Peter: The first Pope?

[Don]

Here is another Hebrew idiom in the verses we are discussing I just found out about in my research, so I thought I would pass it on. It is from Bridges for Peace website Israel Teaching Letter of June 2002.

"Then Yeshua continues to play with analogies
from the place where they were talking
when He says of His Church, “and the gates of
hell will not prevail against it.” Today, Caesarea
Phillipi is called Banias, an Arabic corruption of
an earlier Greek name for the place, Panias.
Here, the god, Pan, was worshipped, and there
are numerous niches carved in the stone where
statues once stood. They can still be seen today.
To the Jews, the place was referred to as “the
gates of Hell,” because it was so pagan.
Therefore, it was the appropriate reference to
declare in this pagan place that even the
demonic forces could not stand against His
Church, the followers of Yeshua, the Messiah,
the Son of God."

As a believer who does not belong to a OTC, I can accept this teaching and use it to modify my understanding of what "gates of Hell" means as I learn more. But someone who (hypothetically) belongs to a OTC which teaches differently, I wonder? I agree this example is not a biggie, but I do find it interesting.
Don

[michael_legna]

I found a reference to someone being compared metaphorically to a rock other than God or Jesus so I thought I would share it with you.

Isa 51:1 Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged.
Isa 51:2 Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.

In the above verse the rock from which the nation of Israel is hewn is Abraham as is clear from the verse 2.

[michael_legna]

Originally Posted by Don

Is 22 is a prophecy that Eliakim with supplant Shebna as palace steward. Eliakim gets Shebna's robe, sash, authority, and the keys Shebna kept.

If one wants to somehow map Eliakim to Simon Peter, then who is Shebna mapped to in the NT?

Shebna is of course mapped to the Jewish religious leadership. It was they who had the power to bind and loose prior to the Church taking that role, just as Shebna had it prior to Eliakim.

Or does the mapping break down at that point (and I would say before that). Yes, Is 22 is one of the verses to help interpret Jesus giving keys to Peter, but there are valid questions as to how far to take the mapping.

There are valid questions on how far to take any metaphorical linkage, even those we all agree prophecy Christ or are types of Christ in the Old Testament are not an exact match every time.

Where is the equivalent of Shebna' s robe, sash or authority given to Peter?

The robe is symbolic of the Priesthood, which Peter gains as a member of the Church and more specifically as Apostle, Bishop, and Elder. It is gained through Christ when He assumes that role through the High Priest rending his robe at the trial (Matt 26:65) even though the High Priest was instructed never to rend their robes (Lev 21:10) and further supported that Jesus' robe was not rent (John 19:24)

The Girdle could be a reference to the captivity Peter would eventually suffer leading to his martyrdom (John 21:18).

The authority is easy it is in the power to bind and loose, just as the steward had.

As another mapping question, the OT palace is not the OT temple. In some sense, who cares about getting into the palace, I want to get into the new covenant temple. And who had the keys to the OT temple? The gatekeepers.

The Temple is God's House it is His Palace (1 Ch 29:1).

The point is you pick and choose your mapping and discover Peter is pope. I use another mapping and find out he is no such thing. And how do you know the RCC mapping is correct?

Because my mapping has been used since the first century of Christianity.

[michael_legna]

Originally Posted by Don

Here is another Hebrew idiom in the verses we are discussing I just found out about in my research, so I thought I would pass it on. It is from Bridges for Peace website Israel Teaching Letter of June 2002.

"Then Yeshua continues to play with analogies
from the place where they were talking
when He says of His Church, “and the gates of
hell will not prevail against it.” Today, Caesarea
Phillipi is called Banias, an Arabic corruption of
an earlier Greek name for the place, Panias.
Here, the god, Pan, was worshipped, and there
are numerous niches carved in the stone where
statues once stood. They can still be seen today.
To the Jews, the place was referred to as “the
gates of Hell,” because it was so pagan.
Therefore, it was the appropriate reference to
declare in this pagan place that even the
demonic forces could not stand against His
Church, the followers of Yeshua, the Messiah,
the Son of God."

As a believer who does not belong to a OTC, I can accept this teaching and use it to modify my understanding of what "gates of Hell" means as I learn more. But someone who (hypothetically) belongs to a OTC which teaches differently, I wonder? I agree this example is not a biggie, but I do find it interesting.
Don

I don't see what problem this idea might pose to my interpretation - so i guess I am missing your point.

The Catholic Church has always interpreted the idea of the gates of hell not prevailing against the Church to mean that the forces of Satan would never be able to overcome the Church on earth through corruption. Not that there would not be some corruption of the men that make up the Church as they are still just men, but that the Church itself and its doctrine would never be touched by that corruption.

I am more impressed though by the Jewish idea that the gate to hell exists as the hole to beneath the holy of holies on the temple mount. I can't put my hands on the support for this idea right now but I will look for it further if you are not familiar with this idea.

[Don]

Very good Michael. And how is Abraham like a rock from which (moveable) rocks/stones are hewn and Sarah like a stone quarry from which (moveable) stones are extracted?

I hope/think you know that Abraham is (at least some of the time) a type of God the Father as Isaac is a type of Jesus. The 'echad (plural unity) in verse 2 is the same "one" as is used to refer to God in the Shema. From Abraham and Sarah flowed the community of faith, composed of many people. I can call Abraham my father, as I have been grafted into the community of faith, in a similar way I can call God my father, as Jesus did.
Don

[michael_legna]

Originally Posted by Don

Very good Michael. And how is Abraham like a rock from which (moveable) rocks/stones are hewn and Sarah like a stone quarry from which (moveable) stones are extracted?

