From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: Church and Rome
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 22:46:54 GMT

Bob, you say, "The early church was basically a vague assortment of
people that banded together."  I do hear this argument fairly often
from many Protestants, but have never really taken the time to
challenge it before.

   This statement puzzles me, because the Scriptures tell us that
basically the opposite happened.  That is, the Apostles were sent out
to the various lands to spread the Gospel.  Having established the
various churches, they remained in consultation with one another.

   The churches didn't just spring up out of nowhere; they were
started by the apostles sent to each respective land.  This means that
since the leaders of the various churches were part of the same group
(the Apostles and disciples), they were never in isolation from one
another, and so could not "band together" (i.e. you cannot join what
is not separated).

   The primacy of the See of Rome is actually that of the See of
Peter.  This is because Peter was the leader of the Apostles, as
Scripture always places him first among the Apostles, as do the
historical writings of the early Church.  This primacy is not so much
a fatherly relationship between Peter and the Apostles, but one of an
eldest son to his brothers.  Still, an eldest or firstborn son has
special privileges and responsibilities throughout Scripture.

   Also, he to whom the keys were given has also been given authority
by God.  Peter was given these keys.  I'm sure everyone is familiar
with Matthew chapter 16, but keys are often used as a symbol of God's
authority given to a man, to exercise in God's name.  For example,
Isaiah 20:22: "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."  Also, Revelation 3:7: "The holy one, the true, who holds
the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no
one shall open, says this..."  So we can see that Jesus has these keys
of God's authority.  But if He promises to give these keys to Peter,
then this means that Peter has been given the authority to act in
God's name.

   It is not valid to argue from Matthew 16 that this authority was
given only to the Apostles as a group.  Because, when Jesus spoke to
Peter, he used the second person singular ("thee"), not the second
person plural ("you").  The KJV says, "And I say unto thee, That thou
art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of
hell shall not prevail against it.  And I will give unto thee the keys
of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth
shall be loosed in heaven."

   There is little question that Christ meant to give His authority
here, for he uses practically the same wording about open/loosing and
closing/binding that are used in the other parts of Scripture.  There
is also little question that He was giving it to Peter, and not the
Apostles as a group, as he addressed Peter alone: "I will give them to
_thee_."

   Sometimes Protestants will also say that the second "rock" Jesus
spoke of in the above passage refers to Himself.  This is not the
case.  The standard Protestant argument is that in the Greek, the
first "Peter" is "Petros," while the second "rock" is "petra".  First
of all, when this saying was translated _into_ Greek, it would have
been improper to call Peter "Petra," as that is a woman's name.  So
the masculine "Peter" was used instead.

   Furthermore, notice I said "translated _into_ Greek"; Jesus did not
speak these words in Greek -- He spoke in Aramaic, and in Aramaic the
only word for "rock" is "kepa".  Therefore, He said, "Thou art Kepa,
and on this kepa I shall build my church," i.e. Jesus used the same
word in both places.

   Finally, let's look at what else is going on in this passage.
Even if you're Protestant I don't think you'll argue that Jesus wasn't
passing on His authority in speaking of the keys.  In order words, He
is giving someone else the authority to act in His name, or _in His
stead_.  In this context it makes sense that He would be building His
Church on someone acting in His name and in His stead.  Who else could
it be if not the Apostles, more specifically Peter?

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU