ST. PETER'S PRIMACY

Revelation
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16)

Jesus has been with the disciples for around three years by this point, and there are only about six months left until His crucifixion. He really needs to get them on His plan – but how? He’s not even sure they know who He is, and nothing will ever make sense until this has been established. He’s not sure they are ready, but time has run out. You can almost feel the tension as He asks the question of the ages: “But what about you? Who do you say I am?” It is likely that the disciples have been discussing this among themselves and have reached a conclusion: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Long-time Christians have a hard time understanding why this is such a big deal. “How could they not know this by now?” we ask. But remember, even though the many factions among the Jews disagreed on many points, the one thing they all agreed on was that there was only one God. And they had seen that Jesus prayed to God. So who was this man? He had not told them. But they knew! In spite of everything in their previous understanding, they knew! “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” I would say that Jesus was ecstatic! “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.” And it is upon the “rock” that Jesus will build His church, and the gates of Hades (death) will not prevail against it.

But what is this “rock” that Jesus will build upon? Jesus; Peter; the confession of faith; belief in Jesus? There are very good arguments for each of these, but for me, the “rock” upon which the church will be built is none other than “revelation”. This ability for a man to know the will of God through revelation is the foundation of a true existence with God. This is the beginning of the re-establishment of the God-man relationship which existed before the sin of Adam – this is who man was created to be. And the church will be build upon this new beginning, with the keys to bind and loose.

This term, “the keys to bind and loose” was part of the Jewish culture and was used to recognize those who had completed their courses of study in law. On completing the course of Law a Key (as a Diploma) was received by the Jewish student who had passed his examinations for the high position of Doctor of Law. The key handed to the student had the words ‘receive authority to bind and to loose’ inscribed on the key. Having mastered the Law, the Doctor of Law could now say what was lawful and what was unlawful. The scribes in the day of Jesus looked upon Keys as their insignia of their office to be interpreters of the moral law.

But there is more. In the original text the tense used to describe this if “future perfect”. Thus, it is really saying, “Whatever has already been bound in heaven you can now see through revelation and bind in the church, and whatever has already been loosed in heaven you can see through revelation and loose in the church.”

Now that is a church built upon the rock of revelation!

You going to post all of the opinions of the ECFs on this topic or just those that support your weak and unbiblical position? Man you catholics love to cherry pick.

I really don’t get it. Peter was married. Jesus cured his wife and she went on to serve them. How could Peter be the first pope if he was married?

HOw many verses later is it that Jesus to Peter, “Get thee behind me, satan”? How few years afterward is it that Paul withstands Peter to his face?
So much for primacy.

My mother-in-law lived over 20 years after my husband died. Did you ever think that his wife was quite possibly dead. Furthermore,if his wife was alive I doubt she would let her mother get up from her death bed (even thought she was cured) and allow her to wait on the “men”.

It never occurred to me that there could be people convinced that because Peter had a mother-in-law,he also had a living wife. Many people on these boards need to expand their minds and read a little more.

Peter was in fact married and his wife according to Paul in 1 Corinthians ch 9 v 3-6 traveled she with Peter as did some of the other disciples wives travel with their husband.

Try it again. Peter was in fact married and his wife according to Paul in 1 Corinthians ch 9 v 3-6. She traveled with Peter as did some of the other disciples wives travel with their husband.

Reconciliation between GOD and man made simple by salvation through Christ. Man's long standing history of complicating what GOD makes simple {even back to The Exodus} has turned it back around to the days of the ruling Pharisees and the burdens as well.

Jesus Christ revealed to man is the Rock. Why would Jesus Christ who is alive and seated at the right hand of GOD who hears our prayers and still intercedes for us need a successor? He's alive. He can handle His own affairs and He still does.

The Roman church may need the fallible fascist Francis to lead it, but Christ Jesus rules and reigns over the universal body of all saints from all ages. Collectively those saints make up the one universal Christian church.

if his wife was alive I doubt she would let her mother get up from her death bed (even thought she was cured) and allow her to wait on the “men”.

Why not? It was probably as good and springy as she had felt since she was young. God's miracle healings don't go half-way, like the televangelist's. So even if Peter's wife was present, his mother-in-law probably would have insisted on doing whatever she could as an expression of her gratitude:

Matthew 8:14-15 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever. (15) And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them.

As for whether Peter was a widower, the text doesn't say one way or the other. He would live for another thirty years or so after this time, so he was probably a relatively young man when his mother-in-law was healed. Statistically, I would wager the vast majority of young men with wives were NOT widowers, so it is more likely than not that Peter's wife was still alive at this time. So it really shouldn't surprise you too much if most readers of the text above assume she is alive at the time of the healing incident. It is the more likely scenario.

Furthermore, the probability his wife is still alive is raised dramatically by this statement of Paul:

1 Corinthians 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

In the preceding chapter, Paul has just explained how we sometimes pass up doing what we have a right to do, because it may be necessary to avoid giving offence to weaker Christians. In that context, Paul has opted to not be supported by the churches, so no one can accuse him of doing this work for financial gain. Nevertheless, he wants the Corinthians to know he has the right to that support, because as an apostle he has a right to be married, to eat, to drink, rights which the other apostles had exercised. Thus not only Cephas (aka Peter) had a wife, but the other apostles did as well, and were receiving support, not just for themselves, but for their families also.

In sum then, the far more strained reading is to read the later restrictions of Rome regarding marriage back into a text which knows nothing of those restrictions.

Peace,

SR

bookmark

Then do not make a big deal about it.

Peter would indeed be the main spokesman among the twelve after Jesus' ascension to heaven - as he had often been while Jesus was on earth. But consider that Jesus was speaking to the twelve when He said, in Matthew 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. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven."

Also consider Ephesians 2:19-20:

"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone"

And I Corinthians 3:10-11:

"According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

I have no problem with the Catholic argument about Peter or his role in the Church. People who say Peter’s appointment by Christ to lead the apostles is “unbiblical” are being dishonest.

The argument for “Peter in perpetuity”, however, is entirely deductive and belief in it is a matter of faith,

Because Peter was made the foundation of the Church

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

1Co 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
1Co 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
1Co 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

God says Catholic Answers is lying...So I say 'stop' repeating this lie...

My mother-in-law lived over 20 years after my husband died. Did you ever think that his wife was quite possibly dead. Furthermore,if his wife was alive I doubt she would let her mother get up from her death bed (even thought she was cured) and allow her to wait on the “men”.

Or maybe Peter's wife was off to Harvard to finish her education...Bible doesn't say...

It never occurred to me that there could be people convinced that because Peter had a mother-in-law,he also had a living wife. Many people on these boards need to expand their minds and read a little more.

You gotta be kidding...You preach that Peter was in Rome because the bible doesn't say he was not there...

Your preach that Mary was sinless because the bible does not say she wasn't (except the bible says otherwise)...

And BTW, Peter's mother in law got out of bed to show that she was healed...

Psalm 18:31 For who is God besides Jehovah? And who is a rock save our God?

People who say Peter’s appointment by Christ to lead the apostles is “unbiblical” are being dishonest.

To prove that assertion, you would have to be able to show that the advocate of such a position doesn't really believe what they are saying. It's one thing to be wrong. Altogether something different to be actively deceptive. Unless you have a "smoking gun" confession that someone really believes the text portrays Peter as the chosen leader, but pretends otherwise, you don't have a case. I for one honestly believe the text, taken as a whole, leaves the question of apostolic leadership open. Peter received a lot of attention during the ministry of Christ, but by Acts 15 James appears to be the one doing the leading. In Matthew 16 Peter is told he will, future tense, receive the keys of the kingdom, explained in terms of binding and loosing, but in Matthew 18, when the same binding and loosing is conferred, it is done to all the apostles without differentiation.

Furthermore, we know that Jesus specifically avoided setting up the church as an authoritarian hierarchy, but said that the truest leaders would be the greatest servants, not lording it over others, or acquiring the titles or insignia of human religious leadership (Rabbi, Father are forbidden titles), or dividing the church into classes of priest and non-priest. Based on the Biblical record as we have it, an argument can be made that no apostle was a greater servant to the early Christian community of faith than Paul, and in fact the recorded imprint of Paul on Christian doctrine is far greater than that of any other apostle, and as such reflects a greater leadership role for all Christians throughout the ages than any of the other apostles. Yet having said that, I would still not say that any one apostle was explicitly made the leader of any of the others, and I don't see how that could happen, given Jesus' specific teaching of an inverse hierarchy of servant leadership.

What about Peter as the Rock? If you would say it is dishonest to view the Rock as either the confession of Peter's faith, or Jesus Himself, but not Peter, then you would have to accuse Augustine of dishonesty:

2. For men who wished to be built upon men, said, “I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,” who is Peter. But others who did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, “But I am of Christ.” And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.

See Augustine, Sermon 26 on the New Testament, available here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/160326.htm

Which avoidance of Peter as the Rock may be found in numerous other passages of both Augustine and many other early Christian teachers. And if Peter is not the Rock, and the keys of binding and loosing are given to all apostles without distinction in Matthew 18, then how can someone trying to be honest with the text conclude that any such thing as an office of unique Petrine supremacy has been created? And of course you are correct that the problem of succession of that supposed office to later individuals is entirely speculative, and we also now know due to the extraordinary research of Peter Lampe and others, that no such succession can be found in primary sources describing the life of the churches of Rome for the first 160 or so years after the founding of the Ecclesia by Christ.

In truth, what I honestly believe, is that the spirit of division Paul rebuked in Corinth metastasized slowly into the schism we now call the Roman Catholic Church:

1 Corinthians 1:11-13 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. (12) Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. (13) Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

You see from the passage above that Paul explicitly rejects any division in the body of Christ based on a particular apostolic pedigree. Jesus made it plain. We don't have any but one Master. Him. That's it. Yes, we have earthly masters after the flesh. But none who supplants the role of Christ as the true governor of our lives, the object of our faith, devotion, obedience, and love. Any lesser fidelities, should they rise to prominence, become competition with Christ, who said we cannot serve two masters. To paraphrase Paul, Peter didn't die for me, nor was I baptized in Peter's name, so I am not "of Peter," I am Christ's, a generic Christian, bound in love and unity by the Spirit of God with every other authentic Christian in the world, and not divided, as the Roman schismatics who constantly post here would like everyone to believe.

Peace,

SR

And BTW, Peter’s mother in law got out of bed to show that she was healed...

To get the food ready. I think that proves that they were baptists.