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

[Nicea325]

Hello again Elvisman: It’s has been a long time. I am not familiar with which bible a Catholic uses vs which bible a Protestant uses. I have been told that the New American Bible is acceptable. That bible records the exchange as follows:

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.

It seems to me that this can be read to say what others are on this post who are Protestants are interpreting it to say, in others words, the truth that Peter had spoken was the rock on which He would build His church. If we wanted to establish without a doubt that He meant that Peter himself was the rock, would He not have said “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon you I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” Without this sort of wording, it might be fair to say that it can be read to have either meaning. You have chosen one meaning to hold, and others have chosen another.

Your friend,
Sufjon

There is a problem with the above. The “you” is referring to Peter. Why would Jesus specificall yhave to say: you? Problem with many Protestants is the simple acknowledgment Jesus spoke Aramaic,not English nor was he living in the Western Hemisphere. Likewise, is the lack of knowledge of the culture and society of ancient Israel and its monarchial view of government to understand the bigger picture. Furthermore, to understand the specific passage in all its glory, one must first have a grasp of the OT and Jewish world. What do the scriptures and history have to say about the “keys of the kingdom” and especially, about the steward who carries them?

 

[SemperReformada]

Oh I see…so a lot is future tense with Jesus,so we really have no clue-right?

I have no idea why you are having such a problem with my posts. I never said you didn’t have a clue and a cursory reading of the NT would reveal that Jesus spoke in past, present and future tense so…what’s the problem?

Going all the way back to my original comment on Matthew 16:19 I said that the text only contains the promise to Peter, not the fullfilment of the promise.

Therefore I see no reason to force the fullfilment of the promise into verse 19. It would make sense to me that Peter would have finally received the keys at the Ascension.

 

[Nicea325]

I have no idea why you are having such a problem with my posts. I never said you didn’t have a clue and a cursory reading of the NT would reveal that Jesus spoke in past, present and future tense so…what’s the problem?

Going all the way back to my original comment on Matthew 16:19 I said that the text only contains the promise to Peter, not the fullfilment of the promise.

Therefore I see no reason to force the fullfilment of the promise into verse 19. It would make sense to me that Peter would have finally received the keys at the Ascension.

Semper, no offense,but I have no problem…none at all. My observation is perhaps your failure and lack of knowledge of the culture and society of ancient Israel and its monarchial view of government to understand the bigger picture? Furthermore, to understand the specific passage in all its glory, one must first have a grasp of the OT and Jewish world. Do you Semper?

Most Protestants I encounter really do not have a good understanding of the Jewish culture,thus why they have a hard time understanding the bigger picture. And why? Because they isolate specific passages minus the entirety of the Bible. That is not how the Bible is read or studied,precisely why Protestanism is so splintered and divded due to differences on interpretations. Case in point, I once heard a tv evangelist claim EVERYONE received the keys to the kingdom? Precisely why I am not a Protestant.

What do the scriptures and history have to say about the “keys of the kingdom” and especially, about the steward who carries them?

Now,what exactly is your point? Are you claiming Peter has yet to receive them? If he has not received them,tell me when he is supposed to receive them?

 

[SemperReformada]

James White positions are easily detectable: To debunk the Catholic Church and many of its teaching,Peter receiving the keys being one. You cannot isolate a specific passage to prove a point,case in point Matt 16:18. Now many Protestants claim the RCC does the same with the same verse? Not true,it is used in harmony with the entire scriptures (OT & NT).

You still aren’t grasping anything I have posted. If you go back and read my post with the dialogue between Mark and Jaaremes you will see I highlighted James question as to when Peter received the keys and also highlighted Mark’s response that Peter received the keys at the Ascension. Mark is saying the same exact thing I have said but you somehow miss that and start on how JW’s positions are this that and the other. My post had nothing to do with JW’s argument but his question and Mark’s answer.

The problem with people like James White and no offense,you too due to the fact you questioned Isaiah 22. is the lack of knowledge of the culture and society of ancient Israel and its monarchial view of government to understand the bigger picture. Furthermore, to understand the specific passage in all its glory, one must first have a grasp of the OT and Jewish world. What do the scriptures and history have to say about the “keys of the kingdom” and especially, about the steward who carries them?

