Protestants, Could You Please Tell Me How You Interpret This?

[chaunceygardner]

No one has brought up the following point, although it appears only one Protestant has contributed so far.

The doctrine in question presumes that Peter was the “first Pope”, and that Jesus intended that power would be transferred through Peter to his successors. However, there was no “Pope” at that time, and the Bishop of Rome (a position Peter likely never held) was not the supreme authority of the entire church for quite a few years, actually a couple of hundred at least. Instead, authority was vested in the Bishops (or whatever they were called at the time) of the various local churches, such as Antioch, Jerusalem, etc.

Plus, during the time of Peter, it seems that others, in particular James in Jerusalem and Paul, acted with more authority than Peter did. So if Jesus’ intent was to make Peter the head of the universal church with supreme authority over everything, few people during that time recognized it, including the other Apostles and early disciples!

If anything the church was collegial in nature, not authoritarian. This led to issues between the various churches and communities that had to be sorted out over time, through councils and by consolidating power. But that consolidated power just did not exist in the hands of any one person during Peter’s lifetime. Based on what we read in the Epistles and Acts, Paul was likely the “strongest” leader within the universal church, and James the leader in Jerusalem. At best, Peter was respected as the “dean” of the original Apostles, but to say he was the recognized leader of the entire church is a very big stretch.

This of course doesn’t agree with the Catholic interpretation of the passage in Matthew. However, there is another passage just a little later, Matthew 18:18, where Jesus repeats Himself but grants to ALL the gathered disciples the power to “bind on earth” and “loose on earth”. NOT just Peter. Uh, Oh. So which is it?

And then you have to ask if Jesus was referring to Peter personally as “the Rock” or to the deep faith that Peter exhibited and which would become the foundation for the church?

When you look at all of what Jesus said and the actual events and relationships in the early Church, making the case that Peter was the first of an unending line of Popes is not even close to being a slam dunk.

Which we may be why Protestants, Orthodox and even some Catholics don’t agree with the Church’s position about Peter or that the Bishop of Rome has supremacy over everyone and everything. (Hint about that: There have been, even up until modern times, many Bishops who didn’t agree with that doctrine as well, or at least tried to spread the authority a little more equitably throughout the rest of the Church).

 

[MartinJordan]

This of course doesn’t agree with the Catholic interpretation of the passage in Matthew. However, there is another passage just a little later, Matthew 18:18, where Jesus repeats Himself but grants to ALL the gathered disciples the power to “bind on earth” and “loose on earth”. NOT just Peter. Uh, Oh. So which is it?

You’ve missed the part where Jesus mentions the Keys. When he talks to them again, there is no mention of “keys”. T/F Peter is given the keys (and you can find more info what is the importance of Keys by reading Isaiah 22 vs. 20 -25.)

Also from the Interpreter’s Bible commentary:

“19. The keys of the kingdom would be committed to the chief steward in the royal household and with them goes plenary authority. In Isa. 22:22 the key of the house of David is promised to Eliakim. According to Paul, Jesus is the only foundation (I Cor. 3:11), and in Rev. 1:18; 3:7, Jesus possesses the key of David and the keys of death and Hades. But in this passage Peter is made the foundation (cf. Eph. 2:20, where the Christian apostles and prophets are the foundation and Christ is the cornerstone) and holds the keys. Post-Apostolic Christianity is now beginning to ascribe to the apostles the prerogatives of Jesus (cf. 10:40). In rabbinical language to bind and to loose is to declare certain actions forbidden or permitted [a Jewish source Terumoth 5:4 is quoted]…Thus Peter’s decisions regarding the O.T. law (e.g., in Acts 10:44-48) will be ratified in heaven.” (George Arthur Buttrick, et al The Interpreter’s Bible [Abingdon Press, 1951], volume 7, page 453)

 

[Upbeat_Dad]

chaunceygardner brings up some good points, which I think articulate Reformation-era and some contemporary-era perspectives quite well. That’s pretty much the Protestant view of it. But, what also needs to be pointed out is the underlying assumption behind the Protestant assertion.

