Matt 16:18 - I want more insight

[Janet_S]

Hi LT,first of all any debate that you have with Evangelicals etc.will have to be biblically sound.Especially the claim that the Catholic church and the supremacy of the Pope lay on this verse.Matt16:18.So was Peter the rock on which Christ would build His church.Or is it the confession that Peter made. You are the Christ the Son of the living God. The word Peter,Petros means a small stone. start by looking at John 1:42 .It says —And he brought him to Jesus .Now when Jesus looked at him,He said you are Simon the son of Jonah.You shall be called Cephas(which is translated A stone).If you want to continue let me know,and I will continue with you if not see you around.

Micas,

Did you read this article yet?
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9811chap.asp

You are pointing out that in Matthew 16:18 the Greek word “petros” (small stone) was used for Peter and the word “petra” (large rock) was used to denote the rock on which Christ would build his Church. This is a common reason non-Catholic Christians give as proof Peter was not the “rock” on which Christ built his Church.

What you forget, though, is that Jesus actually spoke Aramaic. Peter’s name in Aramaic was “kepha” (rock). A more accurate account of what Jesus said, therefore, is " You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church." In Aramaic, there is no distinction between a “large rock” and a “small stone.” Peter is the rock.

Anyway, read the article. It’s pretty short, but It explains Matthew 16:17-19 in more detail.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I want to know is what the “church” is or what its protection specifically involves. Those aspects are what I am trying to drill into.

Then I recommend Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s
Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith
You need to go beyond the popular apologetics and dig deeper into the theology sources pertaining to Catholic ecclesiology. The above text is a good start.

 

[micas]

Micas,

Did you read this article yet?
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9811chap.asp

You are pointing out that in Matthew 16:18 the Greek word “petros” (small stone) was used for Peter and the word “petra” (large rock) was used to denote the rock on which Christ would build his Church. This is a common reason non-Catholic Christians give as proof Peter was not the “rock” on which Christ built his Church.

What you forget, though, is that Jesus actually spoke Aramaic. Peter’s name in Aramaic was “kepha” (rock). A more accurate account of what Jesus said, therefore, is " You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church." In Aramaic, there is no distinction between a “large rock” and a “small stone.” Peter is the rock.

Anyway, read the article. It’s pretty short, but It explains Matthew 16:17-19 in more detail.

Yes I read that. although Jesus spoke Aramaic, the NT has been written in Greek therefore your interpatation is incorrect.read John
1:42 Jesus says you shall be called Cephas which is translated A stone.Jesus is using a play on words with petra which means a foundation a boulder .see Matt.7:24-25.The bible makes it clear that Jesus is the foundation ( Acts 4:11-12) ( 1 Cor.3:11)— and the head Eph. 5:23 of the church.It would be a huge mistake to think He was giving either to Peter.Peter himself uses the same imagery as christ did in 1 Peter 2:5.And Peter makes the same confession of faith in 1 Peter:6:7-8 Behold,I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone,elect,precious and He who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.Therefore to you who believe,He is precious,but to those who are disobedient,The Stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone,and A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense.

 

[Janet_S]

Yes I read that. although Jesus spoke Aramaic, the NT has been written in Greek therefore your interpatation is incorrect.read John
1:42 Jesus says you shall be called Cephas which is translated A stone.Jesus is using a play on words with petra which means a foundation a boulder .see Matt.7:24-25.The bible makes it clear that Jesus is the foundation ( Acts 4:11-12) ( 1 Cor.3:11)— and the head Eph. 5:23 of the church.It would be a huge mistake to think He was giving either to Peter.Peter himself uses the same imagery as christ did in 1 Peter 2:5.And Peter makes the same confession of faith in 1 Peter:6:7-8 Behold,I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone,elect,precious and He who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.Therefore to you who believe,He is precious,but to those who are disobedient,The Stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone,and A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense.

What do you think about this point from James Akin’s article:

"After the initial flash of insight into Matthew 16:17–19, I did further study on it and noticed several structural features of the passage that required Peter to be the rock. Basically, Jesus’ speech to Peter consists of three statements. The first of the three statements is a clear blessing on Peter. Jesus says, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!” The third is also a blessing: “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” But if the first and third statements are blessings then the middle statement—“And I tell you, you are Peter”— taken in its immediate context, must be a blessing as well. Jesus thus is not contrasting and belittling Peter as a small, insignificant stone with the second statement. It, like the ones before and after it, is a blessing that builds him up.

