Please explain Matthew 16:18-19

[Intrigued_Latin]

This was an explaation I got from a (Sola Scriptura) friend of mine. I found it quite interesting and comical at times.

In these verses, Christ stated, “And I say unto you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

In order to understand the meaning here, we must start reading from verse 13. Christ asked the disciples, “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?”

Peter answered, " You [Jesus] are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (vs. 16). Then Christ responded, “You are Peter [petros, which means little rock], and upon this rock [petra, means very great rock, referring to Christ Himself] I [pointing to Himself] will build My church” (vs. 18). Most people assume here that Christ is building His Church on Peter. But this is not the case. Christ is the great “Rock” upon whom the Church is built (Deut. 32:3-4, 15, 18; I Cor. 10:4; Eph. 2:20; I Pet. 2:6), not Peter (Eph. 1:22; 5:23; Col. 1:18).

Christ was telling Peter that He (Christ) was about to establish the New Testament Church, lead it (Eph. 5:23), be with it always (Matt. 28:20), and that the gates of hell [Hades - the grave] would never prevail against it. God’s Church was to continue to exist, doing His Work through the ages as a “little flock” (Luke 12:32), until the end of the age, when it would circle the whole world with the good news of the kingdom of God (Matt. 24:14). This Church would be persecuted (John 15:20; 16:33), but would never die out, remaining until Christ’s Return.

In Matthew 16:19, Christ continues, “And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” The “keys” He is referring to here is symbolic language meaning that He gives His ministers the knowledge of how to enter the kingdom. This knowledge shows the way of life a Christian must follow in order to achieve salvation. Luke 11:52 shows Christ reproving certain lawyers for hiding or suppressing this knowledge, thus preventing themselves and others from entering the kingdom.

Continuing, “…and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven…” Some will say that this verse gives men the power or authority to change what God has said in the Bible. This is absolutely not the case! No man can change what God has said! The true ministers of God have been given the authority to bind only that which is in agreement with God’s laws. That, then, would be backed up - bound - by God. When God’s ministers make a decision, it is based on Scripture - based on God’s will. But this in no way is giving ministers the power to forgive sin. Only God can and does that (Mark 2:7). God does give ministers the ability to discern when a person has repented of certain sins, thus concluding that God has forgiven them.

 

[Maranatha]

From Peter the Rock

“Yes,” he said. “In Greek, the word for rock is petra, which means a large, massive stone. The word used for Simon’s new name is different; it’s Petros, which means a little stone, a pebble.”

In reality, what the missionary was telling me at this point was false. As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both *petros and petra *simply meant "rock."If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek *lithos *would have been used. The missionary’s argument didn’t work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

Others can explain better but-

First off, petros/petra is Greek. Jesus spoke Aremaic (sp). The word for rock in Aremaic is kepha. The verse thereby read “Thou art *kepha, *and upon this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus does not change names for no reason. In the OT only God himself is ever called a Rock, and since Jesus is obviously calling Peter a rock, it obviously means something special. You wouldn’t just give names like that for no reason-"Simon, I’m building my church on this rock, myself. By the way, your name is “rock,” now. Hardly makes sense. If your name was changed, then so was your status often times, such as Abram/Abraham, Jacob/Israel, etc. Also, by rules of grammer, and adjective describes the nearest noun. In “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” they put it this way-“I have a car and a truck, and it is blue.” What is blue? the truck. Jesus said this to Peter in a neighborhood near a 200 foot wall of rock. The Apostles knew, as Jews, that location empahzied the importance of what was being done. Also, Peter is called by Peter after his name change, while, as Karl puts it “…while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges.”

As well-this I copied out of Karl Keating’s “Catholcism and Fundamentalism”- "When they were named, Peter almost always headed the list (Mt 10:1-3; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13); sometimes it was only “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69) and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Mt 14:28-32; 17:24; Mk 10:28). On Pentecost it was he who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing (Acts 3:6-7). And to Peter came the revelation that the Gentiles were to be baptized (Acts 10:46-48).

Oh, and who said…this might be paraphrased a bit…“Thou art the Christ, Son of the Living God?” Remember Jesus then tells him that he is blessed because flesh and blood has not revealed this to him, but His Father in Heaven.

For the keys, this part was also copied out of the book mentioned above (Btw-BUY THAT BOOK! I absolutly love it. Also, check on www.catholic.com for the answers to some of this stuff.) “I will give thee [singular] the keys to the kingdom of Heaven” (Mt 16:19). In ancient times keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city city might have had one great gate, and that great gate worked by one great key. To be given the key to a city mean to be given free access and authority over the city. The city which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elseware in the Bible (Is 22:22, Rev 1:18). Finally, after the Ressurection…[tells the story of Peter’s denial three times, then the thrice affirmation of love] Christ, who is the Good Sheperd (Jn 10:11, 14) gave Peter all the authority he earlier promised: “Feed my Sheep” (Jn 21:17)."

catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp

That’s pretty much all I have to say. Again, most of what I said was quoted or I got from Catholicsm and Fundamentalism, so I seriously suggest getting it. And sorry for spelling errors.

 

[mercygate]

Intrigued Latin:

This was an explaation I got from a (Sola Scriptura) friend of mine. I found it quite interesting and comical at times. . . .

Not sure what you are looking for or why you posted this here. We have lots of information on this. What kind of (name removed by moderator)ut would you like from this forum? Give us a little direction and we’ll jump right in.

 

[urquhart]

Why not ask the friend to show you in the Bible where it says Christ was pointing to himself when he said “I [pointing to Himself] will build My church”?

 

[Intrigued_Latin]

mercygate:

Not sure what you are looking for or why you posted this here. We have lots of information on this. What kind of (name removed by moderator)ut would you like from this forum? Give us a little direction and we’ll jump right in.

I as a Latin Catholic, am having doubts about the Supremacy of the Pope (in the context of a unified) One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. (Catholic and Orthodox)
I questioned my friend on how he interpreted those specific verses in the bible.

Obviously not the answer I was looking for.

 

[mercygate]

Intrigued Latin:

I as a Latin Catholic, am having doubts about the Supremacy of the Pope (in the context of a unified) One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. (Catholic and Orthodox)
I questioned my friend on how he interpreted those specific verses in the bible.

Obviously not the answer I was looking for.

So have you found what you need?

To you, as a Latin Catholic, papal primacy should be clear as gin. Supremacy: well . . . why not? Concepts like this do not invent themselves, they arise from historical necessity. Perhaps this is one of those concepts, like certain overblown Marian devotions of times past, that took on a little more energy than is specificially required by Scriptural or theological warrant.

But still, on the Scriptural warrant, the primacy is there. The unicity is there. For the Bishop of Rome to be a sign of unity for the entire Church still leaves great autonomy to the patriarchates and to individual bishops.

How is the Church “ONE” if she is disarticulated? The “invisible” model doesn’t fly any better with the Orthodox than it does with the Latin Church.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

But still, on the Scriptural warrant, the primacy is there. The unicity is there. For the Bishop of Rome to be a sign of unity for the entire Church still leaves great autonomy to the patriarchates and to individual bishops.

And that really is the heart of the matter. Division causes a plurality of doctrine, which leads to a weakness. Each step of the schismisng is not only a scandal, but one step closer to a fallen church.

Unity can be threatened by disharmony. Marriages fail when ‘irreconcileable’ differences occur because no one can break the tie. Compromise can lead anywhere. The church, as the bride of Christ is no different – and it isn’t as if the churches involved can just “work it out”. They haven’t.

Every orginization, at each level, has a certain amount of authority to make decisions ( is does not neet to act despotically, but as a necessity there are occasions where it must act. ). Any orginization or level of orginization which does not have unifying leadership is very susceptable to deadlock and division. That is the practical purpose of the Pope, to unify the plurality of churches under his care ( not to micromanage them ) – he strengthens his brethren. He is to be a pillar upholding the Catholicity of the church.