What IS MATT 16:18 REALLY TEACHING ?

Dan Perez said:

#1 And I say also unto thee , that thou art Peter // Petros in the Nominative Case . as the subject , in the SINGULAR and only to Peter .

# 2 THIS // OUTOS , is a DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN , in the Dative Case , also in the SINGULAR .

# 3 ROCK // PETRA

# 4 CHURCH // EKKLESIA and EKKLESIA does not mean CHURCH , but means ASSEMBLY !!

#5 I WILL BUILD // OIKODOMEO is in the Greek , FUTURE TENSE , ACTIVE VOICE and in the INDICATIVE MOOD which means it is a FACT .

Christ is that ROCK and there are many verses that say that , like , Matt 7:26 , Matt 12:10 , Matt 21:42 , Luke 20:7 and Mark 12:10 and 1 Peter 2:7

It seem to me that many EKKLESIA / ASSEMBLIES are building what Christ will build in the MILLENNIAL KINGDOM and that is a lot of WORK for Nothing .

dan p

Click to expand...

Premills and Amills alike place *all* of their stock in Christ alone, and nothing more. The idea of a Millennial Kingdom is little different from the idea that God's Kingdom will transform this earth into something glorious.

Whether that begins with a thousand years of mortal humanity or immediately is initiated as an immortal eternal Kingdom is of little consequence to us. We should simply believe that whatever God promised He will do.

Dan Perez said:

Christ is that ROCK and there are many verses that say that , like , Matt 7:26 , Matt 12:10 , Matt 21:42 , Luke 20:7 and Mark 12:10 and 1 Peter 2:7

Click to expand...

The only one here that says anything about rocks is Matthew 7:26, and that one is actually inaccurate (I assume you meant Matthew 7:24 or Matthew 7:25).

But the rest don't say anything about rocks. Matthew 12:10 has nothing to do with rocks (it's someone asking Jesus if it's lawful to heal on the Sabbath). The remaining ones are just offering a quotation of the Old Testament, but they don't use rock (petra or petros), but stone (lithos).

Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


Greek: Kago. And I say to thee, and tell thee why I before declared, (John i. 42.) that thou shouldst be called Peter, for thou art constituted the rock upon which, as a foundation, I will build my Church, and that so firmly, as not to suffer the gates (i.e. the powers) of hell to prevail against its foundation; because if they overturn its foundation, (i.e. thee and thy successors) they will overturn also the Church that rests upon it. Christ therefore here promises to Peter, that he and his successors should be to the end, as long as the Church should last, its supreme pastors and princes. (Tirinus)

--- In the Syriac tongue, which is that which Jesus Christ spoke, there is no difference of genders, as there is in Latin, between patra, a rock, and Petrus, Peter; hence, in the original language, the allusion was both more natural and more simple. (Bible de Vence)

--Thou art Peter;[2] and upon this (i.e. upon thee, according to the literal and general exposition of the ancient Fathers) I will build my church. It is true St. Augustine, in one or two places, thus expounds these words, and upon this rock, (i.e. upon myself: ) or upon this rock, which Peter hath confessed: yet he owns that he had also given the other interpretation, by which Peter himself was the rock. Some Fathers have also expounded it, upon this faith, which Peter confessed; but then they take not faith, as separated from the person of Peter, but on Peter, as holding the true faith. No one questions but that Christ himself is the great foundation-stone, the chief corner-stone, as St. Paul tells the Ephesians; Chap. ii, ver. 20.) but it is also certain, that all the apostles may be called foundation-stones of the Church, as represented Apocalypse xxi. 14. In the mean time, St. Peter (called therefore Cephas, a rock) was the first and chief foundation-stone among the apostles, on whom Christ promised to build his Church. (Witham)

--- Thou art Peter, &c. As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ, so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz. that he, to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, (John i. 42.) should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be next to Christ himself, the chief foundation-stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fullness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

--- Upon this rock, &c. The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews, which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built; Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ by building his house, that is, his Church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder. (Matthew vii. 24, 25.)

--- The gates of hell, &c. That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself or his agents. For as the Church is here likened to a house, or fortress, the gates of which, i.e. the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or Church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the Church of Christ. (Challoner)

--- The gates, in the Oriental style, signify the powers; thus, to this day, we designate the Ottoman or Turkish empire by the Ottoman port. The princes were wont to hold their courts at the gates of the city. (Bible de Vence)


===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

St. Augustine, serm. 13, de Verbis Domini, in the new edit. serm. 76. t. v. p. 415, expounds these words super hanc Petram, i.e. super hanc Petram, quam confessus es, super meipsum. See also tract. 24. in Joan, t. iii. p. 822. But he elsewhere gave the common interpretation, as he says, lib. i. Retrac. and in Psal. lxix. Petrus, qui paulo ante Christum confessus erat filium Dei, & in illa Confessione appellatus erat Petra, super quam fabrificatur Ecclesia, &c. See St. Jerome on this place, lib. iii. p. 97. ædificabo (inquit Christus) super te Ecclesiam meam. (St. John Chrysostom hom. lv. in Matt. &c.)

