Banner

"...if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10). (Council of Orange: Canon 6)

Contributors

  • Rev. John Samson
  • Rev. David Thommen (URC)
  • John Hendryx
  • Marco Gonzalez

    We are a community of confessing believers who love the gospel of Jesus Christ, affirm the Biblical and Christ-exalting truths of the Reformation such as the five solas, the doctrines of grace, monergistic regeneration, and the redemptive historical approach to interpreting the Scriptures.

    top250.jpg

    Community Websites

    Monergism Books on Facebook

    Blogroll

    Latest Posts

    Categories

    Archives

    Ministry Links

  • « The Will is Not Free But In Bondage | Main | A Preaching/Teaching Pastor »

    Peter and the Keys

    Question: The Roman Catholic Church claims that the Apostle Peter was the first Pope. Much is made of the passage in Matthew 16 regarding Jesus giving Peter the keys of the kingdom. Do you have anything that would help me rightly understand this Matthew 16 passage?

    Thank you for your question. It is a very important one. You are right to say that Roman Catholics make much of this passage claiming that it teaches Rome's position on the Papacy in clear terms. In my opinion, the best treatment of the passage in question is found in Dr. James White's book "the Roman Catholic Controversy." The entire book is immensely helpful, and while written back in 1996, is just as relevant to the situation in our day. Roman Catholics, for all their claims, actually do not have history on their side in this debate. This article addresses this in summary form. However, regarding the Matthew 16 passage, rather than summarizing Dr. White's words, let me quote directly from the book, from Chapter 8 "The Claims of the Papacy", pages 115-118:

    Few would argue that the foundational passage on which the entire Roman Catholic claim for the Papacy rests is found in Matthew 16:13-20, verses 18-19 in particular. We are told that their plain meaning supports the concept. It should be noted that Rome has infallibly interpreted these verses in the words of Vatican I. It is one of the few passages of Scripture that have in fact been infallibly interpreted by the Roman Catholic Church (John 21:25-27 being another). Let’s look at Matthew’s record.

    He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”


    No one will deny that this is a singularly important passage. Here the Lord Jesus leads His disciples to a confession of faith in himself; the Father from heaven reveals the true nature of His Son, Jesus Christ.

    Yet we find these verses being used to support a concept seen nowhere else in Scripture. We are asked to believe that not only is the impetuous and frail Peter made the very foundation of the Church itself, but that this foundational position creates an office of Pope, and that this office involves successors who will sit in the seat of bishop in the city of Rome, 1,500 miles distant.

    Before we can discuss this passage, it is necessary to address the claim often made by Roman Catholic apologists: They say that we should imagine how Matthew’s words would appear in Aramaic, assuming that they were spoken in that language. Some even go so far as to say that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, the modern opinion on the subject has changed over the past decades. We could spend much time arguing about whether Matthew was written in Aramaic; I could cite Alexander Bruce 9, G. H. Schodde 10, D. A. Carson 11, and Robert Gundry 12. But I shall simply allow the leading New Testament scholar, Kurt Aland, to summarize my position: “There is no longer any doubt that Greek was the language in which all parts of the New Testament were originally written…” 13

    Much has been said by Roman Catholic apologists about what Matthew 16:18 would read in Aramaic. Some have asserted with complete confidence that they can tell us exactly what the Aramaic would be. Yet, is it not strange that when dealing with the eternal passage used to support the Papacy, they must appeal to a nonexistent, unknown “Aramaic original” that no one – no matter how great their scholarship- can possibly claim to be able to re-create with certainty? 14

    Anyone familiar with the comments of scholars on this passage is aware of the multitude of differing positions taken about it. I would first like to provide a straightforward interpretation of the verses, and then discuss some of the areas of dispute.

    The central theme is the Messiahship of Jesus Christ. Any interpretation that takes the focus off of Jesus as Messiah is missing the point. Jesus’ questions to the disciples about the opinions of the multitudes, and then their own viewpoints, are all directed towards His own person, His own identity. When Peter speaks up and confesses that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, he is confessing the faith of all the disciples, not merely his own. He often spoke for them all. Jesus’ pronouncement of blessing upon Peter is not because of any inherent goodness in Peter but rather his being the recipient of a great blessing from the Father. To Peter has been revealed the true identity of Jesus Christ. And, of course, this revelation was given to the other Apostles as well. We can hardly think that they all sat there amazed at Peter’s words, never having thought that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. The point of Jesus’ words is that to reveal the Son requires the enlightening work of the Father. The same theme is seen in John 6, where no man can come to the Son unless drawn by the Father. In that same context, when all the disciples turned away from Jesus, save the twelve, it was Peter who spoke for the disciples again, saying, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God” (John 6:68-69, emphasis added).

