- Aug 4, 2013
- 4,999
- 2,485
- 75
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
These two verses are the favorites for Roman Catholic apologists to insist upon their understanding that Peter is the head of the Church and therefore the See of Peter is without the possibility of error. This, in their mind, makes the Roman Catholic Church THE Church.
I had a thought this morning that I would like to run by you. This might take a while to come to a conclusion, so be patient with me.
1. As a Preterist, I find ample evidence that Matthew 24, the favorite chapter used by Dispensational Premillennialists to prove a future return of Christ in the "Second Coming" is actually talking about the Destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. In that chapter, there are numerous "time-indicators" which speak of the "coming of the Son of Man" (vs 3) and the "end of the age" (aion). Thus, from verses 1-3, we see the destruction of the Temple connected to the coming of the Son of Man." This ended the covenant with national Israel forever as a dejuris act.
2. Matthew is the Gospel which is strictly Jewish in its scope and appeal. The Jews would have understood Matthew better than any other Gospel because of the numerous references that are specifically Jewish in nature. We see it beginning in 1:1 with the genealogy from Abraham, something that would be very important to a Jew who understood the promises of God to Abraham. We see in the first four chapters numerous references to Jewish prophecies. These would make no sense to Gentiles, but were significant to a Jew.
3. Beginning with Matthew 3:2, a significant term appears in that Gospel that appears nowhere else - the Kingdom of Heaven. Not the Kingdom of God, but something different. Words mean things, and it is lazy exegesis and a lack of thinking to make one into the other. What is the Kingdom of Heaven? It is the promised earthly rule of the Messiah. That was promised to the Jews specifically if they would be faithful to the covenant promises between them and Abraham. My opinion (and that's all it is - an opinion) is that the Kingdom of Heaven is specifically offered to the Jews as the Promised One comes to offer Himself as their King.
4. Now notice this: In Revelation 21 and 22, the coming of the New Jerusalem is described. I believe this coincides with the Destruction of Jerusalem as described in the Book of the Apocalypse. Jerusalem (and not Rome) is the city of wickedness, the harlot that sits upon seven hills. The New Jerusalem comes down to earth, the gates are ever open to all who will enter into Her (by repentance and baptism) and outside are the wicked.
5. Here is where I tie this altogether. The Bible is a Book of Covenant. It describes the Fall of man from the covenant with God, the promise of the One who would restore the covenant, and the promise to Abraham to be a "father of many nations" as a covenant blessing. Revelation is the end of the book and describes this whole process up until the Destruction of Jerusalem and with that destruction, the establishment of the Church, the New Jerusalem
Why is this significant to Matthew 16: 18-19. Because through the ages, men have treated the Bible as having yet to be fulfilled. On the other hand, if the Bible is a book written to Jews about the covenant and the possibility of their being the covenant Kingdom, then with the Destruction of Israel, the whole thing is finished and we are in the time when the gates of the New Jerusalem are open to everyone.
Therefore, the promise given to Peter was a limited time promise in which Peter was sent to the Jews to open the gates of the Kingdom of Heaven. That is, in Preterist eschatology, if the Jews hearing Peter's preaching, had repented of their killing of their Messiah, they would have been given the Kingdom of Heaven (an earthly rulership). This is alluded to in Luke 13: 6-9, where the vinedresser for three years (the three years of Christ's preaching) found no fruit and was told to tear down the fig tree (National Israel). The response is "Let it alone. Let me dung it and see if it bears fruit. If not, it shall be torn down. The preaching of the Gospel was the time of dunging of the fig tree, but rather than bearing fruit, national Israel killed the Apostles and brought judgment on themselves in AD 70.
When AD 70 was finished, there was no longer a need for the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. The New Jerusalem, come down from heaven to mankind, was open to all mankind. No one was needed to unlock it because the gates are ever open to any who will come.
Thus, the Roman Catholic claims regarding the Keys of Peter are utterly bogus. He used the keys, he opened the doors of the Kingdom by his preaching, and for his trouble, he was crucified upside down. In AD 70, Jerusalem was destroyed as prophesied in Apocalypse ant the gates of the New Jerusalem are open.
NO NEED FOR KEYS!!!!
Remember, this is just an opinion I have. Now have at tearing it apart, but remember your Christian charity as you do so.
OH......one other thought. It is because Matthew is specifically Jewish in nature, the "keys of the Kingdom of Heaven" do not appear anywhere else in any other Gospel. Peter is noted as a leader of the Apostles, but not in the manner that Roan Catholicism posits him. He was sent to the Jews for one purpose - that has been fulfilled.
