The Primacy of Peter

[jaybo]

It is obvious from this subject and the others you have posted that you just want to promote Catholic beliefs, whether or not they are supported by Scripture. As a Protestant, I look to the Bible as the source of God's truth, not to the inventions of fallible men.

You can cite all kinds of out-of-context theories, but that doesn't make them true. Here is what the Bible says...

"On the contrary, when they saw that I was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised] just as Peter was entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who empowered Peter for his apostleship to the circumcised also empowered me for my apostleship to the Gentiles) and when James, Cephas, and John, who had a reputation as pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we would go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." Galatians 2:7-9

That is directly from God's word. It says that Peter, a.k.a. Cephas, was entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised [only], not to everyone!

If Peter was the person that you claim he was, why didn't God entrust him with the gospel to the Gentiles?

This claim of the primacy of Peter is in direct conflict with what the Bible says. Should I believe your repetition of Catholic propaganda or God's word?

 

[Mungo]

It is obvious from this subject and the others you have posted that you just want to promote Catholic beliefs, whether or not they are supported by Scripture. As a Protestant, I look to the Bible as the source of God's truth, not to the inventions of fallible men.

You can cite all kinds of out-of-context theories, but that doesn't make them true. Here is what the Bible says...

"On the contrary, when they saw that I was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised] just as Peter was entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who empowered Peter for his apostleship to the circumcised also empowered me for my apostleship to the Gentiles) and when James, Cephas, and John, who had a reputation as pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we would go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." Galatians 2:7-9

That is directly from God's word. It says that Peter, a.k.a. Cephas, was entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised [only], not to everyone!

If Peter was the person that you claim he was, why didn't God entrust him with the gospel to the Gentiles?

This claim of the primacy of Peter is in direct conflict with what the Bible says. Should I believe your repetition of Catholic propaganda or God's word?

You are clutching at straws. Gal 2:9 has nothing to do with leadership.

If Paul was so important why didn't Jesus choose him to be among the twelve that he taught for 3 years?

Jesus changed Peter's name. He didn't change Paul's name

Jesus gave Peter singly the keys to the kingdom. He didn't give Paul the keys to the kingdom.

Jesus gave Peter singly the power to bind and loose. He didn't give Paul the power to bind and loose.

Jesus told Peter to strengthen his brothers. He didn't tell Paul to strengthen his brothers.

Jesus told Peter to feed his sheep. He didn't tell Paul to feed his sheep.

And there were many more examples of Peters's leadership among the apostles in the OP.

The scriptures for those are all in the OP. You need to believe God's words.

 

[jaybo]

You are clutching at straws. Gal 2:9 has nothing to do with leadership.

If Paul was so important why didn't Jesus choose him to be among the twelve that he taught for 3 years?

Jesus changed Peter's name. He didn't change Paul's name

Jesus gave Peter singly the keys to the kingdom. He didn't give Paul the keys to the kingdom.

Jesus gave Peter singly the power to bind and loose. He didn't give Paul the power to bind and loose.

Jesus told Peter to strengthen his brothers. He didn't tell Paul to strengthen his brothers.

Jesus told Peter to feed his sheep. He didn't tell Paul to feed his sheep.

And there were many more examples of Peters's leadership among the apostles in the OP.

The scriptures for those are all in the OP. You need to believe God's words.

I believe God's words, not your interpretation of them.

As I wrote earlier, Peter was designated the apostle to the Jews only. That is what the Bible says.

Among your errors...

Saul's name was changed to Paul.

Simply because Paul wasn't among the original twelve means nothing. He was chosen specifically by Jesus himself to be the apostle to the Gentiles, kings, and the people of Israel. "Go, because this man [Paul] is my chosen instrument to carry my name before Gentiles and kings and the people of Israel." Acts 9:15b That task was given directly by the Lord to Paul.

Writing that "Jesus gave Peter singly the power to bind and loose. He didn't give Paul the power to bind and loose" is nonsense. If you read the book of Acts, clearly Paul had the power to "bind and loose". For example, Acts 14:8, " In Lystra sat a man who could not use his feet, lame from birth, who had never walked. This man was listening to Paul as he was speaking. When Paul stared[aa] intently at him and saw he had faith to be healed, he said with a loud voice, “Stand upright on your feet.” And the man[ac] leaped up and began walking." And Acts 19:11-12, "God was performing extraordinary miracles by Paul’s hands, so that when even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his body were brought to the sick, their diseases left them and the evil spirits went out of them." Again, your words are contrary to Scripture.

