PETER as Shepherd and first Pope: Scriptural evidence and the structure of the primitive Church make it absolutely undeniable that Christ chose Peter and that Peter was first among the twelve. Depending on the translation, Peter is mentioned 195 times. The closest is John (the beloved disciple) at just 29 times. The rest even less. Consider: Jesus entered Peter’s house. (Matthew 8:14) Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter. (John 1:42) Jesus gave Peter the keys to the gates of Heaven. (Matthew 16:19) Jesus declared Peter to the the rock. (Matthew 16:18) Jesus made Peter shepherd. (John 21:15-17) Jesus told Peter to strengthen his brothers (Luke 22:32) Jesus paid the Temple tax only for Himself and Peter. (Matthew 17:24-27) Jesus preached from Peter's boat. (Luke 5:3) Jesus told Peter to "Follow me" (John 21:19) Jesus called only Peter to walk on the water. (Matthew 14:29) Jesus predicted Peter's three-fold denial. (Matthew 26:34) Jesus predicted Peter's repentance and three-fold affirmation. (Luke 22:32) Jesus prophesied only Peter's manner of death. (John 21:18-19) Jesus taught Peter forgiveness 70 times 7 times. (Matthew 18:21-22) Jesus spoke only to Peter at Gethsemane. (Mark 14:37) Peter is always listed first of the Apostles. (Matthew 10:2, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13) Peter was first to confess Jesus as Messiah. (Matthew 16:18) Peter alone spoke at the Transfiguration. (Matthew 17:4, Mark 9:5, Luke 9:33) Peter pointed out the withered fig tree. (Mark 11:21) Peter entered the tomb first - John deferring to him. (Luke 24:12, John 20:3-4)) Peter decided the manner of replacing Judas. (Acts 1:15-26) Peter spoke for the eleven at the Pentecost. (Acts 2:14-36) Peter was released from prison by the Angel. (Acts 12:6-11) Peter spoke for the eleven before the Council. (Acts 4:8-12) Peter held sin bound to Ananias and Sapphira. (Acts 5:1-10) Peter's shadow healed. (Acts 5:15) Peter declared the sin of Simony. (Acts 8:18-23) Peter revealed the salvation of Gentiles to the Church at Jerusalem. (Acts 11:1-18) The Angel told Cornelius to call for Peter. (Acts 10:3-8) The Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles as Peter preached to them. (Acts 10:44-45) At the empty tomb, the Angel said, "Go tell His disciples, and Peter." (Mark 16:7) Mary Magdalene ran to tell Peter and the beloved disciple. (John 20:2) The vision of all foods being clean was given only to Peter. (Acts 10:9-16) Peter's words silence the first council in Jerusalem. (Acts 15:7-12) Paul went to Peter to affirm that his Gospel was not in vain. (Galatians 1:18) Peter was given the revelation of the end of the world. (2 Peter 3:10-11) Peter taught that Paul’s words were easily twisted. (2 Peter 3:16) Peter taught that baptism now saves you (1 Peter 3:21) And many other references. One may deny that Peter was primary, but it takes an amazing ignorance or denial of scripture and history to do so.
I see protestants using their never ending different interpretation of what each word means, but I do not see them claiming to have Peter, or his successors, or the keys. Also, since they deny infallibility, why should anyone pay attention to what they say since their interpretation is just one of many
Are you guys aware that there were differing interpretations on this passage in the early church fathers or are you intending to create unintentional irony.
@@rhwinner I'm not sure if the Early Church Fathers were really "arguing" about it, because I think it's always been interpreted in a "both/and" sense, with more than one meaning applied to it to emphasize different points, but the interpretations don't contradict or council out one another.
*PETRA & PETROS: MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING* _Why the endless debate over Mt __16:18__ doesn't really matter._ Point #1: REGARDLESS of whether Peter is a large rock or a small pebble, if Jesus can feed 5,000 people with a few fish, He can build a Church on a grain of sand if He wants to. And He did. Point #2: REGARDLESS of how Matthew 16:18 is interpreted, the haymaker is the very next verse. In Mt 16:19 Jesus says, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” In this passage Jesus is quoting Is 22:20-22 in which God took the key of the office of Royal Steward from Shebnah and gave it to Eliakim. The typological parallels are stunningly obvious and undeniable.
As a related matter, as Catholics we need to remember that popes are people too. To my mind, the many issues some of us are having with the current pope have much to do with the simple fact that Pope Francis is the first pope from outside Europe. He comes from South America, a region where Catholicism has a much different perspective than we’ve gotten used to.
Growing up Protestant, I commonly heard the Πέτρος/πέτρα argument- that if "Πέτρος" is "ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ", Matthew would have used Πέτρος/πέτρος in both instances. As the argument goes, this rendering better serves, 'You are Peter, and on this rock/stone [which you are] I will build my church.' This argument asserts that Matthew's implementation of the different words indicates he intended to distinguish the meaning of Πέτρος and πέτρᾳ. Consequently, it can read, 'You are Peter [little stone], but it is on this [much greater solid rock - Christ/Peters confession] that I will build my church.' While this argument fits nicely with the New Testament theme that Christ is πέτρα, the clausal connection Matthew used makes it difficult to hold this interpretation (antithetical parallelism). In v.18, Matthew utilises the conjunction "καί" to join two dependent clauses. Since "καί" is a marker of an additive relation, "ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ..." is adding information to "σὺ εἶ Πέτρος". However, the above rendering 'You are Peter [little stone], but it is on this [much greater solid rock]...’ works better with a marker of contrast. In Greek, ἀλλά is a typical marker of contrast, and Matthew used this conjunction in v.17 to contrast “flesh and blood” with “My Father who is in heaven”. In English, ἀλλά renders "but," "on the other hand," "instead," or "on the contrary." Arguably, Matthew's use of "καί" supports the interpretation that Πέτρος and πέτρᾳ form a relationship of addition (synthetic parallelism) rather than contrast.
If Peter was the rock that the church was to be built upon, would it not be more accurate for Jesus to say “ Thou art Peter and upon YOU I will build my church. But Jesus said “ upon THIS rock I will build my church The word THIS rock would seem to refer to something other then Peter.
Peter didn’t view himself as the rock on which Jesus would build his congregation, since he wrote at 1 Peter 2:4-8 that Jesus was the long-foretold “foundation cornerstone,” chosen by God himself. The apostle Paul also referred to Jesus as the “foundation” and “the spiritual rock.” (1 Corinthians 3:11; 10:4) Jesus was evidently using a play on words, saying in effect: ‘You, the one I called Peter, a Piece of Rock, have discerned the true identity of the Christ, “this rock,” the one who will serve as the foundation of the Christian Congregation.’
@@sunnyjohnson992 Yes, it was Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ the son of the living God, this truth is the Rock that the church is to be built, not Peter himself !!
Why is this still debated? Jesus changed Peter's name for a reason. Do you still not understand? Would it make sense for Jesus to change Peter's name for Jesus to NOT allude to him as Rock in some way? Goodness. You protestants nullify the word of God for your own traditions.
Let's all just search of Google "Who founded the Lutheran Church" "Who Founded the Methodist Church" "Who founded the Baptist Church" etc, search for all the churches you know and their founders. then lastly search "Who founded the Catholic Church" Come back here with your answers
@@TheCordialCatholic is this an extract of a longer video ? I have been searching for the longer version but couldn't seem to find it. Appreciate if you can please post a link? Thanks a lot !
That was a lot of words that made me think this is malarkey. Same old verse used. Nothing from the early church fathers or early extra-biblical writings. Not so *Best* after all.
It is impossible to defend the history ot the catholic church with the truth. Jesus has already judged tbe catholic church, the great harlot, in Revelation chapter 17. The rock is The Word of God, the only tbing that will endure. Jesus said " Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Go away Akin, your opinions are patently false.They are simply propaganda.
It is interesting that I haven't ever heard a Protestant put Peter down as they describe what's said in chapter 16. In fact, if you consultant the resource "An Exegetical Summary of Matthew 1-16", which lays out what various commentators say about the passage, no one is listed as doing that. On the wordplay, the resource says, " Is there any clear distinction in Greek between πέτρα ‘rock’ and Πέτρος ‘Peter’? Matthew’s Greek readers would not have perceived any distinction between the two forms [NICNT], and there is no difference in Aramaic between the word kepha ‘rock’ and Kepha used as a name [EBC, NAC, NICNT, NTC, TH, WBC]. Grammatical precision is not relevant in the use of metaphors [BECNT, WBC]. The reason for the difference between πέτρα ‘rock’ and Πέτρος ‘Peter’ is that, in order to be used as a man’s name, the feminine noun πέτρα ‘rock’ must be given a masculine form, which would be Πέτρος [EBC, ICC, NAC, NICNT, NTC, WBC]." David Abernathy, An Exegetical Summary of Matthew 1-16, Exegetical Summaries (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2013), 575.
Christianity isn't about about formality, but that is always Catholics' and Orthodox Christians' first argument against Protestant denominations. The foundation of the Catholic Church is the Nicene Creed, not the Bible.
The Roman Catholic put the Bible together. Jesus did not leave one, he left his Church. Also the Nicene Creed is drawn from the Bible. Christianity is very much about what you believe and must therefore have a formal set of teachings and Christianity is also about worshipping God, for which a pure sacrifice is needed. (See for example, Malachi 1:10)
Funny how you typed that, and didn't listen. Your own comment is an oxymoron. You're Sola scriptura right? You should take heed: 'Be quick to listen, and slow to speak'. Next time listen before you decide to critique biblical exegesis; condemning your own self.
Gospel Of John Chapter 1. John The Baptist, Andrew, Philip, and Nathaniel all testify to Jesus Christ as Messiah. John & Andrew do this before Peter even meets Jesus, who then calls him Cephas-Peter. Andrew tells his brother Simon-Peter that he has found the Messiah along with few others. So why then should Peter get any special blessing or title? Just one of many points that doesn't align for the catholic stance on this issue.
Cephas actually means stone So Jesus already knew from the start what role Peter would play in His ministry, and He told Peter that when they first met
Yet-Peter never claimed to be the chief shepherd-vicar-pope of the entire church. The apostles never claimed he was the chief shepherd-vicar of the church. Never claimed for himself as the rock on which the church is founded on. Nor did the apostles. The office of a papacy (supreme bishop leader, chief shepherd of the entire church) is never mentioned as a church office in any of the offices of the church described in the New Testament. See I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 2:20-21, 3:11; I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9
@@bobizzle1605 There is no mention of Clement claiming to be the chief shepherd-pope in his letter. We don't know if its the same Clement that Paul mentions. More than one man could have that name.
@@Justas399 No, but he confirms the episcopate structure of bishops and priests that Protestant deny and claim is a Catholic invention, and he confirms Peter’s martyrdom in Rome and the importance the Church in Rome has. And the majority of scholars believe it’s the same Clement in Phillipians, Linus is also mentioned in one of Paul’s letters. Clement writes as though he personally knew both Peter and Paul, and this is why the early Church Fathers called him the chief apostolic father. Even skeptic or secular historians have said that Clement’s letter dates to around the time before Peter and Paul would have been martyred. There’s no reason to believe the Clement in Phillipians would be anyone else, that’s just guesswork with nothing substantial to back that up. Of course, I’m sure Protestants desperately hope it’s not the same Clement, because if it is that puts to rest alot of debates.
@@bobizzle1605 Ok. There is no office of priest in the NT church. Peter never claimed to be a pope nor did the apostles claim he was. No bishop in the 1st century claimed to be the chief shepherd of the church in the 1st century. You can believe its the same Clement that Paul mentions but that is only speculation. ..."Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222). -Catholic scholar 440-461 - Pope Leo I. Many historians suggest that Pope Leo is the first to claim universal jurisdiction over the worldwide Church, thus initiating the rise of the papacy, a uniquely Roman Catholic structure.
There is something called humility. You don't Lord it over others because you have a higher office. Jesus already made him a rock, told him to feed and tend his sheep and lambs, told him to strengthen his brothers. if you were asked, Among the Apostles, based on Scriptures, who do you think Jesus affirms leadership on? Peter doesn't Lord over his leadership on others, but everything in scripture points to him as a leader among the apostles.
Its probably the best argument I've heard so far and I'd have to think about it a bit more. My initial impression is this: 1. Petros and Petra: Since there are many possibilities this argument can't be used as a proof text. To many unanswered questions. 2. The comparison that Peter is a rock but the confession, i.e. Jesus is the cliff is not a put down. He wasn't being charitable at all. That was to bad. Peter wouldn't have batted an eye if Jesus said, "Peter you are surely a rock but the church is founded on me who is a mountain." Peter would have said, "duh." 3. The formula he presented began with Peter being called blessed, followed by the "upon this rock" section, followed by the keys section. The argument was made that it would make sense to go positive - negative - positive. That what followed blessed must then be the blessing. But later when he looked at it from the second angle, Jimmy says that the fact that God revealed the confession to Peter is what was the blessing. Take that into account, you have a different formula. Peter you are blessed because you received the revelation from God. Peter your confession is what my church will be founded upon. In this church you will have the right to bind and loose. So put another way, Peter's blessing. The foundation of the church. Peter's roll in it as a person of authority.
Countless debates have arisen over the significance of the Greek words "petros" and "petra" in Mt. 16:18 with some arguing against Peter based on the alleged meaning of "petros" as "small stone" while forgetting that Jesus spoke Aramaic: “You are Kepha and on this kepha…” Regardless, Jesus promised to build upon Peter, and if He fed 5,000 people with a small number of fish, He could build a Church upon a small grain of sand. Jesus gave Peter the keys - symbols of the perpetual office of steward in His eternal kingdom (cf. Mt 16:19, Is 22:20-22). And the successor of Peter in that office still has that authority.
@@randycarson9812 The text we have is in Greek. In Aramaic, the word Kepha is just one word for stone, rock, etc. We can't assume that, if they had written in Aramaic that the word kepha would have been used. Peter was given the keys which allowed him to loose and bind. A chapter and a half later the rest of the apostles were given that same permission to loose and bind. It appears that they received the keys as well. Now we can agree that Peter was called to something specific. He tells us what that is in Acts. He tells us that he was called to the Gentiles. He even calls it a calling. So he leaves the leadership of Jerusalem and heads to Rome. So Peter didn't see himself as called to be the first Pope. Even when we talk about the church in Rome, the earliest church fathers don't say Peter, but say Paul and Peter or just Paul. So though we can agree that through Peter Christ grew his church, he isn't the only one He grew the church through. Nor is there anywhere that says that those that come after Peter will be infallible. Eliakim is used as a type for Peter. First, we have to read this into the text. Its not plain. Therefore, its not strong evidence but more importantly Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Eliamkim is given the keys to the kingdom of David. When we read Revelation 3:7... _“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this:_ we see that the keys of David are Christ's, not Peter's. So the keys of Eliakim would be a type of Christ not a type of Peter.
