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:
|
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:
|
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. |
|
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:
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:
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!)
|
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.
Leave a Comment