Saturday, October 15, 2016

MATTHEW 16 – KEYS, BINDING, AND LOOSING



Matthew 16

v. 13) When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His Disciples, saying, “Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am?”

v. 14) And they said, “Some say that you are John the Baptist: some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the Prophets.”

v. 15) He said unto them, “But whom say you that I am?”

v. 16) And Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”

v. 17) And Jesus answered and said unto him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood have not revealed it unto you, but My Father which is in Heaven.”

v. 18) And I say also unto you, “That you are Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”

v. 19) “And I will give unto you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”

This is the third and final article in this series on Matthew 16 and we are seeing the Catholic Church’s abuse and hi-jacking of this passage for their own purposes.

Last month, we saw how the Catechism of the Catholic Church falsely claims that Peter was the only rock of the Church (CCC #881), placing Peter above all the other apostles; and we demonstrated that the biblical evidence certainly points against this idea.  See here:


The Catechism Strikes Again

The Catholic Catechism also claims that Peter is the only one to whom the keys were directly given: 

“…Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.” (CCC #553)

So, what is all this about?  What are these “keys” that Jesus is giving to Peter?  Of course, these are not literal keys, but a metaphor.  Keys represent authority, power and access, and since they are the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, they must give access to Heaven.  This is the binding (locking) and loosing (unlocking) concept that Jesus was speaking of, i.e., restricting or allowing access to Heaven.

Infallible Successors?

Catholics also claim that this authority that Peter received from Jesus is an infallible authority, and because of this, he (Peter) cannot officially proclaim error when teaching on faith and morals.  Not only that, this infallible authority will also be passed on to his successors.  The reason they claim infallibility is because they believe:  1) Jesus gave Peter the legislative power (ability to make laws) to bind and loose.  2) Peter decides that a particular teaching should become law, and makes it binding on the church.  3) God sees this action and is somehow obligated to endorse or ratify this new law from His throne in Heaven.
  
And the Catholic says that the reason that this action has to be infallible is because God cannot lie or endorse an erroneous or false decree.  And since He must always endorse what Peter binds or looses, He won’t ever let Peter bind or loose the wrong things, guaranteeing freedom from error.  Sounds good, right?

But that’s not the way it works.  Man doesn’t make the rules and then obligate God to agree with him.  Nor is God obligated to keep anyone from making bad decisions.  Everyone is accountable for his own decisions (Galatians 6:7).

You see, the keys come with the implied understanding that you will abide by the rules of the one who gave you the keys in the first place.  This promise from Jesus to Peter is neither a license to bind and loose whatever he wants, nor is it a guarantee to never teach false doctrine (whether “officially” or not).  This is not about telling God what to bind or loose.  Rather, Jesus is saying, “Peter, I will back you as long as you do My will,” He is NOT saying, “I will keep you from ever straying from My will.”  Church leaders are expected to be more responsible and more accountable than others (1 Timothy 3:1-10; Titus 1:5-9).  The Bible tells church leaders to guard their teachings (Acts 20:28-31; 1 Timothy 4:16; 6:20; 2 Timothy 1:14).  But why tell them to “keep” or “guard” those teachings if they are guaranteed an infallibility and protection against error?  There is no biblical evidence of anyone in the post-apostolic church who would have infallibility.

Just Peter?

Ok, so Peter was given the keys to the kingdom.  But is he the only one who obtained these keys?  No, not at all.  Speaking to all the apostles in another passage, Jesus said:

“Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:  and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18:18)

We can see from this verse that Jesus is giving this same power to bind and loose to ALL the apostles.  It is the same exact wording as Matthew 16:19 (except the “ye” and “you”).  So they must necessarily all have the same keys, that is, the same authority.  Jesus gave nothing to Peter that he didn’t also give to the other apostles.  To try and say that Peter is “the only one to whom He [Jesus] specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom” is deceptive.  The Catholic Church makes a big deal out of isolating Peter in Matthew 16:18-19 and then they try to insert the doctrine of the papacy here.

Whose Papacy?

