Golfjack
I love the Gospels and have studied them many times over the years. Some of my most prized posessions are the 4 gospel commentaries I own by G.Cambell Morgan.. His commentaries on the Gospels are said to be some of the best ever written by most theologians. They are very hard to find and I bought my 4 set used from a used book store for $150.00 bucks. Anyway thats a differant study. Here are some of my notes I used when I taught this book and I hope they will help.
Matthew
16:13, 14 Caesarea Philippi was about twenty-five miles north of the Sea of Galilee and five miles east of the Jordan. When Jesus came to the surrounding villages (Mark 8:27), an incident generally recognized as the apex of His teaching ministry occurred. Up to this time He had been leading His disciples to a true apprehension of His Person. Having succeeded in this, He now turns His face resolutely to go to the cross.
He began by asking His disciples what men were saying as to His identity. The replies ran the gamut from John the Baptist, to Elijah, to Jeremiah, to one of the other prophets. To the average person He was one among many. Good but not the Best. Great but not the Greatest. A prophet but not the Prophet. This view would never do. It condemned Him with faint praise. If He were only another man He was a fraud because He claimed to be equal with God the Father.
16:15, 16 So He asked the disciples who they believed He was. This brought from Simon Peter the historic confession, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.†In other words, He was Israel’s Messiah and God the Son.
16:17, 18 Our Lord pronounced a blessing on Simon, son of Jonah. The fisherman had not arrived at this concept of the Lord Jesus through intellect or native wisdom; it had been supernaturally revealed to him by God the Father. But the Son had something important to say to Peter also. So Jesus added, “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.†We all know that more controversy has swirled around this verse than almost any other verse in the Gospel. The question is, “Who or what is the rock?†Part of the problem arises from the fact that the Greek words for Peter and for rock are similar, but the meanings are different. The first, petros, means a stone or loose rock; the second, petra, means rock, such as a rocky ledge. So what Jesus really said was “ ... you are Peter (stone), and on this rock I will build My church.†He did not say He would build His church on a stone but on a rock.
If Peter is not the rock, then what is? If we stick to the context, the obvious answer is that the rock is Peter’s confession that Christ is the Son of the living God, the truth on which the church is founded. Ephesians 2:20 teaches that the church is built on Jesus Christ, the chief cornerstone. Its statement that we are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets refers not to them, but to the foundation laid in their teachings concerning the Lord Jesus Christ.
Christ is spoken of as a Rock in 1 Corinthians 10:4. In this connection,
Morgan gives a helpful reminder:
Remember, He was talking to Jews. If we trace the figurative use of the word rock through Hebrew Scriptures, we find that it is never used symbolically of man, but always of God. So here at Caesarea Philippi, it is not upon Peter that the Church is built. Jesus did not trifle with figures of speech. He took up their old Hebrew illustrationâ€â€rock, always the symbol of Deityâ€â€and said, “Upon God Himself â€â€Christ, the Son of the living Godâ€â€I will build my church.â€Â
Peter never spoke of himself as the foundation of the church. Twice he referred to Christ as a Stone (Acts 4:11, 12; 1 Pet. 2:4–8), but then the figure is different; the stone is the head of the corner, not the foundation.
“I will build My church.†Here we have the first mention of the church in the Bible. It did not exist in the OT. The church, still future when Jesus spoke these words, was formed on the Day of Pentecost and is composed of all true believers in Christ, both Jew and Gentile. A distinct society known as the body and bride of Christ, it has a unique heavenly calling and destiny.
We would scarcely expect the church to be introduced in Matthew’s Gospel where Israel and the kingdom are the prominent themes. However, consequent to Israel’s rejection of Christ, a parenthetical periodâ€â€the church ageâ€â€follows and will continue to the Rapture. Then God will resume His dealings with Israel nationally. So it is fitting that God should introduce the church here as the next step in His dispensational program after Israel’s rejection.
“The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it†may be understood in two ways. First the gates of Hades are pictured in an unsuccessful offensive against the churchâ€â€the church will survive all attacks upon it. Or the church itself may be pictured as taking the offensive and coming off the victor. In either case, the powers of death will be defeated by the translation of living believers and by the resurrection of the dead in Christ.
16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven†does not mean that Peter was given authority to admit men to heaven. This has to do with the kingdom of heaven on earthâ€â€the sphere containing all who profess allegiance to the King, all who claim to be Christians. Keys speak of access or entrance. The keys which open the door to the sphere of profession are suggested in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19)â€â€discipling, baptizing, and teaching. (Baptism is not necessary for salvation but is the initiatory rite by which men publicly profess allegiance to the King.) Peter first used the keys on the Day of Pentecost. They were not given to him exclusively, but as a representative of all the disciples. (See Matt. 18:18 where the same promise is given to them all.)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.†This and a companion passage in John 20:23 are sometimes used to teach that Peter and his supposed successors were given the authority to forgive sins. We know that this cannot be so; only God can forgive sins.
There are two ways of understanding the verse. First, it may mean that the apostles had power to bind and to loose that we do not have today. For example, Peter bound their sins on Ananias and Sapphira so that they were punished with instant death (Acts 5:1–10), while Paul loosed the disciplined man in Corinth from the consequences of his sin because the man had repented (2 Cor. 2:10).
Or the verse may mean that whatever the apostles bound or loosed on earth must have already been bound or loosed in heaven (see NKJV margin).
Thus Ryrie says, “Heaven, not the apostles, initiates all binding and loosing, while the apostles announce these things.â€Â
The only way in which the verse is true today is in a declarative sense. When a sinner truly repents of his sins and receives Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, a Christian can declare that person’s sins to be forgiven. When a sinner rejects the Savior, a Christian worker can declare his sins to be retained. This is not to say a Chritian can forgive sins because he can't. Only the Godhead can forgive sins.
William Kelly writes, “Whenever the Church acts in the name of the Lord and really does His will, the stamp of God is upon their deeds.â€Â
Well golfjack. I hope my explanation of this passage makes sense and adds to your understanding. This for me has been a very difficult part of scripture and there are many differant views on this, but this is what makes the most sense to me. I am very much open to hear peoples opinions as well.
Blessings to you my friend
Javier
