The Nugget:
Jeremiah 12:5 [KJV1769] If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, then how canst thou contend with horses? and if in the land of peace, wherein thou trustedst, they wearied thee, then how wilt thou do in the swelling of Jordan?
My Comment:
My attention was first drawn to Jeremiah 12:5 when I heard a sermon on this text by Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. at Bob Jones University. I have been reading a book on Bible Geography all this month of December which also mentions this verse many times.
At this moment I am using an unfamiliar keyboard and am otherwise waiting to finish upgrading to Windows 11. That should explain, in part, why I have not been actively posting new material here. I anticipate that I will be able to resume posting more regularly at the end of this week.
Here are the cross references for Jeremiah 12:5 from The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury:
If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, then how canst thou contend with horses? and if in the land of peace, wherein thou trustedst, they wearied thee, then how wilt thou do in the swelling of Jordan?
if. Heb 12:1.
thou hast run. *Prov 3:11; *Prov 24:10, 1Cor 9:24, *Heb 12:3; *Heb 12:4, *1Pet 4:12, 13, 14.
have wearied thee. Jer 11:21, Mark 14:37, +*Gal 6:9.
then how. 1Sam 23:3, Job 41:10, 1Cor 10:13.
canst. Jer 26:8; 36:26; *Jer 38:4, 5, 6.
then how wilt. *Matt 7:14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23; 25:14-30; 25:34-40, +*Luke 16:10, *Rom 8:18, 1Cor 2:2; 3:13, 14, 15; 9:24, 25, 26, 27, *Heb 6:11; *Heb 6:12; *Heb 6:18, *2Pet 3:14.
swelling. FS121N1, Gen 31:54, Heb. pride. FS121N1, Gen 31:54. Pride put by the Figure Metonymy (of Adjunct) for proud beasts in the undergrowth on the banks of the Jordan. Jer 49:19; 50:44, Deut 34:3, *Josh 3:15 note. Judg 3:28; 12:5, 6, 1Sam 13:7, 1Kin 7:46, 2Kin 6:2, 1Chr 12:15, Job 41:34, Psa 42:7; *Psa 69:1; *Psa 69:2, *Zech 11:3, Mark 1:5 note.
Isa. 40:31 comes to mind when I read this verse. Verses subsequent to Jer. 12:5
indicate that there is trouble and judgement ahead. Circumstances will not be good in the land of peace: vs. 12,13. I would have to review my many notes that I took while in college and heard Dr. Bob Jr. (and many others) speak. Two things come immediately to my memory. One is that he reminded students who thought of the school as a dictatorship that it was indeed a dictatorship, and he was the dictator! The other memory is of him saying, “Wake up, young man!” There was always some random student in the auditorium who had nodded off during the lecture. Woe be unto unto that guy. Lol.
Thank you for your comment, Gary.
I wonder if it is possible that you heard Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. preach a sermon on Jeremiah 12:5. His father repeated his chapel messages, but I doubt if Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. did.
I heard the message in the late 1950s. I was there from 1958 to 1961, so I could have heard him in the very early 1960s.
In any case, it was a most remarkable message for me, considering I have remembered the text he preached on for all these years.
It has taken me a few days to respond to your comment. My sons have been helping me upgrade to Windows 11 compliant hardware. When it comes to such things, I am a very slow learner!
Good morning
Happy New Year
Come across your website a few times. It is excellent.
Listen I can prove to you in Matthew 16:18 that Peter is the “rock” to which the Lord is referring. I can also prove the establishment of the Papal Succession looking at Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18.
We need to look at the original text as it was written in Greek. I think you have looked at this before because you cite Greek sometimes. Did you ever do Greek. In your bio you say that you are retired teacher, did you perhaps, as a teacher, have some colleagues that taught Greek or the Classics?
Either way if you are interested we, can get into this. It is really quite straight forward.
I am sure you will be interested
All the best
Dear Chika,
Thank you for leaving a most interesting comment! I am very interested in the subjects you mentioned.
I took a minor in New Testament Greek when I attended Bob Jones University in Greenville, South Carolina. I have been studying about NT Greek ever since 1958 when I took my first classes under Professor Stuart Custer my freshman year. Since college, I have especially focused upon Greek grammar. I also took a course in Old Testament prophecy from Dr. Custer my senior year.
I am always open to learn something new. I think it would be valuable to continue this discussion. You might learn something new too.
That’s great. You have more than enough Greek. You might teach me something.
Now this is Matthew 16:18
“I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
This is the Greek
κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι Ἅιδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.
Now the Greek word for “this” in “this rock” is taute (feminine dative of houtos). Greek has at least 3 words for this: houtos (fem: haute), ode (fem: hede) and eikeinos (more meaning that). Now their uses are different. Taute can only ever refer to a preceding noun, that has previously been mentioned, namely Peter. It essentially means “this same”. It is where we get the English word “tautology”. Jesus is essentially saying
“You are Peter on THIS SAME ROCK…”.