I didn’t question Is 22 and am quite familiar with it. What I questioned is how Is 22 can be used to p(name removed by moderator)oint the time when Peter received the keys.

Finally,the fact the word “will” is future tense is used a smoking gun by Protestants to debunk the Catholic position. Well the same argument can used against Protestants,because I can give another passage where future tense is used. Case in point,

2 Samuel 7:12-13:

12 And when your time comes and you rest with your ancestors, **I will **raise up your heir after you, sprung from your loins, and **I will **make his kingdom firm.
13 It is he who shall build a house for my name. And **I will **make his royal throne firm forever.

Every post of yours shows me you aren’t reading what I am posting. I haven’t even attempted to debunk the Catholic position, not once. I simply stated the obvious, Matt 16:10 only contains the promise, not the fullfilment of the promise

Maybe you should write Mark Bonocore at The Catholic Legate an e-mail and let him know that he is mis-representing your church 'cuz he seems to think Peter received the keys at the Ascension and not in Matt 16:19.

 

[SemperReformada]

Why is it that you can’t - or won’t address the Fathers who attest to Peter having given the keys in Matt. 16?

The problem with many Protestant arguments against Church Authority is that you will completely disregard the Fathers when their position is blindingly Catholic.

What do you think of Mark’s statement that Peter received the keys at the Ascension which logically means that Peter didn’t receive the keys in Matt 16:19?

I will have to go back and see if anyone posted something from the ECF’s as to the precise point when Peter received the keys…we will see what happens.

 

[SemperReformada]

**Is there some reason why you are trying to make the case that he *didn’t ***receive the Keys at Caesarea Philippi? Or are you simply trying to cast doubt about his receiving the keys at all?

---

In short - what’s your point?

My point is that the text at hand does not describe Peter receiving the keys in Matt 16:19 and there is no reason to force such an understanding on the verse. Whether Peter received the keys at verse 19 or at the Ascension it does no violence to Catholic position so I am not sure why some Catholics force such an understanding into verse 19.

 

[Juliebug108]

I think there are some threads on this one.

Protestants interpret this verse in context of the few that come before it, namely verse 16. I’ll bold the parts.

15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

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

17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock (meaning, verse 16) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The “rock” is interpreted as being the “rock of faith”, or the belief that Jesus is the Christ, and that is the rock his church will be built on.

The fact that “Peter” and “Rock” can have the same meaning adds a different dimension that Catholics use to interpret the verse. We’d say “You are Peter and upon this Peter (you, Peter!) I will build my church.”

Hello! This is exactly how I interpret the scripture. Rather than placing emphasis on Peter, I see the emphasis as being on the “rock of faith” that Jesus is the Christ. However, I can also easily see and understand how Catholics interpret the text as well. I do find Matthew 23 to be very important area of scripture as well…particularly Matthew 23:10 “10 do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.”

Peace and Blessings!
Julie

 

[Nicea325]

You still aren’t grasping anything I have posted. If you go back and read my post with the dialogue between Mark and Jaaremes you will see I highlighted James question as to when Peter received the keys and also highlighted Mark’s response that Peter received the keys at the Ascension. Mark is saying the same exact thing I have said but you somehow miss that and start on how JW’s positions are this that and the other. My post had nothing to do with JW’s argument but his question and Mark’s answer.

I didn’t question Is 22 and am quite familiar with it. What I questioned is how Is 22 can be used to p(name removed by moderator)oint the time when Peter received the keys.

Every post of yours shows me you aren’t reading what I am posting. I haven’t even attempted to debunk the Catholic position, not once. I simply stated the obvious, Matt 16:10 only contains the promise, not the fullfilment of the promise

Maybe you should write Mark Bonocore at The Catholic Legate an e-mail and let him know that he is mis-representing your church 'cuz he seems to think Peter received the keys at the Ascension and not in Matt 16:19.

Here we go…circles and circles. Likewise,and I too accuse you of the same Semper. Furthermore, along with others who have said enough and you either ignore it or glance at it. So to eliminate the sillness of thinking I am not reading your information, I’ll say it again:

To understand the specific passage in all its glory, one must first have a grasp of the OT and Jewish world. Do you Semper? Honestly?

What do the scriptures and history have to say about the “keys of the kingdom” and especially, about the steward who carries them?

Nobody is forcing nothing into the text,I believe it is you who has a poor understanding of the keys and the steward who carries them,plain and simple.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Christ said He would give the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter and He did. As to exercising the authority that came with those keys, it would have most certainly been in the absence of the king. So I have to ask, why is it important to argue the exact timing of receiving the keys?

 

[Nicea325]

My point is that the text at hand does not describe Peter receiving the keys in Matt 16:19 and there is no reason to force such an understanding on the verse. Whether Peter received the keys at verse 19 or at the Ascension it does no violence to Catholic position so I am not sure why some Catholics force such an understanding into verse 19.

Okay then…so what is the big deal? What is your point? That Semper who lives 2,000 years after Christ is RIGHT and that everyone before Semper got it all wrong?

 

[Nicea325]

Christ said He would give the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter and He did. As to exercising the authority that came with those keys, it would have most certainly been in the absence of the king. So I have to ask, why is it important to argue the exact timing of receiving the keys?

Exactly! In the absence of the king,apparently many Protestants overlook those key points in the OT. Because that is one of the dangers of the Bible-Alone belief. The Bible has to give every detail or else it is false. Geeee…if that is the case,when and where did Jesus say own and read a Bible?

 

[SemperReformada]

I do not think so! I have read enough and it is you who has not read what others have posted. Furthermore, if I recall you stated that not everything has to be explcitly stated in scripture,then why are so asking for the specific verse when Peter received the keys? So in essence,you do hold to the belief the Bible has to explicitly say everything. Apparently did not read what elvisman posted:

Do me a favor, go back and read each post of mine and then let me know what you think. I don’t hold that scripture must be explicit and you are, again, reading something in my posts that isn’t there when you say that “in essence you do hold to the belief that the Bible has to explicityly say everything”.

I

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

No…already answered.

I
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?

The context is totally different. I am sure it is unintentional but using the same words but changing the context is dishonest. In Matt 16:19 there is only a promise of Jesus will give Peter the keys. There is nothing in the text, or surrounding text, that suggests the giving of the keys is about to take place immediately. In elvis’ example the context he chose forces one to assume that giving of the keys must have taken place either immediately or very soon thereafter due to the way he framed his wording. I can’t help it if you guys aren’t clever enough to come up with a relevant example.

I

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?

I don’t know but would think the most likely scenario is that the transfer of power occured at the Ascension.

I
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?

This is another caricature of sola scriptura and is not helpful at all to our discusison.

I
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?

Red herring.

I
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

None of this establishes when the transfer of power took place.

I
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.

---

No and you are being sillier.

One may be announced as the next CEO of a company or the enxt President of the United States or the holder of whatever office before actually taking possesion of the offce. The example used fails yet again.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hello! This is exactly how I interpret the scripture. Rather than placing emphasis on Peter, I see the emphasis as being on the “rock of faith” that Jesus is the Christ. However, I can also easily see and understand how Catholics interpret the text as well. I do find Matthew 23 to be very important area of scripture as well…particularly Matthew 23:10 “10 do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.”

Peace and Blessings!
Julie

Julie,

This is the same chapter where Christ told the people. ’ All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do.’ ‘They’ being those that sat upon the chair of Moses.

Why would it have been different for the chair established in the Church He built?

Christ is the one who ‘called’ Peter to be a leader. Christ is the one who told Peter, three times, to feed His sheep/lambs. Christ also said there would be one shepherd and one fold. It was Christ’s statements that gave authority to Peter, it was not something Peter gave to himself.

The position of keeper of the keys which, as I said in a previous post, was an authority only to be exercised in the absence of the king.

 

[SemperReformada]

Okay then…so what is the big deal? What is your point? That Semper who lives 2,000 years after Christ is RIGHT and that everyone before Semper got it all wrong?

What the heck are you talking about? Who is everyone that holds that the transfer of power between Jesus and Peter took place in Matt 16:19?

I no longer have Steve Ray’s book, Upon this Rock, but I am pretty sure he too holds that the transfer of power took place (keys to Peter) at the Ascension. I provide the text that Mark Bonocore shares my opinion that the txfr took place later than Matt 16:19.

My point is that the text of Matt 16:19 does not support the transfer of power to Peter at that time. Perhaps it did occur then but it makes more sense that it occured at the Ascension.

 

[SemperReformada]

Christ said He would give the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter and He did. As to exercising the authority that came with those keys, it would have most certainly been in the absence of the king. So I have to ask, why is it important to argue the exact timing of receiving the keys?

Ask the other posters. I simply made my first post stating that Matt 16:19 doesn’t describe the giving of the authority in reply to another poster and then got jumped on.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What the heck are you talking about? Who is everyone that holds that the transfer of power between Jesus and Peter took place in Matt 16:19?

I no longer have Steve Ray’s book, Upon this Rock, but I am pretty sure he too holds that the transfer of power took place (keys to Peter) at the Ascension. I provide the text that Mark Bonocore shares my opinion that the txfr took place later than Matt 16:19.

My point is that the text of Matt 16:19 does not support the transfer of power to Peter at that time. Perhaps it did occur then but it makes more sense that it occured at the Ascension.

Why is this an important point to argue? I believe we all agree the authority that came with those keys was only exercised in the absence of the king, which would have been after the ascension.

 

[SemperReformada]

Exactly! In the absence of the king,apparently many Protestants overlook those key points in the OT. Because that is one of the dangers of the Bible-Alone belief. The Bible has to give every detail or else it is false. Geeee…if that is the case,when and where did Jesus say own and read a Bible?

If it doesn’t matter when Peter received the keys why does me stating the obvious, that Matt 16:19 does not desribe the giving of the keys, generate so much interest?

 

[SemperReformada]

Why is this an important point to argue? I believe we all agree the authority that came with those keys was only exercised in the absence of the king, which would have been after the ascension.

I don’t know. I made a statement and apparently stirred up a hornest nest.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Ask the other posters. I simply made my first post stating that Matt 16:19 doesn’t describe the giving of the authority in reply to another poster and then got jumped on.

I cannot speak specifically for others, but it might have just been an misunderstanding and responses being posted in light of the zeal for the discussion. I think we’ve come together on the fact that Peter did receive an authority from Christ. I think we all believe Christ was as good as His word, much more than anyone else on earth. I can’t think of one instance where Christ retracted anything He spoke/promised? To me it was as good as done once He said He would do it.

 

[Nicea325]

If it doesn’t matter when Peter received the keys why does me stating the obvious, that Matt 16:19 does not desribe the giving of the keys, generate so much interest?

Yes you are right about the future-tense,no arguments from me. So my apologies for going in cirlcles or being rude,hope you accept my apologies-present tense…

I took this excerpts from Steven K. Ray Upon this Rock. Here what it states about the future tense.

In the Greek it is stated in the future tense,SINGULAR. But why the future tense? While still on earth,Jesus was establishing the kingdom of God, and through his death and resurrection he was given all authority in heaven and on earth (MT 28:18)

However, in the Eastern kingdoms,the sovereign king of the realm would delegate the authority and administration of his kingdom to a steward,who managed the kingdom-virtually ruling for the king-ESPECIALLY IN HIS ABSENCE. This promise is directed to Peter alone…not the other 11 Apostles. Jesus had chosen Peter to be the steward of his kingdom-“over the house”, the head vizier, the majordomo. Once the the work of redemption had been completed and all authority had been given to Jesus,he **PASSED the keys of authority **to Peter to administer the kingdom as a VISIBLE steward in Jesus absence.Likewsise Jesus anounced to the 12 in advance he would be leaving them (See John 13:33,36; 14:1; Acts 1:9-11.).

Jesus visible and physical presence would be removed;however,his kingdom would remain and flourish. Meaning what? He left a living STEWARD in charge (Peter) and Jesus promised to the send Holy Spirit.

Does that answer your question of WHEN Peter received the KEYS?