Matt 16:18 and Matt 16:23

  • Thread starter Thread starter ricatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ricatholic

Guest
Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 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. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20 15 Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah. 21 16 From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he 17 must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised. 22 18 Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.” 23 He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” ++++

Why did Jesus call Peter “Satan”?

Isn’t that a little strong for the situation? Or was it a comment that reflects on Peter’s performance as a leader in the days that passed after 16:18?

Peace
 
As has been pointed out to you before Jesus did not take back the keys. Peter AND his successors still have them. Since you deny papal infallibility, which is a defined dogma, you are in heresy. I suggest you find a church that reflects your view or found your own. We don’t need dissent in our Church.
 
Would you care to comment why Jesus called Peter “Satan”. Or to paraphrase your post, is it important that Jesus left the keys to the church in the hands of Satan?

Peace
 
ricatholic said:
16
Click to expand...

From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he 17 must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised. 22 18 Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.” 23 He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” ++++

Why did Jesus call Peter “Satan”?

Isn’t that a little strong for the situation? Or was it a comment that reflects on Peter’s performance as a leader in the days that passed after 16:18?

Peace

Jesus had let Peter and the others know exactly what must happen according to God’s will. Satan is absolutely against God’s will. God’s will was that Jesus had to be crucified and die. Peter in his statement did not like what he was hearing even though Jesus had told him this is the way it must be done.

That is what Satan does to us. He turns us away from God’s will. Jesus did not call him Satan because he was a devil but because Peter was finding it difficult to accept God’s will. Peter wanted a different way, perhaps an easier way. In subtle ways does Satan tries to move us away from God’s will.

Anyway this is an interesting passage … thanks for the thread.
 
Peter was allowed to be sifted. Those are Jesus’ own words. Peter was tempted and even sinned. Where else does Jesus call Peter “satan” and where else is he called that in the NT? Please, chapter and verse. Then notice that Jesus calls him Peter thereafter. So Jesus did not change his name to satan.

Then please show where Peter is reviled by the other apostles or the early church. If he is satan he would join Judas as an example of an evil man.

Then show where Jesus said, “gee I made a mistake. Peter is the devil and I take back the keys. Instead I will wait 2000 years and give them to ricatholic. He will tell everyone what I really mean.” Chapter and verse please.
 
as i had it explained to me, Jesus had just recently come out of being tempted in the desert, and this was satan coming back to tempt him again through Peter.

Don’t know if this really true or not, but i did hear this explanation proposed.
 
This is from my Douay-Rheims Bible notation:

<<And Peter taking him"… That is, taking him aside, out of a tender love, respect and zeal for his Lord and Master’s honour, began to expostulate with him, as it were to rebuke him, saying, Lord, far be it from thee to suffer death; but the Lord said to Peter, ver. 23, Go behind me, Satan. These words may signify, Begone from me; but the holy Fathers expound them otherwise, that is, come after me, or follow me; and by these words the Lord would have Peter to follow him in his suffering, and not to oppose the divine will by contradiction; for the word satan means in Hebrew an adversary, or one that opposes.>>

And even the “begone from me” doesn’t say, or even imply “begone forever”, right?

Also please note the etymology of “satan” as “one that opposes”, not equating Peter with the Prince of Darkness.

Do you also realize the significance of Jesus asking Peter three times “Do you love Me?”, Peter responding, “Lord, you know I love You”, and Jesus saying, “Feed My lambs”, “Feed My lambs”, “Feed My sheep.” In those three questions, Jesus has given Peter the opportunity to atone for the three times He denied Jesus, AND indicated that it is PETER who is to “Feed the lambs”–the People of God, the early Christians. Not “the apostles together”, but PETER.

Food for thought?
 
TE, a great explanation and as food for thought, I think it indicates that Jesus wants us to look deeply at what he taught, but not use the rational of seeing what was unsaid as being gospel, but to look for concordance in our actions to what was really taught.

