What did Jesus mean when He told Peter he was the rock he would build his church upon?

Petros2015 said:

Matthew 4:18-20 = Luke 5:1-11 != John 1:40-42

A lot of time has passed at this point between the events and the writings of the Gospels. Did they all remember all the details of how it all went down? I'm not sure. I couldn't tell you much of anything about what was going on in my life March 1999.

Although.

If I saw a man walk on water, get crucified and come back to life, I could tell you I remembered that. it would be hard to get me to shut up about it.

Click to expand...

John 1:35-51
Matthew 4:18-20 = Mark 1:16-18 = Luke 5:1-11
Matthew 4:21-22 = Mark 1:19-20

Jonaitis said:

Contextually, their interpretation isn't coherent with the text.

Simon made the good confession of who Jesus is, and upon that confession Jesus said that he would build his church on this rock, this foundational truth. Simon, who made the good confession, was called Peter on account of it. It has nothing to do with popery.

Click to expand...

if so, then why wasn't every apostle nicknamed Peter?

Petros2015 said:

I don't believe that; the Church structure is already founded and established; the scriptures were established by that Church. I just feel that it was founded and established by Christ, built upon faith in Christ, not by Peter built upon faith in Peter. Peter's level of commitment to Christ was nearly if not completely total up to and including martyrdom. But one must begin somewhere, and that beginning is the revelation followed by the confession of faith.

Click to expand...

Petros, do you take John's Gospel as chronological narrative, not theological discourse? I read the other three with that chronology in mind; but realized that to take John as narrative would open up a lot of contradictions with the Synoptics.

Erik Nelson said:

if so, then why wasn't every apostle nicknamed Peter?

Click to expand...

Probably the same reason why not every apostle is recorded to have made this statement when he asked, "Who do you say that I am?" Without hesitation, Simon makes the confession boldly, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!" Jesus commended Simon for this and gave him the name.

John and James were given the name "Sons of Thunder" (Mark 3:17), very likely for the things they said in Luke 9:54.

tz620q said:

Petros, do you take John's Gospel as chronological narrative, not theological discourse? I read the other three with that chronology in mind; but realized that to take John as narrative would open up a lot of contradictions with the Synoptics.

Click to expand...

Hmm, well it seems pretty chronological to me. I'm not too hung up on contradictions with Synoptics; I expect that people's chronological memories may have been different by the time things were written down. I don't really think that the gospel of John was written by himself, but I suspect it may have been someone who directly followed and knew him. I feel like that's probably why John is always referred to as 'that disciple that Christ loved' rather than 'me'. It was someone else writing down the story that John passed to them. Just my opinion. The gospel of Matthew likewise tells the story of Jesus meeting a tax collector in a tree named Matthew, but never says 'and then he met me'.

Luke seems to be the only one that perhaps was written with an introduction directly from the disciple? To me, looking at Matthew and looking at Luke, Matthew shows signs of 'grapevine drift'. In Mark and Luke, there is only 1 "Legion" but by the time we get to Matthew, there are 2... In Luke, Jesus dies and the sun is darkened

Luke 23:44-46

44 It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, 45 for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit. When he had said this, he breathed his last.

But in Matthew 27:51-53, there is the darkness + an earthquake and an additional scene from Ghostbusters...

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Luke at the tomb

24 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. 2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them.

Matthew at the tomb

28 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. 2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

All this is quite odd when you consider that Luke (he says) is spending time doing a very detailed account to get facts straight in his introduction.

3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus

So I suspect, that Matthew's gospel may have been embellished over time, extra "Legions" and earthquakes added in for punctuation (probably not by the original author, but in the retelling of the story by the time it came into the written form we know). That's what it seems like to me.

Erik Nelson said:

are you comparing the 2000 year old RCC to modern novel traditions?

Click to expand...

We have a 2000 yr old tradition and it is NOT RCC

Jonaitis said:

Probably the same reason why not every apostle is recorded to have made this statement when he asked, "Who do you say that I am?" Without hesitation, Simon makes the confession boldly, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!" Jesus commended Simon for this and gave him the name.

John and James were given the name "Sons of Thunder" (Mark 3:17), very likely for the things they said in Luke 9:54.

Click to expand...

yes, simon Peter was the first to recognize Jesus has BOTH the Messiah Christ AND the son of the living God and the fact remains ONLY Peter and Jesus himself or ever described as a ROCK Petra in Greek.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

We have a 2000 yr old tradition and it is NOT RCC

Click to expand...

Can you spell out, list out your continuous 2000 year Apostolic tradition from Jesus to the first Apostles and on down through history to the present day? As can the Roman Catholics and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East?

