Question on Matthew 5:29

[De_Maria]

…This is first year seminary ignorance with all respect. … Show me any Apostle or gospel writer informing their readers of the papacy. Show me ANY information about a coming papacy from the Old Testament. Acts? Revelation? Anything from the founders of the Christian faith.

I’m pretty sure that in the first year of seminary, everyone learns that the Scriptures were written BEFORE the specialized language, like “papacy”, was developed.

But, the Church was already in existence, and it is in the Church that you find the explicit Teaching. In the Scriptures, you find it described. The fact that St. Peter “binds and looses”, the fact that he “feeds Christ’s Sheep”, the fact that he is supposed to “strengthen the brethren”, the fact that he pays Christ’s Temple Tax, the fact that when Ananias speaks to St. Peter, he is speaking to the Holy Spirit and the fact that he is mentioned many times more than any other apostle. You just want to ignore, or explain those things out of existence.

But there is nothing in the Scripture which says, “We’re just using Peter as an example” or “Never mind that the Holy Spirit singles him out more than any other Apostle, that doesn’t mean there is anything special about him.” Yet, you read that into Scripture or append it to Scripture or something. But it is not there. God singled him out and revealed to him that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and the Son of God precisely because he was chosen to rule Christ’s Church. And you don’t want to submit to God’s will.

17 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.
18 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. 19 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.”

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Show me chapter and verse talking about the papacy. … show me any Apostle teaching the details of the papacy. Show me any Apostle or gospel writer informing their readers of the papacy. Show me ANY information about a coming papacy from the Old Testament. Acts? Revelation? Anything from the founders of the Christian faith.

I showed you several verses, I am not sure you read them because you reduced what I wrote to only my first point which was that Peter was always listed first because he lead the apostles. In aggregate, all of those verses say the same thing. And there are many more verses which say the same thing.

Here are the earliest of church fathers recognizing the authority of the papacy too. I mean, Ignatius was the child that Jesus held aloft in Mark. These are not people who are distant from apostolic witness.

“The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.”
Pope St. Clement of Rome, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians (A.D. 96)

“… the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans (A.D. 110)

" [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority…"
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies (A.D. 180)

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Consider that the only time the keys are used in scripture are where they have to do with dynastic succession of office.

The keys are passed on from Shebna to Eliacim as steward/chamberlain/master of the Kings house. So too is Peter the steward in Christs house in his absence.

Mt 16:19 • ‘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.’
Isa 22:22 • ‘And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.’

 

[PaladinSword]

not as extreme but I believe st francis rolled through thorns to avoid a temptress of lust. I could be wrong

 

[tgGodsway]

Again, you assume more than what is actually on the page. And you define its meaning beyond the intent of the author. Yes I agree the statement about new birth is for all. But it was a private conversation just with Nicodemus. Somehow for you, the rule changes if it is Peter. Peter answered Jesus question correctly to which Jesus continued. “Thou art Peter…”. The keys of the kingdom, in no way, is to be understood as something only for Peter. Nothing in the context justifies it. Two chapters later Jesus teaches all his disciples to bind and lose, a function you assign for one pope at a time. When did the other disciples also become pope?

 

[De_Maria]

Again, you assume more than what is actually on the page.

Because we know the Teaching upon which that page is based.

And you define its meaning beyond the intent of the author.

No. You do. The author is a member of the Catholic Church.

Yes I agree the statement about new birth is for all. But it was a private conversation just with Nicodemus. Somehow for you, the rule changes if it is Peter.

On the contrary, compare the two. Jesus didn’t say, “Nic, you would not say this if my Father in heaven had not told you, therefore, you are born again”.

But He did single out St. Peter.

Peter answered Jesus question correctly to which Jesus continued. “Thou art Peter…”. The keys of the kingdom, in no way, is to be understood as something only for Peter.

Again, Jesus gave them to him and to no one else. I will give “YOU”, singular, the keys to the Kingdom.

Nothing in the context justifies it. Two chapters later Jesus teaches all his disciples to bind and lose, a function you assign for one pope at a time.

Nope. St. Peter is the Rock upon which the Church is built. He is handed the keys not so that he can personally gain from them. But so that he can exercise this power, through the Church.

When did the other disciples also become pope?

Think about a simple business. The boss gives you the keys to open the doors. Does that make you the boss? No.

In the same way, notice how Jesus merely says to the Apostles (Matt 18:18), that they will bind and loose. But does not give each of them a set. Why? Because He knows that St. Peter will share the responsibility.

You might want to read Exodus 18.

14 And when Moses’ father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?

And ask yourself whether Jethro was smarter than Jesus?
Ask yourself also, whether all affected were given all of Moses authority?

 

[tgGodsway]

You might want to read Exodus 18.

Yes I understand the concept of ranking of authority. You claim Peter had ultimate authority over the other Apostles based on how Jesus gave Peter the keys of the kingdom. Got it. But we understand, based on Luke 11:52, that this key is a metaphorical key of knowledge and understanding.

Jesus asked all of his disciples a pivotal question in the context of the Matthew passage. “who do men say I am?” The “they” of Mt. 16:14 was the disciples response to Jesus … " some say John the Baptist, some Elijah… Jesus responded back “but who do YOU, (meaning all the disciples) say that I am?.. to which only Peter at the time answered correctly, … " v16 You are the Christ the Son of the living God.”

From here on, everything said was now directed to Peter alone. Why Peter alone, because only Peter had the revelation that Jesus was the Christ. In verse 18 the response (again under debate) is framed: “AND I ALSO say to you!.. (by implication, Jesus is going to say something only to Peter until or unless the rest of them receive the same divine revelation) … that you are Peter, (masculine) and on this rock, (neuter) I will build my Church…”

Christ will build His Church on the ROCK of revelation Peter had just uttered, was the point.
… and the gates of hell shall not prevail against IT. against what “it?” The revelation that Jesus is the Christ.

v19 And I will give YOU (why just Peter? because Peter was the only one at the time who answered Jesus original question correctly) the keys=knowledge and understanding of the kingdom, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven,…"

Using a face-value hermeneutic, this is the obvious intent of the author. Again understanding that knowledge and understanding of God’s ways was never intended to be funneled down to one guy. By verse 20 all 12 Apostles received this understanding to which they were commanded to NOT tell anyone.

Two chapters later Jesus instructs all Disciples on how to pray by binding and loosening. Jesus even said in another place to all his disciples “Behold I give you the authority=(to unlock kingdom ways as you) trample on serpents and scorpions and over all the power=(raw power or force) of the enemy…” Luke 10:19

Again, you have not answered my questions about finding biblical evidence to enthrone Peter. I only ask that you address it specifically , rather than glaze over it.

 

[De_Maria]

Yes I understand the concept of ranking of authority. You claim Peter had ultimate authority over the other Apostles based on how Jesus gave Peter the keys of the kingdom.

Right, the keys of the KINGDOM.

Got it. But we understand, based on Luke 11:52, that this key is a metaphorical key of knowledge and understanding.

Lol! How do you read Scripture? It is a astoundingly irresponsible manner. Let’s look at what it says and compare.

One says, “the keys to the kingdom”.
The other say, “the key to knowledge and understanding”.

Different description. So, how do you equate entering into the kingdom with entering into knowledge and understanding? If we enter the kingdom by knowledge and understanding, what do we do with faith alone?

Jesus asked all of his disciples a pivotal question in the context of the Matthew passage. “who do men say I am?” The “they” of Mt. 16:14 was the disciples response to Jesus … " some say John the Baptist, some Elijah… Jesus responded back “but who do YOU, (meaning all the disciples) say that I am?.. to which only Peter at the time answered correctly, … " v16 You are the Christ the Son of the living God.”

From here on, everything said was now directed to Peter alone.

Correct.

Why Peter alone, because only Peter had the revelation that Jesus was the Christ.

That seems significant, doesn’t it? Why did he alone have that knowledge?

In verse 18 the response (again under debate) is framed: “AND I ALSO say to you!.. (by implication, Jesus is going to say something only to Peter until or unless the rest of them receive the same divine revelation) … that you are Peter, (masculine) and on this rock, (neuter) I will build my Church…”

Correct.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

Christ will build His Church on the ROCK of revelation Peter had just uttered, was the point.

That’s fine. The Catholic Church accepts that understanding. After all, it is PETER’S confession.

… and the gates of hell shall not prevail against IT. against what “it?” The revelation that Jesus is the Christ.

Nope. Against the Church. Grammar 101.

I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

v19 And I will give YOU (why just Peter? because Peter was the only one at the time who answered Jesus original question correctly) the keys=knowledge and understanding of the kingdom, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven,…"

Nope. Jesus says, the keys to the Kingdom, such that he will lock and loose. This is priestly language with a specific Jewish meaning.

Binding and loosing. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Binding and loosing is originally a Jewish Mishnaic phrase also mentioned in the New Testament, as well as in the Targum. In usage, to bind and to loose simply means to forbid by an indisputable authority and to permit by an indisputable authority.
Binding and loosing - Wikipedia

Lots of people complain that Wiki is always wrong, but that sounds pretty accurate to me. If you don’t believe it, confirm or contradict it with another source.

Using a face-value hermeneutic, this is the obvious intent of the author. Again understanding that knowledge and understanding of God’s ways was never intended to be funneled down to one guy. By verse 20 all 12 Apostles received this understanding to which they were commanded to NOT tell anyone.

What you’re doing is using your presupposed narrative and making it fit.

Two chapters later Jesus instructs all Disciples on how to pray by binding and loosening. Jesus even said in another place to all his disciples “Behold I give you the authority=(to unlock kingdom ways as you) trample on serpents and scorpions and over all the power=(raw power or force) of the enemy…” Luke 10:19

Nothing there about the key to knowledge and understanding.

Again, you have not answered my questions about finding biblical evidence to enthrone Peter. I only ask that you address it specifically , rather than glaze over it.

I have. It is astounding that you continue to reject all that evidence and replace it with your own intentions. But, as you said, we can agree to disagree. But, I don’t think you can leave this alone, because your conscience is probably kicking you hard for denying the truth of Scripture which is staring you in the face.

 

[tgGodsway]

Different description. So, how do you equate entering into the kingdom with entering into knowledge and understanding? If we enter the kingdom by knowledge and understanding, what do we do with faith alone ?

De_Maria, you are thinking literal and physical. Jesus wasn’t when he said the kingdom of God is at hand. Did anyone see it after Jesus said it? No. Because the kingdom of God can be summed up in one statement. It’s simply God’s way of doing things. Study this subject in all he said about it and you will come to the same conclusion. Jesus said you must be born again in order to see the kingdom. New birth comes through hearing and understanding God’s word, 1st Pet. 1:23. But one day that spiritual kingdom will be realized physically and literally. On the matter of faith alone, We enter a pronouncement of justification by faith alone, as Abraham did.

 

[tgGodsway]

That seems significant, doesn’t it? Why did he alone have that knowledge?

In verse 18 the response (again un

Well, we know he answered correctly which implies the others didn’t. However in the very same context Jesus tells them all to not tell anyone he is the Christ. We cannot read into the passage our denominational bias here. There is no insinuation that Peter alone had anything that others could not also have. To force the passage to make that jump is dishonest at best. Actually all the believers had to come to the very same conclusion if they were to obtain eternal life. This is a non negotiable doctrine.

 

[tgGodsway]

That’s fine. The Catholic Church accepts that understanding. After all, it is PETER’S confession.

… and the gates of

No I don’t think the CC does. They stand on Peter as Christ on Earth while Jesus Christ is in heaven. That is entirely different. Peter was one among all else who embraced this truth.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Different description. So, how do you equate entering into the kingdom with entering into knowledge and understanding? If we enter the kingdom by knowledge and understanding, what do we do with faith alone ?

De_Maria, you are thinking literal and physical. Jesus wasn’t when he said the kingdom of God is at hand. Did anyone see it after Jesus said it? No. Because the kingdom of God can be summed up in one statement. It’s simply God’s way of doing things. Study this subject in all he said about it and you will come to the same conclusion. Jesus said you must be born again in order to see the kingdom. New birth comes through hearing and understanding God’s word, 1st Pet. 1:23. But one day that spiritual kingdom will be realized physically and literally. On the matter of faith alone, We enter a pronouncement of justification by faith alone, as Abraham did.

The problem is that you haven’t studied the subject. If you had, you would know that to bind and loose is a technical priestly term for authority. The keys to the Kingdom symbolize that authority. That authority was given to the High Priest by giving him a set of keys and he decided who would enter the Temple of God. He would literally, unlock the gate in order to let other priests in and lock the gate to keep all others out.

Jesus was a Jew and His words need to be understood under Jewish context. You read those words as if they were spoken a few minutes ago. But they weren’t. They were spoken 2000 years ago when the Jewish priesthood was still standing and the High Priest still held the keys to the Temple. Jewish ears would have heard and understood exactly what Jesus was talking about. They would have understood that He had made St. Peter, the High Priest of His Church.

…There is no insinuation that Peter alone had anything that others could not also have. …

On the contrary, he had the ELECTION of God the Father. No one else was elected for that position.

Matthew 20:23And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

Matt 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

That’s fine. The Catholic Church accepts that understanding. After all, it is PETER’S confession.

… and the gates of

No I don’t think the CC does.

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

They stand on Peter as Christ on Earth while Jesus Christ is in heaven. That is entirely different. Peter was one among all else who embraced this truth.

Simon was renamed Rock (i.e. Peter) in order to show the world, that Jesus had selected him to walk in His steps, on earth.

 

[tgGodsway]

Nope. Jesus says, the keys to the Kingdom, such that he will lock and loose. This is priestly language with a specific Jewish meaning.

Binding and loosing.

Im not disputing your conclusions about binding and losening but please give me Jesus teaching on priestly language.

 

[tgGodsway]

Was only Peter commanded to walk like Jesus?

 

[De_Maria]

Im not disputing your conclusions about binding and losening but please give me Jesus teaching on priestly language.

Lol! That question comes directly from your mistaken reliance on Scripture alone. Priestly language comes from a study of historic Jewish idioms. Jewish manner of speaking. If you want to understand Our Lord’s expressions, you need to understand the history of the nation into which He was born and within which He was raised.

Was only Peter commanded to walk like Jesus?

St. Peter is the only one whom:

1. God the Father elected to be appointed the Rock upon which Jesus would build His Church.
2. Jesus elected to give a name which previously only He possessed (1 Cor 10:4).
3. Jesus elected to Feed His Sheep.
4. Jesus elected to give the keys to the Kingdom.
5. Jesus commanded to strengthen his brethren.

Everyone is commanded to walk like Jesus. But only St. Peter was elected for the things I mentioned above.

 

[tgGodsway]

! That question comes directly from your mistaken reliance on Scripture alone. Priestly language comes from a study of historic Jewish idioms. Jewish manner of speaking. If you want to understand Our Lord’s expressions, you need to understand the history of the nation into which He was born and within which He was raised.

I noticed how you didn’t answer. Secondly you are unaware of what I know and don’t know. You are claiming some kind of exclusivity here and I’m asking you to justify it using the teachings of those Jewish disciples. What was Matthew’s intent here?

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

! That question comes directly from your mistaken reliance on Scripture alone. Priestly language comes from a study of historic Jewish idioms. Jewish manner of speaking. If you want to understand Our Lord’s expressions, you need to understand the history of the nation into which He was born and within which He was raised.

I noticed how you didn’t answer.

I guess you didn’t understand the answer. You want to see it in Scripture. It is not from Scripture. We don’t support the idea that everything must be in Scripture.

Secondly you are unaware of what I know and don’t know. You are claiming some kind of exclusivity here and I’m asking you to justify it using the teachings of those Jewish disciples.

On the contrary, Jewish custom and law are a matter of public knowledge. All you have to do is take it upon yourself to study something that is accessible to anyone with a computer and access to the internet. Here, let me help you.

What was Matthew’s intent here?

To show everyone that Jesus Christ had appointed a High Priest. St. Peter.

 

[tgGodsway]

All of us are commanded to build upon the Rock of Christ. No one is commanded to build upon a mere man such as Peter or any Apostle. We build upon the revelation God gave to those men, which begins with Jesus the Christ. Upon the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established. Please show the unity of thought among the apostles on Peter. If you can produce this I will become Catholic today. Remember Paul’s teaching on this he said "I planted, Apollo watered but God gave the increase. 1st Cor.3. This foundation was built upon Christ. Paul said the foundation is the APOSTLES (not just Peter) prophets Jesus Christ the Chief cornerstone. Eph.2:20. These verses over rule any tradition of man.