Extensive Biblical Argument for the Papacy

Originally posted here:

http://syr.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=5731&post=67034&uid=5584629838#post67034

You replied to Ben's post 5 minutes ago.
Ben,

Well, it IS sufficient to establish the Petrine basis upon which the Papacy rests. Obviously, if Peter didn't have a "Pope-like" role, then it would be rather inane to suggest that his successors, were he to have any, possessed such a role.

What I'll do is I'll provide a very extensive biblical argument in favor of the Petrine Primacy and the role of the Bishops of Rome as Peter's successors in that said office.

Peter received a new name as a result of the revelation he received, as indicated by verse 17 - not primarily due to the confession, but due to the fact that he RECEIVED the confession directly from God, and not from "flesh and blood" (semitism for "human beings").

A new name, biblically, designates a new role for the individual in question; Peter received a new name, and his new role or new authority was what his new name meant. Just as Abram became Abraham and thus "Father of a multitude" Simon became Peter and thus "The Rock."

Contextually, how does this fit? Because Jesus had been warning His Apostles about the danger of the leaven of the Pharisees. The importance of Peter's revelation was that it bypassed the danger of such "leaven" that came solely from "flesh and blood." Peter's role as the "Rock" of the Church was such that he would be a bulwark for the faith and would protect it from "leaven" or heretical error by virtue of a charism of infallibility. Peter spoke infallibly in Matthew 16:16, and he likewise spoke infallibliy in the Acts 15 Council of Jerusalem, ending the debate over the need for circumcision. Through HIS MOUTH the issue was ended, because he was the "Rock," the ultimate protection, within Christ's post-resurrection Church, against heresy.

Now, Jesus had used this rock metaphor before, in the very same Gospel:

Matthew 7:24-27, "Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock. And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined."

The importance of setting a foundation upon a "Rock" was thus quite paramount. The REASON Peter was renamed "Rock" and the REASON the Church was built upon Him was because, due to the grace of God and the gift of the Holy Spirit, Peter, as the first Pope, was "preserved from doctrinal error." He was preserved from leaven, and THAT is why he was a suitable foundation for the Church to be built upon - because Peter would be safeguarded from the meager opinions of "flesh and blood."

It is this sort of understanding that forms the basis of passages such as Luke 22:31-32, "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers."

So here's the scenario - Satan demanded to have ALL of them (all the Apostles) but Jesus prayed that the faith of PETER would not fail. Once Peter turned back after denying the Lord, his role would be to strengthen or confirm his brethren; in other words, what was protecting the other Apostles from the efforts of Satan was Jesus, the Rock upon which they were based.

Nicholas Russo and St. Francis de Sales:

"Infallibility is nothing else but a supernatural gift by which the recipient is shielded from all error against faith. But this is clearly expressed in “that thy faith fail not,” implied in the command to confirm his brethren, and supposed in the very failure of Satan’s attempts to destroy the Church, which is personified in the Apostles…. [T]he prayer was offered for Peter alone. By strengthening the head, Jesus wished to prevent the rest from staggering. Peter abides always in his successors. For it would be strange to confer infallibility to Peter only to have it die with him and to leave the rest of his successors vulnerable in times of greater danger. By charging Peter to confirm his brothers, Jesus does nothing less than declare him their head once again. If he has the task of feeding the pastors, must he not be sovereign pastor himself?"

The word for strengthen or confirm here is from sterizo, to “fix firmly” - his brothers in the faith. The Greek verb, used 13 times in the N.T., means to prop up, strengthen, confirm, establish.

Further evidence is found in John 21:15-17, "When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep."

It should be first noted that this "interrogation" by Jesus involves giving Peter the chance to atone for his triple-denial of Christ with a triple-affirmation of love for Christ.

Secondly, we must pay attention to the Greek of the commands Jesus gives Peter - boskein, poimanein, boskein. Boskein effectively means to feed. But poimanein has a little bit broader usage. It can mean to "tend" but also "to govern."

Jesus is giving Peter a pastoral role over the rest of the flock - over his fellow Apostles and the rest of the Church. He is to feed and tend/govern Christ's sheep on behalf of Christ.

