Peter's confession of Christ
Posted on 09/25/2009 1:42:15 PM PDT by NYer
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6
"You are Petros, and on this rock I will build my church." (Matt 16:18)
NOTE: This series is a work in progress. See Part 1 updates including bibliography in progress. As I add sources and update past posts I will continue to expand the bibliography.
We have arrived at ground zero in the Petrine controversy, one of the most bitterly disputed texts in all of sacred scripture. Here the Petrine fact looms most intractably and prominently, resisting all attempts to smooth it over or roll it aside. It is a sad irony that the rock to which Jesus attached such importance has become a stone of stumbling for so many, just as the primacy of Rome, for some an icon, almost a sacrament, of unity, has become a source of division.
At the same time, there have been encouraging developments. There is now near unanimity in Bible scholarship generally, Protestant as well as Catholic, that the rock on which Jesus builds his church is neither Peter's confession, nor the faith of Peter's confession, nor the truth that Peter confesses about Christ, nor Christ himself, but Peter himself.
Among the chorus of Evangelical and Protestant voices in this regard, as I will document eventually, are F. F. Bruce, D. A. Carson, Walter Elwell, R. T. France, Herman Ridderbos and Craig Blomberg. Thus Chrys C. Caragounis writes: "After centuries of disagreement it would appear that Protestant and Catholic are at last united in referring the rock upon which the Church according to Mt 16:18 is to be built, to the Apostle Peter" (Caragounis 1).
Ironically, Caragounis, an Eastern Orthodox scholar, makes a contrarian case for identifying the rock as Peter's confession. In Orthodox scholarship, too, there has been movement toward recognizing Peter himself as the rock. Orthodox theologian Theodore Stylianopoulos, after surveying recent developments in Orthodox scholarship, writes:
That Orthodox scholars have gradually moved in the direction of affirming the personal application of Matt 16:17-19 to the Apostle Peter must be applauded. From the standpoint of critical scholarship it can no longer be disputed that Jesus' words to Peter as reported in Matt 16:17-19 confer a special distinction on Peter as "rock" — the foundation on which Christ promised to build his Church. … These points are now conceded by conservative Protestant scholars as well. (Kasper 48-49)
The pericope begins in Matthew 16:13, in which Jesus asks the Twelve what people are saying about him, and receives a number of different answers: John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.
Then comes the crucial question: "But who do you say I am?" As often elsewhere, Peter speaks up for the Twelve: "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
The next three verses are a remarkable composition, well capable of bearing all the critical scrutiny they have received. Here is Jesus' reply in full:
1. Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!
1a. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you,
1b. but my Father who is in heaven.
2. And I tell you, you are Petros,
2a. and on this rock I will build my church,
2b. and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.
3. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
3a. and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,
3b. and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The above blocking highlights a point made by Jimmy Akin (I haven't seen it developed in this form by anyone else) regarding the three-part structure of each of the three verses. Each verse starts with a major or leading clause, followed by a supporting couplet, the two clauses of which jointly illuminate and expound upon the major clause.
What is more, in each of the three leading clauses, Jesus both addresses Peter and makes a pronouncement regarding Peter: "1. Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jona! … 2. And I tell you, you are Petros … 3. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." As we will see, each of these pronouncements is in some way unparalleled; each is extraordinary in itself, and all three together are an astonishing manifesto on Peter's behalf.
It is not surprising, then, that each of the three major Petrine pronouncements is followed by a couplet illuminating or commenting upon what Jesus has just said to Peter and about Peter. This is so clear that no one denies this in the first or third verses; everyone recognizes that "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you / but my Father who is in heaven" is a commentary on "Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jona", and that "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven / and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" is a commentary on "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven."
Yet sandwiched between those two verses is a verse that follows precisely the same pattern, yet here the pattern has historically been contested by some. It has been argued that "On this rock I will build my church / and the powers of death shall not prevail against it" is not a commentary on "I tell you, you are Petros"; that after saying "You are Petros," Jesus in effect changes the subject from the previous thought, merely punning on Petros in order to talk about some quite distinct petra — only to return to Peter in the following verse.
Start at the beginning. Jesus opens with an unparalleled benediction: "Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jona!" Nowhere else in the Gospels does Jesus pronounce such a blessing on any individual; Peter aside, people are pronounced blessed by Jesus only in groups or classes, in the abstract, or both. To find this singular beatitude at the outset of this crucial Petrine text is itself a notable token of the Petrine fact.
Jesus then goes on to expound upon the benediction of this first remarkable clause in a supporting couplet clarifying Peter's beatitude: "For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you / but my Father who is in heaven." Peter's beatitude is not something he achieved himself; it is the gift of the Father.
It must be remembered, too, that the blessing is counter-balanced six verses by the equally singular rebuke, "Get behind me, Satan!" (or "Get behind me, you satan!"). Most of Jesus' maledictions, like his blessings, are aimed at groups ("Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites," Matt 23:13ff), and even Herod was only called a fox (Luke 13:32). Peter alone is called by that harsh word, adversary, that denotes the enemy of mankind.
Once again, then, the point is not that Peter was personally uniquely holy or favored only in positive ways; he wasn't. Rather, the point is simply Peter's unique prominence, partly rooted perhaps in his own qualities for good and for ill, but also bound up in Jesus' own choice, resulting in unique privileges but also unique chastenings. "Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required" (Luke 12:48): Peter is singularly blessed and singularly chastised; in either case his position is unique.
Then comes the second leading clause: "And I say to you, you are Petros." The first word, kagõ (a contraction of "And I"), is emphatic (the Greek doesn't require the explicit first-personal pronoun); Jesus underscores that it is he, the Messiah confessed by Peter, who speaks. Jesus may also be counterpointing his own words to the Father's gift to Peter; the Father has revealed Jesus' identity to Peter, and now it is the Son's turn to reveal something to Peter.
"You are Petros." Peter has told Jesus who he is ("You are the Messiah"); now Jesus tells Peter who he is. Is this merely declarative, or performative? Is Jesus making an observation, or giving Peter his new name here and now?
John 1:42 relates Jesus telling Peter at their first meeting, "You will be called Kephas," a saying that could be read as either as an enactment or as a proleptic or prophetic utterance (the future tense could mean either "from this point forward" or "at some point in the future"). In Mark 3 the list of the Twelve begins "Simon whom he surnamed Peter," but ends with "Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him" (Mark 3:15-19). Obviously Judas has not already betrayed Jesus in chapter 3; by the same token, we cannot conclude that Jesus has already surnamed Simon Peter at that point in the narrative.
The Evangelists all use the name Peter early on. In fact, John 1 refers to "Simon Peter" in verse 40, before Jesus and Peter have even met, and Matthew likewise identifies the apostle as "Simon who is called Peter" (Matt 4:18) the moment Jesus sees him, before they have spoken. It is reasonable to conclude that the Gospels use the name Peter from the start because that is the name readers know him by; it doesn't tell us when he first began to go by that name.
Other than John 1:42, then, there is no clear evidence of Jesus or anyone else calling Peter Kephas or Petros prior to Matthew 16:18. On the contrary, what evidence we have suggests that Jesus continued to use the name Simon (e.g., Matt 17:25, Mark 14:37, Luke 22:31, John 21:15, the late exception being Luke 22:34). The question, then, is whether Jesus' words to Peter at their meeting — "You will be called Kephas" — are grounds for concluding that henceforth the apostle began to be known by that surname.
It seems an open question. It's possible that Jesus and others began to call Simon Kephas right away, or that the surname caught on at some other point prior to Matthew 16. The Gospels offer scant evidence either way.
On the one hand, there is no indication in John 1 that anyone but Andrew heard the saying; if Jesus himself continued to use Simon's given name, it seems plausible that Peter's brother (and business partners James and John), who had always called him Simon, would similarly continue to call him the name they had always used. On the other hand, it's also plausible that Andrew might at least have told James and John about the strange saying, so that eventually all the Twelve would know the story, and Simon might start to be known as Kephas or Petros without another word from Jesus after John 1:42.
What seems certain is that Matthew 16 describes an event that would certainly have caused the surname to stick if it hadn't already. Not only is it an emphatic, present-tense pronouncement before all the Twelve, the occasion of Peter's confession is the sort of circumstance that elicits surnames from rabbis and other authorities. (For example, Barnabas, Son of Encouragement, was the surname given to Joseph of Cyprus by the apostles in Acts 4:36, possibly in connection with the act described in the next verse, i.e., laying at the apostles' feet the money from the sale of his field. Certainly he was not surnamed Barnabas out of the blue.)
