Question about Matthew 16 and Peter

[D_Martin]

If you limit your understanding of the “Kingdom of Heaven” to what is within us, could you explain how Peter’s power of the keys - power to bind and loose - rules (binds and looses) what is “within you”.
What authority does Peter have within you that the other apostles do not?

Of course. The foundation of our** faith **is Jesus Christ; Jesus is God, He made reparation for our sin, He redeemed us; … Peter did not do any of this. But Jesus did appoint Peter to be head of His Church – “my Church”. Jesus did not establish an invisible Church, He established a visible one.
Jesus is the cornerstone that supports the foundation.

Yes, to build and be in charge of Jesus’ Church based/founded on faith in Him, Jesus – who He is, what He taught, to see that the directives of Jesus are carried out, etc.

Praise God, it is more than Peter’s example or we could be in trouble!!! Eg. Mt. 16:22- ; Mt 26:69-; Gal 2:11-. (The apostle John might perhaps have been a better “example” to follow.)

I think it has more to do with:
one who is supposed to speak as head of Jesus’ Church, which will be there till the end of the ages;
one who, when necessity arises, is to answer critical questions in regard to the faith;
one through whom **God will reveal His truth - the one to whom has been given the power of the keys…
16:17-19 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father **who is in heaven. 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

If you want to see your faith, and the church as two different entities and two different origins, then I can’t help you with that. The Church that is the Lord’s is the manifestation of that Faith in Him. How you get two different origins from that simple truth, is beyond me.

Thanks for the replies.

 

[Nita]

If you want to see your faith, and the church as two different entities and two different origins, then I can’t help you with that. The Church that is the Lord’s is the manifestation of that Faith in Him. How you get two different origins from that simple truth, is beyond me.

Thanks for the replies.

You’re welcome. Our Lord be with you always.

 

[JamesCaruso]

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.

There are many ways to interpret this verse. Protestants of course would lean toward some other meaning than Peter being the first among a long line of Church heads or popes. I see it as both a reference to the strong and solid nature of Peter as the first leader of the disciples of Christ, and also as the beginning of something that will extend beyond Peter (the church and Peter’s successors) unless you were to think of “I will build my church” as meaning only within the lifetime of Peter, which in hindsight the Lord must not have meant, since the Church continued to be built and is even being built to this very day. If Christ can use the word rock in this sense, and if foundation can be substituted for the word rock, who are we to insist that we must force some other interpretation on it? Clearly Christ was NOT saying that Peter was the basis for the Christian faith, but only the first of many people upon whom He would build the human organization of His followers/disciples. It is allowed in any language, and in the Bible as well, to use the same word or metaphor in different contexts. I see no reason why we should get hung up on this. Just take Matthew 16 for what it says without trying to force some other meaning on it.

 

[guanophore]

I am continually amazed at the fruit of separation and division that was born from the Reformation. The Reformers wanted to separate from the authorities appointed by Christ. In doing so, they also separated from the doctrine of the Apostles, and then they separated from one another, and this continues on a daily basis.

What is the true foundation of the Church? Peter or that the Father reveals that Jesus is truly the Son of God? Hence the revelation of Jesus being the foundation therefore, is the foundation or rock, but again there is a distinction between foundation of the world, and the rock of the church.

I think it is important, at this juncture, to consider the meaning of God changing a person’s name. This does not happen often in the Scripture, but each time it does, it has a profound meaning for the identity and mission of the person who is renamed.

Peter cannot be separated from the faith he professed on that occasion. Neither can his name or profession of faith be separated from his ministry to the Church.

Jesus the Cornerstone, at that moment, grafted Peter into Himself, and made him a part of the One Foundation.

 So if its Peter, then without Peter there is no salvation,

This is an absurd assertion, otherwise known as a strawman, which only serves to detract from the profound nature of what occurred in that moment. The fact that Simon bar Jonah became Cephas, a foundation of the Church, has no bearing on the source of our salvation, which is Christ alone.

which can’t be the true meaning of what Jesus said,

No, it cannot. So why spin such wild tales? It seems like a way to avoid what is actually being said. Cephas/Rock became a pillar of the Church. Upon that Rock, Jesus built His Church.

Cephas, along with the other Aposltes and prophets, are the foundation upon which it is built.

 but to be born of Spirit of God, it would require the revelation of the Truth that Jesus is the Son of God, wouldn’t it?

No. People are born again of water and Spirit in baptism, and many of them have not yet grasped the revelation of that truth. This Truth was revealed to Peter so that it was clear that the time had come to graft Peter (and his profession of faith) into Himself, and to lay the foundation.

Hence the revelation that is of the Father that Jesus is His Son is something that no power can stop or mess with, as Jesus described in the text.

This is not at all relevant to the discussion. No one has claimed any such thing, and though your statement is true, it has nothing to do with the role of Peter in the Church.

 

[guanophore]

I am continually amazed at the fruit of separation and division that was born from the Reformation. The Reformers wanted to separate from the authorities appointed by Christ. In doing so, they also separated from the doctrine of the Apostles, and then they separated from one another, and this continues on a daily basis.

What is the true foundation of the Church? Peter or that the Father reveals that Jesus is truly the Son of God? Hence the revelation of Jesus being the foundation therefore, is the foundation or rock, but again there is a distinction between foundation of the world, and the rock of the church.

I think it is important, at this juncture, to consider the meaning of God changing a person’s name. This does not happen often in the Scripture, but each time it does, it has a profound meaning for the identity and mission of the person who is renamed.

Peter cannot be separated from the faith he professed on that occasion. Neither can his name or profession of faith be separated from his ministry to the Church.

Jesus the Cornerstone, at that moment, grafted Peter into Himself, and made him a part of the One Foundation.

 So if its Peter, then without Peter there is no salvation,

This is an absurd assertion, otherwise known as a strawman, which only serves to detract from the profound nature of what occurred in that moment. The fact that Simon bar Jonah became Cephas, a foundation of the Church, has no bearing on the source of our salvation, which is Christ alone.

which can’t be the true meaning of what Jesus said,

No, it cannot. So why spin such wild tales? It seems like a way to avoid what is actually being said. Cephas/Rock became a pillar of the Church. Upon that Rock, Jesus built His Church.

Cephas, along with the other Aposltes and prophets, are the foundation upon which it is built.

 but to be born of Spirit of God, it would require the revelation of the Truth that Jesus is the Son of God, wouldn’t it?

No. People are born again of water and Spirit in baptism, and many of them have not yet grasped the revelation of that truth. This Truth was revealed to Peter so that it was clear that the time had come to graft Peter (and his profession of faith) into Himself, and to lay the foundation.

Hence the revelation that is of the Father that Jesus is His Son is something that no power can stop or mess with, as Jesus described in the text.

This is not at all relevant to the discussion. No one has claimed any such thing, and though your statement is true, it has nothing to do with the role of Peter in the Church.

 

[guanophore]

Matthew 16:18 says the following: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” It seems clear that the antecedent of “it” is the Church and not petra (which refers in turn to Peter directly).

Indeed, the Church founded by Christ is infallibly protected by the Holy Spirit. Peter has a special ministry in that Church, that his faith fail not, and that he strengthen the brethren. Jesus chose to give the special gifts and calling to Peter to feed and care for the flock.

When Satan is about the sift the Apostles at Jesus’ arrest, Jesus tells Peter “But I have prayed for you (singular) that your faith may not fail”. So anyone who wants to get in on the prayer of Jesus better get in with Peter!

Christ is the only mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:15) but Moses still acted as a mediator between God and Israel. There is only a problem when it is insisted that a word be taken in exactly the same sense in every instance, regardless of context.

Indeed only Christ could mediate our eternal relationship with the Father. He brings men into this ministry of reconciliaton, joining them into His divine priesthood, for there is only One High Priest.

Who assembled and chose the Apostles that was the continuance of what Jesus was already doing?

Acts 1:13-14
13 When they had entered the city, they went to the room upstairs where they were staying, Peter, and John, and James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14 All these were constantly devoting themselves to prayer, together with certain women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as his brothers.

Do you know whose name is at the head of every list of Apsotles? Why do you suppose that might be?

And who gave that authority to the Apostle? From who did all of what is the church come from? The Spirit and power doesn’t come from men, nor Peter.

No one is claiming otherwise. Jesus chose Peter for a specific mission and purpose, and the gifts and responsibilities given to Peter have been passed on to his successors to this day.

Without Peter, Jesus could have chosen some one else (not meaning any disrespect to Peter of corse), but without Jesus, and the Presence of the Holy Spirit in men there is no real church, is there?

Right. God chose to do things just this way, for His own reasons. He prepared Peter before the foundation of the world for the works in which He intended him to walk. He gave him certain responsibilities and gifts that were not given to anyone else.

Therfore how can anything other than Jesus the Christ, the Holy One of Israel be the foundation or the Rock?

No one is claiming otherwise.

It is said in other places in scripture that He is the Rock, He is the foundation of the world, He is the Word of God, He is the Light, and through Him all things were made.

Christ is THE Rock.
Peter/Cephas was made into a Rock by Christ.
Peter’s confession of faith, inspired by the HS, is also a Rocky statement.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Indeed, the Church founded by Christ is infallibly protected by the Holy Spirit. Peter has a special ministry in that Church, that his faith fail not, and that he strengthen the brethren. Jesus chose to give the special gifts and calling to Peter to feed and care for the flock.

When Satan is about the sift the Apostles at Jesus’ arrest, Jesus tells Peter “But I have prayed for you (singular) that your faith may not fail”. So anyone who wants to get in on the prayer of Jesus better get in with Peter!

Indeed only Christ could mediate our eternal relationship with the Father. He brings men into this ministry of reconciliaton, joining them into His divine priesthood, for there is only One High Priest.

Acts 1:13-14
13 When they had entered the city, they went to the room upstairs where they were staying, Peter, and John, and James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14 All these were constantly devoting themselves to prayer, together with certain women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as his brothers.

Do you know whose name is at the head of every list of Apsotles? Why do you suppose that might be?

No one is claiming otherwise. Jesus chose Peter for a specific mission and purpose, and the gifts and responsibilities given to Peter have been passed on to his successors to this day.

Right. God chose to do things just this way, for His own reasons. He prepared Peter before the foundation of the world for the works in which He intended him to walk. He gave him certain responsibilities and gifts that were not given to anyone else.

No one is claiming otherwise.

Christ is THE Rock.
Peter/Cephas was made into a Rock by Christ.
Peter’s confession of faith, inspired by the HS, is also a Rocky statement.

So, what you’re saying is, the Church really rocks! :dancing:

 

[guanophore]

No what you are not getting is, the foundation is already set in Jesus Christ. At Pentecost it was give by God by the Power of the Holy Spirt to continue on the foundation, Jesus Christ. The church didn’t start after Pentecost it grew after Pentecost, but the church starts in Jesus Christ. The Apostles and then others where only doing what Jesus was doing already in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Oh I think we are “getting” that fine.

Our point to you is that the HS worked through Peter, and the Apostles and prophets in communion with him, to build Jesus’ Church.

Acts 1:15
15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers…

Acts 2:14

But Peter, standing with the eleven, raised his voice and addressed them…

Acts 2:37-38

Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, “Brothers, what should we do?” 38 Peter said to them…

Acts 3:6
But Peter said…

Acts 3:12
When Peter saw it, he addressed the people…

I could go on, but the point is clear that the HS is using Peter to build that foundation. He is not separated from the other Apostles, of course, but he is carrying out the special role that Jesus charged to him.

You might see it as two foundations but scripture has always from Gen:1:1 to the last verse in Revelations, that there is only one foundation to all things made, the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ.

I agree with you that the Church has one foundation. Jesus grafted the Apostles and prophets into Himself as Cornerstone to build that foundation.

Just what is it that you think the Kingdom of Heaven is? And just what is the foundation of the Kingdom of Heaven? Didn’t the Lord Jesus say:

I think it is the reign of God, His lordship in our lives.

21: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Also “among you”.

And since the Kingdom of Heaven is within those who follow the Lord Jesus Christ,(Rom:8:9) then what is the church but those who have the Kingdom of Heaven within them.

