If the Apostle Peter had the keys of authority, then why did Paul rebuke him?

Question

Why did Peter submit to this rebuke?

Regis you are on target!

PaulCyp - thank you for your interesting explanation. I respect your defense of your position with good logic. I hope to get more answers like yours.

Answer 1

Ah, this is a key question, and one that strikes at the heart of papal succession!

The "rock" that the church is built on is not Peter, but his confession that Christ is the Son of God. Christ is the rock! The keys to the kingdom of heaven refer to the keys that are given to the church corporately, to which Peter showed he belonged by confession. The terms "binding" and "loosing" are legal terms and refer to the ability to make binding decisions which would be respected, and in this case refers to decisions both on heaven as well as on earth. This authority belongs properly to the church as a whole, not some petty two bit dictator pope.

Tom

Answer 2

The issue was over Gentile vs. Jewish induction into Christianity. Peter was clearly in the wrong and he needed a rebuke. But, you must understand, a rebuke is just a form of correction, not discipline or exile.

We all need a good rebuking every once in awhile!

Answer 3

What do you mean "if"? The Holy Bible clearly records the fact that Christ Himself gave the keys to the Apostle Simon, simultaneously changing his name to "Peter", meaning "Rock", and not to any other man. Paul rebuked Peter because Paul believed Peter's opinion was wrong. Peter submitted to Paul's opinion because Paul was in fact correct. Simon Peter's successor today, the Pope, still receives input, both pro and con, from other bishops and advisors. He isn't a one-man show. But his final decision is binding, precisely because he does hold the keys to the kingdom, and the power of binding and loosing.
.

Answer 4

Peter was sliding back into the Old ways of Jewish Law. Paul called him for moving to place the Church under the Law again. Since Peter had received direct revelation that showed him that the Church would be for ALL people he knew Paul was right, therefore he submitted to the truth and to Christ not to Paul.... Jim

Answer 5

Peter had a habit of going off on a tangent, even Jesus rebuked him on a number of occasions. He submitted because Paul was right.

Answer 6

This Roman hetresy comes from the misinterpretation of Matthew sixteen:18; ‘I additionally say to you which you're Peter, and upon this rock i will build My church; and the gates of Hades won't overpower it. 19 ‘i will provide you the keys of the dominion of heaven; and despite you bind in the international shall have been certain in heaven, and despite you unfastened in the international shall have been loosed in heaven.’ Many assume that Christ is construction His Church on Peter. yet that may no longer the case. Christ is the super “Rock” upon whom the Church is geared up (Deut. 32:3-4, 15, 18; I Cor. 10:4; Eph. 2:20; I puppy. 2:6), no longer Peter (Eph. a million:22; 5:23; Col. a million:18). persevering with, “…and in any appreciate you shall bind in the international would be certain in heaven: and in any appreciate you shall unfastened in the international would be loosed in heaven… this would not provide humanity the capability or authority to alter what God has reported contained in the Bible. the authentic ministers of God have been given the authority to bind in straight forward terms that that's in contract with God’s regulations. whilst God’s ministers decide, it relatively is consistent with Scripture, consistent with God’s will. And on no account does this provide human beings the capability to forgive sin. in straight forward terms God can and does that.

Answer 7

authority is only useful when you're right. Peter was out of line being "racist" (still holding to the Jewish society's view of Jews being better than all men because they were led by God first), so God allowed Paul to rebuke him.

Answer 8

Whoops. Overlooked that little factoid during the edit ;-)

Yes, if indeed Peter is supposed to be the first Pope, and thus Jesus' personal envoy from whom all truth is derived, no one ought to be rebuking him, unless they were also willing to rebuke Jesus.

According to the doctrine of the original church, whatever Peter decided, that's the way God wanted it.

Never did much like Paul anyway ;-)

Answer 9

Because it is REAL hard to defend yourself when the TRUTH is staring at you and you're on the wrong side.

Peter was hangin out with Gentiles until his Jew buddies came around and so he ditched them. Paul basically called him out because he was wrong.

He called a sin "a sin", something that is almost unheard of today!

Answer 10

Here is Canon Law 212, of the Catholic Church, which reflects the Church's constant understanding about these types of things, from the earliest days:

Canon 212.3 states: "According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, [the faithful] have the right and even the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of the faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons."