"Bible interprets itself."

[tqualey]

Hi, NDfan,

No problem - nice of you to join the thread…

Sorry to barge in Tom but as someone pretty well versed in Greek all I can say is your posts are completely untrue with regard to Matthew 16:18 being pretty clear.

Now, just to make sure that I understand what it is you are saying - and this is not a discussion over Greek vocabulary - because, I do not know Greek - are you saying that, "Christ did not put Peter in charge of the Church that Christ founded?

If that is your argument, and as I understand it, you are basing the entire thrust of Matt 16 claiming that Peter was not appointed leader of the Apostles on one word, “rock”, then I think we do have something we can discuss. I would like to approach this from two aspects: Scriptural and Historical.

The operative part under discussion is Matt 16: 13-20. As I did previously, let me reconstruct the events:
1- Christ asks the Apostles who men say He is (v 13)
2- From the 11 Apostles - no one got the answer right (v 14)
3- Peter steps forward and INSPIRED BY GOD gives the right answer (v 17)
4- Christ acknowledges Peter’s inspiration into getting the right answer and then awards him two items: (a) Christ will build His Chruch on Peter (v 18) and (b) Christ will give Peter the Keys (v 19) with authority to bind or unbind.

Please note: if, as you say, Christ was talking about Himself being the “rock” when does Christ switch gears to confir the Keys to Peter? (notice, Christ does not have 12 sets of Keys!) This is a dialogue between Christ and Peter and the other 11 are listening to what is going on.

In my opinion, the idea behind this section of Matthew only makes sense with Christ delegating His Authority to Peter and - to demonstrate this Authority - with a sign of Peter’s new position.

Historically, the ECF were united behind the Bishop of Rome as the one in charge.

If Christ wanted to reveal Peter and I stress the word reveal as the rock then HE would not have used 2 different words. If Christ wanted to establish Peter as the rock the church was founded upon then HE quite simply would have said you are Petros and on you Petros I will build my church. Or in English you are Peter and on you Peter I will build MY church. GOD is the only one ever called the Rock in scripture going back to the OT. So in establishing HIS church Christ, responding to Peter properly identifying who Jesus was/is, states on this rock (meaning who Jesus is, meaning Jesus is GOD) HE Christ will build HIS church. You are petros and on THIS Petra (GOD the rock) the identity Peter just gave for ME I will build my church.

It really is dangerous game to play - limiting Christ on what He would have need to say (in Aramaic) to be transcribed years later into Greek - and, here we are reading it in English. The Pharasees - and their way of thinking is still very much with us today - really wanted “yes” or “no” ansewers from Christ. They were demanding the answer THEIR way and God was not going to give it to them THEIR way - only His way. If ever there was a frustrated group - it is the Pharisees. As long as you have your Bible open to Matthew 16,take a look at the very beginning verses 1-4 :

"1 The Pharisees and Sadducees came and, to test him, asked him to show them a sign from heaven. 2 He said to them in reply, “(In the evening you say, ‘Tomorrow will be fair, for the sky is red’; 3 and, in the morning, ‘Today will be stormy, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to judge the appearance of the sky, but you cannot judge the signs of the times.) 4 An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Then he left them and went away. "

Now, I am sure Christ - if He wanted to play their game - could have given them a date, and time, exactly what to look for and the entire sequence of events from start to finish. That would have certainly answered their question - but, you guessed it: God’s ways were not the Pharisee’s ways - nor, are they our ways, either.

You will notice that it was Peter who ‘lead the charge’ on that 1st Penetcost, and Peter who resolved the matter on circumcision at the 1st Council of Jerusalem. And, you do recall the Risen Christ instructing Peter to feed Christ’s Lambs and Sheep (remember Christ was a carpenter, not a herdsman - Christ was not talking about four legged sheep).

Personally, I do not think you can make much of your argument based on this one word (“rock”). If you do not accept the CC’s 2,000 year history of how this scripture is understood (and, the Holy Spirit was promised to Christ’s Church to prevent it from teaching error or letting the Gates of Hell prevail -then, you will have to tell me - who do you think is in charge as Christ’s visible leader on earth?

