Mateus 16
David Guzik · Citado em PreceptAustin
Mateus 16
Guzik - Peter knew the opinion of the crowd—while it was complimentary towards Jesus—wasn’t accurate. Jesus was much more than John the Baptist or Elijah or a prophet. He was more than a national reformer, more than a miracle worker, more than a prophet. Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah.
Mateus 16
Guzik comments that "Peter, by His own testimony, did not see himself as the rock on which the church was founded. He wrote that we are living stones, but Jesus is the cornerstone. We could say that Peter was the “first believer”; that he was the “first rock” among “many rocks.” Peter explains upon Whom the church will be built... And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For this is contained in Scripture: “BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.” 7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, “THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone,” 8and, “A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE”; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed. (1 Peter 2:4-8+, compare Acts 4:10-12+) Peter himself explains that Jesus is the Corner Stone, not Peter! Peter says that Jesus is the foundation. There is a sense in which the apostles played a foundational role in the building of the church, but the role of primacy is reserved for Christ alone, not assigned to Peter. Paul affirms that Jesus is the Cornerstone... Ephesians 2:19-20+ So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, Arnold Fruchtenbaum explains that "The simple point of Greek grammar is: You cannot modify a masculine by a feminine. A feminine noun can never modify a masculine noun. The word for Peter, petros, is a masculine noun and means “a small stone or pebble.” Yeshua said, “You are Peter—Petros. You are a small stone—a small pebble—just like the small stones or pebbles in this stream shooting forth from the base of the cliff-rock, which overshadowed the town of Caesarea Philippi.” On the other hand, when He talked about this rock, the Greek term He used was petra. Petra is a feminine noun which means “a massive cliff-rock,” just like the one overshadowing Caesarea Philippi. So, Peter is a small stone, which make terrible foundations. You do not build a building on a foundation of small stones. But a house could be built on a solid, massive, huge cliff-rock, because that would be a firm foundation. So Yeshua said to Peter, you are Peter [petros, masculine noun, meaning a small stone], and upon this rock [Petra, feminine noun, meaning a huge, massive cliff-rock] I will build my church. In other words: “Peter, you are a petros, a small stone like the ones in the river that are broken off this cliff. But upon the petra, from which you were broken off, I will build My Church.” Bruce Barton - The “rock” on which Jesus would build his church has been identified in four main ways: The “rock” refers to Jesus himself (his work of salvation by dying for us on the cross). This would mean that Jesus is the divine architect of our faith and that he himself is the chief cornerstone. But this truth does not seem to be what the language conveys here. The focus was on Peter and on Jesus’ response to him. The “rock” refers to Peter as the supreme leader or first “bishop” of the church. This view is promoted by Roman Catholic scholars. It gives authority to the hierarchy of their church and regards Peter and each of his successors as the supreme pontiff of the church. There is no mention of succession in these verses, however, and while the early church expressed high regard for Peter, there is no evidence that they regarded him as final authority. Also, this creates a great problem because such a view excludes the churches who do not trace their origin to Peter. The “rock” refers to the confession of faith that Peter gave and that all subsequent true believers give. This view was promoted by Luther and the reformers as a reaction to view number two. To regard Peter’s confession and discount his leadership makes the situation unnecessarily abstract. Peter was looked to as a leader in the church. In the phrase, “You are Peter,” you is emphatic, emphasizing Peter’s role. The “rock” refers to Peter as the leader and spokesman (foundation stone) of the disciples. Just as Peter had revealed the true identity of Christ, so Jesus revealed Peter’s identity and role. While apostolic succession cannot be found in this context or in any of the epistles, Peter’s role as a leader and spokesman of the church must not be discounted. This view has an element from number two in that Peter is the forerunner because he is the one who received the revelation of insight and faith concerning Christ’s identity, and Peter is the first one who confessed Christ. (Borrow Life Application Commentary) Peter (4074)(petros Latin = Petrus) is a masculine proper noun which means a "stone" and generally a smaller stone than the feminine form petra which refers to a massive rock or a foundation boulder (eg Mt 7:24+). Peter is the Greek equivalent of the Syriac or Aramaic name Cephas (Kephas from Aramaic kay fah) which was assigned to Simon by Jesus. Peter was not always a model of rock-like (petros is a symbol of imperturbability as determined from used in Greek literature) firmness. Note for example his actions in Gethsemane, his denial three times of Christ, his unsuccessful attempt at walking on water and his conduct at Antioch (Gal 2:11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21) where he is called Cephas. Despite all this Peter was clearly the leader of Jesus’ disciples, the spokesman for the Twelve and one of the three closest to Jesus. All uses in Matthew - Matt. 4:18; Matt. 8:14; Matt. 10:2; Matt. 14:28; Matt. 14:29; Matt. 15:15; Matt. 16:16; Matt. 16:18; Matt. 16:22; Matt. 16:23; Matt. 17:1; Matt. 17:4; Matt. 17:24; Matt. 18:21; Matt. 19:27; Matt. 26:33; Matt. 26:35; Matt. 26:37; Matt. 26:40; Matt. 26:58; Matt. 26:69; Matt. 26:73; Matt. 26:75; Rock (4073)(petra feminine of the masculine noun petros) refers to a massive rock, a large expanse of bedrock or a great outcropping of rock. Vine distinguishes petra as a "mass of rock" from the masculine petros which refers to a detached stone or boulder, including a stone that might be thrown or easily moved. All uses of petra translated rock(10), rocks(3), rocky(2). - Matt. 7:24; Matt. 7:25; Matt. 16:18; Matt. 27:51; Matt. 27:60; Mk. 15:46; Lk. 6:48; Lk. 8:6; Lk. 8:13; Ro 9:33; 1 Co. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8; Rev. 6:15; Rev. 6:16 Build (3618)(oikodomeo from oikos = dwelling + doma = building [of a house] from demo = to build) means literally to build, construct or erect a dwelling. Matt. 7:24; Matt. 7:26; Matt. 16:18; Matt. 21:33; Matt. 21:42; Matt. 23:29; Matt. 26:61; Matt. 27:40 Church (1577)(ekklesia from ek = out + klesis = a calling, verb = kaleo = to call) literally means called out (but see note by Louw-Nida below) and as commonly used in the Greco-Roman vernacular referred to citizens who were called out from their homes to be publicly assembled or gathered to discuss or carry out affairs of state.
Mateus 16
Guzik - This idea of Peter holding the keys of the kingdom of heaven has captured the imagination (and theology) of many Christians throughout the centuries. In artistic representation, Peter is almost always shown with keys. Some people think that this means that Peter has the authority to admit people to heaven, or to keep people out of heaven. This is the basis for the popular image of Peter at the Pearly Gates of Heaven, allowing people to enter or turning them away.. Some people think that it also means that Peter was the first Pope, and that his supposed successors have the keys that were first given to Peter. Indeed, the Papal insignia of the Roman Catholic Church is made up of two prominent keys crossed together.i. There is no doubt that Peter had a special place among all the disciples, and that he had some special privileges: He is always listed first in the listings of the disciples. He opened doors of the kingdom to the Jews in Acts 2:38–39. He opened doors of the kingdom to the Gentiles in Acts 10:34–44.. Yet there is no Biblical argument whatsoever that Peter’s privilege or authority was passed on. To put it one way; one might say that Jesus gave Peter the keys, but didn’t give him the authority to pass them on to further generations, and there is not a whisper in the Scriptures that Peter’s authority was to be passed on. The idea that apostolic authority comes from Jesus, who gave it to Peter, who set his hands on the heads of approved and ordained men, who in turn set their hands on the heads of approved and ordained men, and so on and so on through the generations until today is nonsense. It is exactly what Spurgeon said it was: the laying of empty hands on empty heads. And whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven:- The expressions "shall be bound in heaven" and "shall be loosed in heaven" are examples in Greek of the periphrastic future perfect passive construction and should, therefore, be translated "will have been bound already" and "will have been loosed already" in heaven. In other words, Peter's pronouncement of "binding" or "loosing" is dependent upon what heaven has already willed, rather than earth's giving direction to heaven. Michael Andrus on bind and loose - The metaphor of binding and loosing was used by the rabbis for declaring something forbidden or permitted.iv But it is critical that we pay attention to the grammar here in verse 19. In my version there is a footnote with the verb “will be” both times and a note that the Greek literally reads, “will have been.” It’s actually a future perfect tense. That makes a huge difference. If it said “will be,” that would mean that Peter would be setting policy in heaven. But the future perfect means that Peter is just discerning and responding to what God has already done in heaven. I don’t have any problem accepting that this was Peter’s job, because it’s also the task of every apostle and every true follower of Jesus. Furthermore, Matthew makes it absolutely clear that Peter is not the only one given this responsibility. Look over one page to Matthew 18:18. There the identical promise is made, but Peter is nowhere mentioned in the section from Mt 18:15-20. Jesus is evidently speaking to all the apostles, or better yet, speaking to the church as a whole. In fact, the very next verse reads, “I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.” This has always been interpreted as “two or three believers,” not just as “two or three apostles.” So, apparently this wonderful promise of binding and loosing, of authority in His church is not the exclusive property of Peter or even of the Apostles.