Xeno.of.athens said:

Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


Greek: Kago. And I say to thee, and tell thee why I before declared, (John i. 42.) that thou shouldst be called Peter, for thou art constituted the rock upon which, as a foundation, I will build my Church, and that so firmly, as not to suffer the gates (i.e. the powers) of hell to prevail against its foundation; because if they overturn its foundation, (i.e. thee and thy successors) they will overturn also the Church that rests upon it. Christ therefore here promises to Peter, that he and his successors should be to the end, as long as the Church should last, its supreme pastors and princes. (Tirinus)

Click to expand...

No, Peter was not a supreme pastor over the Church. He was one of 12 apostles who started the Church, and later Paul and Barnabas, as well as others, added their work in establishing a foundation for the Church.

Establishing a foundation is the work of an apostle, and not the beginning of an organized succession or ecclesiastical structure. The foundation itself was not an earthly hierarchy, but built upon the cornerstone, Christ, who is in heaven.

Organizing the local churches and even a state church is an honorable task, and there must be anointed leaders. But an established hierarchy runs into problems when the supposed "anointed leadership" falls from grace, or perverts truth.

Organizations need to be reformed, or if the degeneration is too serious, a complete overhaul is needed. An established organization can become excessively resistant to reform, correction, and reactionary in attitude. The ministry of God's word must take precedence over organization, even though organization is necessary to find homes for converts.

Again, the most serious problem with the RCC is in its sectarian claims and tone. Church organizations tend to follow the political environment in which it is founded, and that by necessity. When the Church began in an Empire, it became a virtual imperial Church.
But when the States divided into distinct political units, the churches there became subject to their own political overlords, which creates a conflict if the Church claims to have an imperial structure.

These political divisions, however, are artificial, since our unity comes from Christ in heaven by his Spirit which should lead us in love and in mutual submission. Sectarianism destroys this unity.

RandyPNW said:

No, Peter was not a supreme pastor over the Church.

Click to expand...

But he was and his successor still is.

You really shouldn't pull out a verse, and ask what it means. Because it means very little out of context of the rest of the chapter and book.

Sorry, I don't have time to take it back too far. But the immediate context is:

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church,

So what is the rock. is it Simon, whom Jesus here renames Peter. Or is the understanding the Jesus is the Messiah the Son of God?
vs 17, this was not revealed to you ...
vs18, on this rock I will build my church...

Are these two words, this, referring to the same thing. I would say so. What are they referring to, the statement that Peter made is vs 16, the Jesus is the Son of the living God.' So the rock that Jesus will build his church, is the the understanding that Jesus is the Messiah, the son of God.
Paul says that Jesus is the head of the church, and that he is the source (Ephesians 4:16 - from him ... the whole body grows.)
Jesus also said that he is the foundation, the cornerstone that the builders rejected.

Xeno.of.athens said:

But he was and his successor still is.

Click to expand...

Have a nice day, brother.

Xeno.of.athens said:

But he was and his successor still is.

Click to expand...

Peter certainly did shepherd God's sheep. But he was not appointed an archbishop.
Rather, he was appointed as an apostle to be one of 12 apostles upon which the Church would be initiated and founded, doctrinally.

That is not an ecclesiastical administration, in terms of an organization. Rather, that is a matter of forwarding the Gospel by preaching that message to all nations and founding local churches.

Apostles cannot be succeeded as in an "apostolic succession." An apostle could be "replaced," as in the case with Judas Iscariot. But an apostle could not be "succeeded," since founding the Church was a job that was completed by the original set of apostles.

The Apostles laid the groundwork for Christian doctrine and Scriptural truth. Once established it did not need to be continually rebuilt or added to. The Popes never did this work. If they tried to add to Scripture they disqualified themselves as a legitimate leader of the Catholic Church.

You are confusing this job of "founding the Church" with presiding over an ecclesiastical organization. The Catholic Church did not begin, as an organization, with Peter, nor did Jesus infer that to be the job. You read that back from the founding of the later Pope to the time of Peter, who had no connection with that organization. Peter developed a "communion," and not an "organization."

RileyG said:

Peter was the Rock that the Church was founded upon. His name literally means Rock.

Click to expand...

So, Jesus can't be using an analogy, or play on words here.
Also, if you take that view, the verse means that the church is founded on the fact that Peter means rock.

Look at the words.
18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it.

If 'this' is referring to anything in this verse, it must be referring to the 'that you are Peter', mustn't it?

