Peter NOT the 1st pope: Analysis Matthew 16 - Peter and the keys of the kingdom

[DJT_47]

Matthew 16 analysis - Peter being the first so-called pope and provided with the keys of the kingdom

Matthew 16:15-19 - Catholics erroneously use these verses, and primarily verse 19, as rationale and justification for claiming Peter was established thereby as the first pope. However, when you read and study these scriptures closely along with others related thereto, you clearly find that is not the case nor is the logic sound.

When linked with Matthew 18:18, Acts 2, Acts 10, and Acts 11, you get the complete and true understanding of the aforementioned Matthew 16 verses. Note Matthew 16:15-19 below:

"15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Establishment of the church, the earthly kingdom - First of all in the above scripture, notice it says "keys of the kingdom of heaven" and not "to the kingdom of heaven" which is of significance and often glossed-over by most, with "to" being superimposed for “of”. The word "of" means, 'origin', 'connected to', 'belonging to', from' or "pertaining to', whereas 'to' infers 'direction', 'going toward' or 'entry into'; "to" therefore would imply entry into the kingdom whereas "of" would imply the keys are not for entry, but rather, originating from, for, or emanating and/or coming from the kingdom; the origin of the keys being the kingdom of heaven.

Peter was entrusted with the "keys of the kingdom of heaven”, not 'keys to’ the kingdom of heaven or simply for the means of entry into it, and was empowered or sanctioned by heaven as confirmed by the Holy Ghost (Acts 2 and 10), with authority to bind his actions as well. The same words almost verbatim are used in Matthew 18:18-19, providing all of the Lord's disciples with authority likewise to bind on earth, however the reasons were different for this authority which excluded the "keys of the kingdom", and the authority was provided to all the disciples (ye, in the original Greek) as opposed to just Peter (thee per the original Greek) in Matthew 16.

When you consider or link Matthew 16 as relates to Peter and "the keys of the kingdom" with the book of Acts, you find that Peter was the one responsible for establishing the church, the earthly kingdom, first amongst the Jews at Jerusalem (Acts2), and then amongst the Gentiles commencing with the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10), which action he then defended to the council at Jerusalem in Acts 11. Peter being the one that established the early church, is therefore validation of Matthew 16 and the Lord’s unique statement to him, creating the setting and providing him with the opportunity, wherewithal, and confirmation by heaven via the Holy Ghost to do so (collectively, “the keys”). Note too, that the Holy Ghost falling on individuals uniquely as it did on both occasions, were the only times recorded in the bible for such happening in the manner it did. Both events, that of Acts 2 and Acts 10, were done with heavenly power and authority as noted above, since in both cases, the Holy Ghost demonstrated said power and authority by its physical presence, falling on individuals in both cases as a sign to those present, giving validity to, and substantiation from heaven of Peter’s actions, consistent with the use of the word “of” in Matthew 16:19.

The rock - In Matthew 16:18, it's obvious that Peter isn't the rock but rather Christ is, since he is recognized as being the chief cornerstone and/or foundation per the scriptures (Ephesians 2:20, Psalm 118:22-23, Isaiah 28:16, Matthew 21:42-44, 1Cor 3:11, Acts 4:11). Also, Peter in Greek is 'Petros' Πέτρος or Cephas, [masculine gender in the Greek meaning a stone or boulder (Strong's), or rock, individual stone, more insecure or moveable], and the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 is “petra”, πέτρα (feminine gender in the Greek), being rock, cliff, solid formation, solid foundation, bedrock, large rock formation, immoveable and enduring. Also, the church is referred to as being the “bride”, “chaste virgin”, “her” (feminine), etc., and Christ being the bridegroom, which further substantiates the use of “petra” rather than “petros”. If Christ's intent was to build his church upon Peter, why wouldn't he have said "and upon you I will build my church", or “upon petros, or you, Petros I will build my church” and not "upon this rock" (petra)? Also note that if Peter was established as the so-called first pope and head of the church (as erroneously claimed by Catholics), 1. Why did the Lord say “get thee behind me Satan” to him in Matthew 16:23? and 2. Why did the disciples quarrel amongst themselves (Luke 9:46) as to who would be the greatest among them, which occurred AFTER Peter’s statement as to who Jesus was (Luke 9:20 and parallel verse Mat 16:16)? and 3. Why was there contention between Peter and Paul as recorded in Acts 15:2 and Gal 2:11-14 if Peter was the head of the church? and 4. Why did the council at Jerusalem send Peter and John to Samaria (Acts8:14) if Peter was the head of the church, yet taking direction from the council at Jerusalem? Also note that no man (in a religious sense, Mat 23:8-9), is to be called father on earth, yet the pope is commonly referred to as the “Holy Father”. And too, Christ is the head of the church which is his body, not Peter (Eph 5:23, Col 1:18)