Frankly, I'm surprised that, being a Gentile (as I assume) you aren't ever beholden to Paul, the chief apostle to the Gentiles. God gave him the task of bringing the Gentiles into His kingdom, not Peter. You just go on and on with Catholic teachings about Peter, forgetting that without Paul very few Gentiles, if any, would be Christians.

 

[Mungo]

I believe God's words, not your interpretation of them.

It's not interpretation. It's what scripture actually says

As I wrote earlier, Peter was designated the apostle to the Jews only. That is what the Bible says.

You are adding to God's word. Scripture doesn't say Peter would go only to the Jews. The incident with Cornelius shows that God sent Peter to Gentiles.

As I wrote earlier, Peter was designated the apostle to the Jews only. That is what the Bible says.

Among your errors...

Saul's name was changed to Paul.

No it wasn't.
"One of the often-thought-of “name changes” in the Bible is that of Saul to Paul. The change is commonly linked to Saul’s conversion on the Damascus Road, when the Lord Jesus commissioned him to take the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 9:1–19). However, at the time of Saul’s conversion, Jesus still addressed him as “Saul.” Later, Jesus told Ananias to find “Saul” in Damascus and restore his sight. Acts 9 goes on to describe “Saul” as increasing in spiritual strength and understanding of Jesus as the Messiah. So, it was not Jesus who changed his name on the road to Damascus. If it wasn’t Jesus’ doing, how did the change from Saul to Paul happen, and when?

The answer is that Saul’s name was also Paul. The custom of dual names was common in those days. Acts 13:9 describes the apostle as “Saul, who was also called Paul.” From that verse on, Saul is always referred to in Scripture as “Paul.”

When and why was Saul’s name changed to Paul? | GotQuestions.org

When and why was Saul’s name changed to Paul? Did Jesus change Saul’s name to Paul when Saul began following Jesus?

www.gotquestions.org

Simply because Paul wasn't among the original twelve means nothing. He was chosen specifically by Jesus himself to be the apostle to the Gentiles, kings, and the people of Israel. "Go, because this man [Paul] is my chosen instrument to carry my name before Gentiles and kings and the people of Israel." Acts 9:15b That task was given directly by the Lord to Paul.

Actually it means a lot.
Claiming it means nothing is just your opinion.

Writing that "Jesus gave Peter singly the power to bind and loose. He didn't give Paul the power to bind and loose" is nonsense. If you read the book of Acts, clearly Paul had the power to "bind and loose". For example, Acts 14:8, " In Lystra sat a man who could not use his feet, lame from birth, who had never walked. This man was listening to Paul as he was speaking. When Paul stared[aa] intently at him and saw he had faith to be healed, he said with a loud voice, “Stand upright on your feet.” And the man[ac] leaped up and began walking." And Acts 19:11-12, "God was performing extraordinary miracles by Paul’s hands, so that when even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his body were brought to the sick, their diseases left them and the evil spirits went out of them." Again, your words are contrary to Scripture.

Miracles is not the same as binding and loosing.
The fact remains that Jesus only gave that authority to Peter. I believe scripture not your fanciful interpretations.

Frankly, I'm surprised that, being a Gentile (as I assume) you aren't ever beholden to Paul, the chief apostle to the Gentiles.

You are easily surprised.

God gave him the task of bringing the Gentiles into His kingdom, not Peter. You just go on and on with Catholic teachings about Peter, forgetting that without Paul very few Gentiles, if any, would be Christians.

The incident with Cornelius shows that God sent Peter to Gentiles.

 

[jaybo]

It's not interpretation. It's what scripture actually says




You are adding to God's word. Scripture doesn't say Peter would go only to the Jews. The incident with Cornelius shows that God sent Peter to Gentiles.




No it wasn't.
"One of the often-thought-of “name changes” in the Bible is that of Saul to Paul. The change is commonly linked to Saul’s conversion on the Damascus Road, when the Lord Jesus commissioned him to take the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 9:1–19). However, at the time of Saul’s conversion, Jesus still addressed him as “Saul.” Later, Jesus told Ananias to find “Saul” in Damascus and restore his sight. Acts 9 goes on to describe “Saul” as increasing in spiritual strength and understanding of Jesus as the Messiah. So, it was not Jesus who changed his name on the road to Damascus. If it wasn’t Jesus’ doing, how did the change from Saul to Paul happen, and when?

The answer is that Saul’s name was also Paul. The custom of dual names was common in those days. Acts 13:9 describes the apostle as “Saul, who was also called Paul.” From that verse on, Saul is always referred to in Scripture as “Paul.”

When and why was Saul’s name changed to Paul? | GotQuestions.org

When and why was Saul’s name changed to Paul? Did Jesus change Saul’s name to Paul when Saul began following Jesus?

www.gotquestions.org

Actually it means a lot.
Claiming it means nothing is just your opinion.



Miracles is not the same as binding and loosing.
The fact remains that Jesus only gave that authority to Peter. I believe scripture not your fanciful interpretations.


You are easily surprised.



The incident with Cornelius shows that God sent Peter to Gentiles.

I believe scripture not your fanciful interpretations.

 

[jaybo]

You obviously chose to be the moderator of this forum so that you could hype Catholic doctrine. Unfortunately, there are those of us who believe the Bible -- what it clearly says -- not its interpretation by Catholic clergy. You go on and on writing about this stuff, but it would be far better for all if you stepped back, read the Bible and learned the truth as it came from God.

A perfect example of this is the hyping of Peter, a deeply flawed man. You make claims about him that clearly are out-of-sync with what God's word says about him. He was impulsive, violent, and a hypocrite. He is the only human in the Bible whom Jesus called "Satan".

Why don't you believe the truth about him? Never mind, I know the answer: it's what the Catholic clergy wants you to believe. And of course you go along with it (and many other myths). I truly feel sorry for you!

 

[jaybo]

Here is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

God's words say this...

"On the contrary, when they saw that I was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised] just as Peter was entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who empowered Peter for his apostleship to the circumcised also empowered me for my apostleship to the Gentiles) and when James, Cephas, and John, who had a reputation as pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, [not to Peter] they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we would go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." Galatians 2:7-9

Then you take one single example of Peter and Cornelius and say that "the incident with Cornelius shows that God sent Peter to Gentiles" One single incident that you use to contradict what God clearly said through Paul: a) he (not Peter) was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised and b) Peter was entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised. Paul wrote a second time to emphasize the point, saying "he who empowered Peter for his apostleship to the circumcised also empowered me for my apostleship to the Gentiles."

It's unbelievable that you take one single incident to contradict what God clearly said through Paul. Why must you persist in twisting the very words of God???

 

[Mungo]

You obviously chose to be the moderator of this forum so that you could hype Catholic doctrine. Unfortunately, there are those of us who believe the Bible -- what it clearly says -- not its interpretation by Catholic clergy. You go on and on writing about this stuff, but it would be far better for all if you stepped back, read the Bible and learned the truth as it came from God.

A perfect example of this is the hyping of Peter, a deeply flawed man. You make claims about him that clearly are out-of-sync with what God's word says about him. He was impulsive, violent, and a hypocrite. He is the only human in the Bible whom Jesus called "Satan".

Why don't you believe the truth about him? Never mind, I know the answer: it's what the Catholic clergy wants you to believe. And of course you go along with it (and many other myths). I truly feel sorry for you!

It's difficult to have a conversation with someone who is in deep denial of what scripture says

Jesus did change Peter's name
He [Andrew] brought Simon to Jesus, who looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Kephas” (which is translated Peter). (Jn 1:42)

Jesus did uniquely give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,…" Mt 16:19

Jesus did give Peter (singly) the power of binding and loosing
"…..and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Jesus did tell Peter to strengthen his brothers.
“Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” (Lk 22:31-32)

Jesus did tell Peter to feed his sheep.
Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep” (Jn 21:17)

The Father did give Peter a special revelation:
"Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven.” (Mt 16:16-17)
The Father could have chosen any of the twelve apostles to give this revelation, but he chose Peter.

But you are denying scripture.
it's not interpetation. It's what scripture says.

 

[jaybo]

It's difficult to have a conversation with someone who is in deep denial of what scripture says

Jesus did change Peter's name
He [Andrew] brought Simon to Jesus, who looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Kephas” (which is translated Peter). (Jn 1:42)

Jesus did uniquely give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,…" Mt 16:19

Jesus did give Peter (singly) the power of binding and loosing
"…..and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Jesus did tell Peter to strengthen his brothers.
“Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” (Lk 22:31-32)

Jesus did tell Peter to feed his sheep.
Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep” (Jn 21:17)

The Father did give Peter a special revelation:
"Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven.” (Mt 16:16-17)
The Father could have chosen any of the twelve apostles to give this revelation, but he chose Peter.

But you are denying scripture.
it's not interpetation. It's what scripture says.

I agree totally that it's difficult to have a conversation with someone who is in deep denial of what scripture says.

As I pointed out you simply cannot accept what Scripture clearly says. You claim, contrary to Scripture, that Peter was the apostle to the Gentiles and when I showed you from Scripture that you're wrong, you change the subject and repeat the same Catholic propaganda. One out-of-context verse after another proves absolutely nothing.

I have shown you what Scripture says about Peter's role and you change the subject! Do you want to go down that route? Jesus called one person "Satan", nobody else! Explain that if you want to change the subject!

 

[Mungo]

I agree totally that it's difficult to have a conversation with someone who is in deep denial of what scripture says.

As I pointed out you simply cannot accept what Scripture clearly says. You claim, contrary to Scripture, that Peter was the apostle to the Gentiles and when I showed you from Scripture that you're wrong, you change the subject and repeat the same Catholic propaganda. One out-of-context verse after another proves absolutely nothing.

I have shown you what Scripture says about Peter's role and you change the subject! Do you want to go down that route? Jesus called one person "Satan", nobody else! Explain that if you want to change the subject!

If Paul was the apostle to the gentiles then Peter to the Jews then why did Paul always go first to the Jews?

I also showed you that God specifically sent Peter to Gentiles.

You are in deep denial of scripture. You just ignore the clear examples of Jesus giving Peter leadership because you have no answer. Nowhere did Jesus appoint Paul as leader. Nowhere.

You just have no case so you just pretend the evidence for Peter is not there.

 

[jaybo]

If Paul was the apostle to the gentiles then Peter to the Jews then why did Paul always go first to the Jews?

I also showed you that God specifically sent Peter to Gentiles.

You are in deep denial of scripture. You just ignore the clear examples of Jesus giving Peter leadership because you have no answer. Nowhere did Jesus appoint Paul as leader. Nowhere.

You just have no case so you just pretend the evidence for Peter is not there.

"If Paul was the apostle to the gentiles then Peter to the Jews then why did Paul always go first to the Jews?" is an irrational statement (and poor grammar).

I also showed you from Scripture that Peter was the apostle to the Jews. You can believe the Bible or not; it's up to you.

You showed me that Peter aided Cornelius (who was sent to him). So what? That doesn't contradict what the Bible says about Peter's role.

You are in deep denial of scripture. I have shown you the truth from the Bible about Peter, yet you choose to believe Catholic dogma over God's word. Peter was a deeply flawed man who denied Christ three times. You can idolize him if you want, but never forget that Jesus called one person "Satan": Peter!

 

[jaybo]

Who was the disciple whom Jesus loved and asked to take care of His mother after He died? John, not Peter. Why didn't Jesus love Peter and why didn't He entrust His mother to him? Because he was deeply flawed.

 

[jaybo]

Oh, I get it!

According to Catholicism, Peter was the leader of the early church, even though he was a deeply flawed, violent man who was called "Satan" by Jesus and whom he denied three times. He was one of the apostles to the Jews and was shown to be a hypocrite by Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, (Galatians 2:14, "But when I saw that they were not behaving consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “If you, although you are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you try to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”)

And he was, according to Catholic teaching, "the first Pope". Thereby, all other Popes have the right to be deeply flawed men who are responsible for violent acts and can be hypocrites in their doctrine and behavior. No matter how flawed they may be, they can invent all kinds of strange, unScriptural doctrines and excommunicate (or worse) whomever they choose.

No wonder God used Martin Luther to rescue the Christian faith!

 

[Mungo]

"If Paul was the apostle to the gentiles then Peter to the Jews then why did Paul always go first to the Jews?" is an irrational statement (and poor grammar).

I also showed you from Scripture that Peter was the apostle to the Jews. You can believe the Bible or not; it's up to you.

You showed me that Peter aided Cornelius (who was sent to him). So what? That doesn't contradict what the Bible says about Peter's role.

You are in deep denial of scripture. I have shown you the truth from the Bible about Peter, yet you choose to believe Catholic dogma over God's word. Peter was a deeply flawed man who denied Christ three times. You can idolize him if you want, but never forget that Jesus called one person "Satan": Peter!

Who was the disciple whom Jesus loved and asked to take care of His mother after He died? John, not Peter. Why didn't Jesus love Peter and why didn't He entrust His mother to him? Because he was deeply flawed.

Oh, I get it!

According to Catholicism, Peter was the leader of the early church, even though he was a deeply flawed, violent man who was called "Satan" by Jesus and whom he denied three times. He was one of the apostles to the Jews and was shown to be a hypocrite by Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, (Galatians 2:14, "But when I saw that they were not behaving consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “If you, although you are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you try to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”)

And he was, according to Catholic teaching, "the first Pope". Thereby, all other Popes have the right to be deeply flawed men who are responsible for violent acts and can be hypocrites in their doctrine and behavior. No matter how flawed they may be, they can invent all kinds of strange, unScriptural doctrines and excommunicate (or worse) whomever they choose.

No wonder God used Martin Luther to rescue the Christian faith!

For someone who believes in scripture alone you post a lot of opinions and add to scripture. Paul never called Peter deeply flawed. That is your own invention.

You keep going on about apostles to gentiles and Jews, but as I showed Paul went to both Jews and gentiles, and Peter went to both Jews and gentiles. But whatever the truth of that it is irrelevant to this topic. Whter they went to Jews of gentiles is a matter of mission not leadership.

I showed from many scriptures that Peter was appointed leader of the apostles by Jesus and he was accepted as leader by others. You just keep ignoring them.

In the next post I will go more deeply into one of them.

 

[Mungo]

Jesus refers to himself as a shepherd
"I am the good shepherd. A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." (Jn 10:11)

He has a flock
"I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd." (Jn 10:16)

He is the successor of King David whom God promised would look after his sheep (Ez 34:23)

Then in John 21:15-17 he asks Peter to be the shepherd of his sheep
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my lambs.” A second time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep” (Jn 21:15-17).

Jesus is still the good shepherd, the sheep still belong to him, but he is giving them into Peter’s charge to look after on his behalf.

 

[Mungo]

There is more scripture about Peter's role as leader.

The theme of kingdom runs through Matthew’s gospel. Jesus is not just the Messiah but the promised Davidic king. He starts his gospel “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”

In Matthew 16:19 he uniquely gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,…
And he then continued, giving him (singly) the power of binding and loosing
…..and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
(Mt 18:18)

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,
who 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 to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

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 under the king (Jesus).

Now let us move to another interesting passage in Luke's gospel
In Luke 12 Jesus is warning about the end times and the coming of the Son of Man. Peter asks (vs 41) “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?”
Jesus replies to Peter “Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time?"
Jesus is saying to Peter that when a master goes away to a marriage feast he will leave one of this servants in his place to look after all the others including feeding them.

No move forward to John 21. Jesus is risen and is soon the go away to the Father. Jesus says to Peter “Feed my lambs.”(vs 15), “Feed my sheep" (vs 17).
Do you see the connection?

Jesus is the master who is going away and he leaves Peter "set over his household [the Church]" (Lk 12:42) and told to feed them. Not literally with food but to nourish then with sound teaching., and to look after them (“Tend my sheep.” (Jn 21:16).

 

[Niblo]

There is more scripture about Peter's role as leader.

The theme of kingdom runs through Matthew’s gospel. Jesus is not just the Messiah but the promised Davidic king. He starts his gospel “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”

In Matthew 16:19 he uniquely gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,…
And he then continued, giving him (singly) the power of binding and loosing
…..and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
(Mt 18:18)

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,
who 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 to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

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 under the king (Jesus).

Now let us move to another interesting passage in Luke's gospel
In Luke 12 Jesus is warning about the end times and the coming of the Son of Man. Peter asks (vs 41) “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?”
Jesus replies to Peter “Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time?"
Jesus is saying to Peter that when a master goes away to a marriage feast he will leave one of this servants in his place to look after all the others including feeding them.

No move forward to John 21. Jesus is risen and is soon the go away to the Father. Jesus says to Peter “Feed my lambs.”(vs 15), “Feed my sheep" (vs 17).
Do you see the connection?

Jesus is the master who is going away and he leaves Peter "set over his household [the Church]" (Lk 12:42) and told to feed them. Not literally with food but to nourish then with sound teaching., and to look after them (“Tend my sheep.” (Jn 21:16).

Well said.....all posts.

 

[Mungo]

Well said.....all posts.

Thank you Niblo.
Sadly jaybo will take no notice and dismiss them as opinions of mere men.

 

[Niblo]

Thank you Niblo.
Sadly jaybo will take no notice and dismiss them as opinions of mere men.

And what are Jaybo's opinions, if not those of a mere man?

 

[jaybo]

Thank you Niblo.
Sadly jaybo will take no notice and dismiss them as opinions of mere men.

Correct. I believe the Bible, not your personal opinions. Sola scriptura!