Matthew 16, Peter's authority, and rebuke

[abenassi]

Hi there,

I’m taking a Jeff Cavins Bible study (Adventures in Matthew - fantastic) and I had a thought about something in scripture that he didn’t bring up, but it got me thinking.

Here is the verse, for reference:

15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 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 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, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
20 Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.
21 From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he 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 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.”

So Peter professes that Jesus is the Son of God, Jesus in turn names Peter rock and gives him authority over his Church with the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and indicates that the powers of death will not prevail against it. The next thing that Jesus does is tell them that he is going to die, and Peter starts to forbid it, and Jesus rebukes him.

It seems that anti-Catholic apologetics point to this verse with Jesus rebuking Peter points to him not being the “Rock”. But my question is this - maybe Peter’s new keys to the kingdom of heaven, the authority or power that Jesus gave to him, and his ability to bind and loose, actually could allow him to have a say in whether Jesus should go to the cross? After all, if he has the authority to bind things in heaven, could he have bound that the crucifixion not take place? My understanding of this is just of curiosity, because instead of the rebuke being a negative for Peter (as if he was really unworthy to be the first Pope, which obviously not true, but some people assert) it really points to the true authority of the papacy and the power given to that office by Jesus, and would demonstrate that Peter really was significant as the head of the early Church, first among equals and first pope.

Your thoughts, please! Feel free to correct me!

 

[NotWorthy]

I think the Holy Spirit would prevent Peter (and future Popes) from creating Doctrines and Dogma’s that are contrary to God’s Will.

Didn’t Pope Sixtus die the night before he was to make his error-ridden Latin translation the official Bible of the Catholic Church?

If this is true, then Peter would have suffered some warning spasms when the thought of doing something so contrary to Jesus’ words came to mind.

 

[Luke65]

A couple thoughts, first of all notice that Jesus said “I will give you the keys” - future tense. This apparently took place after the Resurrection - at the end of the gospels - when Jesus said to Peter: “Tend my sheep.” (John 21:16) - which is figurative for “Govern my people.”

As far as the “Satan” rebuke goes, this is simply further evidence of Peter’s leadership role. As Jesus said: “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.” (Luke 12:48) And so Peter received the harshest rebuke, even though his motive seemed to be entirely honorable. While other disciples were rebuked or corrected by Jesus much more gently, even though their motives weren’t exactly honorable (e.g. Mark 10:35-45).

 

[abenassi]

Thanks for your replies. It’s just a curiosity - something I hadn’t noticed before and wondered if anyone had thought about it in quite the same way.

God Bless,

Andre

 

[ryanoneil]

Although “prime ministers” wield the kings royal authority, they are ranked second to the King.

I believe “binding and loosing” signifies teaching authority and interpretation of law, the authority to include or exclude members of a community, and the ability to forgive sins.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I think also the rebuke is the testament that Jesus chose a fallible man to lead His Church, and yet through men He would speak infallibly. It’s a great sign of God’s love as He condescends to reach us at our level.

 

[broski234]

A couple thoughts, first of all notice that Jesus said “I will give you the keys” - future tense. This apparently took place after the Resurrection - at the end of the gospels - when Jesus said to Peter: “Tend my sheep.” (John 21:16) - which is figurative for “Govern my people.”

As far as the “Satan” rebuke goes, this is simply further evidence of Peter’s leadership role. As Jesus said: “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.” (Luke 12:48) And so Peter received the harshest rebuke, even though his motive seemed to be entirely honorable. While other disciples were rebuked or corrected by Jesus much more gently, even though their motives weren’t exactly honorable (e.g. Mark 10:35-45).

I agree!