 

[Mungo]

Matthew 16 analysis - Peter being the first so-called pope and provided with the keys of the kingdom

Matthew 16:15-19 - Catholics erroneously use these verses, and primarily verse 19, as rationale and justification for claiming Peter was established thereby as the first pope. However, when you read and study these scriptures closely along with others related thereto, you clearly find that is not the case nor is the logic sound.

When linked with Matthew 18:18, Acts 2, Acts 10, and Acts 11, you get the complete and true understanding of the aforementioned Matthew 16 verses. Note Matthew 16:15-19 below:

"15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Establishment of the church, the earthly kingdom - First of all in the above scripture, notice it says "keys of the kingdom of heaven" and not "to the kingdom of heaven" which is of significance and often glossed-over by most, with "to" being superimposed for “of”. The word "of" means, 'origin', 'connected to', 'belonging to', from' or "pertaining to', whereas 'to' infers 'direction', 'going toward' or 'entry into'; "to" therefore would imply entry into the kingdom whereas "of" would imply the keys are not for entry, but rather, originating from, for, or emanating and/or coming from the kingdom; the origin of the keys being the kingdom of heaven.

Peter was entrusted with the "keys of the kingdom of heaven”, not 'keys to’ the kingdom of heaven or simply for the means of entry into it, and was empowered or sanctioned by heaven as confirmed by the Holy Ghost (Acts 2 and 10), with authority to bind his actions as well. The same words almost verbatim are used in Matthew 18:18-19, providing all of the Lord's disciples with authority likewise to bind on earth, however the reasons were different for this authority which excluded the "keys of the kingdom", and the authority was provided to all the disciples (ye, in the original Greek) as opposed to just Peter (thee per the original Greek) in Matthew 16.

This is just a straw man argument
Firstly, keys of the kingdom or keys to the kingdom mean the same thing.
Some Catholic Bibles use to, some use of.
Some Protestant Bibles use to, some use of.
They mean the same.
The keys I have to my house are the same as the keys of my house. They perform the same function. They lock and unlock the doors.

Secondly the keys are symbolic. They are not actually physical keys. They do not open physical doors.
They symbolise authority.
To understand the significance of the keys we need to start in Revelation.
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 shall shut,
wo shuts and no one opens.”
(Rev 3:7)

This Jesus who holds the key of David, who opens and closes is the same Jesus who says to Peter:
"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.”(RSVCE)

This passage was addressed to Peter and the passage needs to be interpreted with an understanding of a 1st century Jew.

Prior to this Jesus has asked the apostles who he is. Peter has replied that he is the Messiah, the Son of the living God. He would understand that Jesus was the promised one who would sit on the throne of David (see Lk 1:32), the promised Davidic King who would rule for ever. All through Matthew’s gospel Jesus is referring to the kingdom. And Peter with his new revelation from the Father would understand this.

Therefore when Jesus gives Peter the keys we have to look at the symbolism of that in terms of Davidic kings.

The passage refers back to Isaiah 22: 20-23 when God deposes Shebna as the master of the palace and installs Heliakim instead:
In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah,
and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him,
and will commit your authority to his hand;
and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David;
he shall open, and none shall shut;
and he shall shut, and none shall open.
And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place,
and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house.

Note the three lines I have emboldened which parallel verse 19 and Rev 3:7. Peter is being installed as the new master of the palace, the chief official in the kingdom (on earth) under the king (Jesus).

The master of the Palace was the highest official in the land.
What does scripture say about such a person:
He will be a father to the inhabitants
He will be clothed with a robe
He will be girded with a girdle [or sash]
He will be given keys and authority.