I noticed that the structure of the three statements required Peter to be the rock. Each statement consisted of two parts: first a basic declaration and then a longer explanation which unpacked the meaning of the declaration. (The explanations also had two parts, an assertion followed by a contrast, but this need not detain us since it does not affect the fact that Peter is the rock.) Jesus’ first statement, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!” is explained by “for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” This is a reason why Simon is blessed. The third statement, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” is explained by Jesus’ remarks on binding and loosing. The power to bind and loose is part of what it means to have the keys to the kingdom. That being the case, the second statement, “And I tell you, you are Peter” is explained by “and on this rock I will build my Church.”

 

[Janet_S]

How did the early Church understand Matthew 16?

Here are some commentaries on Matthew 16 by the ECF’s.

catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea-Matthew16.php

 

[micas]

What do you think about this point from James Akin’s article:

"After the initial flash of insight into Matthew 16:17–19, I did further study on it and noticed several structural features of the passage that required Peter to be the rock. Basically, Jesus’ speech to Peter consists of three statements. The first of the three statements is a clear blessing on Peter. Jesus says, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!” The third is also a blessing: “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” But if the first and third statements are blessings then the middle statement—“And I tell you, you are Peter”— taken in its immediate context, must be a blessing as well. Jesus thus is not contrasting and belittling Peter as a small, insignificant stone with the second statement. It, like the ones before and after it, is a blessing that builds him up.

I noticed that the structure of the three statements required Peter to be the rock. Each statement consisted of two parts: first a basic declaration and then a longer explanation which unpacked the meaning of the declaration. (The explanations also had two parts, an assertion followed by a contrast, but this need not detain us since it does not affect the fact that Peter is the rock.) Jesus’ first statement, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!” is explained by “for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” This is a reason why Simon is blessed. The third statement, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” is explained by Jesus’ remarks on binding and loosing. The power to bind and loose is part of what it means to have the keys to the kingdom. That being the case, the second statement, “And I tell you, you are Peter” is explained by “and on this rock I will build my Church.”

Thats an interesting concept except we find Jesus just a few verses down telling Peter(the rock)But He turned and said to Peter,Get behind Me satan !You are an offence to Me ,and are not mindful of the things of God,but the things of men.Matthew 16:23 pretty harsh words for someone who as you suggest has just been given the keys to the kingdom of God and complete authority over Christ church.I dont by it sorry:shrug:

 

[ltravis]

Thats an interesting concept except we find Jesus just a few verses down telling Peter(the rock)But He turned and said to Peter,Get behind Me satan !You are an offence to Me ,and are not mindful of the things of God,but the things of men.Matthew 16:23 pretty harsh words for someone who as you suggest has just been given the keys to the kingdom of God and complete authority over Christ church.I dont by it sorry:shrug:

I can understand your feelings, micas. This is an issue that boils down to authority. Accepting where these Catholic arguments lead would mean you have to submit yourself to the authority of the Catholic Church to truly live in full union with our Lord. I am lucky to be a part of the Church all my life, so I never had to submit myself to an authority different then what I built my life around previously. I don’t envy you, and don’t know how I could handle it. However, I do respect your desire to live rightly, and I appreciate that you care enough to present your point of view.

LT

 

[NotWorthy]

Thats an interesting concept except we find Jesus just a few verses down telling Peter(the rock)But He turned and said to Peter,Get behind Me satan !You are an offence to Me ,and are not mindful of the things of God,but the things of men.Matthew 16:23 pretty harsh words for someone who as you suggest has just been given the keys to the kingdom of God and complete authority over Christ church.I dont by it sorry:shrug:

And yet… and yet… We don’t find Jesus taking back the symbols of Real Authority that He just handed over to Peter, the Keys fo the Kingdom. He doesn’t tell him that he no longer will have the power to bind and loose.

It’s almost as if… as if Jesus knew that Peter was going to respond that way to Jesus’ words. And yet Jesus STILL gave him this awesome responsibility.

Micas, you have to resolve that dilemna that I just gave you. Because even through my sarcasm, you know that I just spoke the truth.

So why would Jesus do this, knowing that Peter was weak and thinking of worldly things? John will explain this in his Gospel. Jesus will send the Holy Spirit to guide Peter (and of course the rest of the Apostles) and then the Successors.

 

[micas]

And yet… and yet… We don’t find Jesus taking back the symbols of Real Authority that He just handed over to Peter, the Keys fo the Kingdom. He doesn’t tell him that he no longer will have the power to bind and loose.

It’s almost as if… as if Jesus knew that Peter was going to respond that way to Jesus’ words. And yet Jesus STILL gave him this awesome responsibility.

Micas, you have to resolve that dilemna that I just gave you. Because even through my sarcasm, you know that I just spoke the truth.

So why would Jesus do this, knowing that Peter was weak and thinking of worldly things? John will explain this in his Gospel. Jesus will send the Holy Spirit to guide Peter (and of course the rest of the Apostles) and then the Successors. **Iam not offened **by a little sarcasism. Iam to someone claiming to being speaking truth,but in reality,decieving and being decieved.The Catholic Churches claim to be the one true church false.the one true church are those He forenew,He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son,that He might be the firstorn among many brethern.Moreover whom He predestined,these He also called, these He also justified;and whom He justified,these He also glorified.So the true church of Jesus Christ is not an institution but a living organism made up of those God has called the ecclessia the church the called out.all born again by the Spirit of God.Peter being the head over Christ church False.Luke 22:24-26.The Holy Spirit is He who leads the church.But the Helper,the Holy spirit,whom the Father will send in My name ,He will teach you All things and bring to your rememberance all things that I said to you.John 14:26.Keys represent authority and Peter was given authority to declare what was bound and loosed in heaven Peter alone has this authority False Peter was given this authority but not to him alone but the other Apostles Matt.18:18-19 also to all belivers see v.19.there goes the supremacy of the Pope as Peters successor.My friend your claim above makes an assertion that Peter is the rock on which Christ built His Church.Because The Catholic church says so is absurd.I stand on the fact that it is Jesus who is The Son of the living God .That statement is the foundation of our faith.For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid ,which is Jesus Christ. 1Cor.3:11

 

[SFLCatholic]

The word Peter,Petros means a small stone. start by looking at John 1:42 .It says —And he brought him to Jesus .Now when Jesus looked at him,He said you are Simon the son of Jonah.You shall be called Cephas(which is translated A stone).If you want to continue let me know,and I will continue with you if not see you around.

Please answer me one question. Which I am sure has been asked ad naseum

How is it that Evangelicals always claim to use a strict literal interpretation of the Bible, yet tear apart verses that that don’t support thier arguments?

Which is it? A strict interpretaion or not?

 

[micas]

Please answer me one question. Which I am sure has been asked ad naseum

How is it that Evangelicals always claim to use a strict literal interpretation of the Bible, yet tear apart verses that that don’t support thier arguments?

Which is it? A strict interpretaion or not?

Its niether the bible speaks literaly at times figuratively, in parables, prophesies Etc.The Holy Spirit leads us in all truth.

 

[SFLCatholic]

Thats a cop out of an answer.

But if you apply it, how do you know its the Holy Spirit moving you and not Jack (?) Hagee, Tim LaHaye, Scofield, etc.?

The problem with your answer is that it becomes relative. It leaves you as the final arbiter of Sciptural interpretation. This puts you above God.

 

[micas]

Thats a cop out of an answer.

But if you apply it, how do you know its the Holy Spirit moving you and not Jack (?) Hagee, Tim LaHaye, Scofield, etc.?

The problem with your answer is that it becomes relative. It leaves you as the final arbiter of Sciptural interpretation. This puts you above God.

Heres the delama.You just stated something that could and does apply to the Catholic church who say there interpation is correct?Are you saying the Catholic Church is above God? The bottom line is this Jesus says if you abide in My word,you are My disciples indeed.And you will know the truth and the truth will make you free.John 8:31-32.I dont follow any of those men you mentioned and I wont comment on them either .I follow Jesus and I submet to My pastor and all men in the fellowship will hold him accountable to teach Gods word thats why we also carry are bibles as to not be decieved. but to be like the Bereans who searched the scriptures daily to find out wether these things were so. Acts 17:11.Also the elders of the fellowship of believers I belong to because prayerfully they have become wise in things of the Lord. I submit to my wife in that I will love her as Christ loves the church. i submit to my children in that i love and provide for them,and have a Godly duty to train them in the ways of the Lord.And finally I submit to other bothers and sisters in the Lord,Goverment law officials Etc.Read 1 Peter 2:11-24.The point of all this is in the end Iam held accountable to my Lord Jesus,God has given us His word 2 Tim. 3:16-17.He has also given us a Helper who will lead us to the truth,The Holy Spirit.You have to ask for discerment if you are wheat, the Lord through his word will lead you to the truth , and if your a tare you will decieve and as a result you will decieve others.

