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

[Claire_from_DE]

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.

Actually, it is in the following verse where Jesus gives the keys of the kingdom to Peter that assigns him primacy.

 

[2ndGen]

Where does it say that the words weren’t Peter’s?

Matthew 16:17
And Jesus said to him,
"Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because
flesh and blood did not reveal this to you,
but My Father who is in heaven.

 

[2ndGen]

So I guess, once again, God is the Rock (look up in your concordance, especially Isaiah).

You’re saying that Jesus said I’m changing your name to Rock, but when I say that I will build my church on this Rock, I’m not talking about you…or that Jesus uses the same word to describe two different things (one, a man, the other, words).

For God to be The Rock there, Jesus would be saying that He built His Church upon Peter’s words…right?

Then basically, according to your belief, God is giving The Keys of The Kingdom of Heaven to God?

 

[2ndGen]

plural.

What specifically are you alluding to in Matthew 7?

Matthew 7:24-27
24 Every one therefore that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, who built his house upon the rock:

25 and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and if fell not: for it was founded upon the rock.

Now, in Matthew 16:

18 And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

19 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.

Every time that Jesus said “thou” & “thee”,
He was referring only to Peter singularly
(not to the rest of The Apostles).

thou
–pronoun

1. Archaic
   the personal pronoun of the second person singular in the nominative case (used to denote the person or thing addressed): Thou shalt not kill.
2. a familiar form of address of the second person singular.
   –verb
3. to address as “thou.”
4. to use “thou” in discourse.

thee
–pronoun

1. the objective case of thou: With this ring, I thee wed. I shall bring thee a mighty army.
2. thou (now used chiefly by the Friends).

So, Scripture clearly teaches that He only gave Peter The Keys of The Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[2ndGen]

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.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Old Scholar;3273484:

Really? Scripture please that proves this.

John wasn’t with Andrew and Peter when Andrew brought Peter to Jesus. John completely passes the Keys giving of Peter and doesn’t mention it nor does He mention Jesus’ Q & A Session.

John Himself states that not all that Jesus did and/or said have been written (includng by himself) so there is no proof in John that Jesus “didn’t” change Simon’s name to Cephas (Rock).

You have to provide a Scripture to prove that.

John was the last Gospel to be written.
It certainly wouldn’t have been as accurate as was Matthew’s.

But, Peter having said this confirmed to Jesus something…that it was Peter who He was to build His Church upon…it was precisely because of his statement that Jesus chose Peter (whom God chose first to reveal the answer Jesus was looking for).

But not John The Apostle.

That was before Peter became a disciple.

Right, and only Peter gave Jesus the answer that Jesus was looking for because God chose Peter (not Andrew even though Andrew believed in Him…God provoked Peter to reveal this to Jesus).

How does this “confession” of Peter disprove God’s choice in Him for Jesus to choose him?

What you are soundly proving is that it was’nt

Peter’s confession that caused Jesus to choose him to build His Church upon, but it was Peter being chosen by God to reveal what everybody else pretty much believed anyway.

Why was Peter stating it so special?
It was common knowledge among the Apostles right?

It wasn’t his words that make Jesus choose him, but the fact that God spoke directly to Peter and gave Peter (what we call “grace”) that revelation.

Really? Only because you don’t understand “why” Christians have beleived for thousands of years that it wasn’t Peter’s confession that made Jesus choose Peter to build His Church upon (that is a non-Catholic Christian belief), but that it was Peter’s being chosen by God to answer Jesus (even though they all believed He was The Messiah).

By the time that The Gospels were written, Peter was commonly known “not” as Simon, but as Peter. So for the writers of The Gospels to write about Simon, Christians would have to wonder who Simon was. Simon wasn’t one of The Apostles, Peter was…So they used Simon’s new (and current) name at the time that the Gospels were written.

Take for example that great actor Archibald Alec Leach.

Oh, you may have not heard of him?

Well take my word, he was a great actor, a very famous (one of the most famous actually) actors of all time. Still don’t know him?

Ok, let me go by his stage name…Does the name “Cary Grant” ring a bell?

Or for the whole “rock” comparison, let me use another famous actor…Roy Harold Scherer, Jr.

Know him? Well, maybe not as Roy Harold Scherer, Jr.