Peace
 
40.png
ricatholic:
Would you care to comment why Jesus called Peter “Satan”. Or to paraphrase your post, is it important that Jesus left the keys to the church in the hands of Satan?

Peace
Click to expand...
i will comment… Peter was trying to talk(tempt) Jesus into not going where he needed to go due to the dangers… Peter did not understand that Jesus had to fulfill his mission… 👍
 
Satan does mean accuser. Ri, aren’t you accusing Peter and the Church of falling away? Don’t you say that Jesus failed? Don’t you claim that we need you to save us from an apostate Church? Can we not then say you are “satan”?
 
maybe Jesus was speaking figuratively, in a way letting peter know that his well-meaning intention was the will of satan, so that he would know the imparative nature of having to lose that opinion.

has no one called another person by somthing other than his name, especcially an allusion, to emphasize a point?
 
40.png
ricatholic:
TE, a great explanation and as food for thought, I think it indicates that Jesus wants us to look deeply at what he taught, but not use the rational of seeing what was unsaid as being gospel, but to look for concordance in our actions to what was really taught.

Peace
Click to expand...
rica,
the way we know what Jesus taught is through the Church. Without the Church, we wouldn’t know what Jesus taught.
We cannot separate Jesus from His Church, for the Church is teh Mystical Body of Christ. It is because of this reality that we need a visible head on earth. This role was given to Peter.
 
40.png
cestusdei:
Satan does mean accuser. Ri, aren’t you accusing Peter and the Church of falling away? Don’t you say that Jesus failed? Don’t you claim that we need you to save us from an apostate Church? Can we not then say you are “satan”?
Click to expand...
is this continued from another thread? if not then why are you so hostile cestusdei? i have not seen anything that makes me think ric is denying peter’s position of authority, he is just asking people’s opinions on this passage. if this is something personal between the two of you then please let us know that for, as it stands, you are sounding like a crazy person and i doubt that you are.
 
In ancient Jewish culture it was common to use hyperbole or exaggerated language to drive home a point. Jesus did not believe that Peter was Satan or possessed by Satan, but by his obtuseness and lack of undrstanding Peter was, in essence, trying to thwart Jesus’s mission and thereby unwittingly voicing the devil’s sentiments. It’s akin to us dealing with a hardheaded salesman and finally in frustration calling him a dumb s.o.b. Like any of us, Peter had strengths and weaknesses. It’s obvious from the Gospels that none of the apostles were rocket scientists and that they need a lot of instruction and encouragement to follow their calling. It was ultimately the Holy Spirit on Pentecost who provided the needed courage and eloquence for the apostles to fully understand and explain Jesus’s life and ministry. After referring to Peter as Satan, Our Lord did not turn his back on Peter or decommission him. In fact, it was just the opposite. After Our Lord’s resurrection, he clearly singled out Peter for leadership in the “Feed My lambs” discourse. To deny Peter’s primacy because of his failings is to deny the clear intent of Jesus as presented in the Gospels. Just as God has given concupisecent men free will to do good or evil, He has given the same men the authority to build his Church. And the Church, like any man-made organization, requires structure to function properly. Such a structure of necessity requires a hierarchy with authority and responsibility to carry out the organization’s mission. Why would the Second Person of the Holy Trinity come to earth, suffer, die, rise from the dead, ascend into heaven and not provide His followers with the structure to carry out his command to teach all nations?
 