    When the Lord says, “I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it,” the focus does not change. The subject of the passage remains the identity of Christ, found in the confession of Peter. Jesus is not speaking of the identity of Peter; He is still talking about Himself and His Church. This is evident by continuing on through verse 20, where we read, “Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.” Some modern scholars, having missed the fact that the focus remains on Christ all the way through, are so puzzled by this passage that they suggest that it is not original. But such conjecture is not necessary.

    The rock of which the Lord speaks is that common confession made by all who are part of the Church: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. 15 This is seen, I believe, in the fact that while the Lord is addressing Peter directly, he changes from direct address to the third person, “this rock,” when speaking of Peter’s confession. He does not say, “Upon you, Peter, I will build my church.” Instead, you have a clear distinction between Peter, the Πέτρος (Petros), and the demonstrative pronoun preceding πέτρα (petra), the confession of faith, on which the Church is built.

    This statement is followed by the promise to give the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter at some time in the future, so that what he binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever he looses on earth will be loosed in heaven. I emphasize this is a promise, for the verb is future in tense. 16 Yet when we see this authority given in Matthew 18:18, it is given not to Peter alone or even primarily to him. It is conferred on all the Apostles, using the exact same language 17 regarding binding and loosing. If someone wishes to say that Peter receives keys in distinction from the other Apostles, as their superior, they are forced to admit that the actual giving of these keys is never recorded for us anywhere in Scripture, a strange thing indeed for something supposedly so fundamental to the constitution of the Church.

    Now, a Roman Catholic may disagree with my interpretation. But my interpretation makes perfect sense. It does not require leaps of illogic to see how I have come to my conclusions. This position has been held by Christians from the earliest days of the Christian faith. If the Roman Catholic Church can present an equally likely interpretation, I believe it would fail. Because, as we have seen, Matthew 16 is the last bastion 18 of the Roman cause. If concrete support for the Papacy is not here, then it is nowhere at all. And Rome cannot simply provide an alternative. She must be able to prove, beyond all question, the impossibility of all other interpretations. And she cannot do this.

    Notations for the numerical citations above are found in Dr. White’s book (available from www.aomin.org). - JS

    Posted by John Samson on May 10, 2012 01:40 PM

    Comments

    As for Dr. White's assertion that: "Yet we find these verses being used to support a concept seen nowhere else in Scripture. We are asked to believe that not only is the impetuous and frail Peter made the very foundation of the Church itself, but that this foundational position creates an office of Pope, and that this office involves successors who will sit in the seat of bishop in the city of Rome, 1,500 miles distant."

    First, of all, this concept is certainly found elsewhere in Scripture and specifically, in the person of an impetuous and frail Moses, Exodus 4:10. Secondly, those who rebelled at Korah were destroyed, Numbers 16. Even Moses' own sister and brother were admonished, Numbers 12.

    "Should there be a prophet among you,
    in visions will I reveal myself to him,
    in dreams I will speak to him;

    Not so with my servant Moses!
    Throughout my house he bears my trust:
    face to face I speak to him,
    plainly and not in riddles.
    The presences of the Lord he beholds.

    Why then, did you not fear to speak against my servant Moses?"

    This is especially enlightening since both Miriam and Aaron complained, "Is it through Moses alone that the Lord speaks? Does he not speak through us also? Num 12:2.

    Obviously, Moses had a privileged position. Yes, the frail and impetuous Moses. So, DR. White is obviously wrong here and wishes to pitch camp in Korah.

    So, too God instructed Moses as to a successor, Joshua, Deut. 31:14. Again, wrong Dr. White.

    Look, some people, like myself, do not simply take blind assertions by some PhD, Dr. so and so, without checking things for ourselves.

    To summarize to this point, God chose a frail and impetuous Moses, made him the foundation of Israel, gave him a privileged position above all others, with chosen successors, to lead them to a land flowing with milk and honey....what?? 1,500 miles? I don't know, have to Google it. How far from Cairo to Jerusalem, with a couple of detours along they way?

    Is it even worth addressing the rest of Dr. White's writing, when he starts of so badly?

