About the keys that were given to Peter in Matthew

[Hilde89]

“whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”

This one I’ve heard a lot, but what does it mean really? What does it mean that Peter was given these keys, and what does the binding and loosing mean.And what does it say about the pope.

I’m Lutheran, but I’m not here to argue. I’m Just trying to understand.

 

[davidv]

“whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”

This one I’ve heard a lot, but what does it mean really? What does it mean that Peter was given these keys, and what does the binding and loosing mean.And what does it say about the pope.

I’m Lutheran, but I’m not here to argue. I’m Just trying to understand.

First let us distinguish between the “keys” and “binding and loosing”. The Catholic Church interprets the “keys” to be the appointment of Peter and his successors as Jesus’ earthly representative while we await His return. The “binding and loosing” refers to the apostles’, and their successors, having the authority to forgive sins and establish rules of governance for the Church.

Pope (Papa) is a title that is given to the successors of Peter in the role of 'prime minister" of the Church. Give the above, Pope is expected to watch over and guide the flock until Christ return.

 

[vern_humphrey]

“whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”

This one I’ve heard a lot, but what does it mean really? What does it mean that Peter was given these keys, and what does the binding and loosing mean.And what does it say about the pope.

I’m Lutheran, but I’m not here to argue. I’m Just trying to understand.

In this passage Peter is commissioned as chief of the Apostles (“on this rock I build my Church”) and becomes Christ’s vicar on earth (the keys indicate stewardship – a steward is his master’s lieutenant.) The Church is given the Kharisma of Infallibility – it cannot teach error (“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”) The power to loose and bind is the power to forgive sin (or retain it.)

 

[ckempston]

There’s nothing in either of those passages about successors. Just an observation.

 

[vern_humphrey]

There’s nothing in either of those passages about successors. Just an observation.

To** think** they wouldn’t have successors, or that Jesus didn’t intend His Church to survive through the generations is illogical. And to say we read nothing in the Bible about successors is simply wrong.

They did have successors. In Acts, we read how they chose a successor for Judas. We read how Paul became an Apostle, although he never saw Christ in the flesh. We read how others – episcopoi – were appointed and confirmed by the laying on of hands – just as Matthias was appointed to succeed Judas.

 

[NotWorthy]

There’s nothing in either of those passages about successors. Just an observation.

If this were the only passage, that may be a valid point.

But let’s look at Scripture.

In Acts 1, we see that Judas held an office. That would indicate that in Judas’ absence, there is still a position to be filled.

Look at Isaiah, chapter 22:

On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;*** 21 ****** 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.****** 22 *** 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.*** 23 ****** I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family;****** 24 *** On him shall hang all the glory of his family: descendants and offspring, all the little dishes, from bowls to jugs.*** 25 ****** On that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg fixed in a sure spot shall give way, break off and fall, and the weight that hung on it shall be done away with; for the LORD has spoken***.

You see the obvious corollary in verse 22. This is the Old Testament Prime Minister who ruled in the absence of the King. The position was an office, where one would be replaced by another, just as the Papacy is.

It should be noted that verse 25 would seem to show the downfall of the Papacy. But anytime we deal with Old Testament Typology, we see the imperfect (of the OT) fulfilled by the perfect (of the NT). Notice, Christ doesn’t repeat the peg being broken off when talking to Peter. Instead He promises that the Gates of Hell will not prevail.

On a final point:
Do you feel that the need for a supreme authority was no longer needed after the 1st century? Of course not. Hence, it makes sense to have a Pope even after Peter’s death.

 

[kepha1]

Jesus said before the Ascension, “…I am with you always, even to the end of the age…”

If there is no succession, then the Apostles must still be alive.
Or Jesus is talking to the Apostles and their successors.

An office without successors is not an office.

 

[kepha1]

**Isa. 22: 19 **I will thrust you from your office, and you will be pulled down from your station. **20 **In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, **21 **and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your sash on him, and will commit your authority to his hand. And he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. **22 **And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. **23 **And I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house. 24 And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons.
25 In that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a sure place will give way; and it will be cut down and fall, and the burden that was upon it will be cut off, for the LORD has spoken."

Isa. 22:19 - Shebna is described as having an “office” and a “station.” An office, in order for it to be an office, has successors. In order for an earthly kingdom to last, a succession of representatives is required.
This was the case in the Old Covenant kingdom, and it is the case in the New Covenant kingdom which fulfills the Old Covenant. Jesus our King is in heaven, but He has appointed a chief steward over His household with a plan for a succession of representatives.

. 20: In that day I will call my servant Eli’akim the son of Hilki’ah,

Isa. 22:20 - in the old Davidic kingdom, Eliakim succeeds Shebna as the chief steward of the household of God. The kingdom employs a mechanism of dynastic succession. King David was dead for centuries, but his kingdom is preserved through a succession of representatives.

21: and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.

Isa. 22:21 - Eliakim is called “father” or “papa” of God’s people. The word Pope used by Catholics to describe the chief steward of the earthly kingdom simply means papa or father in Italian. This is why Catholics call the leader of the Church “Pope.” The Pope is the father of God’s people, the chief steward of the earthly kingdom and Christ’s representative on earth.

22: And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Isa. 22:22 - we see that the keys of the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim. Thus, the keys are used not only as a symbol of authority, but also to facilitate succession. The keys of Christ’s kingdom have passed from Peter to Linus all the way to our current Pope with an unbroken lineage for almost 2,000 years.

23: And I will fasten him like a peg (Nail) in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.

Tents were common place inthose days. Everyone understood to have your tent pegs in a sure place meant your tent would not get blown down by the wind.

 

[kepha1]

Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1 - Jesus’ “keys” undeniably represent authority. By using the word “keys,” Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by anyone until the Protestant reformation 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture.

Revelation 3:7 RSV
7: "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: `The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 16:19 - whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts. This “binding and loosing” authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish “halakah,” or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves.

Jer. 33:17 - Jeremiah prophesies that David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the earthly House of Israel. Either this is a false prophecy, or David has a successor of representatives throughout history.

Dan. 2:44 - Daniel prophesies an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed. Either this is a false prophecy, or the earthly kingdom requires succession.

 

[YADA]

There’s nothing in either of those passages about successors. Just an observation.

Scripture cannot be read one passage at a time in isolation. Peter specifically quotes the hebrew texts in Acts stating “let another his office take” when Peter instructs the others on the need to fill the vacancy left by Judas. Offices are filled when they become vacant … and note there can be gaps between the office, the office becoming vacant [the gap] and the re-appointment of a successor. Peter understands [and knew them well] the hebrew scriptures and understood that the “Church” Jesus founded was a continuation of God’s self revelation and salvation history …

And the Prime Minister [Iss 22 others have noted] does not usurp the authority of the King. The Prime Minister’s authority comes [is derived] from the King and the Kings authority [the King always maintains His own ‘master’ set of keys and is the ultimate authority].

Eliakim succeeded the evil Shebna [removed for his offenses against the people] what he opens none shall shut and what he closes none shall open … he [this prime minister] is called Abba [father, papa, pope] by the people … he is a father to the King’s people!

Jesus is the fullfillment of the Davidic Kingdom, the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords … the Pope is the successor of Peter who derives his authority from Jesus. What was present in the Davidic kingdom is fullfilled in the New Jerusalem, the Kingdom of God in Jesus

 

[ckempston]

To** think** they wouldn’t have successors, or that Jesus didn’t intend His Church to survive through the generations is illogical. And to say we read nothing in the Bible about successors is simply wrong.

They did have successors. In Acts, we read how they chose a successor for Judas. We read how Paul became an Apostle, although he never saw Christ in the flesh. We read how others – episcopoi – were appointed and confirmed by the laying on of hands – just as Matthias was appointed to succeed Judas.

Judas was replaced in fulfillment of a prophecy. You’re really reaching there. It does not follow that because Judas was replaced, everyone else would be.

YADA:

Do you feel that the need for a supreme authority was no longer needed after the 1st century? Of course not. Hence, it makes sense to have a Pope even after Peter’s death.

Peter was never the supreme authority. Paul challenged his life and his teachings when they were incorrect. Galatians 2:14 is a clear example of Peter leading people incorrectly in matters of faith and doctrine - a thing the “Pope” is not supposed to be able to do.

 

[ckempston]

Thanks for providing those OT quotes; you have all given me something to consider here, though as of right now, I stand by my previous comments (i.e. Judas’s place filled in fulfillment of prophecy, Peter leading people incorrectly in life/doctrine, etc.).

I do have a question, however: If office holders are supposed to have successors, why do you only have a specific successor to Peter and not successors to all the Apostles? That seems to be a little bit of an inconsistency in your position.

 

[NotWorthy]

Judas was replaced in fulfillment of a prophecy. You’re really reaching there. It does not follow that because Judas was replaced, everyone else would be.

You’re correct. There had to be 12 Apostles at the Pentecost, in order to fulfill the Scriptures.

But Judas held, what? He held an office. What is an office? Look at the other quotes regarding succession, especially Isaiah.

Peter was never the supreme authority. Paul challenged his life and his teachings when they were incorrect. Galatians 2:14 is a clear example of Peter leading people incorrectly in matters of faith and doctrine - a thing the “Pope” is not supposed to be able to do.

What did Peter teach incorrectly?

In Galatians, Paul chastises Peter for not practicing what he was preaching. Peter did not teach in error. He just lived in error.

Numerous Catholics have chastised popes for the same reason, although various popes have lived in further error than others. But no Pope has taught a matter of faith and doctrine in error.

 

[NotWorthy]

I do have a question, however: If office holders are supposed to have successors, why do you only have a specific successor to Peter and not successors to all the Apostles? That seems to be a little bit of an inconsistency in your position.

I wasn’t aware that the rest of the Apostles didn’t have successors? For instance, after James was executed in Jerusalem, there was a new bishop selected there after the destruction of the temple.

The other Apostles became bishops in various areas. These areas became bishoprics.

Paul set up Tim as a successor to him, even instructing him on how to ordain others so that they can teach others. This is four levels of Apostolic Succession demonstrated in Scripture.

 

[ckempston]

What did Peter teach incorrectly?

See the last sentence in Galatians 2:14:

How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

Forcing Gentiles to follow Jewish customs is clearly an error in faith/doctrine.

 

[PinoyCatholic]

Thanks for providing those OT quotes; you have all given me something to consider here, though as of right now, I stand by my previous comments (i.e. Judas’s place filled in fulfillment of prophecy, Peter leading people incorrectly in life/doctrine, etc.).

I do have a question, however: If office holders are supposed to have successors, why do you only have a specific successor to Peter and not successors to all the Apostles? That seems to be a little bit of an inconsistency in your position.

I could be wrong here, but the Apostles DO have successors to their office.

Theodore II is the successor to the office of Mark the Apostle, and I’m not sure who the current successor to Saint Thomas’ office is but they’re headquartered in India where The Doubter was said to have been martyred.

Trivia buff. That’s me.

 

[NotWorthy]

See the last sentence in Galatians 2:14:

Forcing Gentiles to follow Jewish customs is clearly an error in faith/doctrine.

But the problem is, Peter taught one thing, and lived another.

Look at the three verses:

*** For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles***; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised.*** 13 ****** And the rest of the Jews (also) acted hypocritically along with him***, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.*** 14 ****** But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, “If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews***?”

Is wasn’t in Peter’s words that he was being a hypocrite. It was in his actions.

Notice it says, “the rest… acted hypocritically along with him…” Acting hypocritically is teaching one thing and living another. Paul demonstrates that it’s Peter’s actions that were out of line. So his teachings would have been right, but his actions would have been wrong.

Peter was NOT infallible. He simply taught infallibly. Popes are not infallible, says Mr. Obvious . Sadly, numerous popes have proven this to be true.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Judas was replaced in fulfillment of a prophecy. You’re really reaching there. It does not follow that because Judas was replaced, everyone else would be.

That’s kind of like saying because the sun came up on Tjuesday, we shouldn’t expect it to come up on Wednesday.

Peter was never the supreme authority. Paul challenged his life and his teachings when they were incorrect. Galatians 2:14 is a clear example of Peter leading people incorrectly in matters of faith and doctrine - a thing the “Pope” is not supposed to be able to do.

You have an incorrect idea of the role of Peter (and of the current Pope.) You are arguing against the church of your imagination, not against the Church as it is.

 

[ckempston]

Ok, I’m prepared to concede the point about the office requiring a successor. You all have made a very convincing argument here.

But, I still see that Galatians 2:14 clearly shows that Peter was teaching the wrong thing to his followers, not just by his hypocrisy, but in actual explicit teaching. Whether the NIV says “force” or your version says “compel,” it’s still the same thing. Peter was clearly teaching an incorrect doctrine.

 

[NotWorthy]

Ok, I’m prepared to concede the point about the office requiring a successor. You all have made a very convincing argument here.

But, I still see that Galatians 2:14 clearly shows that Peter was teaching the wrong thing to his followers, not just by his hypocrisy, but in actual explicit teaching. Whether the NIV says “force” or your version says “compel,” it’s still the same thing. Peter was clearly teaching an incorrect doctrine.

Define hypocrisy