Try Rock Hudson!



**So what you are really saying is that you don’t believe the Bible is true and that the writers of the books just changed the names, etc. First time I have ever heard that type of denial.

Either the Bible is true or it isn’t. You can’t believe part of it and not believe the rest. Or can you???

Oh and by the way—it was John the Baptist that Andrew was following…

peace **

 

[ryanoneil]

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?

The words themselves DID come from Peter, but the revelation came from God. When Jesus first called Simon Peter and his companions into discipleship, was when Simon Peter recognized the power of God himself working through Jesus.

The story of the abundant catch of fish

Notice he falls at Jesus’ feet in the posture of adoration and says: “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord” (Lk5:8) This direct encounter with the living God in Jesus shook him to the core of his being, and he realized how pitifully small he was.

Jesus’ flesh and blood did not reveal this to Peter, but the power of God in Jesus did.

Peace,

Ryan

 

[Old_Scholar]

The words themselves DID come from Peter, but the revelation came from God. When Jesus first called Simon Peter and his companions into discipleship, was when Simon Peter recognized the power of God himself working through Jesus.

The story of the abundant catch of fish

Notice he falls at Jesus’ feet in the posture of adoration and says: “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord” (Lk5:8) This direct encounter with the living God in Jesus shook him to the core of his being, and he realized how pitifully small he was.

Jesus’ flesh and blood did not reveal this to Peter, but the power of God in Jesus did.

Peace,

Ryan

**That’s probably true because Peter already knew Jesus Christ was the Son of God and the Messiah. If Peter was to be chosen, then God could have made him speak. Unfortunately we have no way of knowing that. We have to rely on the Scriptures.

Peter never did fully believe** that Christ was the Son of God however, until after the resurrection as the other disciples did. Right after Christ made His statement in Matthew 16:18, He called Peter Satan and then Peter twice again showed little faith in Christ and the denial was the worst part.

Anyone questioning whether Jesus Christ ever existed and whether He was God only has to realize how the disciples changed 180degrees after the resurrection and all of them gave their lives for Christ. It was a miraculous turn-a-round of faith.

 

[2ndGen]

2ndGen;3273827:

**So what you are really saying is that you don’t believe the Bible is true and that the writers of the books just changed the names, etc. First time I have ever heard that type of denial.

Either the Bible is true or it isn’t. You can’t believe part of it and not believe the rest. Or can you???

Oh and by the way—it was John the Baptist that Andrew was following…

peace **

No, I believe that The Bible is true.

I don’t believe your contradictions to Scripture however.

Your timeline is completely off.

You state that John is the Scripture that should be believed “over” Matthew when A) John was not there when Jesus met Peter the first time and B) Matthew was written at least two decades “after” Matthew.

That’s just wrong.

Also, you stated that Simon was called Peter “before” Matthews account of Him being called Peter (again, placing the newer account over the original account). John’s account doesn’t ever say that Jesus did “not” give Peter The Keys to The Kingdom of Heaven.

In fact, it only states (as a seperate sentence) that when Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter, but doesn’t state that He did it the moment He met Peter (something you claim yet provided no Scripture to support).

Not everything the BIble states is true…or example, the Bible quotes Satan lieing…are his lies “true” just because they are in The Bible? No.

So, for you to say that Jesus named Simon Peter on the first meeting without any scriptural reference is a misrepresentation of what actually happened.

Again, Matthew 16 is clear. Jesus calls Simon out by his birth name (Simon) and then calls him Kephas (literally rock) and then in the same exact sentence without referring to any thing else other than what He was in the middle of saying (both parts of the sentene enjoyned by the word “and”), He tells the Rock that He will build HIs church upon him.

In the very next sentence, He tells Peter that He will give Him the Keys to The Kingdom of Heaven.

Now, if you believe that Jesus was talking about Peter’s cofession as “the rock” that Jesus would build HIs church upon, then you would have to believe that Jesus gave The Keys to The Kingdom of Heaven to Peter’s confession and “not” to Simon Peter.

On top of all that, the can of worms that the “confession” theory opens up is that, they weren’t Peter’s revelation, but God’s as it was God who revealed to Peter what He was to tell Jesus (Peter didn’t come up with this himself).

