Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

[Randy_Carson]

Do you see the logical fallacy here?

1. The Church has survived for 2000 years.
2. Therefore the papacy is correct.

Agreed. That is not good logic nor would it be the best that I would argue.

You will note that Paul discussed in Ephesians apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers and pastors in describing the offices. How forgetful that he left out the pope!

“Pope” is just a word, like “trinity” that Christians began to use later. The head of the Church was Peter, and Peter left a successor in Rome just as he had previously ensured that Judas Iscariot was replaced by Matthias. The Bishop of Rome continues to be the head of the one Church, and we refer to to him as “Papa” or Pope.

Or perhaps he did not believe in the papacy as modern Catholics envision it? He was talking about church structure, and the Pope did not come up! Why?

Because the “structure” of Bishop, Priest, Deacon was still in development at that time.

Because it was a concept that only developed later is one explanation. You will probably maintain that the papacy is within the apostles, so it didn’t need a separate mention, but I would respond that that is an extreme stretch of the imagination. In fact, everywhere where there was a golden opportunity to talk about the papacy, the opportunity was missed.

What do you think Paul would have said?

His letters were written to believers about doctrines and problems…it was not a manual with organizational charts. But if you read carefully, you will see that Paul went to Jerusalem TWICE to check his doctrine with Peter.

Think about that. Consider that of the four Gospels, only one bothers to mention the whole rock~Peter thing that Catholics seek to get so much mileage out of. It simply isn’t that important.

John is not a synoptic Gospel and it was written decades after the others, so we know that John was not trying to say the same things that the others had written but to fill in some details and to emphasize some other things.

Mark was written under the guidance of Peter, so it might be understandable that Peter did not blow his own shofar, okay?

That just leaves Matthew and Luke, and they were writing for very different audiences. Matthew 16:18-19 is in part, a reference to Is. 22:20-22, and Jesus is re-establishing the perpetual office of the Royal Steward. Important to Jews…not so much to Gentiles.

But does this mean that anything in the Word of God that only gets mentioned once is unimportant?

Are you, Bible Christian, prepared to tear pages out of your scriptures on the basis of that criteria? If so, let me know, and I’ll start pointing out the stuff you can discard…

 

[PJM]

=Tomyris;12671816]Do you see the logical fallacy here?

1. The Church has survived for 2000 years.
2. Therefore the papacy is correct.

You will note that Paul discussed in Ephesians apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers and pastors in describing the offices. How forgetful that he left out the pope! Or perhaps he did not believe in the papacy as modern Catholics envision it? He was talking about church structure, and the Pope did not come up! Why? Because it was a concept that only developed later is one explanation. You will probably maintain that the papacy is within the apostles, so it didn’t need a separate mention, but I would respond that that is an extreme stretch of the imagination. In fact, everywhere where there was a golden opportunity to talk about the papacy, the opportunity was missed.

Think about that. Consider that of the four Gospels, only one bothers to mention the whole rock~Peter thing that Catholics seek to get so much mileage out of. It simply isn’t that important.

Thank you so very much for your insights.

I am well aware of the Carthaginians passage you reference.

The term POPE was not yet introduced and accepted at the time of the writing of Paul. Yet there is no evidence of a dispute on the issue of the Early Church’s Leadership.

**Matthew 16:19 **“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .”

The “power of the keys” has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (cf. Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances, and legislative powers. In the Old Testament a steward, or prime minister is a man who is “over a house” (Gen 41:40; 43:19; 44:4; 1 Ki 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Ki 10:5; 15 ; 18:18; Is 22:15,20-21).

Matthew 16:19 “. . . whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

“Binding” and “loosing” were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to “forbid” and “permit” with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to “condemn” or “place under the ban” or “acquit.” Thus, St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life, by virtue of revelation and the Spirit’s leading (Jn 16:13), and to demand obedience from the Church. “Binding and loosing” represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him preeminent".

The Early Church Fathers on

The Primacy of Peter/Rome

staycatholic.com/ecf_primacy_of_rome.htm

“The Early Church Fathers understood from the beginning that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church.

Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).”

Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Here are but a few bits of evidence; check out this site for more. Also I have a document showing 52 bible –“ Peter” first, but space is limited.

Again I ask: “If NOT “Peter” then who, and on what evidence?

God Bless you,
Pat

 

[KathleenGee]

The Nazarene Jews who escaped from Jerusalem during the Diaspora met in individual homes.

When SS Peter and Paul arrived they were immediately recognized because Christ died in Jerusalem which sprung the Church of Jerusalem. Both Peter and Paul were witnesses to the Lord that in regards to St. Paul, he was recognized by the apostles as being one of them, in his encounter with the Lord.

But before Paul partake of his ministry, the first thing he did was to go to Peter in Jerusalem to consult with him. Paul spent 15 days, not with the other apostles so much as with Peter. And later when Paul confronted Peter from backing away from liberality, Paul later said, ‘Peter said I was right’. Paul did not say, ‘I was right’.

Peter’s son Mark assisted him. Peter referred to Rome as ‘Babylon’ when he was in prison there, and he was working constantly to set up the church there.

Even though Christians there continued to meet in private homes, they still saw themselves as being part of the Church of Rome.

The greatest sign that Peter and Paul were co-founders is that they were both martyred there.

The alleged remains of St. Peter were found under the altar of St. Peter in Rome…this happening by accident, and not with any intent to find his remains…this in 1942. There in the spot above the remains, there was written, ‘Here lies Peter’. There were remains found under the altar of St.Paul in Rome, and they were found representing the manner in which St. Paul died. But there is no definitive statement as of yet that both of these are teh actual remains of these founders.

There was the primacy of Peter recognized in communications in the earliest times of the Church. And another sign was the overall acceptance of any papal decree that came from Rome throughout the ancient Christian world. Whenever ‘Peter’ spoke, the entire Christian world would comply… in peace, again this bearing light through ancient documents, letters, historical events…and graffiti found on architecture at alleged sacred sites.

 

[Tomyris]

Agreed. That is not good logic nor would it be the best that I would argue.

Wow. We actually agree on something. That is a first, I think.

“Pope” is just a word, like “trinity” that Christians began to use later. The head of the Church was Peter, and Peter left a successor in Rome just as he had previously ensured that Judas Iscariot was replaced by Matthias. The Bishop of Rome continues to be the head of the one Church, and we refer to to him as “Papa” or Pope.

Because the “structure” of Bishop, Priest, Deacon was still in development at that time.

Agreed, again.

What do you think Paul would have said?

His letters were written to believers about doctrines and problems…it was not a manual with organizational charts. But if you read carefully, you will see that Paul went to Jerusalem TWICE to check his doctrine with Peter.

Eisegesis is so useful, eh? It wasn’t just Peter.

John is not a synoptic Gospel and it was written decades after the others, so we know that John was not trying to say the same things that the others had written but to fill in some details and to emphasize some other things.

And one of the things he did NOT emphasize was a Petrine primacy.

Mark was written under the guidance of Peter, so it might be understandable that Peter did not blow his own shofar, okay?

Not at all ok. This strengthens the argument against Petrine primacy. If it had been important, he would have emphasized it, it would be stronger in Mark and he would have started his epistles with Peter, head of the church on the earth, vicar of Christ, etc. He didn’t.

That just leaves Matthew and Luke, and they were writing for very different audiences. Matthew 16:18-19 is in part, a reference to Is. 22:20-22, and Jesus is re-establishing the perpetual office of the Royal Steward. Important to Jews…not so much to Gentiles.

And we are Gentiles. This claim is not important at all. There was no such office of Royal Steward filled by Peter. Your arguments are amusing at best. Peter was the apostle to the Jews, Paul the apostle to the Gentiles, in Paul’s description of their difference - NOT Peter was over them. I think Paul would have been astonished at what the Catholic Church is now teaching about the one he rebuked for hanging out with the legalists.

But does this mean that anything in the Word of God that only gets mentioned once is unimportant?

Not at all.

