a male hence Petros. Petros is rendering the word rock into the masculine. Your statement is incorrect.
 
catholicplanet.com

The Writings of the Gospels - Matthew

Matthew
was a Jewish tax collector. As a literate Jew, he must have been able to read and write Hebrew. Eusebius and Jerome attest to this fact. **As a tax collector for the **Romans, he must also have been able to read and write Latin. He chose to write the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew because he was writing for the Christians of Judea. Most of the first Christians of Judea were originally Jewish. Many were illiterate, but those who did learn to read and write most often learned Hebrew. It is unlikely that Matthew could read and write Greek.

It was not Matthew’s idea to write the Gospel. **He was prevailed upon by the Hebraic **Christians of Judea to write the Gospel in their language, Hebrew, before he left to preach in distant lands. According to Eusebius:
“Matthew had begun by preaching to Hebrews; and when he made up his mind to go to others too, **he committed his own gospel to writing in his native tongue, **so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote.” (Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.24.6-7).
Eusebius was Bishop of Caesarea, a student of Pamphilus, and an early Church historian. He lived from approximately A.D. 260 to 340. Saint Jerome was born roughly about the same time that Eusebius died, about A.D. 340 or so. **Jerome also states that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. **“Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, **composed a gospel of Christ at first published in **Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist ‘Out of Egypt have I called my son,’ and ‘for he shall be called a Nazarene.’ ” (Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, chapter 3).
**Saint Jerome states that the Hebrew version of Matthew was still in existence during his **lifetime in Pamphilus’ library at Caesarea. Eusebius was Bishop of Caesarea (about a generation or two before Jerome). **Eusebius **studied under Pamphilus at Caesarea **and he also spoke of Matthew’s Gospel in the original Hebrew. **Jerome also knew that the Hebrew version of Matthew’s Gospel was in use during his lifetime by a certain group of Christians in Syria.
The jury is still out today which came first. The Peshitta we have today was copied/translated from Greek texts.

Check this out:
hebrewgospel.com/Disappearance%20Hebrew%20Matthew%20Gospel.php

*Clark further comments concerning Jerome’s testimony,
“It should be further noted that Jerome thought he had discovered the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in the one used by the Nazarenes; but afterward he found reason to doubt it…Jerome, who knew Hebrew, as other Latin and Greek fathers did not, obtained in the fourth century a copy of this Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes, and at once asserted that he had found the Hebrew original. But when he looked more closely into the matter, he confined himself to the statement that many supposed that this Hebrew text was the original of Matthew’s Gospel. He translated it into Latin and Greek, and made a few observations of his own on it.”6 *

*Most likely, the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was not useful for the church at large since Hebrew Aramaic was spoken only in Palestine and a few other areas. Greek was the lingua franca, the common language, at the time and was understood by the greatest number of people in the Mediterranean world including Jewish people. Most of the church fathers except Origen and Jerome did not know Hebrew and thus could not read it. All the New Testament documents were written in Greek including those addressed to Jewish Christians such as James and Hebrews.

They also believed that the Greek version of the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew himself so there would be no need to consult the Hebrew version even if they possessed it. This is most likely the main reason, it was not preserved. *

Makes one wonder - was the greek more discriptive? And sense it was believed to be Matthew there could have been no mistake on the petros/petra issue, he would ave known which to use.
 
May I remind you that the Church can do no other than tell the truth as given it by Jesus and the Apostles. The Church is the one who assembled the Bible and made it available to all believers. It is the word of God. If the Church had wished, it could have altered, or changed, added, or subtracted, to the scriptures to make it fit its wants and desires. It had many opportunities to do so and none would have been the wiser. But the Church is true to Jesus and His commission, and for this the Church is reviled, cursed, abased,etc., and all for upholding the truths of God. It should be the other way around, that your church should be checked as to whether or not it not only listens to God, but does what He says and not live in a world of blatant error.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
My mention of church notice the small c was for every physical church in existence today.

Just to clarify when I speak of Church I am speaking of the Universal Church that Jesus is building not just the Catholic Church.

That last sentence is a bit confusing, are we saying the same thing?
should be the other way around, that your church should be checked as to whether or not it not only listens to God, but does what He says and not live in a world of blatant error.
 
