500 Years of Protestantism: 38 Things Martin Luther Wrote

[Randy_Carson]

I thought Peter was a “stone”.

Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter is the Rock

Here are five of the more than two dozen quotes I have from heavyweight Protestant scholars regarding the identity of “the rock” in Matthew 16:18.

W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann

“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. “To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter,” Albright says, “among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter. (Ibid.)

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)

“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)
**
Oscar Cullman (Protestant Scholar)**

“But what does Jesus mean when He says: ‘On this rock I will build my church’? The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in vew of the probably different setting of the story. For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia [church]. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich), [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1968], 6:108).

Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)

“The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy” (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

David Hill (Presbyterian)

“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

 

[Randy_Carson]

In Revelations Jesus has the keys. He did give them to Peter, just not sure it was also to all the apostles, all the disciples, down to every Christian. But for sure Jesus meant something by it.

Protestant Scholars on the Keys of the Kingdom

W.F. Albright

“In commenting upon Matthew 16 and Jesus giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Isaiah 22:15 and following undoubtedly lies behind this saying. The keys are the symbol of authority and DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household of ancient Israel.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

“It is of considerable importance, that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are discussed, the symbol of the keys is absent, since the saying applies in these instances to a wider circle. The role of Peter as steward of the kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority as was the case of the Old Testament chamberlain who held the keys.” (ibid.)

William Barclay

We now come to two phrases in which Jesus describes certain privileges which were given to and certain duties which were laid on Peter.

He says that he will give to Peter the keys of the Kingdom. This is obviously a difficult phrase; and we will do well to begin by detting down the things about it of which we can be sure…All these New Testament pictures and usages go back to a picture in Isaiah (Isaiah 22:22). Isaiah describes Eliakim, who will have the key of the house of David on his shoulder, and who alone [emphasis added] will open and shut. Now the duty of Eliakim was to be the faithful steward of the house. It is the steward who carries the keys of the house, who in the morning opens the door, and in the evening shuts it, and through whom visitors gain access to the royal presence. So then what Jesus is saying to Peter is that in the days to come, he will be the steward of the Kingdom…

Oscar Cullman

“In Matthew 16:19 it is presupposed that Christ is the master of the house, who has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, with which to open to those who wish to come in. Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord lays the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so Jesus commits to Peter the keys of His house, the Kingdom of Heaven, and thereby installs him as administrator of the house.” (Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 1953).

R.T. France

“These terms (binding and loosing) thus refer to a teaching function, and more specifically one of making halakhic pronouncements (i.e. relative to laws not written down in Jewish Scriptures but based on an oral interpretation of them) which are binding on the people of God. In that case, Peter’s ‘power of the keys’ declared in (Matt) 16:19 is not so much that of a doorkeeper, who decides who may or may not be admitted, but that of the steward whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household” (Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, 1989, 247).

Gerhardt Meier

“Nowadays, a broad consensus has emerged which, in accordance with the words of the text applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal and conservative theologians agree…Matthew 16:18 ought not to be interpreted as a local church. The church in Matthew 16:18 is the universal entity, namely the people of God. There is an increasing consensus now that this verse concerning the power of the keys is talking about the authority to teach and to discipline, including even to absolve sins.” (The End of the Historical Critical Method, 58-60).
**
The Anchor Bible Commentary**

“By conferring the power to bind and loose upon church leadership, Jesus authorizes it to interpret the Scriptures and establish norms for Christian behaviour” (vol 1)

The Interpreter’s Bible

“The keys of the kingdom would be permitted to the chief steward in the royal household and with them goes plenary authority, unlimited power, total. Post- apostolic Christianity is now beginning to ascribe to the Apostles the prerogatives of Jesus.”

 

[steve_b]

Read Revelation 1:18.

When the king selects His chief steward, to speak for and have authority from the king, to rule the kingdom, symbolized by the king giving the keys to the steward, the king never stops being the owner of the keys. Any power and authority the steward has comes from the king. Without the king there are no keys.

 

[pocohombre]

When the king selects His chief steward, to speak for and have authority from the king, to rule the kingdom, symbolized by the king giving the keys to the steward, the king never stops being the owner of the keys. Any power and authority the steward has comes from the king. Without the king there are no keys.

Jesus is like that steward doing the will of the Father /King.Rev does not say Jesus owns the keys,but that He has the keys. It is the old debate, does He rule by council or does he rule by one chief ? Jerusalem was or held the first council.

 

[pocohombre]

Protestant Scholars on the Keys of the Kingdom

W.F. Albright

“In commenting upon Matthew 16 and Jesus giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Isaiah 22:15 and following undoubtedly lies behind this saying. The keys are the symbol of authority and DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household of ancient Israel.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

“It is of considerable importance, that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are discussed, the symbol of the keys is absent, since the saying applies in these instances to a wider circle. The role of Peter as steward of the kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority as was the case of the Old Testament chamberlain who held the keys.” (ibid.)

William Barclay

We now come to two phrases in which Jesus describes certain privileges which were given to and certain duties which were laid on Peter.

He says that he will give to Peter the keys of the Kingdom. This is obviously a difficult phrase; and we will do well to begin by detting down the things about it of which we can be sure…All these New Testament pictures and usages go back to a picture in Isaiah (Isaiah 22:22). Isaiah describes Eliakim, who will have the key of the house of David on his shoulder, and who alone [emphasis added] will open and shut. Now the duty of Eliakim was to be the faithful steward of the house. It is the steward who carries the keys of the house, who in the morning opens the door, and in the evening shuts it, and through whom visitors gain access to the royal presence. So then what Jesus is saying to Peter is that in the days to come, he will be the steward of the Kingdom…

Oscar Cullman

“In Matthew 16:19 it is presupposed that Christ is the master of the house, who has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, with which to open to those who wish to come in. Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord lays the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so Jesus commits to Peter the keys of His house, the Kingdom of Heaven, and thereby installs him as administrator of the house.” (Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 1953).

R.T. France

“These terms (binding and loosing) thus refer to a teaching function, and more specifically one of making halakhic pronouncements (i.e. relative to laws not written down in Jewish Scriptures but based on an oral interpretation of them) which are binding on the people of God. In that case, Peter’s ‘power of the keys’ declared in (Matt) 16:19 is not so much that of a doorkeeper, who decides who may or may not be admitted, but that of the steward whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household” (Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, 1989, 247).

Gerhardt Meier

“Nowadays, a broad consensus has emerged which, in accordance with the words of the text applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal and conservative theologians agree…Matthew 16:18 ought not to be interpreted as a local church. The church in Matthew 16:18 is the universal entity, namely the people of God. There is an increasing consensus now that this verse concerning the power of the keys is talking about the authority to teach and to discipline, including even to absolve sins.” (The End of the Historical Critical Method, 58-60).
**
The Anchor Bible Commentary**

“By conferring the power to bind and loose upon church leadership, Jesus authorizes it to interpret the Scriptures and establish norms for Christian behaviour” (vol 1)

The Interpreter’s Bible

“The keys of the kingdom would be permitted to the chief steward in the royal household and with them goes plenary authority, unlimited power, total. Post- apostolic Christianity is now beginning to ascribe to the Apostles the prerogatives of Jesus.”

Thank you. .As I said, it all means something. One or two of the above says the actions of keyholders is (given) to the apostles. Others say just Peter. Not sure there is any talk of succession, infallibility or anything like what did develop with papacy. For absolute surety, Peter did “open” the door to the kingdom with his first sermon,and opening gospel to gentiles.

 

[pocohombre]

Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter is the Rock

Here are five of the more than two dozen quotes I have from heavyweight Protestant scholars regarding the identity of “the rock” in Matthew 16:18.

“The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy” (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

David Hill (Presbyterian)

“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

If there is Protestant bias, there is Catholic bias also on this issue.That Peter was first amongst equals no one doubts. He was "leader of the pack’. If you were to draw up a chart or diagram of the “church” we know that Jesus is the chief cornerstone, and twelve blocks then forming the foundation. I see a square being made by Christ and the twelve. I do not see a pyramid where Christ is on top, then Peter, then 11 other apostles below Peter and Christ…From Augustine’s sermon…For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and that in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. “Therefore,” he says, “You are Peter; and upon this Rock” which you have confessed, upon this Rock which you have acknowledged, saying, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;” that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, “will I build My Church.” I will build you upon Myself, not Myself upon you.