The Pope (father) has a robe, a sash and keys as the symbols of his authority and sits on a throne.

These are the garments which they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a coat of checker work, a turban [miter], and a girdle; they shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother and his sons to serve me as priests. "They shall receive gold, blue and purple and scarlet stuff, and fine twined linen.(Ex 28:4-5)
The high priest in Israel wore a tunic, a robe, a girdle, a miter (like the pope), all made of fine linen in gold, violet, purple and scarlet.

“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat” (Mt 23:2). The seat (chair) of Moses represents his teaching authority

The Popes chair (seat) is the symbol of his teaching authority. That is why we say he speaks authoritatively when he speaks ex-cathedra (from the chair).

 

[Mungo]

Also note that no man (in a religious sense, Mat 23:8-9), is to be called father on earth, yet the pope is commonly referred to as the “Holy Father”. And too, Christ is the head of the church which is his body, not Peter (Eph 5:23, Col 1:18)

Another false argument; this time based on the logical fallacy of equivocation.
It had been debunked here:
Call no man Father

 

[Mungo]

The rock - In Matthew 16:18, it's obvious that Peter isn't the rock but rather Christ is, since he is recognized as being the chief cornerstone and/or foundation per the scriptures (Ephesians 2:20, Psalm 118:22-23, Isaiah 28:16, Matthew 21:42-44, 1Cor 3:11, Acts 4:11). Also, Peter in Greek is 'Petros' Πέτρος or Cephas, [masculine gender in the Greek meaning a stone or boulder (Strong's), or rock, individual stone, more insecure or moveable], and the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 is “petra”, πέτρα (feminine gender in the Greek), being rock, cliff, solid formation, solid foundation, bedrock, large rock formation, immoveable and enduring. Also, the church is referred to as being the “bride”, “chaste virgin”, “her” (feminine), etc., and Christ being the bridegroom, which further substantiates the use of “petra” rather than “petros”. If Christ's intent was to build his church upon Peter, why wouldn't he have said "and upon you I will build my church", or “upon petros, or you, Petros I will build my church” and not "upon this rock" (petra)? Also note that if Peter was established as the so-called first pope and head of the church (as erroneously claimed by Catholics), 1. Why did the Lord say “get thee behind me Satan” to him in Matthew 16:23? and 2. Why did the disciples quarrel amongst themselves (Luke 9:46) as to who would be the greatest among them, which occurred AFTER Peter’s statement as to who Jesus was (Luke 9:20 and parallel verse Mat 16:16)? and 3. Why was there contention between Peter and Paul as recorded in Acts 15:2 and Gal 2:11-14 if Peter was the head of the church? and 4. Why did the council at Jerusalem send Peter and John to Samaria (Acts8:14) if Peter was the head of the church, yet taking direction from the council at Jerusalem? Also note that no man (in a religious sense, Mat 23:8-9), is to be called father on earth, yet the pope is commonly referred to as the “Holy Father”. And too, Christ is the head of the church which is his body, not Peter (Eph 5:23, Col 1:18)

Another false argument that has already been dealt with.
See Peter The Rock

 

[Walpole]

The original founders of the Protestant religions had to remove Peter from the Church in order to supplant his authority with that of their own authority. In order to try and accomplish this, they had to replace the "rock" of Matthew 16:18 with something other than Peter, the man, i.e. "the rock is really Peter's faith." However, as the late Oscar Cullmann argued in his great work, Peter: Disciple Apostle and Martyr, the Reformation-inspired position on Matthew is not a valid argument for three primary reasons:

1. Demonstrative pronouns grammatically refer to the nearest substantive, which in Matthew 16:18 is Peter - the man. In order to make it Peter's faith, you would have to go back two verses prior.

2. The play on words between Petros and Petra affirms "Peter" was a common noun in antiquity, never a common name.

3. Our Blessed Lord spoke the language of the time, Aramaic. This is evidenced in the fact that first, Christ calls Peter bar Jonah (v. 17). "Bar Jonah" is Aramaic. Secondly, Peter is referred to as Cephas, which is Aramaic. There is only one word in the Aramaic language for rock: Cephas.


