It seems to me that the tense of the passage has no bearing on how we are to understand the Petrine primacy. The point is that Peter and Heaven are in accord.
No.
Peter is in accord with heaven ... heaven is not in accord with Peter. Peter is not the origin. Heaven (God) is the origin. The two are not equal. Peter has come into accord with Heaven - Heaven enlightens Peter - Peter does not enlighten Heaven. Heaven is eternal and unchanging and uncreated.
Sorry John ... I had not notices you reply before. I am not here consistently. I pop in every now and then.
I do not see anything in the verse that makes what Christ said ... to Peter ... to apply exclusive to Peter and Peter only.
If I were to say to you "John... in the future you will die." this does not make death exclusive to John only. I have singled you out to tell you what will happen to you - but you remain one of a group (all humans) and physical death will come to us all. My telling
you about it - does not make it exclusive to you only. I have not bestowed death upon you only.
Peter - needed more help and encouragement than any other apostle. Peter was always jumping the gun. Trying to lead the way. He needed more guidance than the others. Peter was always trying to be the leader and Jesus was always pulling him back. In this particular case Peter needed more support (by way of Jesus explaining before hand some good that the apostles would receive later). Jesus often spoke to the apostles one-on-one ... but that did not mean that what he said applied exclusive to that apostle he was speaking to. Christ 'loved' John - there was a definite human affinity of freinship there - but does that mean his love was exclusive to John and he did not love the others?? I think not. When John was given to Mary as her son (Jesus did this on the cross) should we take this literally and to exclude all the other apostles?? I think not. John's bloodline did not change. Mary is the Mother of us all - what Jesus said to John alone - is extended to us all.
Peter was the 'first' apostle... yes ... but not in the way of the best or of a higher authority. He was the first one called. The first among equals. Andrew was the second one called. So Peter had a human type of seniority ... (like a man hired before you has seniority) but that seniority does not automatically authorize him to be your manager. Someday you might be appointed manager over someone who was actually hired before you were.
Saint Augustine said it this way ... that the rock upon which the church is to be built is Christ himself (Jesus is the rock, the cornerstone, etc..) and the name given to Simon should be understood as "rocky" ... in the same way as the name "Christian" is given to someone who is a disciple of Christ. Rocky is rocky because of his likeness to the the origin Rock (which is Christ) ... Rocky is built upon the Rock (Christ).
Think of how many time Jesus identified himself with the Temple. This Temple (built upon what they called 'the Rock') and think what the Temple represented (the seat of governing for Israel). Christ is saying that he will build
himself (his church) - upon - himself (his Son of God-ness). But notice that he really does not explain here (in this verse) how he will do that. Except (and here it comes) he does go on to talk about his crucifixion.
Let us see what Agustine said about the 'rock'.
You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, I will build my Church; because you are Peter. Peter comes from petra, meaning a rock. Peter, �Rocky�, from �rock�; not �rock� from �Rocky�. Peter comes from the word for a rock in exactly the same way as the name Christian comes from Christ.
Agustine
"I will build my church" ... and Augustine ends that thought there. He does not combine "build the church on Peter" with it.
The church is not built upon Peter - it is built upon the rock which is Christ himself. Upon myself - I will build my church.
There are several early fathers who read this in the same way as Augustine did.
Despite arguments to the contrary (side distractions) - the Greek tense is definitely future and it is faithfully translated in several other translations and transliterations (as I have noted). It is only recent (some time after Jerome) that it is being mis-translated as both the 'rocky' and the 'rock' as both being ... Peter.
Now as regards the keys ... the keys of David (as held by the Prime Minister) were symbolic of something spiritual. The keys are a type. A temporal symbol of a higher and spiritual reality.
Look to Christ for what the keys of David represented. He raise the keys to a spiritual meaning. I see no reason to drag them back down to the temporal and the literal. David's kingdom was not the end all - it was symbolic of heavenly things.
In the entire OT we look forward to Christ - to understand the types of the OT. But in this case we look back to David (???) in order to understand Christ??? Understanding the OT ... is perfected in the person of Christ. But for this one item we shold forget Christ and go back to the literal of David?? I think not.