God bless

 

[benedictus2]

Sorry to barge in Tom but as someone pretty well versed in Greek all I can say is your posts are completely untrue with regard to Matthew 16:18 being pretty clear. The Greek does not support this at all as evidenced by the use of 2 different words petra and petros. I can provide a more detailed explanation of why you are wrong on this but I first would like to respond to this challenge of establishing Peter as the rock without using Christ’s words. Actually this is quite simple. If Christ wanted to reveal Peter and I stress the word reveal as the rock then HE would not have used 2 different words. If Christ wanted to establish Peter as the rock the church was founded upon then HE quite simply would have said you are Petros and on you Petros I will build my church. Or in English you are Peter and on you Peter I will build MY church. GOD is the only one ever called the Rock in scripture going back to the OT. So in establishing HIS church Christ, responding to Peter properly identifying who Jesus was/is, states on this rock (meaning who Jesus is, meaning Jesus is GOD) HE Christ will build HIS church. You are petros and on THIS Petra (GOD the rock) the identity Peter just gave for ME I will build my church.

Major error in your exegesis here.

Jesus spoke Aramaic. The Aramaic for rock is Kepha. In Aramaic Matthew 16:18 would have gone like this: And so I say to you, you are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my church, “. Straight English translation would have gone “You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my church”.

So why the Petros and petra problem? Since you claim to be well versed in Greek, you should know that the Greek language have genders for things. Since Simon is a man, they cannot translate the Aramaic Kepha into Petra because that is a feminine name. So they gave him the male equivalent which is Petros.

Also, although there is a pebble/rock distinction in classical Greek, by the time of Jesus this distinction has gone so petra and petros are both used to refer to rock.

In John 1:47 and elsewhere in Paul’s letter, Peter is called Cephas.

So no, the rock that Jesus was referring to was not Himself but Peter.

Some other notes Peter was not singularly given the power to bind and loose. In speaking to all HIS disciples

Only if you do not know how to read. In verse 17 He was addressing Simon barJonah. The YOU in verse 18 is Simon BarJonah. So when He says "I will give YOU the keys… whatever YOU bind and lose” in verse 19, He was talking to Peter, He was not talking to all the disciples.

The keys of the Kingom was given to Peter. It is as plain as day.

Christ gave this power when HE describes the steps to be taken when a brother sins against you.

That is a separate matter altogether. In this Chapter and verse, when He gave the power to bind and lose, He was speaking specifically to Peter alone because Peter alone was given the revelation that Jesus was the Son of God. You could even say that the Father Himself handpicked Peter because it was to Peter that He revealed this truth and not to every other or any other disciple.

lso the keys in which you are referencing speak to the opening of the Gospel to everyone.

Only in your mind. Jesus was very, very clear. The keys are for the Gates of Heaven.

You come up with this garbled exegesis because you bring your own deficient theology into the reading of the scripture rather than allowing Scripture to speak for itself

 

[Cinette]

Actually, the way I worded it was to say that BOTH Catholics and Protestants have always been around, as long as time has existed. You haven’t proved me wrong yet. Characterize me all you want. I will be waiting for definitive proof that I am wrong.

Heresies have excisted side by side with truth from the very beginning.

You obviously equate protestantism with heresay, something to which many protestants would take exception.

…and that’s a fact!

 

[Cinette]

Major error in your exegesis here.

Jesus spoke Aramaic. The Aramaic for rock is Kepha. In Aramaic Matthew 16:18 would have gone like this: And so I say to you, you are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my church, “. Straight English translation would have gone “You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my church”.

So why the Petros and petra problem? Since you claim to be well versed in Greek, you should know that the Greek language have genders for things. Since Simon is a man, they cannot translate the Aramaic Kepha into Petra because that is a feminine name. So they gave him the male equivalent which is Petros.

Also, although there is a pebble/rock distinction in classical Greek, by the time of Jesus this distinction has gone so petra and petros are both used to refer to rock.

In John 1:47 and elsewhere in Paul’s letter, Peter is called Cephas.

So no, the rock that Jesus was referring to was not Himself but Peter.

Only if you do not know how to read. In verse 17 He was addressing Simon barJonah. The YOU in verse 18 is Simon BarJonah. So when He says "I will give YOU the keys… whatever YOU bind and lose” in verse 19, He was talking to Peter, He was not talking to all the disciples.

The keys of the Kingom was given to Peter. It is as plain as day.

That is a separate matter altogether. In this Chapter and verse, when He gave the power to bind and lose, He was speaking specifically to Peter alone because Peter alone was given the revelation that Jesus was the Son of God. You could even say that the Father Himself handpicked Peter because it was to Peter that He revealed this truth and not to every other or any other disciple.