Here are other Protestant scholars acknowledging this as well...

"The meaning is, 'You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.' Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view." - William Hendriksen, member of the Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), page 647


"Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which — in accordance with the words of the text — applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis." - Gerhard Maier, Evangelical Lutheran theologian "The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate” (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58



"Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock”. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name." - Donald A. Carson III, Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke) (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368


"The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter." - Donald A. Carson III, Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78


"The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun.... The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock”, etc." - John Peter Lange, German Protestant scholar and theologian, Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), page 293


"Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.

But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho”. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha”.... Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.” - John A. Broadus, Baptist scholar, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356


"By the words “this rock” Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church”. As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus." - J. Knox Chamblin, Presbyterian and New Testament Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary, “Matthew”, Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742


"Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon's nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter”, parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ”, as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification." - Craig L. Blomberg, Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary, The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22 (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252



"On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely." - David Hill, Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, England, “The Gospel of Matthew”, The New Century Bible Commentary (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261


"The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon”, the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community." - Suzanne de Dietrich, Presbyterian theologian, The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16 (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93


"The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built.... The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock... seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy." - Donald A. Hagner, Fuller Theological Seminary, Matthew 14-28, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470

 

[DJT_47]

Believe what you like. Create man made popes to bow down to and worship and follow fallacies of the traditions of men. There is no scriptural support for Peter being the leader of the church world wide nor a succession process propagating the continuation of this false position.

 

[Mungo]

Believe what you like. Create man made popes to bow down to and worship and follow fallacies of the traditions of men. There is no scriptural support for Peter being the leader of the church world wide nor a succession process propagating the continuation of this false position.

Translation:
I can't refute any of your arguments so I will just insult you and your Church

 

[Walpole]

Believe what you like. Create man made popes to bow down to and worship and follow fallacies of the traditions of men. There is no scriptural support for Peter being the leader of the church world wide nor a succession process propagating the continuation of this false position.

1. Who does Scripture call the protos?


2. What does Scripture record as the first thing the Apostles do after Jesus' ascension?

 

[DJT_47]

Translation:
I can't refute any of your arguments so I will just insult you and your Church

Yes; it's your church, not the Lord's.

 

[Mungo]

Yes; it's your church, not the Lord's.

Another false claim .
And again no evidence supplied to support it.

Jesus said "And I tell you, you are Peter [Rock], and on this rock I will build my church"
And I believe Jesus kept that promise. Apparently you don't.

 

[GodsGrace]

Matthew 16 analysis - Peter being the first so-called pope and provided with the keys of the kingdom

Matthew 16:15-19 - Catholics erroneously use these verses, and primarily verse 19, as rationale and justification for claiming Peter was established thereby as the first pope. However, when you read and study these scriptures closely along with others related thereto, you clearly find that is not the case nor is the logic sound.

When linked with Matthew 18:18, Acts 2, Acts 10, and Acts 11, you get the complete and true understanding of the aforementioned Matthew 16 verses. Note Matthew 16:15-19 below:

"15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Establishment of the church, the earthly kingdom - First of all in the above scripture, notice it says "keys of the kingdom of heaven" and not "to the kingdom of heaven" which is of significance and often glossed-over by most, with "to" being superimposed for “of”. The word "of" means, 'origin', 'connected to', 'belonging to', from' or "pertaining to', whereas 'to' infers 'direction', 'going toward' or 'entry into'; "to" therefore would imply entry into the kingdom whereas "of" would imply the keys are not for entry, but rather, originating from, for, or emanating and/or coming from the kingdom; the origin of the keys being the kingdom of heaven.

Peter was entrusted with the "keys of the kingdom of heaven”, not 'keys to’ the kingdom of heaven or simply for the means of entry into it, and was empowered or sanctioned by heaven as confirmed by the Holy Ghost (Acts 2 and 10), with authority to bind his actions as well. The same words almost verbatim are used in Matthew 18:18-19, providing all of the Lord's disciples with authority likewise to bind on earth, however the reasons were different for this authority which excluded the "keys of the kingdom", and the authority was provided to all the disciples (ye, in the original Greek) as opposed to just Peter (thee per the original Greek) in Matthew 16.

When you consider or link Matthew 16 as relates to Peter and "the keys of the kingdom" with the book of Acts, you find that Peter was the one responsible for establishing the church, the earthly kingdom, first amongst the Jews at Jerusalem (Acts2), and then amongst the Gentiles commencing with the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10), which action he then defended to the council at Jerusalem in Acts 11. Peter being the one that established the early church, is therefore validation of Matthew 16 and the Lord’s unique statement to him, creating the setting and providing him with the opportunity, wherewithal, and confirmation by heaven via the Holy Ghost to do so (collectively, “the keys”). Note too, that the Holy Ghost falling on individuals uniquely as it did on both occasions, were the only times recorded in the bible for such happening in the manner it did. Both events, that of Acts 2 and Acts 10, were done with heavenly power and authority as noted above, since in both cases, the Holy Ghost demonstrated said power and authority by its physical presence, falling on individuals in both cases as a sign to those present, giving validity to, and substantiation from heaven of Peter’s actions, consistent with the use of the word “of” in Matthew 16:19.

The rock - In Matthew 16:18, it's obvious that Peter isn't the rock but rather Christ is, since he is recognized as being the chief cornerstone and/or foundation per the scriptures (Ephesians 2:20, Psalm 118:22-23, Isaiah 28:16, Matthew 21:42-44, 1Cor 3:11, Acts 4:11). Also, Peter in Greek is 'Petros' Πέτρος or Cephas, [masculine gender in the Greek meaning a stone or boulder (Strong's), or rock, individual stone, more insecure or moveable], and the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 is “petra”, πέτρα (feminine gender in the Greek), being rock, cliff, solid formation, solid foundation, bedrock, large rock formation, immoveable and enduring. Also, the church is referred to as being the “bride”, “chaste virgin”, “her” (feminine), etc., and Christ being the bridegroom, which further substantiates the use of “petra” rather than “petros”. If Christ's intent was to build his church upon Peter, why wouldn't he have said "and upon you I will build my church", or “upon petros, or you, Petros I will build my church” and not "upon this rock" (petra)? Also note that if Peter was established as the so-called first pope and head of the church (as erroneously claimed by Catholics), 1. Why did the Lord say “get thee behind me Satan” to him in Matthew 16:23? and 2. Why did the disciples quarrel amongst themselves (Luke 9:46) as to who would be the greatest among them, which occurred AFTER Peter’s statement as to who Jesus was (Luke 9:20 and parallel verse Mat 16:16)? and 3. Why was there contention between Peter and Paul as recorded in Acts 15:2 and Gal 2:11-14 if Peter was the head of the church? and 4. Why did the council at Jerusalem send Peter and John to Samaria (Acts8:14) if Peter was the head of the church, yet taking direction from the council at Jerusalem? Also note that no man (in a religious sense, Mat 23:8-9), is to be called father on earth, yet the pope is commonly referred to as the “Holy Father”. And too, Christ is the head of the church which is his body, not Peter (Eph 5:23, Col 1:18)

Hi D,
Of the kingdom of heaven is correct.
What is the difference in your mind? Between of the kingdom and to the kingdom? I don't think Jesus meant that Peter could go to heaven. When the key of a city if given here, it means the person is welcomed there. Instead Jesus meant to build His church.

Jesus was giving keys, which represent authority, to Peter to establish the church Jesus wanted here on earth because He was not accepted by Jews and so He began His own. This wasn't His original intent since He came for His sheep, His brethren, but eventually it came to this. His brethren killed Him.

Also, I'd be interested in knowing why this is such an important topic in Protestantism. Personally, I don't understand the concern over it. Why do you care if Catholics want to call Peter the first Pope?

It's not really correct to say that Peter was the FIRST Pope,,,as far as history is concerned, I'd say he was one of the first Popes...of which there were 5, for the 5 important Christian areas of the time. However, Peter was an Apostle of Jesus so when there was a question among the other Popes, they did turn to Peter for an answer.

Eventually it was decided that only one of the 5 Bishops (Popes) would be given the title of Pope and, of course, it was centered in Rome where Peter presided as Bishop - but Peter was dead by this time. If I remember right, this happened in the 600's.

It's church history...easy to read about.