(Sermon) Broadus - Bind and loose, in the Talmud and other Rabbinical writings (Lightf., Wet., Wün., Edersh.), signify to interpret and apply the law and traditions on any subject with strictness or with laxity, and hence in general to forbid or allow. The strict school of Shammai is represented as binding many things which the school of Hillel loosed. . Comp. on Mt 19:3. In Rabbinical phrase it would be said that in Acts 15:10 Peter advocated loosing what the Judaizers wished to bind. Guzik - “Binding” and “loosing” were administrative terms in daily Jewish life; whenever a Jew came up against the Law of Moses, that Jewish person was either “bound” or “loosed” in regard to that law. To loose was to permit; to bind was to prohibit. To loose was to free from the law, to bind was to put under the law. “Their regular sense, which any Jew would recognize was to allow and to forbid. To bind something was to declare it forbidden; to loose was to declare it allowed. These were the regular phrases for taking decisions in regard to the law.” (Barclay) In daily Jewish life, this could be rather complicated. Here is one example from ancient rabbinical writings, cited by teacher Mike Russ: If your dog dies in your house, is your house clean or unclean? Unclean. If your dog dies outside your house, is your house clean or unclean? Clean. If your dog dies on the doorstep, is your house clean or unclean? Ancient rabbinical writings took the issue on and decided that if the dog died with his nose pointing into the house, the house was unclean; if the dog died with his nose pointing away from the house, the house was clean. As their rabbi, Jesus did this binding and loosing for His own disciples. Without using the same words, this is what Jesus did when He allowed them to take the grains of wheat in the field (Matthew 12:1–8). Significantly, when it came time to understand the dietary laws of the Old Covenant in light of the new work of Jesus, God spoke to Peter first. He and the other apostles, guided by the Spirit of God, would bind and loose Christians regarding such parts of the Old Covenant. In a lesser, secondary sense, this power is with the Church today. “Today the Lord continues to back up the teaching and acts of his sent servants, those Peters who are pieces of the one Rock. The judgments of his Church, when rightly administered, have his sanction so as to make them valid. The words of his sent servants, spoken in his name, shall be confirmed of the Lord, and shall not be, either as to promise or threatening, a mere piece of rhetoric.” (Spurgeon) John MacArthur helps understand what Jesus is saying here - Then He said it to the whole duly constituted assembly of redeemed people. You mean we (BELIEVERS TODAY) can go into the world and say your sins are bound on you, your sins are loosed from you, your sins are forgiven, your sins are not forgiven, you can do that, you can’t do that? What authority. That’s right. That’s right. You say, “Well, now wait a minute. Where did we get that authority? How in the world can we have that authority?” I’ll tell you how. Very simple. Where is all of the truth needed to apply to every situation? It’s in the Word of God, isn’t it? It says what you’re doing shall have already been done where? In heaven. You want to know how we can know what heaven is approving and disapproving? It’s right here, isn’t it? I have the authority, if a person comes up to me, I can say to that person, “Have you received Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?” If he says yes, I say then your sins are forgiven, your sins are loosed. If someone says to me, “I have never received Jesus Christ,” I have the authority based on the Word of God to say to that individual your sins are retained, your sins are not forgiven. And I have the authority to know that what I said to that individual, heaven has already said because heaven has revealed it right here. That’s that authority. It is not some authority isolated from the Word of God. That’s why the promise of the keys came on the heels of a divine revelation from the Father. As long as the Father is giving you the Word on the basis of the revelation of the Father, you have the authority. And I can say to a person you are forbidden to do that. Why? Because the Bible says so. I can say to another person you’re free to do that because the Bible says so. So that Peter had that right. The disciples had that right. So does the church because we have heaven’s word on the matter. You understand? So it isn’t some authority based on title. It isn’t some authority based on office, or some human worthiness, or some elevation, or some intelligence level, or some wisdom level. It is that the authority of the church lies in the fact that the church has heaven’s word on everything and it can take heaven’s word and make it authoritative in the lives of people.....So the church is the authority of the world. That’s right. And those who are in the church are authoritative in the world as long as they enforce the Word of the living God revealed to them through the Spirit. And so we have authority. And we don’t worry about what the world says, we’re not going to change our message. We’re not going to compromise. Our reason to exist in this world is to glorify God and we glorify God when we hold up the standard of His Word, don’t we? (Sermon) Wuest expanded translation of Mt 16:18,19: "And answering, Jesus said to him, Spiritually prosperous are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you but my Father who is in heaven. Moreover, as for myself, I also am saying to you, You are Rock [petros, masculine in gender, a detached but large fragment of rock], and upon this massive rock [petra, feminine in gender, feminine demonstrative pronoun cannot go back to masculine petros; petra, a rocky peak, a massive rock] I will build my Church. And the councils of the unseen world shall not overpower it. I shall