Of the five principle “solas” of the Reformation, the doctrine of sola scriptura is operating here as the controlling assumption. In sola scriptura, Protestants assert that the Bible alone is the sole authority on God’s word, and that no Pope as any particular or special authority to interpret scripture on our behalf. Remember, it was Martin Luther’s assertion than the plain sense of the Bible would be accessible to all through the Holy Spirit, and that people really did not need the Pope to interpret it for them. Even today, it is not uncommon to hear many Protestant ministers speak of the Bible as self-interpreting through the Holy Spirit.

With sola scriptura, however, the reformers essentially set aside the two other pillars of the Church: Sacred Tradition and the living Magisterium, which have historically always been understood to provide the proper interpretive context for the Bible. Absent that interpretive context, one is left to interpret the Bible for one’s self. That means one’s understanding of the faith is limited to the written word alone and nothing else: “sola” (alone) scriptura. So… absent the interpretive context afforded by Sacred Apostolic Tradition and the Living Magisterium, there is not necessarily any real reason to read the above passage in terms of Jesus setting up a hierarchical church with Peter as the first “pope.” This overlooks, however, the reality that the disciples talked about Jesus and understood his intentions in ways that were not necessarily ever written down, but passed from generation to generation. This is part of what we mean when Catholics say “Sacred Tradition.”

The Bible tells us much, but it does not tell us everything always in an explicit way. Often the Bible speaks implicitly as well. The doctrine of the Trinity is an example. One does not find the word “Trinity” anywhere in scripture, but the doctrine is deduced through the proper interpretive framework of the Church, shepherded by the Pope’s teaching authority, which Sacred Tradition has always understood, and to which scripture alludes in the above passage. Carry sola scriptura out to it’s logical conclusion and not only is there little basis to view Peter as the first pope, but there is little basis on which to believe to use the term Trinity. For that matter, the Bible does not speak of many things we as Christians must contend with: nuclear proliferation, stem cell research, abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. etc. If we carry sola scriptura out to it’s logical end, we have to conclude that, because these things are not “in the Bible.” They must be okay. Absurd.

It the Bible is self interpreting, then why are there over 30,000 distinct Protestant denominations worldwide, most no large than a single congregation, but representing an extremely broad range of interpretations? They can’t all be right.

I would agree that the disciples probably did not refer to Peter as the “pope,” that language came later, as did the formal hierarchical structure we see today, but a rose by any other name… I would also agree that the early church was collaborative, but the Catholic church still is.

The bishops actually have the same level of authority as the pope. Every bishop is the vicar of Christ for his diocese. The pope is often referred to as the “first among equals.” Bishops have the same degree of apostolic authority as the pope, just not the same scope. So where a bishop’s authority extends over his diocese, the pope’s extends over the church as a whole.

And the process is collaborative. All the ecumenical councils have consisted of bishops working together to build consensus, even the council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. that canonized the very scripture of “sola” scriptura. That’s right, the Bible of “Bible alone” was assembled and canonized by the very Sacred Tradition and Living Magisterium the Protestants reject. The pope at the time was Sylvester I, who did not attend the council in person, but was represented by two delegates, and later approved the council’s recommendations. So even the Bible was the product of collaboration, ratified by a pope. What does it mean to accept the Bible, but reject the Magisterial authority of the very Church that assembled the Bible in the first place? To reject the papal office, is, ultimately to reject the authority of scripture - scripture which does tell us that Peter was given special authority, and all the other disciples (the first priests and bishops) share in that authority when they are in communion with him (Matthew 18:18).