Erik Nelson said:

yes, simon Peter was the first to recognize Jesus has BOTH the Messiah Christ AND the son of the living God and the fact remains ONLY Peter and Jesus himself or ever described as a ROCK Petra in Greek.

Click to expand...

Erik, how do we know if he was the first to recognize Jesus' true identity? Bartholomew made the good confession too at the end of John 1.

Erik Nelson said:

Can you spell out, list out your continuous 2000 year Apostolic tradition from Jesus to the first Apostles and on down through history to the present day? As can the Roman Catholics and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East?

Click to expand...

But Rome has never been the head of the East, only of Rome...what you have now is against Council rulings...it is an innovation of Rome since leaving the Church

Jonaitis said:

Erik, how do we know if he was the first to recognize Jesus' true identity? Bartholomew made the good confession too at the end of John 1.

Click to expand...

Nathaniel Confest after Peter had already been nicknamed the ROCK. I still feel that in the ROCK is a very significant name only attributed to Jesus and Peter and no one else.

Cyprian of Carthage agrees: “Although [Jesus] assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity...”

Cyprian of Carthage, whom we have already seen recognizing Peter’s unique role for the sake of unity, exhorts Christians of his day (mid-third century) to remain united to Peter’s successor: “If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”

Elsewhere, Cyprian writes against those who rupture the unity Jesus ensured through Peter’s office: “With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source.”

Writing in the second century, Irenaeus identifies Peter’s first successor as bishop of Rome: “The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus.” Of particular note here is that Irenaeus is bishop of Lyons, yet he finds succession in Rome to be of particular importance!

Erik Nelson said:

Writing in the second century, Irenaeus identifies Peter’s first successor as bishop of Rome: “The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus.” Of particular note here is that Irenaeus is bishop of Lyons, yet he finds succession in Rome to be of particular importance!

Click to expand...

But that does not mean what you need and want it to mean regarding Rome...ALL Catholic churches at the time had Apostolic succession...beginning in Jerusalem, not Rome.

Clement of Alexandria calls Peter “the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples.”

Erik Nelson said:

Yes, that's the argument of Michael Heiser. They were standing near Mount Hermon. In enemy territory.

But please listen to yourself. The first part of the verse starts with INTERNAL IN GROUP references "you are Peter on this rock. I will build my church", all of that is referring to the IN GROUP. It's focusing on the proto church.

Yes, then the focus does shift to the OUTSIDE THE EXTERNAL OUT GROUP. The "gates of hell", referring to Mount Herman.

But that physical location context, setting has no affect on the ingroup references at the beginning.

Click to expand...

I would agree that making the statement Michael Heiser has somewhat popularized is conjecture but given the time I've spent listening what goes on about this question, so too are the other more popular and opposing positions. Considering this is the history forum, do you have any first century documentation that explains what that verse meant to the apostles?

When it comes to in group references that can be documented without the necessity of mind reading on our part. As far as I can tell from the wiki it wasn't until 100 years after that Peter was viewed as a rock who started to build Christ's church. Then in the third century this scripture was starting to be used in support of the idea that Peter was going to be an earthly corner stone to a specific existing church location. Basically hundreds of years later they too were starting to grapple with the question, What did Jesus mean when He told Peter he was the rock he would build his church upon?

I strikes me using the term proto church with that scripture isn't precise enough. How broad should the application of the term proto church be? When it comes to the first century church there is a larger body of believers and not all of their behavior is good. Some of the events in that kind of proto church do run adversarial towards the gospel, hints of this are sporadically mentioned within the NT Jude 1:4. I believe the focus of that verse was being solely directed to those specific disciples and the role they personally would be playing within a much larger proto church during their time.

Origen [of Alexandria & Caesarea] recognizes that Jesus’ words and actions elevate Peter to a role of apostolic primacy:

If we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens.

In the Bible other than when Peter was nicknamed, God or the Lord is said to be the rock. Jesus told Peter who had confessed him as the Son of God could only had known it by the Father. It seems to me the actual rock is God the Father and in the Son. What Peter had confessed was Jesus as his Lord and Savior, that he was Christ the Son of God; it's this belief shared among believers which is the rock the Church is founded upon.

Tertullian [of Carthage] points out that Jesus’ words to Peter in Matthew 16:18–19 single Peter out as having unique authority as holder of the keys: “Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church.”

Erik Nelson said:

Origen [of Alexandria & Caesarea] recognizes that Jesus’ words and actions elevate Peter to a role of apostolic primacy:

If we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens.

Click to expand...

wow, Origen really was grammatically correct...

in Matthew 16:19, Peter is given authority over the heavens PLURAL... Ouranois

in Matthew 18:18, the other apostles over only the heaven SINGULAR... Ourano

the Messiah gave Peter higher authority