    Some wise thoughts from Gregory "the Great," Bishop of Rome:

    "I have however taken care to admonish earnestly the same my brother and fellow bishop that, if he desires to have peace and concord with all, he must refrain from the appellation of a foolish title. As to this, the piety of my lords has charged me in their orders, saying that offense ought not to be engendered among us for the appellation of a frivolous name. But I beseech your imperial Piety to consider that some frivolous things are very harmless, and others exceedingly harmful. Is it not the case that, when Antichrist comes and calls himself God, it will be very frivolous, and yet exceedingly pernicious? If we regard the quantity of the language used, there are but a few syllables; but if the weight of the wrong, there is universal disaster. Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for, as that perverse one wishes to appear as above all men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he extols himself above all other priests. But, since the Truth says, Every one that exalts himself shall be humbled [Luke 14:11; 18:14], I know that every kind of elation is the sooner burst as it is the more inflated. Let then your Piety charge those who have fallen into an example of pride not to generate any offense by the appellation of a frivolous name.” (Book Seven, Epistle 33)

    “For I said that neither to me nor to any one else ought you to write anything of the kind; and lo, in the preface of the epistle which you have addressed to myself who forbade it, you have thought fit to make use of a proud appellation, calling me Universal Pope. But I beg your most sweet Holiness to do this no more, since what is given to another beyond what reason demands is subtracted from yourself. For as for me, I do not seek to be prospered by words but by my conduct. Nor do I regard that as an honour whereby I know that my brethren lose their honour. For my honour is the honour of the universal Church: my honour is the solid vigour of my brethren. Then am I truly honoured when the honour due to all and each is not denied them. For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally. But far be this from us. Away with words that inflate vanity and wound charity.” (Book Eight, Epistle 30)

    Bob,

    Amazing! Everything about your comment is totally irrelevant. Moses' leadership has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Bluster, bluster, bluster, heat, fire and noise, but when the smoke clears, its is more than apparent that nothing you wrote has any substance whatsoever.

    Patrick:

    Could you be a little more specific?

    God always chooses the weak, for His power is made perfect in weakness. That's in Scripture, in reference to Paul.

    Does God change His ways? I think not.

    He chose David, the last of brothers, who was too small for armor to fight Goliath. He chose Moses, who was what, 80 years old when he saw the burning bush. Hardly, a strong man.

    Did God not "regret" choosing Saul? Saul was not at that time weak.

    Patrick, the issue at hand is Dr. White's initial point of to believe or not not to believe God chose an "impetuous and frail Peter." I say yes, based on Scripture. Dr. White says no. I say he is wrong with Scriptural support.

    Looks like I have to continue to part 2.

    Dr. White wishes to rely on his assertion that the New Testament was written in Greek. OK, granted.

    But this in no way implies that Jesus spoke to Peter, or any of the other Apostles, in Greek! Why would he? I believe Jesus spoke to them in their mother-tongues, just like at Pentecost!

    So his argument fails.

    On to point number 3:

    "When Peter speaks up and confesses that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, he is confessing the faith of all the disciples, not merely his own. "

    Sorry, Dr. White, this is not in accordance with Scripture.

    You see, when Jesus was Transfigured, not ALL of the Apostles were present, but only three. Likewise, God chose only 1 Apostle to betray Him, not 12. Also, in the Garden before HIs Passion, some were closer than others. Therefore, there is absolutely not Scriptural support that Jesus treated all the Apostles equally.

    Finally, it is evident from Scripture itself, that the Apostle Thomas did not believe until he stuck his finger in the wounds of Christ. Actually, according to Scripture, Thomas was not even present at Jesus' first appearance.

    Therefore, one must believe that what Jesus said to Peter, was for Peter alone, and that Peter was not just speaking for the others. There is no, none, Scriptural support for Dr. White's assertion that, "this revelation was given to the other Apostles as well."...At least at this time.

    Bob,

    It does not matter if they spoke in Swahili or Chinese to each other, what matters is that the Holy Spirit's words are in Koine Greek. That's what is before us and that is what is inspired by God.

    You run for the hils and make much noise, but you have yet to show why Dr. White's exegesis of the text is wrong. I am sure this is clear to everyone and you are not doing your side any favors whatsoever by such flimsy arguments while not addressing the text of Scripture. What IS abundantly clear is that you cannot deal with the text and content of the article.

    Just FYI, Bob's latest comments have been deleted due to the tone and substance of his arguments. This is not the place to just rant and rage. The ridiculous claim he makes of there being 33,000 Protestant denominations has been thoroughly refuted - here: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2218

    Post a comment

    Please enter the letter "s" in the field below: