A question about Peter being the rock

[Bishopite]

Certainly. But "Christian history

" is only what transpired by men AFTER the “foundation” itself was laid. One does not continually build a foundation (Eph. 2:20-21).
However, what and how one builds upon that foundation will be examined at the judgment seat of Christ (1 Cor. 3:8-15).Since the Word of God explicitly states that this temple, the Church, is being built upon the foundation of the Apostles (Christ Himself the corner stone), then I must acquiesce to “proof” being limited to the Apostolic era. And the doctrines which formed that Apostolic era are taught explicitly in the Epistles.Absolutely! And that which the Holy Spirit brought to their remembrance was subsequently passed down to us in the form of Holy Spirit (God-breathed) Scripture.

So through what means did the truth get passed down through the ages to our time?

The Holy Spirit didn’t just bring it to their “remembrance” but through them He preserved it in Holy Writ. And He specifically used Paul to give us special insight into the "mystery of Christ

 

[Atemi]

This is correct, and I did not get carried away. Nor did I claim that Peter is the king of Heaven.

You said this kingdom spoken of by Christ in Luke 22 was specifically the Church.

You said a kingdom must have a king and implied that that was Peter…and thus the RC bishops of Rome today.

You were wrong.

God, and God alone, in the king of the church.

Which kingdom is that? The heavenly one or the earthly one (ie, the Church)? Are they one and the same? Is it correct to describe the Church as a kingdom? Just what kingdom did Jesus confer on the Apostles?

Christ told us what kingdom He conferred right in the text you supplied:

“so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

This is not the church, nor did Christ ever imply that Peter was the king of this kingdom.

BTW, it is at this very spot where Christ said the Apostles were guaranteed salvation. Either that or He would have to break His promise.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Actually, I do not at all see Matt. 16:19 as referencing Is. 22:22. Certainly the passage in Isaiah is a prophecy concerning Jesus (Eliakim meaning “whom God establishes”), and we see this borne out in Rev. 3:7"And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: "He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens"Notice in Rev. 3:7 that Jesus still possesses “the key of David.” So obviously the phrase “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” in Matt. 16:19 has no reference to Is. 22:22. They are not the same. “The keys of the kingdom of heaven” does not imply an “office.” A privilege, but not an office. And we see that privilege exercised by Peter later on in two particular instances.

I’m a real estate agent. Whenever I list a house, I need a key for the lock box. There is always more than one. If an owner has a tenant, the owner of the home also “owns” the key even though it has been given to the tenant for a time.

On more serious note - this from Catholic Answers:

Q: Revelation 3:7 proves Christ is the one who holds the key of David, not Peter. Isaiah 22 prophesies Christ’s coming and his authority rather than Peter’s. Matthew 16:18 has nothing to do with either.

A: As the royal son of David, Christ is the owner of the key of David, but this doesn’t mean he can’t give to Peter, as his “prime minister,” the keys to his heavenly kingdom.

In the passage to which Revelation 3:7 alludes, Isaiah 22:20-23, Eliakim is made master of the palace, a post roughly equivalent to prime minister. As the king’s right-hand man, the master of the palace is given the “key of the House of David.”

Keys symbolize authority, so bestowing the key to the House of David upon Eliakim is equivalent to giving him, as the king’s duly appointed representative, authority over the kingdom.

Revelation 3:7 speaks of Jesus as the “holder of the key of David.” Some argue this means he fulfills the role Eliakim foreshadowed in Isaiah 22:20-23. They claim this excludes a prophetic application of this text to Peter by Christ in Matthew 16:18-19.

There’s a problem with this argument. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is master of the palace–the king isn’t. Eliakim possesses the key of the kingdom not as its owner, but as one deputed to oversee the king’s affairs. If we apply this to Christ, then we must conclude he’s not the true messianic king, merely his prime minister, the Messiah’s chief representative!

Although Jesus is called the “holder of the key of David” in Revelation 3:7, he doesn’t hold it as Eliakim did. As the son of David, Jesus is the heir to the throne of his ancestor (Luke 1:32-33). He really is the king, *not *the master of the king’s palace, as was Eliakim. As king, Jesus is free to bestow the keys of his kingdom on whomever he wishes–without losing the authority those keys represent.

