J
Jshy
Guest
Michael Heiser said this about Mathew 16:16-18. … has any catholic apologist responded to this interpretation before?. I have never heard this one :
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
Dolphin
Guest
Seems rather bizarre. Peter’s name was Simon and changed to Πέτρος (Petros / Peter) by Jesus which literally means stone. It’s not a coincidence Jesus names Peter ‘rock’ then calls him the ‘rock’ He will build His church on.
If it had to do with the literal rock they were standing on then Jesus would not have chosen the name Πέτρος for Simon.
If it had to do with the literal rock they were standing on then Jesus would not have chosen the name Πέτρος for Simon.
Last edited:
A
annad347
Guest
Very interesting interpretation, is there a church built on the spot he mentioned?
If so, then what? Is that the church we should be attending?
If so, then what? Is that the church we should be attending?
Last edited:
M
Mythicalbio
Guest
I’ve heard of it. I really like it. I don’t think it has to be responded to though, since one verse can have many, many meanings. When one changes context, new meanings emerge. The Bible can answer questions the authors never intended to answer, and the Holy Spirit guides this process.
Last edited:
C
c4csp
Guest
I’m confused because he doesn’t make an argument against Catholicism. He is right that Cesarea Philippi was a place of Pagan worship. There was a temple there to caesar and they worshipped the god of Pan. There was a spring that they couldn’t find the bottom and it was know as gate to netherworld and they threw sacrifices in there. This was a far trip and Jesus took His disciples there to give them a very important teaching(His Church). Jesus was contrasting this false pagan worship church with His true church.
The problem with protestant interpretation is that why did Jesus bless Peter? He said, “Blessed art thou Simon-Bar Jona…” Jesus gave him the keys of the kingdom. These explanations are not given and if so are very poor and inconsistent in Protestant understanding.
The problem is that Jesus did not come to abolish the law but fulfill it. God’s covenant does not go away, it was transformed. It was not transformed into just read the gospels and be nice. That makes zero sense in Biblical typology. God is worshipped through sacrifice. Jesus is the paschal lamb but we must still offer that sacrifice to God the Father through a priest for worship to God. The Protestant interpretation always fails for me here because the covenant and sacrifice just go away. That is just not the case and makes zero sense.
The problem with protestant interpretation is that why did Jesus bless Peter? He said, “Blessed art thou Simon-Bar Jona…” Jesus gave him the keys of the kingdom. These explanations are not given and if so are very poor and inconsistent in Protestant understanding.
The problem is that Jesus did not come to abolish the law but fulfill it. God’s covenant does not go away, it was transformed. It was not transformed into just read the gospels and be nice. That makes zero sense in Biblical typology. God is worshipped through sacrifice. Jesus is the paschal lamb but we must still offer that sacrifice to God the Father through a priest for worship to God. The Protestant interpretation always fails for me here because the covenant and sacrifice just go away. That is just not the case and makes zero sense.
W
White_Tree
Guest
I agree with @Dolphin here.
Jesus addresses Simon as “rock” and then says “and upon this rock” in the same sentence. That’s too much of a parallel use of language to just brush off.
Jesus addresses Simon as “rock” and then says “and upon this rock” in the same sentence. That’s too much of a parallel use of language to just brush off.
J
Jshy
Guest
Yup agreed , I watched Jimmy Akin’s video about the blessing and the Greek . He shows why it’ a blessing And also he’s given the keys. So you would have to destroy the whole context and verses surrounding that one verse in order to rebuttal the Catholic position. And it’s not possible . An I agree with Everyone that verses can have more than one meaning , so I would say that when Jesus handed over the keys to Peter, he did it on that mountain for a reason but also Peter was the rock he gave it to and blessed on that rock they stood on and it was a rock handing it to him as well ( Jesus ) lol , this is the Jimmy Akin video that I loved :
Last edited:
J
JGD
Guest
His first mistake is when he says the Spirit revealed it to Peter (about 30 seconds into his talk). Jesus specifically says it was His Father.
I don’t know why he thinks “not prevail against” gives an image of the church “cowering in a corner” - fearful of taking a beating!!! That’s an image of physical attack - physical battle/war. Jesus would not be implying His church should physically attack pagans.
The verse does show that there would be conflict between the church and the powers of hell - a spiritual battle. In the process they would suffer physical persecution just as Jesus did. (John 15:20 “If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you”) – which, of course, did occur and still is taking place. Jesus did not instruct us to go on the attack, just the opposite actually. (eg. Mt. 5:10, 11, 12, 44; 10:23; 23:34 ) Jesus is reassuring the apostles that no matter how bad things may get, the enemy would not prevail.
I don’t know why he thinks “not prevail against” gives an image of the church “cowering in a corner” - fearful of taking a beating!!! That’s an image of physical attack - physical battle/war. Jesus would not be implying His church should physically attack pagans.
The verse does show that there would be conflict between the church and the powers of hell - a spiritual battle. In the process they would suffer physical persecution just as Jesus did. (John 15:20 “If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you”) – which, of course, did occur and still is taking place. Jesus did not instruct us to go on the attack, just the opposite actually. (eg. Mt. 5:10, 11, 12, 44; 10:23; 23:34 ) Jesus is reassuring the apostles that no matter how bad things may get, the enemy would not prevail.
Last edited:
B
bob4
Guest
Bishop Barron has commented on this verse. It is the gates of hell that will will not be able to withstand the Church.