@blusheep2 *You wrote: "We can't assume that, if they had written in Aramaic that the word kepha would have been used."* Sure we can, because it appears in other verses AS SIMON'S NAME! In the New Testament, Peter is referred to as Cephas several times. Here are the relevant verses: _John 1:42: "He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, 'You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas' (which, when translated, is Peter)."_ _1 Corinthians 1:12: "What I mean is this: One of you says, 'I follow Paul'; another, 'I follow Apollos'; another, 'I follow Cephas'; still another, 'I follow Christ.'"_ _1 Corinthians 3:22: "whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future-all are yours,"_ *You wrote: "It appears that they received the keys as well."* You're reading that into the text, but it is not there. There are no keys mentioned in Mt 18. However, the other Apostles did receive authority that is similar to the authority given to Peter, but without the keys of the office of Chief Steward. This is analogous to a US Senator who has full authority to propose legislation and to vote on various bills, etc., but only the Senate Majority Leader can decide which bills will actually be brought to the floor for a vote, etc. Peter alone was designated the Royal Steward (cf. Is 22:20-22, Gen 41:39-43). And yes, the keys belong to Jesus, so Rev 3:7 makes sense. But that doesn't mean He can't give His authority to Peter. This is corroborated in Jn 21:15:19 when Peter is appointed the vicarious shepherd of Jesus' own flock. Peter is to govern and teach the sheep. Hezekiah is the king just as Jesus is the King. Eliakim is the steward just as Peter is the Steward. Parallels: God = Jesus (giver of the keys) Hezekiah = Jesus (King) Eliakim = Peter Key = Keys (symbol of the office) Opens = Loose (authority conveyed) Shuts = Binds (authority conveyed)
@@randycarson9812 Eliakim doesn't work because the keys were to the kingdom of David which is applied to Jesus in Revelation, not Peter. I don't have the option to spin scripture to my liking. If Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of David and Jesus didn't have the keys to David's kingdom later then I would see this type as a possibility but that just isn't the case. I have to let the Bible interpret the Bible and not people that came hundreds of years later. It doesn't work because Jesus is the one who holds the keys to Davids kingdom. Could you tell me more about your Hezekiah type? As far as I'm aware there are many kings of Judah. There must be more to this then just saying Hezekiah was a king. Now you are right. Chapter 18 doesn't use the term "keys." Nonetheless, you just said that "loose" means authority conveyed, and "shuts" means authority conveyed. Peter was given the keys WHICH ALLOWED HIM to Loose and Bind. In 18 the others are given the same EXACT allowance. The same exact authority. They could loose and bind. So I may be reading into the text "keys" here but it makes all the sense in the world to do so. If the keys allow binding and loosing then its hard to argue that others with those rights don't also have the keys. The Revelation account is the parallel to Eliakim. It is the keys to David's kingdom. But your argument is that the keys can be shared. If that is the case then you shouldn't be complaining about Matthew 18 and the other apostles sharing in those keys through the loosing and binding. But again. Even if we grant Peter some special status in the founding of the church, that doesn't in anyway argue that the Pope today is God's infallible representative. You also don't address the simple fact that Peter didn't see his calling as universal but a calling specifically to the Gentiles. If he understood this interaction as a calling to some sort of Eliakim headship, then why did they argue over who was the greatest? In that same passage what does Jesus say to all of them after this? He says, "And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me, 30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Do you see. These privileges are given to all the disciples. They will all sit on thrones judging. Just before this, Jesus tells them that HE is the greatest because the greatest is the one that comes to serve not the one that sits at the table.
@@blusheep2 *Point #1:* Jesus is the king just as Hezekiah was the king. But Jesus is a divine king; God gave the key to Eliakim, and Jesus gave the keys to Peter. Pretty straightforward. Jesus even specifies that they are the "keys to the kingdom" in the text. How can we come to any other conclusion? If you have a baby-sitter watching your kids while you and your wife go out for dinner and a movie, she is the "master of the house" in your absence. She has the keys to your home. Peter was named both keeper of the keys and the vicarious shepherd of the flock (cf. Jn 21:15-19). What more evidence do you need to justify Peter's position in the Church? *Point #2:* Jesus singled out this incident from Isaiah and alluded to it when speaking to Simon Peter in Mt. 16:19. The typology is about the OFFICE of steward - not to Hezekiah specifically. *Point #3:* I agree with you regarding the authority of the other apostles in Mt. 18, but you can have authority without being the Chief Steward. Think of a large corporation with one CEO and many division presidents. They all have authority, but only one is the CEO. We have 50 governors, but only one President. Luther was clear on this point, by the way, and I'll quote him here because Luther nailed it: _So we stand here and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Matthew 16:19 that He will give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys, but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has, and no others. It is as if He were saying: "Why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of Heaven, but they are not found in Heaven. I left them on earth. Don't look for them in Heaven or anywhere else except in Peter's mouth where I have placed them. Peter's mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing" (Martin Luther, The Keys, in Conrad Bergendoff, ed. trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergendoff, Luthers Works, vol. 40, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958, p. 365-366.)._ *Point #4:* I never said that the keys could be shared. The authority of the other apostles is similar to that of the Chief Steward, but their authority is subordinate to it and a subset of it. The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 demonstrates this. Peter made the final decision (James made a few closing remarks as the host of the conference for the benefit of the local crowd.). *Point #5:* I didn't address it previously to avoid overwhelming you. But since you have asked, here is my response: _They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, 'What were you arguing about on the road?' But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all.” (Mark 9:33-35)_ This incident occurs just a few verses after Jesus had declared that Peter was the rock upon whom the Church would be built. Moments later, Jesus rebuked Peter for speaking according to human understanding and not according to God’s will. (cf. Mt 16:13-27). This event undoubtedly stirred the emotions of the Apostles as they discussed what had just occurred. Matthew also records that the mother of James and John asked Jesus if her sons could sit at His right and left (cf. Mt 20:20-21). From these passages, it is evident that Jesus' disciples were jockeying amongst themselves for position in the kingdom they mistakenly believed Jesus was about to establish in Israel. But it is important to note that Jesus did not say, "No one will be first" or “You are all equals.” Instead, He described the character of the one who WOULD be first. Peter would become the leader of the Christian Church. If the Protestant notion of equality among all the Apostles were accurate, scripture would have depicted Jesus saying, “No one will be first. You are all equal.” (cf. Mk 9:33-35) This did not occur. Thus, this passage cannot be used against the Catholic understanding of Peter and the papacy. In Luke 22, Jesus is talking to all of the Apostles about the thrones they will occupy in His coming kingdom, but He turns his attention directly to Peter individually to highlight Peter’s unique role amongst the Twelve: _I confer on you [plural] a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, so that you [plural] may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you [plural] as wheat. But I have prayed for you [singular], Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you [singular] have turned back, strengthen your brothers (Luke 22:29-32)._ The primacy of Peter among the Twelve is clearly evident. *Point #6:* A head football coach can also act as the offensive coordinator. Peter went primarily to the Jews while Paul went to the Gentiles (I think you may have misspoken there). But Peter was the one who met with the household of Cornelius and ruled on the matter of circumcision in Acts 15. He was acting as the Head Coach and the OC while Paul was the DC. 🏈 Sorry this is so long, but I want to give good answers to your good questions. 🙂
Peter may or may not be the “Rock” it’s irrelevant, simply and completely irrelevant because the authority claimed by the the Papacy 1,000 years later was never claimed by Peter or assigned to him by the other Apostles and Disciples from Pentecost to 1054. Never. Your efforts to recreate a cultural, historical and complex context a millennium or two later is quite myopic as it requires you to ignore a thousand years of practice that included the Bishop of Rome. Not to mention it’s a slim historic argument that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome and even slimmer to identify any successor or individual that he proclaimed Bishop of Rome. The City with much firmer authority held by Peter and his successors is Clearly Antioch not Rome. So, the Protestant effort to legalistically and scholastically apply authority to Peter through focusing on a single or few Scripture verses is just as incomplete and fraught with error as the Efforts of Luther and Calvin. What all this further requires is the complete disregard of far greater mentioned and perfectly clear Scripture message denouncing the seriously damaging sin of schism that firmly rests with Pope Leo and Rome.
