Christianity
WHAT IS THE MEANING OF MATTHEW 16:19
Posts  1 - 18  of  18
silverglass


Verse 19
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.
This promise, emphatically delivered to Peter here, was also the property of the Twelve and not Peter's exclusively (see under Matthew 18:18). Origen, under the sub-title, "The promise given to Peter, not restricted to him, but applicable to all disciples like him," asked,

But if you suppose that upon one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the apostles?
"Bind" and "loose" refer to the power of deciding what was lawful or unlawful to be done in the church or what was orthodox or unorthodox to be believed. That power was (and is) exercised by all the apostles, and the New Testament is the instrument by which that binding and loosing are effected.

The objection may be raised that if all the apostles exercised that authority, the words lose their meaning as applied by Christ to Peter in the instance before us. This is not the case. A certain preeminence DID pertain to Peter: (1) He preached the first gospel sermon (Acts 2:14ff). (2) He unlocked the secret of the Davidic kingdom (Acts 2:31). (3) He unlocked the secret of HOW people enter the kingdom (Acts 2:38). (4) He unlocked the door of faith to the Gentiles (Acts 10:1ff). (5) He unlocked the door of return for backsliders (Acts 8:13,22). (6) He unlocked the mystery of the new name (1 Peter 4:16). (7) He expounded the mystery of the new birth (1 Peter 3:21). (8) He revealed the ultimate fate of the earth (2 Peter 3:11-13). These remarkable options exercised by Peter might be said to be his use of the keys, solving, unlocking, and revealing great mysteries of the kingdom of heaven in those important aspects. Surely such does constitute great honor and dignity conferred upon Peter by our Lord by reason of his having been the first to ascertain the holy truth of God in Christ, and then confess it; and the distinctions noted herewith are far more than enough to fulfill Jesus' words without resort to the monstrous notion that Peter was to be made, in any sense, the head of the church, which by its very nature can have only one head - CHRIST.

THE PRE-EMINENCE OF PETER

The Scriptures make it clear that, whatever preeminence was enjoyed by Peter, it was well within the framework of his stature as a fellow apostle, and not, as some affirm, as a president over the apostles. Thus: (1) There is not one throne in Christ's kingdom, but twelve thrones (Matthew 19:28). (2) The Holy City that comes down out of heaven does not have merely one foundation, engraved with Peter's name, but twelve foundations, engraved with the names of the Twelve (Revelation 21:14). (3) Peter himself included the rest of the apostles when he admonished men to heed the commandment of Christ, "through your apostles" (2 Peter 3:2). (4) Even when Peter opened the gates of the kingdom of heaven on the day of Pentecost, he did so, not alone, but "standing up with the eleven" (Acts 2:14). (5) When the Jewish high priest moved against the church, he moved not against Peter only, but against the Twelve (Acts 5:17-19). (6) Peter's authority was actually equaled by that of Paul (Galatians 2:7,8). (7) Peter's dignity was, on occasion, made secondary to that of the Twelve, as when, for instance, he was "sent" by the Twelve as a messenger (Acts 8:14). (8) Peter's dignity was no greater than that of James (Galatians 2:9); and, in fact, James is mentioned first. All of the plain words and necessary inferences of the New Testament are at variance with any supposition that Peter's preeminence contained the slightest vestiges of any authority not conferred upon the other apostles also.

A SUCCESSOR TO PETER IS NOT SCRIPTURAL

Here is an appropriate place to view the doctrine of a successor to Peter. Note the following:

(1) Peter knew that he would have no legitimate successor and indicated it in 2 Peter 1:13-15 where he WROTE the word of God in order for it to be available, as he said, "after my decease"! If a successor had been contemplated, that would have been unnecessary.

(2) No mention whatever of a successor to Peter may be found anywhere in the New Testament, although the successor to Judas Iscariot is named. And, if it is supposed that the difference was due only to the fact that Peter's death is not recorded in the New Testament, then let it be further recognized that James' death is recorded, and that no successor was chosen for him. Why did only Judas receive a successor? Death did not and could not remove an apostle from office. It did not remove Judas, whose removal was not due to death, but to TRANSGRESSION (Acts 1:25,; 1:25, ). All of the apostles (except the one removed by transgression) are still reigning with Christ and discharging the office of their apostleship (Matthew 19:28).

(3) If there had been a successor to Peter, why was God's Revelation given through the apostle John and not through the successor, especially since the Revelation was written at a time long after the death of the apostle Peter?

(4) What could a successor to Peter do which has not already been done? The Lord guided the apostles into "all truth" (John 16:13). Peter himself said "all things that pertain to life and godliness" had already been given (2 Peter 1:3).

(5) Christ taught that no earthly head of his spiritual body (the church) was possible, even though that earthly head was Christ himself "in the flesh." He said, "It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you" (John 16:7). If it was expedient for the true head not to remain on earth in the flesh, and if the presence of the Christ himself, in the flesh, would thwart the residence of the Holy Spirit in his spiritual body, how could any successor fulfill a need impossible to be met even by Christ "in the flesh?"