But the Catholic will say, “But look at all the special things Peter did and experienced!  Shouldn’t he have this ‘primacy’ and this special role as pope?”  Catholics will argue that he was the first one to get the keys, that Jesus told him to “Feed My sheep,” that Jesus changed Peter’s name, etc., etc.  But if these sorts of accomplishments suggest that a man should be pope, then we could suggest the apostle Paul, as well, for this honor.  After all, Paul has a better “resume” than Peter.  Whatever evidence can be brought forth for the primacy of Peter, more (and better) evidence can be brought forth for the primacy of Paul.  See this link for an interesting comparison between Peter and Paul:


Of course, no one is actually saying that Paul is a pope, but the point is that Catholics are not consistent when they use this argument.  If someone had to be a pope based on experiences and accomplishments, it seems it should be Paul.

Limits

Ok, so ALL the apostles had the power of binding and loosing.  But what were the limits of this power?  When discussing the papacy, Catholics will almost always speak very highly of Peter’s authority.  But sometimes, an interesting thing happens when Catholics are pressed about the limits of this gift to bind and loose.  Someone in the discussion may well ask, since Peter had this special primacy and authority, couldn’t he decide to proclaim any wild teachings he desired to promote?  Could he make crazy laws for the church that everybody would have to follow?  Maybe change some existing infallible Catholic teachings?  After all, wouldn’t God bind and loose whatever Peter chose to bind and loose?  This is a valid question, since he is given so much attention and power in the Catholic Church.

At this point of the discussion, Catholics will often tone it down and say no, Peter can’t decree such things; that’s not what this means, and they may quote something like “Pastor Aeternus” of the First Vatican Council, which says:

“For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.” (Session 4, Chapter 4, Paragraph 6)

Ok, so according to Vatican I, this power of binding and loosing was apparently not for creating new doctrines, etc., but only to cause Peter to “religiously guard” and “faithfully expound” the revelation that already existed.  But isn’t this the job of every pastor who is worth his salt?  This is the norm for biblical churches, to try to religiously guard and faithfully expound God’s Word.  Actually, this is every Christian’s duty.  So, how does this separate Peter from the rest?  How does this make Peter’s status any higher than the other apostles?  It doesn’t.  There is nothing in Matthew 16 that calls for the Catholic Church’s exalted view of Peter.

But notice how the discussion goes from:
  
   A)Peter is the Vicar of Christ, referred to as “His Holiness,” who has full, supreme and universal power over the whole church, who has the power to make statements that are infallible (without error) and irreformable (unchangeable; not subject to improvement), and being under his authority is an absolute necessity for salvation.…

To basically

   B) Peter has to follow (and be faithful to) the Word of God, just like everybody else. 
 
“A” (above) can only be concluded by much hype and exaggeration, as well as eisegesis (reading things into the text), while “B” is much closer to the truth, and closer to the meaning of binding and loosing in Matthew 16.

When the Catholic is pressed on this point and this “special gift to Peter alone” is examined, we find that ultimately, they will be forced to downplay Peter’s status.

The Grammar

To get a good idea of the nature and scope of this power of binding and loosing, we need to look at the grammar used in this context.  The structure in the Greek grammar of both Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18 is unique and very important.  Many scholars (e.g., A.T. Robertson, J.R. Mantey, Charles B. Williams, Robert Young, Jay P. Green, Sr., and Thomas Constable, just to name a few) agree on the type of perfect tense used in these passages and teach that it indicates a state of completion.  The Greek is literally saying, “Whatsoever you bind / loose on earth shall have been bound / loosed in Heaven,” “…is already bound / loosed in Heaven,” “…shall be what has been bound / loosed in Heaven,” “…having been already bound / loosed in Heaven,” etc.  There are well over a dozen different Bible translations that render it this way, or something very similar.  This may be somewhat awkward in English, but according to these scholars, it is faithful to the Greek, which is the inspired language.
      
Ok, so why does this type of perfect tense matter?  The important thing to note is that this structure demonstrates that the binding and loosing in Heaven actually comes FIRST - BEFORE a man on earth has declared what is bound or loosed.