give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth [forbid to be done], shall have been already bound [forbidden to be done] in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth [permit to be done], shall have already been loosed in heaven [permitted to be done]." (Wuest Word Studies - Eerdman Publishing Company Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 - used by permission) Louis Barbieri summarizes keys, bind and loose - A “key” was a sign of authority, for a trusted steward kept the keys to his master’s possessions and dispensed them accordingly (cf. “the keys of death and hades” [Rev. 1:18] and “the key of David” [Rev. 3:7], which Jesus possesses). Peter was told he would possess the keys and be able to bind and loose people. These were decisions Peter was to implement as he received instruction from heaven, for the binding and loosing occurred there first. Peter simply carried out God’s directions. This privilege of binding and loosing was seen in Peter’s life as he had the privilege on the day of Pentecost to proclaim the gospel and announce to all those who responded in saving faith that their sins had been forgiven (Acts 2). He was able to do the same thing with the household of Cornelius (Acts 10–11; cf. Acts 15:19–20). The same privilege was given all the disciples (John 20:22–23). (Bible Knowledge Commentary) Question - What are the keys of the kingdom? Answer - The biblical passage that makes reference to the “keys of the kingdom” is Matthew 16:19. Jesus had asked His disciples who people thought He was. After hearing several of the more popular opinions, Jesus aimed His question directly at His disciples. Peter, responding for the twelve, acknowledged Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the Living God. After this great confession, Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 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” (Matthew 16:17–19). Keys are used to lock or unlock doors. The specific doors Jesus has in mind in this passage are the doors to the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus is laying the foundation of His church (Ephesians 2:20). The disciples will be the leaders of this new institution, and Jesus is giving them the authority to, as it were, open the doors to heaven and invite the world to enter. At this point it is important to understand how, biblically speaking, one enters the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus said that, unless one is born again, he will not see the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3:3). One is born again as the Holy Spirit works through the Word of God to bring about new life in a dead sinner. The content of the message is the substitutionary death of Christ and His subsequent resurrection (Romans 10:9–10). So the faithful preaching of the gospel is the key to the kingdom. In Matthew 16:19, Jesus is specifically addressing Peter, so it is significant that, in the book of Acts, Peter figures prominently in the “opening of doors” to three different groups of people so they can enter the Kingdom. In Acts 2, it is Peter who preaches in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost; about three thousand Jewish people are saved that day. Peter’s preaching had “unlocked the door” of heaven for the Jews. Later, in Acts 8, the Samaritans believe the gospel and receive the Holy Spirit; again, Peter (and John) was present for this event. Peter had “unlocked the door” for the Samaritans. Then, in Acts 10, Peter brings the gospel to a Roman centurion’s household, and they, too, receive the Holy Spirit. Peter had “unlocked the door” for the Gentiles. The “keys” that Jesus had given him worked in each case. Of course, keys can be used to lock doors as well as open them. Part of the gospel message is that faith is necessary. Without faith in Christ, the door to heaven is shut and barred (see John 3:18). As the apostles preached the gospel, those who responded in faith and repentance were granted access to the Kingdom of Heaven; yet those who continued to harden their hearts and reject the gospel of God’s saving grace were shut out of the Kingdom (Acts 8:23). The context of Matthew 16 also refers to a “binding and loosing.” To better understand this concept, we turn to Matthew 18:15–20, where Jesus gives the guidelines for church discipline, using the same “binding and loosing” language we find in Matthew 16. The apostles were not to usurp Christ’s authority over individual believers and their eternal destiny, but they were to exercise authority to discipline erring believers and, if necessary, excommunicate disobedient church members. Based on God’s Word, believers today can declare an unrepentant sinner to be unsaved (“bound”) and a repentant believer in Jesus Christ to be saved (“loosed”). The binding or loosing, based on one’s rejection or acceptance of the gospel, reflects heaven’s perspective on the matter. In heaven, Christ ratifies what is done in His name and in obedience to His Word on earth. God’s will is that sinners be granted access to heaven through the righteousness of Christ. Consider Jesus’ warning to the Pharisees: “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in” (Matthew 23:13). If the gospel message is distorted or ignored, or if unrepentant sin is not adequately disciplined, the doors to the Kingdom of Heaven are being shut in people’s faces.GotQuestions.org Walter Kaiser, et al - And what about the “keys of the kingdom”? The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or major domo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim: “I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open” (Is 22:22). So in the new community that Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward. In the early chapters of Acts Peter is seen exercising this responsibility in the primitive church. He acts as chairman of the group of disciples in Jerusalem even before the coming of the Spirit at the first Christian Pentecost (Acts 1:15–26); on the day of Pentecost it is he who preaches the gospel so effectively that three thousand hearers believe the message and are incorporated in the church (Acts 2:41); some time later it is he who first preaches the gospel to a Gentile audience and thus “opens a door of faith” to Gentiles as well as Jews (Acts 10:34–38). Both in Jerusalem at Pentecost and in the house of Cornelius at Caesarea, what Peter does on earth is ratified in heaven by the bestowal of the Holy Spirit on his converts. This divine confirmation was specially important in his approach to Gentiles. As Peter put it himself, “God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:8–9). “Binding” and “loosing” were idiomatic expressions in rabbinical Judaism to denote the promulgation of rulings either forbidding or authorizing various kinds of activity. The authority to bind or loose given to Peter in the present context is given to the disciples as a body in Matthew 18:18, in a saying of Jesus similarly preserved by this Evangelist only. Again, the record of Acts provides an illustration. Where church discipline is in view, Peter’s verbal rebuke of Ananias and Sapphira received drastic ratification from heaven (Acts 5:1–11). And Paul for his part, though he was not one of the disciples present when Jesus pronounced these words of authorization, expects that when judgment is pronounced by the church of Corinth on a man who has brought the Christian name into public disrepute, “and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present,” the judgment will be given practical effect by God (1 Cor 5:3–5). Again, when “the apostles and the elders” came together in Jerusalem to consider the conditions on which Gentile believers might be recognized as fellow members of the church, their decision was issued as something which “seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28). Here, then, Luke may be held to provide a commentary on Matthew’s record by showing how, in pursuance of Jesus’ words, the keys of the kingdom were used and the power of binding and loosing was exercised in the primitive church in preaching, discipline and legislation. This may be added. The words in which Peter is singled out for special commendation and authority were probably handed down in a community where Peter’s name was specially esteemed. The church of Antioch in Syria was one such community. There are other reasons for envisaging a fairly close association between the church of Antioch and the Gospel of Matthew, and it may well have been from material about Peter preserved at Antioch that Matthew derived these words which he incorporates into his account of what Jesus said at Caesarea Philippi. (Hard Sayings) Question: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? Answer: The concept of “binding and loosing” is taught in the Bible in Matthew 16:19: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” In this verse, Jesus is speaking directly to the apostle Peter and indirectly to the other apostles. Jesus’ words meant that Peter would have the right to enter the kingdom himself, that he would have general authority symbolized by the possession of the keys, and that preaching the gospel would be the means of opening the kingdom of heaven to all believers and shutting it against unbelievers. The book of Acts shows us this process at work. By his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-40), Peter opened the door of the kingdom for the first time. The expressions “bind” and “loose” were common to Jewish legal phraseology meaning to declare something forbidden or to declare it allowed. Peter and the other disciples were to continue Christ’s work on earth in preaching the gospel and declaring God’s will to men and they were armed with the same authority as He possessed. In Matthew 18:18, there is also a reference to the binding and loosing in the context of church discipline. The apostles do not usurp Christ’s lordship and authority over individual believers and their eternal destiny, but they do exercise the authority to discipline and, if necessary, excommunicate disobedient church members. It’s not that the apostles were given the privilege of changing God’s mind, as if whatever they decided on earth would be duplicated in heaven; rather, they were encouraged that, as they moved forward in their apostolic duties, they would be fulfilling God’s plan in heaven. When the apostles “bound” something, or forbade it on earth, they were carrying out the will of God in the matter. When they “loosed” something, or allowed it on earth, they were likewise fulfilling God’s eternal plan. In both Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, the syntax of the Greek text makes the meaning clear: “Whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens” (Matthew 16:19, Young’s Literal Translation). Or, as the Amplified Bible puts it, “Whatever you bind [forbid, declare to be improper and unlawful] on earth will have [already] been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose [permit, declare lawful] on earth will have [already] been loosed in heaven.” Jesus taught that the apostles had a special task on earth. Their words of authority, as