Only in your mind. Jesus was very, very clear. The keys are for the Gates of Heaven.

You come up with this garbled exegesis because you bring your own deficient theology into the reading of the scripture rather than allowing Scripture to speak for itself

Dear Benedictus - thank you for this really inspired posting.

It is so clear.
It is the truth
:clapping:

I wonder if your opponents would have the humility and courage to acknowledge they are wrong and you are right?:nope:

 

[Cinette]

Sorry to barge in Tom but as someone pretty well versed in Greek all I can say is your posts are completely untrue with regard to Matthew 16:18 being pretty clear. The Greek does not support this at all as evidenced by the use of 2 different words petra and petros. I can provide a more detailed explanation of why you are wrong on this but I first would like to respond to this challenge of establishing Peter as the rock without using Christ’s words. Actually this is quite simple. If Christ wanted to reveal Peter and I stress the word reveal as the rock then HE would not have used 2 different words. If Christ wanted to establish Peter as the rock the church was founded upon then HE quite simply would have said you are Petros and on you Petros I will build my church. Or in English you are Peter and on you Peter I will build MY church. GOD is the only one ever called the Rock in scripture going back to the OT. So in establishing HIS church Christ, responding to Peter properly identifying who Jesus was/is, states on this rock (meaning who Jesus is, meaning Jesus is GOD) HE Christ will build HIS church. You are petros and on THIS Petra (GOD the rock) the identity Peter just gave for ME I will build my church.

Some other notes Peter was not singularly given the power to bind and loose. In speaking to all HIS disciples Christ gave this power when HE describes the steps to be taken when a brother sins against you. Also the keys in which you are referencing speak to the opening of the Gospel to everyone. Christ establishing The Davidic kingdom which is the rubbish Scott Hahn loves to spew is so false it’s actually pathetic. I call your attention to Revelation 3:7

“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.

Hmm seems Scott Hahn doesn’t even understand scripture. He constantly beats the drum that Matthew 16 is a reference back to Isaiah 22:22 in which Christ confers upon Peter the keys to the Davidic kingdom.

And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

So let’s see is Scott Hahn and the RCC correct in saying Peter has the key and passed it forward or is scripture? My bet is scripture.

PEACE

Hi NDFan!

I speak French and Portuguese.

In French one would say "You are Pierre and on this pierre (feminine - although Pierre is a masculine name we say une pierre) I will build my Church.

Portuguese: "You are Pedro and on this pedra (feminine - we say uma pedra) I will build my Church.

As Benedictus pointed out Jesus was speaking in Aramiac "You are Kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church.

In Portuguese it is more like the Greek I guess "You are Pedro and upon this pedra… Pedro - pedra… Petro(s) - petra.

Apart from this example it is quite clear what Jesus was saying and as Tom quoted the various other passages from scripture it is as clear as crystal. In fact, P101 is absolutely right in regard to this particular passage - there can be no doubt as to the clarity of this scripture.

Cinette

 

[benedictus2]

Hi NDFan!

I speak French and Portuguese.

In French one would say "You are Pierre and on this pierre (feminine - although Pierre is a masculine name we say une pierre) I will build my Church.

Portuguese: "You are Pedro and on this pedra (feminine - we say uma pedra) I will build my Church.

As Benedictus pointed out Jesus was speaking in Aramiac "You are Kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church.

In Portuguese it is more like the Greek I guess "You are Pedro and upon this pedra… Pedro - pedra… Petro(s) - petra.

Apart from this example it is quite clear what Jesus was saying and as Tom quoted the various other passages from scripture it is as clear as crystal. In fact, P101 is absolutely right in regard to this particular passage - there can be no doubt as to the clarity of this scripture.

Cinette

Very well put. This is another reason why we cannot claim that the Bible interprets itself since quite a bit can get lost in the translation. Furthermore, without Biblical scholarly work we miss quite a fair bit of the full meaning of the passage.

The fact that Jesus chose Ceasaria Philipi for this event is also very important to an understanding of this passage.

However, there are indeed verses in the Bible that is very clear you cannot mistake it’s meaning. The funny thing is these very clear verses are precisely the ones that protestants spin to make it say what they want rather than allowing it to say what it is in fact saying.

 

[Cinette]

Very well put. This is another reason why we cannot claim that the Bible interprets itself since quite a bit can get lost in the translation. Furthermore, without Biblical scholarly work we miss quite a fair bit of the full meaning of the passage.

