Peter’s Profession of Faith

[Mungo]

In each gospel Peter makes a profession of faith in Christ:

Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mt 16:16)

Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.” (Mk 8:29)

And Peter answered, “The Christ of God.” (Lk 9:20)

Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (Jn 6:68)

However Matthew’s gospel has many details that are not in the other accounts. These are important so I will take Matthew’s account (Mt 16:13-19)

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

But first there are three important points to note:
1. Matthew is a Jew, writing to Jews. His gospel is full of references to the Old Testament to show how Jesus fulfills prophecies. Some are explicit and some are not. But they would have been noticed by his Jewish audience

2. The theme of kingdom runs through Matthew’s gospel. Jesus is not just the Messiah but the promised Davidic king. He starts his gospel “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”

It is Matthew who records the visit of the Magi who ask Herod “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East, and have come to worship him.” (Mt 2:2)

3. A painting is not a photograph. By that I meant is photograph is a literal record of something. A painting is an interpretation with the elements in the picture selected and composed to give more information than the bare picture. In the same way the writers of scripture were not just journalists recording an event but they selected the elements they present to give more information than was on the surface. We have to look below that surface and consider each verse carefully.

With those points in mind let us go through this passage.

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"
Caesarea Philippi is at the far north of Israel, a long way, probably 3 days walking from Capernaum. In Matthew’s gospel this incident is the only one reported at Caesarea Philippi so this exchange seems to have been the main purpose of his visit. We’ll see why later.

Jesus starts obliquely, asking them "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"
Jesus constantly refers to himself as the Son of Man, but only Matthew uses this phrase leading up to Peter’s profession of faith. Matthew is pointing it up as important. Why?

The ‘Son of Man’ recalls Daniel’s prophecy (Dan 7:13-14)
I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.
The Son of Man is the promised future Davidic king.

This passage in Daniel comes in the middle of Daniels vision of the four beasts and their explanation. Daniel is particularly concerned with the fourth beast “terrible and dreadful and exceedingly strong; and it had great iron teeth”. This fourth beast is Rome.

14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." The apostles give various answers to his question.

15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" A direct question to them. Only one person answers him.

16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Peter who replies and defines who Jesus is, a definition we still use today.

17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. Jesus commends Peter for his answer and blesses him. Note that Peter is the only one to reply and as a direct revelation from the Father.

18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,…..
Now Jesus continues to address Peter and in return defines who Peter is. He is Rock, and furthermore the rock on which Jesus will build his Church.

Now we come back to the point about Caesarea Philippi. In that place where there is a massive cliff face, at the base of which were various temples to pagan gods. One of these was erected by Herod the Great to the Emperor of Rome, Augustus Caesar.
(I had a link to a picture of this but it doesn't work properly now).

Jesus is contrasting these temples, built on rock, to the one he will build on Peter the Rock.

Moreover Caesarea Phillipi, the ancient city of Paneas, was enlarged by Philip the Tetrach renamed Caesarea Philippi to honour the Emperor Tiberius Caesar and his own name of Philip. What Jesus and the apostles were looking at was not just an old pagan shrine, but represented pagan Rome with it’s emperor worship, the fourth beast of Daniel’s prophecy.

Jesus is making a powerful visual statement. It is Rome that his Church will confront and Rome that will be the centre of his Church.

 

[Simons]

3. A painting is not a photograph. By that I meant is photograph is a literal record of something. A painting is an interpretation with the elements in the picture selected and composed to give more information than the bare picture. In the same way the writers of scripture were not just journalists recording an event but they selected the elements they present to give more information than was on the surface. We have to look below that surface and consider each verse carefully.

I don't like this painting metaphor. Am I to believe that the author of a gospel is like an abstract artist and it's anybody's guess as to what the author actually witnessed, or perhaps the author's work is simply a product his own imagination and he didn't see a thing? Why not just stick with what the authors say? John admits that he was selective, but recorded what was necessary to enable belief. (20: 30-31) Luke indicates that he sought to create an orderly account (not an orderly interpretation) so that the reader could have certainty about what the reader had been taught. (1:3-4)

Caesarea Philippi is at the far north of Israel, a long way, probably 3 days walking from Capernaum. In Matthew’s gospel this incident is the only one reported at Caesarea Philippi so this exchange seems to have been the main purpose of his visit. We’ll see why later.

I would prefer to say that, if this is the only event recorded for that trip, then it is likely the most significant thing that happened. (Significant for the purposes described by John and Luke). Making the exchange the main purpose for the visit is an unnecessary assumption and also, was the transfiguration part of that same trip?

15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" A direct question to them. Only one person answers him.

16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Peter who replies and defines who Jesus is, a definition we still use today.

IMHO “defines” and “definition” are the wrong terms to use. No one defines God. “Describes” and “description” would be better.

The answer of only one person is recorded for that day, but since “son of David” is a title for the Messiah, Jesus had been previously identified as the Messiah (9:27, 12:23, and 15:22) and had also been previously identified as the Son of God. (15:44) Peter’s description isn’t groundbreaking stuff.

17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. Jesus commends Peter for his answer and blesses him. Note that Peter is the only one to reply and as a direct revelation from the Father.

Presumably then, the other times that Jesus had already been identified as the Messiah and as the Son of God were also attributable to a direct revelation from the Father. This reminds me of John 6 where it reads:

​

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.” (NIV)​

It would seem that all of us are first taught by the Father and then brought to Jesus by the Father.

Now we come back to the point about Caesarea Philippi. In that place where there is a massive cliff face, at the base of which were various temples to pagan gods. One of these was erected by Herod the Great to the Emperor of Rome, Augustus Caesar…..Jesus is contrasting these temples, built on rock, to the one he will build on Peter the Rock.

First you made a harmless assumption in assuming that this exchange must have been the main purpose of this trip. Now you assume that the exchange took place in view of the Augusteum, however, that assumption seems to be at odds with what scripture says. Matthew has the exchange taking place once they came “into the district of Caesarea Philippi.” Note: not at Caesarea Philippi. Mark has Peter’s confession occurring when Jesus and his disciples were on the way to visit the villages around Caesarea Philippi. As such, the exchange does not take place at Caesarea Philippi. Further, there is no reason to believe that it took place in view of the Augusteum (as the authors could have just identified that site as the spot). Instead, it appears to have happened at some non-descript area on the road between towns in that region. It might be also worth noting that the location of the Augusteum is debated with 3 locations being popular amongst scholars (see: https://biblearchaeology.org/resear...emple-of-caesar-augustus-at-caesarea-philippi )

What Jesus and the apostles were looking at was not just an old pagan shrine, but represented pagan Rome with it’s emperor worship, the fourth beast of Daniel’s prophecy.

Jesus is making a powerful visual statement. It is Rome that his Church will confront and Rome that will be the centre of his Church.

let's grant your first assumption that the main purpose of the six day trip was to have the “build my church” exchange. By itself that assumption is harmless.

Next, let's grant your second assumption that the “build my church” exchange took place in front of the Augusteum at Caesarea Phillipi. This too should be a harmless assumption; however, it leads you to these two further claims:

• Jesus is making a visual statement that his church will confront Rome, and
• Jesus is making a visual statement that Rome will be the centre of his church.

With respect to the first claim there is at least an indication that the church will be in a confrontation, however, the confrontation is stated to be with the gates of Hades. Regarding a confrontation with Rome, Jesus, in front of Pilate states: Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.” (NIV) It seems that Jesus envisioned a confrontation in the spiritual realm and not a confrontation in the temporal realm (against a city and/or empire).

With respect to the second claim there is simply nothing in the text to justify that claim. In the unlikely event that, at the time, they were standing in front of a Roman temple, how would such a location indicate that his church would have a centre and that centre would be at Rome?….it just doesn’t follow. Here you seem to follow your painting metaphor and freely interpret what you see so that you get exactly what you want. No doubt you are convinced that the Church has a centre and that centre is Rome and so you feel justified in finding “more information” than what the author provided. I just don’t accept that approach.

You and I have painted two possible scenarios. In your scenario, the Father wanted the Church to have a centre and for that centre to be Rome. Rather than have his Son take less than 6 minutes and clearly state that desire, he has his Son go on a six-day journey (I assume you meant 3 days there and 3 back) for the main purpose of having the “build my church” exchange. Unfortunately, that exchange fails to clearly communicate the Father’s desire and, as a result, there has been confusion and division within the Church.

In my scenario, the Father didn’t desire the Church to have a centre at Rome and so the ambiguous “build my church” exchange doesn’t fail in communicating such a desire. The exchange doesn’t expressly deny such a desire and so power-hungry men were free to make such a claim (without going against a clear statement in scripture) and, as a result, there has been confusion and division within the Church.

The division and confusion are the observable end results for both scenarios. In your scenario that end result would seem to be caused by God’s failure to clearly communicate….taking 6 days to achieve ambiguity instead of taking 6 minutes to achieve clarity. In my scenario that end result would seem to be caused by sinful men acting sinfully.

 

[Mr. G Lee]

In each gospel Peter makes a profession of faith in Christ:

Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mt 16:16)

Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.” (Mk 8:29)

And Peter answered, “The Christ of God.” (Lk 9:20)

Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (Jn 6:68)

However Matthew’s gospel has many details that are not in the other accounts. These are important so I will take Matthew’s account (Mt 16:13-19)

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

But first there are three important points to note:
1. Matthew is a Jew, writing to Jews. His gospel is full of references to the Old Testament to show how Jesus fulfills prophecies. Some are explicit and some are not. But they would have been noticed by his Jewish audience

2. The theme of kingdom runs through Matthew’s gospel. Jesus is not just the Messiah but the promised Davidic king. He starts his gospel “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”

It is Matthew who records the visit of the Magi who ask Herod “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East, and have come to worship him.” (Mt 2:2)

3. A painting is not a photograph. By that I meant is photograph is a literal record of something. A painting is an interpretation with the elements in the picture selected and composed to give more information than the bare picture. In the same way the writers of scripture were not just journalists recording an event but they selected the elements they present to give more information than was on the surface. We have to look below that surface and consider each verse carefully.

With those points in mind let us go through this passage.

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"
Caesarea Philippi is at the far north of Israel, a long way, probably 3 days walking from Capernaum. In Matthew’s gospel this incident is the only one reported at Caesarea Philippi so this exchange seems to have been the main purpose of his visit. We’ll see why later.

Jesus starts obliquely, asking them "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"
Jesus constantly refers to himself as the Son of Man, but only Matthew uses this phrase leading up to Peter’s profession of faith. Matthew is pointing it up as important. Why?

The ‘Son of Man’ recalls Daniel’s prophecy (Dan 7:13-14)
I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.
The Son of Man is the promised future Davidic king.

This passage in Daniel comes in the middle of Daniels vision of the four beasts and their explanation. Daniel is particularly concerned with the fourth beast “terrible and dreadful and exceedingly strong; and it had great iron teeth”. This fourth beast is Rome.

14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." The apostles give various answers to his question.

15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" A direct question to them. Only one person answers him.

16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Peter who replies and defines who Jesus is, a definition we still use today.

17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. Jesus commends Peter for his answer and blesses him. Note that Peter is the only one to reply and as a direct revelation from the Father.

18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,…..
Now Jesus continues to address Peter and in return defines who Peter is. He is Rock, and furthermore the rock on which Jesus will build his Church.

Now we come back to the point about Caesarea Philippi. In that place where there is a massive cliff face, at the base of which were various temples to pagan gods. One of these was erected by Herod the Great to the Emperor of Rome, Augustus Caesar.
(I had a link to a picture of this but it doesn't work properly now).

Jesus is contrasting these temples, built on rock, to the one he will build on Peter the Rock.

Moreover Caesarea Phillipi, the ancient city of Paneas, was enlarged by Philip the Tetrach renamed Caesarea Philippi to honour the Emperor Tiberius Caesar and his own name of Philip. What Jesus and the apostles were looking at was not just an old pagan shrine, but represented pagan Rome with it’s emperor worship, the fourth beast of Daniel’s prophecy.

Jesus is making a powerful visual statement. It is Rome that his Church will confront and Rome that will be the centre of his Church.

Simon Peter the prophet apostle declared the words of the The Holy Father .

Gods living abiding word blessed Peter our brother in the lord .

Mathew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.


Satan then gave Peter words to rebuke the Holy Father preventing him from sending Jesus the prophet.

Then he gave words to the Son man Jesus God rebuking the prophet who prophesied In efect saying get behind me not seen walk by faith and not by sight after the tempola dying mankind

Remember just because you cannot see God we can still hear his voice through the prophets apostles . . not in respect to them .How beautiful are thier feet shod with the gospel of peace

Mathew 16: 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

 

[Rõßεrt]

I don't like this painting metaphor.

Funny, I was very impressed by it, I find it represents fidelity, a photograph will be more true, a painting more prone to interpretation

Am I to believe that the author of a gospel is like an abstract artist

ok, now you impress me as it seems that's exactly what we have


Lets assess, God is not the author of confusion right?

Yet this is confusing

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 16:18 - King James Version

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

www.biblegateway.com

so we're looking at "thou art stone, and upon this rock", rock is a firm immovable object and a stone is a fragment of that?

So the profession of faith, given by God received by Simon who is just a portion of that?

Abstract as an adjective :

The meaning in philosophy, "withdrawn or separated from material objects or practical matters"

That fits perfect no?

If we ignore the meaning of Peter, consider it a nickname, and read "upon this rock " to understand that only by the Fathers revealing then we can understand how the Church is built and maintained, yet a puzzling item is how people are considered "saved" today, which contrary to "for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven", contrary why?


Contrary as we go two by two and teach, someone hears and confesses and we deem them saved, revealed by flesh and blood, not from our Father.


I was first "saved" as viewed by protestants at an alter calling very young, I was very involved in my church, then I fell away.

As if carried by the wind I ended up in a scary RCC, and like scripture says I tried the spirits, to see if they were of God.

Which of the two of my experiences can be described as a painting, and which photographed?

I praise God for revealing to me my error in avoiding the RCC.

Unfortunately, that exchange fails to clearly communicate the Father’s desire and, as a result, there has been confusion and division within the Church.

Is it unfortunate or is there a failure to savor the things of God?

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 10:34 - King James Version

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

www.biblegateway.com

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 10:35 - King James Version

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

www.biblegateway.com

Are these "confusing" or abstract words not fulfillment of His Word?