Sunday, June 29, 2008

Feast of St Peter and St. Paul: Kepha bar Jonah (repost)

(Internet search brought you here? This post can be read on my new blog which conveniently does not randomly cut off the right hand side of the text.)

Today’s gospel reading for the Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul reminded me of this entry and I thought I would re-post it. I just love it when suddenly a scripture passage comes alive for me and this is one that really has since I became Catholic.
Quote:

Originally Posted by someone on that Protestant homeschooling forum

I don’t really understand where you are going with this.

“Simon son of Jonah”…… “Barjonah” or “son of Jonah”…..it’s just telling you Peter’s surname. I looked at several Catholic Bible Commentaries online looking for the link, but this is all they came up with as well.

I’ve always understood the issue with this passage to be with what Jesus meant by “this rock”.

I asked because it’s one of the MANY things going on in that passage that we tend to blip right over. This passage of scripture has a lot going on in it that we tend to trip right over because we just don’t have the cultural glasses to read it with. And when I look at ALL of the details, the idea that Jesus is building anything on Peter’s statement of faith and not Peter himself, makes no sense to me whatsoever. It’s a dense DENSE passage and it calls on the symbolism of the place in which it was delivered, the culture in which Jesus was speaking, the symbolism of the Old Testament, as well as other things that Jesus said and did right after this happened to grasp just how firmly and thoroughly Jesus was making His point here.

Quote:
Matthew 16: 13-21 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 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.” Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah. From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.

When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi

You don’t just go to Caesarea Philippi from Galilee. It is a two-day journey deep in to Gentile territory. Jesus and his disciples would be considered ritually unclean because of their journey there and thus, it was not a journey to be taken lightly. In chapter 16 we see Jesus talking to the Pharisees and Saducees so He was obviously not in gentile territory right before this took place and nothing but this encounter with Peter is recorded as having taken place in Caesarea Philippi; therefore, Sacred Scripture seems to imply that Jesus went to this place expressly for the purpose of having this talk with his disciples at the foot of a huge rock.

Here is a picture of Caesarea Philippi:

At the top of this rock was a temple built by Herod in honor of Caesar. The rock itself was the site of the pagan worship of Pan who was the pagan god of sheep and shepherds. At the base of the rock is a huge cavern that at the time was considered bottomless. Human sacrifices were thrown into the cavern and the pagans called this place the “gates of death.” The rock is also the headwaters of the Jordan River.

He asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.

Ok here we see the reference to Peter being the son of Jonah. In the culture of the time, names and relationships are very important and always in scripture if God is changing a name it is a signal of something extremely important.

John 1:42 Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).

So if Peter is the biological son of John, why is Jesus calling him the “son of Jonah”?

The key to this is in Matthew 12

Matthew 12: 39-40 He said to them in reply, “An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah the prophet. Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.

Jesus is the sign of Jonah the prophet. And Peter is the “son of Jonah.” This is a statement of inheritance. Jesus is designating Peter as his heir. All by itself this might not mean anything, but it is one more intensifier to a passage that is deeply layered.

Jesus goes on…

For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

Peter has received a revelation from God!

Joseph became the steward of the Kingdom and the head of his 11 other brothers because he also received a revelation from God and nothing was withheld from him except the throne itself. One Protestant commentator (The Pentateuch vol. 1 Commentary on the Old Testament; Kyle and Delitzsch; page 352 as cited in Upon This Rock has even described Joseph as receiving the “gift of infallible interpretation from God” (Which is a pretty good understanding of what Catholics believe Papal infallibility to be.)

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

In English we totally lose the wordplay here, so it’s important to consider how this passage would have sounded as Jesus said it in Aramaic.

And so I say to you, you are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

The Aramaic, unlike the English, does not leave any room for wiggle room on the antecedants. Jesus is talking about Peter and not Peter’s statement of faith.

Jesus not only continues changing Peter’s name from Simon barJohn to Kepha barJonah; He is setting up an immense visual parallel here. Jesus the True Shepherd is standing at the base of this huge rock with a false church and the center of worship to the false god of sheep and shepherds with a pitiful mockery of the actual gates of death at the base and saying in effect to Kepha barJonah, “You are going to be bigger than this that you see right here. I, the True Shepherd, will build the True Church on you where there will be True Worship not like this false temple where they worship the false god with false worship. Through you will come the source of the True Living Water (remember that this was the headwaters of the Jordan) and the actual gates of hell and not this pathetic mockery of them….will not prevail!!”

But He’s not done yet…there is more…

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

What about the keys? Well remember that the apostles were steeped in the Old Testament. What do the keys represent in the Old Testament? That’s in Isaiah 22

Isaiah 22:20-25 On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family; On him shall hang all the glory of his family: descendants and offspring, all the little dishes, from bowls to jugs. On that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg fixed in a sure spot shall give way, break off and fall, and the weight that hung on it shall be done away with; for the LORD has spoken.

The King at the time of this passage is Hezekiah and his house steward/palace administrator is Eliakim. The office of palace administrator was one of great prestige and extreme power. It is similar to the kind of authority exercised by Joseph in Egypt (Genesis 41:39-40) AND the office of palace administrator passed in a parallel line to that of the King. In other words, the authority was passed down from generation to generation. I believe that Jesus is clearly referencing this passage in Isaiah with himself and the King and Peter is the palace administrator. The keys show up again in Revelation 3:7 when Jesus returns and the office of stewardship of Christ’s church on earth ends.

But Jesus is STILL not done. Just like in John 6, when He repeats and confirms the literal meaning of his words regarding the Eucharist to make sure that nobody misunderstands, He is doing the same thing here. And really given the significance of what He is saying, that is to be expected.

Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven

Additionally it is important to understand Jesus’ words in context of rabbinical terms because that is how the Apostles were most likely to understand the meaning of what Jesus had told them.

Jesus Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy pg 54
“The terms [binding and loosing] thus refer to the teaching function, and more specifically one of making halachic pronouncements [i.e., relative to laws not written down in Jewish scriptures but based on an oral interpretation of them] which are to be ‘binding’ on the people of God. In that case Peter’s ‘power of the keys’ declared in [Matthew] 16:19 is not so much that of the doorkeeper, who decides who may be admitted to the kingdom of heaven, but that of steward (as in Is. 22:22, generally regarded as the Old Testament background to the metaphor of the keys here), whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household.” R.T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1989), 247. as found in Jesus Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy page 54

I can’t say for sure, but I suspect Zondervan does not publish any Catholic books so the above comes from a Protestant commentary. In any case I think the meaning of this passage goes far beyond antecedents of ‘this rock.’ I think it is as important to look for OT context as well as the Jewish cultural context to a more complete understanding of the symbol of the keys that Jesus used. I highly recommend the book Jesus, Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy for an exhaustive study of the topic from the Catholic perspective as well as Upon This Rock. (And lest you think that Catholic perspective means an intellectually incestuous-type work by referencing only Catholic scholars and works, it is significantly referenced to Protestant primary sources and reference materials!)

Finally, this passage is wrapped up with this statement.

Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah. From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.

This marks the beginning of Jesus’ active preparation for death which further reinforces the idea that Jesus is bequeathing something here to Peter that is reflected in calling him Kepha barJonah.

That’s my Catholic understanding of the passage and why I believe that calling Peter the “son of Jonah” is significant.

Posted by Red Neck Woman at 20:36:22 | Permalink | No Comments »

Saturday, May 31, 2008

Authority and Church Hierarchy

I’m not really even sure how to introduce this. The following exchange took place on a completely different forum than the one I normally hang out on, but I had heard that there was some discussion going on about the “revival” phenomenon in Lakeland, Florida being led by Todd Bentley. (If you are curious just go to YouTube and do a search on those key words.) Anyway I started poking around this forum and found a whole ‘nother kettle of fish and I have SUCH a hard time keeping my mouth shut. I spent much of the afternoon typing up what follows so it will just have to suffice for a blog entry today.

Someone on www.revivalschool.com wrote:
Great response. Your opening comments are right-on. Even the part about Communion being a factor that unites the Church.

Nevertheless, I still don’t see a solid case for Catholicism being the “one true church” as your posts seem to promote.

We’ll start with the scriptures you cited about Communion (or Eucharist). The first scripture (1Cor 10:12,13) says that when we partake of the bread and cup, we are participating in Christ’s body and blood. Paul says in verse 17, “Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.” Could it then be said that those who rightly participate in Holy Communion are parts of Christ’s Body?

Now, who–other than the Catholic Church–says that this only counts in a Catholic gathering?

Well Eastern Orthodox Christians for starters.

Quote:
When a protestant participates in the Body and Blood of our Lord through Communion, are they not also communing with Him?

No. They are not. They don’t even pretend that they are in communing with Jesus in the same way and most Protestants I know go out of their way to say that the communion is only symbolic. In Catholic theology the Sacrament of Holy Communion is intimately connected with the Catholic Church’s teaching on marriage. It is not at all hyperbole to draw the parallel between the intimate communion enabled by the Real Presence of Jesus in Holy Communion and the act of marital intimacy. Many of the Church’s teaching regarding marriage, including the RCC’s rather unpopular and persistent notion that marital intimacy must be a total self-giving, life-giving embrace….ie….no artificial contraception. It’s also why Catholics are prohibited from receiving communion outside of the Catholic Church and why we do not knowingly allow those who are not IN communion with the Catholic Church to receive Holy Communion. Spiritual adultery anyone? Yes. It’s that serious.

We believe in the Real Presence not just because of John 6 or because He said “This is My Body.”….but because of the Old Testament support for it as well.

Communion as a symbol of Christ’s presence is a faint shadow of the Real Presence. As Protestants, you are not communing with Christ in Holy Communion in the same intimate way. That is not to say that you enjoy no communion with Jesus whatsoever. But it is NOT the same. The difference is kind of like the difference between getting a drink from standing in a mist and inhaling or drinking from a fire hose.

Quote:
My point is not Protestant “vs.” Catholic, but rather “AND.” Are we not all participating in the same loaf? Are we not all being unified with the same Head? Are we not all pursuing the same Christ?

OK. Seriously. After reading quite a bit on this board (www.revivalschool.com) you SERIOUSLY want to argue that you are unified with Catholics? That we are unified with the same Head? Merciful heaven! I am probably already on y’alls prayer lists for getting me “saved.” You don’t get it both ways. Either the Catholic Church is right in which case you are definitely not in communion and you need to be checking out your local RCIA classes (classes for those converting to the RCC) or you think that Catholics are apostates on the “road to hell” as I have read multiple times on these forums.

I understand this truly I do. If the Catholic Church is wrong about the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist…..I am guilty of horrendous idolatry. By the same token, if the Catholic Church is correct, then you (general non-specific you meant to apply to those who have rejected the Catholic faith) are guilty of rejecting intimate communion with Him.

Quote:
The second passage (1 Cor 11:18 & 29) admonishes that the food at their gatherings should not be gluttonously devoured by a few while the rest go hungry. The “disorder” you mentioned was not that the food was being shared by an unauthorized group of believers or that it was being administered by an unauthorized leader; the “disorder” was that they were not being considerate of each other and some were being excluded from partaking.


