THE
PRIMACY
OF PETER ?
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Peter was the first bishop
of Rome, but not only that, they also say Peter was the head and
chief apostle, the one with final authority over all other
ministers and elders in the New Testament Church of God.
They say Christ Himself gave Peter this rank of authority, that
he had "binding and loosing" power, that he was given the "keys
of the Kingdom" above all other apostles. Following are some of
the main arguments used to defend such a doctrinal position. We
shall also see that the scriptures teach something quite the
opposite to that held by the RC church, and some of late from
the Church of God.
by
Keith Hunt
Before we look at some specific verses in the New
Testament(NT), we need to look at the overview. Some may say this
is arguing from silence, but silence can be significant at times
especially if we are looking for a teaching and doctrine of the
church that claims to be taken from the writings of the NT.
We in the Church of God (7th Day Sabbath keeping) will argue
that the teaching of "going to heaven at death"(if one is a good
Christian) CANNOT be established upon the writings of the NT,
that it is just NOT THERE! Oh, there maybe a few verses that
seem to indicate we go to heaven at death, but we can explain
them quite easily when we take into account ALL verses on the
subject from ALL the pages of the Bible.
We would say that if it was common knowledge, and an every
day teaching in the NT church that a Christian went to heaven to
be with the Father and Christ, at death, then it would surely be
all over the NT writings. Such phrases as "he's gone to heaven
to be with Christ" or "we go to heaven upon death" or "they are
in heaven talking to the Lord" would be all over the NT writings.
But we find no such statements. The NT is coldly silent when it
comes to these phrases that today's Christians use as common
church language among themselves.
I think there is a pretty good argument from SILENCE in the
NT concerning the subject of "going to heaven" at death, in favor
of it not being a true doctrine or teaching of the Lord and the
early apostolic Church of God.
Now let us consider the subject at hand in this light and
with the same overview.
We will say then that Jesus did indeed make Peter HEAD
apostle with the top primacy. The NT church was going to be built
upon Peter under Christ, and all others under Peter. We will say
Jesus gave the "keys of the Kingdom" to Peter ABOVE all other
Apostles and Elders, he was to have special insight and special
powers in the church, manifesting themselves with final authority
on BIG issues. Jesus, we will say made this VERY CLEAR to all
the other apostles and disciples. I mean they knew it, and knew
that they knew it, Peter was to be the supreme head of the church
once Christ had left this earth, he was to have PRIMACY.
So the apostles knew this.....well......did they really? On
the last night before Jesus was to die, when He and His disciples
were eating the Passover, what do you think the apostles got into
STRIFE over? Why it was "which OF THEM should be accounted the
GREATEST" (Luke 22:24). Now I read that as another way of saying
"which of them should be accounted as the one with the top
PRIMACY" the one all the others were to kneel before as having
the final authority in the church.
Now of course Jesus immediately said: "Hey fellows, I've
gone through this before with you (He had because it was not the
first time this argument arose, see a Harmony of the Gospels
book), and I've told you all before a number of time, that Peter
has the primacy, and he only is the one with the full keys of the
Kingdom. He is the one that will feed you, so no more argument."
JESUS SAID NO SUCH THING!!
If Jesus had made Peter the "chief" apostle, the one with
the primacy, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NEED TO ARGUE AND HAVE
STRIFE OVER THE SUBJECT!
They would have all known Peter was the greatest, so chosen and
made by Christ Himself!
BUT THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS, the disciples had no idea
whatsoever that Peter was given or to have the primacy, hence the
strive and argument.
Look HOW Jesus answered them in the following verses. Here
was His golden chance, if He had not done so before, to tell them
it was Peter who was in charge, had final authority, was the
supreme one among them and had the primacy. But look at what
He taught them. Their dealing with each other was NOT TO BE LIKE
the world with a pyramid primacy structure, as in an army or the
Roman Empire. His example was enough - Jesus SERVED!
Remember when the mother of James and John came to Jesus
wanting Him to give her sons the highest positions in the
Kingdom, one on His right hand and one on His left hand. What did
He say to her? Did He say: "Why, woman, Peter has primacy here
on this earth in the church, after I am gone, so he, for starters
will be on my right hand in the Kingdom." No, He said no such
thing. He told her HE DID NOT KNOW, ONLY THE FATHER WOULD GIVE
OUT THOSE PRIMACY POSITIONS!
Why is it that we cannot find any PLAIN words in the gospels
where Jesus told Peter: "Look Peter I've made you head and chief
apostle over the others. You will have primacy and final
authority in the church. Teach them all well on my behalf. Make
sure you have the final say and decision on all important
issues." Why? Because it is just not there. Jesus never said
those words or anything like them, for one simple reason, NO
APOSTLE OR ELDER WAS TO HAVE THE PRIMACY OR DICTATORIAL AUTHORITY
OVER ANY OTHER APOSTLE OR ELDER IN THE CHURCH! In fact He made
it clear to them that anyone who THOUGHT he was the greatest or
the chief, had better be like the younger (humble, teachable,
looking upon themselves as unimportant) and as one that SERVES,
not the one being served.
With all of this before us, whatever was meant by the words
in Mat.16:17-19, it cannot be understood to mean Jesus was giving
Peter the primacy over all others in the church.
To whom did Jesus first appear after His resurrection? Was
it to Peter? Some think so. If you have a HARMONY OF THE
GOSPELS book (and I recommend the one by Fred Coulter as the best
ever written), then you will soon discover Jesus first appeared
not to Peter or to any of the apostles, BUT TO A WOMAN!
Just before the Day of Pentecost, Peter was inspired to see
that someone had to replace Judas who had hung himself. He could
see the scriptures said it should be so.
Two men were chosen. This was a VERY IMPORTANT position to fill -
to be one of the twelve, each were to rule over a tribe of Israel
in the Kingdom as Jesus had appointed and promised. Was it Peter
with his primacy who said: "Well you know I have the primacy
and the keys of the Kingdom, so it is I who will make this
decision as to the man to replace Judas." Did Peter say: "So you
cannot decide between these two men, so as I have the keys, as I
am to teach and feed you, as I have the primacy, I will pick the
man."
No! Peter said no such thing, nor did any other person say
it was Peter as the chief and head apostle who would and should
make the choice.
Some will argue that this was before the Holy Spirit was
given and Peter was not yet officially invested as head of the
church and with full primacy. Well okay, but Peter and the
others could have then delayed the decision until later, after
Peter was fully converted and in the primacy. I mean a few more
days would not have meant the end of the church, for things had
not really got going yet, and the gospel certainly had not gone
very far to anyone, let alone the House of Israel to whom the
apostles were to go, and other nations, as instructed by Christ.
Peter was the main speaker on the Day of Pentecost, but what
does that prove of and by itself? Paul was used to teach and
preach to the Gentiles WAY MORE than Peter, and Paul was used to
write 14 books of the NT. Peter only two. So if we want to
use comparisons (which Paul was inspired to tell us "not to
compare ourselves among ourselves") then we could document a good
argument that Paul had more primacy than Peter.
If Peter was the one given responsibility by Christ to feed
the sheep of the church, including other apostles and elders, the
one who was to be chief of instruction and the one with the
primacy over theology, then someone sure missed the boat with
Paul.
Jesus called him to repentance on the road to Damascus not
in Jerusalem under the nose of Peter. Jesus chose a disciple from
Damascus not Jerusalem, or one sent by Peter. It was this
disciple who was told by Jesus what Paul was chosen for and the
work he would do, not Peter. Paul was converted, baptized by
someone not from the church at Jerusalem or from the authority of
Peter. There is no suggestion that Paul even thought about going
to Jerusalem to see or be taught by Peter at this time. He stayed
in Damascus and preached Christ there. When he finally did come
to Jerusalem only Barnabas believed he was a true disciple, the
others were afraid of him still (see all this in Acts 9).
When did Paul first go to Jerusalem? Acts does not tell us,
but Paul does in his letter to the Galatians.
We are told that Paul did not get his Christian theology
training from ANY human man, or local church. He was taught and
trained DIRECTLY by Jesus Christ (Gal.1:11,12). We are told that
when he was converted by Christ he immediately conferred not with
flesh and blood. He did not go up to Jerusalem to see the other
apostles. He went into Arabia and again back to Damascus.
It was only AFTER three years did he go up to Jerusalem to
see Peter and there abode with him fifteen days. Big deal,
fifteen days only. What do you learn from someone in two weeks?
The truth is he did not have to learn anything from Peter, for
Jesus had taught Paul not Peter.
What a huge SNUB from Paul towards Peter IF it was a common
doctrine of the church that Peter was Christ's chief and head
apostle of the church, the one with the primacy, the one with the
keys of the Kingdom to feed and teach all others the inner
secrets of the truths of the Lord. Somehow Paul never got the
message of that doctrine. Even Jesus must have forgotten to tell
him. I speak as one in a dream. Jesus never forgot to tell Paul
this truth because it never was truth and never did Peter or the
NT church proclaim such a "primacy of Peter" doctrine.
One very short visit with Peter did Paul have, and only
after three years of teaching and preaching the word of the Lord.
Then did Paul make regular visits to Jerusalem to be taught and
fed by Peter? Not according to Paul. It was FOURTEEN YEARS
later before he again went to Jerusalem (Gal.2:1). Oh, he did
acknowledge that there were some in Jerusalem who "seemed to be
somewhat" - "seemed to be pillars" but they added nothing to him
in what he was doing for the Lord (Gal.2:6,9). It is very
interesting the order of names that Paul gives concerning these
"seemed to be pillars." Peter's name is NOT PUT FIRST! The
order is JAMES, Peter, and John. Another kick in the stomach for
Peter IF indeed Peter was the head apostle with primacy over all
other apostles and elders in the church.
It is also very interesting, more than interesting, it is
very revealing, for it gives us Paul's attitude towards people
who "seemed to be somewhat" in the church. Notice it in
verse 6 of chapter 2. "but of these who seemed to be somewhat
(WHATSOEVER THEY WERE, IT MAKES NO MATTER TO ME: GOD ACCEPTS NO
MAN'S PERSON)....."
Whether they seemed to be somewhat, or seemed to be pillars,
he really was not bothered, it meant nothing to him, for he knew
in the NT church that God is no respecter of persons among His
ministers and elders/overseers in any congregation or the church
as a worldwide whole. Paul had been taught by Christ who had
already taught His first 12 apostles that no one of them had
primacy over the others, but they were all to be servants to each
other, just as Jesus Himself came not to be served but to serve.
When Peter came to Antioch and behaved himself not according
to the truth but against the truth that had been established by
the whole church, Paul was swift to CORRECT him, and that before
ALL (Gal.2:11-14).
There arose a very large and disturbing conflict within the
church, it was over the subject of circumcision. Some claimed
people had to be circumcised in order to be saved. The issue was
resolved by a church conference at Jerusalem. We shall look at
this later in detail during the second part of this study. For
now we need to meditate upon WHY bother with a church conference
over a doctrinal matter IF Peter was HEAD apostle with the
primacy of authority and with the special gift of the "keys of
the Kingdom" and with appointed power to "feed the sheep" above
all other apostles and elders.
Look at all the time, and expense it would have taken to
bring in ministers from far and wide to Jerusalem. Why bother
and put added costs and pressure on the church WHEN PETER could
have used his primacy power and authority to settle the matter
"out of court" so to speak.
This was not a new matter but had been plaguing the church
for quite some time. Most were very familiar with the arguments
and the issue. Certainly the apostles at Jerusalem would have
been. Peter could have saved the church a whole lot of trouble
much earlier if he had used his primacy authority, and taught and
ruled for the church what the truth of the matter really was on
this circumcision issue. Why did he not do so? Very simple. He
did not do so because he had no primacy above any other apostle
over doctrinal matters such as this one.
There were many large problems at times in the NT church.
Paul had to deal with many in different congregations. Never do
we read about Paul or any other writer in the …….
NT word, pointing anyone or any congregation to the primacy of
Peter in any matter. We cannot find any words used like: "I shall
take this to Peter for his decision" or "This is such a large
issue that Peter will need be called to exercise his keys of the
Kingdom" or "As Peter is to teach and feed the flock, the
apostles, and elders, we will wait on him for his judgment and
final authoritative verdict."