 

[chaunceygardner]

chaunceygardner brings up some good points, which I think articulate Reformation-era and some contemporary-era perspectives quite well. That’s pretty much the Protestant view of it. But, what also needs to be pointed out is the underlying assumption behind the Protestant assertion…

Of the five principle “solas” of the Reformation, the doctrine of sola scriptura is operating here as the controlling assumption…

With sola scriptura, however, the reformers essentially set aside the two other pillars of the Church: Sacred Tradition and the living Magisterium, which have historically always been understood to provide the proper interpretive context for the Bible. Absent that interpretive context, one is left to interpret the Bible for one’s self. That means one’s understanding of the faith is limited to the written word alone and nothing else: “sola” (alone) scriptura…

The Bible tells us much, but it does not tell us everything always in an explicit way…
Carry sola scriptura out to it’s logical conclusion and not only is there little basis to view Peter as the first pope, but there is little basis on which to believe to use the term Trinity. For that matter, the Bible does not speak of many things we as Christians must contend with: nuclear proliferation, stem cell research, abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. etc. If we carry sola scriptura out to it’s logical end, we have to conclude that, because these things are not “in the Bible.” They must be okay. Absurd.

I first must caution that I “edited” the above by quoting only certain sections and then highlighting some sentences. The overall presentation was very good, and I don’t want to give a wrong impression that I am trying to change the meaning of the post by leaving parts out.

I personally do not subscribe to “sola scriptura” and in fact rarely use the term. I think revelation continues to occur and that our knowledge and understanding of God can continue to increase. The Holy Spirit works among us every day.

That is why I highlighted the sentence about our understanding of faith being limited to Scripture alone. I think our understanding is enhanced from many sources, both written and experienced.

However, I think the essentials of what we need to know to begin living a Christian life is contained in Scripture, particularly in the core teachings of Jesus. He gave us the faith and the means to apply those core teachings to things that are not in the Bible (second bolded sentence). For almost anything we can think of, the “two greatest commandments” can be applied. For a few, it gets a little trickier, but I think that is the expectation and challenge that God gives us. If it were a matter of reviewing a checklist, there would be no effort required to come up with the right choice. But God makes us choose, He gives us the tools but then expects us to use them properly. Saying that if it isn’t in the Bible it must be okay (last highlighted sentences) is absurd, as you say, just like some have in the past made certain evils (slavery and persecutions) acceptable through their interpretation of the Bible. It is a double edged sword.

We humans, in our own weakness, expect to have it all shown to us, whether it is from the Bible or from the Magisterium. It ain’t that easy, nor should it be. Jesus distilled the commandments of God into a teaching that WE must apply in how we live our lives. He also created the “support structure”, beginning with Peter and the other disciples, for helping us do that. But we made it into more than was intended, and gave it a power and a purpose that goes beyond the teachings of the Gospel.

 

[larkin31]

…When you look at all of what Jesus said and the actual events and relationships in the early Church, making the case that Peter was the first of an unending line of Popes is not even close to being a slam dunk.

What he said, too.

Especially if it all comes down to how you interpret a “key” metaphor. Seems a heck of a lot pinned to a little. But, hey, such is the way with religion at times.

 

[larkin31]

---

Love the screen name. I teach the book.

 

[Celtic_Catholic]

However, I think the essentials of what we need to know to begin living a Christian life is contained in Scripture, particularly in the core teachings of Jesus. He gave us the faith and the means to apply those core teachings to things that are not in the Bible (second bolded sentence). For almost anything we can think of, the “two greatest commandments” can be applied.

All I could say is, so very true.

 

[ncgolf]

What he said, too.

Especially if it all comes down to how you interpret a “key” metaphor. Seems a heck of a lot pinned to a little. But, hey, such is the way with religion at times.

Do you know what I find a little odd about the “who do you say that I am” is there these men were talking with God himself for 3 years and they still couldn’t get it. Maybe they knew but were afraid to speak up, maybe they didn’t know but I find it absolutely fascinating that after all they had seen they were so far off in their responses.

Peter speaks up and gets it right. One thing in Scripture is that a boat with the apostles in it is a metaphor for the church. When the apostles are in the boat the one who speaks is usually Peter … this can be read as Peter speaking for the church. The boat symbolizing the church moving through space and time.

Peter has a different relationship with Jesus than the others, not to say he is a better man, but Jesus speaks differently to Peter. Jesus tells Peter he will be a fisher of men, he tells Peter he will deny him 3 times, he tells Peter to feed his sheep, he renames him. There is something distinctly different Jesus is setting up Peter to do than the others. There is a primacy about Jesus’s words to Peter that sets him apart from the others and not because he is better but only because Jesus chose him.