It’s the Catholic position that this is precisely what Jesus does in Matthew 16:18-19. Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah, which means, among other things, acknowledging his kingship. Christ then shows his kingly authority by bestowing on Peter something only the king could give–the keys of the kingdom of heaven–thus making Peter the messianic equivalent of Eliakim.

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9108qq.asp

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Eileen_T]

“so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

BTW, it is at this very spot where Christ said the Apostles were guaranteed salvation. Either that or He would have to break His promise.

At that point, had Judas already left? Because at the beginning of that speech Jesus said “But yet behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.”

Also, it says may not ****

 

[guanophore]

I’m a real estate agent. Whenever I list a house, I need a key for the lock box. There is always more than one. If an owner has a tenant, the owner of the home also “owns” the key even though it has been given to the tenant for a time.

On more serious note - this from Catholic Answers:

Q: Revelation 3:7 proves Christ is the one who holds the key of David, not Peter. Isaiah 22 prophesies Christ’s coming and his authority rather than Peter’s. Matthew 16:18 has nothing to do with either.

A: As the royal son of David, Christ is the owner of the key of David, but this doesn’t mean he can’t give to Peter, as his “prime minister,” the keys to his heavenly kingdom.

In the passage to which Revelation 3:7 alludes, Isaiah 22:20-23, Eliakim is made master of the palace, a post roughly equivalent to prime minister. As the king’s right-hand man, the master of the palace is given the “key of the House of David.”

Keys symbolize authority, so bestowing the key to the House of David upon Eliakim is equivalent to giving him, as the king’s duly appointed representative, authority over the kingdom.

Revelation 3:7 speaks of Jesus as the “holder of the key of David.” Some argue this means he fulfills the role Eliakim foreshadowed in Isaiah 22:20-23. They claim this excludes a prophetic application of this text to Peter by Christ in Matthew 16:18-19.

There’s a problem with this argument. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is master of the palace–the king isn’t. Eliakim possesses the key of the kingdom not as its owner, but as one deputed to oversee the king’s affairs. If we apply this to Christ, then we must conclude he’s not the true messianic king, merely his prime minister, the Messiah’s chief representative!

Although Jesus is called the “holder of the key of David” in Revelation 3:7, he doesn’t hold it as Eliakim did. As the son of David, Jesus is the heir to the throne of his ancestor (Luke 1:32-33). He really is the king, *not *the master of the king’s palace, as was Eliakim. As king, Jesus is free to bestow the keys of his kingdom on whomever he wishes–without losing the authority those keys represent.

It’s the Catholic position that this is precisely what Jesus does in Matthew 16:18-19. Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah, which means, among other things, acknowledging his kingship. Christ then shows his kingly authority by bestowing on Peter something only the king could give–the keys of the kingdom of heaven–thus making Peter the messianic equivalent of Eliakim.

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9108qq.asp

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

It won’t help Apophasis, but it is a great post that may help some others. Apophasis is recalcitrant.

 

[GoldenArrow]

Someone needs to be in charge of the King’s Palace while the King is away, right? So, until the Second Coming … how shall I put this … the “Head of Household Staff” is the Office of the Papacy, the first of which was Peter.

Originally posted by Randy Carson: In one sense, everything you’ve said is true. It is perfectly acceptable for Catholics to say that Jesus built his Church on both Peter and his faith…the imagery is rich and useful for teaching.

However, it is more proper to say that Peter himself is the rock. Christ built his Church upon Peter - as the head of the Church - and all the popes who have succeeded him.

I agree, but with a slightly different definition.

I do agree that Peter is the Rock upon which Christ built His Church, but without Christ, there would be no rock, right? Christ and His Church are one, so the visible head of the Church (the Pope) and the Invisible Head (Christ) are one. They are inseparable. Therefore the Church is founded upon Christ, but with the Pope as the visible head of that foundation. I think it’s more proper to say that Christ is the invisible foundation, while the Papal Office is the visible foundation.

The Office of the Papacy is 1) Inseparable from Christ 2) protected by the Holy Spirit until the End of Time (when the King returns to claim his Kingdom) and 3) holds the keys to the Kingdom of God on earth.

The reason Christ chose Peter as His visible head is because of Peter’s faith in Christ’s Divinity.

Could we could say that the actual key is “faith in Christ’s Divinity?”

Good discussion!

 

[Randy_Carson]

You said this kingdom spoken of by Christ in Luke 22 was specifically the Church.

You said a kingdom must have a king and implied that that was Peter…and thus the RC bishops of Rome today.

You were wrong.

God, and God alone, in the king of the church.

Wrong?

No, as Spock said, “I exagerated.”

I did say that a kingdom had a king and that Jesus conferred a kingdom on the Apostles…but I never called Peter the king, did I? :nope:

Atemi, I know that Jesus is the king…I attended the Cathedral of Christ the King Church in Atlanta for several years when I was a student at Georgia Tech. I’m familiar with the “royal family”. I also know who the Queen Mother is!

However, I took some poetic license with the concepts because I want you to see that Peter is not just another guy…he’s not just another Apostle even. He was the leader of the Church appointed for that task by Jesus (one could argue that he was appointed by the Father since it was the Father who revealed who Jesus was to Peter in Matthew 16).

Here’s my point…I took a liberty with the text in order to get you to think about the idea that the Church is NOT a democracy but a kingdom. We don’t vote on doctrine. If you want to call me on the carpet for this, fine. After the drubbing you took over the “kepha” issue and the Protestant scholars who acknowledge Peter as the rock, I can understand you want to score. Touche. The point is yours. I shouldn’t have allowed myself to be misinterpreted.

Here’s the straight scoop:

Peter, who holds the keys, is clearly delineated as the minister, the “prime” minister, of the kingdom in Matthew 16 just as he is appointed as the “deputy shepherd” in John 21. I just made that term up - Jesus is the Good Shepherd; Peter was asked to fill in for him. While the king is away, the Prime Minister & Deputy Shepherd, the keeper of the keys and the holder of the Shepherd’s Crook, is THE MAN.

Don’t misunderstand…I’m pushing the edge of the envelope here because I want you to think outside your box.

Peter and his successors are far more important to the Church built by who - Jesus Christ - than you realize, acknowledge or care to admit.

This is why the Protestant “Reformation” is more properly referred to IMO as the Protestant Rebellion. Luther didn’t stick around to reform anything…but a lot of folks rebelled against the authority of the Church.

Not much has changed.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Someone needs to be in charge of the King’s Palace while the King is away, right? So, until the Second Coming … how shall I put this … the “Head of Household Staff” is the Office of the Papacy, the first of which was Peter.

I agree, but with a slightly different definition.

I do agree that Peter is the Rock upon which Christ built His Church, but without Christ, there would be no rock, right? Christ and His Church are one, so the visible head of the Church (the Pope) and the Invisible Head (Christ) are one. They are inseparable. Therefore the Church is founded upon Christ, but with the Pope as the visible head of that foundation. I think it’s more proper to say that Christ is the invisible foundation, while the Papal Office is the visible foundation.

The Office of the Papacy is 1) Inseparable from Christ 2) protected by the Holy Spirit until the End of Time (when the King returns to claim his Kingdom) and 3) holds the keys to the Kingdom of God on earth.

The reason Christ chose Peter as His visible head is because of Peter’s faith in Christ’s Divinity.

Could we could say that the actual key is “faith in Christ’s Divinity?”

Good discussion!

Let me ask it this way:

Would the actual key simply be a sign of authority which was given to Peter as a result of his faith and which allowed Peter to exercise true authority within the Church?

In this sense, would the key be Peter’s faith? Or the authority of Christ the King bestowed upon his minister?

 

[Atemi]

At that point, had Judas already left? Because at the beginning of that speech Jesus said “But yet behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.”

Yes, Judas was gone at that point.

That is a good question.

Also, it says may not will.

No. Christ said “will.”

He made this promise in two different accounts in the Gospels. Christ phrased and qualified His promise differently in both accounts:

Mat 19:28 “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

In the first: “…you who have followed Me…”

Who are those exactly? He doesn’t say at that time.

But He does tell us. In the second, with Judas absent, He says:

Luk 22 “You are those who have stood by Me in My trials…and just as My Father has granted Me a kingdom, I grant you…that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

“You who have followed me” is the qualifier. “You,” “you are,” and “you will” are the definitions.

This was Christ’s promise.

He said to all the Apostles at the table after Judas left: “You will sit on thrones”

At what point, say after Pentecost, did the Apostles stop believing Christ’s promise that they would indeed sit on thrones in Christ’s coming Kingdom?

Can anyone explain when the Apostles, throughout their entire ministries, came to understand that promise of God as possibly being erroneous?

I, personally, can’t.

