Protestants, Could You Please Tell Me How You Interpret This?

[Celtic_Catholic]

I’m wondering how Protestants interpret Matthew 16:15-19:

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 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.
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. 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.”

To Catholics, “you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” means that Christ appointed Peter as the head of His Church, our first Pope, with all other popes directing succeeding from there.

“Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,” would mean that the Church (Pope) has the authority to create rules accordingly and loose them if necessary.

So I’m very curious about how different Protestant denominations see this. It is very important because these are direct, straight-forward words from Christ. And please know that I am in no way trying to cause conflict. I am only trying to learn.

I appreciate any and all responses. Thank you in advance.

Christ’s Blessings!

 

[JonNC]

=Celtic_Catholic;6267044]

I’m wondering how Protestants interpret Matthew 16:15-19:

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 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.
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. 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.”

To Catholics, “you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” means that Christ appointed Peter as the head of His Church, our first Pope, with all other popes directing succeeding from there.

Lutherans will tell you that Christ is referring to St. Peter’s confession of faith, more than him individually. That does not deny the great importance that Peter, along with Sts. Paul, Andrew, and others, played in the early Church.
No where in the passage does Christ grant the keys to Peter alone, nor is there a discussion regardng succession. Again, that is not to deny the importance of succession, which is clearly supported in the Lutheran Confessions.

“Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,” would mean that the Church (Pope) has the authority to create rules accordingly and loose them if necessary.

Christ was also very careful to warn the disciples against creating a hierarchy among themselves. The power to bind and loose is again given to the Church at large, not exclusively to Peter, or any of the Apostles for that matter. In the early Church, authority for creating “rules” was not that of the Pope, but was in the hands of truly Ecumenical Councils.

So I’m very curious about how different Protestant denominations see this. It is very important because these are direct, straight-forward words from Christ. And please know that I am in no way trying to cause conflict. I am only trying to learn.

While the words of Christ are directly from Him, those words do not necessarily lead to the conclusion the Catholic Church draws. It is this interpretation that, at least in part, led to the Schism, and the divisions of the western Church.

The Lutheran Confessions contain an document called the Treatise on the Pwer and Primacy of the Pope. If you choose to read it, understand the time in which it was written, as it includes some rather polemical language. Otherwise, it provides greater detail into the Lutheran view of authority.
bookofconcord.org/treatise.php

I appreciate any and all responses. Thank you in advance.

I appreciate your asking. His blessings to you, as well.
Jon

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No where in the passage does Christ grant the keys to Peter alone, nor is there a discussion regardng succession.

Jon

Christ asks His disciples, ‘Whom do men say that the Son of man is?’

Several offered answers, but Peter spoke truth. Jesus acknowledges Peter receiving the answer from the Father in heaven. Then He speaks to Peter and Peter alone. Notice that Jesus speaks to Peter saying, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.’

We see that through the words chose at this point, He is still speaking to Peter and Peter alone. ‘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.’ Notice Christ continues in the next verse with, 'AND I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Mat 16:13 And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is?
Mat 16:14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
Mat 16:15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?
Mat 16:16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 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.
Mat 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.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Verse 20 is when we know He has stopped speaking specifically to Peter.

Mat 16:20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

No where in the passage do we see the Lord interrupted His ongoing statement to Peter, to include all in receiving the keys.

The word ‘AND’ appears in the Greek Interlinear, the Douay-Rheims and two versions of the King James Versions of the Bible, that I own.

 

[larkin31]

Lutherans will tell you that Christ is referring to St. Peter’s confession of faith, more than him individually. That does not deny the great importance that Peter, along with Sts. Paul, Andrew, and others, played in the early Church.
No where in the passage does Christ grant the keys to Peter alone, nor is there a discussion regardng succession. …

What he said.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What he said.

What he didn’t say.

 

[larkin31]

What he didn’t say.

Are you a Protestant answering the question?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Are you a Protestant answering the question?

No, I’m a Catholic that took time to explain the Catholic view that refutes the keys were given to all the Apostles. I’m sorry to say, I failed to get the point of your explanation.

 

[Celtic_Catholic]

Lutherans will tell you that Christ is referring to St. Peter’s confession of faith, more than him individually. That does not deny the great importance that Peter, along with Sts. Paul, Andrew, and others, played in the early Church.
No where in the passage does Christ grant the keys to Peter alone, nor is there a discussion regardng succession. Again, that is not to deny the importance of succession, which is clearly supported in the Lutheran Confessions.

