Protestants: What do you think of Matthew 16:18?

[elvisman]

Maybe it’s a small point but in verse 19 we see the promise to give Peter the keys not the actual giving. The promise is in the future tense.

The power to bind and loose was given to all the apostles in Matt 18:18 so I’m not sure I see anything unique to Peter with the power to bind and loose.

I don’t doubt Peter’s primacy and actually am considering conversion but…still have a ways to go.

The other night, I attended my neice’s wedding. I had more than 2 glasses of wine in a 2 hour period. When I walked to the car with my wife, she asked me if I was capable of driving. I told her that I probably shouldn’t drive and said, “I’ll give you the keys so you can drive.”**

**When did I give her the keys? Was it at some later date?? Your argument that Jesus didn’t give Peter the keys - because he didn’t specify a date - is preposterous at best.

The power to bind and loose was given to al the Apostles later on - BUT Peter was singled out first.

Later - at the Last Supper, Jesus tells Peter, "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you (plural) like wheat, ****but I have prayed that your (singular) own faith may not fail; and once you (singular) have turned back, you (singular) must strengthen your brothers" (Luke 22:31). **

Sorry, but your argument sinks like a lead balloon when taken into context with the other Scriptures . . .

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

That’s the problem, your interpretation conflicts with 2000 years of Christianity, and no other Christian from antiquity supports your “new” interpetation to this text.,

One cannot go off and pretend “That Peter is never shown or described as receiving the keys from Jesus”.

Let us not add or subtract from the Word of God, but give examples pertaining to your interpretation relating to the text is very helpful to remain on topic, thank you in advance.

Let us deal with Truth head on Jesus tells Peter singularly "You are Peter" (= Kephas = Rock,) "AND upon this "Rock" (= kephas = Peter)
I will build my Church.**I will give you **the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 **Whatever you **bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Jesus promised Peter and the apostles the Holy spirit, to be with Peter and his Church always and never leave her, Jesus promised to confer a kingdom on the apostles, and prayed for Peter to confirm his brethren. This Jesus did and all came to pass including building his Church upon “kephas” = Peter = “Rock”.

These fulfilled promises from Jesus to Peter and his Catholic church is made a reality, because God does not lie, nor can God lie, and His Word never returns to Him void. So Jesus promises confirms the Catholic Faith.

peace be with you

I forgot to ask.

Let’s say, for the sake of our disucssion, that I am correct. That Peter is never shown or described as receiving the keys from Jesus…that we only have the promise of the keys. How does that affect any Catholic belief/dogma?

 

[elvisman]

I’m curious, if you don’t believe Peter is the Rock, then who or what does Jesus give the key of heaven in versus 19? The confession can not bind or loose.

“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.”

**The Protestant argument that Peter’s confession was the Rock is destroyed be Jesus own works after Peter’s statement in verse 16.
In Matt. 17, Jesus says:
"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father."

**God (the Father) revealed a TRUTH to Peter - NOT a confession. THAT’s why Jesus says in the next verse, "And so I say to you, you are Kepha (Peter), and upon this Kepha (rock) I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

Many Protestant Theologians now admit that Peter was the ROCK based on the fact that Matthew was translated into Greek from Aramaic. In Aramaic - there is no differentiation between Kepha (large mass of rock) and Kepha (large mass of rock).

The Greek translation for Kepha is Petra. However, since Peter was a man - and not a woman - Petra would not have been used to describe him because it is a feminine noun. This type of linguistic use is lost on English-speaking Americans.

**In French translations, It says, "And so I say to you, you are *Pierre *(Peter), and upon this Pierre (rock) I will build my church. In Spanish, it’s piedra.

 

[guanophore]

Respectfully…

I don’t argue with Catholics about why I believe Peter was not only not the first Pope, but that he was given any apostolic authority over anyone. He was not infallible as scripture points out clearly and with no guessing needed.

I hope you will at least be willing to engage in debate. Do you think there is a difference between arguement and debate?

Who do you think was the first Pope?

What do you think “apostolic authority” means?

Do you think Peter had any authority?

Do you think any of the Apostles had any authority?

What do you think “infallible” means, when it is applied to human beings?

I simply answered the question posed in this thread.

Much appreciated.

I think the bottom line, is that for every objection you have to Protestant reasoning, we have objections to Catholic reasoning. My experience tells me that I won’t change my mind and you won’t change yours.

So, what brings you here to CAF?

Sadly the only thing that is accomplished are angry feelings, and more often than not, sarcasm and condescension usually results.

Perhaps this is the answer to my question above. These are the fruits of argument, where the fruit of debate is increased understanding and tolerance.

Do you think you might be willing to have some of the misinformation you have about Catholicism corrected?

 

[dje101]

My two cents:

I had always been taught that “upon this rock” was the faith that Peter exhibited by declaring Jesus as the Son of God. “This Rock” also meant Jesus, who is the cornerstone.

However, in my study of the Catholic Church, one question popped up in my mind that only the Catholic Church seems to be able to answer:

If Jesus meant that FAITH was the rock that the church would be built on, then what was the point in him changing Simon’s name to PETER? Jesus didn’t just do random things, and throughout the whole bible, just about everyone’s name that had been changed was for a PURPOSE. So, what was the purpose?

Food for thought…for me at least.

 

[guanophore]

My two cents:

I had always been taught that “upon this rock” was the faith that Peter exhibited by declaring Jesus as the Son of God. “This Rock” also meant Jesus, who is the cornerstone.

However, in my study of the Catholic Church, one question popped up in my mind that only the Catholic Church seems to be able to answer:

If Jesus meant that FAITH was the rock that the church would be built on, then what was the point in him changing Simon’s name to PETER? Jesus didn’t just do random things, and throughout the whole bible, just about everyone’s name that had been changed was for a PURPOSE. So, what was the purpose?

Food for thought…for me at least.

This is a very important point. There are only a handful of times in Scripture when God changes someone’s name, and it has life changing impact on their calling and mission.

Peter’s statement is, of course, a rocky statement. Jesus, as THE Rock, grafted Peter into Himself, making Peter a foundation stone of His church. It is improper to separate Peter from his faith, or from Jesus, from Whom Peter gains rockness.

 

[pablope]

My two cents:

I had always been taught that “upon this rock” was the faith that Peter exhibited by declaring Jesus as the Son of God. “This Rock” also meant Jesus, who is the cornerstone.

However, in my study of the Catholic Church, one question popped up in my mind that only the Catholic Church seems to be able to answer:

If Jesus meant that FAITH was the rock that the church would be built on, then what was the point in him changing Simon’s name to PETER? Jesus didn’t just do random things, and throughout the whole bible, just about everyone’s name that had been changed was for a PURPOSE. So, what was the purpose?

Food for thought…for me at least.

In Jewish society then (maybe today too?), a person’s name meant his essence, it described a person, so a person’s name was important.

You are correct, when a name is changed in the Bible, it implies a change in status, a change in authority.

There are several name changes but the most significant come to mind:

When God changed Abram to Abraham-His command to Abraham was to be the Father of nations.

When God changed Jacob’s name to Israel-His command to Israel was to be the Father of the nation of Israel.

When God/Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter/Kepha/Rock-His command to Peter-build His church.

 

[SemperReformada]

:tsktsk: The error of many Protestants is the belief and idea the Bible must explicitly state everything. Show me where the Bible teaches absolute-explicitly? Does the Bible explicitly explain the three **distinct persons ** of the Trinity?

a.) I am not many anything, I am me so if you want to discuss something with me limit yourself to what I have said or don’t bother discussing anything with me.

b.) As you know there are different senses of scripture. from the literal to the allegorical and I have no idea why you bring this up. Matthew 16:19 contains the promise to Peter, not the actual giving of the keys. Why this bothers you is beyond me espcially when in another post you admit that it makes no difference when Peter receives the keys.