The fact that Jesus chose Ceasaria Philipi for this event is also very important to an understanding of this passage.

However, there are indeed verses in the Bible that is very clear you cannot mistake it’s meaning. The funny thing is these very clear verses are precisely the ones that protestants spin to make it say what they want rather than allowing it to say what it is in fact saying.

Good old Shakespeare said “To thine own self be true”

So what’s the point in choosing a Religion that agrees with you.
Believing what you want to believe.
Interpreting scripture to what *you want *it to say.

Is it not better to follow Jesus Christ and His Church?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedictus2,

Yes, indeed - this was an excellent post. Wouldn’t you agreee, NDfan and P101?

What we have here is just an example of why the Bible CAN NOT interpret itself - look at the major work associated with this small section in Matthew - imagine the entire Bible! Thank you, Cinette, for providing insight into additiional lauguages and their immediate impact on both meaning and our understanding.

The fact that Jesus chose Ceasaria Philipi for this event is also very important to an understanding of this passage.

Benedictus, if you would… please, provide some additional details on the significance of Ceasaria Philipi. This would certainly add to my understanding of the passage.

Thank you

 

[Protestant101]

Heresies have excisted side by side with truth from the very beginning.

You obviously equate protestantism with heresay, something to which many protestants would take exception.

…and that’s a fact!

Well; you are making my words say something you want them to; I am on record here too as saying Jesus was a Protestant. It seems that you don’t like ideas that would suggest just maybe you need to re-examine your belief about “the first church.” And that’s fine, but because Protestants have existed as long as Catholics; and because you can only date your church back to around 1-3 AD or so, we can surmize that you have some study to do. Your use of the word “obviously” denotes a gross presumption, NOT a “fact.”

 

[Bob_McKissick]

sorry to barge in tom but as someone pretty well versed in greek all i can say is your posts are completely untrue with regard to matthew 16:18 being pretty clear. The greek does not support this at all as evidenced by the use of 2 different words petra and petros. I can provide a more detailed explanation of why you are wrong on this but i first would like to respond to this challenge of establishing peter as the rock without using christ’s words. Actually this is quite simple. If christ wanted to reveal peter and i stress the word reveal as the rock then he would not have used 2 different words. If christ wanted to establish peter as the rock the church was founded upon then he quite simply would have said you are petros and on you petros i will build my church. Or in english you are peter and on you peter i will build my church. God is the only one ever called the rock in scripture going back to the ot. So in establishing his church christ, responding to peter properly identifying who jesus was/is, states on this rock (meaning who jesus is, meaning jesus is god) he christ will build his church. You are petros and on this petra (god the rock) the identity peter just gave for me i will build my church.

Some other notes peter was not singularly given the power to bind and loose. In speaking to all his disciples christ gave this power when he describes the steps to be taken when a brother sins against you. Also the keys in which you are referencing speak to the opening of the gospel to everyone. Christ establishing the davidic kingdom which is the rubbish scott hahn loves to spew is so false it’s actually pathetic. I call your attention to revelation 3:7

“and to the angel of the church in philadelphia write: ‘the words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of david, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.

Hmm seems scott hahn doesn’t even understand scripture. He constantly beats the drum that matthew 16 is a reference back to isaiah 22:22 in which christ confers upon peter the keys to the davidic kingdom.

And i will place on his shoulder the key of the house of david. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

So let’s see is scott hahn and the rcc correct in saying peter has the key and passed it forward or is scripture? My bet is scripture.

Peace

christ was not speaking in greek or latin but in aramaic. Cephas, as peter was called from time to time, is the only aramaic word for rock. Therefore, christ said to st. Peter, “thou art cephas and upon this cephas i will build my church”. In regard to your command of the greek and the bible, you can do with scripture the same thing that any 12 year old boy can do with it in athens. Bob mck

AS AN AFTER THOUGHT, DOESN’T IT SEEM STRANGE THAT CHRIST, IF HE WERE A PROTESTANT, DIDN’T IMMEDIATELY PRODUCE A PRINTING PRESS AND SET UP A BIBLE SOCIETY TO SPREAD THE GOOD NEWS. I’M SURE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A LEATHER BOUND, RED LETTER KING JAMES VERSION TO BOOT. BOB

 

[Cinette]

Well; you are making my words say something you want them to; I am on record here too as saying Jesus was a Protestant. It seems that you don’t like ideas that would suggest just maybe you need to re-examine your belief about “the first church.” And that’s fine, but because Protestants have existed as long as Catholics; and because you can only date your church back to around 1-3 AD or so, we can surmize that you have some study to do. Your use of the word “obviously” denotes a gross presumption, NOT a “fact.”