I hope/think you know that Abraham is (at least some of the time) a type of God the Father as Isaac is a type of Jesus. The 'echad (plural unity) in verse 2 is the same "one" as is used to refer to God in the Shema. From Abraham and Sarah flowed the community of faith, composed of many people. I can call Abraham my father, as I have been grafted into the community of faith, in a similar way I can call God my father, as Jesus did.
Don

I don't understand - is this a rhetorcial question? Do you disagree with my interpretation that it is Abraham who is being compared to a rock in these verses?

In terms of seeing Abraham as father I do to in that sense, just as I see Pewter and his successors as father, which is what the word Pope means. It is one of the most important significances of Jesus establishign Peter as head of the Church on earth. He is father of the new Israel just as Abraham was father of the Old.

[Don]

Michael,

I do not disagree, but I asked you to look deeper into what the verses are saying and I gave some of my further interpretation/understanding. So it was not a rhetorical question, it was an attempt at further discussion. I commended you for finding that verse, it shows you to be diligent.

As Jesus is the High Priest of the new covenant (inagurating it at the Last Supper) and the Holy Spirit "birthed" the church at Pentecost, I would say God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is the father to the church, and the new Jerusalem from above is the church's mother.

Just to make the mapping clearer, I see myself as part of Abraham's covenant when I was baptized after being saved, as this was when my heart was circumcized, so I can call Abraham my father. And I see myself as part of the new covenant when I accepted Jesus as savior and soon thereafter participated in communion and baptism as Jesus directs, and continue to participate in communion.

Rom 4:9Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

I realize pope means father.

Mat 23:9And do not call anyone on earth `father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

Here is Peter calling God the Father, as I do.

1 Pet 1:17 Since you call on a Father who judges each man's work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear.

I cannot find in the Bible anyone calling Peter father. I do find Paul claiming to be a father to the Corinthians, but I see this as Paul claiming they are his spiritual sons, just as Elisha was the spiritual son of Elijah.

1 Cor 4:15Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

Don

[michael_legna]

I will give your post more attention soon I am a little burned out right now having just spent way to much time on Y2T's long string of errors. I feel our discussion is much more fruitful and will give it the attention it deserves as soon as I get a chance to relax a bit first.

I did want to point out that in my last post I did not mean to change Simons name from Rock to Pewter, that was just a typo of Peter.

[Don]

But Pewter is better than wood (symbol of man) yet less than Silver or Gold (symbols of Godly attributes). Perhaps it was a revelation! haha

Don

[michael_legna]

Originally Posted by Don

And how is Abraham like a rock from which (moveable) rocks/stones are hewn and Sarah like a stone quarry from which (moveable) stones are extracted?

I think primarily it refers to both Abraham and Sarah's fathering and mothering of Israel both physically and spiritually. They were the beginning of the great tribe of Israel. Even in Jesus time they pointed back to Abraham as their father even though there were many patriarchs between them and him. I think this reference is to their spiritual relationship as to their physical, and I definitely think the spiritual relationship is the one Jesus emphasized when he pointed out that it was one doing the works of Abraham that determined if you were a true son or not.

John 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

As you pointed out

From Abraham and Sarah flowed the community of faith, composed of many people. I can call Abraham my father, as I have been grafted into the community of faith, in a similar way I can call God my father, as Jesus did.

Abraham's our father not because of physical connections, but because of the lessons we learned through his example. Catholic's believe we also learn spiritual lessons from our priests, the Bishops and our Pope and claim Peter as the first so see him as our spiritual father.

As Jesus is the High Priest of the new covenant (inagurating it at the Last Supper) and the Holy Spirit "birthed" the church at Pentecost, I would say God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is the father to the church, and the new Jerusalem from above is the church's mother.

I would agree but I would also contend that God is the Father of Israel too and that does not keep Abraham from being their father too, so it is with the leadership of the Church through Peter.

Just to make the mapping clearer, I see myself as part of Abraham's covenant when I was baptized after being saved, as this was when my heart was circumcized, so I can call Abraham my father. And I see myself as part of the new covenant when I accepted Jesus as savior and soon thereafter participated in communion and baptism as Jesus directs, and continue to participate in communion.

I too see this connection though I don't see the two covenants as being entirely distinct. The New is a fulfillment or better understanding of the Old. So then we see the spiritual teachers of the Church as filling the role of the Patriarchs of the nation of Israel. Peter being the first just as Abraham was.

I realize pope means father.

Mat 23:9And do not call anyone on earth `father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

Here is Peter calling God the Father, as I do.

1 Pet 1:17 Since you call on a Father who judges each man's work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear.

I cannot find in the Bible anyone calling Peter father. I do find Paul claiming to be a father to the Corinthians, but I see this as Paul claiming they are his spiritual sons, just as Elisha was the spiritual son of Elijah.

Yes it may not be in the Scriptures, however the term Pope was in use (not exclusively for the Bishop of Rome but for all Bishops in general) long before the Canon was decided upon. There is no problem for Catholics if something doesn't appear in Scripture (just as long as it is not opposed in scripture) because we believe we got Scripture through the Church we did not get the Church through Scripture.

1 Cor 4:15Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

Yes, we should not have many fathers, but in this verse Paul is claiming to have become the spiritual father of those he had taught the Gospel to. This is the relationship Catholic's see with the Magisterium, again Peter being the first.

I hope I didn't confuse things too much combining your posts into one and I hope I have covered what it was you were looking for.