 

[PJM]

=Celtic_Catholic;6267044]*

I’m wondering how Protestants interpret Matthew 16:15-19:

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

To Catholics, “you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” means that Christ appointed Peter as the head of His Church, our first Pope, with all other popes directing succeeding from there.

“Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,” would mean that the Church (Pope) has the authority to create rules accordingly and loose them if necessary.

So I’m very curious about how different Protestant denominations see this. It is very important because these are direct, straight-forward words from Christ. And please know that I am in no way trying to cause conflict. I am only trying to learn.

I appreciate any and all responses. Thank you in advance.

Christ’s Blessings!*

***Dear “Blesed Irish Mom,” [is there any other kind?]

I WONDER if we ask the question with a slight modification if the responses will differ?

What if THEY WERE ONLY TO READ AND NOT INTERPET these beautiful passags?

I suggest this as I find very often non-catholics take metaphorical pasages literally and literal passages like those above; [Mt. 16:19] metaphorically.***

 

[JonNC]

Hi PS1,
As usual, you give a very reasoned and thought out response, reflecting Catholic teaching.
The role of St. Peter, and the words Christ speaks here, have been at issue for a long time. And there are others better than me who can answer, particularly since I believe there is some merit to the Catholic position, that it is hard for me to reason he speaking of the confession of faith alone. On the other hand, the extension of even your position to where Rome takes this is hard to reason as well.

=Prodigal Son1;6267201]
We see that through the words chose at this point, He is still speaking to Peter and Peter alone. ‘AND, I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ Notice Christ continues in the next verse with, 'AND I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven

There is no way of knowing that starting with “and I say to thee”, if he is continuing to talk to Peter alone, or has turned His words on His gathered disciples. “And” is no indication one way or another.

Verse 20 is when we know He has stopped speaking specifically to Peter.

Verse 20 is simply the writer picking up his description of events after Christs own words.

No where in the passage do we see the Lord interrupted His ongoing statement to Peter, to include all in receiving the keys.

The word ‘AND’ appears in the Greek Interlinear, the Douay-Rheims and two versions of the King James Versions of the Bible, that I own.

No interuption needed, as a simple change of eye contact, or a raising of the voice to address all.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Sorry Jon, I didn’t quite follow that.
When you say that “Christ is referring to St. Peter’s confession of faith” are you saying that “this rock” is merely his confession of faith? Or am I missing something?

Hi Reginator,
The Lutheran description is when Christ says “on this rock”, He is referring to Peter’s confession of faith. Again, I think Peter’s role is sometimes diminished by Protestants in a way, and Rome has over-emphasized his role. My own sense is that Christ is speaking about both.

Jon

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hi PS1,
As usual, you give a very reasoned and thought out response, reflecting Catholic teaching.
The role of St. Peter, and the words Christ speaks here, have been at issue for a long time. And there are others better than me who can answer, particularly since I believe there is some merit to the Catholic position, that it is hard for me to reason he speaking of the confession of faith alone. On the other hand, the extension of even your position to where Rome takes this is hard to reason as well.

There is no way of knowing that starting with “and I say to thee”, if he is continuing to talk to Peter alone, or has turned His words on His gathered disciples. “And” is no indication one way or another.

Verse 20 is simply the writer picking up his description of events after Christs own words.

No interuption needed, as a simple change of eye contact, or a raising of the voice to address all.

Jon

Hello Jon,

It’s interesting and confusing, to me, to see a member of the Lutheran Church seemingly question the validity of the keys and who they were given too. I did not think this was a point of contention with Martin Luther. Sincerely, I’d be interested in hearing your view of the Lutheran Church’s stance on the Papacy, or Apostolic succession. I was under the impression that it was the Papacy during Martin Luther’s ‘era’ that he found objections too. I have not researched Martin Luther extensively, but it seems that his objection was mainly focused on men of the Church abusing indulgences for monetary gains. As I believe Martin Luther was correct in recognizing the need of a reformation, I, personally, think he should have sought a reformation within the Church. From what little I know, I thought that maybe he would not have left his priesthood and the Church if the practices of selling indulgences didn’t exist during his life.