Protestant101

You are also on record for avoiding questions. I am not the only person to complain about this.

There is one question I have asked you before and that is

What are you doing on CAF? What is your mission?

You have insulted posters, you continue to be argumentative, aggressive, insulting and you display gross ignorance and even when you are presented with proof and evidence you ignore these and continue to make the most outrageous statements!!

Why?

I think we should send you to Coventry:thumbsup:

 

[YADA]

The text you refer to only says “certain things” are hard to understand. It does not say that about “the whole Bible.”

The Bible actually does explain itself very well; it has nothing to do with Protestants or Catholics!! It is God’s Word, and He would not, by inspiration of The Holy Spirit, write something for us that we could not understand or obey.

Nice really … nice … “the whole Bible” didnot even exist in its present form when that passage was written …

1] What actually constitutes the “whole Bible”?

and

2] How do you know that [what you say is the “Whole Bible”] is - in fact - the “whole Bible”?

 

[Protestant101]

Protestant101

You are also on record for avoiding questions. I am not the only person to complain about this.

There is one question I have asked you before and that is

What are you doing on CAF? What is your mission?

You have insulted posters, you continue to be argumentative, aggressive, insulting and you display gross ignorance and even when you are presented with proof and evidence you ignore these and continue to make the most outrageous statements!!

Why?

I think we should send you to Coventry:thumbsup:

LOL, being bannished to the quietude of “Coventry” might be nice for a change. I am sorry I make you feel this way. I actually have answered your question a number of times over the last three years to other posters. I don’t really have a mission here at CAF. My intentions are to continue contrasting and comparing my beliefs with your’s, in accordance with the stated boundaries of this forum.

Your “question” about my “mission” here is not a question to me. I would call it something else. Besides, it has nothing to do with the OP.

I believe that Jesus also would agree that the Bible interprets itself; and this alone would make Him Protestant. (there are many other reasons too). His “interpretation” of Scripture did not subordinate Him to the Church to get the correct “sense,” (Neh.8:8), rather; He made direct appeal to the written Word.

 

[M0nkey]

I believe that Jesus also would agree that the Bible interprets itself; and this alone would make Him Protestant. (there are many other reasons too). His “interpretation” of Scripture did not subordinate Him to the Church to get the correct “sense,” (Neh.8:8), rather; He made direct appeal to the written Word.

Wow, do you realize that Jesus doesn’t interpret? He is the fulfillment of Scripture. The Living Word of God. Your words hardly sound Christian. Consequently, as someone already pointed out that the Bible wasn’t fully written until after Christ, how do you reconcile your botched view of Jesus with what really occurred?

 

[benedictus2]

Benedictus, if you would… please, provide some additional details on the significance of Ceasaria Philipi. This would certainly add to my understanding of the passage.

If Christ wanted to reveal Peter and I stress the word reveal as the rock then HE would not have used 2 different words. If Christ wanted to establish Peter as the rock the church was founded upon then … meaning Jesus is GOD) HE Christ will build HIS church. You are petros and on THIS Petra (GOD the rock) the identity Peter just gave for ME I will build my church.

Here is a more detailed explanation of Matthew 16:13-19

Background:

Caesaria Philipi is around 20 miles ( a rough two days journey up the mountains) from Galillee.

Now why does our Lord go to all that trouble just for this scene?

Caesaria Philipi which used to be called Panneas was dedicated to the Greek god Pan. When Philip Herod became tetrarch of that region he gave it to Augustus Caesar for some favour so it became Ceasaria Philipi, that is, Ceasar’s city from Philip.

In this region is a humongous rock around 500ft long and 200ft high.

On top of this rock is a huge marble temple with an idol of the god Pan. Philip Herod replaced that idol of Pan with the idol of the divine Ceasar Augustus (emperors were considered divine).

To the left of the rock is a cave and in the cave is a deep hole filled with water which is the source of the Jordan river. The pagans believed this to to be the gates of sheol - the doorway to the underworld.