It is also worth noting that the structure of verse 18 is notably similar to the texts in Genesis in which Abram, Sarai and Jacob receive their new names, followed by an exposition of the significance of the new name:
No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham;
for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.
I will make you exceedingly fruitful;
and I will make nations of you,
and kings shall come forth from you." (Genesis 17:5-6)
As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name.
I will bless her,
and moreover I will give you a son by her;
I will bless her,
and she shall be a mother of nations;
kings of peoples shall come from her. (Gen 17:15-16)
Your name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel,
for you have striven with God and with men,
and have prevailed. (Gen 32:28)
The parallels are most striking in the case of Abraham and Sarah, where the commentary takes the form of an account of the inaugural role they will have in the new stage of God's plan of salvation. Jacob's name change also seems generally indicative of his election for the new stage in God's plan (though this point isn't explicitly drawn out in the commentary on the name).
If Jesus is not effectively renaming Peter in Matthew 16, he seems to be doing something remarkably similar. At the very least, even if Peter already went by his surname, the renewed pronouncement of the surname, in the solemn and emphatic context of the passage, seems to invest it with further significance — significance that almost goes beyond a mere surname, that is more like a new identity and a new mission. (It may even be worth noting here that Jacob's new name Israel is also given twice, in Gen 32:28 and again in Gen 35:10 — and that even after both renamings Israel also continues to be called Jacob both by the sacred writer and even by God, e.g., Gen 46:2-5, etc.)
All of this suggests that the pronouncement of Peter's new name reflects a new role in Jesus' messianic plan, one that seems to call for further explication. As previously noted, efforts have been made, especially in the past, to deny that "upon this rock" constitutes such commentary, to argue that it must refer to some distinct petra. Not until verse 19, on this reading, does Jesus say more about Peter's new role. The effect seems not unlike revising Genesis 17:5-6 to read, "No longer shall your name be Abram [exalted father], but your name shall be Abraham [father of a multitude], and I the Lord shall be exalted among the nations, and a father to my people. And I will make you exceedingly fruitful…"
If "this rock" is not Peter, what is it? There's the rub. Literarily, the demonstrative pronoun "this" implies an antecedent. Some older Protestant writers tried to float the notion that Jesus might have gestured toward himself as he said "this rock" — an exegetical conceit that would reduce Matthew's purpose to merely relating dialogue without conveying meaning (not to mention being difficult to reconcile with sola scriptura, for what that's worth). In the absence of other indication, the Gospel text clearly indicates a continuation of thought, not a change of subject.
The conjunction "and" (kai) links the second clause ("upon this rock") to the main clause ("I say to you, you are Petros"). Peter is the topic of the preceding and following verses. The connection between Petros and petra is unmistakable; even on the theory that Jesus was merely punning on Petros but talking about something else, the pun itself presupposes that Petros is the first thing we think of when we hear petra.
Petros, then, is the obvious antecedent, petra the obvious continuation of thought between "You are Petros" and "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Only if there were some insurmountable obstacle to identifying Petros as petra would it be feasible to set aside that connection and cast about for more remote, less obvious possible referents: Peter's confession, Peter's faith, the truth about Christ, Christ himself.
The next post will examine proposed obstacles to identifying Peter as the rock, as well as difficulties with alternate proposals. More to come.
NOTE: This series is a work in progress. See Part 1 updates including bibliography in progress. As I add sources and update past posts I will continue to expand the bibliography.
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6
Heart of the Church (St. Peter in Words and Stone)
The Early Church Fathers on The Primacy of Peter/Rome (Catholic/Orthodox Caucus)
Saint Peter As Seen by His Successor (extraordinary document from B16 on his preaching and papacy)
Saint Peter and the Vatican, the Legacy of the Popes
Saint Peter and The Vatican - Legacy of the Popes
You made me laugh with the 3 dogs bit.
My point, and I think the point of most if not all Orthodox here, is we recognize +Peter and his successors as primus inter pares (at least if we were in communion), but do not accept that Jesus Christ bestowed upon +Peter any sort of specific authority over the entire Church to give orders and have them obeyed without question.
If he was in charge everywhere he went, he would have been the man speaking in Acts 15, for instance, instead of +James.