 

[2ndGen]

The words themselves DID come from Peter, but the revelation came from God. When Jesus first called Simon Peter and his companions into discipleship, was when Simon Peter recognized the power of God himself working through Jesus.

The story of the abundant catch of fish

Notice he falls at Jesus’ feet in the posture of adoration and says: “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord” (Lk5:8) This direct encounter with the living God in Jesus shook him to the core of his being, and he realized how pitifully small he was.

Jesus’ flesh and blood did not reveal this to Peter, but the power of God in Jesus did.

Peace,

Ryan

Yes, while the words may have come out of Peter’s mouth, they weren’t Peter’s words. Can any prophet have ever have claimed that their revelations where theirs or that God’s words were their words?

No…so the confession wasn’t Peter’s…it was God. Peter was God’s mouthpiece.

And if Jesus’ flesh and blood couldn’t reveal it to Peter,
how could Peter have revealed it to Peter?

Jesus said that no flesh & blood revealed it to him…that would include Peter himself for he was flesh and blood also.

 

[2ndGen]

** Right after Christ made His statement in Matthew 16:18, He called Peter Satan and then Peter twice again showed little faith in Christ and the denial was the worst part.**

That’s a misrepresentation of The Scripture.

Jesus didn’t call Peter Satan.

He spoke directly to Satan who was trying to manifest his words in Peter (just as God did just moments before).

Let’s “not” put words in The Lord’s mouth please.

Here is exactly what Jesus actually said:

Matthew 16:23
"But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Now, The Word of God says that “he turned and said unto Peter,…”.

But Jesus never said, out of His mouth that Peter was Satan. Nor did He call Peter Satan, but He addressed Satan (not Peter). If He would’ve been calling Peter Satan, then The Bible wouldn’t have mentioned that He turned to Peter.

Unto doesn’t mean that He was directing at Peter, but towards Peter because Jesus knew that it wasn’t Peter who was defying Christ, but Satan himself.

The pronoun “un” added to the “to” means “not” (as for example "un"prepared, “un” washed, etc…).

So Jesus wasn’t talking “to” Peter directly when He turned to him, but “unto” Peter (at him where Satan was trying to make his presence).

As for Peter’s denial before the ressurection, the worst denial came from Thomas who after everything, after the ressurection even, he still doubted Jesus. Plus, they all (but John who was chosen to care for Jesus’ mother for his loyalty at the cross) abandoned Jesus. And by far the worse of all was Judas.

 

[cyberjacques]

I think this thread is starting to get off track, so let me point out the following selection already posted by 2ndGen:

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.

The answer to the question is right here. The revelation to Peter of the true identity of Jesus did indeed come from God the Father, but the confession of said revelation was Peter’s. Despite the fact that the revelation must have been difficult for a faithful Jew to accept, Peter submitted his own will to the will of the Father and proclaimed the Truth. It was this feature of Peter’s faith that made him fit to be the rock, and no less has been expected of the popes that have succeeded him.

 

[2ndGen]

I think this thread is starting to get off track, so let me point out the following selection already posted by 2ndGen:

The answer to the question is right here. The revelation to Peter of the true identity of Jesus did indeed come from God the Father, but the confession of said revelation was Peter’s. Despite the fact that the revelation must have been difficult for a faithful Jew to accept, Peter submitted his own will to the will of the Father and proclaimed the Truth. It was this feature of Peter’s faith that made him fit to be the rock, and no less has been expected of the popes that have succeeded him.

Which is it for you?

The words?

Or his submission to God’s will?

I say God chose him period. Jesus asked the question to see who God wanted to be in charge of His Church. God chose Peter to be picked out by Jesus while the others remained silent (did God keep them silent even though they all believed the same thing that Peter believed?).

How could Peter confess something that he had not done and that he had nothing to do with as it was God’s words?

If we just read the text as it’s written, it clearly states that it wasn’t Peter’s own flesh and blood that revealed this to him. It was God. So, this revelation was not Peter’s.

But God’s revelation “to” Peter.

(And thank you for bringing the thread back from the attempted hijacking )

 

[cyberjacques]

Which is it for you?

The words?

Or his submission to God’s will?