Sorry. But you are mixing up your early church problems here. 1 Corinthians 11:18-29 is speaking of the Eucharistic meal and those partaking unworthily and NOT of the other meal offered after worship.

Quote:
While it is true that those who partake without recognizing the body of our Lord eat judgment on themselves, it is also true that Jesus did not exclude anyone from participating in Communion–even Judas.


How is it possible that you believe that partaking of a symbol unworthily makes you guilty of the Body of Our Lord? If I tear up your picture, I might be guilty of disrespect but certainly NOT guilty of your body. As for Judas, it isn’t just a Catholic interpretation of the gospels that our Lord instituted the Eucharist AFTER Judas left the room.

Quote:
Next was Acts 14:23, which says that they appointed elders in every church. I will simply raise a question on this point and leave it at that: Before the elders were appointed in those churches, were they churches?

Yes. They were churches under the authority of the bishop. Elders (presbyters) were appointed to assist the bishop in governing ONE church that happened to meet in different places.

Quote:
When it comes to structure and authority, I have stated that I support these things. This may be a semantics game, but the word “Bishop” was used in the King James Version due to the bias of the Church of England. The word is better translated “overseers” and is regularly found to mean “an overseer of a small gathering of believers.” Regardless of the word’s meaning, it does indeed imply that the church should have structure.

Agreed. And yes, I think you are playing a semantics game.

Quote:
My concern, however, is that Scripture is full of warnings about false leaders and the fact that we should beware of them. The scripture you cited in Acts (20:30) says that “Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth…” And Jesus said to “beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing.” That means the most dangerous people will be those who rise up within the church and are not dealt with.

For this reason, we

WE?….excuse me but just WHERE does it say that individual believers are to execute judgment on on Our Lord’s Church? If you examine the writings of the early church fathers and the history of the early church, you can see the context of the warnings of those “wolves in sheep’s clothing”…it is those who teach without the authority of the Church. Or those who continued to preach heresy after they were disciplined by their local bishops. The mere presence of the writings of the ECF’s is stark testimony to the fact that the early church was indeed highly organized and the bishops held the teaching authority. They [the early bishops] wrote letters to churches in far flung places as if they expected that they had authority over these congregations and guess what? They DID! It is for the bishops to determine who are the wolves in sheep’s clothing and NOT for the lay people. In fact, it was the bishops who continually had to remind the faithful that they were to remain faithful to the teachings of the bishops and NOT make their own judgments about the many heretics running around.

Quote:
must continue to rely on discernment from the Holy Spirit and the Bible

which of course begs for the question…..What did they do BEFORE the Bible was written? And who was it that decided what was and was not Sacred Scripture? And how is it that so many people who accept without question the judgment of the men who were so full of the Holy Spirit that they were able to discern what was and was not supposed to be in canon…then reject what those men believed it to be say. They men who set the canon of Sacred Scripture were NOT sola scriptura. They were not sola fide. They believed in purgatory. They believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Back to my question? The canon of the NT was set at the councils of Carthage and Hippo in 393 and 397. (And before you say that everyone agreed on the canon anyway….no they didn’t. They reason for calling those councils was precisely because there was disagreement.) How on EARTH did those poor Christians most of whom didn’t have a copy of a single book of the NT and even if they did couldn’t read it….live a Christian life? How do illiterate Christians….and that would be that majority of Christians throughout history…..use the Holy Spirit and the Bible? And if they were supposed to use the Bible and not the living authority of the Jesus founded by Jesus Christ….why is it, that writing the Bible and then setting a canon wasn’t an early Church priority.

Quote:
to know whether or not a leader is distorting the truth or presenting it untainted. If the truth is being misrepresented, then we must point it out like Paul admonished Timothy (4:1-6): “The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth….If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed.”

Another really good verse in Timothy is this one…..

But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. (1 Timothy 3:15)

You will notice that the Church of the Living God is the pillar and foundation of truth. We have the canon of Sacred Scripture set by the authority of that church….not vice versa. Jesus didn’t write a book, he established a church using those flawed men called Apostles.

Quote:
You said not all of the men who succeeded Peter were good. Some were sinners. We cannot rightly judge the present condition of the church on its past condition, so don’t think I’m going there. My point is that those “bad” leaders still managed to stay in power–controlling Christ’s church during their “reign”–because there is a fundamental flaw in a rigid hierarchical structure: that being the difficulty for correction to come from people of lesser importance. I certainly don’t condone everything Martin Luther did, but look at how much trouble he went through to bring some much-needed correction to a corrupt hierarchy (which didn’t listen to even a part of what he said until only a few decades ago).

Just because something is hard to do, doesn’t mean it is impossible. The hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church….and the Eastern Orthodox Church….was established in Sacred Scripture and by the testimony of the lives of the Apostles and their successors. Martin Luther was not the only voice in the Catholic Church at that time, or before him, or after him for that matter, that quietly, persistently and fruitfully worked for reform. And reform when it does come from within the structure of the church bears much positive fruit. The Reformation was a blood bath and there were gross sinners on all sides. As many as 100,000 peasants were killed in Germany. By contrast the Spanish Inquisition  which killed perhaps as many as 10,000 in 350 years was a walk in the park! Not that I am condoning either btw!

Quote:
The Church Jesus instituted had clear structure and God-given leaders with authority, but by no means was it meant to be domineered and controlled by that leadership. No one was better than anyone else, and they were all mutually submitted to one another


In some respects they were submitted to each other. Servants of each other, but I am sorry there was a whole lot of “domineering” going on in the early church and some of it is even recorded in Sacred Scripture. The entire book of Galatians for example….talk about your dressing down!

Quote:
In Acts 19:30, Paul wanted to appear before a crowd, but the disciples (regular Christians) wouldn’t let him. I wonder how many times a group of regular Christians have kept a Pope from speaking to a crowd?

For that matter, you spoke of an anointing that is passed down from one Pope/Bishop to the next, and you said that only the Catholics and Orthodox can claim this. I have yet another question: If one of these leaders in the succession was evil–which history has proven has happened a few times–does that affect any “anointing” that might be passed down from that leader? Does God continue to approve of such a person and place His approval on them as “Patriarch of the Church”? Or does He remove their anointing (which is biblical)?

Well I would say that if anointing came from man then it wouldn’t count would it? And this whole apostolic succession thing would go up in smoke. But the anointing is something that comes from God working though us his servants. Just like Saul was anointed king and STAYED anointed king even when God anointed David as his successor. David understood that he was not the one to execute judgment on God’s anointed and that was for God himself to so. God might have used Samuel to bring the message that judgment was coming but Saul never ceased to be God’s anointed king until he DIED.

One of the earliest controversies in the church was what to do if someone was baptized by a person who later recanted the faith either through heresy or under persecution. The early church studies the matter and rightly discerned that it is God working through the Sacrament and that praise God….He honors His Word and works through flawed vessels. **I think that this has the added benefit of removing us from potentially sinful judgment of our brothers and sisters. I think it is a dangerous thing indeed to be deciding just who is and is not holy enough. Public sin is certainly scandalous but hidden sin is no less damaging to the body of Christ….should we be the ones to decide that God has removed His anointing from those who give scandal? What if they repent? How on earth would we deal with those with hidden sins? Frankly, I think it best that we keep our eyes peeled for our own sins and as much as possible leave the looking into hearts to God.

**I would have added the part about judging if Revival School allowed posters to edit their posts. Oh well.

Quote:
By the way, who passed the anointing on to Paul? He wasn’t one of the 12, and he didn’t really get along with Peter. Paul himself said that Christ appointed him. Could it be possible that Christ might appoint others to be apostles who are not a part of the established structure?

Just because he didn’t get along with Peter doesn’t mean that Peter didn’t anoint him. In fact, God worked through Peter to inflict the first ecclesiastical punishment (Acts 5:1-11); excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:21); received the revelation (Acts 10:44-46) allowing gentiles into the Church without circumcision and imposed that over the vociferous objections (Acts 15:19) of many (thus the entire book of Galatians)…yeah, he had a hypocrisy problem which led to Paul giving him a stern talking to but that doesn’t put Paul in charge.

Anyway, it is very clear that despite having seen the Risen Christ in a vision. Paul did not consider that mandate to apostleship in and of itself. He retired to the desert and met with Peter (for ordination?) before beginning his ministry. Galatians 1:11-24 In fact, I find it more than a little significant that in this epistle so clearly written to fight a heresy that Paul distinguishes his authority from other by his meeting with Cephas (Peter) in Jerusalem.

Quote:
It wouldn’t be the first time that God anointed someone unexpected when the presiding ruler was living in sin. The anointing of Christ comes from Christ; not from Peter.

Yes. Through Peter. At times, God may raise up others with special charisms to correct and to chasten those in the chair of Peter….such as St. Catherine of Siena….but God gave to Peter and his successors a special gift. I believe that God can work through sinful men who appear unworthy…..and I am grateful. It gives me hope after all.

Quote:
So in short, I don’t wish to create divisions in the church, but I am perfectly comfortable pointing out error where it exists.

By what authority?

I think this line of thinking is SO seductive. After all, what could be more simple that the Holy Spirit guiding me to Truth? What about those who are young in the faith? They have the same Holy Spirit. Right? Should they have the same authority to point out error? What if two good Christian people disagree? The same Holy Spirit is in both? How is it possible that they should then disagree? How is it possible that there are divisions in the Church? Well of course, the answer to that is sin! Right?

So….if I am right (because the Holy Spirit led me there) and you are wrong (and you say the Holy Spirit led you there) then one of us must not be hearing the Holy Spirit correctly. Right?

So this leads us to a very subtle sin of judging our brothers and sisters. Perhaps not even consciously. If I am right, it’s because I hear the Holy Spirit better than you do because I sin less.

I’m just thinking that line of reasoning isn’t at all in keeping with the teachings of Our Lord.

OR….does holiness and rightness go to the person with the best argument? Then is our faith a matter of intellectual prowess?

Quote:
To use one of the passages you alluded to, Paul said when speaking of division in the Church, “No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval” (1 Cor 11:19). I would take someone whose life is clearly approved by God through “fruit that lasts” over someone who has worked their way up a hierarchy to take a position of verbal teaching. As Paul said, “The Kingdom of God is not a matter of talk, but of power” (1 Cor 4:20). I have yet to see a Pope who works miracles like Jesus and demonstrates the power of God; and yet I know little old ladies and even children who work profound miracles in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 14:3–So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.

Studied papal history have you? You might be surprised at the number of miracles attributed to Popes throughout history. You could start here.  Beyond that if you are looking for miracles, look at the lives of the Catholic Saints! I know many miracles that happen in Catholic churches….even my little parish. By the priests, and the old ladies, and the children. Even so the absence of flashy miracles or reports of such is hardly a matter of disqualification for the papacy. God gives the charism for healing and miracles to those He wills and it’s pretty clear that not every one of us has it. It’s one of the reasons we need each other.

And speaking of miracles, where is the miraculous confirmation of Protestant doctrines such as symbolic Holy Communion?  Take a look at Eucharistic miracles here. 

Posted by Red Neck Woman at 23:49:15 | Permalink | No Comments »

Friday, March 7, 2008

Kepha barJonah….

Quote:
Originally Posted by someone on that Protestant homeschooling forum
I don’t really understand where you are going with this.

“Simon son of Jonah”…… “Barjonah” or “son of Jonah”…..it’s just telling you Peter’s surname. I looked at several Catholic Bible Commentaries online looking for the link, but this is all they came up with as well.

I’ve always understood the issue with this passage to be with what Jesus meant by “this rock”.

I asked because it’s one of the MANY things going on in that passage that we tend to blip right over. This passage of scripture has a lot going on in it that we tend to trip right over because we just don’t have the cultural glasses to read it with. And when I look at ALL of the details, the idea that Jesus is building anything on Peter’s statement of faith and not Peter himself, makes no sense to me whatsoever. It’s a dense DENSE passage and it calls on the symbolism of the place in which it was delivered, the culture in which Jesus was speaking, the symbolism of the Old Testament, as well as other things that Jesus said and did right after this happened to grasp just how firmly and thoroughly Jesus was making His point here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew 16: 13-21
When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 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.” Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah. From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.

When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi

You don’t just go to Caesarea Philippi from Galilee. It is a two-day journey deep in to Gentile territory. Jesus and his disciples would be considered ritually unclean because of their journey there and thus, it was not a journey to be taken lightly. In chapter 16 we see Jesus talking to the Pharisees and Saducees so He was obviously not in gentile territory right before this took place and nothing but this encounter with Peter is recorded as having taken place in Caesarea Philippi; therefore, Sacred Scripture seems to imply that Jesus went to this place expressly for the purpose of having this talk with his disciples at the foot of a huge rock.

Here is a picture of Caesarea Philippi:

At the top of this rock was a temple built by Herod in honor of Caesar. The rock itself was the site of the pagan worship of Pan who was the pagan god of sheep and shepherds. At the base of the rock is a huge cavern that at the time was considered bottomless. Human sacrifices were thrown into the cavern and the pagans called this place the “gates of death.” The rock is also the headwaters of the Jordan River.

he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.

Ok here we see the reference to Peter being the son of Jonah. In the culture of the time, names and relationships are very important and always in scripture if God is changing a name it is a signal of something extremely important.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John 1:42
Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).

So if Peter is the biological son of John, why is Jesus calling him the “son of Jonah”?

The key to this is in Matthew 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew 12: 39-40
He said to them in reply, “An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah the prophet. Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.

Jesus is the sign of Jonah the prophet. And Peter is the “son of Jonah.” This is a statement of inheritance. Jesus is designating Peter as his heir. All by itself this might not mean anything, but it is one more intensifier to a passage that is deeply layered.

Jesus goes on…

For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

Peter has received a revelation from God!

Joseph became the steward of the Kingdom and the head of his 11 other brothers because he also received a revelation from God and nothing was withheld from him except the throne itself. One Protestant commentator (The Pentateuch vol. 1 Commentary on the Old Testament; Kyle and Delitzsch; page 352 as cited in Upon This Rock has even described Joseph as receiving the “gift of infallible interpretation from God” (Which is a pretty good understanding of what Catholics believe Papal infallibility to be.)

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

In English we totally lose the wordplay here, so it’s important to consider how this passage would have sounded as Jesus said it in Aramaic.

And so I say to you, you are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

The Aramaic, unlike the English, does not leave any room for wiggle room on the antecedants. Jesus is talking about Peter and not Peter’s statement of faith.

Jesus not only continues changing Peter’s name from Simon barJohn to Kepha barJonah; He is setting up an immense visual parallel here. Jesus the True Shepherd is standing at the base of this huge rock with a false church and the center of worship to the false god of sheep and shepherds with a pitiful mockery of the actual gates of death at the base and saying in effect to Kepha barJonah, “You are going to be bigger than this that you see right here. I, the True Shepherd, will build the True Church on you where there will be True Worship not like this false temple where they worship the false god with false worship. Through you will come the source of the True Living Water (remember that this was the headwaters of the Jordan) and the actual gates of hell and not this pathetic mockery of them….will not prevail!!”

But He’s not done yet…there is more…

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

What about the keys? Well remember that the apostles were steeped in the Old Testament. What do the keys represent in the Old Testament? That’s in Isaiah 22

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isaiah 22:20-25
On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family; On him shall hang all the glory of his family: descendants and offspring, all the little dishes, from bowls to jugs. On that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg fixed in a sure spot shall give way, break off and fall, and the weight that hung on it shall be done away with; for the LORD has spoken.

The King at the time of this passage is Hezekiah and his house steward/palace administrator is Eliakim. The office of palace administrator was one of great prestige and extreme power. It is similar to the kind of authority exercised by Joseph in Egypt (Genesis 41:39-40) AND the office of palace administrator passed in a parallel line to that of the King. In other words, the authority was passed down from generation to generation. I believe that Jesus is clearly referencing this passage in Isaiah with himself and the King and Peter is the palace administrator. The keys show up again in Revelation 3:7 when Jesus returns and the office of stewardship of Christ’s church on earth ends.

But Jesus is STILL not done. Just like in John 6, when He repeats and confirms the literal meaning of his words regarding the Eucharist to make sure that nobody misunderstands, He is doing the same thing here. And really given the significance of what He is saying, that is to be expected.

Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven

Additionally it is important to understand Jesus’ words in context of rabbinical terms because that is how the Apostles were most likely to understand the meaning of what Jesus had told them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesus Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy pg 54
“The terms [binding and loosing] thus refer to the teaching function, and more specifically one of making halachic pronouncements [i.e., relative to laws not written down in Jewish scriptures but based on an oral interpretation of them] which are to be ‘binding’ on the people of God. In that case Peter’s ‘power of the keys’ declared in [Matthew] 16:19 is not so much that of the doorkeeper, who decides who may be admitted to the kingdom of heaven, but that of steward (as in Is. 22:22, generally regarded as the Old Testament background to the metaphor of the keys here), whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household.” R.T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1989), 247. as found in Jesus Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy page 54

I can’t say for sure, but I suspect Zondervan does not publish any Catholic books so the above comes from a Protestant commentary. In any case I think the meaning of this passage goes far beyond antecedents of ‘this rock.’ I think it is as important to look for OT context as well as the Jewish cultural context to a more complete understanding of the symbol of the keys that Jesus used. I highly recommend the book Jesus, Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy for an exhaustive study of the topic from the Catholic perspective as well as Upon This Rock. (And lest you think that Catholic perspective means an intellectually incestuous-type work by referencing only Catholic scholars and works, it is significantly referenced to Protestant primary sources and reference materials!)

Finally, this passage is wrapped up with this statement.

Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah. From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.

This marks the beginning of Jesus’ active preparation for death which further reinforces the idea that Jesus is bequeathing something here to Peter that is reflected in calling him Kepha barJonah.

That’s my Catholic understanding of the passage and why I believe that calling Peter the “son of Jonah” is significant.

Posted by Red Neck Woman at 23:21:46 | Permalink | Comments (5)

Friday, February 22, 2008

Peter the Son of Jonah?

I woke up this morning meditating on Matthew 16:17 and lo and behold it’s the Feast of the Chair of Peter. Cool. So often as Catholics discussing our faith with our separated brothers and sisters, we (by which I mean me and am hoping that I am not the only one) get caught up in arguing the whole petros/petra (link opens PDF file) issue that we run the risk of missing some of the other interesting aspects of Matthew 16.

So if Peter is the biological son of John (John 1:42 Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).); then, what point is He making in Matthew 16:17 when He says “Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.”

What does Jesus mean by calling Peter the “son of Jonah” or “bar-Jonah”?

Jesus mentions also in Matthew 12:39-41 “He said to them in reply, “An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah the prophet. Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. At the judgment, the men of Nineveh will arise with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and there is something greater than Jonah here.” This exchange is also recorded in Luke 11. 

Jesus is the “sign of Jonah.” He died and resurrected. And he calls Peter specifically, the “son of Jonah.” As the the spiritual son of Jesus, Peter is entitled to an inheritance from Him. Jesus goes on to spell out what that inheritance will be. ”…and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 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.”

Yes, we are all inheritors in the sense that we are all part of Jesus’ family, but Peter is singled out for a special inheritance and calling Peter the son of Jonah is just another reason why Catholics believe that the Chair of Peter is special.

Happy Feast Day!

Posted by Red Neck Woman at 17:25:17 | Permalink | No Comments »

Friday, November 23, 2007

Apostolic Tessellation

Originally Posted on that Protestant homescooling forum:
I saw your outline, but I really would love scripture. Where does it say in the Bible that the apostleship of Peter was passed down directly throughout the ages. Scripture in context. No one in the Catholic Church has done this for me (and I have many friends in the RCC, I might add) I went to school with them. lol.

Why? I don’t mean that question to sound snarky. Let me explain my perspective. The first time my children do a task they get lots of instruction. The second time less so. The third time even less and so forth. At some point in the learning process, I get to hit the high points and move on to better things. At some point, I get to assume that we have verbs nailed and we can move onto other more complex grammatical structures. Does that mean verbs aren’t important? NO! It means, that I have already said it and demonstrated it so many times that I am going to assume that if they don’t know that part they can brush up and move onto the rest. If someone were to look at written instructions I leave for my children regarding their grammar and didn’t take into account previous instruction on verbs, one might assume that I didn’t believe that verbs were important anymore.

Or put another way. I am certainly not a mathematician but with issues such as this it helps me to view scripture as a tessellation or even more complex than that more like a simple fractal. A growing polynomial that with each new iteration reveals a clearer view of the overall but at its core remains the same. Each repetition of the pattern locks things more completely into place. Each step is built on the last and together they all click into place and provide a revealing picture. Once the pattern is established, it is only necessary to clearly delineate changes from it.

God’s pattern of authority starts with the husband and father of a family. We see this early in Genesis when God says to Eve “yet your urge shall be for your husband and he shall be your master.” (Genesis 3:16b NAB) As I outlined in my previous post, this pattern repeats it is reiterated within the family and used to establish authority within the Jewish faith and in Israel. God chooses the first leader(s) and then that leadership is passed on through them. That is the scriptural context. If Jesus meant to do something different; then, I would expect that to be clearly spelled out. If He meant, that authority in His Church would be passed along in a way similar to what was already established in scripture and culture, I would expect there to be minimal instruction. So when in Matthew 16:13-19 Jesus says “And so I say to you, you are Peter [Rock], and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 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.” I see this as a commissioning of leadership in a manner similar to Aaron, Elijah, and David…the expectation is that leadership will continue from Peter. Time and again we see in the NT, that Peter is the chief apostle. (And I am cheating here with an apologetic list, I can come up with many of these on my own but I would not be able to be quite so thorough on my own.) Jesus tells Peter that his faith my strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32), is given charge of feeding Jesus’ sheep (John 21:17); Jesus’ resurrection was announced to Peter by an angel (Mark 16:7); headed the meeting which elected Matthias (Acts 1:13-26); led the Apostles in preaching on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14); received first coverts (Acts 2:41); performed first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7); inflicted first Church punishment (Acts 5:1-11); excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:21); received revelation to admit Gentiles into church; (Acts 10:44-46); led first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:7); pronounces first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:19); Paul visits chief Apostle after conversion (Gal 1:18); etc…. Early church history confirms the legacy of a chief apostle, the writing of the early church father line up with the pattern established in scripture.

That’s the pattern as I see it. Apostolic succession fits the tessellation/fractal of scripture and that is further supported by early church history and the writings of the early church fathers. If the equation needed to be altered, then that would have needed clear and detailed instructions. There aren’t clear scriptures spelling it out because they aren’t necessary. Spiritual succession with a named leader and then proceeding from him is what would be expected given the pattern of all previous scripture. The burden of proof therefore, must rest on the contrary assumption.

Posted by Red Neck Woman at 05:10:00 | Permalink | No Comments »

Friday, November 16, 2007

Peter Wasn’t All That Special….Was He?

I’ve been told lots of times that Peter wasn’t all that special. Well he was special because he was chosen by Jesus to be an apostle but he certainly wasn’t the leader of the new Church. I’ve even heard it posed (but never by anyone who actually thought there ever was a Pope) that if anyone was the first Pope, it was Paul.

So what is it that the writers of Sacred Scripture were trying to communicate? Even today there are vicious contract negotiations among Hollywood “stars” for who gets first billing….so who gets first billing in Sacred Scripture?

Next to Jesus, Peter is mentioned more than any other apostle in Scripture (152 times).

He stood up and spoke on behalf of the apostles (Mt 19:27, Acts 1:15, 2:14)

He stood up at the birth of the Church at the Pentecost to lead them. (Acts 2:14)

The disciples were referred to as Peter and the Apostles. (Acts 2:37, 5:29)

Peter was given the authority to forgive sins before the rest of the apostles. (Mat 16:18)

He was always named first when the apostles were listed (Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) — sometimes it was only “Peter and those who were with him” (Luke 9:32);

John ran ahead of Peter to the tomb but upon arriving he stopped and did not go in. He waited and let Peter go in. (Jn 20:4)

Peter stepped out of the boat in the middle of the storm, even though they were all afraid they would die in the storm. (Mat 14:29)

Peter’s faith will strengthen his brethren. (Luke 22:32)

Jesus told Peter to “feed my lambs…tend my sheep… feed my sheep.” (Jn 21:15-17) The difference between a sheep and a lamb might be significant. A lamb is a baby, a sheep is an adult. Perhaps Jesus was asking Peter to take care of both the general people (the lambs), and the apostles (sheep).

Led apostles in preaching on Pentecost.

Received first converts and performed first Christian baptisms. (Acts 2: 41)

Performed first miracle after Pentecost. (Acts 3:6-7)

Inflicted first punishment on Annias and Saphira. (Acts 5:1-11)

Excommunicated the first heretic, Simon Magnus. (Acts 8:21)

Received revelation to admit Gentiles into the church. (Acts 10:44-46)

Led first council in Jerusalem. (Acts 15:17)

Pronounced first dogmatic decision. (Acts 15:19)

Posted by Red Neck Woman at 05:10:20 | Permalink | No Comments »

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Those Darn Keys…..

So much of the theological discussion that I engage in boils down to those pesky verses in Matthew.

Matthew 16:16-19 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 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.”

By what authority do we interpret Sacred Scripture? Does the authority to do that rest in our own understanding; thus, making our faith an exercise in intellectual prowess? Is that where the buzz phrase “saving knowledge” come from? How can we hope to be so sin-free, so pure-of-heart that we can hearly perfectly the Holy Spirit’s leading? If we are right, is it because the other guy is sinful and not listening? Or does the ONE Holy Spirit lead us to different conclusions? Are there really NON-essentials? And if they are non-essential why are they dividing us? And why do some think some things are essential and others think they aren’t? Why doesn’t the ONE Holy Spirit convict us all on the same thing? I don’t want to offend here but it seems pretty clear to me the seductiveness of this type of thinking. “I’m so IN with God that He has lead me to the correct place. And the rest, well, they’re working on it.” And if we ARE sinners, and NOT listening perfectly….to whom do we turn? Even the Jews came to Jesus and asked Him this MOST important question….By what authority do you do this?

Matthew 21:23-27 When he had come into the temple area, the chief priests and the elders of the people approached him as he was teaching and said, “By what authority are you doing these things? * And who gave you this authority?” 24 Jesus said to them in reply, “I shall ask you one question, and if you answer it for me, then I shall tell you by what authority I do these things. 25 Where was John’s baptism from? Was it of heavenly or of human origin?” They discussed this among themselves and said, “If we say ‘Of heavenly origin,’ he will say to us, ‘Then why did you not believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘Of human origin,’ we fear the crowd, for they all regard John as a prophet.” 27 So they said to Jesus in reply, “We do not know.” He himself said to them,  Neither shall I tell you by what authority I do these things. (See also Mark 11 and Luke 20)

Those keys are important. Do they represent authority? Or something else? I think too often we look to the New Testament to decide what a passage of scripture means to US….personally. Ya know….like WE were the center of the universe? Sure Sacred Scripture speaks to us…personally. But when it comes to matters of faith and dogma and doctrine, I’m thinking that what Jesus’ words meant to the Apostles is orders of magnitude more important than what they mean to me….personally. Suddenly the Old Testament becomes much more important. The Apostles didn’t have the New Testament to form their thoughts, to mold the dogma and doctrine the gave to the early church and was passed down to us both in the canon and in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. They were shaped by the Old Testament, the Temple, the sacrifices, the Psalms, and the liturgies of Jewish life. In the absence of instuction to the contrary, wouldn’t the logical assumption be that the Apostles would have understood Jesus’ words in the context of Old Testament symbolism? And so….the following exchange on Lifelong Learners.