It is interesting to note that this very same Greek construction is also used in John 20:23 where Jesus tells the apostles that whoever’s sins you retain / forgive are retained / forgiven.  This type of structure indicates that God’s forgiving or retaining comes first, and then man’s proclaiming of the person’s spiritual status afterward (based on that person’s acceptance or rejection of the gospel).

This is not a situation where a man can decide to forgive or retain the sinner’s sins, as in the Catholic confessional – it is a situation in which a believer simply declares / proclaims / confirms what God has already clearly stated in His Word, concerning the sinner’s response to the gospel. Forgiveness depends on whether a person is repentant and how he reacts to the gospel, not on some special formula that the priest, rabbi, or minister uses.

So, practically speaking, this passage is simply saying 1) “Since you have accepted the gospel on earth, you are already forgiven (loosed) in Heaven,” or 2) “Since you reject the gospel of Jesus Christ on earth, you have already been condemned (bound) in Heaven and excluded from eternal life.”

Again, as with all three passages mentioned above (Matthew 16:19, 18:18, and John 20:23), it is NOT a case of a man having power over other people’s souls, or creating laws at will, or absolving sins and then afterward, God being obligated to give His seal of approval.  Binding and loosing (as well as retaining and forgiving) has to do with entrance into Heaven and is simply declaring what God has already done according to His Word.  Scripture is the standard upon which a person can bind or loose something.  The keys that were first given to the apostles are simply the gospel of Jesus Christ, because THAT is “…the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16).  And these keys are, by extension, given to every Christian through the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20).  When Christians are obedient in proclaiming the truth about a person’s acceptance or rejection of the gospel, God will ratify (or has already ratified) that proclamation in Heaven.

Isaiah 22

Another argument that Catholics often use to justify Peter’s primacy as pope is to parallel Matthew 16:19 with Isaiah 22:20-22.  Here is the passage:

v. 20) And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call My servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah.

v. 21) And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.

v. 22) And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Since there is a key involved, and since there is opening and shutting (“loosing” and “binding”) involved, and what seems to be a type of “prime minister” position, Catholics believe that this is symbolic of Jesus giving the keys to Peter, with Peter ruling over the Church by way of a papacy. 
 
But this Isaiah passage is actually about a man named Shebna (v. 15) who, because of his pride, was about to lose his position as second only to the king (Hezekiah), and God was handing his position over to another man named Eliakim.  So, Catholics compare Peter to Eliakim, who was to receive the “key of the house of David” (v. 22).   And they say that Jesus is giving Peter these same keys to be a sort of “prime minister” of the Catholic Church.  This is Catholic typology.

But this is far from good biblical typology.  The Bible mentions several different keys (or sets of keys).  Does each and every one of these also apply to Peter just because keys are mentioned?  What is it in Isaiah 22 that demands a parallel with Peter?  If this typology is accurate, then who represents Shebna in the Matthew 16 scenario?  Who did Peter replace?  The truth is, he replaced no one, since the apostles were the foundation of the church era.  And if this passage points to Peter, then what is the significance of Isaiah 22:25, that is, how was Peter ever “removed” or “cut down”?  We would think that Catholics would be cautious about applying this to Peter or his papacy.

The Jewish Connection

And it doesn’t apply for good reason.  This Eliakim (whose name means “God will raise up”) is a type of Jesus Christ, not Peter.  It is Jesus who will have the glorious throne in v. 23 (the everlasting throne of David - 2 Samuel 7:12-16; Isaiah 9:6-7; Luke 1:31-33; Acts 2:30).  And it is Jesus who has the “key of David” (Revelation 3:7).

The “key of the house of David” in Isaiah 22, we believe, focuses more on the promises of David’s throne, the setting up and fulfillment of his kingdom.  The “house of David” is about the ancestry or the line of David.  Again, the key (singular) of the house of David (Isaiah 22:22) had to do with Israel (note the reference to Jerusalem and Judah in v. 21), while the keys (plural) of the kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 16:19) have more to do with the church.

There may be similarities between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16, but they are not the same thing.

Conclusion

We have often said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  The Catholic Church’s claim to Matthew 16:13-19 is no different, in fact, it is one of their most fervent claims, but their focus is on the wrong person.  They have a lot to lose if they are proven wrong here.  That’s why they fight tooth and nail to promote these ideas.

Once again, this passage is NOT about Peter and his “primacy.”  It is about the person, the work, and the message of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God.  It is about His gospel of salvation through faith in that glorious work on the cross… and that alone.  He has also called all Christians to share this gospel with a lost and dying world.  As we said earlier, the gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16), and it is exactly what this passage (Matthew 16:13-19) and this series of articles is all about.

We are not against Peter.  He was definitely a leader in the church who has done much for the gospel.  He became a great man of faith, in spite of his initial shortcomings, and he will sit on a throne just as all the other apostles will.  But we must be ever mindful of over-emphasizing anyone, be it an apostle, Mary, a “saint,” or any minister.  And this is exactly what the papacy does:  It wrongly focuses on, and exalts, a mere man rather than Jesus Christ.

According to God’s infallible Word, there IS no papacy, there IS no pope, there IS no one ruler on earth over the whole church.

22 comments:

  1. congratulate me Russell for being the first to comment. i do not wish to debate much but to just leave my comments on the Topic.
    Part 1
    you said
    "But that’s not the way it works. Man doesn’t make the rules and then obligate God to agree with him. Nor is God obligated to keep anyone from making bad decisions. Everyone is accountable for his own decisions"
    You making many assumptions here:
    1. Its not a personal gift, for Peter 's benefit but for the Church. So those are not personal decisions.
    2. Even though Peter was accountable for his decisions, Jesus Prayed for Peter so that his Faith will not fail, that seems opposite to what you are trying to make us believe, He is obligated at least according to what he promised.

    "The Greek is literally saying, “Whatsoever you bind / loose on earth shall have been bound / loosed in Heaven,” “…is already bound / loosed in Heaven,” “…shall be what has been bound / loosed in Heaven,” “…having been already bound / loosed in Heaven,”
    you are just confirming what we already believe we do not care if it happens before or after God does it, the bottom line is the binding/loosing is confirmed by God, if its already bound when Peter binds then its still the same thing.

    "Scripture is the standard upon which a person can bind or loose something." According to who? Where is that written in the bible?
    “For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.” (Session 4, Chapter 4, Paragraph 6)"

    This is completely in line with what we believe. Read Luke 22:30-33 Peter was given the Job to strengthen/confirm his brethren, Jesus prayed for him that his faith wont fail (this does not look at all like they are all equal since they will need to be strengthened by Peter). We believe that by the Death of the Last Apostle Public revelation ceased and all that Jesus was communicated by the Apostles, which includes the True Church had already been communicated as Jesus himself had started it and all other things. In cases where they would be disputes of what was revealed by the Apostles, Peter and his successors whose faith will never fail are there to strengthen their brethren in what was really received thats where their binding and loosing Power work.
    3. We all know that Man does not make the Rules but Jesus is God and He is saying clearly whatsoever you shall bind/looseth. So who is making rules here?
    ever you ever wonder why Jesus prayed for Peter alone to strengthen the other Apostles since they are all equal.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Part 2

    What is it in Isaiah 22 that demands a parallel with Peter? If this typology is accurate, then who represents Shebna in the Matthew 16 scenario? Who did Peter replace?
    1. Can you prove that a type has to be exact to the thing it points to(where does the bible say that?)
    2. This Eliakim (whose name means “God will raise up”) is a type of Jesus Christ, not Peter. Well Russell i thought you were concluding that a type is exact to the one it points to? So Jesus is not the King but a Prime Minister.
    3. Its Obvious its the Pharisees, Read Matthew 23,
    Matthew 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
    Because of the Authority of Moses, Jesus commanded the People to observe whatsoever they said, but note that in
    Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
    Jesus had already spoken that the Kingdom will be taken away from these stewards(Jews) and to be given to others(Peter and the Apostles).

    “We have often said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” Just because you say it does not mean its a fact. We need facts and you back your statements up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was thinking Peter could've replaced the Jewish leaders too.