What about Peter himself. He did write two letters that are
part of the inspired NT. He had the opportunity in those letters
to set the doctrine of his primacy down for all the church
throughout all the ages. But he never so much as even brought up
the subject. He did call himself "an apostle" and "an elder" but
never THE apostle, or "the head of the CHURCH"
or "the one who has the primacy over all Apostles and ELDERS."
What he did teach concerning the Eldership is EXACTLY what
Jesus taught. You will find it in his first letter, chapter
five, verses one through six.
All elders are to "feed the flock of God," being not "lords
over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock." The
younger ministers are to submit to the older ministers,
BUT....."all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed
with HUMILITY........Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty
hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time."
Such is the OVERVIEW of the NT concerning this idea of a
primacy for Peter.
This ends part one of this study. Part two will look in
detail at Mat.16:17-19; Acts 15; and 2 Cor.11:5 (within the
context).
Keith Hunt (January 19th 1997). All quotations from the KJV.
………………………………………….
Peter - Head Apostle?Peter was given the keys of the Kingdom. Did this make him chief apostle? THE
PRIMACY
OF PETER?
Part 2
by
Keith Hunt
MATTHEW 16:17-19
Some say it was here that Peter had his name changed by
Christ and with that change came a special primacy among the
apostles and the church in general, for the duration of Peter's
life. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Peter was the first
bishop of Rome, that he had primacy above all other apostles and
elders, that the NT church was founded upon him and that his
primacy was to be transferred to another upon his death. This
transference of "top dog" authority they say was to continue
throughout the life of the NT church, until the return of Christ
in glory at the end of the age.
Please read the account in Matthew 16, verse 18 in
particular, for we shall first answer the argument that it is
here that Peter had his named changed for a special reason.
Now did Christ say: "Look Simon(Peter's original name) I am
giving you a new name here because it is to signify something
very special to the other apostles and the whole church." ? Did
Jesus say to Peter: "Here's your new name Simon." ? NO!
Nothing can be found in that verse to prove it was here that
Jesus gave Simon his new name for a special reason, for a sign of
primacy among all the disciples. Jesus simply said: "And you are
Petros (meaning stone )." That is how the Greek
reads, nothing more and nothing less. Jesus was stating a fact of
the character and personality of Peter, no more and no less.
Jesus knew peoples personality. We all have one, and that
makes us all unique individuals, no two of us are exactly a like,
not even identical twins.
It was not the first time by any means that Christ had
changed peoples names or given them what we call "a nickname"
today. If you have a Harmony of the Gospels book you will soon
discover this truth.
Turn to the gospel of John and read in chapter one verses
forty three to forty seven. Jesus could see the personality of
Nathanael.
Some time later from this encounter with Nathanael, Jesus
chose 12 inner circle disciples from among ALL the disciples He
had, and called them apostles. You will find this in Mark
3:13-19.
Notice verse 17. Concerning James and John, He gave them an
additional name, Boanerges, which means "Sons of Thunder." Jesus
knew their personality type.
Remember once how they asked Jesus if they should call fire down
from heaven to devour people. Yes, they were pretty thunderous at
times.
Was it in Matthew 16 that Peter was first given his new name
by Christ? Well a harmony of the gospels tells the truth.
Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist in the river Jordan,
just BEFORE the start of His three and one half years ministry.
Turn to John chapter one and start to read from verse 35.
The next day after Jesus was baptized, John the Baptist was
standing with two of his disciples. He told them that this man
Jesus was the "Lamb of God." The two disciples followed Jesus.
They ended up staying with Christ all day. One of the two men
was Andrew the brother of Simon. And he went to bring his brother
to Jesus.
NOW NOTICE VERSE 42! Mark it well, get a yellow marker or
something and MARK IT!
Jesus looking at Simon said: "You are Simon the son of Jona,
you SHALL BE CALLED CEPHAS (Peter), which is by interpretation, a
stone."
AT THE VERY START OF THE MINISTRY OF CHRIST, Simon is given
the name of PETER by Jesus!
THIS IS WAY BEFORE THE ACCOUNT IN Matthew 16:17. See a
Harmony of the Gospels (I recommend the one by Fred Coulter, a
one time minister with the WCG who left that organization in
1979. It is the best harmony I have ever seen).
Peter DID NOT acquire his new name from Jesus in the account
given by Matthew in chapter 16 of his gospel, but he was called
PETER, given the name Peter, AT THE START OF CHRIST'S MINISTRY
BY JESUS HIMSELF!
Now we see why in Mat.16:17 Jesus said nothing about Simon
being given a new name for a special primacy reason, but only a
statement by Christ that, "You are Peter." In the Greek, "You are
a stone." Yes Peter had a hard personality at times, "I
will not deny you Lord" and "I'll pull out my sword and fight for
you Lord" as he tried to do in the garden when they came to
arrest Jesus. He was a stone type of guy in many ways.
Then notice what Jesus went on to say: "and upon this rock."
In the Greek this is how it reads: "and on this THE Petra." The
word "petra" means huge rock, massive shelf of stone. And did
you notice the definite article "the" is in the Greek - "and on
this THE HUGE STONE...."
The rest of the verse in the Greek reads: "I will build my
the assembly, and the gates of hades shall not prevail against
it."
WHAT IS THE CONTEXT? WHAT IS THE MAIN THOUGHT OF THIS WHOLE
CONVERSATION? We need to know for within it lies the key to this
section of scripture, the lesson Jesus wanted His disciples to
learn and never forget.
They had arrived at the coasts of Caesarea Philippi and
Jesus asked his disciples, "Whom to men say that I the Son of man
am?" They answered that some said this and some said that(verses
13,14). Then He asked them, "But whom say you that I am?" It
was Peter who answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the
living God"(verse 16).
Jesus told them all that and Peter directly, "Blessed are
you Simon Barjona (using his original name), for flesh and blood
has not revealed this to you, but my Father which is in
heaven"(verse 17).
Verse 20, He tells them not to reveal this truth to anyone,
that Jesus was the Christ.
The whole question and answer quiz was to get at the truth
of who Jesus REALLY was, and to make sure the disciples had no
doubt about His identity, that He was no ordinary man of flesh
and blood but THE Messiah, God in the flesh (Immanuel). This
conversation was to point out to the disciples the IMPORTANCE of
Christ, not the importance of Peter, or any of them, but the
foundational importance of HIMSELF, the Christ, the Son of the
living God.
So after THAT FACT was established in verse 17, Jesus went
on to say to Peter (with all the other disciples standing there
listening), "And I say unto you, that you are Peter, a little
stone (just a very small part in the building, nothing to get
swell headed about), and upon this THE ROCK, the huge shelf of
rock (Myself as the Son of the living God) I will build, not you,
but Me, I will build My church, and the grave will not prevail
against it, it will never die out" (amplifying myself the words
of Jesus with the Greek for Peter and Rock).
We are given only the audio version of what transpired here
NOT the visual. If we put the two together, it probably went
something like this: Jesus after saying what He said in verse 17
to Peter and telling him that he was only a small stone, THEN
POINTING TO HIMSELF, says: "and upon THIS THE ROCK I will build
by church....."
Christ was telling them that the church was to be built upon
the foundational shelf of massive rock THAT WAS HIMSELF, and
persons like Peter were only a little stone in the overall
building.
And this is exactly how Paul, who was taught directly by
Christ, understood it when he wrote in Ephesians 2:20,21, "For
through Him(Jesus) we both(Jew and Gentile) have
access by one Spirit unto the Father……and are built
upon (stone upon stone, many small stones to make the building)
the foundation of the apostles (plural, not just Peter) and
prophets( plural), Jesus Christ Himself BEING THE CHIEF CORNER
STONE."
Without that chief corner stone, when a building is erected
and built upon anything but a STRONG SOLID foundation, it is
insecure, and when the winds blow and the tempest rolls, and the
floods come, the building falls and is shattered and is
destroyed.
Jesus told His disciples that the church would never be
killed and put to death, that it would always remain BECAUSE it
was NOT to be founded and built upon any man such as Peter, but
upon THE ROCK, upon HIMSELF as the very Son of the living God!
If Jesus was here telling Peter that the NT church would be
built upon the man Peter, then Jesus would have said and the
Greek would read: "You are Peter and upon YOU I will build my
church...." Yet the Greek in no way is constructed with those
words in Matthew 16:18.
Now to Matthew 16 and verse 19. The disciples, all of them,
are standing there listening, they are all present during this
conversation. Jesus goes on to say: "And I will give unto
you......" Was this only said to Peter? Was this only for Peter
to have? Was Jesus only looking at Peter and giving these words
to him alone? MAYBE, but then again maybe not! It could just as
likely have been said to ALL the disciples. From this account
only we cannot say with any assurance one way or the other. But
from the rest of the NT we can KNOW that what was said by Jesus
in this verse 19 was not just for Peter as the one with primacy
in the church, but was for ALL apostles and elders/overseers of
the flock and church of God, for all ages to the return of Christ
in glory. This I have proved both in the first section of this
study and in my book on New Testament Church Government.
The "keys of the Kingdom of heaven" were to be given. Was
it ONLY Peter who could have the full, supreme, inner secret
knowledge of the deep workings and understandings of Jesus? Was
it only through him, Peter, that the church could come to know
the answers to difficult issues and problems and questions of
theology and Christian morality? To answer yes to those
questions would mean a total neglect of reading the entire NT
or a blindness to all the words of the NT.
How anyone can read the writings of Paul and the way he
conducted his ministry to the Jews, Gentiles and the churches of
God he wrote to (with his preaching, teaching, correction and
guidance), and believe that he believed or taught that only Peter
had the indepth "keys of the Kingdom" .........is to me absurd,
ridiculous, bizarre and theologically unsound.
Why if anyone in the NT church was the one with the
technical Ph.D. mind, it was Paul. His background was from the
feet of Gamaliel (a doctor of the law - Acts 5:34), see
Acts 22:3. And within the religion of the Jews he was above many,
and blameless (Gal.1:14; Phil.3:6). Even Peter (the one many teach
had the primacy in knowledge and insight and understandings of
God) had to admit that when it came to the theology writings of
Paul, there were "some things hard to understand" (2 Pet.3:16).
Oh, not impossible! He did not say that, but not theologically
easy either, and that was why some (who were unlearned and
unstable) wrested and twisted to their own destruction.
There is no plain teaching nor is there even any example in
the NT that can demonstrate Peter and Peter alone above Paul or
any other apostle, had the ONLY ultimate primacy of knowledge
concerning the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
Peter had power to perform miracles, and healings, and see into
the hearts of people (read again the first chapters of Acts).
Peter was able to preach powerfully at times, and was led by God
to teach the church that Gentiles were to be called and
become children of the Father just as much as any Jew or
Israelite. But, Paul was used just as much in his own way as led
by the Lord, and miracles and signs often followed him also.
Stephen, Philip, Barnabas, Apollos, James, John, and others were
all used of God as chosen and as the gifts of the Spirit were
given to each man (and woman) to "profit withal" (1 Cor.12:7).
Now what about Jesus saying in Matthew 16:19, ".....and
whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and
whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" ?
Did this mean Peter or any apostle could, out of their own
mind, add things to the word of God, or take away from the word
of the Lord, or dream up doctrines to be imposed upon the members
of the church, or decide with authoritative dogma that a member
of the church should buy this car or this house, live in this
town, or wear this dress or suit to services? Did it mean that
Peter and/or the Elders of the church could "do away with this
commandment or law of God? Did these words by Jesus mean that
God in heaven would be the servant to human men, and jump to
their tune as they called the shots in decreeing how things would
be done on the earth within the church?
It blows my mind to think that some indeed believe this is
exactly what Christ was saying and teaching and authorizing.
Again to those who believe this way, I must ask you with all
politeness: What Bible are you reading, and especially what NT
books are you reading to ever come up with such an idea?
Passages such are Deut.12:32 and Rev.22:18-19, are pretty plain
and easy to understand. So is John 10:35. There is no
contradiction in the word of the Lord.
The problem of Matthew 16:19 is not with what Jesus said,
but with how it has been translated into English by some (far too
many) translators. The actual Greek does not say what many
English translations have written.
The Greek really says: "I will give you the keys of the
kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind - this is, declare to be
improper and unlawful - on earth must be already bound in heaven;
and whatever you loose on earth - declare lawful - must be
what is already loosed in heaven" (Amplified Bible).
A foot note in the Amplified Bible reads: "Williams:
'Perfect passive participle, so things in a state of having been
already forbidden (or permitted)."
J.B. Phillips under Note 3, page 552 of the NT Bible I have
in my library by him, has this enlightening comment:
"Matthew 16, 19 and 18, 18 - 'forbidding' and 'permitting'.
There is a very curious Greek construction here, viz. a simple
future followed by the perfect participle passive.
If Jesus had mean to say quite simply, 'Whatever you forbid on
earth will be forbidden in heaven', can anyone explain why the
simple future passive is not used? It seems to me that if the
words of Jesus are accurately reported here, and I have no reason
to doubt it, then the force of these sayings is that Jesus' true
disciples will be so led by the Spirit that they will be
following the heavenly pattern. In other words what they 'forbid'
or 'permit' on earth will be consonant with the Divine rules. If
a simple future passive had been used it would mean an automatic
heavenly endorsement of the Church's actions, which to me, at
least, is a very different thing........"
Ah, Ah, now we see what Jesus was really saying to Peter.
He told Peter that he was just a pebble, a small stone in the
building that was the church, which would be built and founded
upon THE ROCK, or huge shelf of stone, Himself as the Son of the
living God. And yes Peter (and all shepherds and overseers of the
flock) would be guided by the Spirit into all truth (John 16:13),
to know the basic keys and way into the Kingdom (so they could
make disciples of all nations(Mat.28:19,20), to teach others as
they had been taught(Mat.28:20). But in all this Jesus then gave
a serious warning to all leaders and ministers in His church. The
warning was that whatever they taught was the correct and right
way to serve and worship God, whatever the laws and commandments
they taught were still blinding on Christians, whatever laws and
commandments they taught were not binding, whatever they taught
to people as the way to live as holy children of God, HAD BETTER
BE ACCORDING TO WHAT WAS ALREADY THE DIVINE WAY AND RULES,
ALREADY THE HEAVENLY PATTERN!
I guess so! For Jesus had already said that man was not to
live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDED OUT OF THE
MOUTH OF GOD! Jesus was to later say that the Spirit would lead
into "all truth" and that truth was the Father's word (John 16:13;
17:17). God's children are to be SET APART(sanctified)
by......not the ideas, the whims, the fancies, the notions, of
men's minds that have no Biblical foundation, examples, or
principles from the word of God, but they are to be SANCTIFIED
by the truth, which is the word of the Father (read it and mark it
- John 17:17).
The whole NT proclaims this truth of how the church is to be
led, and how Christians are to live their lives in the Lord. We
are to do as Paul said to his readers, "Be you followers of me,
even AS I am of Christ"(1 Cor.11:1). The plain inference is, only
follow me as I follow Christ. The NT teaches over and over again
that every person must have a personal relationship with the
Lord. We come to the Lord individually, we do not come to Him
through another human man after we have been baptized and have
His Spirit within us. The NT tells us that apostles and elders
CAN GO ASTRAY, they can become false apostles. The NT tells God's
people to "test the spirits" to "work out your own salvation with
fear and trembling" to be watchful for false prophets coming in
the name of Christ will appear and deceive many. It is you that
must appear before the judgment seat of God to give account for
the things you have done. There will be no minister between you
and God at that time. If you give your mind over in blind faith
to any man/woman at any time, you become their servants and not
the servants of the Lord.
And the NT teaches that you, your mind and body and soul, are
bought with a price, the price of the blood of Christ, so you
belong to HIM, and not to any physical man (1 Cor.6:19,20; 7:23).
Yes, we should honor, respect, remember and obey the true
ministers/elders of the Lord when they teach and are within the
word of God, for they do watch for the souls of the flock and
sheep within the church (Hebrews 13:7,17,18 ). But never forget
the other verses mentioned above. Do not read the Bible with
blinkers over your eyes, only looking at certain verses while
reading right over others.
The Elders of God must according to Jesus STAY WITHIN THE
WORD, WITHIN THE LAWS, COMMANDMENTS, EXAMPLES, AND CLEAR
PRINCIPLES OF THAT WHICH IS ALREADY LAID DOWN IN HEAVEN. THEY
MUST TEACH THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO THE HEAVENLY PATTERN.
Are there some things that the true minister of God will
have to make a "judgment" upon, to bind and loose? Yes, there
are serious matters when this must be so, but even then it will
be guided by the word and examples in the Bible. Let me give you
a few examples.
Turn to the gospel of John, chapter 20 and read verse 23.
Sometimes in leading people to Christ there will be judgment
needed in determining if the attitude of a person is truly
repentant and ready for baptism. Or is it something they still do
not really understand, or they want to be baptized because their
friend or brother or sister, wife or husband, is getting baptized
? Sins will have to be either retained (if they are not ready
for baptism) or forgiven (if they are ready for baptism). Yet,
again, this must be all done within the word of God, according to
what the word tells us to look for when anyone wants to be
baptized. It is not to be done from any angle of favoritism or
politics, or any human fancy and whim, for such so called
"binding and loosing" will fall on deaf ears in heaven.
Paul, according to the word of the Lord, had to make a
judgment and cast his vote so to speak, in regards the serious
issue over the man practicing incest unrepentedly, in the
Corinthian church (1 Cor.5). This binding and loosing decision
(the punishment to be inflicted upon the unrepentant sinner by
the church) was based upon what God had already clearly laid
down and given in His word as what the church is to do under such
a situation.
At another time Paul had to make a judgment in correcting
Peter for his error and sin (Gal.2). Once more this was bound or
loosed according to what God had already taught and given as to
the truth of the matter on the issue at hand, which was derived
at by the scriptures and what the Holy Spirit had clearly
done (Acts 15 - Jews and Gentiles were to be as one in the
church). Peter was now living contrary to this heavenly truth and
needed correction. Paul gave it.
There is nothing in Matthew 16:19 to say that a minister or
group of ministers can change the word of God, can add or take
away from the word of God, can "do away with" any law or
commandment of God as they fancy, can change the Sabbath from the
7th day to the 1st day of the week, can dream up "doctrines" out
of their own head to impose them on the church, can tell members
of the congregation what car to buy or when to get their teeth
repaired, how many children to have, for the man in the ministry
not to marry, and a whole group of other things that some church
organizations have claimed they can blind and loose on their
church because of this verse.