 

[SFLCatholic]

[SIGN]I submet to My pastor and all men in the fellowship will hold him accountable to teach Gods word [/SIGN]

But what you said previoulsy is that the Holy Spirit leads us all in Truth. Which inferred that the Holy Spirit was telling you which verses should be read figuratively and which should be read literally.

Now you are saying you submit to your pastors interpretations of Scripture. And there in lies the problem.

Your pastor’s don’t follow the apostolic mission set forth by Jesus through Peter. You have verified this yourself by discounting Jesus creation of the Church upon Peter.

No matter how you decide to interpret Mat 16:18, it sitll stands that Jesus was clear about creating an apostolic mission through Peter. To re-interpret the evidence and come up with a contrary meaning is nothing short of putting yourself above God.

Why is it OK for you to submit to your pastor’s interpretation of Scripture, but its not Ok for Catholic’s to submit to the Church’s teachings on Scriptures?

It also seems to me that if you carry around your Bible in an effort not to be duped, why would you still submit to your pastor’s interpretations? It would seem as though he is duping you by giving you a falacious and disproven interpretation of Mat 16:18.

I believe the original text was written in Kione Greek which only had one interpretation for rock. And at the least, if Jesus was speaking in Aramaic, this language only had one interpretation for Rock.

Sounds to me like your pastors are teaching you straight out of Chick Tracts.

"It is very clear in Scripture that Jesus told Peter, whose name means “rock,” that “you are Peter [rock], and on this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18). To undermine this, Chick makes the familiar claim that two different words are used here in Greek—petros and petra—and that the first means a small stone or pebble while the latter means a huge rock or boulder.[73]

This simply is not true. The difference in meaning can be found only in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—a different dialect. In Koine, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.” The argument shows a faulty knowledge of Greek.[74] Further, Jesus’ native language was Aramaic, not Greek, and in the Aramaic underlying this passage, the same word—kepha—would have been used in both instances.

catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p5.asp

 

[NotWorthy]

**Iam not offened **by a little sarcasism. Iam to someone claiming to being speaking truth,but in reality,decieving and being decieved.

Deceiving means knowing the truth, and yet sharing a lie. Is that seriously what you are accusing me of?!?!?

The Catholic Churches claim to be the one true church false.the one true church are those He forenew,He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son,that He might be the firstorn among many brethern.

Evidently, the people that the Apostles taught failed to learn the lesson that you’ve learned so well. Amazing!

Peter being the head over Christ church False.Luke 22:24-26.The Holy Spirit is He who leads the church.But the Helper,the Holy spirit,whom the Father will send in My name ,He will teach you All things and bring to your rememberance all things that I said to you.John 14:26.

Yes, the Holy Spirit guides the Church. No denying that. This helped form the doctrines that the Church has done. You say the Church is False.

Now, what is it. Is the Holy Spirit guiding it, or was Jesus wrong? This is your box you’ve framed around yourself. I’ll let you deal with it.

Keys represent authority and Peter was given authority to declare what was bound and loosed in heaven Peter alone has this authority False Peter was given this authority but not to him alone but the other Apostles Matt.18:18-19 also to all belivers see v.19.there goes the supremacy of the Pope as Peters successor.

So Jesus gives this authority to Peter, and you deny it? Yes, She turns around and gives it to the Apostles as a group. This agrees with Catholic Doctrine. Have you ever heard of the Church Magisterium?

My friend your claim above makes an assertion that Peter is the rock on which Christ built His Church.Because The Catholic church says so is absurd.I stand on the fact that it is Jesus who is The Son of the living God .That statement is the foundation of our faith.For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid ,which is Jesus Christ. 1Cor.3:11

So Paul says that Jesus is the foundation. No problem. Jesus is the Foundation of all Truth. Paul is saying the Jesus is the Foundation of His Faith which all of us should have.

And what does the Foundation of Truth say? (Peter) Upon YOU I will build MY CHURCH. I’m not one to go and question the Foundation of Truth on this issue.

P.S. Micas, please use the “Return” key a liitle more often to break up your quotes. It makes is very hard to follow your point.

 

[paarsurrey]

I can understand your feelings, micas. This is an issue that boils down to authority. Accepting where these Catholic arguments lead would mean you have to submit yourself to the authority of the Catholic Church to truly live in full union with our Lord. I am lucky to be a part of the Church all my life, so I never had to submit myself to an authority different then what I built my life around previously. I don’t envy you, and don’t know how I could handle it. However, I do respect your desire to live rightly, and I appreciate that you care enough to present your point of view.
LT

Hi
I appreciate your sentimental attachment with the Catholic Church, that is your discretion, nevertheless you don’t hinder the path of micas who prefers to build his faith on facts proved by research oriented arguments.Micas has rightly quoted the verses "He(Jesus) turned and said to Peter,Get behind Me satan !You are an offence to Me ,and are not mindful of the things of God,but the things of men,"Matthew 16:23. That also proved my point that if the disciples said somthing of wisdom that was because of good training Jesus imparted to them otherwise they were just ordinary persons not guided by the Holy Spirit, unless angels visited them and specifically confirmed by Jesus in this connection for every event.
Thanks
Bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions

 

[NotWorthy]

There you have it micas. Paar agrees wtih you.

If that doesn’t prove my point, then I don’t know what does!!!

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes, the Holy Spirit guides the Church.

Hi
This is often used as a cover to shield the irrational concepts introduced by the Church after when Jesus departed from Galilee alongwith his mother Mary to some unknown destination, that does not mean that a free man should not think freely and ask the questions arising in his mind on such concepts introduced by the Church. The Church in itself could explain away things in a rational and logical ways. This is my opinion, others could think differently.
Thanks
Bridging gaps between the faiths/denominations/religions

 

[Crumpy]

I’m getting old, I guess, and I find a thread like this tiring.

At the outset, the OP asserts that he dismisses the pat answers of apologists. Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuuuse us.

There’s a lot of people on these forums, and whatever else they are, they seem a lit bit lazy to me.

On the other hand, thank God, there are a lot of thoughful, educated, and generous people who give very good answers.

OK, enough whining.

Beyond whining, I’d like to point out after listening to many questions like this (on radio programs) and reading many questions here, the people who ask these questions don’t seem inclined to impose the same standards of criticism on their own church, that they would impose on the Catholic Church.

Well, of course, that gets at the roots of their own biases, with sola scriptura at the head of the list. That certainly is a veiled part of this question, as some have pointed out.

The “ask an apologist” thread is organized somewhat randomly. The search engine may or may not help, depending on the words that somebody has used in a thread.

It seems that there should be a FAQ section, or otherwise a topical section where these subjects are covered.

And, beyond that, maybe the Moderators or others could interject a comment (other than a post) to head the questioner in the right direction.

One advantage might be the direct one, and a related advantage would be to save some of the excellent responses that have been made to posts like the original one.

Perhaps one other advantage would be to reduce the long threads where things have gone astray.

 

[ltravis]

Hi
I appreciate your sentimental attachment with the Catholic Church, that is your discretion, nevertheless you don’t hinder the path of micas who prefers to build his faith on facts proved by research oriented arguments.Micas has rightly quoted the verses "He(Jesus) turned and said to Peter,Get behind Me satan !You are an offence to Me ,and are not mindful of the things of God,but the things of men,"Matthew 16:23. That also proved my point that if the disciples said somthing of wisdom that was because of good training Jesus imparted to them otherwise they were just ordinary persons not guided by the Holy Spirit, unless angels visited them and specifically confirmed by Jesus in this connection for every event.
Thanks
Bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions

Hi, paarsurrey. I am no intellectual, and no scholar, as I would assume we all would know by seeing how I introduced this topic. In any case, in Matt 16, when Jesus gave the keys - wasn’t this before Pentecost (when the apostles finally *did *receive the Holy Spirit Jesus promised)? After all, at that time Jesus said he *will *build his church, not that he had. If so, its no wonder to me why Peter would not yet understand the need and meaning of Jesus’ suffering and thereby get rebuked by him. Once the Holy Spirit decended, and Peter and the apostles were raising the dead, being miraculously delivered from prison, and curing the sick…there isn’t much doubt in my mind what Peter’s role in the beginnings of the Church was and what Jesus’ opinion of him must have been.

Thanks, it is good to have competing viewpoints on this. That way I don’t have to play devil’s advocate and guess what they are like I was doing earlier.

LT