…

 

[GoldenArrow]

Originally posted by Randy Carson:
Would the actual key simply be a sign of authority which was given to Peter as a result of his faith and which allowed Peter to exercise true authority within the Church?

In this sense, would the key be Peter’s faith? Or the authority of Christ the King bestowed upon his minister?

Both.

Just as faith is the foundation of hope and charity, so too, faith is the foundation of the Authority of Peter.

Trying to think of a useful metaphor to illustrate what I mean:

The actual key of Peter, the Key of David, is the faith in Christ’s Divinity and the Authority of Peter is the design of the key so that it can unlock the Heavenly Gate.

That is to say, the Authority of the Papal Office is derived from the merits of Peter’s faith in Christ’s Divinity, and it is this faith that makes up the material of the Keys and Christ’s reward for such faith is to give Peter and those holding his office thereafter the correct design to unlock the lock.

I’m not trying to be a stubborn Catholic though. LOL!

Just saying that there are things that are inseparable. In a way, the faith of our first Holy Father, Peter, is inseparable from his Authority, because it is the faith of the former that merited the latter.

 

[GoldenArrow]

I was just preparing to caulk my bathroom when I thought I could take this argument one step farther.

Perhaps the reason why the Office of the Papacy is guarded from error by the Holy Spirit until the End of Time is because the first Pope, Peter, merited Actual Graces for all the Popes until the End of Time by virtue of his faith in Christ’s Divinity.

Just more food for discussion.

Hey … anyone want to see some videos I made about the Papacy the other day? My whole website is made as a response to all the anti-Catholic rubbish on the Internet.

Peter, the First Pope

Plus, you can see what I look like. EGADS! I wore the hat on the second set of videos because I had a bad hair day!

You can get to the home page by clicking on the link in my sig.

The audio/video got disjointed in the upload process. I’m updating the pages tonight and replacing them with the Google upload, which has the A/V in sync and much better picture.

 

[apophasis]

Apophasis: Paul, more than all the Apostles, was used by the Holy Spirit to pass down to subsequent generations of believers, via the Scriptures, the doctrines that formed the true Christian faith.
Reply:
Really!? You can’t prove this!

Sure I can. By the sheer volume of his Epistles and their doctrinal content. The church of Rome is especially indebted to him for his Epistle to that church. It’s one of the most doctrinally packed Epistles in the N.T.

Apophasis: So based on these Apostolic warnings of what would most certainly occur during the post-Apostolic era, it behooves us to huddle close to the teachings that came out of the Apostolic era itself, hard-copied and preserved for subsequent generations of believers. Makes sense, yes?

**Reply:**Yes that makes sense. That is why Christ gave us His Church. To protect us from the wolves that moved in in an attempt to scatter the flock after the apostlic era.

No, that’s why the Holy Spirit worked through individual men to give us the Scriptures. That the Church, corporately (the Body of Christ), might have an objective, divine source to test against all false teachers from within, and a weapon to ward off “wolves” from without, whose desire it is to kill and destroy the faith. Notice Peter warns that these false teachers rise up from within the church. IOW, the church can’t even trust itself, it needs a source of truth higher than itself, a divine source = the Holy Spirit, God-breathed (theopneustos) Scriptures.

These writings are not the only things that are important to faith, obedience to Christ’s teaching thru HIS Church was paramount to faith.

The Holy Spirit, God-breathed Epistles ARE (corporately) Christ’s teachings TO His Church, not through His Church.

Jesus said to His disciples in Jn. 14:15"If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.And again in Jn. 15:10:"If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love."This phrase “keep My commandments” was not used by Jesus UNTIL the upper room discourse. “My commandments” did not refer to the Law of Moses but anticipated those grace teachings which would follow His bodily resurrection; those teachings rooted in and based on the redemptive power of His sacrificial death and bodily resurrection; those teachings and exhortations found in the Epistles addressed to His Church which is called into fellowship with Him and the Father under pure GRACE.

Through His sacrificial death the Law of Moses, as a rule of life (for Israel), ended (Rom. 10:4) and men (from all nations) are now called into fellowship with the Father and the Son based on pure GRACE alone. This new dispensation called for a whole new set of teachings based on that immutable, divine GRACE rooted in the cross of Christ. And these teachings, addressed to the Church Christ is building during this Church age, are found in the Holy Spirit, God-breathed Epistles.