“Taute” cannot refer to an ambiguous concept and definitely cannot refer to a noun/entity that has not been previously mentioned immediately before. Now as you aware the Gospels were written after the Ascension. Now if you wrote and/or said “taute”, readers and listeners would invariably understand it as referring to Peter the rock. If you intended any other rock, other than Peter, you would have to use another word for “this” or another pronoun. “Taute” can only refer to the previously mentioned noun, hence Peter. This is unequivocal. If you are uncertain we can ask any Greek teacher to translate the section, they can be Christian, atheist, agnostic etc. Look at this.
https://hackettpublishing.com/pdfs/FromAlphaToOmega_4thEd_Ch13_SAMPLE.pdf
Copy and paste in your URL. See bottom of page 77 to page 78. The text says:
“2. οὗτος, αὕτη, τοῦτο (“this,” “these”—but sometimes a better translation in English will be “that,” “those”) Points out someone or something close to the speaker or points to what was said in the preceding sentence or labels someone or something as well-known or means “the latter.”
Once/now you get this. We will look at Matthew 16: 19 and 18:18.
All the best
Chika
Thank you for your prompt response, Chika.
I am using a brand-new computer and it will take me some time to get used to it and the new software. Years ago, I read a book titled Future Shock. I think the author of that book was correct that change will take place faster than what some of us will be able to comfortably adjust to it.
In order to understand the doctrine of the New Testament it is necessary to correctly understand the grammar of the Greek New Testament.
I often side with the minority view when discussing Greek grammar. Truth is not decided by a majority vote.
My understanding of the grammar involved at Matthew 16:18 is that in the expression “upon this rock,” “this” is very emphatic, pointing to Jesus Himself. This (Matthew 16:18) is one of three important passages where “this” stands for the speaker. The other two passages are John 2:19 and John 6:58.
There is much more to explore concerning Matthew 16:18.
You make fantastic points. Let’s get at them. The Greek is again very helpful. Look at John 2:19
ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον, καὶ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερῶ αὐτόν.
The Lord is referring to himself as the temple. So this is the perfect example. The word for “this” “touton” is directly after the word for Temple, which actually means sanctuary. There word for “this” “touton” refers back to the sanctuary mentioned directly before it. Jesus is talking about himself. He is almost saying
“If you destroy the sanctuary, this same…and in three days I will”
Now if we look at Matthew 16:18. He says
You are Peter and on this (same) rock.
Look at the Greek
σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν,
See where the word for “this”, “taute” is located. It is between Peter and petra. It is directly after Peter not after petra, so it refers back to Peter. This (taute) is being used as we say anaphorically. This is why we use the word “tautology” to mean the same. The literal translation would be.
You are Peter and on this same the rock….
Now why is taute (this) before petra here but after neon (sanctuary) in John 2:19. Because in both case in refers back to the preceding noun. In Matthew 16:18 it refers back to Peter and in John 2:19 back to the temple or more rightly sanctuary.
Taute can only be refer back to what has been mentioned and enunciated before. It really means more than this. It means “this same”. Now let’s look at the next example. John 6:58 The Greek is great:
οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, οὐ καθὼς ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἀπέθανον• ὁ τρώγων τοῦτον τὸν ἄρτον ζήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.
This is an outrageously good example that I had not noticed before. It proves transubstantiation. He is talking about eating this flesh and drinking his blood in the preceding verses. Then in John 6:58 He begins with “houtous” (this same) is the bread. He is referring to his flesh/himself which he has previously mentioned as the bread. There we have Communion and Transubstantiation. If he had said “hode (this) is the bread” he would necessarily be talking about some totally different bread, not his flesh to which he was just referring. Indeed the reader or listener would not understand it unless he actually had bread there. It would be like if I said “this cat” but there was not cat.
Greek has two words for “this”: houtos and hode. There are used differently one anaphorically referring back meaning “this same” and other cataphorically referring to something later.
Are you happy with this… can we look at Matthew 6:19 and 18:18 confirming the Primacy/Papacy of Peter and successors. If you are still uncertain I am happy to still talk about Matthew 16:18
I suggest we continue to address Matthew 16:18. There is much more to unpack about this verse and what it means.
In my reading, I have noticed that Peter, Greek Petros, signifies a stone, a piece of rock, loose and movable.
This important incident, recorded most fully here in Matthew, does not seem to be understood by the apostles as giving any primacy or special authority to Peter, for just a short time later they are arguing about who should be the greatest in the Kingdom:
Matthew 18:1
Mat 18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
Who is the greatest. That such a controversy as this could repeatedly occur shows both the humanity of the apostles, and most forcibly, that Peter was not understood by the rest of the apostles to have the primacy among them, for they obviously did not so understand our Lord’s words to Peter in Mat 16:18, 19. **Mat 20:20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28; Mat 23:11, Mrk 9:34; Mrk 10:35-45, Luk 9:46, 47, 48; Luk 22:24, 25, 26, 27, Rom 12:10, Php 2:3.
I have found Matthew 20:26 particularly instructive:
Mat 20:24 And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren.
Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
Mat 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Note especially:
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you:
By this statement, Jesus forbids hierarchy. In later church history, and not much later at that, this principle was forgotten or violated.
But in the New Testament itself, we have the first century record that the original disciples, apostles, especially Paul and Peter, as well as John, were very much aware of what Jesus commanded, and made incidental reference to it:
2 Corinthians 1:24
24 Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.
King James Version
1 Peter 5:3
3 Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
King James Version
3 John 1:9-10
9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.
King James Version
The spirit of Diotrephes is very much with us today in churches and denominations which exercise a high level of control over the membership and what it believes. This spirit represents a failure to “receive one another,” and most especially, represents a spirit of not being open to correction. This, in part, is a failure to acknowledge that each individual is at their own unique level of spiritual growth and understanding. A major failure continues to be the flagrant disobedience to what is commanded in Romans 15:7, where Paul writes “Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.”
This is a major critical theme in Scripture, as a careful reading and study of the following cross reference passages I have assembled for Romans 15:7 will demonstrate:
receive. Rom 12:10; Rom 12:13; Rom 14:1-3; Rom 16:2, Psa 119:74, +Mal 3:16, Mat 10:14; Mat 10:15; Mat 10:40, 41, 42; Mat 18:5; Mat 25:35; Mat 25:40; Mat 25:43; Mat 25:45; Mat 25:46, Mar 6:11; Mar 9:37, 38, 39, 40, 41, Luk 9:5; Luk 9:48; Luk 10:8; Luk 10:10; Luk 10:38; Luk 10:39, Joh 13:20; Joh 13:34, Act 9:26, 27, 28; Act 9:43; Act 11:25; Act 11:26; Act 16:15; Act 17:7, 2Co 6:9; 2Co 7:2; 2Co 7:15, Gal 6:1, Php 2:29, Col 4:10, Phm 1:12; Phm 1:17, Heb 13:1, 2, +1Pe 4:9, 10, 1Jn 3:14, 2Jn 1:10, 3Jn 1:8, 9, 10.
one another. +Rom 12:5.
as Christ. Rom 5:2, +Mat 11:28, 29, 30, Luk 9:11; Luk 15:2, Joh 1:38; Joh 1:39; Joh 6:37; Joh 13:34, Heb 2:11; Heb 11:16.
to the glory. ver. 9 [Rom 15:9], +Rom 3:23, Eph 1:6, 7, 8; Eph 1:12; Eph 1:18, Php 2:11, 2Th 1:10, 11, 12.
Hello
Good to hear from you. Your arguments are really thought-provoking. Let me get into them. Jesus in Matthew 16:18 does to give primacy and authority to Peter. Let’s look at the Greek and then some themes. So the English – Matthew 16:18:
I will give you the keys of 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.”
Now the Greek
δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.
Now in this statement all the references are to Peter individually as shown by the use of the Greek you singular (second person singular)
“I will give you the keys” is you singular (second person singular)
“Whatever you bind on earth…” is you singular (second person singular)
Also the word for “whatever” is the definite article (ho) “the” so is translated as “whatsoever you (singular) bind”. This is to Peter alone. It is wide, inclusive and unrestricted. Essentially
“The that you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven. The that you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”
Now look at Matthew 18:18. This is where the Lord gives authority to the Apostles, but this is much more restricted and narrow. Now in the preceding verses before Matthew 18:18. Jesus is talking about how to deal with a fellow believer who does wrong. He gives the well-known advice: tell him, take two and then tell the Church. If he does not listen to the Church, then treat him like a tax collector or Gentile etc. Then he says:
Amen, 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.
Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅσα ἐὰν δήσητε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένα ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ ὅσα ἐὰν λύσητε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένα ἐν οὐρανῷ.
No the word for “whatever” here, is NOT the definite article (ho) “the”, as it was with Peter. The word used for “whatsoever” is “hosa” which actually means “how ever so many” or “how many”. First thing: It is much more restrictive. Secondly given the foregoing it refers to the forgiveness of sins, sacrament of confession and/or excommunication. Jesus says first says
“if he does not listen to the Church treat him like tax collector or Gentile” then says
“however so many you bind on earth are bound in heaven, however many you loose earth are loosed in heaven”
Further, in this statement there are no Keys, like were given to Peter.
You make fantastic points about how there should be no hierarchy. You are absolutely right. Now Peter as the first Pope, and all Popes, as the Bishop with the most authority are the FIRST SERVANT. This is in the same way that Jesus is Head of the Church but insisted on washing the Disciples’ feet. The Greatest is the one who serves. As the Primate, the Pope is the First Servant and the Greatest Acts of Service are expected of him. There was a horrific time in the second and third centuries where opposition to Christianity was so great that every Pope was executed and Papacies lasted literally months. In spite of this people still accepted election, knowing it would mean certain death. At this time being the first amongst the Bishops meant being the first to be executed. The Pope is the First Servant. Mary appreciated this. When she was told she would be the mother of the Everlasting King, she said “I am the handmaid of the Lord” Luke 1. As the mother of God she identified as the first servant of God. She did not cling to the trappings of Queen Mother but identified with the handmaid. That is one who is not even at the table. let alone the lowest seats at the table. Jesus was against secular hierarchy where power means you wield power for your own gain and impose that power over others. Not the Papacy where the higher you are the more you serve.
Now let me give some Nuggets
Paul Recognises he has authority 1 Corinthians 9:8
“I am not saying this based simply on human authority, for the Law says the very same thing.”