 

[SemperReformada]

The other night, I attended my neice’s wedding. I had more than 2 glasses of wine in a 2 hour period. When I walked to the car with my wife, she asked me if I was capable of driving. I told her that I probably* shouldn’t* drive and said, “I’ll give you the keys so you can drive.”

When did I give her the keys? Was it at some *later *date?? Your argument that Jesus didn’t give Peter the keys - because he didn’t specify a date - is preposterous at best.

The power to bind and loose was given to al the Apostles later on - BUT Peter was singled out first.

Later - at the Last Supper, Jesus tells Peter, "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you (plural**) like wheat, but I have prayed that your (singular) own faith may not fail; and once you (singular) have turned back, you (singular) must strengthen your brothers" (Luke 22:31).

Sorry, but your argument sinks like a lead balloon when taken into context with the other Scriptures . . .

Hello elvis,

What argument have I made? I simply pointed out that the text of Matthew 16:19 only contains the promise to Peter, that’s it. If I am wrong please provide the text where Peter receives the keys.

Note that I haven’t said that Peter never received the keys I only said that the scriptures have the promise but not the fullfilment.

Now, why do you force something in to Matt 16:19 that isn’t there? Does it matter if Peter receives the keys at that point or at some later point?

 

[SemperReformada]

One cannot go off and pretend “That Peter is never shown or described as receiving the keys from Jesus”.

I’m not pretending. There is no verse that shows Peter actually receiving the keys is there? If there is provide it.

Let us not add or subtract from the Word of God, but give examples pertaining to your interpretation relating to the text is very helpful to remain on topic, thank you in advance.

Uhhh…I think it’s you that has added something in to the text that isn’t there.

Let us deal with Truth head on Jesus tells Peter singularly "You are Peter" (= Kephas = Rock,) "AND upon this "Rock" (= kephas = Peter)
I will build my Church.**I will give you **the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 **Whatever you **bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Jesus promised Peter and the apostles the Holy spirit, to be with Peter and his Church always and never leave her, Jesus promised to confer a kingdom on the apostles, and prayed for Peter to confirm his brethren. This Jesus did and all came to pass including building his Church upon “kephas” = Peter = “Rock”.

These fulfilled promises from Jesus to Peter and his Catholic church is made a reality, because God does not lie, nor can God lie, and His Word never returns to Him void. So Jesus promises confirms the Catholic Faith.

peace be with you

The last part, important though it is, has nothing to do with my original point.

 

[elvisman]

Hello elvis,

What argument have I made? I simply pointed out that the text of Matthew 16:19 only contains the promise to Peter, that’s it. If I am wrong please provide the text where Peter receives the keys.

Note that I haven’t said that Peter never received the keys I only said that the scriptures have the promise but not the fullfilment.

Now, why do you force something in to Matt 16:19 that isn’t there? Does it matter if Peter receives the keys at that point or at some later point?

Semper - do you actually believe that Jesus gave Peter a set of physical keys?

I already showed you a comparison of my giving the car keys to my wife - and I said almost exactly the same thing Jesus said to Peter. Who’s forcing something into Matt. 16:19 that isn’t there?

You say that you believe he DID give Peter the kes at some later, random point. Do you think it was before he gave powers to bind and loose to the rest of the Apostles 2 chapters later in Matt. 18:18 - or after?
As a Sola Scripturist - you should actually reject the fact that Jesus gave Peter the keys at all because it never talks about him actually doing it - right?

By the way - since Judas also received these powers in Matt. 18:18 - when were his taken away? Does it state that explicitly in Scripture?

