A
adrift
Guest
According to Jesus, He gives the keys to Peter.
An explanation of Matthew 16:13-18 with regard to "the Anointed One" and "the Rock" and "the key of David"
- Status
A
adrift
Guest
I guess you miss my point. There was already a distinction. Simon was know by who his father was Simon son of Jonah. That there were other apostles who had the same name but none of those where renamed by Jesus. The circumstances of the renaming is not unimportant.
The naming comes after Jesus say Peter is blessed calls him Simon SON of Jonah (so he already has a way of distinguishing between the two Simons) Tells Peter that Jesus heavenly Father has revealed it to him. And because of this revelation Jesus gives Simon the name of Peter. Jesus follows this declaration with 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.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Adrift,
He gave each of the Twelve Apostles the keys to “bind and loose”, but those are not the same keys as the “key of David.” The key of David cannot and will not be held by a man. (See Revelation 3:7)
A
adrift
Guest
Not at this time. Jesus was speaking directly to Peter
Jesus was speaking to Peter alone and it follows the declaration
POWER OF THE KEYS
P
ParkerD
Guest
Jesus said “I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” He didn’t say He was doing it right then. He gave all of the Twelve the keys as noted in Matthew 18:18.
The link from which you quoted about the “power of the keys”, if it does not say that Christ holds the key of David on His shoulder, is completely incorrect doctrine. Isaiah 22:22-23 is a prophecy about Christ and the crucifixion.
A
adrift
Guest
Scriptures have layers. That is they have multiple meanings. That Jesus has just changed Peter’s name. ( You haven’t provided any scripture that shows that a name change is insignificant.) That Jesus says
Your objection that Jesus wasn’t doing it right then really is beside the point. He uses I will twice. I will build my Church. I will give YOU the keys. Jesus gave the power to forgive sins which was not the same as giving the keys. The keys were given to Peter alone.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Adrift,
I’ve already demonstrated that it wasn’t a “name change,” and so did an excellent post by PaulDupre earlier on.
It isn’t “beside the point” about the giving of the “keys of the kingdom”. If “the keys were given to Peter alone,” then that was the fourth most important event in the history of the kingdom of God on earth (next to the atonement/crucifixion and the resurrection and birth of Christ), and one would think that any of either the Savior Himself, or Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, or Peter, would have highlighted or written about the actual event–not the precursor to the event. The word “and” could just as well have been the word “that”, which would mean that the keys were the keys to bind and loose and that all of the Twelve had those keys (which all followers of Christ but the Catholic church believe based on Biblical understanding which is quite plain and direct).
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
Oh really?
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1444 In imparting to his apostles his own power to forgive sins the Lord also gives them the authority to reconcile sinners with the Church. This ecclesial dimension of their task is expressed most notably in Christ’s solemn words to Simon Peter: “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.”* “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head.”*
881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock*. “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.”* This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
We see in the Bible that Jesus specifically gave Peter the keys, and also gave the apostles the power to bind and loose. Peter quite clearly had primacy in the Church, and I’m pretty sure that Mormons agree that he did.
P
ParkerD
Guest
CatholicGuy NY,
Mormons would agree that Peter was the first-named apostle, and the leading apostle after the ascension, but not that he “had primacy in the Church” since Christ taught that the leader among them was to be the “servant of all” and that they were to “be one” which is contrary to the notion that one had “primacy”.
Further, the only fulfilling of the promise that Jesus would give Peter the keys and the power to bind and loose was when He gave that power to all of the Twelve to bind and loose.
Peter never acted as though he had more keys or a different authority than any others of the apostles.
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
Stating that Peter was “the first-named apostle, and the leading apostle after the ascension” clearly indicates a “primacy”.
P
ParkerD
Guest
CatholicGuyNY,
Not if all the apostles received the same keys Peter held, and not if they were intended to counsel together and work as a united body in counsel and agreement.
The “primacy” with no planned leadership succession that would include having the upcoming leader having learned his role through experience and preparation, would be a very poor leadership transition model. It would mean the Savior had no inkling of human nature as regards leadership and leadership transition. I don’t buy it that He had no such inkling.
Have a good day.
