Dear Protestants ... please explain John 1:42

[Buzzard3]

The Scripture you have quoted suggests no such thing. You won't find a single Church Father who gives such an interpretation.

So you think "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" that Jesus gave to Peter is not a supernatural power?

How could any natural man possibly hold the keys to heaven? Only God could hold the keys to heaven.

 

[Buzzard3]

Peter was one of the 12 founding apostles. That's it

Peter is mentioned about 60 times in the book of Acts ... compared to the other two prominent apostles, James and John, who are each mentioned less than ten times. Please explain this imbalance.

 

[Buzzard3]

They were equals and Christ made sure they understood Him even warning them that none shall lead over another.

In which verse does Jesus say the apostles will have no leader?

And if there's nothing special about Peter amongst the apostles, why is he mentioned 60 times in the book of Acts, whereas James and John are each mentioned less than ten times?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

In which verse does Jesus say the apostles will have no leader?

And if there's nothing special about Peter amongst the apostles, why is he mentioned 60 times in the book of Acts, whereas James and John are each mentioned less than ten times?

Matthew 20
24And when the ten heard it, they were greatly displeased with the two brothers. 25But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

 

[SuperCow]

Jesus is referred to as "rock ... stone ... cornerstone" in Scripture, and Jesus gives Simon a new name, "rock". Coincidence?
This happened the very first time they met ... in fact the very first thing Jesus ever said to Simon Peter was, "You are Simon, son of Jonah. You will be called Cephas ('rock')" - John 1:42. Please explain.

It's a metaphor. Peter lays the foundation for the church. The wise man builds his house upon the rock. (Matthew 7:24) There is no justification to attribute this name to anything other than that.

Rock is used as a metaphor for God many times in the Old Testament:

Deuteronomy 32:3,4, 1 Samuel 2:2, 2 Samuel 22:32,45 23:3, over a dozen places in Psalms, Isaiah 17:10 26:4 30:29 44:8, and in Habakkuk 1:12. Are you equating Peter to God?

The few exceptions are Zechariah 12:3 where Jerusalem is referred to as a rock, and Deuteronomy 32:31,37 where false gods are referred to as rocks. (Inferior to Israel's rock in context.) And one place in Genesis 49:24 where it probably refers to God, but could possibly be inferred by some to be Joseph or Jacob.

Regardless, this one scripture, Simon's name changed to Peter/Cephas has no relevance to the supremacy of Peter or the Pope. (for or against)

Later, Jesus gives Peter (only) the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19). Why to Peter only?

Not to Peter only, but to all the apostles. All 12 were there.

All these things make perfect sense if Jesus had chosen Simon Peter to be his earthly representative after the Ascension ... which is why Jesus said Peter will be the "rock" on which he will build his Church (Matt 16:18).

No, and I explained why in post #65.

 

[SuperCow]

In which verse does Jesus say the apostles will have no leader?

What scripture is there where Peter is acting as their leader?

And if there's nothing special about Peter amongst the apostles, why is he mentioned 60 times in the book of Acts, whereas James and John are each mentioned less than ten times?

The same reason that Paul is mentioned 183 times, because he is relevant to the story.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Peter is mentioned about 60 times in the book of Acts ... compared to the other two prominent apostles, James and John, who are each mentioned less than ten times. Please explain this imbalance.

Who wrote most of the New Testament? If you want a pope, it should be Paul.

 

[com7fy8]

Well, Jesus said it to Peter while Peter was still on his way to denying Jesus three times. So, I do not trust that Jesus meant He would build us on such an immature person of such character.

Jesus gave Simon the name "rock" the very first moment they met? Why?

Possibly Peter was at that time hard-headed like a rock? He later did have a way of saying things not with it. Plus, at times it seems that with others Peter forbade children to come to Jesus > Mark 10:13-14. And the disciples fought among themselves, about who would be the greatest > I understand that Peter was one of those. So, while he was still able to function like that, he was certainly not functioning as the solid rock foundation of faith, I would say. And our Apostle Paul says "faith working through love", in Galatians 5:6. So, Christian faith is not only about believing ideas.

