From: aardvark@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov (Mike Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: RE: Papacy (was Re: The Lord's Table (Part 1 of 2))
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:02:33 GMT

In <Aug.18.02.19.13.1992.27210@aramis.rutgers.edu> David Wagner writes;

>......The church is built on the foundation of 
>the confession of faith that Peter made, speaking for the
>disciples: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God".
>That is the rock to which Christ referred.

>As for the keys, elsewhere in Scripture the keys are given to the 
>apostles as a group,  Matt 18:18, John 20:23. In these passages the 
>plural form is used, although the singular is used in Matt 16:19.
>The use of the keys is described in Matt 18:19,20: "Again, 
>I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you 
>ask for, it will be done for you by my father in heaven.
>For where two or three come together in my name, there am
>I with them."  


I would venture to say that the above is wrong on several accounts.
Scripture will testify that Jesus handed the keys over to Peter only and it
was Peter indeed who was the Rock upon which the Church was to be built.
Secondly, assuming for the moment that David's interpretation is correct, a
couple of contradictions crop up elsewhere in Scripture. Lastly, all of the
writings of the early Church support the notion that it was to Peter alone
that Jesus handed over the keys, not all the apostles, and that is was
Peter who was the first foundation stone of the Church.


First, let's look at Scripture itself. The ONLY place the 'keys of heaven'
are mentioned by name is in Matt 16:19. Matt 18:18-19 and John 20:23 make
no such mention. Mixing Matt 16 and 18 along with John 20:23 in not
entirely kosher, while they are related, they are not synonymous. I will
come back to them in a moment, but let's first examine Matt 16:17-19. We
have;


Matt. 16:17   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. 

Matt. 16:18   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. 

Matt. 16:19   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." 


The problem here is the usage of the vernacular. Unlike Elizabethan English
with the thou/you, modern English does not distinguish between second
person singular or plural. Is Jesus addressing Peter, or is he addressing
the Twelve. To answer that we must turn to older English translations. The
KJV uses the second person SINGULAR quite clearly. "And I will give unto
THEE the keys...." *Thee* is the word for the second person SINGULAR only.
In KJV we clearly see Jesus addressing Peter, and only Peter.


However, we need not take just the KJV's word for it. We can also see in
the 4th century Latin Vulgate the same thing;

Matt 16:19  *Tibi* dabo claves regni caelorum; et quodcumque *ligaveris*
super terram, erit ligatum in caelis, et quodcumque *solveris* super
terram, erit solutum in caelis."

The usage of the second person singular is unmistakable in the Latin (and
the Greek and any other language that makes the 2nd person sing/plural
distinctions). Tibi, ligaveris, and solveris are second person singular,
never plural. Matt 16:16 is quite specific in Jesus giving the keys to
Peter alone.

Now, what about Matt 18:18,19 and John 20:23. we have;

Matt. 18:15    "If your brother sins [against you], go and tell him his
fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over
your brother. 

Matt. 18:16   If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you,
so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three
witnesses.' 

Matt. 18:17   If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he
refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile
or a tax collector. 

Matt. 18:18   Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound
in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 

We also have in John:

John 20:23   Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you
retain are retained." 

First, no keys to be found in these passages! :-) Secondly, the plural is
indeed used here in KJV, the Vulgate, and the Greek, so Jesus is speaking
to all the apostles. But there is a major difference here. Whereas the
first section was related to the establishment of Christ's Church on earth
and who is to head that Church after Jesus' death, the above passages are
within the context of the pastoral functions of the apostles, specifically
the forgiveness of sins. This is a much more limited injunction than Matt
16:19.


Now as for as Peter's profession of faith as the foundation of the Church,
that is only half true. Again we mush turn to a language other than English
I am afraid (English being so sloppy!) We have from the Vulgate;

Matt 16:18  Et ego dico tibi: "Tu es *Petrus*, et super hanc *petram*
aedificabo Ecclesiam meam; et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam.

The key here again are the words for 'rock'. In Latin, Petra is the word
for rock, but it belongs to the 1st declension, a feminine noun. Peter,
being male, is addressed (and must be) as 'Petrus', a 2n declension noun
and properly masculine. The meaning is thus quite simple. Peter is the
foundation stone Jesus laid to build His Church. The REASON Peter was
chosen as the corner stone was because of his profession of faith, not that
his profession of faith was the cornerstone. Not to dimish the importance
of faith in the slightest, but the Church, the Body of Christ, is composed
of people, not statements, nor for that matter, faith.

To interpret the passage as Peter's profession of faith as "the Rock" makes
little sense. Why then would Simon be specifically renamed Peter by Jesus
Himself if it was a statement and not a person that was to be the first
foundation stone of the Church? David's interpretation, while perhaps
feasible, is the much, much weaker of the two. This is especially true when
one considers that 'Peter/Kephas' is used more frequently than 'Simon'
alone. In fact, most times Simon is used, Peter/Kephas follows in the
sentence to identify him specifically and to acknowlege him as the
cornerstone of the Church.

Lastly, if David were "correct" in his analysis, why then is there no
evidence of such a line of reasoning in any of the writtings of the early
Church? All of the early Church writers attest to the primacy of Peter and
that it was Peter who was the rock upon which the Church was founded.
David's line of reasonning never existed in the early Church. If no one
ever held that view in the early Church, then does it not stand to reason
it was because it was erroneus, especially in light of the fact that there
are numerous referrences to the contrary? 

On the other hand I could make a long list of writings attesting to Jesus
handing over the keys of heaven to Peter and Peter as the cornerstone of
the Church. Many authors testify to the universally held acceptance of this
interpretation; Iraeneus, Eusebius, Clement, Origen, Clement of Alexandria,
and numerous others. But I'll keep it short and just quote St. Cyprian of
Carthage, De ecclesiae catholiae unitate (On the unity of the catholic
Church), circa 251/256 AD;

<<It is on one man that He <Jesus> builds the Church; and although he
assigns a like power to all the Apostles after His resurrection when He
says, "As the Father has sent me, so also do I send you; receive the Holy
Spirit; if you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven; and if you
retain any man's sins, they shall be retained," nevertheless, in order that
unity might be clearly shown, He established by His own authority a source
for that unity, which takes its beginning from one man alone, Peter.>>


And lastly David writes;

>....A pastor, in the exercise of his call, can proclaim God's
>forgiveness to those who believe and repent, and he can warn the
>unrepentant of the judgement that is to come, but he does not do so on
>his own authority.  He acts on behalf of the church, and by the command >of the Lord.

That is an excellent statement of the nature of the apostollic authority
Jesus invested in the Bishops of His Church that continues down to this
day!


Sincerly Yours in Christ,

Mike Martin
aardvark@ial1,jsc.nasa.gov

[I would strongly urge you to use the Greek text as the basis
for discussions like this.  I believe the results will be the same
in this case, but you're unlikely to convince very many people
from the Vulgate.  --clh]