The rest of the Bible would be in powerful disagreement with
such a teaching by any primacy of Peter promulgators.
This has taken much longer than I at first thought or
planned. I will explain the other scriptures I intended to cover
in this part two, in a yet part three of this study.
Keith Hunt (January 21 1997) Quotations are from the KJV
unless otherwise stated.
…………………………………….
Peter - Head Apostle?Peter was given the keys of the Kingdom. Did this make him chief apostle? THE
PRIMACY
OF PETER?
Part 3
by
Keith Hunt
ACTS 15 - THE JERUSALEM CONFERENCE
There arose within the NT church a body of men that taught
that physical circumcision was "a must" in order to be saved.
They also wanted all Gentiles to observe the law of Moses in its
details. It would seem that most of these teachers of such a
doctrine were from the sect of the Pharisees (verses 1,5).
Paul and Barnabas had many "a run in" with these fellows,
strongly disagreeing with them over their theology on this
matter. Finally it was thought appropriate by the church to send
Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem to meet with the apostles and
elders there concerning this issue about physical
circumcision (verse 2-4).
We have already seen in part one of this study that if Peter
was the head decision maker, the one with top authority, the one
who was to feed the others the truth of the keys of the kingdom,
then such a meeting need not have taken place. The church as a
whole could have just asked Peter to turn the key and open the
door to pass down his judgment verdict. Letters could have been
sent out to all churches giving forth Peter's authoritative "I
have spoken, and so it will be" answer to this troubling
question.
But such never happened, because Peter simply did not have
primacy over the other apostles/elders and members of the church.
Luke (the author of Acts) mentions no word coming from Peter
voicing his primacy above all in the church, and so rendering
such a ministerial conference un-necessary.
But the argument goes that it was AT this conference that
Peter exercised his primacy. Really? Let's read carefully what
was done and said in this chapter, adding no more, but asking a
few questions as we go along.
The meeting began (verse 6). There was "MUCH DISPUTING...."
Obviously many had their say, much talk from all who wanted to
say something on the matter. Then Peter rose up and said: "Men
and brethren, you know how that a good while ago God made choice
among us, that I would be the head apostle, that I would be the
chief teacher and feeder of spiritual knowledge. You will
remember, and for those who do not because they may be relatively
new to the church, I restate it here again. You'll remember that
Jesus gave to me above anyone else in the church, a special gift
of having the keys to the Kingdom. Having the ability to discern
the truth of any matter, and especially the hard ones that the
church would have to face and find the answers on. I think all
would agree this subject that we are all gathered here to
discuss, is one for me as having primacy, to make judgment upon
and settle once and for all. This problem has been going on for
far too long. I have heard all the disputing by many here. Now
I will render the decision that God will bind, so all the church
can have unity and peace."
NO! Peter DID NOT SAY ANYTHING CLOSE TO THOSE WORDS!
Peter re-iterated how God used him to preach the word to the
Gentiles, and to give them also the Holy Spirit just as the Jews
had received. He went on to say that by this God was showing
there was no difference between Jew and Gentile, that both
would be saved through the grace of Christ (verses 7-11).
After Peter spoke, was it yet over? Did anyone say: "Look,
the apostle with top authority, the head of the physical church
on earth, the one who is to feed us all at times, has spoken. He
has the final authoritative word on the matter"? NOT AT ALL!
Luke (the writer of Acts) goes on to tell us: "THEN ALL THE
MULTITUDE KEPT SILENCE, AND GAVE AUDIENCE TO BARNABAS AND
PAUL (verse 12). These two men presented their case with their
proof, over all the years they had been doing the work of God
among the Gentiles!
So it is quite evident to the honest reader that Peter DID
NOT HAVE THE LAST WORD, NOR DID HE WRAP IT ALL UP WITH ANY FINAL
DECISION, BECAUSE OTHERS CONTINUED TO SPEAK ABOUT THE ISSUE THAT
THEY HAD COME TO DISPUTE OVER AND REACH A VERDICT ON, AFTER PETER
HAD SPOKEN!
What do we then find after Barnabas and Paul had given their
two cents worth? Do we find Peter coming back and saying; "Well
we have heard from everyone now. Give me ten minutes to talk to
God by myself in private. Give me this time to acquire the
answer from the Lord on this matter, and I as the one with
primacy will come back and render to you the answer, and what
must be taught as the truth to all the churches, concerning
physical circumcision."
Not at all! In fact there is no word recorded by Luke that
Peter SAID ANYTHING!
Look at the rest of THE CHAPTER, and see if you can find even the
name of Peter mentioned again. It, that is, even his name, is
NOT THERE AGAIN! NOTHING IS SAID ABOUT PETER WHATSOEVER IN THE
REMAINING VERSES OF THIS CHAPTER!
Something I suggest to you that would be very unlikely IF it was
Peter above all others who made the final decision as to what
would be the teaching of the NT church from that day forth, on
the issue of physical circumcision.
After Barnabas and Paul had spoken, WHO then spoke up?
It was James! Now some declare or assume that James was the
chief apostle at this meeting or that he was chairman, but
NOTHING in the word says he was either. Luke simply writes that
after Barnabas and Paul had spoken James answered. He had
listened (we are not told if he spoke earlier or not when there
was much disputing), and now after hearing many sides of the
issue he spoke. Luke says nothing about him having primacy over
all the others and so now rendering the authoritative decision as
to how the church will teach on the matter at hand. James could
clearly see what the scriptures taught on the subject, and quoted
them.
Then in verse 19, he said: "Wherefore my sentence is......"
not "Wherefore as there is invested in me by Christ Jesus the
power to bind and loose, my final decree will be....." or "I have
consulted with Peter who has primacy over us and the judgment
is......"
No, James after listening to all speak, weighing the evidence,
seeing what the Holy Spirit had done, and looking into the
scriptures, he gave his judgment or sentence on the matter.
That's all, no more and no less. He said what he thought should
be done and what should be said to the Gentiles (verses 19-21).
Then notice what Luke writes beginning with verse 22.
"Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the WHOLE
church to send chosen men (names given)……..chief men (some men
- plural - were thought of as "chief" men, but notice Peter's
name is not there. If he was thought of as one of the chief men,
he was not chosen for this specific undertaking) among the
brethren."
Within any organization of some size there are going to be
men who with their natural abilities, learned skilled, and gifts
of the Spirit, are going to be considered as "leading" or "chief"
men among the total of men within that organization. This is the
natural state of life and naturally to be expected. It does not
mean that such men have dictatorial primacy authority over the
rest. The men chosen in Acts chapter six, to "serve tables" had
to meet certain qualification laid down by the apostles.
Obviously among thousands to pick from not all men would have met
those qualifications. That does not take away from those not
qualified, it just means that we are all at different stages of
spiritual growth and we all have natural abilities and gifts of
the Spirit as God distributes to each to profit all. We are all
called to function in different areas within the body of
Christ, and one does not have dictatorial primacy, as in the
military structure of a nation, over the other. But all respect
and serve each other for the function each performs.
I explain this very thoroughly in my book on Church
Government. Certainly the men chosen in Acts 6 would have been
considered as "chief men among the brethren." But remember the
NT does not use such a phrase as meaning some individuals in the
church can rule and order around others as a master would a
slave.
From the context it would seem correct to say that the two
men noted as "chief among the brethren" (Judas and Silas), were
called such not because of great talents and abilities, but
because they were men "that have hazarded their lives for the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ"(verse 26).
Look carefully at some of the words of the letter that these
men were to deliver to the churches. Here was a wonderful
opportunity not only for the church at Jerusalem but
for the Holy Spirit, to proclaim to the churches of God that the
body of Christ had a head apostle who had the final word, the
primacy of authority, the one with more knowledge and understand
of the keys of the Kingdom than anyone else. The one who could
answer all major theological questions that could arise within
Christianity. Here was the opportunity to tell the churches that
this man was Peter, or James, or John, or Paul or
whoever it was. But the letter is deafeningly silent about such
an important doctrine as a one man primacy in the church. The
whole NT is silent about it!!
The letter starts out: "The apostles and elders and
brethren"(verse 23). It then recounts the main doctrinal problem
that had circulated far and wide, which necessitated the
Jerusalem conference (verse 24). The letter proceeds to state
that the chosen men carrying the news of the decision from the
conference, was from not any one man but from "us being assembled
with one accord."
The most important point to our study is in verse 28. The
decision on the doctrinal truth spoken about in verse 24, was NOT
FROM PETER or JAMES or any one man, but "it seemed good to the
Holy Spirit, AND TO US......" THE "US" IS THE SAME "US"
IN VERSE 25, WHICH IS TIED TO THE "WE" OF VERSE 24, WHICH IN TURN
GOES BACK TO VERSE 23, "THE APOSTLES AND ELDERS AND BRETHREN."
There it is, really very plain to see, if you have no
preconceived doctrine of men to uphold. Acts 15 cannot be used to
prove, nor does it teach, that the NT church had some individual
apostle who was the head, who had the primacy, who was authorized
by Christ to exercise final dictatorial "binding and loosing"
doctrines on the church of God.
JOHN 21:15-17
This is the well known section of the THREE "loves" asked of
Peter by Christ, and the answer each time of Jesus is "feed my
lambs" and "feed my sheep."
Some say this was a unique and special theological primacy
given to Peter. The primacy being that he above all other
apostles and elders in the church, was to have leading authority
in spiritual matters.
In reading this passage of scripture from my childhood,
together with the rest of the NT, I had NEVER understood it to
mean that Peter had theological primacy. There is just nothing
else, no other verse or passage of scripture in the NT to give
credence to such a view. In fact many NT passages would prove
just the opposite is true, including Acts 15. Peter himself
acknowledged that Paul wrote NT scriptures (2 Pet.3:16). Paul
certainly made it plain in some of his letters and epistles that
no man added anything to his theological understanding and
teaching (Gal.2:6-10).
In John 21 Jesus was giving Peter a personal lesson on
loving Him, and if he really did love Him, it would go hand in
hand with fulfilling one of the main functions of being an Elder
and minister of Jesus Christ. And that important duty would be to
spiritually FEED the sheep of the Lord.
At this time did Jesus only have 12 sheep, and so Jesus was
telling and commissioning Peter to teach the other
apostles/elders? No, not at all! Jesus had many more than 12
apostles at this time. He had only 12 He called apostles yes, but
He also had MANY other disciples. The 12 were chosen FROM among
the disciples - see Luke 6:12-16; Mark 3:13,14.
Peter was to spiritually feed the sheep as the sheep would
come into the fold, as the sheep would grow in numbers, and as
Jesus would guide and direct him within the plan of God for each
individual apostle/elder, for the work they would be called to
do. In the process of time, God was to mainly use Peter in giving
forth the truth of the word to the Jews, while Paul was to mainly
go to the Gentiles (Gal.2:7,8). So "feed my sheep" is to be taken
as a general statement, because it is plain that God used Peter
and Paul eventually in a specific limited spiritual feeding of
certain sheep within the whole fold, during their physical lives.
Is there any word here where Jesus said to Peter: "I now
make you the leader with primacy over all others to feed the
elders and saints in the church with spiritual food." ?
No, Christ just gave Peter instruction to "feed my sheep" but
added nothing about him being the head and authority in the
theology department of the church.
So Peter was to feed the sheep of the Lord, as the Lord
directed and led. But did not Paul do likewise? Oh, you bet he
did! Are not all elders to "feed the sheep"? Why Peter himself
said they were indeed to do so - see 1 Peter 5:1-3.
In my book on Church Government there was given plenty of
proof from the Greek NT to prove that an elder is a bishop who is
an overseer who is a shepherd of the church of God. It is quite
easy to see in Acts 20 and verses 17, 28-30. The elders of
Miletus were overseers of the flock, and were to feed the church
of God!
ALL ELDERS are to feed the sheep, it is part of their
function as overseers in the church, as the Lord leads in
specific ways at different times.
In fact the teacher and him being taught are to teach each
other at times - see Gal.6:6.