(6) No person in subsequent ages could meet the qualifications of a true apostle. Apostles were primarily "witnesses"; and witnesses, by the very nature of things, cannot have successors (Acts 1:22). Moreover, that prime qualification was not waived, even for Judas' successor.

(7) Basic requirements of the apostolic office disqualify any claimant of Peter's office. For example, the apostles were empowered by the Holy Spirit to be able to "remember" and faithfully report the words of Christ. See John 16:13-15; 14:26. What successor could possibly "remember" anything that Jesus said? As to the heresy that the Spirit would operate independently of the word of Christ, it was struck down by Jesus himself who said of the Holy Spirit, "He shall not speak of himself" (John 16:13). The English Revised Version (1885) has "He shall not speak FROM himself."

(8) Delegated authority is not transferrable. In the very nature of plenary authority, it must originate in each new holder of it with the conveying authority. No ambassador ever named his successor. Overwhelming evidence to the effect that this principle was recognized as valid, even in the apostolic age, appears in the attempt of Simon the sorcerer to purchase the gift of God, not from Philip (who had it and was personally and more intimately known to Simon), but from Peter, one of the apostles who had conferred the gift on Philip.

(9) Historically, the whole idea of a successor to Peter is fantastic in its long progression through the ages, exhibiting two popes on the throne at once, another refusing the office, and with Italians holding a virtual monopoly, and providing practically the whole list upon whom this distinction was said to be conferred by God (!). What have we here, another chosen people?

Many other Scriptural refutations to the great heresy of Peter's successor might be pointed out, but these are sufficient to allow the truth to appear in honest hearts.
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  silverglass
DearLeader
Replied to:  Verse 19 I will give unto thee the...
Well, you see Billy, the meaning of Matthew 16:19 is that you're a crazy Dutch bastard who is preaching to the choir.
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  DearLeader
silverglass
Replied to:  Well, you see Billy, the meaning of Matthew 16:19 is that...
And how old are you? 6 maybe! Or maybe you are entering your juvenile period. Maybe you are just unwilling to grow up and take others seriously? Do you expect me to take you seriously? Perhaps life is a joke with you and you are the main center of attention taking your place in an areana of clowns!
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  silverglass
DearLeader
Replied to:  And how old are you? 6 maybe!...
And perhaps you're crazy. Or perhaps you're just a troll. Either way, welcome to the club, friend!
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  silverglass
ELPELIGROSO303
Replied to:  Verse 19 I will give unto thee the...
The Christian religion is the religion about the life and teachings of Christ based upon the theology of Judaism, modified further through the assimilation of certain Zoroastrian teachings and Greek philosophy, and formulated primarily by three individuals: Philo, Peter, and Paul. It has passed through many phases of evolution since the time of Paul and has become so thoroughly Occidentalized that many non-European peoples very naturally look upon Christianity as a strange revelation of a strange God and for strangers.
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  silverglass
sqeeks152
Replied to:  Verse 19 I will give unto thee the...
Peter was one of the few in a special covant with Jesus. He was one of the original 11 who pasted the cup around with him on his lastpass over as a human.
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  sqeeks152
silverglass
Replied to:  Peter was one of the few in a special covant with...
You seem to think I am a Jehova witness. Is this right? If so you are mistaken. I am an evangelical christian. Now concerning this special covenant that Peter had with Jesus> Exactly where is this stated in scripture?
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  DearLeader
electricthot
Replied to:  Well, you see Billy, the meaning of Matthew 16:19 is that...
People who are not serious in these discussions should stay out!! These are not matters to be taken lightly. We would not be asking these questions if they were not important to us! Please butt out if you don't know the answers!
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  electricthot
Explorer72
Replied to:  People who are not serious in these...
Oh its not that we don't know the answers to questions brought up by a book of fairy tales. We just don't care. Aside from the fact that it's an excellent study of human psychology and the fact that you people don't have a clue about religion or ancient history. You're simply brainwashed.
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  Explorer72
electricthot
Replied to:  Oh its not that we don't know the answers to questions...
"...They have gathered unto themselves teachers who will tickle thier ears....."
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  electricthot
Explorer72
Replied to:  "...They have gathered unto themselves teachers who will tickle thier ears....."...
Umm.....Ok. Sure. When you want to actually talk and not mindlessly quote the bible as if it were some sort of answer, get back to me.
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  Explorer72
electricthot
Replied to:  Umm.....Ok. Sure. When you want to actually talk and not mindlessly...
2 Tim 4: 3. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;
4. and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.
5. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.
This prohecy is fulfilled in today's church. They teach if you give God money, He will "bless" you with more, while Jesus taught separation from commercialism, and that money would curse your soul to hell. The church teaches to pray for healing of every affliction, while the entire Bible teaches us to endure suffering as God's discipline. The church, much of it, teaches we can enjoy the world right up to the great tribulation, and God will "jerk us out" when the hard times begin. The church points their finger at everyone else's sin, but doesn't dare to focus on their own sinfulness. We hide our money from the poor in our secure bank accounts, while Jesus taught us to give to him who asks of us. I could go on and on, but unless your heart is in the right place, I would be wasting both my time and yours.
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  Explorer72
electricthot
Replied to:  Umm.....Ok. Sure. When you want to actually talk and not mindlessly...
I would love to share my views on the meaning of being a Christian and the relationship of scripture in guiding my beliefs. But if we are prone to insult those we don't agree with there can be no rational discussion occur between us.
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  Explorer72
electricthot
Replied to:  Umm.....Ok. Sure. When you want to actually talk and not mindlessly...
I apologize to you, Explore62. In looking back on this discussion, I see you are not of the Christian faith. My words are directed at those "Christians" who have so distorted the truth people like you just cannot swallow their bullshit any more.
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  electricthot
Explorer72
Replied to:  I apologize to you, Explore62. In looking back on this discussion,...
That actually is a pretty enlightened attitude. I apologize as well. I would like to have more discussion with you.