…

How could Peter confess something that he had not done and that he had nothing to do with as it was God’s words?

His words WERE his submission to God’s will. They were faith in action. Having faith is one thing. Having the courage to confess that faith is another. And that’s what it was, a confession of faith. Of course Peter was chosen by God out of the twelve. But not everyone answers God’s calling. Peter did, as God knew he would, and that made him special. Faith in action.

(And thank you for bringing the thread back from the attempted hijacking )

No problem

 

[2ndGen]

His words WERE…

 

[ryanoneil]

Yes, while the words may have come out of Peter’s mouth, they weren’t Peter’s words. Can any prophet have ever have claimed that their revelations where theirs or that God’s words were their words?

No…so the confession wasn’t Peter’s…it was God. Peter was God’s mouthpiece.

I don’t understand what you are saying. Am I misunderstanding you?

The text says nothing about God putting words in Peter’s mouth. It says that God revealed to Peter, that Jesus was the Christ.

Jesus says “But who do YOU say that I AM”?

Simon Peter SAID in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

The text is clear that it is Peter’s confession. God is revealing and Peter is proclaiming/confessing.

And if Jesus’ flesh and blood couldn’t reveal it to Peter,
how could Peter have revealed it to Peter?

Jesus said that no flesh & blood revealed it to him…that would include Peter himself for he was flesh and blood also.

I apologize for not explaining better before. JESUS IS the Father’s revelation! The heavenly Father IN Jesus is the revelation itself. (not Jesus flesh and blood but his divinity)

Peter is confessing (for the twelve) that they understand Jesus is more than a prophet. I’m not saying they fully understood Jesus’ nature at this point, but He hand picked them for crying out loud. Everything Jesus did, from the moment the apostles were comissioned, was the Fathers revelation to them.

Peace,

Ryan

 

[cyberjacques]

The text says nothing about God putting words in Peter’s mouth. It says that God revealed to Peter, that Jesus was the Christ.

Yeah, this is basically what I was getting at. The revelation was God’s, the courage to actually say it aloud was Peter’s. I can’t think of a single example in the Bible of God actually forcing words out of someone’s mouth. He gives them the revelation, and lets them say it on their own. Just as we believe the Bible was inspired by God, it was written by the minds of men. They could have just sat there after being inspired. The prophets could have ignored God’s calling. Peter could have remained silent after receiving his revelation. God gives all of us gifts, but He doesn’t force us to use them. He leaves that up to us.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

That’s a misrepresentation of The Scripture.

The pronoun “un”

it’s not a pronoun, it’s a prefix.

added to the “to” means “not” (as for example "un"prepared, “un” washed, etc…).

So Jesus wasn’t talking “to” Peter directly when He turned to him, but “unto” Peter (at him where Satan was trying to make his presence).

Oh? Is that so:

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.

So I guess he wasn’t talking “to” Peter when he called him that, and He did NOT give (or would not, future) the Keys “to” him.

The dative case is used, for those who know Greek, so the parallel is even more obvious in the original Greek.

As for Peter’s denial before the ressurection, the worst denial came from Thomas who after everything, after the ressurection even, he still doubted Jesus.

He hadn’t seen Jesus. Note: in the Gospel, it does not say that that he stuck his finger in once Christ appeared.

Plus, they all (but John who was chosen to care for Jesus’ mother for his loyalty at the cross) abandoned Jesus.

John is an important exception.

Only Peter formally denied him, and cursed.

And by far the worse of all was Judas.

Well there we can agree.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Matthew 16:17
And Jesus said to him,
"Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because
flesh and blood did not reveal this to you,
but My Father who is in heaven.

Yes, as we discussed earlier, God revealed this to Peter but the words Peter uttered were most definitely Peter’s.

 

[moondweller]

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.

Looks like its been explained to you. The revelation was from God, but the confession was Peter’s. It wasn’t a voice from heaven which sounded like thunder that came out of Peter’s mouth.

“…and upon THIS rock I will build My church.” “This” (toute) refers to Peter’s confession. He didn’t say “and upon you I will build My church.” Christ’s church is being build upon the foundation that He’s the Messiah, Son of the living God. It’s all quite simple and straightforward. The confusion is not from Scripture, but self-serving men.