2 Thessalonians 3:14
If anyone refuses to obey our instructions in this letter, take note of him and have nothing to do with him so that he may be put to shame.
Peter 3: 15-16 – Peter calls Paul’s Writings Scripture. Clearly Paul has authority Paul. But what authority does Peter have to call Paul’s writing scripture when the canon of the bible has not been determined yet…unless he has the keys:
15 Think of our Lord’s patience as your opportunity to be saved; our beloved brother Paul told you this when he wrote to you with the wisdom that was given to him, 16 speaking of it in all his letters. In them, there are some things that are difficult to understand, which the ignorant and the unstable distort in the same way that they distort the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Am I persuading you at all??? You are persuading me to look at the Papacy in whole new way. It is not about power or who is greatest. It is about service and who the serves the people, evangelised and un-evangelised, the best.
I have been studying these interesting and important issues you have mentioned.
I appreciate your patience and kindness in continuing this discussion.
I look forward to delving even deeper into the issues you have raised.
Your input, Chika, is much appreciated!
I happened to notice an interesting fact in the Greek text which further substantiates my assertion that Paul, Peter, and John all make incidental reference to what Jesus said in Matthew 20:25, 26,
Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
Peter uses this very term Jesus used, “exercise dominion over” (Matthew 20:25) when Peter writes “being lords over” (1 Peter 5:3) God’s heritage:
1Pe 5:3 Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
being lords over. or, over-ruling. Gr. katakurieuō [(S# G2634): Rendered (1) exercise dominion over: Mat 20:25, (2) overcome: Act 19:16, (3) be lord over: 1Pe 5:3, (4) exercise lordship over: Mrk 10:42].
On another issue we have touched upon, notice Peter denies that he has any primacy over the other elders in the church in 1 Peter 5:1,
1Pe 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
who am also an elder. Note: Sumpresbuteros, a fellow-elder, one on a level with yourselves. The expression is decisive against the primacy of Peter (Vincent). 2Jn 1:1, 3Jn 1:1.
There is no evidence in the New Testament that Peter was ever a pope. There is no evidence in Scripture that Jesus intended that Peter’s alleged office would pass on to a single unbroken line of successors from his time until Jesus returns. Both the witness of the Greek text and the witness of subsequent church history deny that alleged successors to Peter would have any greater significance, authority, or qualitative difference than that accorded to the successors of the other Apostles.
I have already noted in our discussion that the disciples/Apostles who were present when Jesus spoke the words of Matthew 16:18 did not regard those words as giving any primacy to Peter, for subsequent to that incident they were arguing among themselves about who of them should be the greatest in the Kingdom (Matthew 18:1 and parallel passages).
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
If Jesus had meant to designate Peter as the rock upon which Jesus would build His church, Jesus could very easily have dispelled any doubt by declaring, “Thou art Peter, and upon you, the rock, I will build my church.” But this is not what Jesus said.
There is much more to discuss on these issues!
Hello
Thank you for your patience. You are showing me so many new things. I will get after the great points that you make. Firstly disciples argue about who is the greatest because immediately after in Matthew 20:16 Jesus says: “So the last shall be first, and the first last:” THEN the disciples start arguing who is the greatest. Think of it
“You are Peter and on this Rock..”.. Then
“FYI the last will be first and first last..”
Further
When the Mother of the Son’s of Zebedee asks for her sons to sit on the right and left of Jesus, Jesus does NOT say that there is no hierarchy, what he is says at Matthew 20:23 is:
“But to sit at my right or left is not Mine to grant. These seats belong to those for whom they have been prepared.”
Now, I personally believe that at his right hand is Mary his mother because the Gebirah, Queen Mother, traditionally sat at the right hand of the King of Judah (1 Kings 2:19). At his left, I am not so sure but maybe St John the Evangelist, Joseph, John the Baptist or perhaps someone we do not even know. The Pope has no throne, he is a steward. So it is really important to note that disciples were arguing about who was greatest because the Pope is not necessarily the greatest in the kingdom of heaven at all. Many Christians and all Catholics believe Mary is greater than Peter and all the Popes. Many Christians and many if not all Catholics regard Saint Joseph, as the foster father of Jesus, “greater” than all the Popes including Peter. Jesus said there is none of woman born greater than John (Matthew 11:11). All the disciples knew and saw that Jesus would select Peter, James and John for the most intimate moments, but they still all argued who was the greatest, (probably because of Matthew 20:16 first to last). In summary the Pope is not necessarily the greatest in the Kingdom and so the disciples were arguing. As the Lord mentioned, they were wrong to do so.
We are saying the same thing and are in total agreement. In fact your objections to the Papacy define the very nature of the Papacy. Matthew 20:25,26 and 1 Peter 5:3, all make the same point: The hierarchy in the church cannot be like the hierarchy of the world, where the most senior laud their power. In the church the highest is the one who serves the most.
When the Lords talks he makes it clear that the Pope is a steward, not like an earthly King. There is only one King, Jesus. In Matthew 24:25:
“Who, then, is the faithful and wise servant whom his master has put in charge of his household to give the others their food at the right time?”