“Its a shame that this article presents such a half truth as this to make people think Orthodox theologians somehow or other accept the Vatican I heresy about the Pope”
How does the article do that? The question in the article is not “Vatican I heresy about the Pope,” the question is whether Peter is the rock. Fr. Stylianopoulos is quoted regarding whether Peter is the rock, not regarding the supremacy of the Pope or the relative prominence of Peter vs. others in the New Testament.
If people would only read what is written and not what they think is being said, the world would be a better place.
“I’m a bit surprised at some of this article actually...Jimmy is usually very sharp and very careful but there are some strange things here.”
If you look sharp, you’ll notice Jimmy is not the author of this series. SDG is.
“What’s funny is that almost immediately after Jesus says these words, he calls Peter “SATAN!”
What else is funny is that the article makes this very point. You are not reading the article, you are responding to what you think Catholics believe.
“That is it. One sentence, and he doesn’t even say, ‘You are number one among the Apostles.’”
You are missing the NEXT sentence. :)
***Mark, You have missed the thrust of this series. It has one purpose and one purpose only. Make Peter the rock the church is built on. From this segment;
At the same time, there have been encouraging developments. There is now near unanimity in Bible scholarship generally, Protestant as well as Catholic, that the rock on which Jesus builds his church is neither Peter’s confession, nor the faith of Peter’s confession, nor the truth that Peter confesses about Christ, nor Christ himself, but Peter himself. ***
What many people miss is that Jesus was a master verbal craftsman. He actually says both. Petros / petra. Jesus is the big rock, Peter is the little one. Jesus is the King, Peter is the steward. Jesus is Master, Peter is the servant.
***Your king might be away but mine is with me always through His Spirit. I have no need for a steward. Nor do you. BVB***
Well, I look at it this way: if Jesus wills it, who am I to argue?
***My point, and I think the point of most if not all Orthodox here, is we recognize +Peter and his successors as primus inter pares (at least if we were in communion), but do not accept that Jesus Christ bestowed upon +Peter any sort of specific authority over the entire Church to give orders and have them obeyed without question.***
And, excepting some extreme bigotry from some nominal Catholics, we overall agree with that. First amongst equals, with each bishop having jurisdiction over his diocese. THAT is Church precedence.
Matthew. 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this Rock I will build my church,shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
One method of Hermeneutical understanding of Matthew 16:18
is to do a word study of all the scriptures which were then known
as the Holy Word of G-d when Yah'shua spoke these words.
This will allow one to understand that all of the Holy Word of G-d
was inspired by YHvH; the whole counsel of G-d.
The only conclusion that one can come to unless you are
predisposed to believe in man's tradition over the Holy Word of G-d
is that Yah'shua was speaking of himself as the "Rock "
e.g.
Peter himself refers to Yah'shua as the "rock" in
Genesis 49:24 But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed
[Or archers will attack...will shoot...will remain...will stay] supple,
because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob,
because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel,
Deuteronomy 32:3 I will proclaim the name of the LORD. Oh, praise the greatness of our God!
Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock , his works are perfect, and all his ways are
just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.
Deuteronomy 32:15 ..... He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Saviour.
Deuteronomy 32:30 How could one man chase a thousand, or two put ten
thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, unless
the LORD had given them up?
Deuteronomy 32:31 For their rock is not like our Rock , as even our enemies concede
Deuteronomy 32:32 Their vine comes from the vine of Sodom and from the fields of Gomorrah.
Their grapes are filled with poison, and their clusters with bitterness.
1 Samuel 2:2 "There is no-one holy [Or no Holy One] like the LORD;
there is no-one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.
2 Samuel 22:2 He said: "The LORD is my Rock , my fortress and my deliverer;
2 Samuel 22:3 my God is my Rock , in whom I take refuge, my shield and the
horn [Horn here symbolises strength.] of my salvation.
He is my stronghold, my refuge and my saviour — from violent men you save me.
2 Samuel 22:32 For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?
2 Samuel 22:47 "The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock ! Exalted be God, the Rock , my Saviour!
2 Samuel 23:3 The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me:
'When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God,
Psalm 18:31 For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?
Psalm 18:46 The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock ! Exalted be God my Saviour!
Psalm 19:14 May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.
Psalm 42:9 I say to God my Rock , "Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?"
Psalm 78:35 They remembered that God was their Rock , that God Most High was their Redeemer.
Psalm 89:26 He will call out to me, `You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Saviour.'
Psalm 92:15 ..... "YHvH is upright; he is my Rock , and there is no wickedness in him."
Psalm 95:1 Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation.
Psalm 144:1 Praise be to the LORD my Rock , who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.
Habakkuk 1:12 O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy
One, we will not die. O LORD, you have appointed them to
execute judgment; O Rock , you have ordained them to punish.
1 Peter 2:1-10NAsbU 1 Peter 2:
1 Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander,
2 like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,
3 if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.
4 And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God,
5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices
acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
6 For this is contained in Scripture: "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone,
AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."
7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, "THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,
THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone,"
8 and, "A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word,
and to this doom they were also appointed.
9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION,
so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
10 for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY,
but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.
Then lets look at the next sentence:
Matthew 16: “19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Matthew 18: “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
However, binding and loosing are NOT Peter’s prerogative alone, but a congregational function - “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. AGAIN [he repeats himself using different words] I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. [And who has the authority?] For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
And in John 20:
On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”
Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came.”
Notice this isn’t given to Peter alone, nor to just the Apostles, for one of the Twelve wasn’t even there. It is given in conjunction with being sent by God to proclaim the Gospel, and with the reception of the Holy Spirit - whom ALL Christians receive, or they are not Christians.
So...how is Peter the Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church?
It is patently clear from the Holy Word of G-dshalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
that the NAME "Rock" is a NAME that describes YHvH,
the creator of the universe.To assign YHvH's NAME to a mere mortal,
a created being, seeks to impugn and
deny the Holy Word of G-d.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Did you actually read the article or did your knee just jerk and words spewed forth?
Yes! I have it bookmarked.
****************
Thank you, and well said.
Mr. Rogers,
Jesus empowers all of the apostles to “bind” and “loose,” but the keys of the kingdom are given only to Peter. As F.F. Bruce says:
“The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or major domo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. 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: ‘I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open’ (Is 22:22). So in the new community that Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward” (Hard Sayings of the Bible, 385).
In John 21, Jesus gives to Peter alone the triple commission to feed his sheep. In Luke 22, Jesus prays for Peter alone when all the disciples are to be sifted by Satan. It is Jesus who elevates Peter among (I don’t say above) the other apostles.
As you well know, among the many arguments advanced by the Latins for the subjugation of The Church to the Pope as well as his infallibility and his role as “Vicar of Christ on Earth” is the specious claim that +Peter himself is the rock upon which Christ founded his Church, Fr. Stylianopoulos’ very minority opinion (he has a number of them)to the contrary notwithstanding.
The sole purpose of articles such as these is to advance Roman claims to the right to rule over the entire Church. Taking Fr. Stylianopoulos’ comment and presenting it as if when he said it he means what the apologists for the Vatican heresies about the role of the Pope and the exercise of the Petrine Office is contemptible.
Actually, when Jesus had a chance to elevate Peter among the Apostles, he declined to do so.
And as I pointed out, the ONLY scripture anyone can cite to support Peter as number one is Matthew 16:19 - “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” - and even then, only the phrase “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” is unique.
While I respect F.F. Bruce, I see no reason to believe him infallible. Indeed, the ‘key of David’ is held by Jesus Christ: “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens. I know your works. Behold, I have set before you an open door, which no one is able to shut.” - Rev 3
Since F.F. Bruce errs in applying that to Peter, he probably errs in his interpretation. John Gill makes more sense, noting (importantly) what the Kingdom of Heaven is:
“By the kingdom of heaven is meant the Gospel, which comes from heaven, declares the king Messiah to be come, speaks of things concerning his kingdom, is the means of setting it up, and enlarging it, displays the riches of his grace, and gives an account of the kingdom of heaven, and of persons’ right unto it, and meetness for it. [use a concordance to see how kingdom of heaven is used in the Gospels - Mr R] “The keys” of it are abilities to open and explain the Gospel truths, and a mission and commission from Christ to make use of them; and being said to be given to Peter particularly, denotes his after qualifications, commission, work, and usefulness in opening the door of faith, or preaching the Gospel first to the Jews, (Acts 2:1-47) and then to the Gentiles, (Acts 10:1-48) (15:7,14) and who was the first that made use of the keys of evangelical knowledge with respect to both, after he, with the rest of the apostles, had received an enlarged commission to preach the Gospel to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Otherwise these keys belonged to them all alike; for to the same persons the keys, and the use of them, appertained, on whom the power of binding and loosing was bestowed; and this latter all the disciples had, as is manifest from (Matthew 18:18) wherefore this does not serve to establish the primacy and power of Peter over the rest of the apostles; nor do keys design any lordly domination or authority; nor did Christ allow of any such among his apostles; nor is it his will that the ministers of his word should lord it over his heritage: he only is king of saints, and head of his church; he has the key of David [Rev 3:7], with which he opens, and no man shuts, and shuts, and no man opens; and this he keeps in his own hand, and gives it to none. Peter is not the door-keeper of heaven to let in, nor keep out, whom he pleases; nor has his pretended successor the keys of hell and death; these also are only in Christ’s hands...the Scribes and Pharisees, who would neither embrace it, or enter into the kingdom of God themselves, nor suffer others that were going to enter into it; and through their taking away the key of knowledge, or the right interpretation of the word of God; and through a judicial blindness, which that nation in general was given up to: and this was shut up to the Gentiles through the natural darkness that was spread over them, and through want of a divine revelation, and persons sent of God to instruct them: but now Christ was about, and in a little time he would (for these words, with what follow, are in the future tense) give his apostles both a commission and gifts, qualifying them to open the sealed book of the Gospel, and unlock the mysteries of it, both to Jews and Gentiles, especially the latter.
Keys are the ensigns of treasurers, and of stewards, and such the ministers of the Gospel are; they have the rich treasure of the word under their care, put into their earthen vessels to open and lay before others; and they are stewards of the mysteries and manifold grace of God, and of these things they have the keys. So that these words have nothing to do with church power and government in Peter, nor in the pope, nor in any other man, or set of men whatever; nor to be understood of church censures, excommunications, admissions, or exclusions of members: nor indeed are keys of any such similar use; they serve for locking and unlocking doors, and so for keeping out those that are without, and retaining those that are within, but not for the expulsion of any: but here they are used in a figurative sense, for the opening and explaining the truths of the Gospel, for which Peter had excellent gifts and abilities.”
Please remember - the disciples were told to “proclaim as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’”
See also Luke 11:52: “Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering.”
From Barnes: “The key of knowledge. A key is made to open a lock or door. By their false interpretation of the Old Testament they had taken away the true key or method of understanding it. They had hindered the people from understanding it aright.
“You endeavour to prevent the people also from understanding the Scriptures respecting the Messiah, and those who were coming to me ye hindered.”
If there is any sin of peculiar magnitude, it is that of keeping the people in ignorance; and few men are so guilty as they who by false instructions prevent them from coming to a knowledge of the truth, and embracing it as it is in Jesus.”
At the same time, there have been encouraging developments. There is now near unanimity in Bible scholarship generally, Protestant as well as Catholic, that the rock on which Jesus builds his church is neither Peter’s confession, nor the faith of Peter’s confession, nor the truth that Peter confesses about Christ, nor Christ himself, but Peter himself. ***
What many people miss is that Jesus was a master verbal craftsman. He actually says both. Petros / petra. Jesus is the big rock, Peter is the little one. Jesus is the King, Peter is the steward. Jesus is Master, Peter is the servant.
You are doing the same thing the author did. Speculating on the significance of Peters name change with no scripture to back up your conclusions. If Jesus wanted Peter to be His emissary we wouldn't have to speculate, He would be clear. He is not the purveyor of deception or innuendo, Satan, but the purveyor of truth.
Multiple times He tells us His Father will send the Spirit to guide us when He leaves the earth. There is no need for speculation from the scripture I provided from Acts that He kept that promise. This is the first mention of Peter after the indwelling of the Spirit at Pentecost. The lesson we should learn is that Peter was not in charge of anything other than getting self out of the way and let the Spirit lead him.
***Your king might be away but mine is with me always through His Spirit. I have no need for a steward. Nor do you. BVB***
Well, I look at it this way: if Jesus wills it, who am I to argue?
All I ask is for one scripture where Jesus plainly wills Peter to be His steward. Do that my friend and I will help you spread it to the world.
Thanks, BVB
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.