While I do not disagree with your statement here, it is clear from the Scriptures that the Church has external structure from the beginning. Jesus teaches the disciples to bring their disputes “to the Church”. You can’t do that if you can’t FIND it, so it must be visible. I think we can be confident that the Apostles taught what Jesus revealed to them about the Church having authority, and posessed of four marks by which we can discern what is true.

Hence again these arguments seem to be based on the fact that Jesus ascended, but to where did He ascend?

No. The arguements are based upon the structure He put in place prior to His ascension.

And if He dwell within you:

1Cor:3:16: Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Then the Kingdom of Heaven is within you.

Yes, no dispute about that. But we are also members one of another, and bound to obedience to the authority that Jesus placed over us to shepherd and guide us.

As you’ve posted, there is only one foundation that Paul speaks of, of which a builder may build on that is acceptable to God. Peter like many after him, was a builder who built on the correct foundation which is Jesus Christ, he didn’t build it on himself, otherwise the church would be erroneous and wouldn’t of lasted much longer then his life here.

You are right that the building must occur in and through Christ, but it is wrong to say that “Peter did not build upon himself”. Peter did bring others into his own faith, and fuctioned as a pillar of the structure.

Gal 2:9
James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars,

And so Paul was able to say:

2 Thess 3:6-7
7 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us…

Phil 3:17-18
7 Brothers and sisters, join in imitating me, and observe those who live according to the example you have in us.

The keys where given Peter in order to do the job given him by the Lord which is to build on the foundation of Jesus Christ, which is Peter’s exsample to us all.

---

Rom:8:9: But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

 

[PJD1987]

Here is a link to a St. Francis de Sales chapter from The Catholic Controversy in which he explains this very thoroughly. The rest of the book is very worth the read as well. Absolutely astoundingly excellent apologetics:

archive.org/stream/catholiccontrove00sain#page/244/mode/2up

 

[babs57]

If you want to see your faith, and the church as two different entities and two different origins, then I can’t help you with that. The Church that is the Lord’s is the manifestation of that Faith in Him. How you get two different origins from that simple truth, is beyond me.

Thanks for the replies.

But the church is more than just the manifestation of faith in Jesus as The Christ. Jesus chose certain men to be apostles. Then, from the apostles he chose Simon, re-named him Rock, and gave him keys, quoting Isaiah 22:22 “And the key of he house of David will I lay on his shoulder; so he shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open.” This is the job of the prime minister.

So, the church is a visible entity that:
** has been appointed a kingdom (Lk 22:28-32)
** given a mission (Jn 20:21)
** has a prime minister (Mt 16:18) that tends the flock for Jesus (Jn 21:15-17)
** is founded on the apostles (Eph 2:19-20) with Jesus as the Cornerstone
** has power and authority to forgive sin (Jn 20:22-23)
** to offer sacrifice (1 Cor 11:23-25)
** to baptize (Acts 15-17)
** to ordain (1 Tim 4:14)
** to proclaim doctrine (Acts 15:28-29)
** is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15)
** is perpetual (Jn 14:16-17)

 

[babs57]

Here is a link to a St. Francis de Sales chapter from The Catholic Controversy in which he explains this very thoroughly. The rest of the book is very worth the read as well. Absolutely astoundingly excellent apologetics:

archive.org/stream/catholiccontrove00sain#page/244/mode/2up

Exactly! I’ve heard from so many apologists that the church doesn’t take an either/or position in these things. It takes a both/and position.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Here is a link to a St. Francis de Sales chapter from The Catholic Controversy in which he explains this very thoroughly. The rest of the book is very worth the read as well. Absolutely astoundingly excellent apologetics:

archive.org/stream/catholiccontrove00sain#page/244/mode/2up

So clearly it explains that Peter is the foundation of the Church in a different and limited sense, without negating in any way that Our Lord is the one, true foundation of the Church. Hooray!

One thing perhaps worth noting, we were all of one accord in recognizing Jesus Christ as the one foundation of the Church. The quibbling, if you can call it that, was all over whether we can rightly use that same term in reference to poor, beleaguered Saint Peter, who would be the first to say, “Depart from comparing me to the Lord, for I am a sinful man!” (a very liberal translation. )