1. For men who wished to be built upon men, said, “I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,” who is Peter. But others who did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, “But I am of Christ.” And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter. newadvent.org/fathers/160326.htm

 

[Darryl_B]

If there is Protestant bias, there is Catholic bias also on this issue.That Peter was first amongst equals no one doubts. He was "leader of the pack’. If you were to draw up a chart or diagram of the “church” we know that Jesus is the chief cornerstone, and twelve blocks then forming the foundation. I see a square being made by Christ and the twelve. I do not see a pyramid where Christ is on top, then Peter, then 11 other apostles below Peter and Christ…From Augustine’s sermon…For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and that in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. “Therefore,” he says, “You are Peter; and upon this Rock” which you have confessed, upon this Rock which you have acknowledged, saying, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;” that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, “will I build My Church.” I will build you upon Myself, not Myself upon you.

1. For men who wished to be built upon men, said, “I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,” who is Peter. But others who did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, “But I am of Christ.” And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter. newadvent.org/fathers/160326.htm

I think you will find that St Augustines understanding of the passage in Matthew 16 is far more complex than what you give him credit. At times he believes the rock to be the faith of Peter, made in his statement “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” On this rock, this faith statement, Christ would build his Church. This is just as true as the rock being Jesus Christ, this is also just as true as Jesus calling Peter the Rock on which he would build his church. It has so many layers but I do not think Jesus is only referring to himself as the Rock. Jesus is the Rock that the Church is founded, I do not think this to be disputed by Catholics. But it also true that the passage implies Peter is the Rock, and the only reason Peter is the Rock is because Jesus is the Rock. Peter is just a vessel, that can do nothing apart from the Rock, though he is still referred to by Jesus as the Rock. So what’s happening? Just as Jesus holds the keys but hands over the keys, He is also the Rock but hands over the Rock.

Otherwise the phrase “You are Peter” has no relevance to what Jesus is saying. There is no need for that phrase to be included, other than to make Peter feel irrelevant, but Peter was not having a moment of pride, he was having a moment of confession.

So, Jesus the Rock, states that this man Peter, though he is seemingly insignificant at the moment, will become significant as the Rock that the Rock Himself would build His Church, through the Holy Spirit. Which of course happened in Acts 2 as you admit.

As I say I think St Augustines understanding is far more complex than reading this passage in a single way, and St Augustine focuses the aspect based on the context of what he is trying to bring forward as the message.

 

[Darryl_B]

When the king selects His chief steward, to speak for and have authority from the king, to rule the kingdom, symbolized by the king giving the keys to the steward, the king never stops being the owner of the keys. Any power and authority the steward has comes from the king. Without the king there are no keys.

Agreed. There are two places. Heaven and Earth. Jesus ascended into Heaven and he holds the keys and is the Rock in Heaven. On earth, we need a physical manifestation of the same thing with the support of the Holy Spirit. It is the only way there could remain one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. I see this in the Nicene Creed of 381.

 

[Darryl_B]

Jesus is like that steward doing the will of the Father /King.Rev does not say Jesus owns the keys,but that He has the keys. It is the old debate, does He rule by council or does he rule by one chief ? Jerusalem was or held the first council.

(Are you referring to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords as a steward?)

 

[Randy_Carson]

If you were to draw up a chart or diagram of the “church” we know that Jesus is the chief cornerstone, and twelve blocks then forming the foundation.

The following is REALLY important, Poco:

Matthew 16:18 – Peter the Rock
Understanding the Use of Metaphor in the New Testament

Matthew 16:18-20 (NIV)
18And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I 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." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

[a] Peter means rock.