      Delete
    2. Sean,

      Remember, the Jewish leaders of the Old Testament were not infallible. So how does your claim that the New Testament contains infallible successors to fallible teachers follow? Furthermore, the Bible is absolutely silent about the allegedly infallible hierarchial church structure that yours has.

      Delete
  3. part 3

    “There is no biblical evidence of anyone in the post-apostolic church who would have infallibility.” Can you show by scripture that

    1. The evidence they are people who were infallible or who knew that they were infallible in apostolic times
    2. The evidence that there will be no people who will be infallible after the apostolic era.

    Jesus is saying, “Peter, I will back you as long as you do My will,” He is NOT saying, “I will keep you from ever straying from My will.” Church leaders are expected to be more responsible and more accountable than others (1 Timothy 3:1-10; Titus 1:5-9). The Bible tells church leaders to guard their teachings (Acts 20:28-31; 1 Timothy 4:16; 6:20; 2 Timothy 1:14). But why tell them to “keep” or “guard” those teachings if they are guaranteed an infallibility and protection against error?
    Are you saying for example the bible which you claim to be infallible when one wants to alter it you will sit there and say our Lord is going to just protect it after all the Gospel had to be spread worldwide, One Peter in Rome, Timothy(any bishop) somewhere maybe in Africa has to protect the infallible teaching from being altered and to be taught faithfully. That is the guarding being mentioned there

    ReplyDelete
  4. Part 4

    “To try and say that Peter is “the only one to whom He [Jesus] specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom” is deceptive. The Catholic Church makes a big deal out of isolating Peter in Matthew 16:18-19 and then they try to insert the doctrine of the papacy here.”
    Who is trying to be deceptive here, read again Matthew 16:18-19 who was Jesus talking to? To Peter Alone, how is it deceptive to say to Peter alone was given the keys.
    Matthew 18:18 does not mention the keys at all. It includes all the Apostles including Peter who had the Keys. Show were the other apostles were given the keys.
    They can only bind and loose with Peter around just like a family travelling and the mother has the keys on reaching home if the mother stays behind can they open the house?
    Taking Matthew 18:18 into context Jesus was talking here of the disputes and after Going lastly to the Church treat one as a heathen or publican and then went on the say
    Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
    It means Jesus meant to be a binding authority, here Jesus makes reference to the writings or what neither does He say so in Matthew 16 as you want us to assume.

    ReplyDelete
  5. part 5

    But the Catholic will say, “But look at all the special things Peter did and experienced! Shouldn’t he have this ‘primacy’ and this special role as pope?” Catholics will argue that he was the first one to get the keys, that Jesus told him to “Feed My sheep,” that Jesus changed Peter’s name, etc., etc. But if these sorts of accomplishments suggest that a man should be pope, then we could suggest the apostle Paul, as well, for this honor. After all, Paul has a better “resume” than Peter.
    You assume that we think that those are Peter ‘s Achievements. Can you prove that we claim that those are Peter 's achievements? those are what our Lord said to Peter and gave him those honors and they are not his achievements, from the first moment Jesus met Simon, Jesus told his you shall be called Cephas did he do anything to achieve that no it was just Jesus who chose to rename him, what about the confession Jesus expressly says it was not from flesh and blood but from the Father no achievement there. He himself actually knew did not deserve them, after Jesus had told him to feed His sheep etc etc and telling him about his death Peter asked the following to Jesus,
    John 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
    Peter thought John was to be given a greater role which was not the case.

    you said

    "As we said earlier, the gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16),"
    You should take note that the word Gospel does not mean Scriptures. It means The News about the life of Christ. Do not read things into scriptures

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mug,

    Just one quick thing before my final comments.

    You said:

    “Jesus Prayed for Peter so that his Faith will not fail, that seems opposite to what you are trying to make us believe”

    Jesus’ praying for Peter’s faith not to fail has nothing to do with binding and loosing in some papal position. Jesus prayed for him because He knew that Peter would deny Him, and Jesus was simply praying that Peter would be restored and forgiven. That’s all that was about. No one should read a papacy into this context.