recorded in the New Testament epistles, reflect God’s will for the church. When Paul declared an anathema on those who pervert the gospel, then we know that anathema was already declared in heaven (see Galatians 1:8–9). GotQuestions.org Norman Geisler - MATTHEW 16:19—Does this text prove that Peter, as the first Pope, was given special authority by Christ to forgive sins? MISINTERPRETATION: After Peter’s confession that Jesus was the Son of God, Jesus said, “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19 NIV). According to Catholic teaching, “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” mean “supreme authority on earth over the earthly empire of God. The person who possesses the power of the keys has the full power of allowing a person to enter the empire of God or to exclude him from it [and] . . . the power to forgive sins must also be included in the power of the keys” (Ott, 1960, 418). CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: That Jesus’ disciples were given the power to pronounce the forgiveness of or retaining of sins by Christ is not disputed by Protestants. What is disputed is whether this is a unique power now possessed by those with proper ordination, such as Roman Catholic priests. There is absolutely nothing in this text to indicate that it is. It is important to observe that Jesus gave this same power to all the apostles (Matt. 18:18), not just to Peter. So, whatever this power was it was not unique to Peter. In fact, everyone who proclaims the gospel has the same power, for the gospel “is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16 NIV). Indeed, Paul defined the gospel in terms of Christ dying and rising “for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:1–4). So every preacher of the gospel—clergy or laity—has the power to say, on the basis of a person accepting Christ’s death and resurrection for them, that their sins are forgiven. Likewise, all who evangelize can say to those who reject the gospel that their sins are retained. For, as the apostle Paul said, messengers of Christ are “the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To the one we are the smell of death” (2 Cor. 2:15–16). The Catholic claim that the Old Testament priesthood is somehow “translated” into a New Testament priesthood on the basis of Hebrews 7:12 misses the whole point of this passage. The writer of Hebrews is arguing that both the law and the Old Testament priesthood are done away with by Christ, our great High Priest, for he writes: “When there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law” (Heb. 7:12 NIV). He then goes on to say “a former commandment is annulled . . .” (v. 18). Christ did not translate Aaron’s Old Testament priesthood into a new one for priests in the New Testament. The whole point of this section of Hebrews is to show that Christ, by perfectly fulfilling what the Old Testament priesthood prefigured (cf. 7:11, 18–19), did away with it and replaced it with his own high priestly office, after the order of Melchizedek, not after Aaron (7:17–28). Indeed, a vivid contrast is made here between the repeated offerings of the Aaronic priests and the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ our High Priest that should cause serious pause for Roman Catholics who believe that Catholic priests offer up continually the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass. The Book of Hebrews declares: “Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but he [Christ], having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God.” For “by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified” (Heb. 10:11–12, 14 NASB). Contrary to the Catholic claim that Hebrews is only speaking of a once-for-all unbloody sacrifice, no such qualifying word is found in the text. Hebrews says emphatically the opposite of what Catholics affirm, namely, that the Mass is a sacrifice that is repeated over and over. Holy Writ says explicitly that Christ offered one sacrifice for sins for all time. Then he sat (his work finished forever) at the right hand of God (Heb. 10:12). This sacrifice is called a “once for all” offering in the preceding verse, which is directly opposed to the Catholic view. While Roman Catholicism acknowledges that “the entire Christian family” is “a kingdom of priests,” nevertheless in practice it denies what the New Testament clearly affirms, namely, that all believers are priests. By making such a strong distinction between the common or universal priesthood and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood they render ineffective the apostle Peter’s teaching that all God’s elect (1 Peter 1:1) are “a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God” (2:9). In fact, there is only one priest necessary in the New Covenant, our great High Priest Jesus Christ (cf. Heb. 7–8). The task left for all other priests (namely, all believers) is to minister the gospel (2 Cor. 3–4). The appeal to the Old Testament to show that all Israelites were called priests (Exod. 19:21–21) even when God had established the Aaronic priesthood as a special ministerial class misses the whole point of Hebrews (“Quick Questions,” This Rock [September 1993], 30). The Aaronic priesthood has been done away with—and every believer has direct access to only one High Priest, Jesus Christ, who ever lives to make intercession for us! The fact is that nowhere in the New Testament are church leaders called “priests.” They are called “elders” or “bishops” (overseers) who were exhorted by the apostle Peter (1 Peter 5:2) to “shepherd the flock