Evidence for God from Science

Matthew 16:18 - What does this mean?

God Bless!

Francesco.

There are primary views. Peter means "rock" so there is definitely some type of word play going on. Many (especially in catholicism and/or even eastern orthodox) take it to mean Peter himself.

Protestants tend to look at what preceded this exchange which is where Peter made his famous declaration at the mounth of the transfiguation, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God." They take the rock to be the declaration itself.

Honestly, I think grammatically and textually, Jesus is speaking about Peter himself. At the very least, it is Peter who emerges as the leader among equals in the Apostles and disciples of Christ. That doesn't mean that it establishes, as the Catholic Church argues for an apostolic successing resulting in "Papal succession". I think many protestants refuse to see that it is Peter because they are reacting against that element and seeing it through the lens of the Reformation and Church History. They don't like what the Catholic Church has done with that passage and so they rationalize it away. I think anyone who approaches that passage and allows the text to speak for itself and Jesus' words to speak for itself, should see the importance of Peter as the one who recognized Christ and declared Him to be the Messiah and the Son of God. Yes that declaration can be tied to other passages where Christ Himself is the foundation upon which the church is built, with each of us as "living stones" tied together into an organic and living body. I don't think we lose that by recognizing the importance of Peter in making that declaration and the leadership he exercised in the early Church.

My opinion anyway. I taught the traditional protestant view (it the statement, not Peter) in the past. When I follow my own advice now and look at the Scriptures through the lens of Christ and set aside everything else, I have to take the words in the context of their own setting and I can't separate Jesus emphasizing Peter's personal name (Cephas .... Petros) in that context. I think the traditional Protest view is reactive and based on things other than Scripture or Christ's centrality.

My opinion anyway. I'm sure some others here see it differently.

One more thing to add to this topic about Peter is what happened a few moments later Jesus spoke to Peter concerning being a little rock. See the text quoted below:

Matthew 16:17, 17, 18a, "Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." NKJV

After this exchange look at what happened next:

Matthew 16:20, 21, 22, 23a,"Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ. 21 From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day. 22 Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!" 23 But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men." NKJV

One moment Peter was commended and the next, rebuked: for being more mindful of the things of men. On this rock the Lord will build his church and the next moment, Peter was addressed as the Adversary.

Later, Peter denied Jesus three times, then returned back to the Lord. Yet even after his return and learning great insighst into Christ, he went back fishing. Then he was confronted again (John 21). Peter in the book of Acts began to lay the ground work for the first Church.

Then in Acts 15:30-35 and Gal 2:11-17 Peter messed up again, becoming concerned with the ways of men and was corrected. This was a pattern for Peter and demonstrates something for us to learn from. We must become aware of becoming more concerned with the ways of men in the building of the church than of Christ’s ways of building his Church.

Peter may have been the first Leader of the Church but he had a pattern of messing up, always becoming concerned with the ways of men in building the Church. He was rebuked and restored. Which in and of itself, reminds me of the history of the Christian Church. Where there were times of great insight and growth, then falling away, then restored as if an unseen hand of correction was always ready to carry on the building of the body of Christ thru these ages through correction and restoration thru the revelation of Christ’s workings – not ours.

So the question for all Christian dominations, groups, churches, whether they be Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant how is the Lord’s unseen hand of correction being received? Is it resisted or surrendered too. As the Lord spoke to Peter long ago, he speaks to us as well:

"He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep." John 21:17, NKJV

We feed the sheep the Lord’s ways, not man’s ways that rely of fishing all night to catch nothing.
-
-
-

Canuckster1127 wrote:There are primary views. Peter means "rock" so there is definitely some type of word play going on. Many (especially in catholicism and/or even eastern orthodox) take it to mean Peter himself.

Protestants tend to look at what preceded this exchange which is where Peter made his famous declaration at the mounth of the transfiguation, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God." They take the rock to be the declaration itself.

Honestly, I think grammatically and textually, Jesus is speaking about Peter himself. At the very least, it is Peter who emerges as the leader among equals in the Apostles and disciples of Christ. That doesn't mean that it establishes, as the Catholic Church argues for an apostolic successing resulting in "Papal succession". I think many protestants refuse to see that it is Peter because they are reacting against that element and seeing it through the lens of the Reformation and Church History. They don't like what the Catholic Church has done with that passage and so they rationalize it away. I think anyone who approaches that passage and allows the text to speak for itself and Jesus' words to speak for itself, should see the importance of Peter as the one who recognized Christ and declared Him to be the Messiah and the Son of God. Yes that declaration can be tied to other passages where Christ Himself is the foundation upon which the church is built, with each of us as "living stones" tied together into an organic and living body. I don't think we lose that by recognizing the importance of Peter in making that declaration and the leadership he exercised in the early Church.

My opinion anyway. I taught the traditional protestant view (it the statement, not Peter) in the past. When I follow my own advice now and look at the Scriptures through the lens of Christ and set aside everything else, I have to take the words in the context of their own setting and I can't separate Jesus emphasizing Peter's personal name (Cephas .... Petros) in that context. I think the traditional Protest view is reactive and based on things other than Scripture or Christ's centrality.

My opinion anyway. I'm sure some others here see it differently.

I like what you said very much Bart. I'd like to think in some very minute part I had something to do with that view but even if not, it's nice to see others acknowledge the leadership role of Peter as referenced by Matthew 16:18.

If anyone is interested in a Catholic perspective on the subject here are some helpful links:

Apostolic Succession
Authority of the Pope Part I
Authority of the Pope Part II
Origins of Peter as Pope
Papal Infallibility
Peter and the Papacy
Peter the Rock
Peter's Primacy
Was Peter in Rome
Peter's Roman Residency
Peter's Successors

It wouldn't bother me to have been influenced by you on that Byblos, but I don't specifically recall anything in that vein.

As I hope is clear, I'm not agreeing with Papal infallibility. I don't believe acknowledging that Christ meant Peter in this passage justifies that.

It is futile to argue you whether or not Peter was recognized by the Lord as having a commission to carry the Gospel of the Kingdom to the world. The text of course was not originally spoken in English. It probably wasn't spoken in Greek either. However the Greek says, "And I also say to you that you are Petros, and on this petra I will build My church." The Greek uses two different forms of the word.

But it doesn't matter. The RCC is trying to claim an authority it has no claim to, saying that the Papal lineage ties right into Peter. That would be great, if we were operating under that program. But, as the apostle Paul says, we are not. Peter's gospel is not the one to be preached today by the church. Peter's gospel is the Gospel of the Kingdom of Israel. The RCC is trying to claim something that simply does not belong to them.

http://www.matthewmcgee.org/2gospels.html

I don't buy that either jlay. I don't agree with papal authority tied to Peter, but neither do I go through the gymnastics that I see in that article attempting to separate Peter from the Gospel. He was with Christ and God used him greatly in many ways, including as the author of two epistles preserved as Scripture. There's evidence that Paul opposed him on issues related to tying back too much to Jewish law and imposition upon Gentiles. So what? There's also evidence that Paul judged poorly in the matter of John Mark whom Barnabus remained with and who was likely the author of the Gospel of Mark, ironically tied to apostolic authority through the influence of whom? Peter!

Well i found this http://www.trustingodamerica.com/Petra.htm

Apparently Petros is small movable rock and Petra is BIG rock ( unmovable).

But yeah it seems the site conflicts a lot with the RCC site that byblos provided : http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

Any thoughts anyone?

CeT-To wrote:Well i found this http://www.trustingodamerica.com/Petra.htm

Apparently Petros is small movable rock and Petra is BIG rock ( unmovable).

But yeah it seems the site conflicts a lot with the RCC site that byblos provided : http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

Any thoughts anyone?

The words are similar and I think it is intentional. The best argument against the "pun" being used in the actual text (which appears clear and intentional) is that the exchange was likely not spoken in greek. Jesus most likely spoke Hebrew or Aramaic in the context of conversation. It's interesting to me though, that those who raise that distinction in this context, don't apply that same standard to all of Jesus words. It's something of a contradiction to split hairs in that instance to avoid the implications of one passage and not elsewhere.

It raises question too, for those who are strict inerrantists. If the text itself as written is inerrant, than it makes no difference how it was originally verbally spoken as the writing of the Gospels would then be guided by the Holy Spirit to use exactly the words chosen and the resultant similarity in the words, especially in that context would be clear.

Then too, when you go through the history of the early church as described in Acts and then in the early Church Fathers, it's clear that Peter was looked to as a leader among them and often took a lead role in their midst.

I don't see the arguments used today against Peter's role in that early Church until the Reformation and then the concern appears to be contrived to argue against Papal authority. I think Papal Authority has plenty of other arguments against it that can and should be made. I don't think we need to reconstrue Jesus words to the extent that Peter is ruled out of any role when this passage seems clear as to what Jesus was saying and how then the actual relationships played out.

My take anyway.