 

[GodsGrace]

Believe what you like. Create man made popes to bow down to and worship and follow fallacies of the traditions of men. There is no scriptural support for Peter being the leader of the church world wide nor a succession process propagating the continuation of this false position.

Popes are not supposed to be worshipped. If someone wishes to do that, it's his personal decision - the CC does not teach this.

We all follow traditions of men, whether we wish to admit it or not.
The traditions the CC follows are passed down from the Apostles.

Do we Protestants not want to know any history?
Does history END with the book of Revelation or Acts...
or does the church continue on? Does world history continue on?
Peter was indeed the leader of the church since other important bishops turned to him,
the bishop of Rome, for clarification on issues that arose.
There were heads of churches in the beginning - they were called Bishops.
The 5 most important Bishops were called Popes.
The office of the Pope is called Pontificio...it means a bridge....
a bridge between God and man.

It's good that Jesus is our mediator, but it's good to have a person at the top of an organization.
If you belong to a church, even Your church has a person that runs the entire organization.

 

[donadams]

Why is Peter even mentioned?
Why does Jesus change His name?
Why does Jesus say Peter is blessed?
Why does Jesus give Peter the keys of the kingdom (jurisdictional authority)
Why does Jesus give Peter power to bind and loose?
Why does scripture say God chose Peter? Acts 15:7
What does Peter standing up signify? Acts 1:15 & 15:7


Matt 16:17
Jesus declares Peter’s person not confession to be blessed!

Peter is the rock chosen by God!

Peter’s person is blessed and chosen not Peter’s confession?

Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

God chose Peter!

Matt 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Is Peter’s person blessed or Peter’s confession?
Does Peter’s confession or Peter’s person receive divine revelation?

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

When God changes a man’s name abram to Abraham or Jacob to Israel or Simon to Peter it signifies an office!

Is Peter’s person or Peter’s confession who’s name is changed?

And! Peter and rock are the same!

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Does Christ gives the keys to Peter’s person or Peter’s confession?

Does Christ give the power to bind and loose to Peter’s person or to a confession?

Did the Father send Christ or a confession of Christ?

Jesus Christ is the rock of salvation!

Peter is the rock that the church is built on by Christ!

Christ sends Peter not his confession!

Lk 22:32
Jesus prays for Peter alone, and instructed peter to minister to the other apostles

Jn 21:17 Peter entrusted with the flock or church

Only Peter and His successors have
Jurisdictional authority from Christ to govern the church!

Already acting in the person of Christ even acting as intermediary!

It is Jesus Christ who identifies peter with himself!

Matt 17:24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the houser, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

It is Jesus Christ who identifies peter with himself! Matt 17:27

Jesus Christ gives the keys of the kingdom to peter matt 16:18-19 making him prime minister applying Isa 22:21-22 to peter

 

[donadams]

Isa 22:21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.

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

23 And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house.

24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons.

 

[donadams]

Yes; it's your church, not the Lord's.

Then pray tell: what is Christ’s church?

Thanks

 

[DJT_47]

Then pray tell: what is Christ’s church?

Thanks

The Lord's church is not the catholic church. You see in Acts 2:47 that the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Acts 2:41
41Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts2:47
47Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

How is one saved?
1. Belief
2. Confession of belief
3. Repentance
4. Immersion in water (baptism) for the remission of sins.

It's not sprinkling water on a baby who can't believe, who has no sin, who can't confess his/her belief and faith in Christ, who can't repent nor has any need to do so, who can't choose to be added to the body of Christ. It's biblical process versus man contrived distorted process.

 

[donadams]

The Lord's church is not the catholic church. You see in Acts 2:47 that the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Acts 2:41
41Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts2:47
47Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

How is one saved?
1. Belief
2. Confession of belief
3. Repentance
4. Immersion in water (baptism) for the remission of sins.

It's not sprinkling water on a baby who can't believe, who has no sin, who can't confess his/her belief and faith in Christ, who can't repent nor has any need to do so, who can't choose to be added to the body of Christ. It's biblical process versus man contrived distorted process.

It don’t say you are saved, it says shall be saved!

Must persevere to the end in Christ! Jn 15:4 Matt 24:13

Infant baptism follows

 

[donadams]

Acts 2:38-39 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Promise is to you’re children! Vs 39

This promise made in ez 36
A promise from God is a sacred oath, and a sacred oath is a sacrament!