1 Peter 5:1-3, "So I exhort the presbyters among you, as a fellow presbyter and witness to the sufferings of Christ and one who has a share in the glory to be revealed. Tend the flock of God in your midst, (overseeing) not by constraint but willingly, as God would have it, not for shameful profit but eagerly. Do not lord it over those assigned to you, but be examples to the flock."

Contrary to the exegesis of some fundamentalists, Peter is not here suggesting that pastoral leaders should not exert authority over those in their care. Rather, Peter is here directly appealing to what Christ said about the Gentiles lording their authority over those under them. Ultimately, Christian leadership and authority must be tempered by SERVICE for others. This is a very strong reason why the Pope is considered the "servant of the servants of God."

Here Peter is insightfully understanding what Jesus had spoken to him, and he is telling the presbyters to tend/govern THEIR flocks rightly, doing so through service and not lordship. And the very fact that Peter is doing this, telling them to perform pastoral care in this manner, is demonstrative of HIS ROLE as an overseer, as a bishop. He is "tending Christ's sheep" as he was told to do in John 21 by instructing them on how they are to tend Christ's sheep among them.

What a hierarchical picture this gives! In fact, 1 Peter could even be understood as a papal encyclical, given its wide circulation to the "chosen sojourners of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Peter 1:1) - namely, the Christians in those areas.

This is a huge geographical expanse in which Peter is effectively instructing all the presbyters in the churches there on how to tend or govern THEIR flocks - and, in doing so, he tends/governs HIS flock, the flock given to him by Jesus Christ, the Chief Shepherd.

It is interesting that the letters of Paul were always letters to specific city-churches; none of them were such widespread encyclical-style letters. Peter is addressing 5 provinces in Asia Minor, a huge expanse.

I don't know what your stance is on traditional authorship of the New Testament material - some would dispute whether or not 1 Peter was even written by Peter, primarily on the grounds of the refined Greek of the epistle. But J. R. Michaels writes: "The notion that Peter had help in the composition of this letter does not stand or fall with the theory about Silvanus. If 1 Peter is, as it appears to be, an encyclical on behalf of the church at Rome ('Babylon') to a wide circle of churches on the frontiers of the Roman Empire in five provinces of Asia Minor ('Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,' 1 Pet 1:2), then the author would likely have had scribal help with vocabulary and style, and his helpers would likely have remained anonymous." (Dictionary of the Later New Testament and its Developments, art. "1 Peter")

Now, as for further biblical support:

Luke 12:41: "Then Peter said, "Lord, is this parable meant for us or for everyone?" And the Lord replied, "Who, then, is the faithful and prudent steward whom the master will put in charge of his servants to distribute (the) food allowance at the proper time?"

This is extremely interesting. OBVIOUSLY, contextually, this parable IS meant for both "us" AND "everyone." And it is especially meant for Peter, given Jesus' reference to the "faithful and prudent steward" whom the master will "put in charge of his servants."

Peter is that faithful and prudent steward that Christ put in charge of his servants - in Matthew 16:18-19, in Luke 22:31-32, and especially in John 21:15-17. In fact, Jesus encouraging Peter to "feed" the sheep in John 21 would seem to parallel with Jesus speaking of the chief steward being in charge of the other servants to distribute the food allowance at the proper time.

Jesus goes on to say, in the passage:

"Blessed is that servant whom his master on arrival finds doing so. Truly, I say to you, he will put him in charge of all his property. But if that servant says to himself, 'My master is delayed in coming,' and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, to eat and drink and get drunk, then that servant's master will come on an unexpected day and at an unknown hour and will punish him severely and assign him a place with the unfaithful. That servant who knew his master's will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely; and the servant who was ignorant of his master's will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more."

This could be seen as a warning particularly to Peter, although all Christians are obviously referrents as well.

Consider that Jesus was speaking of the "Chief Steward" and is speaking about how that one will be put in charge of all his property. What is Jesus alluding to?

Genesis 41:39-44, "So Pharaoh said to Joseph: "Since God has made all this known to you, no one can be as wise and discerning as you are. You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people shall dart at your command. Only in respect to the throne shall I outrank you. Herewith," Pharaoh told Joseph, "I place you in charge of the whole land of Egypt." With that, Pharaoh took off his signet ring and put it on Joseph's finger. He had him dressed in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain about his neck. He then had him ride in the chariot of his vizier, and they shouted "Abrek!" before him. Thus was Joseph installed over the whole land of Egypt. "I, Pharaoh, proclaim," he told Joseph, "that without your approval no one shall move hand or foot in all the land of Egypt."

The office of Chief Steward, here depicted as being held by Joseph in Egypt, was a common office in the ancient world. The person in question effectively played the role of second-in-command to the King (in this case, Pharaoah) and was in charge over what the King was in charge of, given authority over it, to rule on behalf of the King.

Now, you may ask why the Papacy should be deemed legitimate if it is based on an office found in ancient Egypt. That would be a fair question. And here is a fair answer - this office was ALSO found in ancient Israel.

Isaiah 22:20-22, "On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. 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."

In ancient Israel, you had a King (at the time of Eliakim, King Hezekiah) and the King had as his right-hand-man a Prime Minister, a Chief Steward, also known as the "Master of the Palace."

Isaiah 36:3, "there came out to him the master of the palace, Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, and Shebna the scribe, and the herald Joah, son of Asaph."

As we see in Isaiah 22:20-22, this office would be transferred to Eliakim, symbolized by the giving of the key of the house of David to Eliakim. In the ancient Middle-eastern world, keys symbolized authority, so to speak of giving someone "keys" was to speak of giving them authority. This went so far to the point where some of these individuals in various kingdoms wore literal keys on their bodies to symbolize their authority.

Eliakim had the power to "open and shut" via his royal authority, and was a "father" to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. He was in charge, especially, in the case of the physical absence of the King.

And now we come full circle when we return to Matthew 16:18-19:

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

We now know exactly which OT passage Jesus is alluding to here, AND the OT office He is alluding to - the OT office of "Master of the Palace." It is entirely historically likely, and many historians can attest to this, that following Israel's time in the land of Egypt, it included this office in the monarchy that it was to establish.

Jesus, as we well know, is a Davidic King, establishing a heavenly, yet STILL DAVIDIC, Kingdom:

Luke 1:32-33, "He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."

If Jesus is enthroned in a new, Davidic Kingdom - the Spiritual Israel - then it makes typological sense for his Kingdom to be structured rather similarly to the Kingdom of Old. Thus, that is why Jesus appoints Peter as the new "Master of the Palace" over the others in the Church.

Eliakim had the power to open and shut; Peter had the power to bind and loose.

Eliakim was a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem; Peter was a father to the inhabitants of the spiritual Jerusalem, the Church - hence the title of Papa, or "Pope."

Eliakim was in charge in the case of the physical absence of the King; likewise, Peter was in charge of the Church immediately upon the Ascension of Christ and the beginning of His physical absence - which explains why Peter immediately "gets to work" in the first half of Acts, including his actions of calling for a replacement for Judas, his role of spokesman and leader at Pentecost, and his prominent and deciding role in the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council.

Now, the issue of successors is also explained by our typological basis. Was Eliakim the sole Master of the Palace, for all time? Absolutely not. He received an office of dynastic succession, an office that was intended to continue past him - the office being greater than the man in the office.

Likewise, Peter received an office that was to continue past HIM - an office that was also one of succession. After all, the primary importance of the Master of the Palace was to rule the kingdom on behalf of the King in the PHYSICAL ABSENCE OF THE KING. And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Jesus STILL physically absent? Has the Parousia come yet? ; )

Therefore, the NEED for the succession of the Petrine office remains. The Tradition of the Church is also absolutely unanimous that the Bishops of Rome were the successors of Peter, from Linus to Anacletus to Clement and so on and so forth.

Thus, the importance of papal infalliblity is INTRINSICALLY related to the nature and office of the Papacy itself.

- Sean