Does Matthew 16:13-20 Support Papal Succession and Infallibility?

tomgroeneman's picture

HOT TOPIC --- This thread is moderated and posting policy will be enforced. Please see the positng policy and assure you are folllowing it. The posting policy can be found at http://www.ccel.org/node/546

Below is an exposition of the passage in question. What is your understanding of Peter as the rock? Can Papal succession by the laying on of hands since Peter be established? Is a Roman Catholic reading of these verses-that Peter's authority is invested in all Popes- acceptable?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew 16:13-20
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And 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. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

The Foundation of the Church
This passage begins with the simple question that Jesus asked: “Who do you say He is?”. Your answer will determine to a great extent how you understand God and the world around you. Many acknowledge Jesus as a teacher and prophet and important person in history. Others think of Him as a social reformer, community organizer or revolutionary. Some consider Him as their personal butler to answer their bidding whenever they need something or some kind of therapist. Your conception of God effects how you relate to Him and other people.
Many people followed Jesus but few knew or understood who He was. The disciples answered Jesus’ question by naming others from OT history and John the Baptist. King Herod, who beheaded John the Baptist, thought that he had risen from the dead and that is who Jesus was. There was the expectation amongst the people that a prophet would come like Elijah or Jeremiah to prepare the way for the Messiah and this was prophesied in the OT ( Deut. 18:18 and Mal. 4:5 ).
But Peter was the one to give the most complete answer of who Jesus was: The Christ. Christ is not Jesus’ last name but it is a title describing His being anointed as the Messiah of Israel, the savior and deliverer of the people who would establish His reign on the earth of peace and righteousness. Not only did Peter know that He was the coming one but also that He was the Son of God, the one true and living God, God in the flesh. This understanding came to him as a gift from God by revelation. The Greek word used here is apocalupto, to reveal, uncover or disclose, the same word used to name the book of Revelation- the Apocalypse, which has come to mean something beyond the simple meaning of unveiling. The point is that only God can open the mind of a fallen human being and reveal to them the understanding of who Jesus is. It is a blessing.
Jesus then uses a play on words to introduce the concept of the Church. The name Peter means rock and Jesus uses architectural language to explain the establishment of the Church. This rock can be understood in three basic ways. 1) It is Peter himself who is the foundation of the Church and this is by far the most widely accepted interpretation. Peter was indeed the prominent apostolic witness of the early Church and one of its primary leaders. 2) The rock foundation of the Church is the confession of Jesus being the Christ along with the message of the gospel that the Church is built upon. 3) That Jesus was pointing to himself and referred to himself as the rock. The Bible speaks of God being a rock in many instances so this is another possibility.
The word used for rock is the same as the word Jesus used in the sermon on the mount in Matt. 7:24. This passage encourages us to build our lives on a good foundation of hearing the word of God and doing it. When construction is done on a skyscraper, the engineers dig deep down into the bedrock so that the building will be stable and secure. The higher it is to be, the deeper the foundation must be laid. Church planters and the apostolic ministry lay the foundation for the potential Church. Their work is essential to its growth and prosperity. Eph. 2:20-22
Jesus said that He would build His Church. It is His divine work not the mere efforts of men. Because of this, it being the work of God almighty, the forces of darkness cannot overcome it. We do not need a lot of Churches if they are going to be weak, anemic compromised religious institutions but we do need strong, vibrant victorious Churches that are going to preach the word of God, evangelize the nations and storm the gates of hell. Too many Christians today are defeated by their own sin and compromise with the world. I would dare to say that many people in today’s Churches are not even saved. They have been baptized and are very religious and do good works but do they really know the Lord? Have they confessed with Peter that there is a Messiah and He is Jesus and He will save me from my sins and the fires of hell? Do they pray daily and read the Scriptures? Or are they still hanging on to vices and worldly music and movies? Do they cheat on their taxes and take advantage at work? How many of us truly live and walk in the power of the Holy Spirit and not according to the dictates of our own selfish flesh?
I want to be part of a Church that Jesus builds and I do not want to please the world and be like it but I want to overcome the world and defeat the enemy. Jesus promised the authority to bind and loose. This meant that what you forbid and allow will also at the same time happen in heaven. The verbs are in the subjunctive mood so it means that the outcome is conditional on what God ordains in heaven and how we use the keys that He gives us. God is working with us to bring about His purposes in the earth.
The Church has been established and will not be defeated no matter what Satan throws at us. The foundation was laid by the apostles 2000 years ago and you can read about it in the book of Acts. There was opposition and persecution and struggle and hardship but what Jesus promised has come to pass.

michael_legna's picture

It has more to do with not reconciling verses than their content

DanFugett said -
As you read on I address your case point by point.

I had read all of your posts before I made those points and you do not address each of my arguments point by point. You did in many places attack a point I was making by claiming it did not cover some aspect of the doctrine which I had covered in an interpretation of another section of verse. And when you got to that section you addressed it by pointing out how it did not cover some other aspect to which it was not addressed. But that could be as much to my poor presentation as to your dancing to your own rules of debate and ignoring the broader interconnection of scripture for the immediate context - which may explain why you cannot see these more expansive doctrines for yourself.

DanFugett said -
Also, we both know from our prior conversations I dont dance to your tune. I dont follow your rules of debate, intentionally. That is, I endeavor not to engage in tons of proof texting while ignoring the immediate context.

Oh I do remember your desire to avoid reconciling all of inerrant scripture with itself and opting for the simple approach of only taking the immediate context as significant. [My own biased view of your position :)] -- But that does not mean I have to fail to point that out to other readers when you resort to it.

DanFugett said -
What I have done here is provide a general alternative to the view of scripture you provided.

But that was what I was really addressing - that you put forward your doctrinal position simply as a matter of fact - stating your own positional opinion without any support being developed. It really doesn't do anything for another individual to hear what your position is if there is nothing presented to back it up. That was my point to your general response to my posts and it was indeed written after I had reviewed all of your five posts to make sure you did not respond to many of the points.

DanFugett said -
Then I took each text you tried to support your claim with and demonstrated those verses have nothing to do with apostolic succession. The successive posts develop an alternative view to yours and question how you use the passages you selected to support your theology. Embedded through my replies is the development of an alternative to the Roman Catholic view of the passage in Matt 16 that is under analysis.

The issues I pointed out in the general response were never addressed in the follow on posts you made and of course I based on my responses to your posts you will see I also do not accept your claim that you showed anything close to those verses having nothing to do with succession. I really do believe that you may not think they do but it has more to do with your choosing to not reconcile all applicable verses together than it does the verses not actually building a sound doctrine.




Advertisements