E
eddy714
Guest
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
This isn’t relevant. You said that Peter was “the first-named apostle, and the leading apostle after the ascension”. That is a primacy:
Webster’s Online Dictionary definition of “primacy”
*Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : the state of being first (as in importance, order, or rank) : preeminence <the primacy of intellectual and esthetic over materialistic values — T. R. McConnell>
2 : the office, rank, or preeminence of an ecclesiastical primate*
To say that what you said isn’t primacy is to not know what “primacy” means.
Please explain this comment.
E
eddy714
Guest
Well who actually noted that they needed a 12 apostel? Wasn’t that Peter? Your interperation has been changed by falliable man. No matter how much we explain this verse to you, you wont accept it because that will contradict your current belief.
Remember the Bible is Catholic and you can’t use it against it self.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Eddy,Well who actually noted that they needed a 12 apostle? Wasn’t that Peter? Your interpretation has been changed by fallible man. No matter how much we explain this verse to you, you wont accept it because that will contradict your current belief.
Remember the Bible is Catholic and you can’t use it against it self.
Certainly Peter said that there should be a replacement apostle for Judas Iscariot. But he did not choose the replacement apostle, thus showing that he was not “in charge.”
“Fallible man” is who I consider to have advised that only Peter was given keys. There is not such a teaching in the Savior’s words.
The Bible is Jewish, not Catholic. Jesus was a Jew, not a Catholic. Peter was a Jew, not a Catholic.
Have a great day. If you want to talk about my comment, then my comment had to do with leadership transition and a leadership transition model. That is where a discussion about the Savior’s intent with giving keys to the apostles would need to head, if talking about the “primacy of Peter”.
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
So now you’re saying that Peter was not in charge, yet you’ve already said that he was the leading apostle. Which is it?
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
What is clear to anyone that reads the Bible is that the keys were specifically given and mentioned only in relation to Peter. The power of “binding and loosing” is then later mentioned and given to all of the apostles.
**Matthew 16:19
19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. **
**Matthew 18:18-19
18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. **
P
ParkerD
Guest
Who was in charge of Christ’s church? That seems to go without saying. Christ is in charge of His church. He leads it through His own direct involvement. When Matthias was chosen as the replacement apostle, the apostles prayed and said, “Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen…” (Acts 1:24)
Who was doing the choosing?
Answer–the Lord. Not Peter. Peter was completely acknowledging that the Lord was in charge.
How does that happen? By revelation–the same kind of revelation by which Peter knew and could attest that “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
Of course Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is the head of His Church:
**
669 As Lord, Christ is also head of the Church, which is his Body. Taken up to heaven and glorified after he had thus fully accomplished his mission, Christ dwells on earth in his Church. The redemption is the source of the authority that Christ, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, exercises over the Church. “The kingdom of Christ [is] already present in mystery”, “on earth, the seed and the beginning of the kingdom”.
666 Jesus Christ, the head of the Church, precedes us into the Father’s glorious kingdom so that we, the members of his Body, may live in the hope of one day being with him for ever.
792 Christ “is the head of the body, the Church.” He is the principle of creation and redemption. Raised to the Father’s glory, “in everything he [is] preeminent,” especially in the Church, through whom he extends his reign over all things.**
Etc.
The issue here is that you seem to be equivocating as to what exactly Peter’s role was in the Church. You claim that Peter was the “leading apostle”, yet he did not have “primacy”. We look at the dictionary definition of primacy (which you did not respond to), and we see that there is no issue there (since you already said that he was the “first-named apostle, and the leading apostle”). Jesus Christ is most certainly the head of the Church, His Body, however He has also appointed Peter as the leader, having primacy (which is what being the “leading apostle” means), and His successors hold that primacy.
The funny thing is that I’m looking at the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, and it seems as if you also have a dispute with it, since it claims, as I did, that Peter had “primacy”!
Encyclopedia of Mormonism-“Peter”
“Peter’s primacy in the ancient Church derived from apostolic authority.”
N
Nicea325
Guest
Sorry,but the above is poor exegesis. And the fact it is in the future tense debunks Peter receiving the keys? You mean Jesus said something He no intensions of fulfilling? Peter did receive them and the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone.
Jesus gave all the 12 keys? Really? In Matthew 18:18 all the disciples are given the power of binding and loosing, but the context of that verse suggests that there the power of excommunication alone is intended. The keys are those to the kingdom of heaven and that Peter’s exercise of authority in the church on earth will be confirmed in heaven.
- Status