When Jesus speaks about the scribes (those trained in the details of the Law) he chides them for withholding the 'keys' from others. The 'keys' represent knowledge. A spiritual understanding as opposed to the literal understanding. The literal understanding (of the senses) is a shell (as far as Jesus was concerned) ... so while the scribes knew every jot of the law (scriptures) they did not enter into the real meaning of scriptures ... and thereby (because they were teachers) thy prevent others from entering into the real meaning of the law also. They HAVE the keys to the kingdom (they have the scriptures) but they do not enter the kingdom themselves and they prevent others from entering.
The keys are spiritual insight into the realities of heaven. This is not a legalistic thing - this is an experiential event. Now that that thought and join this thought to what happened to Peter just minutes before... Peter had a moment of enlightenment ... he was allowed to peek 'into heaven' and Jesus said about this moment of enlightenment ... 'My father has told you this'. We could call this a moment of epiphany. A moment of con-knowledge (the person knows what God knows - together with God). The keys of the kingdom. The door was unlocked so Peter could see into heaven. Enlightenment.
It is this knowledge (of the reality behind the shell of the senses) which frees the shackles of those who are bound (as prisoners cast into prison until the last farthing is paid) ... and binds the demons or throws them into the lake of fire (Revelation).
Most precisely this spiritual gift has come down inside the church as the sacrament of Confession. But it is also evident in a somewhat more spectacular way, on occasion, in some of the mystical saints. A prime example of this is the Confessional of Padre Pio (I am assuming you have read about his occasional ability to know the sins of some people without being told by before hand by the person).
Miiracles are not something that we (even if saints) .. do ... they are rather a moment in which we become aligned with the already existing will of God. It was not Jesus the Son who raised Lazareth ... it was God the Father. The unique thing about Jesus (at that moment) was that he already KNEW that the father was going to raise Lazareth in order to give public proof of his son.
Jesus did not convince his father to raise Lazareth - Jesus knew what already WAS in heaven.
'I do - what I see my father doing' (paraphrased).
These 'keys' are given to anyone who is being enlightened by God. But it is a mistake to believe that they are a sign of an appointment to management. Or authority.
Let me be clear. The things of the senses (words, written or spoken) are of the senses ... and of impermanence. Change. They can not contain what is permanent and infallible. Only the mental meaning of the words can even approach infallibility. But yet even that mental meaning (an event of the psychological mind) falls short of true infallibility. The mental meaning points towards and eternal reality just as the written of spoken words point towards a mental meaning.
Infallibility is ... God ...
and God only. Exclusively. No more than I could give ... life .. to someone else. For us humans ... we can
experience someone of it (an experience of union with God). But it is something that is not ours in any way and we can not impart it to anyone. Words, phrases, and the such can not contain it nor impart it to someone else.
It is fact. An 'Infallible' statement is understood and misunderstood by many people in many ways. What then (if it can be so) is infallible about it?? if it can be fallibly misunderstood. Obviously - the infallibility is not in the statement itself. It is in the intended meaning of the statement. Which intended meaning is not infallibility imparted. It is then ... latent infallibility with no operative infallibility. A sun that does not shine. A star which we can not see. Music which we can not hear.
Wouldn't we like something in the material world of the senses to be ... infallible. ? Yes we would. But it is not to be and never will be.
The Orthodox church counters Papal Infallibility with its own concept of a type of wide infallibility. Unfortunately - that infallibility does not exist either. But don't lose heart because because the lack of infallibility on the part of the human nature of the church does not hinder Christ in his work. The church (its human aspects) do not produce Christ and can not produce Christ - Christ produces the church (which means that the human nature of the church members ois always being perfected - ongoing).
Infallibility (church wise doctrine) be it Roman Catholic or Orthodox ... can point to something Infallible (point to a reality that exists in God) but can not itself be that infallibility which belongs to God alone. That which is infallible IS God ... it is part of the nature of God ... it is not of the nature of anything in the created world. God has nothing in common with anything of sense perceptions. God's nature does not come down to the material world of the senses and incarnate in infallible statements or pronouncements.
So we should examine what is presented to us as Infallible ... but ... in the final ... we are required to use the clear judgments of our own conscience.
Just because I do believe that the current form of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility has error - that does not mean that I toss the entire Roman Catholic church out. Nor is it heretical.
Peace be to you John, and to your church.
-ray