But, yes, we have how Jesus gave Peter the "keys", like >

Yet Jesus gave Peter "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19). What do the "keys" mean?

Possibly, by then, the rock had softened. But, even then, Peter had not yet denied Jesus three times. So, he was not yet sound in stable and maturing faith, I would say.

So, he was not ready to know how to use the keys, I consider . . . considering how he needed an amount of correction so he would have the right attitude for visiting the house of Cornelius.

So, he might have gotten the name and then the keys, but still not be ready to use them.

In 1 Peter 3, Peter says he is "a fellow elder" (1 Peter 5:1). Our Apostle Paul says what qualifies a man to be an elder > 1 Timothy 3:1-10, with Titus 1:5-9. So, in order for Peter to be qualified to call himself an elder, he needed to mature and gain much correction so he could be an example "to the flock" > 1 Peter 5:3 > not only have "keys".

God did use him with his keys, though, before he became a leader by example. Possibly, his keys helped him along with the others. But now that the keys have gotten things started and we have example leaders according to Paul's qualifications . . . the keys have already opened things up.

By the way, have you noticed how Paul met with Jesus and became our Apostle to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:8) . . . before Peter became able to minister to the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius?? Paul obeyed Jesus first, for the Gentiles; then Peter became corrected so he was ready.

So, I see how Peter possibly is not the only one who got keys from Jesus.

 

[com7fy8]

What do the "keys" mean?

A key can be used to open a door or a treasure chest.

But, once it is opened . . . where do we go from here? What gives anyone the blessings of God's kingdom?

prayer > Philippians 4:6-7 > because by praying the way God's word says to pray > "the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus."

obeying how our Father rules each of us in His own peace > Colossians 3:15

leading by example > 1 Peter 5:3, with 1 Timothy 3:1-10

our Father's correction > Hebrews 12:4-14

doing "all things without complaining and disputing, that you may become blameless and harmless in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation" > in Philippians 2:13-16

These bring the good of God's kingdom. But, technically, these might not be the keys which Jesus first gave to Peter. After all, Peter did not become functional like he needed to become, even after getting the "keys". He was not obeying God in His kingdom's peace, while he was denying Jesus three times, or discriminating against Gentile Christians > Galatians 2:11-13.

So, yes he got the "keys", but he himself needed to use them so he could actually function in God's kingdom! I guess we could say that prayer, and obedience, and example leaders, and God's personal correction, and living without arguing and complaining so we live and love like Jesus could be considered part of our treasure we have in God's kingdom . . . now that those keys have opened this up for us.

So it's just a coincidence that Jesus and Peter are both called "rock"?

Well, Peter did not be and live like Jesus. So, I consider calling him "Rock" did not mean the same as calling Christ our Solid Rock or our Cornerstone. We have how Peter functioned as a "hypocrite", even after he had gotten the Holy Spirit started with those Gentiles at the house of Cornelius, and Paul needed to stand up to Peter and stop that > Galatians 2:11-13.

So, I consider that Peter was not always exactly solid like Jesus; so possibly, after all, Jesus did not really mean Peter as being the rock on which Jesus would build the church. But I trust that after Paul corrected Peter, Peter then benefitted . . . learned from his error . . . and matured to become able to write his two epistles - - not only from inspiration, but from actual experience . . . after he had become qualified to call himself an elder.

Could it be that Jesus - the "Rock" and "cornerstone" of the Church - gave Simon the name "rock" because Jesus chose Simon to be his earthly representative and head of the Church after the Ascension? Could this be why Jesus gave "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" only to Peter (Matt 16:18)?

In case Jesus did not give keys to anyone else, we can see how Peter did not always represent Jesus very well. Plus, Peter himself noted how there were to be twelve apostles who would represent Jesus as witnesses to His resurrection > this is in Acts 1:15-26. So, I consider how those keys were meant for sharing his authority with others and making others also representatives.