Many non-Catholics object to the idea that Peter was the rock upon which Jesus promised to build the Church, and they offer various alternative interpretations of the rock as being Jesus himself, Peter’s confession of faith, and the curious hybrid Peter and his confession. To support their denial of Jesus’ establishment of Peter as the head of the Church, non-Catholics frequently cite other scripture passages in which Jesus is called the “chief cornerstone” and the apostles collectively being described as foundation stones. These arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of the use of metaphors within the pages of scripture. Author Stephen Ray, himself a former Evangelical and convert to Catholicism, addressed this problem in his book, Upon This Rock:

“In this metaphorical description, Jesus himself could not be the foundation, because in this illustration he presents himself as the builder. The following is very important. In Scripture Jesus is variously depicted as the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), the builder (Mt. 16:18), the cornerstone (Acts 4:11), and the temple itself (Rev. 21:22). We also see the apostles and/or believers as the foundation (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), the builders (1 Cor. 3:10), the stones, lithos, not petra (1 Pet. 2:5), the building (1 Cor. 3:9), and the temple (Eph. 2:21). Many illustrations are used to explain various aspects of the Church. One cannot simply substitute one descriptive figure of speech for another in any one illustration thereby mixing metaphors. It does great violence to the textual illustration itself and is a good example of roughshod “proof-texting”, wrongly “dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). The Bible does not set up a dichotomy—either Jesus or Peter; rather, it presents us with both Jesus and Peter as foundation stones. Jesus is establishing the man who will be the focal point of unity within the Church, the foundation. He who builds upon sand has a structure that crumbles (Mt. 7:24-27). Jesus builds his Church upon the rock of his choice, and, by his protection, the Church has stood the test of time. The powers of hell have failed to destroy or corrupt her” (Stephen Ray, Upon this Rock, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], 36.)

In this same book, Ray also cites Protestant George Salmon, author of The Infallibility of the Church which he wrote to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church. On the matter of metaphorical usage, Salmon wrote at length:

“It is undoubtedly the doctrine of Scripture that Christ is the only foundation [of the Church]: “other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Yet we must remember that the same metaphor may be used to illustrate different truths, and so, according to circumstances, may have different significations. The same Paul who has called Christ the only foundation, tells his Ephesian converts (2:20):—“Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” And in like manner we read (Rev. 21:14):—“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb.” How is it that there can be no other foundation but Christ, and yet that the Apostles are spoken of as foundations? Plainly, because the metaphor is used with different applications. Christ alone is that foundation, from being joined to which the whole building of the Church derives its unity and stability, and gains strength to defy all the assaults of hell. But, in the same manner as any human institution is said to be founded by those men to whom it owes its origin, so we may call those men the foundation of the Church whom God honoured by using them as His instruments in the establishment of it; who were themselves laid as the first living stones in that holy temple, and on whom the other stones of that temple were laid; for it was on their testimony that others received the truth, so that our faith rests on theirs; and (humanly speaking) it is because they believed that we believe. So, again, in like manner, we are forbidden to call anyone on earth our Father, “for one is our Father which is in heaven.” And yet, in another sense, Paul did not scruple to call himself the spiritual father of those whom he had begotten in the Gospel. You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter’s also being, in a different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some, in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone.” (George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church [London: John Murray, 1914], 338-339).

 

[TertiumQuid]

Well…it looks like you have accepted as fact…legends on the sale of indulgences:

newadvent.org/cathen/14539a.htm

History presents few characters that have suffered more senseless misrepresentation, even bald caricature, than Tetzel. “Even while he lived stories which contained an element of legend gathered around his name, until at last, in the minds of the uncritical Protestant historians, he became the typical indulgence-monger, upon whom any well-worn anecdote might be fathered” (Beard, “Martin Luther”, London, 1889, 210). For a critical scholarly study which shows him in a proper perspective, he had to wait the researches of our own time, mainly at the hands of Dr. Nicholas Paulus, who is closely followed in this article. In the first place, his teaching regarding the indulgences for the living was correct.