Are you, Bible Christian, prepared to tear pages out of your scriptures on the basis of that criteria? If so, let me know, and I’ll start pointing out the stuff you can discard…

This is simply obnoxious. Someday, Randy, you may get through a post without giving me the idea you hold all Protestants in contempt. This sort of thing cripples your ability to be effective at apologetics.

 

[Tomyris]

The Nazarene Jews who escaped from Jerusalem during the Diaspora met in individual homes.

When SS Peter and Paul arrived they were immediately recognized because Christ died in Jerusalem which sprung the Church of Jerusalem. Both Peter and Paul were witnesses to the Lord that in regards to St. Paul, he was recognized by the apostles as being one of them, in his encounter with the Lord.

But before Paul partake of his ministry, the first thing he did was to go to Peter in Jerusalem to consult with him. Paul spent 15 days, not with the other apostles so much as with Peter. And later when Paul confronted Peter from backing away from liberality, Paul later said, ‘Peter said I was right’. Paul did not say, ‘I was right’.

Peter’s son Mark assisted him. Peter referred to Rome as ‘Babylon’ when he was in prison there, and he was working constantly to set up the church there.

Even though Christians there continued to meet in private homes, they still saw themselves as being part of the Church of Rome.

The greatest sign that Peter and Paul were co-founders is that they were both martyred there.

The alleged remains of St. Peter were found under the altar of St. Peter in Rome…this happening by accident, and not with any intent to find his remains…this in 1942. There in the spot above the remains, there was written, ‘Here lies Peter’. There were remains found under the altar of St.Paul in Rome, and they were found representing the manner in which St. Paul died. But there is no definitive statement as of yet that both of these are teh actual remains of these founders.

There was the primacy of Peter recognized in communications in the earliest times of the Church. And another sign was the overall acceptance of any papal decree that came from Rome throughout the ancient Christian world. Whenever ‘Peter’ spoke, the entire Christian world would comply… in peace, again this bearing light through ancient documents, letters, historical events…and graffiti found on architecture at alleged sacred sites.

The book of Acts can easily be read as a movement away from Judea and Peter to Rome and Paul. We begin with Peter in Jerusalem, we end with Paul in Rome. At the end of Acts, Peter is not to be found.

I think you are reading into history what is not there. In Justin Martyr’s description of a church service, we see a ‘president’ of the assembly, not a priest, not a bishop, not a pope. In 1 Clement we see a group of elders exhorting - not commanding, but encouraging - the church at Corinth. It was only later ages that put an interpretation on these things that insisted they conform to present Catholicism.

 

[Tomyris]

Thank you so very much for your insights.

And yours.

I am well aware of the Carthaginians passage you reference.

The term POPE was not yet introduced and accepted at the time of the writing of Paul. Yet there is no evidence of a dispute on the issue of the Early Church’s Leadership.

Agreed. It was presbyterian.

**Matthew 16:19 **“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .”

The “power of the keys” has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (cf. Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances, and legislative powers. In the Old Testament a steward, or prime minister is a man who is “over a house” (Gen 41:40; 43:19; 44:4; 1 Ki 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Ki 10:5; 15 ; 18:18; Is 22:15,20-21).

Matthew 16:19 “. . . whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

“Binding” and “loosing” were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to “forbid” and “permit” with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to “condemn” or “place under the ban” or “acquit.” Thus, St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life, by virtue of revelation and the Spirit’s leading (Jn 16:13), and to demand obedience from the Church. “Binding and loosing” represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him preeminent".

The Early Church Fathers on

The Primacy of Peter/Rome

staycatholic.com/ecf_primacy_of_rome.htm

“The Early Church Fathers understood from the beginning that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church.

Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).”

Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Here are but a few bits of evidence; check out this site for more. Also I have a document showing 52 bible –“ Peter” first, but space is limited.

Again I ask: “If NOT “Peter” then who, and on what evidence?

If anyone, Paul, on the basis of Scripture. And, as I have posted, early Christian literature.

God Bless you,
Pat

The church of Rome was a church to be admired, facing persecution, a light in the dark city of Rome, facing martyrdom, witnessing, loving, praying, as all attest. That does not mean it had a primacy over any other church. The second does not follow from the first.

 

[litldog2]

Your subject line is: “Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church”

I love this passage from the Bible:

“But who do you say that I am?”
16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
18“I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
19“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

I have to ask you what that means to you?

Today, more than 2,000 years after that passage was recorded, the Church still remains despite all it’s been through. I find that remarkable. I also believe in my heart that it will remain and nobody, no thing, no group, nothing, will destroy it.

Look at all we’ve been through. Yet, Catholicism still exists.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Tomyris;12684201]And yours. Agreed. It was presbyterian.

No, Jesus gave the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven to a person whom Jesus named Rock, not the presbyter. Peter and the apostles handed down their apostolic offices to the Episcopates = overseer translated Bishop(horic) today. The presbyter’s came later, who eventually became priest.

If anyone, Paul, on the basis of Scripture.

Paul personally from his epistles addressed Simon in the name Jesus gave him, Kephas or Cephas = Rock = Peter. Paul never addressed Peter as presbyter.

The leader of the Apostles of Rock = Peter.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Tomyris;12684183] And one of the things he did NOT emphasize was a Petrine primacy

.

John teaches a Petrine Primacy in his gospel; John 21:15-17 When Jesus confirms Peter to be His shepherd on earth to feed and tend His flock until Jesus returns.

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes…Peter was indeed in Rome…

I had a protestant woman in our class on the papacy.

She said Peter simply made a declaration of faith…but would ignore the fact that 25 protestant theologians affirmed that Christ named Peter as the rock upon which the Church would be built…

Our faith does not revolve around our way of looking at things…big difference…rather we enter into the mystical union in Christ with each other as Church…we let go of our way of looking at things and make a declaration of faith to believe what the Church teaches is true.

Peter died in Rome between 64 AD to 67 AD under Emperor Nero…where S. Paul also died. They were co founders. Peter in prison there referred to Rome as ‘babylon’ in his letters.

Likewise there is architecture and graffiti under the ground that has been found affirming Peter and also shows several centuries of pilgrims coming to this area to venerate him.

Just as the Shroud is beginning to look of supernatural origin after much scientific research…it is very implicating to find remains of Peter and Paul under their names altars…revealing the means of death that is recorded…

Otherwise if Peter did not die in Rome…the greatest sign as an apostolic founder…then where did he die? He founded the Church of Antioch.

We cannot have 2 heads…because then we fall back…well, should I follow this one who suits me or that one who I disagree with…it is not about ‘i’…it is about totalling giving ourselves to Christ in the only Church He established…visible Church, no subjective relativism an invisible church would bear.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It wasn’t just Peter.

Yes, I do know this.

However, the reason Paul is so quick to point out to the Galatians that he had taken issue with Peter was because some were calling Paul’s authority into question. Therefore, it was important for Paul to say, “Hey, I stood up to Cephas and opposed him to his face.” Why? Because everyone knew that Peter was the man.

And one of the things he did NOT emphasize was a Petrine primacy.Not at all ok. This strengthens the argument against Petrine primacy. If it had been important, he would have emphasized it, it would be stronger in Mark and he would have started his epistles with Peter, head of the church on the earth, vicar of Christ, etc. He didn’t.

Incorrect. And I here this same line of reasoning with regard to Peter referring to his “fellow elders” in one of his epistles. It is courtesy and protocol. Even today, the pope addresses the bishops as “my brothers” in order to raise them up, while they refer to him as “Your Holiness” in deference to his greater authority. Peter was simply exercising humility - his pastoral letters were not meant to be theological works on the papacy.

And we are Gentiles. This claim is not important at all. There was no such office of Royal Steward filled by Peter. Your arguments are amusing at best.