 

[apophasis]

Guanophore:

Apophasis cannot accept the primacy of Peter, because that would jiggle his house of cards, and other Catholic teachings might be seen to be accurate. As it is, he can debunk the whole of Catholocism.

So you’re saying “the whole of Catholicism” is based on the Roman notion of the “Supremacy of Peter?” You’ve got a point there,(Edited by Moderator)!

 

[apophasis]

Joey Warren:

And he will continue to search for any evidence that refutes the primacy of Peter.

Actually, I continue to search the Scriptures to find any evidence that supports that doctrine which is unique to the Roman church.

 

[apophasis]

mikeledes:

If the Catholic interpretation of Jesus’s words regarding Peter is correct, which is what we are pretty much discussing in this thread, then we do not need to find verses that show the apostles confirming this authority. Jesus’s words would be enough. The fact that the apostles explicit acknowledgement of the Peter’s authority as pope is not found in Scripture does not mean that it did not happen and is really besides the point. If Jesus gave him that authority, Peter did not need the apostles to confirm it.

Thank you for your acknowledgement that there is no acknowledgement by the other Apostles of Peter’s alleged “supremacy” found in the Scriptures. That helps!

 

[apophasis]

guanophore:

Let the reader beware! Apophasis rejects all the the traditions taught by the apostles that Jesus asked them to hand on, unless they are written in his testament.

The notion that there are “oral” traditions separate from “written” traditions that were handed down by the Apostles is false. They are not separate according to Paul:2 Thess 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word {of mouth} or by letter from us.IOW, by word or letter it is the SAME “traditions” delivered to the saints - it is only the means that differs. Now obviously it was the traditions taught by letter that could be preserved and passed down to subsequent generations. But they were no different than those which were orally taught at that time by Paul and the others.

Now, if we see no tradition of the alleged “supremacy of Peter” handed down to us in writing, we can be darn right sure it wasn’t taught orally. There is no “oral” tradition separate from that which was received in letter form.

He also rejects that the NT which he uses to pound against Catholicism is a book produced by Catholics. He rejects the teachings of the early Fathers also.

So you’re saying that the Holy Spirit who divinely produced the N.T. Scriptures is a “Catholic?” Is He also under the authority of the “chair of Peter?” As for the writings of the early church writers, certainly I must test their content by the written traditions handed down to us in letter form. You should too.

 

[apophasis]

Mannyfit75:

Here is some taste of the information you might seek.

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

Well, those exceptions do put a kink in your theory. The fact that his name is mentioned more than the others does not prove nor teach “supremacy.”

Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

It didn’t?Matt 14:31 "Immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and took hold of him, and *said to him, "You of little faith, why did you doubt?"Obviously this does not teach his “supremacy” over the rest. More “gutsy” than the rest, but not “supremacy.” And this all took place in training, long before the Holy Spirit came and empowered all of them for Apostolic service.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Now if Peter was the ONLY one among them that confessed the Messiahship of Jesus, then you would have a point there.

Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

In that particular instance, yes. But Paul in 2 Corinthians, Galatians and Ephesians also claims divine knowledge. And he states that the “mystery of Christ” was made known to ALL His Holy Apostles and prophets in the Spirit (Eph. 3:5). There’s no “supremacy of Peter” being taught by Paul in his Epistles.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

I agree except for your words “on Peter.” The “foundation” on which Christ is building the temple of His Church is found in Eph. 2:20-22. Peter is not mentioned separately there. Paul never teaches the Roman notion of the “supremacy of Peter” in his Epistles. None of them do, for that matter, not even Peter himself.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

And where do you find “authority over the Church” and “dynastic succession” in the words of Christ in that passage? Are you suggesting they’re in the original autographs but left out of the copies?

Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus’ tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

I didn’t know Jesus left the earth right after he paid the tax.

Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ’s representative on earth.

So then the Pope pays your taxes for you?

Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus’ teachings.

So we are to assume by this that none of the other disciples ever asked questions directly of Jesus, but they went through Peter? Not according to my Bible.

Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

And yet the next verse Jesus speaks of 12 thrones to be set up - 12. This speaks of Peter’s “supremacy” how?

Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus’ curse on the fig tree.

Yet in the next verse Jesus addressed “them” all. Not just Peter.

Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

Jesus addresses Peter as their “leader” where in that passage? Not long afterward Peter denies Him three times, and Jesus knows he will. Why then wouldn’t he single out Peter?

Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

After denying Him three times, I think singling out Peter by name was a form of grace and assurance for the despondent disciple, soon to be an Apostle.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.

Now that’s a huge metaphorical stretch.

 

[apophasis]

I’m a real estate agent. Whenever I list a house, I need a key for the lock box. There is always more than one. If an owner has a tenant, the owner of the home also “owns” the key even though it has been given to the tenant for a time.

So when Jesus said to Peter that He would give him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven” (not “the key of the house of David” found in Is. 22:22), He actually meant a duplicate key???

In the passage to which Revelation 3:7 alludes, Isaiah 22:20-23, Eliakim is made master of the palace, a post roughly equivalent to prime minister. As the king’s right-hand man, the master of the palace is given the “key of the House of David.”

In Rev. 3:7 we see that Is. 22:20-23 is a prophecy concerning Christ, who was born King. It’s not a prophecy about Peter.

Keys symbolize authority, so bestowing the key to the House of David upon Eliakim is equivalent to giving him, as the king’s duly appointed representative, authority over the kingdom.

But we see in Rev. 3:7 that the prophecy is about Christ and He possesses the key - not Peter.

Revelation 3:7 speaks of Jesus as the “holder of the key of David.” Some argue this means he fulfills the role Eliakim foreshadowed in Isaiah 22:20-23. They claim this excludes a prophetic application of this text to Peter by Christ in Matthew 16:18-19.

There’s a problem with this argument. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is master of the palace–the king isn’t. Eliakim possesses the key of the kingdom not as its owner, but as one deputed to oversee the king’s affairs. If we apply this to Christ, then we must conclude he’s not the true messianic king, merely his prime minister, the Messiah’s chief representative!

False conclusion. Rev. 3:7 reveals to us that the whole prophecy is about Christ who holds all authority. It’s dangerous to directly attack a prophecy about Christ and apply it to someone else.

It’s the Catholic position that this is precisely what Jesus does in Matthew 16:18-19. Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah, which means, among other things, acknowledging his kingship. Christ then shows his kingly authority by bestowing on Peter something only the king could give–the keys of the kingdom of heaven–thus making Peter the messianic equivalent of Eliakim.

But Rev. 3:7 speaks differently. And in Matt. 16:19 Jesus gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven,” not the “key of the house of David.” There are far too many assumptions and assertions in the Catholic position.

 

[guanophore]

So you’re saying “the whole of Catholicism” is based on the Roman notion of the “Supremacy of Peter?” You’ve got a point there, Tiger!

No, the whole of Catholicism is based on Christ, who appointed Peter. Your house of cards would fall down no matter where you began accepting the treaching. The post of yours I just read above, for instance. A beautiful prose on grace, but winds up with the error of Sola Scriptura.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Well, those exceptions do put a kink in your theory. The fact that his name is mentioned more than the others does not prove nor teach “supremacy.”

Your intepretation.

It didn’t?Matt 14:31 "Immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and took hold of him, and *said to him, “You of little faith, why did you doubt?”

Did he doubt during Acts about Jesus? I don’t think so.

Obviously this does not teach his “supremacy” over the rest. More “gutsy” than the rest, but not “supremacy.” And this all took place in training, long before the Holy Spirit came and empowered all of them for Apostolic service.

It does. You just think it differently because of your Sola Scriptura doctrine (doctrine of man).

Now if Peter was the ONLY one among them that confessed the Messiahship of Jesus, then you would have a point there.In that particular instance, yes.

No argument there.

But Paul in 2 Corinthians, Galatians and Ephesians also claims divine knowledge. And he states that the “mystery of Christ” was made known to ALL His Holy Apostles and prophets in the Spirit (Eph. 3:5). There’s no “supremacy of Peter” being taught by Paul in his Epistles.I agree except for your words “on Peter.”

Ok.

The “foundation” on which Christ is building the temple of His Church is found in Eph. 2:20-22. Peter is not mentioned separately there. Paul never teaches the Roman notion of the “supremacy of Peter” in his Epistles. None of them do, for that matter, not even Peter himself.And where do you find “authority over the Church” and “dynastic succession” in the words of Christ in that passage

The authority of the Church is mention many times in the Bible.

Are you suggesting they’re in the original autographs but left out of the copies?

No. It is not what I am suggesting.