But clearly there is a hierarchy, there is a steward. Now in the Old Testament there is a passage where God himself refers to the Chief Steward, who will be assigned the keys essentially prefiguring Peter and the Pope.
Isaiah 22:15-24
“In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat[a] of honor for the house of his father. 24 All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars.”
Now, I would not say that Peter denies that he has any primacy in 1 Peter: 5.1. This is a good argument but, the thing is this: in 1 Peter 5, Peter is essentially giving elders instruction. Indeed in the whole of 1 Peter and 2 Peter, Peter is giving moral and practical instruction. How can he do that if he does not have authority? Indeed this instruction is now part of the Gospel.
Also you ask why did the Lord not say: “Thou art Peter, and upon you, the rock, I will build my church.”
This is a fantastic point you make. I have thought of this myself before. The reason is clear. If he had done this it would have seemed that it is on Peter himself as individual man rather than Peter as Pope and his successors. It would seem as though this is just for Peter. So the fact that he does not say that supports the line of succession of the Popes. The line of succession is also established where the Lord states “the gates of the Hades will not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18)
This must extend beyond the life of Peter as both the Church and Hades persist after Peter on the Earth. In the same way: how and why did Jesus rename Simon to Peter and then say on this rock, referring to a totally different rock that is not Peter? As stated the word for “this” “taute” (Matthew 16:18) can only apply to the preceding noun (think tautology). Matthew the Evangelist knew exactly what he doing
“You are Peter and on this rock, I will build my Church”
It is Peter now but in future generations it will a different Pope.
It is so hard to explain why the Lord gave keys to Peter alone, the Greek is “you” singular not “you” plural (Matthew 16:19).
Again in Luke 22:29-32 the Lord was speaking to all of the disciples at the last supper. Then he turns to Peter and tells Peter to strengthen his brothers
Luke 22:
31“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”
. Why should Peter strengthen his brothers? They should strengthen him, surely? He was the one that denied Christ. Indeed John stayed with him under the Cross. Why does John not strengthen Peter? This is because of the Primacy of the Peter. You see all our references are pretty much from Matthew.
Matthew focused on the establishment of the Church as institution of which the Papacy is an essential part.
I must be persuading you just a little bit by now…surely…?
Thank you for continuing this discussion, Chika!
I wrote a quite full response to your last comment on January 10, 2026. Just the very moment I was about to hit “enter,” my Internet service was interrupted, from 9:50 am until 3:35 pm that day. Whatever it was that I wrote that day is now lost forever!
Now I know I must remember to copy and save my comment text to a Word document before posting it here.
On January 10 you wrote:
//Also you ask why did the Lord not say: “Thou art Peter, and upon you, the rock, I will build my church.”
This is a fantastic point you make. I have thought of this myself before. The reason is clear. If he had done this it would have seemed that it is on Peter himself as individual man rather than Peter as Pope and his successors. It would seem as though this is just for Peter. So the fact that he does not say that supports the line of succession of the Popes. The line of succession is also established where the Lord states “the gates of the Hades will not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18)
This must extend beyond the life of Peter as both the Church and Hades persist after Peter on the Earth. In the same way: how and why did Jesus rename Simon to Peter and then say on this rock, referring to a totally different rock that is not Peter? As stated the word for “this” “taute” (Matthew 16:18) can only apply to the preceding noun (think tautology). Matthew the Evangelist knew exactly what he doing
“You are Peter and on this rock, I will build my Church” //
In response, I would suggest that this is what many may believe. I respect that belief, even if I do not find convincing justification for it in the Bible.
Sometimes I get the reaction from others that I am “anti-Catholic.” I explain to them that I am not anti-Catholic, but I am anti-error!
I have come to see that “Everyone is wrong about something–including me!”
It is most important that each of us be open to correction. If I am presented enough evidence that demonstrates I am mistaken in my understanding of a point of doctrine in the Bible, I am always ready to be corrected and I will change my mind.
There are some individuals, some churches, some religious organizations, and some movements that claim to be Christian that make the claim that they are exclusively the “One True Church” (as the Church of Christ or the Landmark Baptists or the Seventh Day Adventists or the Roman Catholic Church), the only organization today authorized to teach God’s truth (an example would be the Watchtower or Jehovah Witnesses), or the only theological system that is correct (Calvinism).
Any individual, group, or church that teaches it is the one true faith has demonstrated that most certainly they are not what they claim. This is the case because no matter the claimant, it is certain that they are mistaken in their doctrinal teaching when compared to what is taught in the Bible. To claim to be the “One True Church” and be provably mistaken on a point of doctrine is an error in logic.
I have NEVER suggested to any individual that they should leave the Roman Catholic Church and attend a Bible-believing, Bible teaching, Bible practicing church.
In my long career as a high school teacher, students generally thought I belonged to the same church or denomination that they did. Roman Catholic students believed I was Roman Catholic (see my article on this site about the short story “The Bet” by Anton Chekhov). Students who were Jehovah Witnesses thought I was a Jehovah Witness. Students from a Calvinistic background thought I was a Calvinist.
My point in this regard is that I do not have an agenda to persuade anyone to change their church affiliation. I put that, as practiced by many others, in the category of “Sheep Stealing.” I believe that God will lead each individual to have fellowship with likeminded people.
