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

[ParkerD]

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,
I would also like to understand what you think was happening when John the Baptist said he was not “the Christ”, and when Simon was told by his brother, Andrew, that he had found “the Christ” (and this was before they were named and called as apostles):

John 1:19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.

John 1:40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.
41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

CatholicGuyNY or Adrift,
I would also like to understand what you think was happening when John the Baptist said he was not “the Christ”, and when Simon was told by his brother, Andrew, that he had found “the Christ” (and this was before they were named and called as apostles):

John 1:19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.

John 1:40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.
41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

This is unnecessary, see my last post. You misunderstood what adrift actually said. He did not say that Jews had no expectation of the coming of a Messiah. What he did say was that Jews did not expect God to come in human form. If you are familiar with Judaism and their view on God, you would know why adrift said that.

 

[Nicea325]

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.

I am glad to see I am not the only catches ParkerD habit of reading into things that are not there.

 

[adrift]

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.

The difference is that they were not using rock as a proper name. They weren’t saying saying that the name of Christ was rock. It is not comparing alike situations.

 

[adrift]

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.

 

[ParkerD]

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,
You wrote:

Peter would not have seen these passages to mean what your modern interpretation sees.

I wholeheartedly disagree. John the Baptist knew that Jesus was the Son of God, as did Andrew, Simon Peter, and Nathanael, as shown in John 1:

29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.
31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;
36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
39 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.
40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.
41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
43 The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.
44 Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.
45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
46 And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

But I guess I’m not going to be able to get you folks to see that. I tried my best.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Adrift,
You wrote:

I wholeheartedly disagree. John the Baptist knew that Jesus was the Son of God, as did Andrew, Simon Peter, and Nathanael, as shown in John 1:

29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.
31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;
36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
39 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.
40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.
41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
43 The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.
44 Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.
45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
46 And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

But I guess I’m not going to be able to get you folks to see that. I tried my best.

It seems as if you’re still not understanding or not reading what adrift had actually said. What he said was that the Jews did not expect the Messiah to be God in human form. The passages that you keep quoting do not address that issue. Are you familiar with Jewish thoughts on idolatry, the nature of God, who the Messiah will be, and their criticism of the Christian belief in Jesus being the Messiah? Perhaps if you familiarize yourself with those areas you would understand what Adrift was talking about.

Please point us to evidences that the Jews expected the Messiah to be God in human form, God incarnate. What you have cited so far does not address that.

 

[ParkerD]

It seems as if you’re still not understanding or not reading what adrift had actually said. What he said was that the Jews did not expect the Messiah to be God in human form. The passages that you keep quoting do not address that issue. Are you familiar with Jewish thoughts on idolatry, the nature of God, who the Messiah will be, and their criticism of the Christian belief in Jesus being the Messiah? Perhaps if you familiarize yourself with those areas you would understand what Adrift was talking about.

Please point us to evidences that the Jews expected the Messiah to be God in human form, God incarnate. What you have cited so far does not address that.

CatholicGuyNY,
This thread has been about Peter and the Savior and their relationship, and their communication. It is not about what the general Jewish population at the time of Christ thought of their promised Messiah.

Adrift posted a comment about Peter, as I noted. My comment is in regards to that comment, not in regards to the beliefs of the general Jewish population at the time of Christ. There were people like John the Baptist and Simon Peter and Andrew who were not like the general Jewish population, and understood the prophecies far differently than the general Jewish population, as they so attested when they had found “the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

CatholicGuyNY,
This thread has been about Peter and the Savior and their relationship, and their communication. It is not about what the general Jewish population at the time of Christ thought of their promised Messiah.

Adrift posted a comment about Peter, as I noted. My comment is in regards to that comment, not in regards to the beliefs of the general Jewish population at the time of Christ. There were people like John the Baptist and Simon Peter and Andrew who were not like the general Jewish population, and understood the prophecies far differently than the general Jewish population, as they so attested when they had found “the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

My comments were in direct response to your misunderstanding of what Adrift posted (which he agreed with me judging from his last post in this thread). It is clear that you completely misunderstood what he said, when you [incorrectly] inferred from his statement that he/we didn’t believe that the Jews expected a Messiah (and your comment on that issue further shows that you were talking about “the general Jewish population at the time of Christ…”, despite what you say in the quote above).

The whole point was this-the Jews quite clearly expected and expect the coming of a Messiah, a King of Israel. However, due to their theology on the nature of God, idolatry, etc., they certainly did not, and do not, expect the Messiah to be God in human form, God incarnate. In this post, you asked-“Are you saying the Jews had no expectation of a coming Messiah, a King of Israel?” in response to our statement that the Jews did not expect God in human form to be the Messiah, which shows that you are not familiar with Jewish thoughts on the already mentioned theological issues, since while Jews did not and do not expect God incarnate to be the Messiah, they obviously do expect a Messiah to come. None of the scriptural verses you have quoted thus far address the issue of the Messiah being God incarnate in Hebrew thought, which was the issue Adrift was talking about, that you missed.

 

[mark_a]

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.

That seems like a pretty non-Trinitarian view.

 

[ParkerD]

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.

 

[Javl]

Yes we know that Jesus spoke, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

We have no proof that the Gospels were written first in Aramaic.