I had some time this morning to look into this a bit more than the responses I offered previously a few weeks ago. The Old Catholic Encyclopedia notes (as stated above) that Tetzel’s teaching regarding indulgences for the living was correct. However, the article goes on to point out that Tetzel’s teaching in regard to indulgences for the dead was not. The article also points out how Tetzel was chastised by “the hands of authoritative writers.” Always interesting is to compare the old Catholic Encyclopedia to the New Catholic Encyclopedia. The New states,

Tetzel was orthodox in regard to indulgences for the living. In regard to those for the dead, however, he followed the teaching contained in the Mainz Instruction issued to preachers of indulgences. That is, he taught the then widespread, erroneous theological opinion that indulgences for the dead were gained independently of dispositions of contrition in the person seeking the indulgence, who also had the right to apply them absolutely to a specific soul in purgatory.

JS

 

[steve_b]

Jesus is like that steward doing the will of the Father /King.Rev does not say Jesus owns the keys,but that He has the keys. It is the old debate, does He rule by council or does he rule by one chief ? Jerusalem was or held the first council.

No. Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Apocalypse (Revelation) 17:14** , **1 Timothy 6:14-15

That’s why Jesus said “I will build MY Church.” and “I will give you (singular) i.e. Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven” Matthew 16:16-19

Like the King (Jesus) giving the keys of the kingdom to his chief steward (Peter)
Isaias (Isaiah) 22:20-23

 

[Isaiah45_9]

No. Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Apocalypse (Revelation) 17:14** , **1 Timothy 6:14-15

That’s why Jesus said “I will build MY Church.” and “I will give you (singular) i.e. Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven” Matthew 16:16-19

Like the King (Jesus) giving the keys of the kingdom to his chief steward (Peter)
Isaias (Isaiah) 22:20-23

Beat me to the Isaiah 22 quote .

 

[pocohombre]

I think you will find that St Augustines understanding of the passage in Matthew 16 is far more complex than what you give him credit. At times he believes the rock to be the faith of Peter, made in his statement “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” On this rock, this faith statement, Christ would build his Church. This is just as true as the rock being Jesus Christ, this is also just as true as Jesus calling Peter the Rock on which he would build his church. It has so many layers but I do not think Jesus is only referring to himself as the Rock. Jesus is the Rock that the Church is founded, I do not think this to be disputed by Catholics. But it also true that the passage implies Peter is the Rock, and the only reason Peter is the Rock is because Jesus is the Rock. Peter is just a vessel, that can do nothing apart from the Rock, though he is still referred to by Jesus as the Rock. So what’s happening? Just as Jesus holds the keys but hands over the keys, He is also the Rock but hands over the Rock.

Otherwise the phrase “You are Peter” has no relevance to what Jesus is saying. There is no need for that phrase to be included, other than to make Peter feel irrelevant, but Peter was not having a moment of pride, he was having a moment of confession.

So, Jesus the Rock, states that this man Peter, though he is seemingly insignificant at the moment, will become significant as the Rock that the Rock Himself would build His Church, through the Holy Spirit. Which of course happened in Acts 2 as you admit.

As I say I think St Augustines understanding is far more complex than reading this passage in a single way, and St Augustine focuses the aspect based on the context of what he is trying to bring forward as the message.

Thanks for partial agreement .
I underlined above where we still have a breach. Don’t think it is both. My quote is apparently from his later work of "retracaciones’ or “reconsiderations” and here is a quote that says it better than I can–"Augustine explains that his view that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16 was later replaced by the view that Christ is the rock. Notice that he refers to his former view being replaced, not just adding a second interpretation to it. He says that the reader can decide for himself which interpretation is more likely. He expects the reader to choose between the two, not accept both. Thus, Augustine advocated the rejection of the view that Peter is the rock, and he said that others could do the same,.here it is, "“In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’…
But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.” (The Retractions, 1:20:1)
_. " christianforums.com/t7344034/ So I think Augustine would say there was a small rock and a big rock, as the Greek indicates. Peter can not be both…Perhaps it (thou art Peter-smaller rock-petros)…) was needed for pride sake for only moments later Jesus had to rebuke Peter quite sternly with His famous , “Get behind me Satan”. Perhaps Jesus wanted it quite clear just what the foundation would be, quite clear, yet still elevate Peter as much as He could, for his confession was magnificent.