@@AllGloryandHonor Matthew Ch 16, Peter Rock keys. Matthew 16, same chapter, Christ calls Peter Satan. Was Christ referring to the Person of Peter or Peter’s sentiments of faith and doubt. Literary consistency is demanded or there is no correct interpretation and the Bible simply becomes what you want it to be. Matthew Chapter 18 Christ gives the keys and power of forgiveness to all of the Apostles. Elsewhere it describes each of us as having the keys. Last mention of St. Peter in Scripture is of his going to another place and never identifies him as being in Rome. Historical accounts do and I don’t refute them. Neither do I refute the singular and precious fact that Peter was the greatest Apostle but what is similarly irrefutable is that the conditions that made Rome the first among equals never in any manner suggested that it was Primal, Infallible or immune to error. Scripture places the authority to determine Truth with the Holy Spirit from the Church’s inception at Pentecost and later in Scripture commands that we be of one mind and judgement and further identifies the means to accomplish that through the enduring voices of the many described by Fr. Panayiotis Papageorgiou and defined by Scripture as being pleasing to the Holy Spirit. Only one faith tradition maintains fidelity to these Biblical Principles, the Eastern Orthodox Church. But, that’s just my opinion too. Do you have one of your own?
The real issue that Jimmy did not bring up is the specific Greek word for “this” when Jesus says “upon this rock I will build my church.” It has a specific meaning that the word “this” is addressing is not the previous noun but the previous subject not in the immediate text. Matthew uses this same Greek word earlier in Matthew chapter 7 when he talks about building a house on the rock. The same Greek word for “this” refers to a previous subject not the previous immediate noun. It is also used this way in the Septuagint, such as in Numbers and in Judges. So when Jesus says “this rock” it doesn’t refer to the immediate previous noun which would be Peter. Rather, it would refer to the previous subject which would be Peter’s declaration of faith which was revealed to him by God, which is why he is blessed since he wouldn’t have been able to figure this out on his own. So, the rock is not Peter himself, but rather the revelation God gave Peter that Jesus was the Christ the son of the living God. I was glad to hear that Jimmy admitted that the purpose of the keys was to bind and loose, because when Protestants bring up the fact that this same binding and loosing is extended to the rest of the church in Matthew 18:18, which would mean that the church also has the keys not just Peter, this protestant argument is often rejected by Catholics. But now, we have a well renowned Catholic who is the senior apologist at Catholic Answers admitting that protestants are right on this issue that the entire church, not just Peter, has possession of the keys. Therefore, since Peter is not the sole possession of the keys, he cannot be head of the entire church, since the rest of the church who professes that Jesus is the Christ the son of the living God are also in possession of the keys.
In Matthew 16 Christ is not talking about who Peter is and making him supreme head over the entire Church, no but rather He is asking His disciples who they think He is. Therefore Peter answered Christ's question correctly by declaring that He is the Christ, and Jesus in response declares Peter's faith openly by saying on this Rock I will build my Church... You could say on this faith I will build my Church. My point is, that the rock in which Jesus acclaimed that the Church would be built upon is the faithful confession of (Him), Christ... in this regard we all are to follow this same example of the declaration that Peter confessed.. that of Jesus who is the Christ. Jesus is the True Rock and He is the Christ, when we profess this... this is the good and soild foundation, (the Rock), in which the Church is built upon. This is the same faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, (Israel). The Church therefore is a continuation of that faith.. of Israel. By this we are to be a Royal Priesthood and a Holy Nation.
Peter confessed that Christ is the Messiah, and the Catholic Church has been confessing it ever since. Peter is the Rock upon which Christ built His Church. That is the way the scripture has been understood for 2000 years.
@@ericcarreno Yes! Peter is Confessing to Jesus that he acknowledges Him as the Christ. By so doing this he is professing the fullness of the faith in which Christ requests of him to build His Church upon. The Rock essentially is the statement of faith by us in which we profess Jesus as the Christ. This is typically the first big step a person takes when acknowledging the truth of the Christian faith. Then gradually we build upon that fact and grown in our faith. Just as Christ built and established the Church upon Peter's confession of faith, and so allowed it to grow and mature.
@@rhwinner No it has not. You ignore the fact that there is a whole other ancient branch of Christianity which never professed that Peter himself was the rock for 2000 years. Especially supreme head of the Church. The Church is not a dictatorship. For it is a precursor of the world and Kingdom to come. No! Man in fallible and liable to make mistakes. The Holy Spirit would never put man in such a position of power. The powers that be corrupt those who take hold of it for their own agendas, for countless souls have lived and died proving this in a fallen world. No man can take the position of Christ my friend.
Does anyone want to mention that there wasn't agreement in the early church fathers on Matthew 16, and you don't see anyone taking it to mean an ongoing papacy.
There was also disagreements in the Bible in Acts amongst the apostles. The council of Jerusalem was formed and they confronted the matter. In the entire history of the Catholic Church there were councils (2000 years) to settle these disagreements or new ideas or to fight the forces of evil. And so there was an ongoing papacy...I can give you a list.
@@rubenmartinez4346 well, your first point wasn't that great, frankly, so I was going to let it slide. But since you want to point it out, I guess I now need to mention that councils were headed by the real head of the church, for a time the emperor of Rome. What gets considered an ecumenical council is really based on what people feel about it years later not any "we're now having an ecumenical council." There's plenty of councils you ignore, whether they favored the Arians, etc. Honestly, if I was living in the time of the Arian controversy & I believed modern Roman Catholic apologist claims, ignoring the fact that people knew there wasn't a papacy back then, to be consistent I would have to become an Arian. Don't become an Arian. Reject Roman Catholic apologetics.
PETER as Shepherd and first Pope: Scriptural evidence and the structure of the primitive Church make it absolutely undeniable that Christ chose Peter and that Peter was first among the twelve. Depending on the translation, Peter is mentioned 195 times. The closest is John (the beloved disciple) at just 29 times. The rest even less. Consider:
Jesus entered Peter’s house. (Matthew 8:14)
Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter. (John 1:42)
Jesus gave Peter the keys to the gates of Heaven. (Matthew 16:19)
Jesus declared Peter to the the rock. (Matthew 16:18)
Jesus made Peter shepherd. (John 21:15-17)
Jesus told Peter to strengthen his brothers (Luke 22:32)
Jesus paid the Temple tax only for Himself and Peter. (Matthew 17:24-27)
Jesus preached from Peter's boat. (Luke 5:3)
Jesus told Peter to "Follow me" (John 21:19)
Jesus called only Peter to walk on the water. (Matthew 14:29)
Jesus predicted Peter's three-fold denial. (Matthew 26:34)
Jesus predicted Peter's repentance and three-fold affirmation. (Luke 22:32)
Jesus prophesied only Peter's manner of death. (John 21:18-19)
Jesus taught Peter forgiveness 70 times 7 times. (Matthew 18:21-22)
Jesus spoke only to Peter at Gethsemane. (Mark 14:37)
Peter is always listed first of the Apostles. (Matthew 10:2, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13)
Peter was first to confess Jesus as Messiah. (Matthew 16:18)
Peter alone spoke at the Transfiguration. (Matthew 17:4, Mark 9:5, Luke 9:33)
Peter pointed out the withered fig tree. (Mark 11:21)
Peter entered the tomb first - John deferring to him. (Luke 24:12, John 20:3-4))
Peter decided the manner of replacing Judas. (Acts 1:15-26)
Peter spoke for the eleven at the Pentecost. (Acts 2:14-36)
Peter was released from prison by the Angel. (Acts 12:6-11)
Peter spoke for the eleven before the Council. (Acts 4:8-12)
Peter held sin bound to Ananias and Sapphira. (Acts 5:1-10)
Peter's shadow healed. (Acts 5:15)
Peter declared the sin of Simony. (Acts 8:18-23)
Peter revealed the salvation of Gentiles to the Church at Jerusalem. (Acts 11:1-18)
The Angel told Cornelius to call for Peter. (Acts 10:3-8)
The Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles as Peter preached to them. (Acts 10:44-45)
At the empty tomb, the Angel said, "Go tell His disciples, and Peter." (Mark 16:7)
Mary Magdalene ran to tell Peter and the beloved disciple. (John 20:2)
The vision of all foods being clean was given only to Peter. (Acts 10:9-16)
Peter's words silence the first council in Jerusalem. (Acts 15:7-12)
Paul went to Peter to affirm that his Gospel was not in vain. (Galatians 1:18)
Peter was given the revelation of the end of the world. (2 Peter 3:10-11)
Peter taught that Paul’s words were easily twisted. (2 Peter 3:16)
Peter taught that baptism now saves you (1 Peter 3:21)
And many other references. One may deny that Peter was primary, but it takes an amazing ignorance or denial of scripture and history to do so.