Then you will have to take it up with these guys:

14 Protestant Scholars and Commentaries on Peter as Royal Steward

W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann

“Isaiah 22:15ff undoubtedly lies behind this saying. The keys are the symbol of authority, and Roland de Vaux [Ancient Israel, tr. by John McHugh, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1961] rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain, of the royal household in ancient Israel. Eliakim is described as having the same authority in Isaiah; it was Hilkiah’s position until he was ousted, and Jotham as regent is also described as ‘over the household’ [2 Kings 15:5]…It is of considerable importance that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are being discussed [cf. Matt 18:18; John 20:23] the symbol of the keys is absent, since the sayings apply in those 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 OT chamberlain who held the ‘keys.’ The clauses ‘on earth,’ ‘in heaven’, have reference to the permanent character of the steward’s work.” (Albright/Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, page 196-197)

“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 setting 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.(William Barclay, Gospel of Matthew, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975, vol. 2, 144-145)

Raymond Brown, Karl Donfried and John Reumann

The prime minister, more literally ‘major-domo,’ was the man called in Hebrew ‘the one who is over the house,’ a term borrowed from the Egyptian designation of the chief palace functionary . . .

The power of the key of the Davidic kingdom is the power to open and to shut, i.e., the prime minister’s power to allow or refuse entrance to the palace, which involves access to the king . . . Peter might be portrayed as a type of prime minister in the kingdom that Jesus has come to proclaim . . . What else might this broader power of the keys include? It might include one or more of the following: baptismal discipline; post-baptismal or penitential discipline; excommunication; exclusion from the eucharist; the communication or refusal of knowledge; legislative powers; and the power of governing. (Peter in the New Testament, Brown, Raymond E., Karl P. Donfried and John Reumann, editors, Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House/New York: Paulist Press, 1973, 96-97. Common statement by a panel of eleven Catholic and Lutheran scholars)

F.F. Bruce

And what about the “keys of the kingdom”? . . . 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 . . . (Isa. 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward. (F.F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1983, 143-144)

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Adam Clarke

For further references to the office of the steward in Old Testament times, see 1 Kings 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18, where the phrases used are “over the house,” “steward,” or “governor.” In Isaiah 22:15, in the same passage to which our Lord apparently refers in Matt 16:19, Shebna, the soon-to-be deposed steward, is described in various translations as:

1. “Master of the palace” {Jerusalem Bible / New American Bible}
2. “In charge of the palace” {New International Version}
3. “Master of the household” {New Revised Standard Version}
4. “In charge of the royal household” {New American Standard Bible}
5. “Comptroller of the household” {Revised English Bible}
6. “Governor of the palace” {Moffatt}

As the robe and the baldric, mentioned in the preceding verse, were the ensigns of power and authority, so likewise was the key the mark of office, either sacred or civil. This mark of office was likewise among the Greeks, as here in Isaiah, borne on the shoulder. In allusion to the image of the key as the ensign of power, the unlimited extent of that power is expressed with great clearness as well as force by the sole and exclusive authority to open and shut. Our Saviour, therefore, has upon a similar occasion made use of a like manner of expression, Matt 16:19; and in Rev 3:7 has applied to himself the very words of the prophet. (Adam Clarke, [Methodist], Commentary on the Bible, abridged ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1967 [orig. 1832], 581)

Oscar Cullman

Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord puts the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so does Jesus hand over to Peter the keys of the house of the kingdom of heaven and by the same stroke establishes him as his superintendent. There is a connection between the house of the Church, the construction of which has just been mentioned and of which Peter is the foundation, and the celestial house of which he receives the keys. The connection between these two images is the notion of God’s people. (Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1952 French ed., 183-184)

R.T. France

Not only is Peter to have a leading role, but this role involves a daunting degree of authority (though not an authority which he alone carries, as may be seen from the repetition of the latter part of the verse in 18:18 with reference to the disciple group as a whole). The image of ‘keys’ (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration (cf. Is 22:22, in conjunction with 22:15). The issue then is not that of admission to the church . . . , but an authority derived from a ‘delegation’ of God’s sovereignty. (R.T. France; in Morris, Leon, Gen. ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, 256)

Richard B. Gardner (Brethren/Mennonite)

“The image of the keys likely comes from an oracle in Isaiah, which speaks of the installation of a new majordomo or steward in Hezekiah’s palace.” (Gardner, page 248)

Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary

In accordance with Matthew’s understanding of the kingdom of heaven (i.e., of God) as anywhere God reigns, the keys here represent authority in the Church. (Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, ed. Allen C. Myers, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rev. ed., 1975, 622)

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.”

New Bible Commentary

“Eliakim stands in strong contrast to Shebna, over whom he seems to have been promoted when they reappear in 36:3…Godward he is called my servant (20)…manward he will be a father to his community (21)…The key…of David (22) comes in this context of accountability. A key was a substantial object, tucked in the girdle or slung over the shoulder; but the opening words of v. 22…emphasize the God-given responsibility that went with it, to be used in the king’s interests. The ‘shutting’ and ‘opening’ means the power to make decisions which no one under the king could override. This is the background of the commission to Peter (cf. Mt 16:19) and to the church (cf. Mt 18:18)… Ultimate authority, however, is claimed, in these terms, for Christ himself (cf. Rev 3:7-8).” (NBC page 647)

The opening words of v.22, with their echo of 9:6, emphasize the God-given responsibility that went with it [possession of the keys], to be used in the king’s interests. The ‘shutting’ and ‘opening’ mean the power to make decisions which no one under the king could override. This is the background of the commission to Peter (cf. Mt 16:19) and to the church (cf. Mt 18:18). (New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 603)

The phrase is almost certainly based on Is 22:22 where Shebna the steward is displaced by Eliakim and his authority is transferred to him. ‘And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.’ (This is applied directly to Jesus in Rev 3:7). (New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 837)

New Bible Dictionary

In the . . . exercise of the power of the keys, in ecclesiastical discipline, the thought is of administrative authority (Is 22:22) with regard to the requirements of the household of faith. The use of censures, excommunication, and absolution is committed to the Church in every age, to be used under the guidance of the Spirit . . .

So Peter, in T.W. Manson’s words, is to be ‘God’s vicegerent . . . The authority of Peter is an authority to declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community. His decisions will be confirmed by God’ (The Sayings of Jesus, 1954, p.205). (New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1018)

In the Old Testament a steward is a man who is ‘over a house’ (Gen 43:19, 44:4; Is 22:15, etc). In the New Testament there are two words translated steward: ‘epitropos’ (Mt 20:8; Gal 4:2), i.e. one to whose care or honour one has been entrusted, a curator, a guardian; and ‘oikonomos’ (Lk 16:2-3; 1 Cor 4:1-2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet 4:10), i.e. a manager, a superintendent – from ‘oikos’ (‘house’) and ‘nemo’ (‘to dispense’ or ‘to manage’). The word is used to describe the function of delegated responsibility. (New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1216)

NIV Study Bible

On verse 15: “…in charge of the palace. A position second only to the king…”

On verse 22: “…key to the house of David. The authority delegated to him by the king, who belongs to David’s dynasty – perhaps controlling entrance into the royal palace. Cf. the ‘keys of the kingdom’ given to Peter (Mt 16:19) .”

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

In biblical and Judaic usage handing over the keys does not mean appointment as a porter but carries the thought of full authorization (cf. Mt. 13:52; Rev. 3:7) . . . The implication is that Jesus takes away this authority from the scribes and grants it to Peter. (J. Jeremias, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, abridgement of Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985, 440)

 

[KathleenGee]

Christ didn’t have to chose apostles.

He could have created bibles out of nothing and handed them out to everybody, irregardless if they could read or not.

He didn’t need apostles because He is God. He can do anything.

The Lord could have started His Church with a bible.

But who could make the bible talk?

Who could make the bible speak the truth that pertains to all people?

He did not leave us with the bible alone…that could be burned up…one bible…one church.

Who would interpret the bible if people couldn’t read? How would we know if such a person could interpret the bible be correct???

Christ had to depend on human beings…to make His Church because Church is a gathering of people.

Christ’s Church is of people, not of books. And He specifically named Peter…Greek and Aramaic ‘rock’ in the personal sense…not an inanimate object but for naming a person.

Many Protestant academic scholars affirm that Christ intended and used the personal name of ‘rock’ for Peter.

The Church is based on Peter the head…not 12 individual heads…because human nature will want to be in charge again and not the Holy Spirit…Who is our unifier…and agree with one head one day…and then the next…agree with another…and then we have confusion and division…

Just musing…it is still early here …

 

[rinnie]

Well, that is what a lot of Protestants believe, but since it probably is of no interest to anyone around here, I will just let this little thread die a lonely,miserable death. Sigh.

He most certainly did. He made him the head of the Church here on earth. Now if he did not do this, it means he did not have the power of heaven and earth given to him by his Father.

If he indeed had the power of heaven and earth as he claimed, then Peter is the head of the Church.

If Jesus had this power, and had the power to pass it down, as he claimed he had, then Peter indeed had this power, and if Peter had the power to pass it down as Christ said he did, then the Pope has it.

Bottom line, if Jesus never had it, Peter never had it. and if Peter never had it the Pope does not have it.

If Jesus had it, Peter had it and if Peter had it, the Pope GOT IT!

 

[guanophore]

Peter was simply exercising humility - his pastoral letters were not meant to be theological works on the papacy.

I think the line of reasoning “If it were that important, more would be written or they would have said so” has no merit whatsoever. The Apostles were addressing current issues, and could not possibly conceive of what would come centuries or millenia later. If they had, maybe they would have included the word “Trinity” and saved every one a lot of argument? Or perhaps “homoousious”? Are we to assume these concepts lack importance because they are not mentioned? Posh!

Then you will have to take it up with these guys:

The main point of this post is to say “great job on this Randy!”

Denying that the sun comes up will not stop it from happening.
[/quote]

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think the line of reasoning “If it were that important, more would be written or they would have said so” has no merit whatsoever. The Apostles were addressing current issues, and could not possibly conceive of what would come centuries or millenia later. If they had, maybe they would have included the word “Trinity” and saved every one a lot of argument? Or perhaps “homoousious”? Are we to assume these concepts lack importance because they are not mentioned? Posh!

For some reason it is very important to avoid submission to the authority appointed by Christ.

The main point of this post is to say “great job on this Randy!”

Denying that the sun comes up will not stop it from happening.

:tiphat:

 

[Tomyris]

I think the line of reasoning “If it were that important, more would be written or they would have said so” has no merit whatsoever. The Apostles were addressing current issues, and could not possibly conceive of what would come centuries or millenia later. If they had, maybe they would have included the word “Trinity” and saved every one a lot of argument? Or perhaps “homoousious”? Are we to assume these concepts lack importance because they are not mentioned? Posh!

For some reason it is very important to avoid submission to the authority appointed by Christ.

The main point of this post is to say “great job on this Randy!”

Denying that the sun comes up will not stop it from happening.

:rotfl

What a target-rich environment! Where shall I start? Oh, where!

 

[Abu]

Tomyris #919
The church of Rome was a church to be admired, facing persecution, a light in the dark city of Rome, facing martyrdom, witnessing, loving, praying, as all attest. That does not mean it had a primacy over any other church. The second does not follow from the first.

The primacy is in St Peter as Christ has decreed, and He cannot knowingly be challenged without grave error.

Christ established His Church with four promises first solely to St Peter:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve Apostles].

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

The primacy resides in the office holder chosen by Christ – the Chief Vicars of Christ starting with Christ’s St Peter.

 

[Porknpie]

“Pope” is just a word, like “trinity” that Christians began to use later. The head of the Church was Peter, and Peter left a successor in Rome just as he had previously ensured that Judas Iscariot was replaced by Matthias. The Bishop of Rome continues to be the head of the one Church, and we refer to to him as “Papa” or Pope.

I had a dialogue with an evangelical friend of mine who criticized Catholics for calling priests “father”. A couple of months later, he related a story that his grandchildren called him “papa”. I told him papa means father…and that he was most inconsistent in this. I also showed him the picture below that Catholics also call someone that we love and respect, papa.

I believe his grandchildren still call him papa… so at least this one evangelical understands the Catholic understanding of “father”.