G
GodIsPerfection
Guest
Matthew 16: 15-18
DOUAY RHEIMS 1899
15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?
16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
KING JAMES VERSION
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
COMMENT: It seems that Michael Heiser’s interpretation is based on almost excessive geographical (worldly) interpretation of this scripture.
The overarching correct understanding of this scripture relates to 1.) Peter and 2.) the worldwide Universal (Catholic) Church. Heiser narrows his interpretation of “this rock” strictly to the geographic locale of Caesarea Philippi, which diminishes both Peter and the Catholic Church.
But, Jesus was speaking in more grandiose terms when he said "I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. It makes no sense to assign a restrictive, narrow, interpretation, based on a very literal translation of “this rock.” We do not know everything that transpired in these verses. Maybe Jesus made a silent physical gesture of clapping Peter upon the shoulder when he said “…and upon this rock…”
As with so many incorrect things, there is usually a kernel of truth that is trumpeted or overemphasized. In this case, it is geographical knowledge of Caesarea Philippi being magnified in a way that the overall interpretation becomes confused. The early Church Fathers were not confused by this detail.
I reference two superb, traditional, translations of Matthew 16, above. Heiser seems to suggest there are errors in the phrase "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." What translation does Heiser refer to as more authoritative? The verb “prevail” refers to winning a battle. “Gates of hell” suggests that demonic forces will be on the defensive (as in a walled city) and they will not prevail in the battle.
DOUAY RHEIMS 1899
15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?
16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
KING JAMES VERSION
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
COMMENT: It seems that Michael Heiser’s interpretation is based on almost excessive geographical (worldly) interpretation of this scripture.
The overarching correct understanding of this scripture relates to 1.) Peter and 2.) the worldwide Universal (Catholic) Church. Heiser narrows his interpretation of “this rock” strictly to the geographic locale of Caesarea Philippi, which diminishes both Peter and the Catholic Church.
But, Jesus was speaking in more grandiose terms when he said "I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. It makes no sense to assign a restrictive, narrow, interpretation, based on a very literal translation of “this rock.” We do not know everything that transpired in these verses. Maybe Jesus made a silent physical gesture of clapping Peter upon the shoulder when he said “…and upon this rock…”
As with so many incorrect things, there is usually a kernel of truth that is trumpeted or overemphasized. In this case, it is geographical knowledge of Caesarea Philippi being magnified in a way that the overall interpretation becomes confused. The early Church Fathers were not confused by this detail.
I reference two superb, traditional, translations of Matthew 16, above. Heiser seems to suggest there are errors in the phrase "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." What translation does Heiser refer to as more authoritative? The verb “prevail” refers to winning a battle. “Gates of hell” suggests that demonic forces will be on the defensive (as in a walled city) and they will not prevail in the battle.
Last edited:
J
Jshy
Guest
Bob , so you are saying that Heiser is correct about that part of the verse and that bishop Barron agrees that it’s not saying the church is protected from the gates of hell but that it’s instead saying that the gates of hell won’t be able to survive or withstand the church’s attacks ?? most apologist use that part of the verse against sedevacantism to claim it is saying that Peter’s chair will never be In apostasy. Honestly I don’t see how the verse is claiming that anyways though. Now let me get this straight, I’m in no way a sedevacantist Just before people start gettin the wrong impression here . But If you’re correct then it just gives a reason why people shouldnt use that part of the verse as a argument against it as it would be a weak argument and instead argue from other points of our position that is much stronger .
Last edited:
G
GodIsPerfection
Guest
James 3:13-16I’m confused because he doesn’t make an argument against Catholicism.
13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
J
JGD
Guest
Whether it’s “withstand” or “not prevail against”, the meaning is the same — the gates of hell will not be able to destroy Our Lord’s Church.
What I find objectionable is his imagery of a physical “cowering” – as though it’s a physical battle we’re engaged in, and we need to reverse that. I know the forces of evil do use physical violence as well as lies in their battle against the Church, but we are not called on to retaliate or fight the foe in a physical battle. It’s a spiritual battle that we are called to engage in. These are the weapons we are to arm ourselves with:
What I find objectionable is his imagery of a physical “cowering” – as though it’s a physical battle we’re engaged in, and we need to reverse that. I know the forces of evil do use physical violence as well as lies in their battle against the Church, but we are not called on to retaliate or fight the foe in a physical battle. It’s a spiritual battle that we are called to engage in. These are the weapons we are to arm ourselves with:
Ephesians 6:10-18 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace; above all taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18 Pray at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication.
Last edited:
E
EloyCraft
Guest
I’ve noticed that alternate interpretations seem to erase any meaning attached to Jesus changing Simon’s name to Peter. Yeah God changing someone’s name isn’t significant at all.
B
bob4
Guest
I have listened to Bishop Robert Barron a few times on this verse and I can’t do his words justice here but he has related the notion that evil will not be able to withstand the power of Christ’s Church. Your best course, I believe, would be to search him out on you tube regarding this subject. For my part, I’m not a theologian or a scholar but I see how the wording could lend itself to that interpretation. Perhaps I’m being naive but I don’t see why that reading would be controversial. Enlighten me if you think otherwise, I’d appreciate it. I too am not a sedevacantist; I believe in the Church’s authority, given by Christ its founder and I believe in the teaching Magesterium and in the papacy.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.