 

[pocohombre]

No. Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Apocalypse (Revelation) 17:14** , **1 Timothy 6:14-15

That’s why Jesus said “I will build MY Church.” and “I will give you (singular) i.e. Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven” Matthew 16:16-19

Like the King (Jesus) giving the keys of the kingdom to his chief steward (Peter)
Isaias (Isaiah) 22:20-23

Yes of course Jesus is King of kings, amongst many other things,even everlasting Father. That he is also a “steward” of sorts for the Father is in there somewhere. Also of course Peter is a steward for sure, as is every bishop/presbyter(Titus1:7) and ministers(1Cor4:1) and believers (1Peter4:10)…As far as keys, Jesus has them as per Revelations. Peter had them also. He opened the door to the Samaritans, and gentiles(Cornelius) as he did the Jews with that great first sermon on Pentecost day, the beginning of the church. For sure he exercised great authority on these occasions, but that is the extent of it.Though I would deny any interpretation of papal authority from this, it does not diminish the fantastic “firsts” that Peter had. I hope no one denies use of the “keys” to the kingdom by the other apostles, for surely wherever they went they definitely opened doors, preached the gospel and people were "admitted’ into the kingdom, all apostles had full power of binding and loosing. Jesus also refers to keys for a group of people (the pharisees)in Luke 11:52, keys to knowledge, that leads to life, power to let in or keep out, so I find it feasible for many to have use of the keys (apostles,down to ministers of today)

 

[Darryl_B]

Thanks for partial agreement .
I underlined above where we still have a breach. Don’t think it is both. My quote is apparently from his later work of "retracaciones’ or “reconsiderations” and here is a quote that says it better than I can–"Augustine explains that his view that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16 was later replaced by the view that Christ is the rock. Notice that he refers to his former view being replaced, not just adding a second interpretation to it. He says that the reader can decide for himself which interpretation is more likely. He expects the reader to choose between the two, not accept both. Thus, Augustine advocated the rejection of the view that Peter is the rock, and he said that others could do the same,.here it is, "“In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’…
But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.” (The Retractions, 1:20:1)
_. " christianforums.com/t7344034/ So I think Augustine would say there was a small rock and a big rock, as the Greek indicates. Peter can not be both…Perhaps it (thou art Peter-smaller rock-petros)…) was needed for pride sake for only moments later Jesus had to rebuke Peter quite sternly with His famous , “Get behind me Satan”. Perhaps Jesus wanted it quite clear just what the foundation would be, quite clear, yet still elevate Peter as much as He could, for his confession was magnificent.

Peter was actually named Simon. Simon was named Peter by Jesus Christ himself, no one else chose that name for him. Jesus Christ called Simon, “Peter” in John 1:42. This was before Jesus called Peter, I mean Simon, to be a disciple. Why did Jesus do that? Because Jesus had already chosen him as the rock. Of course Peter didn’t know this, no one else knew this only Jesus Christ.

Now switch to Matthew 16. This is the context and follow this carefully. v 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”.

The commentator Matthew uses both names, he uses BOTH Simon, and Peter, but he is the commentator, so it is not fully part of the unfolding that is going on.

Then Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you Simon bar Jona”.

Did Jesus say “Blessed are you Simon Peter?” Did Jesus say “Blessed are you Peter?” No. Jesus specifically called him Simon son of Jona. Not the name that Jesus gave him, but his birth name. That was not Peter that made that statement according to Jesus, that statement was made by Simon bar Jona.

Then Jesus says (and here is the unfolding) “And I tell you, you are Peter”. Jesus has just once more changed the name of Simon son of Jona to Peter (as he did in John 1). Why? What is Jesus trying to do here? Why does Jesus even need to call him Peter when he already had a name, Simon?

Peter is the object at this point. Jesus is the subject.