I was brought up in the Greek Orthodox religion, in a VERY traditional household. My views changed over a long time. A lot of what I see from Christians today is disheartingly different from the way I was brought up, as well as what I remember seeing and hearing from my friends of other faiths.
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  Explorer72
electricthot
Replied to:  That actually is a pretty enlightened attitude. I apologize as well....
I am a Christian mystic, and my views are simple; none of us have a clue as to God's nature, but the Bible says God is Love, and if that is true, then Love is God. So anyone expressing Love is expressing God, regardless of what they call him/her/it. But I am also into the consciousness aspect of our existence, and I see God as all consciousness, though I still need Him to be a personal God for me. There is a growing rift in the field of Quantum Theory now that many are claiming they now have scientific proof a "Creator Mind" (God) must exist to explain the results of current understanding of proven experiments in QT. Have a look: http://www.amitgoswami.org/ In my view, we are not searching for God, we are searching for ourselves, because we are creating ourselves. Happy searching, my friend!!!
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  electricthot
Yoda55
Replied to:  I am a Christian mystic, and my views are simple; none...
It's about time that the theorists (QT science) have some doubt about the "by accident" party line heretofore hawked as "the only answer". They should have started with basic Boolean logic, and could have saved themselves all the heartache of criticism.

If the null hypothesis (Ho) had been "A chance universal existence is non-trivial", then the alternative (H1) is “A chance universe existence is trivial”.

Probability of one sub-element successfully reacting with another sub-element purely by chance = P(E) = 0.5. The same probability must be true for all other paired interactions, for all pairs of sub-element matter available. Independent interactions succeeding in a combined result behave according to the following: P(E1 AND E2) = P(E1)*P(E2). Let's assume for a moment that there existed a trillion sub-elements.

That means P(all successful interactions) = P(E1)*P(E2)*…*P(Ei)*…*P(Etrillion) = (0.5)^trillion
Calculate that on your TI-85. The value is so small that it’s essentially ZERO.

If that isn’t enough, let’s add another key factor into this calculation. Scientists have claimed that there are at least 250 conditions which must exist (each within narrow tolerances) for life to have developed on earth. The probability of life sprouting by chance is a conditional, given that sufficient chance interactions have set the stage for this to occur: P(life) = P(life | setting)*P(setting). For our example candidate universe, the calculation would be:

P(life) = P(life | c1)*P(c1 | c2)*P(c2 | c3)*…*P(ci | c i+1)*…*P(c249 | c250)*P(c250 | successful interactions)*P(all successful interactions);

where P(ci) = (small condition interval) / (infinite condition range), which is infinitesimally small (essentially ZERO).
P(life) = P(life | c1)*((~0)^250)*(~0) = ~0

The odds for an accidental, ordered, complex universe are so small as to be almost ZERO. The number is trivial. This causes us to conclude that Ho is false and its alternative H1 must be true. And, what is the probabilistic chance that the complex universe exists by some other reason?

P(not. all successful interactions) = 1 – P(all successful interactions) = almost ONE; that is almost certainly not accidental.

What about having life springing from such a non-accidental universe? Similarly, the odds against formation of accidental life is nearly certain.

For those out there who enjoy betting on something, the odds for non-accidental universe and non-accidental life is as close to a sure bet as anyone can get. Put your money on the alternative explanation!
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  silverglass
Masada007
Replied to:  Verse 19 I will give unto thee the...
Matthew 16:19? This is an interpolation intruduced by the Church in the 4th Century as a pious forgery to invest Peter with the right to the first Papacy. But I think they must have committed a blunder, much later when they found out from Acts 4:13 that Peter was an unlearned and ignorant fisherman. Since to correct the blunder to have an illiterate Pope as the first one in the Church, they thought that some good would come out of it in terms of granting the Church Apostolic credibility. Besides, Peter never had anything to do with Christianity, since he was a Nazarene all his life. The real man to fulfill the position as the first Pope was Paul. But Paul had a history of having
been a Hellenist homosexual in his youth. Hence, the torn in his flesh, which would make him struggle with repressed homosexual feelings all his life. (Rom. 7:13-25).
Save
Cancel
Reply
 
x
OK