Matthew 16:18 controversy

[Debbie_Kono]

Jesus Christ said the world would hate us…I’m simply repeating what He said. Do you not believe what He said Michael?

 

[MichaelP3]

Taking the purpose of this thread into account Debbie, how verses are seen (or told to us) I am inclined to think the primitive community in the Amazon (who is part of this world) has better things to do then to hate Catholics.

 

[Debbie_Kono]

Again, Christ said it first…and I believe EVERYTHING He said. Don’t you?

 

[MichaelP3]

Oh yes!

Christ said a lot of stuff which would be a 2000 post thread if we start one regarding what it meant.

Just stating that the Catholic hate complex some profess (some people, I am aware not all) makes me go … Okay…

 

[tgGodsway]

l agree with MichaelP3

The only place I hear about this “protestant” hatred towards Catholics is on this site, but not actually coming from protestants. It is hear-say, I’m sure there are those out there who do hate Catholics, but it certainly hasn’t been with those I associate with. Actually I’ve said many times on this site that for most evangelicals the protestant reformation is over. They aren’t discussing what we discuss here on this site any more and haven’t for years. The word protestant is a word almost never used in most Christian circles, deliberately.

Whether or not this is good or bad, in terms of not knowing Church history, it for sure is a faded concept in some of the most thriving Evangelical circles today.

On the other hand, I have been suspended from this site recently for simply talking my theology which may not necessarily agree with Roman Catholic teaching. I recognize it is a privilege to be able to dialog with Catholics freely (on your time) but the subject matter can seemingly appear hostile at times because of all that is at stake. I make it a point not to be hostile in my heart, but when the disagreement is so profound and broad in scope, it will appear to be heated and hostile.

I am unaware of any protestant web site where Catholics are allowed to chime in with their view. I give credit to those on this site who allow us to voice our opinions.

 

[daverod]

Would you know the Aramaic word for ‘Stone’?

Or was that what you said in Aramaic?? And did Peter know how to speak and understand Greek if Jesus spoke to him in Greek?

 

[tgGodsway]

Yeah I hear your frustration Mintaka. But when you say, “the Catholic Church was biblically minded enough to provide you with the whole Bible and to write and preserve the New Testament…” Do you mean they (The Church officials who answered to the Church at Rome) collected all of the right books? and compiled them into one volume?

When Matthew wrote his gospel, for instance, it did not become the word of God one, two, or three centuries later when the Roman Catholic Church gave their final choice of compiled books?

It became the word of God before the ink was dry on the parchment. Those who sat in the position to decided which books were inspired and which ones weren’t, were people far removed from the original apostolic circle. But we both know the only books in question today were those books in the Apocrypha.

But my original point stands. To build such a large systematic theology and religious system such as the Roman Catholic Church on one obscure metaphor found in scripture, knowing how Jesus spoke metaphorically on a regular basis, is foolish in my humble opinion. Scripture always validates scripture. This is where many bible witnesses come together to agree on an set of facts. Their agreement is the glue that proves they have arrived at an established TRUTH.

But in the case of the keys, I cannot find even one apostolic teacher to even acknowledge what the Roman Church declared centuries later about Mathew 16:19. If only one bible writer would come into agreement with the meaning of keys to be the beginnings of a papal government where a succession of Bishops would decree God’s on-going revelation to an entire world, I might pay attention. But sadly this is not the case.

 

[MichaelP3]

Church declared centuries later about Mathew 16:19. If only one bible writer would come into agreement with the meaning of keys to be the beginnings of a papal government where a succession of Bishops

I really agree with you here.

I also have a big problem going even forward if that is true. (There is a poster on here always saying “google the list of Popes” I have done that. And it let me to think otherwise)

 

[Debbie_Kono]

Scripture always validates scripture.

How about Numbers chapters 12, 14 & 16? What happens to the people of God who buck up against Moses? Do you agree that Moses was a type of pope for the people?

 

[spina1953]

I noticed in a few posts about Matthew’s Gospel not being excepted so to speak till a few centuries later. However, bu the end of the first century all four of the Gospels were excepted in the various Churches along with many of Paul’s Epistles. None of the writers of the NT considered their writings sacred. Instead they wrote to the various communities when they were unable to go to them. Luke for one wrote his Gospel and Acts to Theophilus and in which Luke a;;udes to his predecessors and stresses the care with which he has collected and judges his material. Luke regards those who wrote the Gospel message before him as comprising two groups, eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, ( The Twelve) who were the fundamental source of the Gospel tradition and the many who attempted to arrange the preaching and teaching of the twelve in narrative form. It is rather doubtful that Luke ever thought that what he wrote was sacred Scripture, and its also rather doubtful any of the NT writers ever thought that what they wrote was sacred Scripture. It was only when the Catholic Church began to compile these writings and sorting out what was the inspired Word from those that were not. Orherwise we would not have known exactly what we are to believe.

So then would not the Catholic Church have the authority to say what Scripture says and means? i would think so. Now why would Christ tell Peter that He was going to build His Church on Peter? No where else is there a mention of it in that why did not all of the Apostles say it was just Peter but the rest of them? Matthew did not say the rest of the Apostles are the one’s Christ was going to build his Church on but to Peter alone. Yes Peter was a sinner so was the rest of the APostles but Christ choose them just the same to carry His Good News to the ends of the earth. Lastly Peter was the leader of the Apostles under Christ and the Apostles looked to Peter to be their spokesperson. Why is Peter always mentioned more then any of the rest of the Apostles? Seems to me there is a special meaning there to show that it is to Peter who is going to lead the Church after Christ ascended into heaven to carry on the Work Christ begun.

 

[tgGodsway]

The concept of Pope is found no where in holy scripture. However Moses was surely a type of Christ Yes. But remember, Moses was denied entrance to the promise land because of his anger issues over the nation of Israel. So his pattern is not perfect.

 

[Mintaka]

Seriously? You really think there are no other important references to keys in the Bible?

(Rev. 1:17-18)
"And when I had seen Him, I fell at His feet as dead.

“And he laid his right hand upon me, saying, 'Fear not. I am the First and the Last, and alive, and was dead, and behold I am living for ever and ever, and have the keys of death and of hell.”

(> Rev. 3:7)

"And write to the angel of the church of Philadelphia:

“These things are said by the Holy One and the true one, He Who holds the key of David, He Who opens, and none shuts; He Who shuts and none opens.”

That would be the keys to the kingdom, right there. His Kingdom includes all things, even death (which He has defeated) and Hell (ditto, as in the Apostles’ Creed). The gates of Hell cannot stand against the Church, because He’s the victor and He’s got its keys. He is the Son of David Who reigns forever.

In Bible times, kings have the attribute of keys, because masters of households have keys. The owners of households handed their keys to their stewards, to be used by them in day to day life. Kings handed their keys to their prime ministers, to be used by them in day to day life. Furthermore, kings own the keys to city gates and prison cells. When a city or fortress was defeated in war, the victor got the keys. Keys are a symbol of access and power, that do what they symbolize.

And that’s what the Isaiah 22:20-22 passage about Eliakim is all about. God is using Isaiah to warn the current prime minister and chief priest, Shebna. You can see that just as people talk about the king having dominion on his shoulder, this talks about the prime minister having the king’s household keys on his shoulder.

"And it shall come to pass on that day, that I will call my servant, Eliakim the son of Hilkiah. and I will clothe him with your robe, and will strengthen him with your belt, and I will give your power into his hand. And he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.

“And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder. And he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.”

Eliakim was not of the house of David. He wasn’t becoming king. (And incidentally, there’s a fair number of times that the 2nd Book of Kings mentions both Eliakim and Shebna.) His possession of the king’s keys was for work purposes, just like Shebna’s had been.

The pope (whose title means “Father,” to remind him that he is also supposed to be acting “as a father to the people”) has been assigned the use of the key of David, the keys to the kingdom and the household, including the keys of death and Hell. They don’t belong to him; but it’s part of his job.

One of the whole points of the Gospel of Matthew is that Jesus is the Son of David and Messiah, and that He is setting up as king of a new Israel with twelve leaders of tribes. But now, the tribes wil encompass the whole world; He is calling in the Gentiles too. The new, true court is staffed with new officials, including the queen mum and the prime minister; but Jesus is the King. Which is correct, because God’s people were always supposed to be ruled by God.

 

[Mintaka]

I forgot to say an interesting thing. St. John Chrysostom, in his Homilies on Matthew, quotes his version of the verse in Greek. He knows it as “I will give you the keys of the heavens.” (Most Greek versions say “tas kleis…” or “tas kleidas tes Basileias ton ouranon,” the keys of the kingdom of the heavens.)

Then He mentions also another honor. “And I also will give you the keys of the heavens.”

But what is this “And I also will give you”?

‘As the Father has given you to know me, so will I also give you.’

And He said not, “I will entreat the Father” (although the manifestation of His authority was great, and the largeness of the gift unspeakable), but, “I will give you.”

What do You give? Tell me.

“The keys of the heavens, that whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven.”

… when He says, “I will give you” … do you see how He, His own self, leads Peter on to high thoughts of Him, and reveals Himself, and implies that He is Son of God by these two promises? For those things which are peculiar to God alone, (both to absolve sins, and to make the Church incapable of overthrow in such assailing waves, and to exhibit a man who is a fisher more solid than any rock, while all the world is at war with him), these He promises Himself to give; as the Father, speaking to Jeremiah, said, He would make him as “a brazen pillar, and as a wall.” (Jeremiah 1:18) But him to one nation only, this man in every part of the world.

I would inquire, then, of those who desire to lessen the dignity of the Son, which manner of gifts were greater: those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave him?

For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to a mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven. “For heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away.” (Matthew 24:35)

How then is He less, who has given such gifts, has effected such things?

And these things I say, not dividing the works of Father and Son (“for all things are made by Him, and without Him was nothing made which was made”): but bridling the shameless tongue of them that dare so to speak.

But see, throughout all, His authority: “I say to you, You are Peter.” “I will build the Church.” “I will give you the keys of Heaven.”

 

[steve-b]

Around 180 Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)

 

[Gorgias]

The concept of Pope is found no where in holy scripture.

You keep saying this, and we keep showing you the office Jesus installed Peter in, at Mt 16.

Unless you’re willing to address why you think Mt 16 isn’t an assertion of both the intent to build a church and to have Peter as its leader, your claims just fall flat.

 

[MichaelP3]

I am sure he knows this verse.

Catholics just keep quoting that verse and the poster in question challenges it for all the reasons mentioned. ( So just quoting or referring to it again doesn’t do much, considering that was the origin of the post)

And even if true it is questionable as I have stated.

 

[Gorgias]

I am sure he knows this verse.

Catholics just keep quoting that verse and the poster in question challenges it for all the reasons mentioned.

The thing is… @tgGodsway isn’t challenging it. He even mentions that “scripture interprets scripture”, and when we demonstrate that Mt 16:19 is attested to by Isaiah 22:22, he refuses to respond.

( So just quoting or referring to it again doesn’t do much, considering that was the origin of the post)

Keep in mind that it is not the origin of the post. He asked about Mt 16:18, and we keep pointing to the implications of Jesus’ words in Mt 16:19 … and, knowing our responses, he refuses to address them. It’s like… oh… he’s avoiding them because he knows they refute his claim that Peter never received any office!

 

[tgGodsway]

Gorgias, thank you for your comments on the Matthew 16 passage. Actually I have debated this passage on this site several times. But off the cuff I will make a few points again for you.

The Matthew 16 passage (in it’s context) begins with Jesus asking the question; who do men say that I am?.. Peter comes up with the right answer, “Thou Art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Well done (Simon Barjona) for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father in heaven. … (the subject matter in Matthew’s line of thought is all about Jesus being the Christ.)

Then Jesus kind of transitions here when He said, “And I ALSO say to you…” In other words, because you made a profound statement, Simon, now I will make a profound statement. Thou art Petros = ROCK and upon this PETRA (= in a feminine gender) I will build MY CHURCH.

Why Petros? Rock, because Peter became the recipient of a great revelation Jesus was the Christ, the eternal Son. Therefore Jesus wanted to give him a change of disposition. (much like Jacob was renamed Israel) … and upon this PETRA (Greek scholars tell me that if Matthew wanted to convey the message that Jesus would build His church upon Peter, the man, He wouldn’t have used the word Petra. This narrow point falls on deft ears.

But Peter surely was given a set of keys to spiritual authority and able to bind and lose, no doubt! all of them were! two chapter later.

And surely the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Against what? against the Petra. Jesus would build His Church upon the Petra, not Petros (masculine gender.)

The debate is over how this word is employed. I contend that Matthew was consistent in his thought process beginning in verse 13 and following through to verse 20 where He commands them to NOT tell anyone He is the Christ. The context was all about Jesus being the Christ and NOT about Peter to the same degree.

Four verses later, Jesus rebukes Peter, calling him Satan, an offence … for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men." (v23)

But the Catholic Church said more than what this passage actually says, They say that Jesus gave Peter an office of Bishop over the entire world to which he could, by decree, and in the office of Vicar, prophesy new revelation when he sits on his St. Peter’s chair. All of what I just said is somehow implied in the context of Matthew 16:18,19. But when any honest student of scripture goes looking for these points, they can’t find them. Why? Because they didn’t come from scripture, the came centuries later by people far removed from Peter’s life.

The Petra Jesus spoke of was the revelation that He is the Christ, the anointed Messiah. When we build on this ROCK, the wind and rain may come, and blow against our house, but it will not fall because it is built upon the divine Rock of Christ alone.

 

[fhansen]

I’ve been educating myself to this subject from the standpoint of Greek scholars. Gateway.com has a site that has a compelling argument. With the understanding that Rome uses the Aramaic text for Matthew 16:18 because the Aramaic word for Peter and Rock is the same word. KE’PHA This solves the problem for them. But the Aramaic text has its own set of problems I will bring up later.

The Greek text of Matt. 16:18 uses two separate and different words in the passage. Petros, the name given to the Apostle, Petra, the word used for rock. Rome says that “Peter” Petros is merely the masculine form of the feminine noun Petra and therefore means the same thing.

But Classic Greek authors (before the New Testament was written) treat the words Petros and Petra as two different words. According to Liddell and Scott writers of the English Lexicon, said "Petros is “distinct from Petra” E. Heracl. 1002 says it means “panta kinesai petron” “Leaves no stone unturned” c. pl.Lg.843 X HG 3.520 “Petrous epekulindoun” “they rolled down stones.”
Note: Petros, a stone, smaller moveable stone (heracletes uses it in the phrase “leave no stone unturned.” So a Petros is a stone which can be turned over, hence a moveable stone. Petra, a large massive rock, a large boulder, a foundation stone.

If Jesus was referring the second word to Simon Peter he could have said, “epi tauto to petro” (using the masculine gender in the dative case) the same word as “Petros.” But what he said was “Epi taute te petra” using Petra, a different word.

This matters in the debate.

From my understanding whether or not Rome uses the Aramaic text, Jesus most likely spoke it.

 

[tgGodsway]

Actually I did make my points on Isaiah 22:22. The key of David is not some kind of equivalent to what is found in Matt. 16. I don’t have time tonight to get into this, but see my post in regards to this. Sorry if that doesn’t help.