Ez 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Jn 3:5 born again by water and the spirit.

Acts 16:15 entire household baptized! Does not say adults only or except infants!

Ez 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness.

(It does not say adults only or except infants!)
(Scripture does not say anywhere “do not baptized infants”)

Baptism is the Christian initiation sacrament of the new covenant for all men. Matt 28:19 Jn 1:29 Jn 3:16

1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (It does not say except infants!) (but it does say “all”)!

Lk 1:10-11 all people including infants

Thee faith is required for adult baptism.
Mk 16:16 acts 8:36-38

If it’s not possible (as in the case of infants) it’s not required.

But the promise of the parents to raise and educate the child in the faith is required, then the child is confirmed in thee faith at the age of reason.

Repentance is required for adult baptism. Acts 2:38

If there is no personal sin to repent of (as in the case of infants) then it’s not required.

For two thousand years the church founded by Christ on Peter and the apostles has always baptized infants!

Acts 1:8
Witness of Augustine!

It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that INFANT is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, "Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents" or "by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him," but, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit." The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 408]).

“The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration” (ibid., 2:27:43).

“Baptism washes away all, absolutely all, our sins, whether of deed, word, or thought, whether sins original or added, whether knowingly or unknowingly contracted” (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 3:3:5 [A.D. 420]).

“This is the meaning of the great sacrament of baptism, which is celebrated among us: all who attain to this grace die thereby to sin—as he himself [Jesus] is said to have died to sin because he died in the flesh (that is, ‘in the likeness of sin’)—and they are thereby alive by being reborn in the baptismal font, just as he rose again from the sepulcher. This is the case no matter what the age of the body. For whether it be a newborn infant or a decrepit old man—since no one should be barred from baptism—just so, there is no one who does not die to sin in baptism. Infants die to original sin only; adults, to all those sins which they have added, through their evil living, to the burden they brought with them at birth” (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love 13[41] [A.D. 421]).

 

[Mosheli]

Some years ago I was almost convinced by the Matthew 16 argument (which has been used since at least the synod of Whitby in 664) but I did some historical research on the early popes list and found it didn't hold up.

Matthew 16 says Peter is 'Petros' but the rock the church is built on is 'Petra'.

Peter was leader of the apostles but James was leader of the community.

There is no evidence in the Bible that Peter was (bishop of the church) at Rome, nor is there any extra-Biblical historical evidence outside of later Roman church writings.
The only possible biblical evidence is where Peter passes on a greeting from "Babylon" (which may have been a code name for Rome), but the verses don't say he was at "Babylon" just that he was passing on a greeting from "Babylon" (1 Peter 5:13). Another bible verse says he will be brought where he does not desire (John 21:18), but again this doesn't actually say Rome.

There is no hard historical evidence for the existence of the first 16+ bishops of Rome outside of christian church writings. Moreover there is evidence that the popes list matches the emperors list, the best examples being pope Alexander I matches emperor Trajan (who was corresponded with Alexander the Great), and pope Pius I matches emperor Antoninus Pius (same names, same dates, etc). For the pope to be Peter's successor all the bishops from Peter to Francis have to be historically proven to be genuine. If there is even just/only one false one then the line of descent is broken.

If the pope is really Peter's successor then how come he just passed a declaration allowing church clergy to bless same sex couples (when the bible is against Sodomy)? Revelation says to christians to come out of her (Babylon/Rome). The bible says call no man "father", but pope/papa means father.

If the pope is Peter's successor then they should not be secretly convincing pastors and christians behind the backs of the laity but they should be openly doing it. (I mean pastors and churches and forums etc should openly say they accept the pope as Peter's successor, rather than secretly or semi-secretly accepting it behind the peoples backs.)

 

[donadams]

Who did God choose? Acts 15:7

Matt 16:16-19
Is Peter’s person declared blessed or his confession?

His person received the keys of the kingdom or his confession?

Keys: jurisdictional authority

Why does Jesus identify Peter and himself exclusively Matt 17:27

Or give Peter over both the apostles (sheep) and the people (lambs) Jn 21:17