OBJECTOR: You soimg.orgs say that you think in the Scriptures as the word of God. Yet just how have the right to you justify the place of the pope based upon the Bible? I watch nothing in the Holy bible about a pope.

You are watching: What does the bible say about the pope

soimg.org: The Scriptures has a lot to say on the papacy as an institution. I understand that non-soimg.orgs insurance claim that the papacy was an principle that flourished up gradually in the initially few centuries of Christianity as Rome tried to assert its supremacy over the rest of Christendom. We uncover that version of early on Christian history extremely questionable.

OBJECTOR: For the sake of conversation, would certainly you be willing to limit ourselves to the Scriptures rather than gaining into the complications of Church history?

soimg.org: Sure.

OBJECTOR: Then isn’t Matthew 16:13–20 the just text that a soimg.org might point out to assistance the papacy?

soimg.org: Actually, tright here are many type of messages that allude to the papacy, and tright here are 3 passages in the Gospels that are extremely appropriate. It is worth noting exactly how the apostle Peter is treated in some various other messages, ones that might conveniently be overlooked. For example, have you ever noticed that in all the lists of the apostles in the Gospels, Peter is constantly mentioned initially (cf. Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19)?

OBJECTOR: Yes, but it’s only a historical information. It doesn’t have actually any type of theological import.

soimg.org: It might not seem to in and of itself. But when you incorporate this reportedly insignificant detail via Matthew 16:13–20, it takes on a deeper meaning. It argues that the primacy of Peter among the apostles was being taught additionally by the order in the lists of the apostles.

OBJECTOR: Matthew 16:13–20 does not teach anything around the papacy. The rock of which Jesus speaks as being the structure of the Church is the confession of confidence that Peter offers, not Peter himself. Even Augustine interpreted “the rock” as the confession of confidence.

soimg.org: You’re reading Scripture in an either/or fashion. Why deserve to it not be both/and? Can’t it be true that the content of Peter’s profession of Christ is the doctrinal foundation of the Church, while Peter himself is the governmental foundation? Or better, why can’t we view Christ as the cornerstamong the Church, as Paul claims in Ephesians 2:20, and also that this one foundation has doctrinal and governmental manifestations?

OBJECTOR: I expect that is theoretically possible, but Matthew 16:18 uses 2 various words for rock. When Jesus names Peter, he uses petros, and also once he speaks of the rock of the Church, he uses petra. It is unmost likely that Jesus would certainly use two various words if he meant to determine Peter as the rock. It appears that he is using petra to refer either to the confession of belief or to himself as the rock. The last interpretation would certainly agree perfectly via Ephesians 2:20.

soimg.org: Most scholars today, also Evangelical scholars, are hocolony enough to admit that the discussion you’re making use of is an instance of eisegesis, i.e., of reading one’s theology into the text.

OBJECTOR: Then how perform you describe the usage of the two different words?

soimg.org: Jesus, speaking Aramaic, recalled Simon Kepha, definition “rock”. So what was said was “You are Kepha, and also upon this kepha I will certainly develop my Church.” In Aramaic, the word kepha has the very same finishing whether it refers to a rock or is used in a man’s name. But once Matthew created his Gospel in Greek, he had actually to use the masculine for petros bereason you cannot speak to a male by a feminine term in that language. So, bereason Matthew wanted to contact Peter a rock, he made the normal feminine word petra masculine (petros) to develop a play on words. To carry out the word play, verse 18 could be interpreted this way” “You are Rocky, and also on this rock I will construct my church.”

OBJECTOR: But also such a play on words mirrors that Jesus is not intending right here to develop some deep theological reality. Besides, if he wanted to say that Simon was simply among the rocks of the Church, he would certainly normally have used petros. The truth that Jesus uses petros does not expect that he is singling Simon out for a special category.

soimg.org: I can be inclined to agree if the remainder of the passage did not confirm a distinct ministry for Simon, however look even more carefully. Peter identifies Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). In rotate, Jesus identifies Peter as the rock on which the church is built. The remainder of the passage would certainly not make feeling if Peter is not being identified as the rock. In Matthew 16:19 Jesus offers Peter the secrets of the kingdom of heaven: “I will provide to you <soi> the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever before you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” If Jesus did not suppose that Peter was to be the rock, then why would certainly he offer him the keys of the kingdom? The Greek pronoun soi is singular referring just to Peter. The power of the secrets is provided to Peter alone in this passage. The phrase around binding and also loosing connotes jurisdiction, not just a primacy of example or honor.

OBJECTOR: But Matthew 18:18 contains similar language, and also tbelow Jesus uses the plural, referring at leastern to the other apostles: “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” If Jesus were confining the jurisdiction of the Church to Peter, he wouldn’t have provided the plural here.

soimg.org: The soimg.org Church doesn’t say that Peter alone has actually the authority to bind and loose. All the bishops, descfinished from the apostles, have actually this authority. But the authority is constantly exercised in union with Peter. That’s why Jesus initially gave the authority to Peter in Matthew 16 and also then extfinished it to all the apostles in Matthew 18.

OBJECTOR: Well, we’ll just need to agree to disagree on Matthew 16:13–20. I check out no various other texts in the New Testimony that could be offered also remotely as assistance for the papacy.

soimg.org: How about Luke 22:31–32? “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have actually you, that he can sift you choose wheat, however I have prayed for you that your belief might not fail; and when you have turned aobtain, strengthen your brethren.”

OBJECTOR: I don’t anything below beyond Jesus’ worry to gain back Peter to his position after his fall. It’s an individual problem, not a doctrinal one.

soimg.org: Let’s look at the usage of the pronoun you. Old Greek distinguished in between singular and also plural. When Jesus says, “Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you favor wwarmth,” he supplies the plural you. In various other words, he’s saying, “Satan demanded to have you all <humas>, that he might sift you all you all choose wwarmth.”

OBJECTOR: My point specifically. Jesus puts all the apostles on the exact same plane.

soimg.org: Notice what Jesus claims next: “But I have prayed for you that your belief might not fail.” Here Jesus provides the singular you (sou). It can seem odd that Jesus would certainly pray just for Peter once it was all the apostles that Satan wanted to sift choose wheat. But the complying with words describe the evident incongruity: “When you have actually turned again, strengthen your brethren.” In other words, as soon as the supreme leader is strong, he will certainly consequently confirm his fellow leaders of the Church. The strength needed will come from the Father in answer to Jesus’ prayer through Peter to the other apostles.

OBJECTOR: I don’t see this message as any kind of more than as a personal confirmation of Peter. It doesn’t have to execute with any kind of Petrine office.

soimg.org: If what you are saying were true, then we would certainly be left without an explacountry regarding why Jesus provides various develops of you. Additional, when Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his brothers, he is clearly placing Peter right into a place of management for the purpose of pastoral ministry. In light of this and also what we said about Matthew 16, it is only Peter’s uniqueness among the apostles that starts to make sense of the 3rd passage I mentioned: John 21:15–19.

OBJECTOR: Wbelow Jesus asks Peter 3 times if he loves him.

soimg.org: Yes.

OBJECTOR: The logical explacountry is that the threefold question corresponds to Peter’s threefold denial of Christ during his Passion.

soimg.org: Yes, Jesus offers Peter 3 chances to atone for his three denials. But in addition, Jesus emphasizes the pastoral function that he has for Peter once he commands him 3 times, “Feed my lambs. . . .Tfinish my lamb. . . . Feed my lamb.” Peter needs to understand also the connection in between loving Jesus and Peter’s role as pastor. The pertinent question is why Jesus singles out Peter. Is it ssuggest because he is the one who denied Jesus? Or was Jesus intending to show Peter that he should take his area as the chief humale shepherd of the earthly Church? 1 Peter 5:1-4 appears to underscore Peter’s awareness of his duty. Exhorting the others, yet counting himself among them, he assumes his leadership with humility.

See more: Why Are Flags At Half Mast Today In Minnesota, Flags At Half

The popes follwing in his footprocedures have actually taken a position of humility, however this doesn’t in any method lessen their distinctive function. That role is spelled out for Peter and his followers in the pasasges mentioned. While all the bishops, favor all the original apostles, share in his represntative work-related, Peter and his succesoors share in it to the highest possible level. That describes why Peter is singled out in all these passperiods. Peter is the one who, via his pastdental minisattempt, will certainly be the resource and sign of unity for the entirety Church.