Christ was also very careful to warn the disciples against creating a hierarchy among themselves. The power to bind and loose is again given to the Church at large, not exclusively to Peter, or any of the Apostles for that matter. In the early Church, authority for creating “rules” was not that of the Pope, but was in the hands of truly Ecumenical Councils.

While the words of Christ are directly from Him, those words do not necessarily lead to the conclusion the Catholic Church draws. It is this interpretation that, at least in part, led to the Schism, and the divisions of the western Church.

The Lutheran Confessions contain an document called the Treatise on the Pwer and Primacy of the Pope. If you choose to read it, understand the time in which it was written, as it includes some rather polemical language. Otherwise, it provides greater detail into the Lutheran view of authority.
bookofconcord.org/treatise.php

I appreciate your asking. His blessings to you, as well.
Jon

*Thank you for your detailed response. Much appreciated. I will certainly read the link you provided.

God bless!*

 

[Celtic_Catholic]

Verse 20 is when we know He has stopped speaking specifically to Peter.

Mat 16:20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

No where in the passage do we see the Lord interrupted His ongoing statement to Peter, to include all in receiving the keys.

.

*That’s what I see, too. He spoke to Peter throughout and then addressed all of the Apostles in Verse 20. That’s the reason for my question and interest in Protestant perspective on this.

Thank you very much for your response.

God bless!
*

 

[The_Reginator]

Lutherans will tell you that Christ is referring to St. Peter’s confession of faith, more than him individually.

Sorry Jon, I didn’t quite follow that.
When you say that “Christ is referring to St. Peter’s confession of faith” are you saying that “this rock” is merely his confession of faith? Or am I missing something?

 

[larkin31]

No, I’m a Catholic that took time to explain the Catholic view that refutes the keys were given to all the Apostles. I’m sorry to say, I failed to get the point of your explanation.

I quoted exactly what I meant to agree with. I will do so again: Lutherans will tell you that Christ is referring to St. Peter’s confession of faith, more than him individually. That does not deny the great importance that Peter, along with Sts. Paul, Andrew, and others, played in the early Church.
No where in the passage does Christ grant the keys to Peter alone, nor is there a discussion regardng succession. …

This is such an easy question, and there is no need for debate. I really don’t care who follows a Pope and who does not. The answer for most Protestants is obvious, and JonJ put it fairly well (as well as I can, so I quoted it): Protestants for the most part do not read the passage in Matthew as the establishing of a succession of papal authority.

This is a no brainer, at least in terms of understanding how most Protestants read this passage.

 

[Celtic_Catholic]

What he said.

*Thank you. And God bless you! *

 

[Xavierlives]

I am starting to notice the same recycling of questions. Same Mormon questions, Same Protestant Questions, Same Catholic Questions.

I’ll ask something new to the board, was Noah alive when Abraham was born?

 

[Celtic_Catholic]

I am starting to notice the same recycling of questions. Same Mormon questions, Same Protestant Questions, Same Catholic Questions.

I’ll ask something new to the board, was Noah alive when Abraham was born?

*Sorry. I’m new to this forum and didn’t see this question before.

 

[4Squarebaby]

*Sorry. I’m new to this forum and didn’t see this question before.

Don’t worry about it. I don’t think this message board has any prejudice against duplicate threads on the same subject nor resurrecting long dormant threads. There tend to be waves of similar questions depending upon who is posting recently. One day there will be a bunch of Islamic questions and the next a bunch of Mormon questions.

As a general tendency is that threads which start with “Protestants”, as if anything “protestant” is monolithic, tend to be in attack mode

 

[The_Reginator]

As a general tendency is that threads which start with “Protestants”, as if anything “protestant” is monolithic, tend to be in attack mode

No!
(ie, ya think?)

 

[Upbeat_Dad]

I am a former Presbyterian (PCUSA), converting to Catholicism at Easter. Having spent the first 40 years of my life as a Protestant, I can tell you what my own understanding was, as distinct from what it is now.