Adrift,
Peter and of course, Jesus, would have been familiar with the following passage which is a prophecy of the “anointed one, David, the King of Israel”:

Psalm 89:

15 Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound: they shall walk, O Lord, in the light of thy countenance.
16 In thy name shall they rejoice all the day: and in thy righteousness shall they be exalted.
17 For thou art the glory of their strength: and in thy favour our horn shall be exalted.
18 For the Lord is our defence; and the Holy One of Israel is our king.
19 Then thou spakest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the people.
20 I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:
21 With whom my hand shall be established: mine arm also shall strengthen him.
22 The enemy shall not exact upon him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him.
23 And I will beat down his foes before his face, and plague them that hate him.
24 But my faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him: and in my name shall his horn be exalted.
25 I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers.
26 He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.
27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.
28 My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.
29 His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.

If you are saying that Christ would say that His Father is the rock of His salvation, then I would agree with that based on this Messianic Psalm. But Jesus is the Firstborn, the Holy One of Israel, the Anointed One (the Christ), who is the Rock of our salvation.
Sorry to rain on your parade,but the term Rock is not restricted to God alone. Read the OT again. If you cannot find it,I’ll be glad to show you where the term is applied to others.
 
How do you know your church is teaching the truth unless you go and check it against what GOD is saying?
And can you name another church of today,which has a 2,000 years of history? Christ founded a visible church and the belief no one knows exactly where it is today is plain ignorance of scripture and history,on offense.
 
What are you trying to say here? That Peter does not mean rock? The Greek word petra is feminine. It would be unthinkable to use the feminine referring to a male hence Petros. Petros is rendering the word rock into the masculine. Your statement is incorrect.
Good point. “You are Petra and on this Petra I will build my church.”

BUT, the female petra was used when it is describing Jesus as the rock.

Why not use the male version?

The for sure there would be no confusion and one could say that the Church is being built on petros-Peter and not petra-Jesus.

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

Petra is not used for any person but Christ in the New Testament.
 
And can you name another church of today,which has a 2,000 years of history? Christ founded a visible church and the belief no one knows exactly where it is today is plain ignorance of scripture and history,on offense.
I am a member of the Universal Church that Jesus is building.
 
What he is saying is what he said in his post, which you didn’t respond to-“The Jews did not expect God to come in human form. The Jews did not expect God to come in human form. Peter would not have seen these passages to mean what your modern interpretation sees.”
CatholicGuyNY or Adrift,

Are you saying the Jews had no expectation of a coming Messiah, a King of Israel?

Are you saying Peter did not know the prophecies well enough to know that when he was saying to Jesus, “thou art the Christ”, that he knew that what he was saying was declaring that Jesus was the Messiah and he recognized the Messiah as fulfilling prophecy?

I am baffled if these things are what you are saying. I would like to try and understand what you think Peter meant when he said “thou art the Christ”, and what you think was being talked about in the following situation where “the Christ” and His coming was discussed by the Jews:

John 7: 26-27, 31, 41-42
26 But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ?
27 Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is.
• • •
31 And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done?
• • •
41 Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?
42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?
 
I am a member of the Universal Church that Jesus is building.
Sorry,but universal does not equate into diversity which exists among non-Catholic churches. Jesus left ONE Church with universal beliefs,not different versions of it.
 
CatholicGuyNY or Adrift,

Are you saying the Jews had no expectation of a coming Messiah, a King of Israel?

Are you saying Peter did not know the prophecies well enough to know that when he was saying to Jesus, “thou art the Christ”, that he knew that what he was saying was declaring that Jesus was the Messiah and he recognized the Messiah as fulfilling prophecy?

I am baffled if these things are what you are saying. I would like to try and understand what you think Peter meant when he said “thou art the Christ”, and what you think was being talked about in the following situation where “the Christ” and His coming was discussed by the Jews:

John 7: 26-27, 31, 41-42
26 But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ?
27 Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is.
• • •
31 And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done?
• • •
41 Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?
42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?
ParkerD, it may be helpful for you to read the plain meaning of what adrift was saying, and not read into it things that were not said at all. Obviously the Jews had and still have an expectation of the coming of Messiah, a King of Israel. What adrift said was this-“The Jews did not expect God to come in human form.” Someone familiar with Judaism would know that what adrift said does not mean that Jews had no expectation of the coming of a Messiah.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top