With that scene in mind, let us now read Matthew 16: 13-19

When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Comment:

So now we have Jesus standing next to this rock, on top of which, is a temple to a false god (two false gods as a matter of fact) next to which is a cave that is the gate to sheol. He is now saying that He will do something different. He will build the Church of the True God on top of the true rock and that rock is Simon barJonah and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

We even see here a parallel with the sheep/shepherd motif in the commissioning of Peter in John 21. This area and temple used to be dedicated to Pan, the god of shepherds. Here we have Chist the True God giving the promise to Peter who He will later commission to shepherd His sheep.

Steve Ray also notes the implication of the water in the cave. He comments that when you think of Peter being the rock and the water from this Rock now waters Gods’ people.

Also, since this cave is the origin of the Jordan river where Jesus was baptized and went with His disciples when they went baptizing, you can see in this symbolism the whole salvation theology including that of baptism as a sacrament of incorporation into Christ’s Church.

Another thing, and this is very important, neither Jesus nor the Father made any teaching about Jesus’ true identity and mission. This teaching THEY caused to be pronounced through Peter.

---

Christ could have gone around proclaiming He is the Son of God but He didn’t. He let that be declared through Peter.

If you notice, even His apostles had no real clue as to who Jesus was. Peter cuts through all that speculation and pronounces the TRUTH about Jesus Christ. Through the ages to this very day, his successors continue to pronounce the truth about who Jesus is and what His mission is all about.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedictus2

Thank you for an excellent explanation.

God bless

Now why does our Lord go to all that trouble just for this scene? Caesaria Philipi which used to be called Panneas was dedicated to the Greek god Pan. When Philip Herod became tetrarch of that region he gave it to Augustus Caesar for some favour so it became Ceasaria Philipi, that is, Ceasar’s city from Philip. In this region is a humongous rock around 500ft long and 200ft high. On top of this rock is a huge marble temple with an idol of the god Pan. Philip Herod replaced that idol of Pan with the idol of the divine Ceasar Augustus (emperors were considered divine). To the left of the rock is a cave and in the cave is a deep hole filled with water which is the source of the Jordan river. The pagans believed this to to be the gates of sheol - the doorway to the underworld.

With that scene in mind, let us now read Matthew 16: 13-19

When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Comment:

So now we have Jesus standing next to this rock, on top of which, is a temple to a false god (two false gods as a matter of fact) next to which is a cave that is the gate to sheol. He is now saying that He will do something different. He will build the Church of the True God on top of the true rock and that rock is Simon barJonah and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. We even see here a parallel with the sheep/shepherd motif in the commissioning of Peter in John 21. This area and temple used to be dedicated to Pan, the god of shepherds. Here we have Chist the True God giving the promise to Peter who He will later commission to shepherd His sheep. Steve Ray also notes the implication of the water in the cave. He comments that when you think of Peter being the rock and the water from this Rock now waters Gods’ people.

Also, since this cave is the origin of the Jordan river where Jesus was baptized and went with His disciples when they went baptizing, you can see in this symbolism the whole salvation theology including that of baptism as a sacrament of incorporation into Christ’s Church. Another thing, and this is very important, neither Jesus nor the Father made any teaching about Jesus’ true identity and mission. This teaching THEY caused to be pronounced through Peter.
**** Christ could have gone around proclaiming He is the Son of God but He didn’t. He let that be declared through Peter.

If you notice, even His apostles had no real clue as to who Jesus was. Peter cuts through all that speculation and pronounces the TRUTH about Jesus Christ. Through the ages to this very day, his successors continue to pronounce the truth about who Jesus is and what His mission is all about.

God bless,

 

[M0nkey]

I never realized Peter is the first to proclaim Jesus’ Lordship. This ties in beautifully with what happens when people deny the rock of Peter. Thank you for that post.

 

[Cinette]

Thank you/Merci beaucoup/ Muito obrigada Benedictus!

That was an excellent contribution and presentation which I am sure we all appreciate.

 

[Bob_McKissick]

Thank you/Merci beaucoup/ Muito obrigada Benedictus!

That was an excellent contribution and presentation which I am sure we all appreciate.

I second cinette’s thanks! It is of interest that all the Apostles were touched by Christ and the Holy Spirit but only Peter was inspired by the Father! This alone makes him unique among the Apostles. bob mckissick

 

[benedictus2]

To Tom, Cinnette, Bob and mOnkey,

You are all welcome but really the thanks go to Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray and Scott Hahn who have done a wonderful job explaining the Papacy and Papal Inflalibility.

And all Glory to God for leading them home to His Church so that they can lead others home, in turn.