And Peter did not go to Paul, in order to ordain Paul. But Jesus used Ananias who apparently was ready to understand Paul's calling. But Peter did not become ready to minister to Gentiles until the gift of Paul's apostleship was present in the church.

Oh yes, and now we have God's word, including all we have in Peter's epistles. But Peter is not the only representative whom God has used to give us His word . . . by the way. We have James, Jude, Paul, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and whoever wrote Hebrews if this was not Paul, and there are letters claiming to be from more than one person > for example 1 & 2 Thessalonians > from Paul and Sylvanus and Timothy.

So, I might say the keys have been used to get God's word started with us; and if anything would be a key to rightly receiving God's word, I would say that key is "faith working through love" > as our Apostle Paul says in Galatians 5:6.

And it appears that at times there are ones both of Catholic and Protestant church culture who are not using "faith working through love". So, each of us needs to be able to tell the difference, about who is telling us or doing what.

"Test all things; hold fast what is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

With God, is it possible for each of us to be able to tell the difference. And God will guide us "in one body" (Colossians 3:15) so that how He works in each of us (Philippians 2:13) will be in unity with all others who are obeying God in His own peace, and not depending on imperfect and even false leaders. However, yes there are both Catholic culture and Protestant culture people who are calling attention away from this. Beware of where your attention is being guided.

 

[prodromos]

All the apostles were given the power to bind and loose (Matt 18), but only Peter received the "keys of the kingdom of heaven". So obviously there's something special and unique about the position and power that Jesus bestowed on Peter.

No. The Church Fathers state that the keys are the authority to bind and loose. Nothing more.

Surely only God has the keys to the kingdom of heaven, so Peter was given some kind of awesome God-like power ... which is one reason both Jesus and Peter are called "rock". Jesus the "rock" installed Peter the "rock" to be his earthly representative and head of Christ's Church, who would infallibly (a God-like power) decide dogmas and doctrines, infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit.

This is purely conjecture on your part and has no support in the Church Fathers. The only infallible man described by Scripture is the God-man, Jesus Christ.

 

[prodromos]

So you think "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" that Jesus gave to Peter is not a supernatural power?

Show me any Church Fathers who taught it was anything other than the authority to bind and loose.

How could any natural man possibly hold the keys to heaven? Only God could hold the keys to heaven.

Only God can heal. Only God can raise the dead. And yet, the apostles were able to do the same through being united to the God-man.

 

[prodromos]

Peter is mentioned about 60 times in the book of Acts ... compared to the other two prominent apostles, James and John, who are each mentioned less than ten times. Please explain this imbalance.

Luke, the author of Acts, spent more time with Peter than his other Apostles

 

[Buzzard3]

Matthew 16 must be taken in context, the full discussion being summarized in verse 13-20, not just verse 18. In context, all the apostles were given the keys to the kingdom of heaven, because Jesus was talking to all of them.

Oh, I see ... so when Jesus said, "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt 16:18), he wasn't actually directly addressing Peter, he was talking to all the apostles.

You can't be serious.

 

[Buzzard3]

Matthew 20
24And when the ten heard it, they were greatly displeased with the two brothers. 25But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Well, in order for your argument to work, all you have to do now is demonstrate that Peter "desire(d) to be great among" the apostles and "desire(d) to be first among" the apostles.

You've misinterpreted this passage. Jesus is not against leadership ... he is against the sort of tyrannical and self-serving leadership that was common amongst the Gentiles.

 

[Buzzard3]

It's a metaphor. Peter lays the foundation for the church.

Peter alone laid the foundation of the church? I thought you said there was nothing special about him.
On the other hand, if all the apostles laid the foundation of the church, why did Jesus give the name "rock" only to Simon?

Moreover,, why did Jesus give Simon that name the very first time they met (John 1:42)?

Rock is used as a metaphor for God many times in the Old Testament

That's exactly my point - Jesus gave Simon the name "rock" because Jesus made him God's representative on earth.

Are you equating Peter to God?

Of course not. Only God can hold "the keys of the kingdom of heaven", yet Jesus gave these "keys" to a man, Peter. In other words, God worked through Peter in a very special way. I'm not aware of anywhere else in the Bible where a man is given the keys to heaven!

Regardless, this one scripture, Simon's name changed to Peter/Cephas has no relevance to the supremacy of Peter or the Pope.

You've yet to explain why Jesus changed Simon's name to "rock".

Not to Peter only, but to all the apostles. All 12 were there.

All 12 were there, but as I pointed out in a previous text, Jesus is directly addressing PETER in Matt 18-19. So only Peter received the "keys".

 

[Buzzard3]

What scripture is there where Peter is acting as their leader?

In Matt 10:2, Peter is referred to as "first" among the apostles.

In Acts 5, Ananias laid money "at the apostles' feet" but it was Peter (as usual) who did the talking, and it was with Peter's words that he fell dead. Later, his wife showed up, and once again it was Peter (as usual) who did the talking, and it was with Peter's words that she also fell dead.
I say "as usual" because, in the Scriptures, whenever the apostles are together it is almost always Peter who does the talking. Evidently, Peter is the leader.

The same reason that Paul is mentioned 183 times, because he is relevant to the story.

Firstly, as demonstrated in Gal 2, Paul is subject to the authority of the Church leaders in Jerusalem, regardless of how times Paul is mentioned..

Secondly, you're claiming that the fact that Peter is mentioned at least 50 times more often in Acts than any other apostle is not evidence that there is something special about Peter. Amazing.

 

[Buzzard3]

Who wrote most of the New Testament? If you want a pope, it should be Paul.

Good point, but Jesus gave the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" to Peter only (Matt 16:19), and Jesus - the "rock" - changed Simon's name to ... guess what? .. the "rock".

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Well, in order for your argument to work, all you have to do now is demonstrate that Peter "desire(d) to be great among" the apostles and "desire(d) to be first among" the apostles.

You've misinterpreted this passage. Jesus is not against leadership ... he is against the sort of tyrannical and self-serving leadership that was common amongst the Gentiles.

With all due respect, is that not how it turned out ? Tyrannical and self serving leaderships throughout church history? Anyway, this is my last post. I think I have exhausted my comments on this thread. Be blessed !

 

[Aussie Pete]

Good point, but Jesus gave the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" to Peter only (Matt 16:19), and Jesus - the "rock" - changed Simon's name to ... guess what? .. the "rock".

Peter died. There is no mention of a succession plan. I've not researched the "keys of the Kingdom" statement. However, I do know that the authority Christ gave was to all believers, not a select few.

Stephen was a deacon, a fancy word for a waiter. Yet he was doing great signs and wonders. Some try to tell me that only the apostles could do those things. One of the great weaknesses of modern Christianity is the concept of a professional clergy whose main responsibility is to keep Christians in the dark and ignorant of who they are in Christ. That is common to protestants also. If the "descendants" of Peter still have the keys of the kingdom, it's about time they started to use them.

 

[Aussie Pete]

In Matt 10:2, Peter is referred to as "first" among the apostles.

In Acts 5, Ananias laid money "at the apostles' feet" but it was Peter (as usual) who did the talking, and it was with Peter's words that he fell dead. Later, his wife showed up, and once again it was Peter (as usual) who did the talking, and it was with Peter's words that she also fell dead.
I say "as usual" because, in the Scriptures, whenever the apostles are together it is almost always Peter who does the talking. Evidently, Peter is the leader.

Firstly, as demonstrated in Gal 2, Paul is subject to the authority of the Church leaders in Jerusalem, regardless of how times Paul is mentioned..

Secondly, you're claiming that the fact that Peter is mentioned at least 50 times more often in Acts than any other apostle is not evidence that there is something special about Peter. Amazing.

Funny how Paul dragged Peter over the coals because Peter was being a hypocrite. (Galatians 2:14) Paul was commissioned by the Holy Spirit, not by men. He answered to God, not to Jerusalem. Peter was apostle to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. Paul went where the Holy Spirit led him, not according to the dictates of Jerusalem. (Galatians 2:7 & 8) Peter and Paul had different ministries, that's all.