Posited on Lifelong Learners:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Neck Woman
The idea that I can offer worship outside of the boundaries and authority Jesus established in scripture and that it will be accepted (as you suggested) because I would offer it with a “pure heart” is what I am objecting to.

I desire that for my own life and I rest in Our Lord’s capable hands to work that out in me. Until then, I am not trustworthy to step outside of the authority He established.

 
 

The reply:

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TranquilMind

The real question here is whether or not she IS “outside the boundaries and authorities Jesus established in scripture”. Based on the sum of your writings I have read this year, you assume this is necessarily so of anyone who is not RC because of your particular RC understanding of “the keys”. That makes perfect sense.

I do not think the scriptural witness supports this view at all. You are free to do what you do, and more power to you. However, HouseMouse and millions of others are not necessarily wrong and “out of the boundaries and authority Jesus established”.

 
What are “the keys”? I do know that Peter had the keys, but I don’t think the keys represent a Papacy, with a strict line of succession, nor does scripture support that view as the Kingdom grows exponentially, not in a linear fashion.

Many view the meaning of “the keys” being given to Peter as a directive to Peter having a special calling to be the first to “open up” the world to the gospel of Christ, when the original disciples had NO CLUE that it could ever extend outside the Israelites.

Note Acts 1:8: And you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you shall be my witnesses unto Jerusalem and Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” Hence, they were to be sent to Jews, to Samaritans (who were their bitter enemies) and to the Gentiles (to whom they didn’t interact at all!). This was really shocking, culturally, that the gospel would be for everyone, and it took significant time until this was fully understood by Peter and the others.

Peter was the impetus for the gospel to enter each group. He preached at Pentecost to the Jews, and many were saved, repented of their sins, came into the Kingdom. (Acts 13). After the “door had been opened”, so to speak, others entered and ministered there.

While Philip first preached to Samaritans (Acts 8), they couldn’t receive the Holy Spirit until Peter and John came and prayed that the Spirit be poured out onto them as it had on the apostles at Pentecost . They finally received. Peter opened that door as well.

Finally, you will recall that Peter was told to go visit Cornelius, a Gentile. God gave him a vision (a great sheet descended with all kinds of animals/birds, all of whom God declared clean) to make it VERY clear he was supposed to interact with a Gentile. In Acts 10, you can read the story that when Peter showed up and realized that God showed no partiality and that the Kingdom was for all, he reiterated the gospel message and the Holy SPirit fell on Cornelius and his house just the same as it fell at Pentecost - even on these Gentiles!

That was Peter’s Job, to open up the world to the gospel with his “keys”. And he did. Jesus is still calling his people and His leaders, just as he called people back then (and us today) and just as he called the Apostle Paul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Neck Woman

And I absolutely understand that you think I am in error. I will offer a simple and brief rebuttal since this is already quite the bunny trail in this thread. I am certain that neither of us is about to change our minds on the matter of authority but I am open to discussing this in greater depth IF someone else wants to start a new thread.

I think that it is important to not just look to the events and language of the New Testament in understanding how those steeped in the culture and symbolism of the Old Testament would understand what Jesus was communicating by giving Peter the keys. Note the similarities in the language Jesus uses in Matthew 16 to the following passage from Isaiah 22.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isaiah 22:20-25
20 On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
21 I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
22 I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.
23 I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family;
24 On him shall hang all the glory of his family: descendants and offspring, all the little dishes, from bowls to jugs.
25 On that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg fixed in a sure spot shall give way, break off and fall, and the weight that hung on it shall be done away with; for the LORD has spoken.
The King at the time of this passage is Hezekiah and his house steward/palace administrator is Eliakim. The office of palace administrator was one of great prestige and extreme power. It is similar to the kind of authority exercised by Joesph in Egypt (Genesis 41:39-40) AND the office of palace administrator passed in a parallel line to that of the King. In other words, the authority was passed down from generation to generation. I believe that Jesus is clearly referencing this passage in Isaiah with himself and the King and Peter is the palace administrator. The keys show up again in Revelation 3:7 when Jesus returns and the office of stewardship of Christ’s church on earth ends.

Additionally it is important to understand Jesus’ words in context of rabbinical terms because that is how the Apostles were most likely to understand the meaning of what Jesus had told them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesus Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy page 54
“The terms [binding and loosing] thus refer to the teaching function, and more specifically one of making halakhic pronouncements [i.e., relative to laws not written down in Jewish scripturesbut based on an oral interpretation of them] which are to be ‘binding’ on the people of God. In that case Peter’s ‘power of the keys’ declared in [Matthew] 16:19 is not so much that of the doorkeeper, who decides who may be admitted to the kingdom of heaven, but that of steward (as in Is. 22:22, generally regarded as the Old Testament background to the metaphor of the keys here), whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household.” R.T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1989), 247. as found in Jesus Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy page 54
I can’t say for sure, but I suspect Zondervan does not publish any Catholic books so the above comes from a Protestant commentary. In any case I think it is as important to look for OT context as well as the Jewish cultural context to a more complete understanding of the symbol of the keys that Jesus used. I highly recommend the book Jesus, Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy for an exhaustive study of the topic from the Catholic perspective. (And lest you think that Catholic perspective means an intellectually incestuous-type work by referencing only Catholic scholars and works, it is significantly referenced to Protestant primary sources and reference materials!)
 
 
 
Posted by Red Neck Woman at 23:55:55 | Permalink | Comments (1) »