I have had a number of students over the years who have let me know that I had an impact on their spiritual life that resulted in them coming to true faith in Christ.
I have been invited to be a top administrator of a Roman Catholic apologetics website, which I consider a great honor.
Addressing directly your statement:
//If he had done this it would have seemed that it is on Peter himself as individual man rather than Peter as Pope and his successors. It would seem as though this is just for Peter. So the fact that he does not say that supports the line of succession of the Popes. The line of succession is also established where the Lord states “the gates of the Hades will not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18)
This must extend beyond the life of Peter as both the Church and Hades persist after Peter on the Earth. //
Going by the principle that we must go by “what is IN the Bible, not by what is NOT IN the Bible,” I would suggest there is no Bible evidence that Peter was ever a Pope in the Roman Catholic sense of the word.
This is an error that represents the fallacy of reading back into the New Testament text a modern viewpoint that was never intended by any writer of our 27 First Century New Testament documents.
Well, you can tell that I am not yet persuaded to adopt the point of view you are advocating, but I am very interested in continuing the discussion!
Hello
I am really sorry you lost your material. It would have been really good to see. But what you have written is excellent. I am not surprised you were asked to be administrator of Roman Catholic Apologetics. I hope you took it up. You would do an outstanding job.
It is not so much about persuading, as showing the Papacy is in the bible; in the same way the Trinity is in the bible. The words are not there but they are both clearly there. I don’t think that the Catholic Church is capable of doctrinal error specifically because of what Jesus said to Peter in Matthew 16:18-19 Peter has keys, and whatever is loosed/bound on earth is loosed/bound in heaven. Hades will never withstand the Church. The thing is this: both the Church and Hades survive after Peter’s earthly life has ended.
Now we both see that Jesus does not say that: “You are Peter and on you shall I build my church”. In Matthew 16:18, This “taute” can only mean Peter. Anyway even in spite of this, we must remember that the Lord equally does not say:
“You are Peter and on myself do I build my church.”
He says
“You are Peter (rock) and on this rock shall I build my church”
This is critical. If Simon is Peter (rock), then it is difficult for Jesus to be petra (rock), or another rock for this reason: Whenever Jesus speaks about himself and the disciples he always makes a clear distinction, he is of different/transcendent character/entity/being. To suggest Peter and Jesus are both rocks is really inconsistent: Jesus is master (John 13:13) the disciples are pupils. He is Master, they are stewards/servants (Matthew 24:45). He is the bridegroom; they are wedding guests (Matthew 22:1-14). He is the way, truth and life (John 14:6) they just looking for the way (John 14:5). They are orphans until the Lord comes (John14:18). He is the vine they are the branches (John 15:5). He is the head of the Church; the whole church (not just Peter) is the body of Christ. He is son of the vineyard owner; everyone else are tenants (Matthew 20:1-16). But now Peter is a rock and Jesus is a (bigger?) rock too. It does not seem to fit…
When you add everything together, it is hard to explain everything we see without saying Peter was Pope with successors. Without that there are many ifs and buts…
You know, I think that the Lord appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus for his conversion because he was too smart for anyone to out-argue him, even though, pre-conversion, he was wrong about Christ. Most others were converted on the testimony of the disciples and the followers of Christ; but Saul could out argue anyone…I guess sometimes the Lord shows what no clever argument can…especially when people are super smart and have a riposte for everything…
1-17-26 My comment for Je 12v5 post
Thank you for your great patience in waiting for me to continue our conversation!
I did accept the invitation to be a top administrator of a Roman Catholic apologetics website. I consider it a great honor to have continued in that position for several years now.
You made a very interesting comment above on January 6, 2026, which I believe it would be most instructive to carefully consider further:
//Now let’s look at the next example. John 6:58 The Greek is great:
οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, οὐ καθὼς ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἀπέθανον• ὁ τρώγων τοῦτον τὸν ἄρτον ζήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.
This is an outrageously good example that I had not noticed before. It proves transubstantiation. He is talking about eating this flesh and drinking his blood in the preceding verses. //
Many years ago (perhaps around 2006-2008) I was active on a site called Timebomb. It had a section back then devoted to discussing religion and the Bible. I interacted with one of the site’s moderators or administrators. The person had been raised in a Baptist church, if I recall correctly, but had converted to the Jewish faith. I often assisted him when he had questions about the Bible. I learned from him that one of the main issues that convinced him to convert to the Jewish faith was that Jesus did not fulfill many of the Bible prophecies that the Jews of that time and this expected the Messiah to fulfil.
The other issue I recall that most concerned him was the belief of many Christians that partaking of Holy Communion or the Eucharist involved the actual eating of Christ’s literal flesh and the actual drinking of Christ’s blood. He said this view of Communion was a major stumbling block for those of the Jewish faith and now himself because God’s Word nowhere commends cannibalism.
He particularly called my attention to statements found in John 6 that seemed to him to support this view.
That led me then and since to carefully study the sixth chapter of John.
I have posted the results of those studies here on this site.