It seems to me, that the author of the Gospel would have certainly seen an importance in noting that the Lord had changed His attention to another, or others, on such an important announcement. It almost suggests an errancy in scriptures to think such a detail would be overlooked.

 

[schaick]

Even more of a rock then the man Peter or Peter’s faith is the TRUTH of the statement that Peter made.

People can fail and faith can fail but it is the TRUTH of what Peter said that the *“gates of hell shall not prevail against”. *

“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Even more of a rock then the man Peter or Peter’s faith is the TRUTH of the statement that Peter made.

People can fail and faith can fail but it is the TRUTH of what Peter said that the *“gates of hell shall not prevail against”. *

“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.”

I can understand your point, but Christ was specific in His words, ‘…I will build my Church and even the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ His truth is taught in His Church. Something God builds, cannot be overcome by the gates of hell. His truth is protected in His Church. His inspired word came through His Church.

 

[SemperReformada]

No, I’m a Catholic that took time to explain the Catholic view that refutes the keys were given to all the Apostles. I’m sorry to say, I failed to get the point of your explanation.

When were the keys given to Peter alone?

 

[schaick]

I can understand your point, but Christ was specific in His words, ‘…I will build my Church and even the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ His truth is taught in His Church. Something God builds, cannot be overcome by the gates of hell. His truth is protected in His Church. His inspired word came through His Church.

Yes! The disciples and early Church fathers, the church did protect the TRUTH-GOD’s Word.

Whether you believe the Keys were given to Peter or all the disciples the foundation of the Church is the TRUTH revealed to Peter by GOD.

Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, **for this **was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven."

Peter is blessed because he made the statment, not becaue of who he is.

 

[SemperReformada]

***Dear “Blesed Irish Mom,” [is there any other kind?]

I WONDER if we ask the question with a slight modification if the responses will differ?

What if THEY WERE ONLY TO READ AND NOT INTERPET these beautiful passags?

---

You do realize that quite a few ECF’s interpreted the verse as being Peter’s faith or confession not actually Peter himself?

 

[Celtic_Catholic]

*I’m blessedl to be among such an intelligent group of people. Thank you all so much for your responses.

I was under the impression that it was the Papacy during Martin Luther’s ‘era’ that he found objections too. I have not researched Martin Luther extensively, but it seems that his objection was mainly focused on men of the Church abusing indulgences for monetary gains. As I believe Martin Luther was correct in recognizing the need of a reformation, I, personally, think he should have sought a reformation within the Church. From what little I know, I thought that maybe he would not have left his priesthood and the Church if the practices of selling indulgences didn’t exist during his life.

*I haven’t researched Luther to a great extent either but I do have an interest in him. Forgive me (and correct me) if I’m wrong but I, also, thought that Martin Luther’s problem with the Church was the corruption regarding indulgences. From what I’ve learned, he had issue with Church leaders promising the release of purgatory for loved ones or a guarantee of heaven for payment. Another thought at the time was, if the Church is able to absolve sins for penance, why make the penance so high that it’s unattainable without an indulgence? I thought those were his issues and that he did try to reform the Catholic Church and be heard but he was silenced and excommunicated. And there were heresy charges brought against him?

Now, again, I may be 100 percent wrong. If I am, please correct me but this is what I remember from what I’ve read several years ago.

 

[Celtic_Catholic]

***Dear “Blesed Irish Mom,” [is there any other kind?]

]*****

Well, of course there isn’t. THANK YOU!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes! The disciples and early Church fathers, the church did protect the TRUTH-GOD’s Word.

Whether you believe the Keys were given to Peter or all the disciples the foundation of the Church is the TRUTH revealed to Peter by GOD.

Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, **for this ** was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven."

Peter is blessed because he made the statment, not becaue of who he is.

But, Peter received the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind and loose, because of his statement of faith. I have demonstrated several times how Christ was speaking to Peter with an ongoing statement to include the building of the Church, the keys and the authority to bind and loose. Peter was who he was because of his statement of faith and was chosen by God.