Peter's Confession of Christ ~ Matthew 16
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter,and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 1I 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." Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
So there is the scripture verse. What is the proper interpretation? I have come across a couple different takes on it. These are my basic/fuzzy descriptions. Don't quote me but please help me out.
A. This has been used in teachings for spiritual warfare. This interpretation believes that the binding and loosing is an authority over demonic powers that a believer in Jesus (Peter being the first to confess belief out loud) has been given.
B. While reading Rob Bell's "Velvet Elvis" I came across his interpretation of this verse and his take on it was that it was referring to what is known as a rabbi's yoke. A rabbi's yoke is a respected rabbi's interpretation on a certain biblical verse. Jesus, who is a rabbi, has said something along the lines "You have heard it been said but now I tell you....". A rabbi with proper authority would than bind or loose an interpretation as he sees fit.
I came from a spiritual upbringing that would definitely affirm the first interpretation but I had no problem with this take on the verse either. I also found it ironic that a verse that I was having slight difficulty in finding an interpretation was about interpreting bible verses...possibly. Perhaps there can be an integration of intepretations?
C. This verse could probably used as a scriptural basis for the roman catholic doctrine of papal infallibity/authority. Since I consider that belief to be stupid if not heretical(pardon by protestantism, I respect roman catholicism a lot)I kind of need to know what it means to refute this take.
Any feedback would be appreciated. I am very interested.
1 year ago