One of the things I learned very early on in this conversion process is that there is a marked difference in what Catholics and Protestants mean when they say “the Church.” With few exceptions, both groups (admittedly, “Protestant” is a very big tent) agree that “the Church” is “the body of Christ.” But, for many Protestants, that body is an invisible body as opposed to the Catholic understanding of a visible body. Another way of putting it is that for many Protestants, the Church is a community of believers who came together after Christ’s death and resurrection to spread the faith. By contrast, the Catholic understanding is that “the Church” is not some add-on of history, but was, rather, prefigured from all time as the means by which God draws a fallen humanity to itself. In other words, Catholics see a much more mystical meaning in the phrase “the body of Christ,” whereas many Protestants understand the phrase in more figurative terms. So…when some Protestants read the above passage, they are inclined to see Peter as the disciple who first “got it,” as it were…the first to “get it” in a long line of believers who would come after, but not necessarily as one who was literally endowed with the kind of authority the pope (who is his successor) has today. It’s far more complicated than that, but that’s the gist of it from my perspective.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I am a former Presbyterian (PCUSA), converting to Catholicism at Easter. Having spent the first 40 years of my life as a Protestant, I can tell you what my own understanding was, as distinct from what it is now.

One of the things I learned very early on in this conversion process is that there is a marked difference in what Catholics and Protestants mean when they say “the Church.” With few exceptions, both groups (admittedly, “Protestant” is a very big tent) agree that “the Church” is “the body of Christ.” But, for many Protestants, that body is an invisible body as opposed to the Catholic understanding of a visible body. Another way of putting it is that for many Protestants, the Church is a community of believers who came together after Christ’s death and resurrection to spread the faith. By contrast, the Catholic understanding is that “the Church” is not some add-on of history, but was, rather, prefigured from all time as the means by which God draws a fallen humanity to itself. In other words, Catholics see a much more mystical meaning in the phrase “the body of Christ,” whereas many Protestants understand the phrase in more figurative terms. So…when some Protestants read the above passage, they are inclined to see Peter as the disciple who first “got it,” as it were…the first to “get it” in a long line of believers who would come after, but not necessarily as one who was literally endowed with the kind of authority the pope (who is his successor) has today. It’s far more complicated than that, but that’s the gist of it from my perspective.

Welcome to the Catholic Church Upbeat Dad.

God Bless you on your journey,

 

[Celtic_Catholic]

I am a former Presbyterian (PCUSA), converting to Catholicism at Easter. Having spent the first 40 years of my life as a Protestant, I can tell you what my own understanding was, as distinct from what it is now.

One of the things I learned very early on in this conversion process is that there is a marked difference in what Catholics and Protestants mean when they say “the Church.” With few exceptions, both groups (admittedly, “Protestant” is a very big tent) agree that “the Church” is “the body of Christ.” But, for many Protestants, that body is an invisible body as opposed to the Catholic understanding of a visible body. Another way of putting it is that for many Protestants, the Church is a community of believers who came together after Christ’s death and resurrection to spread the faith. By contrast, the Catholic understanding is that “the Church” is not some add-on of history, but was, rather, prefigured from all time as the means by which God draws a fallen humanity to itself. In other words, Catholics see a much more mystical meaning in the phrase “the body of Christ,” whereas many Protestants understand the phrase in more figurative terms. So…when some Protestants read the above passage, they are inclined to see Peter as the disciple who first “got it,” as it were…the first to “get it” in a long line of believers who would come after, but not necessarily as one who was literally endowed with the kind of authority the pope (who is his successor) has today. It’s far more complicated than that, but that’s the gist of it from my perspective.

Wow. That made a lot of sense. Thank you.

And as the gentleman said above, welcome to our Church. May God bless you every step of the way.

 

[Upbeat_Dad]

I am a former Presbyterian (PCUSA), converting to Catholicism at Easter. Having spent the first 40 years of my life as a Protestant, I can tell you what my own understanding was, as distinct from what it is now.

One of the things I learned very early on in this conversion process is that there is a marked difference in what Catholics and Protestants mean when they say “the Church.” With few exceptions, both groups (admittedly, “Protestant” is a very big tent) agree that “the Church” is “the body of Christ.” But, for many Protestants, that body is an invisible body as opposed to the Catholic understanding of a visible body. Another way of putting it is that for many Protestants, the Church is a community of believers who came together after Christ’s death and resurrection to spread the faith. By contrast, the Catholic understanding is that “the Church” is not some add-on of history, but was, rather, prefigured from all time as the means by which God draws a fallen humanity to itself. In other words, Catholics see a much more mystical meaning in the phrase “the body of Christ,” whereas many Protestants understand the phrase in more figurative terms. So…when some Protestants read the above passage, they are inclined to see Peter as the disciple who first “got it,” as it were…the first to “get it” in a long line of believers who would come after, but not necessarily as one who was literally endowed with the kind of authority the pope (who is his successor) has today. It’s far more complicated than that, but that’s the gist of it from my perspective.