of God among you, [overseeing] not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God.” Peter continues, exhorting overseers to be examples to the flock. “And when the Chief Shepherd appears you will receive the unfading crown of glory” (1 Peter 5:4 NASB). The whole hierarchical institution of the Roman Catholic priesthood as a special class of men endowed with special priestly powers to forgive sins and to transform the communion elements into the actual body and blood of Christ is contrary to the teaching of these verses. For in these verses: (1) no one is described as a priest nor has priestly powers except the Chief Shepherd Christ himself; (2) Peter describes himself as “a fellow elder” (v. 1); (3) the leaders of the flock are called elders, not priests; (4) they are depicted as undershepherds, not overlords (cf. v. 3) of the church; (5) they have no special binding power but are to lead by example, not by constraint (vv. 2–3). The whole spirit of this is contrary to the priestly powers claimed by the Roman Catholic church. (When Cultists Ask) Matthew 16:20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ. He warned: Mt 8:4 17:9 Mk 8:30 9:9 Lu 9:21,36 Christ: Joh 1:41,45 20:31 Ac 2:36 1Jn 2:22 5:1 Matthew 16 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passages: Mark 8:30+ And He warned them to tell no one about Him. Luke 9:21+ But He warned them and instructed them not to tell this to anyone, WARNING TO NOT DISCLOSE HE IS THE MESSIAH Then He warned (epitimao) the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ - This is the "Messianic Secret" (see note on "Messianic Secret") which simply means that Jesus would not permit Himself to be revealed to the Jewish leaders as the Messiah until the time was ripe. Jesus is not saying that He is not the Christ (Messiah), but just that they are not to disclose that to anyone at this time. Within the next six months, the time would be ripe and Jesus would be brought before Caiaphas the high priest in his second "religious" trial and Mark records the disclosure that He was indeed the Messiah, the Son of God... But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, “Are You the Christ (THE MESSIAH), the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am (EGO EIMI), and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.” 63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? 64 “You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.(Mk 14:61-64+) Jesus knew that when He was revealed as Messiah, it would bring about His crucifixion and the His time had still not yet come in Matthew 16. Barton - When the disciples saw all this happen to Jesus, they would understand what the Messiah had come to do. They would have a difficult time understanding Jesus’ work until his earthly mission was complete. Only then would they be equipped to share the gospel around the world. (Borrow Life Application Commentary) Henry
Mateus 16
Guzik - We can be sure that Peter was not aware that he spoke for Satan, just as a moment before he was not aware that he spoke for God. It is often much easier to be a tool of God or of the devil than we want to believe. Josh Black - Jesus tells Peter to get behind him, but he doesn’t tell him to go away, like he did Satan. Jesus is putting Peter in his place. He reminds Peter that he is a follower and that his place is behind Jesus. And this is the place where all disciples belong. If we are to be Jesus’ disciples we have to follow Jesus and if we’re going to follow Jesus we too have to get behind him and surrender our will to him, in the same way that He surrendered his will to the Father.
Mateus 16
Guzik - It’s not hard to see Peter following these steps: • Peter confesses Jesus as the Messiah. • Jesus compliments Peter, telling him that God revealed this to him. • Jesus tells of His impending suffering, death, and resurrection. • Peter feels this isn’t right, and he feels that he hears from God and therefore has some authority or right to speak. • Peter begins to rebuke Jesus. “ ‘Began’ suggests that Peter gets only so far before Jesus cuts him off.” (Carson) F B
Mateus 16
Guzik has an interesting comment that " Jesus exposed how Peter came into this satanic way of thinking. He didn’t make a deliberate choice to reject God and embrace Satan; he simply let his mind settle on the things of men instead of the things of God, and Satan took advantage of it. Peter is a perfect example of how a sincere heart coupled with man’s thinking can often lead to disaster." Gregg Allen on man's interest - It's so often true that, to men, the message of the cross is utter foolishness. It doesn't make sense that the King of kings would come to suffer and die. Brian Bell - What was Peter’s mistake? He was thinking like a man (we want to escape any suffering & death). i.e. self preservation. He didn’t have God’s mind in this matter. Have you been mindful of the things of God lately or only your things? Peter had enough faith to Confess that Jesus is the Son of God, but he did not have the faith to believe that it was right for Jesus to suffer & die. Josh Black - Even the people who are on Jesus’ side can act as an enemy to the will of God through their behavior. And anyone or anything is a hindrance to God’s plan of salvation is of Satan. And Satan’s way says there is no success without human greatness. Peter the rock just became Peter the "rock" to stumble over, a stumbling block. Setting...mind (5426)(phroneo from phren = literally the diaphragm and thus that which curbs or restrains. Figuratively, phren is the supposed seat of all