40.png
larryo:
In ancient Jewish culture it was common to use hyperbole or exaggerated language to drive home a point. Jesus did not believe that Peter was Satan or possessed by Satan, but by his obtuseness and lack of undrstanding Peter was, in essence, trying to thwart Jesus’s mission and thereby unwittingly voicing the devil’s sentiments. It’s akin to us dealing with a hardheaded salesman and finally in frustration calling him a dumb s.o.b. Like any of us, Peter had strengths and weaknesses. It’s obvious from the Gospels that none of the apostles were rocket scientists and that they need a lot of instruction and encouragement to follow their calling. It was ultimately the Holy Spirit on Pentecost who provided the needed courage and eloquence for the apostles to fully understand and explain Jesus’s life and ministry. After referring to Peter as Satan, Our Lord did not turn his back on Peter or decommission him. In fact, it was just the opposite. After Our Lord’s resurrection, he clearly singled out Peter for leadership in the “Feed My lambs” discourse. To deny Peter’s primacy because of his failings is to deny the clear intent of Jesus as presented in the Gospels. Just as God has given concupisecent men free will to do good or evil, He has given the same men the authority to build his Church. And the Church, like any man-made organization, requires structure to function properly. Such a structure of necessity requires a hierarchy with authority and responsibility to carry out the organization’s mission. Why would the Second Person of the Holy Trinity come to earth, suffer, die, rise from the dead, ascend into heaven and not provide His followers with the structure to carry out his command to teach all nations?
Click to expand...
Booya!!! Finally, someone who explains Scripute in CONTEXT. THe bible isn’t a newspaper that was written yesterday in American English. THey used metaphors and forms of prose that we are not familiar with today. Thanks larry, I’d give you rep points, but I see that they have been abolished.
 
Bengal Fan,

Ri & Cestus go back aways…Ri knows the answers here before he posts these questions. Ri and Cestus and I have had these discussions before. Ri does not believe in the teaching authority of the Church, nor in the power of the heirarchy to bind and loose.

I think it very enlightening to see the Douay note of explanation, for Christ is not changing Peter’s name, but declaring to Peter that he is acting as satan would, but blocking God’s plan for salvation. We see Christ continue to mould Peter, to use his weakness for Our Lord’s plan for the Church. This is the most important lesson of Peter, the first among equals. God shows us Peter’s immense faults, and the power of the Holy Spirit to heal and transform those thoughts so that by the end of Acts, Peter is a wise man of action, willing to be bold in proclaiming the power of the Church to heal and continue the works of Jesus here on this earth.

Ri just has a problem with these members of the heirarchy being mere sinners like himself. It seems as though God left the administration of his Church to merely selfish men, in Ri’s opinion, and since that would be a silly thing for God to do, we need not pay attention to the leaders of our Church…which indeed is what Ri does…
 
Bengal_fan,

There are several of us who have migrated here from the Catholic debate forum from beliefnet.com
Johnnyjoe, Cestusdei, ricatholic, and myself (among others) come from over there.

ricatholic is a good guy. however, he plays what i would call “devils advocate” a lot of the time.
 
But the arguement makes absolutely no sense. Jesus says, you are Peter and on this Rock I build my Church." YOu mean He is actually saying You are Ignorant and Stuborn, and on this Ignorant and Stubborn man I build my Church? You guys belong to the Charles Russell school of biblical exegesis.
 
Also please note the etymology of “satan” as “one that opposes”, not equating Peter with the Prince of Darkness.
Click to expand...
I think this is the most important thing to remember. Satan did not simply mean the Evil One back in the day, but was the word for “adversary”. Jesus wasn’t necessarily implying anything, nor was he even necessarily exaggerating to make a point. All he was saying, literally speaking, was “get out of my way, you who stand against me.”
 
40.png
ricatholic:
From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he 17 must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised. 22 18 Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.” 23 He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” ++++

Why did Jesus call Peter “Satan”?

Isn’t that a little strong for the situation? Or was it a comment that reflects on Peter’s performance as a leader in the days that passed after 16:18?

Peace
Click to expand...
Remember that “Satan” wasn’t used solely for the devil. It comes from the Hebrew HaSatan. Meaning “one who is against”… or “adversary”. I don’t believe that Jesus was calling Peter the devil himself… but that in not accepting that Jesus had to suffer and die as the messiah… he was acting and thinking AGAINST God’s will… That’s all… I don’t think it is a big deal…

God Bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top