But even if you're right, that Jesus here was referring to Peter as the rock, the foundation of the church. What does this mean?
Who now is Jesus, and what is his role?
Does this not make Christianity the most pathetic religion devised, that their foundation is based on some guy, who denied that he even knew his teacher when his teacher was in trouble?

The Church is not built on Peter, it built on Jesus Christ, the foundation stone, the head. Right?

Lastly, can you provide any other scripture to support your position. This is of fundamental importance right? So there should be more evidence to agree with your position, if it is correct!

RileyG said:

Then why was he was listed among the first of the apostles, and all of the early Church Fathers thought of the Church of Rome as chief of the Churches throughout the ancient world?

Click to expand...

Among the larger organized Christian territories the archbishop of Rome ranked at or near the top. Obviously, the larger the area the more the prestige. Who carries the greater weight of experience in governing and ministering, a pastor over 50 or a pastor over 5000?

One would defer to the largest group of people without doing so with prejudice. Peter was the leader among the group of 12 apostles, probably because he was either the smartest among them or the most gifted at leadership. At any rate, leaders are always needed to make the final decision in collective matters, or to determine the best collective path for all.

Later, the apostles broke up into smaller groups and went their own way, carrying out their individual missions. Then they became leaders over the churches that they founded.

As I said, Peter was given a leadership position that was not a hierarchical position within a large organized denomination. Rather, he was a leader among a group of 12, all of whom were given a ministry of founding original Christian doctrine out in the world, establishing churches and appointing leaders over those churches.

They did not hold an official position within an established church hierarchy with bylaws governing succession. Rather, they were prominent by virtue of their time spent with Jesus and by virtue of Jesus appointing them to this task, which was more foundational than organizational.

Their prestige was self-evident by their intimate knowledge of Jesus and his teaching. They were the source of reliable information about Jesus and his faith.

Though the churches they founded needed their own leadership, and a continuing leadership that followed, the leaders were not official, static positions, it being that church conditions could have changed. The church may grow and need more leaders, or it may suffer opposition and shrink, requiring perhaps very few leaders.

The point is, there is no established order of succession for churches. They determine their own course by their faithfulness or by the lack thereof. A good leader may stay for a good long time, and may see his friends or descendants carry on after them. A bad leader may lose his position--properly so.

What was Peter in terms of succession? There was no organized church to succeed him except for many years later. He was *not* a "Pope!"

Bones49 said:

So, Jesus can't be using an analogy, or play on words here.

Click to expand...

Jesus did use a word play, it is here, in Matthew 16:18, that the Lord Jesus renames Peter as "Rock" because he wants to use the play on words to emphasise the role that he has chosen for saint Peter; he is to be the rock upon which the Lord builds his Church.

Dan Perez said:

And I believe that we should be PRE-MILLENNIAL , WHY , because 2 Thess 2:1-3 shows when Christ is COMMING // PAROUSIA is talking about Christ's coming .

Verse 3 shows why the coming comes first , DEPARTURE // APOSTASIA comes FIRST , and the thw Man of Sin should be reveled the son of destruction .

1 Thess 4:17 also speaks of the B O C CAUGHT AWAY // HARPAZO .

dan p

Click to expand...

I agree.

RandyPNW said:

What was Peter in terms of succession? There was no organized church to succeed him except for many years later. He was *not* a "Pope!"

Click to expand...

Saint Peter lived for many years after Jesus called him to be the rock upon which God was to build the Church. Saint Peter was pope for around 34 years. He died in Rome at the hand of Nero the pagan Roman emperor and persecutor of Christ's church. And when saint Peter died the Church was well established in Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and many other towns and cities within the Roman empire. So, saint Peter was the father of the faithful as their earthly leader and teacher under the guidance and grace of God.

Peter believed in his heart and confessed with his mouth.
The thief on the cross also believed in his heart and confessed with his mouth.


8Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”

8But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): 9that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.


And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock ( Peters confession ) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

RileyG said:

Then why was he was listed among the first of the apostles, and all of the early Church Fathers thought of the Church of Rome as chief of the Churches throughout the ancient world?

Click to expand...

I don't understand what you mean 'why was he listed among the first of the apostles?'
I don't think that the Church Fathers did consider Rome as the chief church. There were many cities which were considered important Christian centers, and Rome was one of them. But even if Rome was considered to be the chief church., this is likely in the same context that Peter was considered the chief apostle - because he was the in the group who was a natural leader. It could just be that the church in Rome became significant because of the amount of time Paul (and supposedly Peter) spent there at the end of their lives.

On the other hand, if Peter had been named as the foundation of the Church by Jesus, why was he not the leader of the Church in Jerusalem? Because the evidence provided in the Bible is that James was considered to be the leader of that Church. Acts 12:17 - Peter escaping from Prison reports to the brother and to James. Acts 15:13, 19 - James is the one speaking on behalf of the Jerusalem council.