"...Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Matthew 16:16

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2ndGen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
2

2ndGen

Guest
Supposedly, Jesus is said by some Christians to have built His Church upon these very words often referred to as “Peter’s Confession”.

Somehow, this incident transfers to the present in that anybody who makes this “confession” will have Jesus Church built upon them or something like that.

Would one of you “Peter’s Confessioners” explain this to me since I’ve heard at least 1/2 a dozen different takes on it?

Thank you.
 
And this he heard from the Lord: “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” See what praises follow this faith. “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” What meaneth, “Upon this rock I will build my Church”? Upon this faith; upon this that has been said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Upon this rock,” saith He, “I will build my Church.” Mighty praise!

Augustine - 10 Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Homily X
 
“And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;”(10) that is, on the faith of his confession.

John Chrysostom

Homilies on the Gospel Accordign to Matthew
Homily LIV: Matt XIV. 13
 
And if we too have said like Peter, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, “Thou art Peter,” etc.(4) For a rock(5) is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them,(6) and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, add the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.

Origen
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Book XII (The Answer or Peter)
 
Do you believe that that confession was Peter’s words or God’s words?
 
But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?
‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him…he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters…And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock

(Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).
 
Eusebius was born in Caesarea in Palestine around the year 263 A.D. He took the name Eusebius Pamphilus after his mentor and teacher Pamphilus. He was consecrated bishop of Caesarea in 313 A.D. and was a participant at the Council of Nicaea. He is known as the father of ecclesiastical history for his work on the history of the Church. He has very clearly expressed his views on the meaning of the rock of Matthew 16:

‘And he sent out arrows, and scattered them; he flashed forth lightnings, and routed them. Then the channels of the sea were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bear, at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of thy nostrils’ (Ps. 18.14)…By ‘the foundations of the world,’ we shall understand the strength of God’s wisdom, by which, first, the order of the universe was established, and then, the world itself was founded—a world which will not be shaken. Yet you will not in any way err from the scope of the truth if you suppose that ‘the world’ is actually the Church of God, and that its ‘foundation’ is in the first place, that unspeakably solid rock on which it is founded, as Scripture says: ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’; and elsewhere: ‘The rock, moreover, was Christ.’ For, as the Apostle indicates with these words: ‘No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’ Then, too, after the Savior himself, you may rightly judge the foundations of the Church to be the words of the prophets and apostles, in accordance with the statement of the Apostle: ‘Built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.’ These foundations of the world have been laid bare because the enemies of God, who once darkened the eyes of our mind, lest we gaze upon divine things, have been routed and put to flight—scattered by the arrows sent from God and put to flight by the rebuke of the Lord and by the blast from his nostrils. As a result, having been saved from these enemies and having received the use of our eyes, we have seen the channels of the sea and have looked upon the foundations of the world. This has happened in our lifetime in many parts of the world (Commentary on the Psalms, M.P.G., Vol. 23, Col. 173, 176).
 
Pwrlftr said:
You are asking me was Peter’s words Peter’s words? Your question makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Yes.

That revelation was not “of” Peter, but God revealed that revelation to Peter.

Jesus said that no man revealed that to him. Being that Peter too is a “man” and that Jesus said that it was God who revealed it to him, then that makes what Peter said not his confession, but God’s revelation since it did not come from Peter.
 
2ndGen said:
Yes.

That revelation was not “of” Peter, but God revealed that revelation to Peter.

Jesus said that no man revealed that to him. Being that Peter too is a “man” and that Jesus said that it was God who revealed it to him, then that makes what Peter said not his confession, but God’s revelation since it did not come from Peter.
Click to expand...
Okay, I gotcha.
 
2ndGen said:
So what do you think?

(asked in true sincerity, not adversarialy)
Click to expand...
I think it could be one of several options:
Peter
faith
Peter’s confession

I guess there are others but those three seem to make the most sense to me.
 
Pwrlftr said:
I think it could be one of several options:
Peter
faith
Peter’s confession

I guess there are others but those three seem to make the most sense to me.
Click to expand...
I think you jumped to the what is The Rock point.

What I asked you (and maybe I should of reposted the question) was “who’s” words were Peter’s confession?

Since Jesus said they (the words themselves) didn’t come 'from" Peter,
that they came from God,
how could these words be “Peter’s” confession when it was God’s words?
 
Matthew 16: (King James Version)

13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

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 I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
 
For Jesus to build His Church, He needed a foundation. That foundation has to be made up of “rock” (as any 1st Century Carpenter would know).

So, He (in changing Simon’s name to Rock literally) was telling Simon that He would become the foundation of His Church (since it had to be built upon a “rock” foundation).

This was prophesized in Matthew 7 and is confirmed that The Apostles and the Prophets are the foundation of The Church (these men who are called by God are ordained by God and cease being mere men…they are no longer just made of soil, but echo Christ.
 
2ndGen said:
Matthew 16: (King James Version)

13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

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 I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Click to expand...
Where does it say that the words weren’t Peter’s?
 
2ndGen said:
I think you jumped to the what is The Rock point.

What I asked you (and maybe I should of reposted the question) was “who’s” words were Peter’s confession?

Since Jesus said they (the words themselves) didn’t come 'from" Peter,
that they came from God,
how could these words be “Peter’s” confession when it was God’s words?
Click to expand...
So I guess, once again, God is the Rock (look up in your concordance, especially Isaiah).
 
2ndGen said:
For Jesus to build His Church, He needed a foundation. That foundation has to be made up of “rock” (as any 1st Century Carpenter would know).

So, He (in changing Simon’s name to Rock literally) was telling Simon that He would become the foundation of His Church (since it had to be built upon a “rock” foundation).

This was prophesized in Matthew 7 and is confirmed that The Apostles and the Prophets are the foundation of The Church (these men who are called by God are ordained by God and cease being mere men…they are no longer just made of soil, but echo Christ.
Click to expand...
plural.

What specifically are you alluding to in Matthew 7?
 
2ndGen said:
For Jesus to build His Church, He needed a foundation. That foundation has to be made up of “rock” (as any 1st Century Carpenter would know).

So, He (in changing Simon’s name to Rock literally) was telling Simon that He would become the foundation of His Church (since it had to be built upon a “rock” foundation).

This was prophesized in Matthew 7 and is confirmed that The Apostles and the Prophets are the foundation of The Church (these men who are called by God are ordained by God and cease being mere men…they are no longer just made of soil, but echo Christ.
Click to expand...
Christ was not changing Peter’s name at the time of Matthew 16. That is not Scriptural as Peter had been called by that name for quite some time.

Matthew 16:18 has been mis-interpreted for a long time by many people. In fact, Christ changed Peter’s name the very first time He met him.

John 1:42 * And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.*

So Peter had already had his name all during Christ’s ministry before the time of Matthew 16:18. Therefore Christ did not, at that time, change Peter’s name. He already had, long before.

Also maybe God had revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Messiah, the son of the living God, but it had been known by many, including Peter, long before as well.

Peter’s brother Andrew had told Peter of Christ when he was following John the Baptist.

John 1:40 * And Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who had heard of John, and followed him. 41) He findeth first his brother Simon, and saith to him: We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ*.

That was before Peter became a disciple.

In addition, to show that Matthew 16:18 has been interpolated, Jesus had been known as the “Son of God” for quite some time before this as well.

Matt 14:33 And they that were in the boat came and adored him, saying: Indeed thou art the Son of God.

And the devils Christ cast out told everone there about Christ when they said:

Matt 8:29 And behold they cried out, saying: What have we to do with thee, Jesus Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

Also, check Mark 1:1, Mark 5:7, Luke 1:32, Luke 1:35, Luke 4:41, Luke 8:28, John 1:18, John 1:34, John 1:49, John 3:18, John 3:36 and John 11:27.

There are many more that predates the event in Matthew 16 but why bother. It was common knowledge by then that Jesus was the Son of the Living God.

That’s why I believe this verse had been interpolated far too much by those who want to assign some primacy to Peter. It didn’t happen that way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top