A look at Matthew 16 vs dogma

Good points, but what error are you talking about? I am imagining that it that Peter is the rock on which the church was founded, but want to make certain. By the way, I agree that Peter is not the rock that is being spoken about.

 

But does anyone think that Peter is the rock that the church was built upon? I don't know anyone.

 

Whether from New Testament Greek, or from the Aramaic, this is the correct and widely accepted translation:

Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are YOU, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to YOU [Simon Bar-Jonah], but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to YOU [Simon Bar-Jonah] that YOU are Peter [ROCK], and on this ROCK [Peter] I will build My church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it [the Church]. And I will give YOU [Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever YOU [Peter] bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU [Peter] loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

In context, Matthew 16:13-20 IS about Jesus, AND it describes how Jesus builds his Church upon Peter, giving him [PETER] full authority on Earth in anticipation of Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven. In other words, Peter will be Jesus’ representative (look at the significance of a King giving the keys to someone in Jewish culture.) Remember this - “feed my sheep” , “tend my flock”?

Here is the proper and clear order of events:
1. Jesus blesses Simon Bar-Jonah
2. Jesus tell Simon Bar-Jonah that God the Father has revealed Christ’s identity to him [Simon]
3. Jesus tells Simon Bar-Jonah that he is the Rock [Peter] (significant name change)
4. Jesus [now using Simon’s new name ROCK] tells Peter [Rock] that he [Jesus] would build his Church upon him [Peter – Rock]
5. Jesus promises [Peter - Rock] that the gates of hell will not prevail against it [the Church]
6. Jesus gives Peter [Rock] the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. (More cultural significance)
7. Jesus tells Peter [Rock] that whatever he binds on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever he looses on Earth will be loosed in heaven. (The authority to forgive sins)

Sources:
Joseph H. Thayer, “Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament” (Peabody: Hendrickson 1996), 507;
D.A. Carson, “Matthew” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., “The Expositor’s Bible Commentary” (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), vol. 8, 368.

Peace!

 

Apparently Billy does. :tear:

 

1 Cor 3 "No other Foundation (PETRA) can anyone lay than has been laid - Jesus Christ"

1Cor 10 "They all drank from the same spiritual ROCK (PETRA) and that Rock is Christ"

Matt 16 "you are PETROS -- upon this PETRA I will build my church... He turned and said to Peter "get thee behind Me satan" "

Matt 7 "everyone who hears these Words of MINE and ACTS upon them may be compared to a wise man that built his house upon the PETRA"

in Christ,

Bob

 

True - as does most of Christendom who believed this for approximately 2,000 years.

Peace!

 

I believe a lot of people miss the first question "who is the son of man"? He's obviously refering to Daniel and the messianic prophesy. So he's asking who is the messiah. I find the answer interesting: Some Say John the baptist (just recently passed) and some say Elijah (he had already come). Most of the answers are people who have already come.

Then Jesus asked who do you say that I am. Making an indirect correlation between Daniels use of "son of man" and himself. Peter of course answers accurately calling Jesus 1) messiah and 2) the son of the living God. Which both points have very interesting connotations that I wondered if the Jews had ever made a connection between Messiah and the son of God.

As for Rock there is a debate in what language Jesus was using. Kephas from the Aramaic or Petra from the greek. There is speculation that matthew was originally written in aramaic and his disciples translated into Greek which would make sense showing independent translation from the OT rather that generally used LXX by the other apostles. So it really depends on your view with the languaged used.

 

These do not preclude Jesus using this as Simon's new name.

First, the linguistic argument you are using regarding the Greek text’s use of the terms petros and petra is flawed. There had been a distinction between the meanings of these terms in some early Greek poetry, but that distinction was gone by the time of Jesus. In the first century, when Matthew’s Gospel was composed, the two terms were synonyms (cf. D. A. Carson’s treatment of the passage in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, published by Zondervan).

Second, you are overlooking the fact that Jesus and Peter did not speak Greek in everyday language, but Aramaic. (Greek was the language of commerce in first century Palestine; Aramaic was the language of everyday life.) Behind the Greek text of Matthew 16:17–19 there was an Aramaic conversation, and in the conversation there would have been no distinction between the terms representing petros and petra. In both cases, the same word—kepha (from which we get "Cephas")—would have been used. Hermeneutically, one should read a translation text in harmony with the language that underlies it since the translation is simply a means to understanding what originally was said. Consequently, Jesus’ statement in Aramaic—"You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church"—should be decisive for the interpretation.

