Jesus Says a Church Doesn't Need a Bishop

[timothyu]

Culture of the day forms religions that seek power and authourity in the world of man.

 

[Dale]

Nonsense. In Isaiah, the king gives the key of the House of David to his prime minister as a visible sign to the people that the prime minister has FULL AUTHORITY when the king is absent. The prime minister would actually wear the keys of the Davidic kingdom so the people would know his word was a good as the king's word when the king was gone. No, the prime minister was no butler, please take the time to research for yourself.

An important point may have gotten lost in the shuffle in my comments on the key of Eliakim.

In Isaiah 22, Shebna is dismissed, fired, removed, and disgraced. Shebna’s dismissal is the occasion for Eliakim’s promotion. Nothing like this happens in Matthew 16. No one is dismissed or disgraced when Peter makes his confession and Jesus bestows His blessing on Peter. That’s why I don’t see a parallel between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16.


Some commentaries do not see Eliakim as a completely positive character or his promotion as an unmitigated good for the land.

“Shebna’s great sin was pride, but Eliakim’s was nepotism.”

Eliakim gave jobs to people in his own family who weren’t qualified.

“Eliakim had, however, been chosen for office because of his own qualities, not theirs.”

“The temptations of high office are many… ”


Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Old Testament, Kenneth L. Barker & John R. Kohlenberger, Editors
Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1994. p. 1082, on verses 24-25.

 

[Valletta]

An important point may have gotten lost in the shuffle in my comments on the key of Eliakim.

In Isaiah 22, Shebna is dismissed, fired, removed, and disgraced. Shebna’s dismissal is the occasion for Eliakim’s promotion. Nothing like this happens in Matthew 16. No one is dismissed or disgraced when Peter makes his confession and Jesus bestows His blessing on Peter. That’s why I don’t see a parallel between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16.


Some commentaries do not see Eliakim as a completely positive character or his promotion as an unmitigated good for the land.

“Shebna’s great sin was pride, but Eliakim’s was nepotism.”

Eliakim gave jobs to people in his own family who weren’t qualified.

“Eliakim had, however, been chosen for office because of his own qualities, not theirs.”

“The temptations of high office are many… ”


Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Old Testament, Kenneth L. Barker & John R. Kohlenberger, Editors
Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1994. p. 1082, on verses 24-25.

 

[Valletta]

The words of Jesus parallel those of Isaiah 22. Isaiah 22 gives us insight into what the keys of the Davidic kingdom represent and thus what Jesus was doing when he gave Rock(Peter) the keys of the kingdom. Isaiah shows us that when the office is vacant a new successor is chosen.

 

[Dale]

The words of Jesus parallel those of Isaiah 22. Isaiah 22 gives us insight into what the keys of the Davidic kingdom represent and thus what Jesus was doing when he gave Rock(Peter) the keys of the kingdom. Isaiah shows us that when the office is vacant a new successor is chosen.

We don’t need to go back to David to find out what the keys meant. When Jesus lived on earth, the meaning was that the scribes and Pharisees, priests and rabbis held the keys to God’s kingdom because they had access to the Old Testament scriptures. Most people couldn’t read, they were illiterate, especially in Hebrew, since most people were speaking Aramaic. Even among those who could read in Hebrew, they couldn’t necessarily afford to buy parchment copies of the scripture, which were copied tediously by hand. The rabbis thought they had the keys to the kingdom and to some extent this was true. The keys Jesus gave were the keys to the New Testament kingdom, but the meaning is clear without going back to the time of OT kings.

 

[timothyu]

priests and rabbis held the keys to God’s kingdom because they had access to the Old Testament scriptures. Most people couldn’t read, they were illiterate, especially in Hebrew, since most people were speaking Aramaic. Even among those who could read in Hebrew, they couldn’t necessarily afford to buy parchment copies of the scripture, which were copied tediously by hand. The rabbis thought they had the keys to the kingdom and to some extent this was true.

Just like the gentile church until the NT became the property of the people. Neither the Temples or the gentile churches represented the Kingdom but instead withheld it and controlled it..

Matthew 23: 13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

 

[Valletta]

We don’t need to go back to David to find out what the keys meant. When Jesus lived on earth, the meaning was that the scribes and Pharisees, priests and rabbis held the keys to God’s kingdom because they had access to the Old Testament scriptures. Most people couldn’t read, they were illiterate, especially in Hebrew, since most people were speaking Aramaic. Even among those who could read in Hebrew, they couldn’t necessarily afford to buy parchment copies of the scripture, which were copied tediously by hand. The rabbis thought they had the keys to the kingdom and to some extent this was true. The keys Jesus gave were the keys to the New Testament kingdom, but the meaning is clear without going back to the time of OT kings.

Catholics consider the Bible the Word of God. There is no reason to avoid the Isaiah text Jesus was pointing toward in Matthew 16:19:
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Isaiah 22:22: " I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open."
As the Bible documents, Jesus gave these keys to Peter and to no other Apostle. As to copying the Bible by hand, remember you're talking to a Catholic, Catholics not only preached the Bible, but translated Biblical text into many common languages and copied script by hand century after century until a Catholic named Gutenberg gave us the printing press--his first printed book was the Bible. At the time of Jesus Greek was quite popular, in fact the Apostles used the Greek Septuagint for preaching Holy Scripture. There was a huge ORAL tradition among Jews, and many could read at least some Greek.

 

[Valletta]

What did Paul say about the position of Peter?



Ga. 2:9 James, Peter John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the
right hand of fellowship when they recognised the grace
given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles,
and they to the Jews.
Ga. 2:10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the
poor, the very thing I was eager to do.
Ga. 2:11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face,
because he was clearly in the wrong.
Ga. 2:12 Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the
Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and
separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of
those who belonged to the circumcision group.
Ga. 2:13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their
hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
Ga. 2:14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of
the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a
Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it,
then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
Galatians 2:9-14 NIV


Paul does not treat Peter as the Overlord of the Christian Church. In this passage in Galatians, Paul says that Peter is one of several men who are “reputed to be pillars” of the Church. He does not see himself as taking orders from the Pillars or from any one of them.

In Galatians 2:11, Paul flatly opposes Peter. Paul believes that Peter is acting like a hypocrite and being too soft on Judaizers. Paul doesn’t treat Peter as the Chief Apostle. He doesn’t treat Peter as the symbolic head or the organizational head of the Christian Church.

A pope is to act as a servant. Paul was correct in letting Peter know his actions could be viewed as not welcoming all to the Catholic Church.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Catholics consider the Bible the Word of God. There is no reason to avoid the Isaiah text Jesus was pointing toward in Matthew 16:19:
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Isaiah 22:22: " I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open."
As the Bible documents, Jesus gave these keys to Peter and to no other Apostle. As to copying the Bible by hand, remember you're talking to a Catholic, Catholics not only preached the Bible, but translated Biblical text into many common languages and copied script by hand century after century until a Catholic named Gutenberg gave us the printing press--his first printed book was the Bible. At the time of Jesus Greek was quite popular, in fact the Apostles used the Greek Septuagint for preaching Holy Scripture. There was a huge ORAL tradition among Jews, and many could read at least some Greek.

The RCC does believe the Bible to be the Word of God on the very same level as Sacred Tradition. The Bible is contained within the Sacred Tradition of the RCC, but it is not the only component of the RCC Sacred Tradition.

 

[The Liturgist]

The Roman Catholic Church, and some others, teach that to have a local church, you have to have an altar consecrated by a Bishop. The Bishop, in turn, has to have the proper Apostolic Succession and be ordained as a Bishop. Another requirement for a full church service is a parish priest who was ordained by a Bishop, and has permission from the local Bishop to perform the service.

These requirements are not in the Gospels or in the New Testament. What Jesus does say about Christians coming together is something completely different.


[Jesus says, ] “Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about
anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in
heaven.
For where two or three come together in my name, there am
I with them."
Matthew 18:19-20 NIV

It is clear that "where two or three come together" should be taken as "where two or more come together."

According to Jesus, a church doesn't have to have a Bishop, or a priest ordained by a Bishop. Jesus doesn't tell us that a church has to have an altar, or an altar that has been consecrated. The important thing is that when two or more Christians meet in the name of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit is with them.

You are engaging in eisegesis. As a Congregationalist, I believe all churches need a superintendent or presbyter, and my interpretation of Congregationalism is that our parishes are like the churches planted by the Apostles and run by one bishop, before the local church grew to the point where multiple churches were required, and presbyters subordinate to the bishop were needed to run them, and this subordination at the time, before the printing press or even the Creed and the New Testament canon was imperative to ensure Orthodoxy. Congregationalism works, but the procedure for dealing with congregations that become problematic is suboptimal, in that you have to sever ties with that congregation. With an Episcopal polity, the bishop can intervene, but as we have seen with the Episcopal Church USA, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, bad things happen with bad bishops. The Presbyterian model I am not entirely sure is scripturally justifiable or not, but in such a model, Moderators serve a role analogous to the bishops of the early church in larger cities, or to the Patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

I think the Eastern churches have the best model, which is Episcopal but which also relies on what the Russians call sobornost, or conciliarity. In a small Orthodox church where all bishops are members of the Holy Synod, the Patriarch acts as primus inter pares and sets an example; no bishop takes any major decision without the consensus of the Holy Synod, and at least three bishops are required to ordain a new bishop. The bishops are usually hegumens of monasteries, or archimandrites (senior hieromonks - monastic presbyters, who have been promoted to a rank equivalent to that of Mitred Protopresbyter or Choir Bishop for married clergy). The parish presbyters are usually married and their wife, loving called presbytera, is a mother to the parish as well as to her children, just as the presbyter has a paternal role. The same applies to deacons and subdeacons. Generally, persons being ordained as subdeacon, deacon or presbyter must either be married, and in their first marriage, to someone who is also in their first marriage, or else must commit to holy celibacy. If someone has ever killed* anyone or castrated themself after having been baptized, or committed adultery, or divorced someone in such a way that constituted adultery, or engaged in sodomy, again after having been baptized, they are disqualified.

This system, used by the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian churches since the second century, with minor modifications in the fourth century (specifically, the ban on people who have castrated themself or hired a doctor to castrate them, for reasons other than medical necessity), seems to do a very good job at preserving the status quo, which in turn preserves the apostolic faith and is resistant to arbitrary, capricious, or ill advised actions or changes in liturgy or praxis.

*It is possible soldiers and police who performed lawful military or police service or people who act in defense of others, lawfully, and who do not feel guilt over their actions might be ordained; in the case of Bishop Bruno of the Episcopal Church, he was an LAPD officer who had a spiritual crisis after shooting someone, which implies guilt and uncertainty about the action, and that is why he became ecclesiastically active; he was a disaster as a bishop, alienating traditionalists and oppressing those who wanted to leave the Episcopal Church and join the Anglican Church in North America; he recently resigned in shame after being caught in a corrupt real estate deal. I believe his killing of someone was by the impact it had on him obviously a disqualification, and had the canons of the early church been followed, he would never have been ordained. I have also had personal unpleasant experiences with divorced and remarried clergy, which in my view validates the Apostolic Canons.

 

[The Liturgist]

By the way, I think relics are great and as many altars as possible should have them. Relics and icons are beautiful and miraculous. This may sound strange coming from a Protestant, but it is time we set aside our allergy to perceived “Popery” and embrace the Western Orthodox Faith of the Roman Catholic Church that deteriorated about two centuries after the reign of Pope St. Gregory the Great, who developed Gregorian Chant, or Plainsong, used by Anglicans and Lutherans and Western Rite Orthodoxy, and was responsible for sending St. Augustine of Canterbury (not to be confused with Augustine of Hippo, the fourth and fifth century theologian) re-evangelization of England, more specifically, of the Angles, who were originally from an area of Denmark known as Anglia, and who along with the Jutes, from Jutland, another part of Denmark, had conquered it from the Britons, who lived in the rural areas or as slaves or in the mountains of Wales with other Celtic people. Later ironically England was conquered by Danish and then Norwegian Vikings, and then by the Saxons, and then the Normans.

So, using the Eastern Churches as our guides, we need to access the parts of the ancient Roman Orthodox Church that were lost, like the ancient Gallican liturgy, and also preserve the beautiful and distinctive aspects of our own Protestant churches, as well as those aspects of the Roman Catholic Church which are good and helpful, like friars. The Anglicans have Franciscan Friars, for example, in addition to Benedictine monks.

 

[ralliann]

Catholics consider the Bible the Word of God. There is no reason to avoid the Isaiah text Jesus was pointing toward in Matthew 16:19:
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Isaiah 22:22: " I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open."
As the Bible documents, Jesus gave these keys to Peter and to no other Apostle. As to copying the Bible by hand, remember you're talking to a Catholic, Catholics not only preached the Bible, but translated Biblical text into many common languages and copied script by hand century after century until a Catholic named Gutenberg gave us the printing press--his first printed book was the Bible. At the time of Jesus Greek was quite popular, in fact the Apostles used the Greek Septuagint for preaching Holy Scripture. There was a huge ORAL tradition among Jews, and many could read at least some Greek.

What about the keys to the temple......
The “keys” of the Temple represent both the stewardship of the priests of God and the sacred knowledge embodied by the Temple and its rituals. In the Talmud versions, the Levites or the high priest climbed to the structure’s roof and threw the keys into Heaven, from whence a divine hand caught them and disappeared into a cloud.
1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: {peculiar: or, purchased } {praises: or, virtues }

 

[ralliann]

Let's provisionally agree to that.

If we do, we still have no basis for thinking that anything like the Papacy was intended.

The bishop of Rome himself and his allies didn't even begin to make that argument (and using the Matthew passage to bolster it) until centuries later! In addition, we all know that the Eastern churches didn't see this matter in the same way and never have.

What you have is Peter as someone important in Christ's eyes. But we know for a fact that James and Paul were considered by some in the first century church, ECFs included, to be of the same level (or more?) when it came to leadership.



That's an erroneous interpretation. For one thing, it's keyS in the NT but it was key (singular) in the OT, and also, there was no such thing as a "prime minister" in either case, although Catholics like to add that term into their argument.

the priesthood had a key to the temple sanctuary. Wasn't the temple and the priesthood for a pattern and example?

 

[Valletta]

We don’t need to go back to David to find out what the keys meant. When Jesus lived on earth, the meaning was that the scribes and Pharisees, priests and rabbis held the keys to God’s kingdom because they had access to the Old Testament scriptures. Most people couldn’t read, they were illiterate, especially in Hebrew, since most people were speaking Aramaic. Even among those who could read in Hebrew, they couldn’t necessarily afford to buy parchment copies of the scripture, which were copied tediously by hand. The rabbis thought they had the keys to the kingdom and to some extent this was true. The keys Jesus gave were the keys to the New Testament kingdom, but the meaning is clear without going back to the time of OT kings.

Jesus points us to Isaiah, I'm going to follow Jesus.

 

[Albion]

the priesthood had a key to the temple sanctuary. Wasn't the temple and the priesthood for a pattern and example?

I'd say "no." Not even the word "priest" as used in our language derives from the OT priesthood. It's A corruption of the Biblical term "presbyter."

 

[ralliann]

I'd say "no." Not even the word "priest" as used in our language derives from the OT priesthood. It's A corruption of the Biblical term "presbyter."

Presbyter is not used in the verses I gave. It is the term used for priesthood.

 

[Albion]

Presbyter is not used in the verses I gave. It is the term used for priesthood.

For the OT Hebrew priesthood, that is. The NT and Christian use (presbyter) is different, not a continuation or updating of the Hebrew priesthood.

 

[ralliann]

For the OT Hebrew priesthood, that is. The NT and Christian use (presbyter) is different, not a continuation or updating of the Hebrew priesthood.

What I am saying is the Greek lxx I have and the Byzantine Greek I have are the exact same. It is speaking of the priesthood, priests. The only difference is in the English translation of the Greek. 2Peter has royal priesthood, Ex 19:6 has kingdom of priests. Presbyter is used in both as well, but not in the verses I gave. The continuation of the Hebrew priesthood had nothing to do with what I said however. My point was it was a shadow or pattern, example etc. The priesthood had authority in establishing the verdict of the court, and as teachers of the law (oral law I think), as it was law at their mouth.

 

[Albion]

What I am saying is the Greek lxx I have and the Byzantine Greek I have are the exact same. It is speaking of the priesthood, priests. The only difference is in the English translation of the Greek. 2Peter has royal priesthood, Ex 19:6 has kingdom of priests.

Yes, but the reference there is quite obviously not to the ordained minister who conducts worship and administers the sacraments in the Christian churches.

The continuation of the Hebrew priesthood had nothing to do with what I said however. My point was it was a shadow or pattern, example etc.

I took that into account when reading your post, but there isn't really much of a parallel between the two positions.

The priesthood had authority in establishing the verdict of the court, and as teachers of the law (oral law I think), as it was law at their mouth.

As I was saying....

 

[ralliann]

Yes, but the reference there is quite obviously not to the ordained minister who conducts worship and administers the sacraments in the Christian churches.


I took that into account when reading your post, but there isn't really much of a parallel between the two positions.


As I was saying....

ok thanks