We know that Greek was the language of the area.

ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm
The lines on the fragments are from Matthew 26 and include the oldest written reference to Mary Magdalene and the betrayal of Christ by Judas. This fragment, written soon after the death of Christ, in the first century, is written in the Greek language, putting in the trash compacter once and for all the notion that the apostles did not speak or write Greek!

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

Shalom Aleichem

 

[adrift]

Lax16,

If you care to really explore this subject in depth, you might care to explain why when Peter said “thou art the Christ”, and it was completely known by a good student of the writings and teachings of the prophets (such as Simon Peter), that “the Christ” was “the Rock of salvation”, that all of a sudden Jesus would not be acknowledging the metaphor that was the prophecy about His coming, and instead change the metaphor to something never before seen in any prophecy and not relating in any way to what had just been the subject of this very important conversation between them.

CatholicGuyNY,
This thread has been about Peter and the Savior and their relationship, and their communication. It is not about what the general Jewish population at the time of Christ thought of their promised Messiah.

Adrift posted a comment about Peter, as I noted. My comment is in regards to that comment, not in regards to the beliefs of the general Jewish population at the time of Christ. There were people like John the Baptist and Simon Peter and Andrew who were not like the general Jewish population, and understood the prophecies far differently than the general Jewish population, as they so attested when they had found “the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Our discussion about Peter is that you said he knew that the reference to a rock meant the messiah. No where is this substantiated. The is where what the Jewish people believe referrence was about. It wans’t Peter’s knowledge

Jesus said

to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father

Peter did not know through human knowledge but inspiration from God that Jesus Is the Christ.

 

[adrift]

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.

Your thought is incomplete. You start the question

that you seem not to be able to get an answer to the question of whether Catholic regard Simon Peter and John the Baptist and Andrew…

This is a convoluted sentence without a complete thought. Maybe that is why it isn’t answered. Speaking of unanswered questions.

1. Where is there scripture that support a name change as not being monumental.
2. Where is scripture that rock referred to the Messiah.

 

[eddy714]

CatholicGuyNY or Adrift,

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

Obviously they didn’t why do you think they are still waiting for him?

If they knew Jesus was the Messiah they wouldn’t have crucified him don’t you think?

If they knew that Jesus was the Messiah they would all be Catholics , by now but you should know that they never accepted him that why the crucified him.

They were blinded like the King of Egypt when Moses told him about the 10 plaques.

 

[eddy714]

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?

Yea of course John the Baptist Peter and Andrew where Jews, no one is saying they are not unless you trying to say they where Mormons . John the Baptist knew he was the Son of God read John 1:29-34. So did the apostles knew he was the Messiah they weren’t going to follow in vain don’t you think.

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?

Why would we have the misconception it says he was a devout man and the holy spirit was among him. As you can see he is talking about 1 person not a whole nation. Also the 3 Wise-men or (Magi) knew about Jesus birth.

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.

Why would it be a sensitive questions like I said before you can’t use the Bible against its owner.

God Bless

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

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?

Why would they hold the same misconception if they referred to Jesus as the Messiah? This is illogical. Again, we’re talking about two different issues. It was revealed to them that Jesus is the Messiah. Jews in general did not expect the Messiah to be God incarnate, due to their views on idolatry and the absolute personal oneness of God. Obviously Peter, etc. did not agree, since they accepted Jesus as the Messiah.

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?

See above.

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.

Why would these be sensitive questions? It is clear that these Biblical people regarded Jesus as the Messiah. What is also clear is that Jews in general did not expect the Messiah to be God incarnate (one familiar with Judaism would know this), but that did not mean that they didn’t and aren’t waiting for the Messiah, as you incorrectly inferred from our statements earlier.

You keep creating issues where there aren’t any (beginning with “Are you saying the Jews had no expectation of a coming Messiah, a King of Israel?” in response to the statement that Jews didn’t expect the Messiah to be God in human form, which is obvious to those familiar with Judaism).

 

[ParkerD]

Our discussion about Peter is that you said he knew that the reference to a rock meant the Messiah. No where is this substantiated. The is where what the Jewish people believe referrence was about. It wans’t Peter’s knowledge

Peter did not know through human knowledge but inspiration from God that Jesus Is the Christ.

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.

 

[Returning_Home]

Why would they hold the same misconception if they referred to Jesus as the Messiah? This is illogical. Again, we’re talking about two different issues. It was revealed to them that Jesus is the Messiah. Jews in general did not expect the Messiah to be God incarnate, due to their views on idolatry and the absolute personal oneness of God. Obviously Peter, etc. did not agree, since they accepted Jesus as the Messiah.

Agreed. What they called themselves isn’t of issue. We would now call them messianic Jews, but they probably had a very different term for themselves in their lifetime. This is semantic game-playing.

 

[Returning_Home]

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?

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.

This isn’t senstive at all, but keep in mind that when I was little in the 1970s, Catholicism was still blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus so there was some bias there.

That said, what does it matter? RCC doesn’t really consider them Jews as much as among the first Christians and essential to the foundation and formation of the church.

We don’t know what they called themselves in their day but we’d call them messianic Jews now.