Matthew 16:18 controversy

[Gorgias]

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.

That’s because scholars have rejected that argument for many years now. It falls on deaf ears because only mute debaters still make that claim…

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.

Actually… no. Look at the difference in the contexts of the two chapters. Peter is given ‘the keys’ in the context of the Church in general; the apostles are given ‘keys’ in the context of making decisions about juridical matters (i.e., in the case of a person has lost fellowship with the Church).

Four verses later, Jesus rebukes Peter, calling him Satan

And yet, after His resurrection, Jesus again entrusts this ‘satan’ to feed His sheep. Your argument doesn’t hold up, here. Humans aren’t perfect, without a doubt. Yet, what Christ has instituted, He sees through to completion. Peter’s stumbles do not nullify Christ’s institution.

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.

“New revelation”? Can you substantiate that claim, please?

The Petra Jesus spoke of

That is your personal interpretation of this Scripture. Yet… is any prophecy of Scripture a matter of personal interpretation?

 

[Goya]

Never mind–already covered.

 

[tgGodsway]

Gorgias, … is this all you got, cheap shots.

what institution are you talking about? what verses are you looking at? where in the bible did you get that?.. Matt. 16 doesn’t say ALL OF THAT. AND… you act like Peter is the only one who got marching orders. I’m sure Peter was, and is a good man, but I’m still looking for this pope idea in the bible but can’t find it. It’s just not there, sorry. Peter did function as a shepherd, as did all of the Apostles, because God is no respecter of persons, (Acts 10:34.) they all could bind and lose.

 

[steve-b]

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.

Keys go to the chief steward. NOT to everyone.

Binding and loosing comes via the power of the keys. Who got the keys? Peter. The language Jesus uses is singular. I Jesus 1st personal singular, give you Peter 2nd person singular the keys…, In Mt 18:18 Jesus doesn’t mention keys when Jesus said the others also have the power to bind and loose. The keys went to Peter alone as chief steward. What Peter binds no one can loose, and what Peter looses no one can bind. Note: Re the others, The others in Mt 18, they can’t bind alone. They take the issue to the Church. When 2 or 3 agree, THEN… bind and loose comes in for THEM.

Not so for Peter.

tgGodsway:

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.)

Peter and Jesus are the only ones in this conversation at this point. Peter and his faith is the Rock here. They are inseparable. It’s a distinction without a difference, inspite of how controversialists argue.

tgGodsway:

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.

Jesus is instituting His Church. He makes Peter the leader here and gives him supreme authority here.

tgGodsway:

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)

Satan has been with them all along. Only Jesus is able to see Satan. Peter is defending Jesus there. That’s a good thing. Peter doesn’t see Satan who has been with them all along. And Satan just saw what Jesus did for Peter.

Consider the following in terms of what is being discussed.

Luke 22:24-32 RSVCE - - Bible Gateway

www.biblegateway.com

Satan has been sifting all of them. But Jesus prays especially for Peter. Peter (singular) is the leader, he is the greatest among THEM the apostles. . He is to strengthen THEM after they also have been sifted as well, because he has the authority from Jesus to be the greatest among them…

tgGodsway:

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…

Jesus made Peter head of His Church. His office has succession because the Church continues and prevails even against the gates of hell

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

The whole problem stems from the extremely poor translation into the English. There is an extreme amount of lack of continuity in the English translations on a number of occasions…hence my screen name.

It should either be:

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon Peter I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

or

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

At least the French Translation is done Properly:

Mat 16:18 Et moi, je te dis que tu es Pierre, et que sur cette pierre je bâtirai mon Église, et que les portes du séjour des morts ne prévaudront point contre elle.

PIERRE is used in both places.

Just imagine, this whole argument would have never even started, if there was continuity.

 

[Goya]

“Cheap shots?”

Seems to me that you’re the one resorting to cheap shots.

His analyses have been quite on point, while yours don’t hold much water–they’re all over the place, with little coherence.

 

[tgGodsway]

You forget that Peter is not Petra in a feminine gender. Secondly, we are dealing with one verse of scripture. No truth has been established with one verse. Upon the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be ESTABLISHED. How do other biblical witnesses agree to the keys?

 

[tgGodsway]

There is nothing wrong with the translation. It is accurate. The problem is the conclusions found in the Greek counterparts that contradict what the Catholic Church decided years after the fact.

 

[tgGodsway]

The Catholic Church does not content that Peter was made supreme leader. Supreme vicar of Christ. He is considered the “head” .

 

[steve-b]

You forget that Peter is not Petra in a feminine gender.

Jesus and Peter are having this conversation. Both men. Where’s the feminine gender component in this conversation? Some say it’s faith because faith is feminine gender. Again, Peter and his faith are one. They aren’t separate. They are one. Both are the Rock Jesus is talking about with Peter.

tgGodsway:

Secondly, we are dealing with one verse of scripture. No truth has been established with one verse. Upon the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be ESTABLISHED. How do other biblical witnesses agree to the keys?

Jesus only speaks of keys going to Peter.

 

[steve-b]

The Catholic Church does not content that Peter was made supreme leader. Supreme vicar of Christ. He is considered the “head” .

May I suggest reading how terms are used in the Catholic Church
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

There is nothing wrong with the translation. It is accurate. The problem is the conclusions found in the Greek counterparts that contradict what the Catholic Church decided years after the fact.

Oh, you are oh so wrong. The proof is in the pudding as they say. The Greek counter part does support my belief that the English Translation is faulty.

Youngs Literal Translation actually gets it right:

Mat 16:18 'And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it;

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art PeterG4074, and upon this rockG4073 I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

G4074 Πέτρος Petros pet’-ros
Apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than G3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle: - Peter, rock.

G4073 πέτρα petra pet’-ra
Feminine of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): - rock.

They are both Greek for Rock. To make the claim that Jesus is the smaller feminine rock is to make a mockery of Jesus. The Greek is against you here.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

Youngs Literal Translation:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

French Translation

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[theCardinalbird]

16:15. Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?

16:16. Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

16:17. 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.

16:18. 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.

I don’t understand. If Jesus was referring to all the Apostles then why would he speak to Petros (Peter) only? Surely if our Lord wanted all the Apostles to be given the keys he would have said so.

For Matthew 16:18, can someone give me a Greek translation for this verse?

 

[tgGodsway]

Exactly. This is why the entire papel doctrine is NOT established as a biblical truth. The Bible itself requires witnesses, or what I call, checks and balances. The papel doctrine was a blunder and has set in motion something that at it’s foundation is faulty.

 

[MichaelP3]

tgGodsway I really admire your perseverance here but just focussing on that verse is not all that is needed.

We alse have the Eastern Understanding of this. And it is not what “they say” yes we have the “first among equals” and “primary see” arguments but that doesn’t hold up by the mere fact the Eastern Orthodox find it “pretty okay” not being in communion with Rome which seems also to be argued a pretty important thing. And they are agreed to be apostolic and " there from the beginning" so the 500 year Protestant Church argument also falls flat.

And then we start to analyse Peter. Was he ever in Rome ? (no the bones were not confirmed). And then we go to the "list of Popes " being professed. Well that was also very dodge. It wasn’t always as today. Either the Pope chose the successor, the Emperor chose him (or confirmed him for those with an issue), we have the “dove on the shoulder papacy” and even a Papel veto!! Not even talking about all the rest.

So even if this is true! The subsequent history seems very dodge and worth thinking about.

 

[steve-b]

Exactly. This is why the entire papel doctrine is NOT established as a biblical truth.

When you say exactly, that means the papal doctrine IS established as biblical truth which I showed from scripture.

tgGodsway:

The Bible itself requires witnesses, or what I call, checks and balances.

And I quoted to you where Jesus says Peter is the greatest among THEM (the apostles). Who got them in that argument over who’s greatest? Satan

You’re bringing up the same argument Satan did. That doesn’t bear well for your point.

tgGodsway:

The papel doctrine was a blunder and has set in motion something that at it’s foundation is faulty.

The blunder is with ALL those who deny what Jesus established on Peter and those united with him.

 

[MichaelP3]

The blunder is with ALL those who deny what Jesus established on Peter and those united with him.

Well yea. If that was the case!

 

[tgGodsway]

Yeah, I think you’re on the right track when looking at the surrounding historical evidence such as the Eastern Church. But the problem begins when we look at the most significant circle of believers, those who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write their gospels and all other eye witnesses. The concept of a papal-type of government is missing from their thinking. This concept is missing from passages where Church government is taught such as what we find in Ephesians 5. This concept is missing when it comes to Peter’s epistles. This concept is missing certainly from Paul’s but from every New Testament writer. This fact falls on deaf ears on this site.

And as mentioned before, The Catholic Church made the mistake of building an entire system of religious order all based on this one issue of keys, a metaphor that is NOT explained, or taught anywhere else in scripture. This too falls on deaf ears.