I had a thought this morning that I would like to run by you. This might take a while to come to a conclusion, so be patient with me.
1. As a Preterist, I find ample evidence that Matthew 24, the favorite chapter used by Dispensational Premillennialists to prove a future return of Christ in the "Second Coming" is actually talking about the Destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. In that chapter, there are numerous "time-indicators" which speak of the "coming of the Son of Man" (vs 3) and the "end of the age" (aion). Thus, from verses 1-3, we see the destruction of the Temple connected to the coming of the Son of Man." This ended the covenant with national Israel forever as a dejuris act.
2. Matthew is the Gospel which is strictly Jewish in its scope and appeal. The Jews would have understood Matthew better than any other Gospel because of the numerous references that are specifically Jewish in nature. We see it beginning in 1:1 with the genealogy from Abraham, something that would be very important to a Jew who understood the promises of God to Abraham. We see in the first four chapters numerous references to Jewish prophecies. These would make no sense to Gentiles, but were significant to a Jew.
3. Beginning with Matthew 3:2, a significant term appears in that Gospel that appears nowhere else - the Kingdom of Heaven. Not the Kingdom of God, but something different. Words mean things, and it is lazy exegesis and a lack of thinking to make one into the other. What is the Kingdom of Heaven? It is the promised earthly rule of the Messiah. That was promised to the Jews specifically if they would be faithful to the covenant promises between them and Abraham. My opinion (and that's all it is - an opinion) is that the Kingdom of Heaven is specifically offered to the Jews as the Promised One comes to offer Himself as their King.
4. Now notice this: In Revelation 21 and 22, the coming of the New Jerusalem is described. I believe this coincides with the Destruction of Jerusalem as described in the Book of the Apocalypse. Jerusalem (and not Rome) is the city of wickedness, the harlot that sits upon seven hills. The New Jerusalem comes down to earth, the gates are ever open to all who will enter into Her (by repentance and baptism) and outside are the wicked.
5. Here is where I tie this altogether. The Bible is a Book of Covenant. It describes the Fall of man from the covenant with God, the promise of the One who would restore the covenant, and the promise to Abraham to be a "father of many nations" as a covenant blessing. Revelation is the end of the book and describes this whole process up until the Destruction of Jerusalem and with that destruction, the establishment of the Church, the New Jerusalem
Why is this significant to Matthew 16: 18-19. Because through the ages, men have treated the Bible as having yet to be fulfilled. On the other hand, if the Bible is a book written to Jews about the covenant and the possibility of their being the covenant Kingdom, then with the Destruction of Israel, the whole thing is finished and we are in the time when the gates of the New Jerusalem are open to everyone.
Therefore, the promise given to Peter was a limited time promise in which Peter was sent to the Jews to open the gates of the Kingdom of Heaven. That is, in Preterist eschatology, if the Jews hearing Peter's preaching, had repented of their killing of their Messiah, they would have been given the Kingdom of Heaven (an earthly rulership). This is alluded to in Luke 13: 6-9, where the vinedresser for three years (the three years of Christ's preaching) found no fruit and was told to tear down the fig tree (National Israel). The response is "Let it alone. Let me dung it and see if it bears fruit. If not, it shall be torn down. The preaching of the Gospel was the time of dunging of the fig tree, but rather than bearing fruit, national Israel killed the Apostles and brought judgment on themselves in AD 70.
When AD 70 was finished, there was no longer a need for the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. The New Jerusalem, come down from heaven to mankind, was open to all mankind. No one was needed to unlock it because the gates are ever open to any who will come.
Thus, the Roman Catholic claims regarding the Keys of Peter are utterly bogus. He used the keys, he opened the doors of the Kingdom by his preaching, and for his trouble, he was crucified upside down. In AD 70, Jerusalem was destroyed as prophesied in Apocalypse ant the gates of the New Jerusalem are open.
NO NEED FOR KEYS!!!!
Remember, this is just an opinion I have. Now have at tearing it apart, but remember your Christian charity as you do so.
OH......one other thought. It is because Matthew is specifically Jewish in nature, the "keys of the Kingdom of Heaven" do not appear anywhere else in any other Gospel. Peter is noted as a leader of the Apostles, but not in the manner that Roan Catholicism posits him. He was sent to the Jews for one purpose - that has been fulfilled.