First, I pointed out that the disciples who were present at the institution of the Lord’s Supper did not understand the words and actions in that very literal sense. As Jesus spoke the words of this institution, He was standing before them. He was not eating His own flesh or drinking His own blood. Jesus was employing several very well known figures of speech. One of the figures of speech indicates that the expression “This is” means “This represents.”
Second, I pointed out that Peter incidentally confirms this when he states in the account found in Acts 10:13, 14, that he had never eaten anything that is common or unclean:
Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. (KJV)
Since the eating of blood is clearly forbidden in the Old Testament, Peter could not have considered the words of the institution of the Lord’s Supper to be taken in a literal sense. Rather, Peter understood the figurative language being used.
In my further studies of the sixth chapter of John, I have come to understand that there is no reference in that chapter to the institution of the Lord’s Supper. This is the case because the events of John 6 to not fit the chronology: Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper at His final meal before the Cross.
Furthermore, much of the message of John 6 is misunderstood today because most of our English translations fail to convey the presence of the subjunctive mood that is present in a number of significant texts. That arbitrary and inconsistent mistranslation of this important feature of Greek grammar leads to a wrong understanding of this text.
You will recall that I stated above that understanding doctrine correctly depends upon correct understanding of the underlying Greek grammar.
When differing interpretations of a text of Scripture are encountered, it is possible to determine which, if either, is the better interpretation by following the principles of careful literary judgment, which I call the Rules of Interpretation.
Thank you, Chika, for motivating my further study.
Thank you for your reply it is so good.
We know Jews and Christians have a common origin. However, Jesus clearly fulfils all the prophecies in the Old Testament (Psalm 22:16 and Proverbs 30:40 for example). Even in Luke 1:48. Mary says
“From now all generations will call me blessed”.
This has come true. How is this possible? A 17-year-old girl unmarried and yet pregnant at time when this was socially unacceptable. In addition she was part of a subjugated people, oppressed and exploited by the Romans in around 7BC. There was no internet, no printing and yet this has come true. There has never been a more audacious and bald prediction in the history of humanity that has come true.
The Eucharist is not cannibalism because it is spiritual food. However the fact that you and your Jewish friend are so uncomfortable is evidence of its veracity. When Jesus makes the statement regarding eating his flesh, the listeners made the exact same statement as you and your friend. In response Jesus does not retreat from the position, he re-emphasises and reiterates that we must eat his flesh. John 6:
“52 Then the Jews started to argue among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ 53 Jesus said to them,
‘Amen, amen, I say to you,
unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man
and drink his blood..’
60 After hearing his words, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard saying. Who can accept it?’ 61 Aware of the complaints of his disciples, Jesus said to them,
‘Does this shock you?
62 What then if you were to behold the Son of Man
ascend to where he was before?.’
66 After this, many of his disciples turned away and no longer remained with him. 67 Then Jesus said to the Twelve, ‘Do you also wish to leave?’ 68 Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life'”
In the last supper Jesus was literal. The bread and wine become the body and blood – this is transubstantiation. One thing you will note about John’s Gospel is that it has no parables at all and neither is the Eucharist a metaphor. Like you notice Jesus says “this is” and not “this represents”.
St Paul speaks of severe ramifications if one eats the Eucharist unworthily there are severe. How can this be if this is a symbol? Look at 1 Corinthians 11
“27 God’s Judgment on the Community.[a] Therefore, anyone who eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner is guilty of an offense against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone should examine himself about eating the bread and drinking from the cup.”
Finally, I appreciate what you say about Peter. That is a good point, but the Eucharist is what Jesus specifically instructed and hence Peter accepted it as not transgressing the law. Remember when Peter and the disciples were eating wheat on the Sabbath and Jesus defended them to the Pharisees.
Matthew 12: 1
“1 At that time, Jesus was walking through a field of grain on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look at your disciples. They are doing what is forbidden on the Sabbath.”
We have a more in common than we have apart. You have great arguments. If someone has the perfect response for everything, it is sometimes only the Lord that can show them, like Saul to Paul.
Thank you, Chika, for your careful reply.
You have motivated me to do even more research on this subject. I have studied this out so much that I am learning enough to where I can sometimes read John 6 directly from the Greek text.
I commented above:
//Furthermore, much of the message of John 6 is misunderstood today because most of our English translations fail to convey the presence of the subjunctive mood that is present in a number of significant texts. That arbitrary and inconsistent mistranslation of this important feature of Greek grammar leads to a wrong understanding of this text. //
Most English translations fail to convey the presence of the subjunctive mood in John 6:44.
Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. (KJV)
Joh 6:44 no one is able to come unto me, if the Father who sent me may not draw him, and I will raise him up in the last day; (YLT, Young’s Literal Translation)
Joh 6:44 ουδεις δυναται ελθειν προς με εαν μη ο πατηρ ο πεμψας με ελκυση αυτον και εγω αναστησω αυτον τη εσχατη ημερα
John 6:44 No one is able to come to Me unless the Father–the One having sent Me–may draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day. (LNT, Lavender New Testament)
The YLT and the LNT are the only English translations I have access to that preserve the force of the subjunctive mood in John 6:44.
My study notes for “draw” are as follows:
draw. or, may draw. Aorist tense, active voice, subjunctive mood, third person singular verb. Logically, Calvinism cannot base absolute sovereignty and absolute predestination or the doctrine of irresistible grace upon (or in the face of) the “may” of the subjunctive mood in the probable future third class condition here and in verse 65 (Jhn 6:65). That would be an absolute contradiction in terms. “May” expresses contingency; the “third class condition” expresses probability, but not certainty, because of the contingency. The “third class condition” asserts that if a specified condition is met, a certain result will follow. Thus, the Calvinistic position is proven absolutely untenable according to the grammar of Scripture. The terms of the contingency are expressed in Jhn 6:37 and Jhn 6:40 and include continuing belief. Gr. ελκυση (S# G1670: Jhn 12:32; Jhn 18:10; Jhn 21:6; Jhn 21:11; Act 16:19; Act 21:30; Jas 2:6). **Jhn 6:65. Jhn 4:23; *Jhn 12:32, Gen 19:16, Psa 25:8, *Song 1:4, Jer 31:3, Hos 2:14; Hos 11:4, Rom 8:14.
You cited the following passage from John 6,
53 Jesus said to them,
‘Amen, amen, I say to you,
unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man
and drink his blood..’
60 After hearing his words, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard saying. Who can accept it?’ 61 Aware of the complaints of his disciples, Jesus said to them,
‘Does this shock you?
62 What then if you were to behold the Son of Man
ascend to where he was before?.’
66 After this, many of his disciples turned away and no longer remained with him. 67 Then Jesus said to the Twelve, ‘Do you also wish to leave?’ 68 Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life’”
Notice Peter’s response: “You have the words of eternal life.”
Peter well perceived what Jesus was emphasizing in this most important discourse: the basis of having eternal life.
I maintain, upon extensive further study this week, that this discourse of Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with the institution of the Lord’s Supper, for all the reasons I summarized in my previous comment.
Hello
I took a long time to reply because I had to really grapple with this. What you wrote was excellent. I have answer now though. The subjunctive mood is the perfect mood for this statement of the Lord in John 6 53 and following – he is saying
“unless you eat”
So it is clearly a contingent statement. If you don’t eat.. you don’t have eternal life. If you do eat you do have. Combing “unless” with an indicative would be really difficult to reconcile. I wonder do you speak Spanish? I ask because Spanish uses the subjunctive in a very similar way? So “if” and “unless” sentences use the subjunctive so if you say in Spanish:
“if you were rich..what would you do?”
“were rich” is subjective
“si fueras rico que harias tu”
fueras is subjunctive imperfect
Now if you say “unless you eat” in Spanish you would say
“a menos que comas…”
“comas” is subjective present
you could say
“a menos que comieras”
subjunctive imperfect..this would be saying
“unless you were to eat” or “unless you were eating”
This is perfect because it shows that eating is a general precondition to the next thing….that is eternal life. Where as the present subjective would not necessarily imply a precondition but rather an association or just a precondition this time.
“unless you eat.. you can not” single event
“unless you were to eat you can not” a more general phenomenon.
Aorist is thus also appropriate because is perfect (historical aspect). It also speaks to the fact that we eat a discrete specified time, not that we are eating all the time. This again fits with Eucharist.
Does this help?
Are you becoming persuaded?
Dear Chika,
Thank you for continuing to engage in this discussion!
It has taken me some time to begin to participate in this discussion further because I have had what I think is a severe problem with my Internet connection.
There is a major sports event happening soon today, so this connection may be disrupted yet again.
On January 19, 2025, you stated above:
//We know Jews and Christians have a common origin. However, Jesus clearly fulfils all the prophecies in the Old Testament //
Actually, there are two classes of Bible prophecies about our Lord Jesus Christ. There is a set of prophecies which have been fulfilled that pertain to His First Advent or Coming. In my studies I have found well over a hundred of those.
There is also a larger set of prophecies which pertain to His Second Advent or Coming, which, of course, have not been fulfilled yet.
In His discourse on the Emmaus Road Jesus spoke of these two sets of prophecies. He also gave the key that now enables Bible readers to identify which set of Messianic Prophecies any given prophecy refers to:
Luk 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Luk 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (KJV)
Jesus gives the key in verse 26. First Advent prophecies pertain to His suffering. Second Advent prophecies pertain to His glory.
Peter, in his first letter, mentions this quite clearly:
1Pe 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. (KJV)
Our Lord Jesus Christ repeated this teaching twice on the same day of His bodily resurrection from the dead: first, to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus; second, to the gathered disciples late that day in Jerusalem.
There is a church that claims to be the “one true church.” This church claims to have unwritten traditions it has preserved from the time of Christ. Apologists for this church say Protestants and others not of their communion do not have the whole story and urge others to join them because only they have “The Rest of the Story.” But when I ask for a link to that Tradition that would contain the transcript of what Jesus taught on the Road to Emmaus or to the gathered hiding disciples in Jerusalem, they are unable to furnish any part of the claimed “Rest of the story”!
I have collected the Bible cross references that DO contain the rest of that story. Perhaps I can share them with you here. I need to post this comment before the Internet gets too busy because of the Superbowl which starts in less than an hour.