**You need to sit down and read the Scriptures in CONTEXT, my friend. As Guanophore already pointed out - there are only a FEW times in all of Scripture where God calls a person by a different name - and it is always HIGHLY significant: **
Abram/Abraham
Jacob/Israel
Mary/Kecharitomene (which is a debate for another thread, I’m sure…)
Simon/Kepha

**What you’re claiming is tantamount to somebody being appointed CEO but it’s *not *official because the engraver is still making the nameplate for his office door. **
It’s silly.

 

[SemperReformada]

Semper - do you actually believe that Jesus gave Peter a set of physical keys?

No, I don’t believe the keys are physical. Why do you ask?

I already showed you a comparison of my giving the car keys to my wife - and I said almost exactly the same thing Jesus said to Peter. Who’s forcing something into Matt. 16:19 that isn’t there?

If you stick with the data we have, Matt 16:19, we only have the promise recorded in scripture, not the fulfillment of the promise. I’m not saying that Peter never received the keys only that the data, the scripture in this case, does not record the event and certainly verse 19 only records the promise.

You say that you believe he DID give Peter the kes at some later, random point. Do you think it was before he gave powers to bind and loose to the rest of the Apostles 2 chapters later in Matt. 18:18 - or after?
As a Sola Scripturist - you should actually reject the fact that Jesus gave Peter the keys at all because it never talks about him actually doing it - right?

You only show your ignorance of sola scriptura but that is a tangential point.

I don’t know precisely when Peter would have received the keys. From the Catholic perspective why would it matter when Peter received the keys?

By the way - since Judas also received these powers in Matt. 18:18 - when were his taken away? Does it state that explicitly in Scripture?

No it doesn’t but so what? We aren’t talking about Judas and I have never said that everything must be stated explicitly in scripture.

You need to sit down and read the Scriptures in CONTEXT, my friend. As Guanophore already pointed out - there are only a FEW times in all of Scripture where God calls a person by a different name - and it is always HIGHLY significant:
Abram/Abraham
Jacob/Israel
Mary/Kecharitomene (which is a debate for another thread, I’m sure…)
Simon/Kepha

**What you’re claiming is tantamount to somebody being appointed CEO but it’s *not ***official because the engraver is still making the nameplate for his office door.
It’s silly.

All that is great but it has nothing to do with the fact that scripture does not actually record the event, Peter receiving the keys and certainly Matt 16:19 is not a record of Peter receiving the keys.

Even if the Catholic claims to the Peterine doctines are true we are still left with the fact that Peter is never shown having actually received the keys. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t receive them, only that scripture does not record the event.

Why is this so troublesome?

 

[Sufjon]

It is not the teaching of the Catholic church, it is the deposit of faith handed down to her from both what is written and what was handed down to her from the Apostles sacred Traditions. The Catholic church never invents or interprets scripture as you “see” or anyone else, only what was handed down to her.

The Catholic Church will agree with all that is presented in the following, Jesus built his Church upon Peter here, along with his profession of faith, including pertaining to the “Truths Peter has just spoken.”

The way you see it does not conflict with scripture nor sacred Tradition, because the “Truths Peter has just spoken” does not conflict with any of the above.

The Catholic Church since the resurrection, has grown these past 2000 years and she has many members (branches) operating in many different apostolates (miniistries) world wide as One body, believing in One Lord, in One baptism. So your reasoning does not contradict Catholic teaching, because your opinion did not specify as to who might be your many branches?

.

We are not specifically dealing with the later verses here, which you bring up that deals with whole other topic that deals with powers and principalities. I don’t see your reasoning for trying to fit a circle into a square here. The two subjects do not relate to one another in the context we are visiting them here.

Although if you like we can deal with it within its original context, but as Jesus addressing the evil power and principality which is trying, but not yet infected Peter’s will against the will of God, does not deal with our subject.

When one reads the Gospel of Matthew, it is a fact that Matthew is addressing his Jewish Christian audiences. So to interpret this Matthew 16:14-18 to get the correct interpretation from the aramaic language, with a Jewish understanding having a Hebrew faith.

To interpret this english translation and pretend to add contents of past or future tense, then to interpret the english translation without ever visiting the original audience interpretation leads to many interpretations from protestantism and individuals who don’t hold to the Judeo Christian revealed Gospel of Jesus Christ. Here is why;

God does not change, man does. God has always maintained a Patriarch to oversee his flock in Abraham, Moses, King David etc. Jesus = God incarnate applies this act of God to Peter as well in the New Covenant. For example;

Isaiah 22:15-25 where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David,” which he authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (Isaiah 22:22). Whatever you bind . . . loosed in heaven: there are many instances in rabbinic literature of the binding-loosing imagery. Of the several meanings given there to the metaphor, two are of special importance here: the giving of authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of excommunication. It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. In Matthew 18:18 all the disciples are given the power of binding and loosing, but the context of that verse suggests that there the power of excommunication alone is intended. That the keys are those to the kingdom of heaven and that Peter’s exercise of authority in the church on earth will be confirmed in heaven show an intimate connection between, but not an identification of, the church and the kingdom of heaven. NAB commentary

In short, reading this text as a first century Judeo Christian faith with a Hebrew/Amaraic understanding, you will find that God is the same yesterday, today and forever more, when Jesus gives the Keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter.

Any other interpretation is new and comes from man, unless you can evidence that Jesus is not doing what Matthew records in his gospel, from another source?

Peace be with you

Your friend,
Sufjon

Hi again Gabriel:

This is a rather long response, and of course you know from being on this forum that I cannot reply to each point because I will run our of room. Because f that, I will try to simplify back to my point. My observations were very simple. The OP asked what protestants thought of Matthew 16:18, which of course is the verse where Christ tells Peter about the rock on which He will build His Church. I am not new to CAF, so I am pretty sure that I know where the OP was going with that question. I simply stated that you could read it to mean that Peter was the Rock or you could read to to mean that what Peter said was the rock. Pretty simple. My reasoning for mentioning verse 23, which is only five verses after verse 18 of the same chapter is that if we are going to assume that the dialog in these are about the significance of Peter rather than what Peter said, then perhaps we should consider what else He had to say about Peter. If we take the meaning that Peter himself was the rock, then should we not look with some puzzlement on verse where He tells Peter to “get behind me Satan” ? If we want to build a lot of conclusions on one verse, then why do we ignore the other verse in the same chapter? I guess I always find that sort of thing puzzling, but I am an outsider looking in.

In regards to the branches of one tree, I was speaking about the broader context of all Christian sects being branches of one tree. One may have been the trunk, others may be branches, but together they are one tree.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Nicea325]

You only show your ignorance of sola scriptura but that is a tangential point.

No offense,but SS differs among Protestant,Fundamentalist,Evangelicals-are they ignorant too? Sola Scriptura is a bust and history speaks volumes against it!

No it doesn’t but so what? We aren’t talking about Judas and I have never said that everything must be stated explicitly in scripture.

Then why mention Peter NOT receiving the keys? Does scripture always give the exact whereabouts of every single Apostle?

All that is great but it has nothing to do with the fact that scripture does not actually record the event, Peter receiving the keys and certainly Matt 16:19 is not a record of Peter receiving the keys.

Problem I encounter with Protestants is that they slice and dice scripture and never place all of it in its proper context. Read Isaiah 22 and its connection with Peter and the keys.

Even if the Catholic claims to the Peterine doctines are true we are still left with the fact that Peter is never shown having actually received the keys. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t receive them, only that scripture does not record the event.

IF…the Catholic claims…" Care to show us from early church history where the ECF’s expressed your belief or taught another tardition?

Why is this so troublesome?

It is not for us because it is you who mentioned it. Why is it troublesome for you?

 

[Nicea325]

a.) I am not many anything, I am me so if you want to discuss something with me limit yourself to what I have said or don’t bother discussing anything with me.

Sorry,but it was not said to offend you.

b.) As you know there are different senses of scripture. from the literal to the allegorical and I have no idea why you bring this up. Matthew 16:19 contains the promise to Peter, not the actual giving of the keys. Why this bothers you is beyond me espcially when in another post you admit that it makes no difference when Peter receives the keys.

Now you are assuming. It does not bother me one bit because I agree with the early church and its tradition. On the contrary,I think it bothers you,not I.

 

[elvisman]

No, I don’t believe the keys are physical. Why do you ask?

If you stick with the data we have, Matt 16:19, we only have the promise recorded in scripture, not the fulfillment of the promise. I’m not saying that Peter never received the keys only that the data, the scripture in this case, does not record the event and certainly verse 19 only records the promise.

You only show your ignorance of sola scriptura but that is a tangential point.

I don’t know precisely when Peter would have received the keys. From the Catholic perspective why would it matter when Peter received the keys?

No it doesn’t but so what? We aren’t talking about Judas and I have never said that everything must be stated explicitly in scripture.

All that is great but it has nothing to do with the fact that scripture does not actually record the event, Peter receiving the keys and certainly Matt 16:19 is not a record of Peter receiving the keys.

Even if the Catholic claims to the Peterine doctines are true we are still left with the fact that Peter is never shown having actually received the keys. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t receive them, only that scripture does not record the event.

Why is this so troublesome?

**I’ll tell you why it’s so troublesome. It’s troublesome whenever somebody completely disregards the sacred Church Traditions that go hand in hand with Scriptures (2 Thess. 2:15). The keys being given to Peter are not only recorded in Scripture but are attested to by the Early Church. **

**It’s troublesome when the writings of Fathers like Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose of Milan and Augustine are totally disregarded by Protestants because they, in the 21st century believe that they understand better than those who lived so much closer in time to the Apostles.

Finally - it’s troublesome because what you are doing is precisely what Peter himself warned against by twisting the scriptures which the ignorant and unstable do to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

 

[elvisman]

You only show your ignorance of sola scriptura but that is a tangential point.

**Absolutely not. **

There are so many different flavors of Sola Scriptura out there - just as there are so many different flavors of Protestantism. I personally know 5 different Protestant people who have 5 different views about Sola Scriptura. After all - they don’t have to see eye to eye with you on essentials. Since they’re Protestant - it’s t*heir perogative to cherry pick what they want to believe.*

Isn’t the slogan of Evangelicals, "Reformed and always reforming" (Semper Reformada)?
It should be “Splintered and always splintering” . . .

 

[Nicea325]

Absolutely not.

There are so many different flavors** of Sola Scriptura out there - just as there are so many different flavors of Protestantism. I personally know 5 different Protestant people who have 5 different views about Sola Scriptura. After all - they don’t have to see eye to eye with you on essentials. Since they’re Protestant - it’s t*heir *perogative to cherry pick what they want to believe.

**Isn’t the slogan of Evangelicals, “Reformed and *always *reforming" (Semper Reformada)?
It should be "Splintered and always splintering” . . .

elvisman,

It is beyond me how so many non-Catholics are obliviously blind to Sola Scriptura and its dangers,end results and its failure throughout history?

 

[elvisman]

elvisman,

It is beyond me how so many non-Catholics are obliviously blind to Sola Scriptura and its dangers,end results and its failure throughout history?

It’s like everything else within the parameters of Protestantism:**
Anything goes because there is no authority.

 

[confusedius]

It’s like everything** else within the parameters of Protestantism:
Anything goes because there is no authority.

Very colorful but, sorry, I just can’t feel the love.

You establish a “Non-Catholic Religions” section, lure us with a thread entitled “Protestants: What do you think…” and then proceed to slice and dice our beliefs. Oddly, on another thread you wonder if others don’t like you! Poor form, really poor.

james