mental and emotional activity) refers to the basic orientation, bent, and thought patterns of the mind, rather than to the mind or intellect itself (that is the Greek word nous). Phroneo includes a person’s affections and will as well as his reasoning. In other words phroneo refers not simply to intellectual activity but also to direction and purpose of heart. A typical Pauline word used only 2 times in the Gospels - Matt. 16:23; Mk. 8:33; Acts 28:22; Rom. 8:5; Rom. 11:20; Rom. 12:3; Rom. 12:16; Rom. 14:6; Rom. 15:5; 1 Co. 13:11; Gal. 5:10; Phil. 1:7; Phil. 2:2; Phil. 2:5; Phil. 3:15; Phil. 3:19; Phil. 4:2; Phil. 4:10; Col. 3:2 Believer's Study Bible - This verse attests that Jesus' death was God's affair, for Jesus rebuked Peter for not understanding God's matters. Satan's purpose would be served if Jesus' death were deterred. This interpretation is supported by 20:28 (cf. Mark 10:45), for in His death the mission of the Suffering Son of Man is realized. 16:28 No expectation of the final return of Christ is involved in these words of Jesus. Historically, three major views have been maintained by biblical scholars: (1) Jesus is speaking of His triumphal entry into Jerusalem a few days hence; (2) the reference is to the resurrection of Christ and His victory over death; or (3) because of the position this verse occupies in the text of Matthew, the reference is to the Lord's transfiguration, which follows immediately in Matthew's Gospel. Proximity of story favors the latter view, which is verified by the description given by Simon Peter in 2 Pet. 1:16 of the "coming" (parousia, Gk.) of the Lord in power. Ryrie - Satan. Peter is sharply rebuked for aligning himself with Satan's plan to deter Jesus from fulfilling His mission. The harshness of the rebuke stems from Christ's fierce realism about the principal purpose of His coming to earth, which was to die. a stumbling block or "rock of offence" (Rom. 9:33). Perhaps a further play on the word "rock" in verse 18. (Borrow Ryrie Study Bible) Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. If: Mt 10:38 Mk 8:34 10:21 Lu 9:23-27 14:27 Ac 14:22 Col 1:24 1Th 3:3 2Ti 3:12 Heb 11:24-26 and take: Mt 27:32 Mk 15:21 Lu 23:26 Joh 19:17 1Pe 4:1,2 A Treatise of Self-Denial - Thomas Manton (281 page book!) Matthew 16 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passages: Mark 8:34-38+ And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. Luke 9:23-27+ And He was saying to them all, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me. Matthew 10:38+ And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. Luke 14:27+ “Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. GENUINE DISCIPLESHIP Then Jesus said to His disciples = - Notice that in Mark's parallel Jesus "summoned the crowd with His disciples." Broadus - Then would not make us sure that it followed immediately (comp. Mt 3:13), but Mark leaves no doubt: ‘And he called unto him the multitude with his disciples, and said unto them,’ etc. This also shows that the notable saying which follows was addressed, not to the disciples only, but to a great throng; so Luke 9:23, R. V., ‘he said unto all.’ He has come away from the place at which he had been praying alone (Luke 9:18), and now a crowd is near; but as to persons or locality we have no information. "If anyone wishes to come after Me - Not "wish" like we use it in English, but an exercise of one's will or desire to follow Jesus.
Mateus 16
Guzik - We must follow Jesus this way, because it is the only way that we will ever find life. It sounds strange to say, “You will never live until you first walk to your death with Jesus,” but that is the idea. You can’t gain resurrection life without dying first.. You don’t lose a seed when you plant it, though it seems dead and buried. Instead, you set the seed free to be what it was always intended to be. For My sake means simply that we live for Jesus, not for ourselves, His eternal glory, not our fleeting glory! Mk 8:35 adds "and the gospel's." For My sake means Because of His Name. Because we openly, proudly "wear" His Name. It will cost! See related passages on for the sake of Jesus and His Name (His Name equates with all that He is, His essence, His attributes, etc)... Matthew 10:22 “You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved. Matthew 19:29 “And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name’s sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life. Luke 6:22; 23+ “Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man. 23 “Be glad in that day and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven. For in the same way their fathers used to treat the prophets. John 15:20; 21 “Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. 21 “But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me. Acts 9:16+ (JESUS SPEAKS OF PAUL) for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake.”
Mateus 16
Guzik - What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Avoiding the walk down death row with Jesus means that we may gain the whole world, and end up losing everything. Jesus Himself had the opportunity to gain all the world by worshipping Satan (Luke 4:5-8), but found life and victory in obedience instead (Ed: Obedience is a reflection of one's faith. No obedience, no faith in Jesus and His Gospel). Amazingly, the people who live this way before Jesus are the (only) ones who are really, genuinely happy (blessed). Giving our lives to Jesus all the way, and living as an others-centered person does not take away from our lives, it adds to it. (Enduring Word Commentary)