    Ok, Mug, I don’t know if it is some kind of language barrier or something, but after so much of our going back and forth with this same information in other articles, we are not getting anywhere. I think it’s time we part and let the reader decide for himself whose argument is most reasonable. I believe that the article speaks for itself, and I don’t want either of us wasting the other’s time. Just repeating our arguments is not doing anyone any good. May God open the eyes of all of us to see His truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Russel, your whole spiel about Peter that was all your own personal thoughts wasn't it?

      Delete
    2. Hi Sean,

      Thanks for visiting this blog at my request and telling me which article that you commented on!

      But now I am challenging you to come up with some constructive arguments for position. In oter words, you should tell us why you disagree with the materials presented within this article. Furthermore, you should see the two previous articles on this website and examine the comments section.

      If you have any questions regarding Scripture and theology, then feel free to ask us. If you want any links to any of the other articles on this blog, then all you have to do is ask.

      You can respond to any of the articles on this website, whether they be old or new. And, we hope that you will continually pay us visits in the future! You are certainly welcome here.

      Your brother in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
      Jesse

      Delete
  7. I would love you to do an article on the Proper Exegesis of Luke 22:30-33, lets see if you do not see that Jesus
    1. Said satan desired all of the Disciples to be challenged/tempted
    2. He prayed for Peter alone for 2 reasons
    a. That his faith may not fail
    b. Upon his return he may strengthen his brethren. The b. Part you are ignoring it, where Jesus tells to strengthen his brethren. So you have to tell us why in a case where Satan wanted to sift all the Disciples like wheat, Jesus only Prays for Peter? And why does he ask Peter alone to strengthen the other disciples?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mug,

    You are desperately trying to salvage a broken machine. This is pure eisegesis on your part. Do you know what that is? Just in case you don’t, it is reading INTO a passage something that is just not there.

    Ok, concerning Luke 22, yes, Satan desires to sift Peter, the other apostles, and every other Christian in the world. No secret there. That’s what Satan does.

    And yes, Jesus prays for Peter alone, a) for his faith not to fail, and b) for Peter to strengthen the others. No problem there. As I said before, Jesus prays only for Peter because Peter is the one, the ONLY one, who denied Him three times. And as far as Jesus telling only Peter to strengthen the brethren, yes, Peter is a leader within the group, and he WILL later be strengthening the group. But again, this is not because he has the special status of “the leader of the whole church,” or the “Vicar of Christ,” making infallible decisions, and whose successors will practically be worshiped, etc…. but after his conversion, Peter will then be able to strengthen the group because of his restored status after letting Christ down and FAILING SO MISERABLY. If Peter could be forgiven for that, then the others would be encouraged greatly by this lesson. You are desperately trying to jam into this passage the idea of an infallible papacy. It’s just not there, face it!

    It’s not that I am ignoring the “b” part above, but that you are OVER-EMPHASIZING the “b” part. You keep trying to emphasize the “strengthen thy brethren,” part in verse 32, but you overlook the “when thou art converted” part in the same verse! Face it, this is about Peter’s “mess up,” not about any exaltation of him.

    In this way, Catholics turn this passage on its head. They are stressing exactly the opposite of what is being stressed here… the great mercy and faithfulness of Jesus Christ, and not Peter’s primacy.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And guess who accuse others of Eisegesis and what does he go ahead to do, Eisegesis.


    It’s not that I am ignoring the “b” part above, but that you are OVER-EMPHASIZING the “b” part. You keep trying to emphasize the “strengthen thy brethren,” part in verse 32, but you overlook the “when thou art converted” part in the same verse! Face it, this is about Peter’s “mess up,” not about any exaltation of him.

    In this way, Catholics turn this passage on its head. They are stressing exactly the opposite of what is being stressed here… the great mercy and faithfulness of Jesus Christ, and not Peter’s primacy.

    Questions

    1. Where does the passage show that it will be because of Peter 's conversion that the other Apostles will be strengthened. Does the passage in any way say strengthen your brethren with your conversion?
    "When thou are converted" does not mean "because thou are converted" if Jesus had said because of your conversion strengthen your brethren your interpretation would be correct but the passage is saying WHEN you are converted.

    2. You said that Jesus prayed for Peter alone because He was the only one who denied Jesus, thats true but you are also forgeting the other Apostles they ran away and some doubted him and the disciples to Emaus had given up the hope seeing the crucifixion, this was about all the Apostles being sifted like wheat do not try to make seem as if Peter was the only one who erred during the time Jesus was crucified.


    As you rightly pointed out He is a leader in the Group, then you went on to miss the forest for trees. The fact that he is the one who is to strengthen the Brethren shows that He will have a role different from those of others.

    "But after his conversion, Peter will then be able to strengthen the group because of his restored status after letting Christ down and FAILING SO MISERABLY. If Peter could be forgiven for that, then the others would be encouraged greatly by this lesson. You are desperately trying to jam into this passage the idea of an infallible papacy. It’s just not there, face it!" Thats all Eisegesis here, there is nowhere in the passage showing that the disciples will be encouraged because Peter will be forgiven.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mug,

    You’re kidding, right? Is this really your argument, because this is really lame. Does CONTEXT mean anything to you?

    You’re trying to revive a dying cause. If this is sincerely what you believe, then I don’t think we can have a useful discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  11. you just failed to answer lame questions is it so? Those are just simple lame questions from a lame person who is failing to see what you are seeing in that verse.

    just reading simple English translated from Greek, the passage is Clear, when thou(subject-Peter) art converted, (Peter) Strengthen thy Brethren. here its a person who is supposed to strengthen the brethren not his falling in Sin and God 's mercy. this is different from because of your conversion your brethren will be converted.


    talking about Context, before verse 31 they were talking about who is the greatest, and the Apostles being given a kingdom etc etc and verse 31 and 32 are a continuation of that conversation, verse 34 he is told he will deny Jesus.

    so i kindly ask you to answer my lame questions and put your interpretation into context(if you can write an Article on this really putting it into context i will be grateful) so that i see where i am getting lost, i just want to know why you are claiming that what will strengthen the other Apostles is not Peter himself but the Forgiveness received after the fall.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mug,

    I am amazed that you cannot see the irony in your last comments. You actually pointed out that just before the verses we are discussing (Luke 22:24-27), the apostles were arguing over WHO IS THE GREATEST. Yet, Jesus never said, “Hey Peter, YOU are the greatest, the head apostle, case closed. Since YOU have total primacy over all the others, YOU are going to be the pope and leader of the worldwide church.”

    No, Jesus had the opportunity to make it crystal clear to all of the apostles, but if that was His intent, He strangely passed up this opportunity. There is no isolating of Peter to give him the honor that Catholics give him. In fact, in verses 29-30, Jesus mentions that they (the apostles) will ALL sit on thrones. There is no isolating of Peter to bestow special honor on him alone.

    However, right after this, Jesus DOES single Peter out to tell him the disturbing news of his inevitable failure and his eventual restoration (v. 31-32), and Peter, thinking too highly of himself (and opening his mouth when he shouldn’t have), brags that he was ready to die with Jesus (v. 33). But Jesus knocks him off his pedestal and tells him that he (alone) will deny Him three times that very day (v. 34)! Yet, you can see a papacy here!??? You can actually see Jesus exalting Peter here!???

    You keep emphasizing that Jesus told Peter to “strengthen the brethren” (v. 32), but this is a function of ALL church leaders, not to an isolated person. You don’t have to be infallible to do that.

    And sorry, no, I am not going to write an article just for you to understand this. I am trying to make this about as plain as I can now, but it doesn’t seem to be working. But I think that those “with eyes to see” are indeed seeing it. But there comes a point where one needs to realize that he is wasting his time. And that time is about up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you have a good way of answering the questions by avoiding the question and giving information on what has not been asked, i realize that i am wasting my time as well asking someone who is avoid to answer. ggod byr

      Delete
  13. Hi Russell,

    We've spoken before on this topic. I'd like to simply post my commentary on Matt 16:13-23, the one about Our Lord and the Apostles in Caesarea Philippi:

    Gospel Mt 16:13-23
    The Bible text is in bold.
    Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippiand he asked his disciples,
    Jesus went to Caesarea Philippi and asked His disciples a question. Now, the way it is phrased, it almost sounds as though Jesus went to Caesarea Philippi EXPRESSLY to ask the question which He asked. But even more, to make the specific statement which He made.

    In the time of Jesus, a river flowed through Caesarea Philippi and went into a cave, a hole in a huge rock. It was the belief of the Romans that this cave was the entrance into hell. On the top of this rock, the Romans had constructed a temple, in our terms, a church to one of their gods, Pan.

    And this sets up the rest of this Gospel.

    "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"

    Jesus asked, "who do the people of Israel say that I am?"

    They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah,still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

    They answered what they had overheard the people saying. Some thought that Jesus was John the Baptist. Scripture tells us that Herod thought that Jesus was the reincarnation of John the Baptist. The disciples said that other people thought He was the second coming of Elijah, one of the greatest Old Covenant prophets.

    He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

    But Jesus was just warming up. He puts them on the spot with the next question. "Who DO YOU, my students whom I have been guiding for at least two years now. Who do you say that I am?"

    Simon Peter said in reply,"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

    And this is why St. Peter is one of my most beloved Saints. There is no indication in this Gospel that he hesitated even one little bit. "You are the Son of God who is to come into the world!"

    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 Jesus says to him, "you are right. But it isn't because you are so brilliant. You can only know this if you are given the inspiration from my Father in heaven."

    And so I say to you, you are Peter,and upon this rock I will build my Church,

    "And now, since you have correctly revealed who I am, I will tell you who you are. You are Rock and on this Rock I will build my Church."

    Right here, stop for a second and think back on where they are standing. As Jesus says these words, I envision that His arms sweep out to point towards that huge rock in the horizon and the temple that sits on top. But that is a Pagan church on top of that rock and that is a place where idolatry and orgies regularly take place. Therefore, hell has prevailed upon that church. Therefore, Jesus continues:

    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."


    Jesus then gives St. Peter the keys to the Kingdom of heaven. Essentially saying, in my opinion, that St. Peter will have the power and authority to save people's souls.

    Then he strictly ordered his disciplesto tell no one that he was the Christ.

    Then Jesus instructed His disciples to keep quiet about the fact that He is the Messiah.

    So it is that Jesus appointed Peter to be the Rock of the Catholic Church, which Jesus established to pass on His Teachings to the world. See also
    http://washedsanctifiedandjustified.blogspot.com/2012/06/who-is-rock.html


    ReplyDelete
  14. De Maria,

    I agree with much of what you said here, but none of this negates anything presented in the above article.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Your typology amazes me, if we are to do typology that way then it means Jesus does not have a type in the old testament?

    The keys just shows legislative power thats the point and you are choosing to miss it. The keys were only given to Peter, the other Apostles could only bind/loose with him. Can you open the house door without the keybearer? But only when he is around. There is a reason why Jesus called him Cephas and why the gospels call him the first of the Apostles.

    Jesus actually says "whatsoever" you bind/loose on Earth will be bound/looseth in heaven. So who are you to limit that power?

    You said "it is a situation in which a believer simply declares / proclaims / confirms what God has already clearly stated in His Word" you were pretty close to the truth, but it is actually a situation where the keybearer confirms what was already received from the Apostles as truth.

    The whole church was entrusted to Peter, read John 21:15-19.if it was just away of equating the 3 times Peter denied Jesus, why would Jesus ask Peter if he loved him more than the rest? Because He was to be the shepherd of them all. Reading the Early church which had communities which apostles wrote to, they all knew what these passages meant.

    Look as well at Luke 22:30-31, Jesus telling Peter one thing that He prayed that His faith will not fail and becaue His faith will not fail he asked Peter to confirm/strengthen his brethren upon his return, for he truly is the vicar of Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Aquinas,

    These are the same old tired arguments that Catholics give day in and day out. All of these things you mentioned have already been dealt with in this particular series (the “Matthew 16” series of articles in August, September and October of 2016).

    So please actually read the articles next time before making any comments.

    ReplyDelete
  17. They are old and tired arguiments not refuted

    ReplyDelete