“I will build my church on this rock”
“I will give you the keys”

Now, this is where we seem to have a difference. Jesus is the subject, as Augustine states, and as far as I know is Catholic teaching. Jesus Christ is the Rock being the subject, and Jesus has the keys being the subject. But there is also an object in this statement that Jesus made. The object is Peter. Not Simon son of Jona, but Peter. The one who Jesus chose for a special purpose even before he chose him as a disciple by naming him for his purpose. The object, Peter receives from the subject, Jesus Christ, the keys, but the subject is still Jesus Christ. The object, Peter is the rock which the subject, Jesus Christ, would build his Church, but the subject is still Jesus Christ.

So when Augustine states

But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.

He is right on both counts. That is why he grappled with his understanding, because he knew Jesus to be the Rock, but he also knew Peter to be the rock. But I think Augustine was concerned he was placing more emphasis on Peter as the rock, rather placing Peter as the rock given authority from the Rock who is Jesus Christ.

 

[Darryl_B]

Yes of course Jesus is King of kings. That he is also a “steward” of sorts for the Father is in there somewhere.

I have intentionally removed the extra information you provided that was not really significant to your point.

You are saying that the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Jesus Christ) is somehow a steward of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (the Father)?

King of Kings and Lord of Lords, is in fact God, the blessed Trinity.

So you use phrases such as “of sorts” and “in there somewhere” as a way of obscuring the lack of argument. Please be honest with yourself, pocohombre. Do you really believe what you have ended up saying? Do you have a conviction that Jesus Christ is merely a steward? Lets think about the parable of the vineyard (Matthew 21:33-46 and others). Who are the stewards? is Jesus a servant? or is Jesus the Son of God?

A steward does not have ownership. Unfortunate to your argument, is the fact that Jesus Christ does indeed have ownership of the Kingdom of God, as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes of course Jesus is King of kings, amongst many other things,even everlasting Father. That he is also a “steward” of sorts for the Father is in there somewhere. Also of course Peter is a steward for sure, as is every bishop/presbyter(Titus1:7) and ministers(1Cor4:1) and believers (1Peter4:10)…As far as keys, Jesus has them as per Revelations. Peter had them also. He opened the door to the Samaritans, and gentiles(Cornelius) as he did the Jews with that great first sermon on Pentecost day, the beginning of the church. For sure he exercised great authority on these occasions, but that is the extent of it.Though I would deny any interpretation of papal authority from this, it does not diminish the fantastic “firsts” that Peter had. I hope no one denies use of the “keys” to the kingdom by the other apostles, for surely wherever they went they definitely opened doors, preached the gospel and people were "admitted’ into the kingdom, all apostles had full power of binding and loosing. Jesus also refers to keys for a group of people (the pharisees)in Luke 11:52, keys to knowledge, that leads to life, power to let in or keep out, so I find it feasible for many to have use of the keys (apostles,down to ministers of today)

Most of this is completely false.

You are seeking to deny the role of Peter (and his successors, the popes) by assuming that all the apostles had the same authority that Peter had. This is incorrect. Peter, and only Peter, received the keys from Jesus. Your minister does not have the keys; they are currently held by Pope Francis.

This is just wishful thinking in an attempt to justify forms of Christianity that were completely unknown prior to the 16th century.

 

[pocohombre]

Do you have a conviction that Jesus Christ is merely a steward?

Now you have added something I did not- “merely”. I also said he is many things.I do not think Jesus is merely a Shepherd, nor merely a Door, not merely the Way, nor merely the Vine etc. You do not think Christ is “overseer” of all creation? Does He not always act on behalf of someone else (the Father) ? Of course you are right in that He is more, for it is above human terms, the Trinity, that is. In a sense Jesus is steward for the Father, but Jesus is also the Son, co owner, which an earthly steward usually is not. So I get your point. Do you get mine ?

 

[pocohombre]

Most of this is completely false.

You are seeking to deny the role of Peter (and his successors, the popes) by assuming that all the apostles had the same authority that Peter had. This is incorrect. Peter, and only Peter, received the keys from Jesus. Your minister does not have the keys; they are currently held by Pope Francis.

This is just wishful thinking in an attempt to justify forms of Christianity that were completely unknown prior to the 16th century.

So the Orthodox are in line with CC view of Roman pope ? Are you sure my arguments were non-existent before 16th century ?