If you do further study on Matthew 16:17–19 you will notice several structural features of the passage that required Peter to be the rock. Basically, Jesus’ speech to Peter consists of three statements. The first of the three statements is a clear blessing on Peter. Jesus says, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!" The third is also a blessing: "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven." But if the first and third statements are blessings then the middle statement—"And I tell you, you are Peter"— taken in its immediate context, must be a blessing as well. Jesus thus is not contrasting and belittling Peter as a small, insignificant stone with the second statement. It, like the ones before and after it, is a blessing that builds him up.

Peter is definitely the Rock!

Peace!

 

Billy, the papacy/Roman Catholic Church is not Christian.

 

Guess I was wrong. Learn something new everyday.

I find it obvious that when Jesus said upon "this" rock I will build my church, that he is refering to the truth that Simon peter has just stated. That He(Jesus) is the Christ.

 

Well, that would be YOUR opinion. Why not let God decide such matters - it is, after all His place to do so.

Peace!

 

That's interesting. Roman Catholic Church is not christian since when?

 

How do you suppose we do that?

 

Since it was a Roman Catholic Church. lol

 

I disagree. They are Christian though they differ on certain theological points with Us. I don't see them as being less Christian that the Anglicans, Lutherans, etc..

 

The Lord uses the second person singular direct address "you" when addressing Peter but changes to the third person singular direct address when addressing the rock "this" rock. The nearest antecedent to the third person singular "this" is "it" in verse 17 which has for its nearest antecedent the confession of Peter in verse 16.

If Jesus intended that Peter was the rock he would have continued using the second person singular direct address - "You are Peter and You are the rock upon which" The change of person demonstrates Peter is not the rock

Peter is masculine whereas "rock" is feminine in gender. Despite Rome's denial there was current Jewish literature where the masculine "petros" is used as a diminuative small stone rather than the feminine large source.

The context is about WHO IS CHRIST not who is Peter. Jesus never asked Peter individually, Peter responded in behalf of all of them as they had all confessed this eariler in the crossing of the sea.

Last, this is a building context "build". There is a builder named "I will". There is a building to be built "my church." There is a foundation to build "upon this rock". But there is no building materials except in the name of Peter. Remember, Jesus is the one who gave this name to Simon. Notice that in verse 17 Jesus does not call him Peter but "Simon Bar Jona." In giving this name it is in the anarthous construction for characterization. Jesus is saying in the context of building that Peter is characteristic of the type of building materials (born of the Father, Christ professing persons) that Christ builds His churches out of - spiritual born again living "stones" and Peter understood this as in 1 Pet. 2:5 he describes the church as composed of "lively stones" and immediately identifies Christ alone as the "petra" or foundation (1 Pet. 2:8).

In addition, the "keys of the kingdom" were given to Peter in this REPRESENTATIVE capacity or what characterizes the materials Jesus builds his churches out of because in Matthew 18:17-18 the power of the keys is attributed to the plural "you" comprising the church.

In addition the grammar of Matthew 16:19 supports the interpretation "has already been bound....loosed" in heaven "shall be bound....loosed" on earth.

 

He did, as a matter of fact... It's called the Bible.

btw, Peter wasn't even the head of the church in Jerusalem. In Acts 15, it was James who was given the final word in terms of a decision. Peter speaks but as an equal not as any final arbiter.

I think the RCC is part of Christendom, just not a part of Christianity.

 

I appologize, but I'm not sure how this response ties in with my statement...

Let's look at the Early Church Fathers. James was given the See of Jerusalem, but Peter governed the universal Church. This was dealt with early on by St. John Chrysostom who anticipated and refuted such an argument.

Says Chrysostom: "If anyone should say, 'Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?' I should reply that he [Christ] made Peter the teacher not of that See, but of the world." Ibid. 81.

In other words, says Chrysostom, after Peter's fall (his denial of Christ), Christ "brought him back to his former honor and entrusted him with the headship [epistasia] of the universal Church." [Ibid., 80.]

Peace!

 

Here is some more food for thought every time when all the disciples are listed, why is Peter always mentioned first?