I see protestants using their never ending different interpretation of what each word means, but I do not see them claiming to have Peter, or his successors, or the keys. Also, since they deny infallibility, why should anyone pay attention to what they say since their interpretation is just one of many
True, why would I abandon the accumulated wisdom of the visible sign of God's Kingdom on earth, for somebody reading their KJB in their bedroom??
Are you guys aware that there were differing interpretations on this passage in the early church fathers or are you intending to create unintentional irony.
@@geoffrobinson The fact that people argued is a sign that they were human, not that the received wisdom is wrong or doubtful.
@@rhwinner I'm not sure if the Early Church Fathers were really "arguing" about it, because I think it's always been interpreted in a "both/and" sense, with more than one meaning applied to it to emphasize different points, but the interpretations don't contradict or council out one another.
*PETRA & PETROS: MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING*
_Why the endless debate over Mt __16:18__ doesn't really matter._
Point #1: REGARDLESS of whether Peter is a large rock or a small pebble, if Jesus can feed 5,000 people with a few fish, He can build a Church on a grain of sand if He wants to. And He did.
Point #2: REGARDLESS of how Matthew 16:18 is interpreted, the haymaker is the very next verse. In Mt 16:19 Jesus says, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
In this passage Jesus is quoting Is 22:20-22 in which God took the key of the office of Royal Steward from Shebnah and gave it to Eliakim. The typological parallels are stunningly obvious and undeniable.
As a related matter, as Catholics we need to remember that popes are people too. To my mind, the many issues some of us are having with the current pope have much to do with the simple fact that Pope Francis is the first pope from outside Europe. He comes from South America, a region where Catholicism has a much different perspective than we’ve gotten used to.
I am fairly sure Pope Peter was not from Europe.... ;)
@@BensWorkshop You're right! How could I leave out the first one WHO WAS MARTYRED IN ROME.
I'm not convinced that his country of origin is the problem
so the pope is not inspired by the Holy Spirit, and not infallible in matters of spirituallity?
@@manuelpompa-u5e No. In fact, there have only been a handful of infallible declarations in all of church history.
This channel should get a million subscriber
Well that's a really kind thing to say. Tell all your friends! :)
Growing up Protestant, I commonly heard the Πέτρος/πέτρα argument- that if "Πέτρος" is "ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ", Matthew would have used Πέτρος/πέτρος in both instances. As the argument goes, this rendering better serves, 'You are Peter, and on this rock/stone [which you are] I will build my church.' This argument asserts that Matthew's implementation of the different words indicates he intended to distinguish the meaning of Πέτρος and πέτρᾳ. Consequently, it can read, 'You are Peter [little stone], but it is on this [much greater solid rock - Christ/Peters confession] that I will build my church.'
While this argument fits nicely with the New Testament theme that Christ is πέτρα, the clausal connection Matthew used makes it difficult to hold this interpretation (antithetical parallelism). In v.18, Matthew utilises the conjunction "καί" to join two dependent clauses. Since "καί" is a marker of an additive relation, "ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ..." is adding information to "σὺ εἶ Πέτρος". However, the above rendering 'You are Peter [little stone], but it is on this [much greater solid rock]...’ works better with a marker of contrast. In Greek, ἀλλά is a typical marker of contrast, and Matthew used this conjunction in v.17 to contrast “flesh and blood” with “My Father who is in heaven”. In English, ἀλλά renders "but," "on the other hand," "instead," or "on the contrary." Arguably, Matthew's use of "καί" supports the interpretation that Πέτρος and πέτρᾳ form a relationship of addition (synthetic parallelism) rather than contrast.
What does that mean lol
If Peter was the rock that the church was to be built upon, would it not be more accurate for Jesus to say “ Thou art Peter and upon YOU I will build my church. But Jesus said “ upon THIS rock I will build my church The word THIS rock would seem to refer to something other then Peter.
Peter means “rock.”
Peter didn’t view himself as the rock on which Jesus would build his congregation, since he wrote at 1 Peter 2:4-8 that Jesus was the long-foretold “foundation cornerstone,” chosen by God himself. The apostle Paul also referred to Jesus as the “foundation” and “the spiritual rock.” (1 Corinthians 3:11; 10:4)
Jesus was evidently using a play on words, saying in effect: ‘You, the one I called Peter, a Piece of Rock, have discerned the true identity of the Christ, “this rock,” the one who will serve as the foundation of the Christian Congregation.’
@@sunnyjohnson992 Yes, it was Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ the son of the living God, this truth is the Rock that the church is to be built, not Peter himself !!
Why is this still debated?
Jesus changed Peter's name for a reason. Do you still not understand?
Would it make sense for Jesus to change Peter's name for Jesus to NOT allude to him as Rock in some way? Goodness.
You protestants nullify the word of God for your own traditions.
Let's all just search of Google "Who founded the Lutheran Church"
"Who Founded the Methodist Church"
"Who founded the Baptist Church" etc, search for all the churches you know and their founders.
then lastly search "Who founded the Catholic Church"
Come back here with your answers
I would like to see Jimmy Akin interact with Suan Sonna's work on the papacy.
I’m having Suan on the show later in June! The episode will probably air in July.
I want to see Jimmy debate with Ally (?), I think was her name - the one that debated with George Farmer.
This is great! I love how thorough and analytical Jimmy Akin is!
Me too!
@@TheCordialCatholic is this an extract of a longer video ? I have been searching for the longer version but couldn't seem to find it. Appreciate if you can please post a link? Thanks a lot !
@@jeremiahong248 Me too!
This is beyond wonderful!!!!!
Thanks for watching!
That was a lot of words that made me think this is malarkey. Same old verse used. Nothing from the early church fathers or early extra-biblical writings. Not so *Best* after all.
It is impossible to defend the history ot the catholic church with the truth. Jesus has already judged tbe catholic church, the great harlot, in Revelation chapter 17. The rock is The Word of God, the only tbing that will endure. Jesus said " Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Go away Akin, your opinions are patently false.They are simply propaganda.
Ave Christus Rex.
Ave Maria.
Was looking for a channel which refuted certainly the argumemts against protestants
It is interesting that I haven't ever heard a Protestant put Peter down as they describe what's said in chapter 16. In fact, if you consultant the resource "An Exegetical Summary of Matthew 1-16", which lays out what various commentators say about the passage, no one is listed as doing that. On the wordplay, the resource says, " Is there any clear distinction in Greek between πέτρα ‘rock’ and Πέτρος ‘Peter’? Matthew’s Greek readers would not have perceived any distinction between the two forms [NICNT], and there is no difference in Aramaic between the word kepha ‘rock’ and Kepha used as a name [EBC, NAC, NICNT, NTC, TH, WBC]. Grammatical precision is not relevant in the use of metaphors [BECNT, WBC]. The reason for the difference between πέτρα ‘rock’ and Πέτρος ‘Peter’ is that, in order to be used as a man’s name, the feminine noun πέτρα ‘rock’ must be given a masculine form, which would be Πέτρος [EBC, ICC, NAC, NICNT, NTC, WBC]."
David Abernathy, An Exegetical Summary of Matthew 1-16, Exegetical Summaries (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2013), 575.
Awesome content 👍
Thank you 🙌
Christianity isn't about about formality, but that is always Catholics' and Orthodox Christians' first argument against Protestant denominations. The foundation of the Catholic Church is the Nicene Creed, not the Bible.
The Roman Catholic put the Bible together. Jesus did not leave one, he left his Church. Also the Nicene Creed is drawn from the Bible. Christianity is very much about what you believe and must therefore have a formal set of teachings and Christianity is also about worshipping God, for which a pure sacrifice is needed. (See for example, Malachi 1:10)
God used people to put the Bible together
@@eve3363 Yes, the people in his Roman Catholic Church.
@@BensWorkshop Well said bro👏👏
Biblical defense? I think that's an oxymoron.
How so?
Funny how you typed that, and didn't listen. Your own comment is an oxymoron.
You're Sola scriptura right? You should take heed: 'Be quick to listen, and slow to speak'.
Next time listen before you decide to critique biblical exegesis; condemning your own self.
@@DjSostre7 I'm quick to listen to scripture, God's word. Quick to listen to man? NEVER!
Gospel Of John Chapter 1. John The Baptist, Andrew, Philip, and Nathaniel all testify to Jesus Christ as Messiah. John & Andrew do this before Peter even meets Jesus, who then calls him Cephas-Peter. Andrew tells his brother Simon-Peter that he has found the Messiah along with few others. So why then should Peter get any special blessing or title? Just one of many points that doesn't align for the catholic stance on this issue.
Cephas actually means stone
So Jesus already knew from the start what role Peter would play in His ministry, and He told Peter that when they first met
Omg! That's awesome!
There is none.
Do we not refer to the Church as Holy Mother Church? The feminine rock.
“For certain things, taken metaphorically, imply one another, which taken literally, appear to exclude one another.”
-St. Thomas Aquinas, ST I-II.37.2
This is apologetics GOLD!
Thanks for watching!
Yet-Peter never claimed to be the chief shepherd-vicar-pope of the entire church.
The apostles never claimed he was the chief shepherd-vicar of the church.
Never claimed for himself as the rock on which the church is founded on. Nor did the apostles.
The office of a papacy (supreme bishop leader, chief shepherd of the entire church) is never mentioned as a church office in any of the offices of the church described in the New Testament. See I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 2:20-21, 3:11; I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9
Saint Clement of Rome destroys your argument in his first epistle my friend.
Who Saint Paul mentions in Phillipians, by the way.
@@bobizzle1605 There is no mention of Clement claiming to be the chief shepherd-pope in his letter. We don't know if its the same Clement that Paul mentions. More than one man could have that name.
@@Justas399 No, but he confirms the episcopate structure of bishops and priests that Protestant deny and claim is a Catholic invention, and he confirms Peter’s martyrdom in Rome and the importance the Church in Rome has.
And the majority of scholars believe it’s the same Clement in Phillipians, Linus is also mentioned in one of Paul’s letters. Clement writes as though he personally knew both Peter and Paul, and this is why the early Church Fathers called him the chief apostolic father. Even skeptic or secular historians have said that Clement’s letter dates to around the time before Peter and Paul would have been martyred.
There’s no reason to believe the Clement in Phillipians would be anyone else, that’s just guesswork with nothing substantial to back that up. Of course, I’m sure Protestants desperately hope it’s not the same Clement, because if it is that puts to rest alot of debates.
@@bobizzle1605 Ok. There is no office of priest in the NT church. Peter never claimed to be a pope nor did the apostles claim he was. No bishop in the 1st century claimed to be the chief shepherd of the church in the 1st century.
You can believe its the same Clement that Paul mentions but that is only speculation.
..."Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222). -Catholic scholar
440-461 - Pope Leo I. Many historians suggest that Pope Leo is the first to claim universal jurisdiction over the worldwide Church, thus initiating the rise of the papacy, a uniquely Roman Catholic structure.
There is something called humility.
You don't Lord it over others because you have a higher office.
Jesus already made him a rock, told him to feed and tend his sheep and lambs, told him to strengthen his brothers.
if you were asked, Among the Apostles, based on Scriptures, who do you think Jesus affirms leadership on?
Peter doesn't Lord over his leadership on others, but everything in scripture points to him as a leader among the apostles.
I like the pipe rack in the background. You know that the "Owner" knows what he is taking about. ;)
Its probably the best argument I've heard so far and I'd have to think about it a bit more.
My initial impression is this:
1. Petros and Petra: Since there are many possibilities this argument can't be used as a proof text. To many unanswered questions.
2. The comparison that Peter is a rock but the confession, i.e. Jesus is the cliff is not a put down. He wasn't being charitable at all. That was to bad. Peter wouldn't have batted an eye if Jesus said, "Peter you are surely a rock but the church is founded on me who is a mountain." Peter would have said, "duh."
3. The formula he presented began with Peter being called blessed, followed by the "upon this rock" section, followed by the keys section. The argument was made that it would make sense to go positive - negative - positive. That what followed blessed must then be the blessing. But later when he looked at it from the second angle, Jimmy says that the fact that God revealed the confession to Peter is what was the blessing.
Take that into account, you have a different formula. Peter you are blessed because you received the revelation from God. Peter your confession is what my church will be founded upon. In this church you will have the right to bind and loose. So put another way, Peter's blessing. The foundation of the church. Peter's roll in it as a person of authority.
Countless debates have arisen over the significance of the Greek words "petros" and "petra" in Mt. 16:18 with some arguing against Peter based on the alleged meaning of "petros" as "small stone" while forgetting that Jesus spoke Aramaic: “You are Kepha and on this kepha…”
Regardless, Jesus promised to build upon Peter, and if He fed 5,000 people with a small number of fish, He could build a Church upon a small grain of sand.
Jesus gave Peter the keys - symbols of the perpetual office of steward in His eternal kingdom (cf. Mt 16:19, Is 22:20-22). And the successor of Peter in that office still has that authority.
@@randycarson9812 The text we have is in Greek. In Aramaic, the word Kepha is just one word for stone, rock, etc. We can't assume that, if they had written in Aramaic that the word kepha would have been used.
Peter was given the keys which allowed him to loose and bind. A chapter and a half later the rest of the apostles were given that same permission to loose and bind. It appears that they received the keys as well.
Now we can agree that Peter was called to something specific. He tells us what that is in Acts. He tells us that he was called to the Gentiles. He even calls it a calling. So he leaves the leadership of Jerusalem and heads to Rome. So Peter didn't see himself as called to be the first Pope. Even when we talk about the church in Rome, the earliest church fathers don't say Peter, but say Paul and Peter or just Paul.
So though we can agree that through Peter Christ grew his church, he isn't the only one He grew the church through. Nor is there anywhere that says that those that come after Peter will be infallible.
Eliakim is used as a type for Peter. First, we have to read this into the text. Its not plain. Therefore, its not strong evidence but more importantly Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Eliamkim is given the keys to the kingdom of David. When we read Revelation 3:7...
_“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this:_
we see that the keys of David are Christ's, not Peter's. So the keys of Eliakim would be a type of Christ not a type of Peter.
@blusheep2 *You wrote: "We can't assume that, if they had written in Aramaic that the word kepha would have been used."*
Sure we can, because it appears in other verses AS SIMON'S NAME! In the New Testament, Peter is referred to as Cephas several times. Here are the relevant verses:
_John 1:42: "He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, 'You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas' (which, when translated, is Peter)."_
_1 Corinthians 1:12: "What I mean is this: One of you says, 'I follow Paul'; another, 'I follow Apollos'; another, 'I follow Cephas'; still another, 'I follow Christ.'"_
_1 Corinthians 3:22: "whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future-all are yours,"_
*You wrote: "It appears that they received the keys as well."*
You're reading that into the text, but it is not there. There are no keys mentioned in Mt 18. However, the other Apostles did receive authority that is similar to the authority given to Peter, but without the keys of the office of Chief Steward. This is analogous to a US Senator who has full authority to propose legislation and to vote on various bills, etc., but only the Senate Majority Leader can decide which bills will actually be brought to the floor for a vote, etc. Peter alone was designated the Royal Steward (cf. Is 22:20-22, Gen 41:39-43).
And yes, the keys belong to Jesus, so Rev 3:7 makes sense. But that doesn't mean He can't give His authority to Peter. This is corroborated in Jn 21:15:19 when Peter is appointed the vicarious shepherd of Jesus' own flock. Peter is to govern and teach the sheep.
Hezekiah is the king just as Jesus is the King. Eliakim is the steward just as Peter is the Steward.
Parallels:
God = Jesus (giver of the keys)
Hezekiah = Jesus (King)
Eliakim = Peter
Key = Keys (symbol of the office)
Opens = Loose (authority conveyed)
Shuts = Binds (authority conveyed)
@@randycarson9812 Eliakim doesn't work because the keys were to the kingdom of David which is applied to Jesus in Revelation, not Peter. I don't have the option to spin scripture to my liking. If Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of David and Jesus didn't have the keys to David's kingdom later then I would see this type as a possibility but that just isn't the case. I have to let the Bible interpret the Bible and not people that came hundreds of years later. It doesn't work because Jesus is the one who holds the keys to Davids kingdom.
Could you tell me more about your Hezekiah type? As far as I'm aware there are many kings of Judah. There must be more to this then just saying Hezekiah was a king.
Now you are right. Chapter 18 doesn't use the term "keys." Nonetheless, you just said that "loose" means authority conveyed, and "shuts" means authority conveyed. Peter was given the keys WHICH ALLOWED HIM to Loose and Bind. In 18 the others are given the same EXACT allowance. The same exact authority. They could loose and bind. So I may be reading into the text "keys" here but it makes all the sense in the world to do so. If the keys allow binding and loosing then its hard to argue that others with those rights don't also have the keys.
The Revelation account is the parallel to Eliakim. It is the keys to David's kingdom. But your argument is that the keys can be shared. If that is the case then you shouldn't be complaining about Matthew 18 and the other apostles sharing in those keys through the loosing and binding.
But again. Even if we grant Peter some special status in the founding of the church, that doesn't in anyway argue that the Pope today is God's infallible representative.
You also don't address the simple fact that Peter didn't see his calling as universal but a calling specifically to the Gentiles. If he understood this interaction as a calling to some sort of Eliakim headship, then why did they argue over who was the greatest? In that same passage what does Jesus say to all of them after this? He says,
"And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me, 30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
Do you see. These privileges are given to all the disciples. They will all sit on thrones judging. Just before this, Jesus tells them that HE is the greatest because the greatest is the one that comes to serve not the one that sits at the table.
@@blusheep2 *Point #1:* Jesus is the king just as Hezekiah was the king. But Jesus is a divine king; God gave the key to Eliakim, and Jesus gave the keys to Peter. Pretty straightforward. Jesus even specifies that they are the "keys to the kingdom" in the text. How can we come to any other conclusion? If you have a baby-sitter watching your kids while you and your wife go out for dinner and a movie, she is the "master of the house" in your absence. She has the keys to your home. Peter was named both keeper of the keys and the vicarious shepherd of the flock (cf. Jn 21:15-19). What more evidence do you need to justify Peter's position in the Church?
*Point #2:* Jesus singled out this incident from Isaiah and alluded to it when speaking to Simon Peter in Mt. 16:19. The typology is about the OFFICE of steward - not to Hezekiah specifically.
*Point #3:* I agree with you regarding the authority of the other apostles in Mt. 18, but you can have authority without being the Chief Steward. Think of a large corporation with one CEO and many division presidents. They all have authority, but only one is the CEO. We have 50 governors, but only one President. Luther was clear on this point, by the way, and I'll quote him here because Luther nailed it:
_So we stand here and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Matthew 16:19 that He will give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys, but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has, and no others. It is as if He were saying: "Why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of Heaven, but they are not found in Heaven. I left them on earth. Don't look for them in Heaven or anywhere else except in Peter's mouth where I have placed them. Peter's mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing" (Martin Luther, The Keys, in Conrad Bergendoff, ed. trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergendoff, Luthers Works, vol. 40, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958, p. 365-366.)._
*Point #4:* I never said that the keys could be shared. The authority of the other apostles is similar to that of the Chief Steward, but their authority is subordinate to it and a subset of it. The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 demonstrates this. Peter made the final decision (James made a few closing remarks as the host of the conference for the benefit of the local crowd.).
*Point #5:* I didn't address it previously to avoid overwhelming you. But since you have asked, here is my response:
_They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, 'What were you arguing about on the road?' But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all.” (Mark 9:33-35)_
This incident occurs just a few verses after Jesus had declared that Peter was the rock upon whom the Church would be built. Moments later, Jesus rebuked Peter for speaking according to human understanding and not according to God’s will. (cf. Mt 16:13-27).
This event undoubtedly stirred the emotions of the Apostles as they discussed what had just occurred. Matthew also records that the mother of James and John asked Jesus if her sons could sit at His right and left (cf. Mt 20:20-21). From these passages, it is evident that Jesus' disciples were jockeying amongst themselves for position in the kingdom they mistakenly believed Jesus was about to establish in Israel.
But it is important to note that Jesus did not say, "No one will be first" or “You are all equals.” Instead, He described the character of the one who WOULD be first. Peter would become the leader of the Christian Church.
If the Protestant notion of equality among all the Apostles were accurate, scripture would have depicted Jesus saying, “No one will be first. You are all equal.” (cf. Mk 9:33-35) This did not occur. Thus, this passage cannot be used against the Catholic understanding of Peter and the papacy.
In Luke 22, Jesus is talking to all of the Apostles about the thrones they will occupy in His coming kingdom, but He turns his attention directly to Peter individually to highlight Peter’s unique role amongst the Twelve:
_I confer on you [plural] a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, so that you [plural] may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you [plural] as wheat. But I have prayed for you [singular], Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you [singular] have turned back, strengthen your brothers (Luke 22:29-32)._
The primacy of Peter among the Twelve is clearly evident.
*Point #6:* A head football coach can also act as the offensive coordinator. Peter went primarily to the Jews while Paul went to the Gentiles (I think you may have misspoken there). But Peter was the one who met with the household of Cornelius and ruled on the matter of circumcision in Acts 15. He was acting as the Head Coach and the OC while Paul was the DC. 🏈
Sorry this is so long, but I want to give good answers to your good questions. 🙂
Peter may or may not be the “Rock” it’s irrelevant, simply and completely irrelevant because the authority claimed by the the Papacy 1,000 years later was never claimed by Peter or assigned to him by the other Apostles and Disciples from Pentecost to 1054. Never. Your efforts to recreate a cultural, historical and complex context a millennium or two later is quite myopic as it requires you to ignore a thousand years of practice that included the Bishop of Rome. Not to mention it’s a slim historic argument that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome and even slimmer to identify any successor or individual that he proclaimed Bishop of Rome. The City with much firmer authority held by Peter and his successors is Clearly Antioch not Rome. So, the Protestant effort to legalistically and scholastically apply authority to Peter through focusing on a single or few Scripture verses is just as incomplete and fraught with error as the Efforts of Luther and Calvin. What all this further requires is the complete disregard of far greater mentioned and perfectly clear Scripture message denouncing the seriously damaging sin of schism that firmly rests with Pope Leo and Rome.
Wrong. Even antiochan Christians today would say Rome is Peter’s seat.
And the Orthodox are in schism.
@@bobizzle1605 I’m sorry I’ve failed miserably to express my point.
@@SaltShackwell you didn’t really express any point rather simply your opinion on history
@@AllGloryandHonor Matthew Ch 16, Peter Rock keys. Matthew 16, same chapter, Christ calls Peter Satan. Was Christ referring to the Person of Peter or Peter’s sentiments of faith and doubt. Literary consistency is demanded or there is no correct interpretation and the Bible simply becomes what you want it to be. Matthew Chapter 18 Christ gives the keys and power of forgiveness to all of the Apostles. Elsewhere it describes each of us as having the keys. Last mention of St. Peter in Scripture is of his going to another place and never identifies him as being in Rome. Historical accounts do and I don’t refute them. Neither do I refute the singular and precious fact that Peter was the greatest Apostle but what is similarly irrefutable is that the conditions that made Rome the first among equals never in any manner suggested that it was Primal, Infallible or immune to error. Scripture places the authority to determine Truth with the Holy Spirit from the Church’s inception at Pentecost and later in Scripture commands that we be of one mind and judgement and further identifies the means to accomplish that through the enduring voices of the many described by Fr. Panayiotis Papageorgiou and defined by Scripture as being pleasing to the Holy Spirit. Only one faith tradition maintains fidelity to these Biblical Principles, the Eastern Orthodox Church. But, that’s just my opinion too. Do you have one of your own?
The real issue that Jimmy did not bring up is the specific Greek word for “this” when Jesus says “upon this rock I will build my church.” It has a specific meaning that the word “this” is addressing is not the previous noun but the previous subject not in the immediate text. Matthew uses this same Greek word earlier in Matthew chapter 7 when he talks about building a house on the rock. The same Greek word for “this” refers to a previous subject not the previous immediate noun. It is also used this way in the Septuagint, such as in Numbers and in Judges. So when Jesus says “this rock” it doesn’t refer to the immediate previous noun which would be Peter. Rather, it would refer to the previous subject which would be Peter’s declaration of faith which was revealed to him by God, which is why he is blessed since he wouldn’t have been able to figure this out on his own. So, the rock is not Peter himself, but rather the revelation God gave Peter that Jesus was the Christ the son of the living God.
I was glad to hear that Jimmy admitted that the purpose of the keys was to bind and loose, because when Protestants bring up the fact that this same binding and loosing is extended to the rest of the church in Matthew 18:18, which would mean that the church also has the keys not just Peter, this protestant argument is often rejected by Catholics. But now, we have a well renowned Catholic who is the senior apologist at Catholic Answers admitting that protestants are right on this issue that the entire church, not just Peter, has possession of the keys. Therefore, since Peter is not the sole possession of the keys, he cannot be head of the entire church, since the rest of the church who professes that Jesus is the Christ the son of the living God are also in possession of the keys.
Then why didn’t Jesus mention to keys to any other apostle.
And you are the one that has to explain all the other blatant evidence that Christ made Peter the leader.
In Matthew 16 Christ is not talking about who Peter is and making him supreme head over the entire Church, no but rather He is asking His disciples who they think He is.
Therefore Peter answered Christ's question correctly by declaring that He is the Christ, and Jesus in response declares Peter's faith openly by saying on this Rock I will build my Church...
You could say on this faith I will build my Church.
My point is, that the rock in which Jesus acclaimed that the Church would be built upon is the faithful confession of (Him), Christ... in this regard we all are to follow this same example of the declaration that Peter confessed.. that of Jesus who is the Christ.
Jesus is the True Rock and He is the Christ, when we profess this... this is the good and soild foundation, (the Rock), in which the Church is built upon.
This is the same faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, (Israel).
The Church therefore is a continuation of that faith.. of Israel.
By this we are to be a Royal Priesthood and a Holy Nation.
A confession needs a confessor.
Peter confessed that Christ is the Messiah, and the Catholic Church has been confessing it ever since. Peter is the Rock upon which Christ built His Church. That is the way the scripture has been understood for 2000 years.
@@ericcarreno
Yes! Peter is Confessing to Jesus that he acknowledges Him as the Christ.
By so doing this he is professing the fullness of the faith in which Christ requests of him to build His Church upon.
The Rock essentially is the statement of faith by us in which we profess Jesus as the Christ.
This is typically the first big step a person takes when acknowledging the truth of the Christian faith.
Then gradually we build upon that fact and grown in our faith.
Just as Christ built and established the Church upon Peter's confession of faith, and so allowed it to grow and mature.
@@rhwinner
No it has not.
You ignore the fact that there is a whole other ancient branch of Christianity which never professed that Peter himself was the rock for 2000 years.
Especially supreme head of the Church.
The Church is not a dictatorship.
For it is a precursor of the world and Kingdom to come.
No! Man in fallible and liable to make mistakes.
The Holy Spirit would never put man in such a position of power.
The powers that be corrupt those who take hold of it for their own agendas, for countless souls have lived and died proving this in a fallen world.
No man can take the position of Christ my friend.
@@Jordan-1999 What other brañch did not confess the meaning of these verses?
Does anyone want to mention that there wasn't agreement in the early church fathers on Matthew 16, and you don't see anyone taking it to mean an ongoing papacy.
There was also disagreements in the Bible in Acts amongst the apostles. The council of Jerusalem was formed and they confronted the matter. In the entire history of the Catholic Church there were councils (2000 years) to settle these disagreements or new ideas or to fight the forces of evil. And so there was an ongoing papacy...I can give you a list.
@@rubenmartinez4346 // And so there was an ongoing papacy...I can give you a list.//
An ex post facto list isn't a proof of a papacy.
@@aGoyforJesus I see you ignored my first point but ok.
@@rubenmartinez4346 well, your first point wasn't that great, frankly, so I was going to let it slide. But since you want to point it out, I guess I now need to mention that councils were headed by the real head of the church, for a time the emperor of Rome. What gets considered an ecumenical council is really based on what people feel about it years later not any "we're now having an ecumenical council."
There's plenty of councils you ignore, whether they favored the Arians, etc.
Honestly, if I was living in the time of the Arian controversy & I believed modern Roman Catholic apologist claims, ignoring the fact that people knew there wasn't a papacy back then, to be consistent I would have to become an Arian.
Don't become an Arian. Reject Roman Catholic apologetics.
@@aGoyforJesus The first council was in Jerusalem about AD 49. See Acts 15.
I didn't know that Rome was lesd than Antioch.
I disagree
You are aware of Against Heresy St Ireneus. Book 3. Chp 2/3.