Part of the very qualifications that must be met to be a
bishop or elder is to be skilful in teaching (as the Greek should
be understood), not a novice, and to take care of the church of
God (1 Tim.3:2,5,6).
Now that as I see it means "feed my sheep" for EVERY Elder,
and as we are according to Peter ".....all be subject one to
another, and be clothed with humility....."(1 Peter 5:5), I see
where that means we are all to be willing to feed the sheep and
be fed by each other.
Nothing here in John 21 to establish any primacy for Peter
in any feeding of the sheep.
2 COR.11:5; 12:11
What about Paul talking as if there were "chiefest
apostles"? Some background information on Paul and the church
at Corinth will be helpful. Some of the "Study Bibles" will
contain the following notes.
Paul had established the word of God in Corinth during his
second missionary journey (Acts 18:1-17). Many were converted.
Paul stayed about 18 months, ministering zealously in site of
great opposition. Apollos continued the work after Paul had
left( Acts 18:24-19:1). One of the large problems that developed
after Paul had left was that the Christians there split into
different fractions over loyalties to various human teachers.
Paul spent a lot of time correcting this problem in his first
letter (the one we call the first), the beginning chapters.
Coming over into Paul's second letter to them, we find it
was written at the end of his two-to-three-year ministry in
Ephesus (see Acts 19:8-10; 20:31). The letter was written perhaps
six months to a year after he wrote 1 Corinthians (compare 8:10;
9:2 with 1 Cor.16:1).
Paul had originally sent a letter to the church at Corinth (1
Cor.5:9). Later some came to Paul at Ephesus asking for guidance;
they returned, possibly carrying 1 Corinthians with them (see 1
Cor.16:17-19). Timothy visited Corinth (1 Cor.4:17; 16:10,11)
and probably went back to Paul in Ephesus with news of opposition
to Paul and continued division in the church. Paul made a
"sorrowful" visit (2 Cor.1:23-2:1), which did little to solve the
problems. He sent a severe letter by Titus (2:3). While at
Macedonia he received better news from the Corinthians (2:12,13;
7:5-7,13-16). Immediately he sent this reconciling letter we know
as 2 Corinthians.
One main purpose of this letter was Paul's concern that
FALSE apostles were leading the Corinthians away from the pure
truth of the gospel they had been given by himself and Apollos.
These false apostles were taking advantage of the people by
claiming apostolic authority and boasting of human abilities and
achievements. Paul defends his own authority as one of God's
true apostles by referring to what God had done through him.
The letter contains three basic sections - chapters 1-7;
8-9; 10-13. For our present study we are concerned with chapters
11 and 12.
Chapters 10-13 deal with teachers at Corinth who challenged
Paul's apostolic authority and falsely claimed to be apostles.
Notice in the middle of chapter eleven, Paul in talking about
these apostles they were all "star eyed over" and "moon struck"
with, he pulls no punches but called them FALSE apostles (verses
13-15). He asks them to allow him to indulge in a little
"foolishness" - verses 16,17. He tells them they accept "fools"
readily (verse 19) seeing they are so wise (said with tongue in
cheek). They apparently were willing to take all kinds of abuse
from these fellows (verse 20). He says if they are Hebrews, so
what, he was also. If they were Israelite, no big deal, he was as
well. If they claimed descent from Abraham, he could claim that
also (verse 22).
Then NOTICE verse 23, "Are they ministers of Christ?" He
asks the question, and look how he answers himself, "I SPEAK AS A
FOOL....."
Paul in no way was accepting these men as true
elders/ministers/apostles of the Lord!
Are you beginning to see the context of this chapter 11 and
the first half of chapter 12?
Go back to 11:1, see how Paul starts off this discourse:
"Would to God you could bear with me a little in my FOLLY....."
Paul was quite concerned that they were leaving the faith
once delivered to them. They were it would seem to him leaving
the simple plain truths of Christ and not only listening but
following "another gospel" and "another spirit." They were
lapping it all up and devouring what these teachers were dishing
out, like bees around a bee hive, thinking it was truth while in
fact it was "another gospel" that Paul and other true apostles
of Jesus had never preached.
All this context shows what Paul really meant when he used
the words "very chiefest apostles" in referring to these men. HE
WAS NOT ONE BIT BEING SERIOUS!
HE WAS REALLY SAYING THIS WITH TONGUE IN CHEEK, TWO TONGUES IN
TWO CHEEKS IF HE HAD TWO TONGUES! He was speaking "not after the
Lord, but as it were FOOLISHLY"(verse 17).
Paul knew that these men were as much true apostles of the
Lord as the man in the moon.
He is using sarcasm against them, as well as his own
personal abilities, gifts and deeds in a comparison (which he says
is somewhat foolish to do but the Corinthians left him with no
choice if he was going to prove his point to them, and free them
from the spell they seemed to be under from these false
apostles).
The AMPLIFIED BIBLE is the one I recommend you read these
two chapters in. Here is a little from that amplified
translation.
"I wish you would bear with me while I indulge in a
little (so-called) foolishness. Do bear with me!........But (now)
I am fearful…….For (you seem readily to endure it) if a man
comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we
preached.......or a different gospel.......You tolerate (all that)
well enough! Yet I consider myself as in no way inferior to
these (precious) extra-super (false) apostles………..Now I have
been (speaking like) a fool! but you forced me to it, for I ought
to have been (saved the necessity and) commended by you. For I
have not fallen short one bit or proved myself at all inferior to
those superlative (false) apostles (of yours), even if I am nothing
- a nobody" (2 Cor.11:1,3- 5; and 12:11).
Paul in those two chapters of 2 Corinthians was not
seriously calling ANYONE the "very chiefest apostles."
The nearest that Paul ever came, to seriously calling and
giving some kind of title to any apostle, was in his letter to
the Galatians, chapter two, and verses 6 and 9. There
he used for some men in the Jerusalem church, the phrases "seemed
to be something" and "seemed to be pillars." And we covered
that section of scripture in detail in the first or number one
part of this study.
When we honestly look at the whole New Testament, not adding
or reading meanings or interpretations into verses, there is
only ONE TRUTH that emerges. One man ONLY has primacy in the
Church of God - the man CHRIST JESUS!
Keith Hunt (January 25 1997)
All quotations from the KJV unless otherwise stated
………………………………………. |
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment