How did Peter use these keys?

  • Thread starter Thread starter guanophore
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Acts 2: “Repent and be baptized”

Acts 1: “We must replace Judas” (paraphrasing)

Acts 9: “Gentiles should be allowed in the Covenant Church” (paraphrasing)

Acts 15: “Gentiles should not be hampered with the Mosaic yoke” (Paraphrasing).

I’d say Peter used the keys
quite often.
 
Acts 2: “Repent and be baptized”

Acts 1: “We must replace Judas” (paraphrasing)

Acts 9: “Gentiles should be allowed in the Covenant Church” (paraphrasing)

Acts 15: “Gentiles should not be hampered with the Mosaic yoke” (Paraphrasing).

I’d say Peter used the keys
quite often.
Do we know when he was given the keys though?
 
Matthew 16: 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Jesus promises that He will give Peter the keys of the kingdom.

Luke 24: 44 And he said to them: These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then he opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.
46 And he said to them: Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead, the third day: 47 And that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, unto all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And you are witnesses of these things. 49 And I send the promise of my Father upon you: but stay you in the city till you be endued with power from on high. 50 And he led them out as far as Bethania: and lifting up his hands, he blessed them.
51 And it came to pass, whilst he blessed them, he departed from them, and was carried up to heaven. 52 And they adoring went back into Jerusalem with great joy. 53 And they were always in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen
.

Jesus gives His apostles understanding of what He had taught, fulfills His earthly mission and ascends into Heaven.

Acts 1:8 But you shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth. 9 And when he had said these things, while they looked on, he was raised up: and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while they were beholding him going up to heaven, behold two men stood by them in white garments.
11 Who also said: Ye men of Galilee, why stand you looking up to heaven? This Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come, as you have seen him going into heaven. 12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount that is called Olivet, which is nigh Jerusalem, within a sabbath day’s journey. 13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James. 14 All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. 15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty:)
16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: 17 Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18 And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take. 21 Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, 22 Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection.
23 And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place. 26 And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.Here we see that after the ascension of Jesus, when the Holy Spirit has given the power to the apostles,
Peter** announces that there must be an apostle chosen to replace Judas. To me, this would be a clear indication that Peter has used the ‘keys’ as this is a pastoral decision obviously revealed to Peter by the Holy Spirit. Again, it is a hypothesis. This is not perhaps the ‘first’ use of the keys (as not everything ever said or done by the apostles is in Scripture) but I think a clear case could be made for this action being a ‘key’ action.
 
I think the “Key” to the Keys (Get it? Key? Huh?) … well, anyway, the key to the keys is that it was a symbol of authority. Were they actually physical keys? I doubt it.

But the authority that they represented were sure present in the 1st half of Acts.
 
I think the “Key” to the Keys (Get it? Key? Huh?) … well, anyway, the key to the keys is that it was a symbol of authority. Were they actually physical keys? I doubt it.

But the authority that they represented were sure present in the 1st half of Acts.
Don’t give up your day job for a career in stand up comedy.

I agree that there were no physical keys but I do wonder when the Catholic church believes that Peter received the authority you guys believe he received.
 
I agree that there were no physical keys but I do wonder when the Catholic church believes that Peter received the authority you guys believe he received.
In Matthew 16:17-19, he was granted the keys. Their actual use did not begin until after the Ascension, in my understanding. To make an analogy, United States government officials are elected into office in early November, but(unless incumbent) do not have governmental authority until their late January inaugurations.
I am by no means, however, suggesting that Jesus was a “lame duck” between Matthew 16:17-19 and the Ascension, since St. Peter’s authority was granted by Jesus Christ and St. Peter(and his successors’) role as Vicar of Christ is merely an Earthly representation of Christ’s ever continuous authority over His Church, guided by The Holy Spirit in accordance with the will of God The Father.
 
Before Jesus ascended he had a conversation with Peter concerning Peter’s love for him in John 21. He instructed Peter to feed and tend His lambs and sheep. It doesn’t require a “cracker jack” mind to realize Jesus was giving Peter charge of the flock of the faithful that Jesus was leaving behind. As the saying goes,“You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” I guess in some ways that could be said of some of Jesus’ flock today. As my grandma would say,“Independent as a hog on ice.” 😃
 
Don’t give up your day job for a career in stand up comedy.
I’ll be here all week. Remember to tip your waiters!
I agree that there were no physical keys but I do wonder when the Catholic church believes that Peter received the authority you guys believe he received.
I think about 50 days after The Crucifixion, they had a pretty good idea!! 😉
 
Jesus was refering to Isaiah 22 when he made Peter his royal steward. The “steward” was second to the king. The steward ruled in the king’s place and in his ABSENCE, until he returned.
 
Don’t give up your day job for a career in stand up comedy.

I agree that there were no physical keys but I do wonder when the Catholic church believes that Peter received the authority you guys believe he received.
Believe he received? So you are saying Jesus welched on a promise? Hmmmmm…
 
Do we know when he was given the keys though?
It does seem that he was given the keys in Matthew 16:18-19, but that he would rule in the Master’s absence, and all in all, Pentecost seemed to be a rather big day…😃
 
Acts 2: “Repent and be baptized”
Here, Peter was simply obeying the commission given to all of the apostles by Christ himself.
Acts 1: “We must replace Judas” (paraphrasing)
This would merely seem to be a logical point, and would only constitute authority if Peter were somehow more involved in the decision making process than the other apostles, which isn’t the case according to scripture.
Acts 9: “Gentiles should be allowed in the Covenant Church” (paraphrasing)
Again, this is simple obedience to the commission given to all of the apostles – Christ said to go to every nation preaching and baptizing. Obedience to this is not a sign of leadership, or at least not of authority (yes, leadership and authority can be two different things).
Acts 15: “Gentiles should not be hampered with the Mosaic yoke” (Paraphrasing).
And yet we see that it wasn’t until after James spoke that the discussion was closed, and moreover, we see that James exact suggestion was followed – they sent a letter back to Antioch (and other churches) detailing instruction as James had stated. Yes, Peter certainly provided very valuable (name removed by moderator)ut into the conversation, as I’m sure Paul did as well, but there’s no sign here of Peter exhibiting a singular authority above that of the group.

And since this is a thread about the keys, I wonder if someone would answer the question I’ve been asking for a while now – exactly what are the keys? Are they symbols of binding and loosing authority, as would fit with the Isaiah analogy? If so, the rest of the apostles received these as well.

If not that, then what else are they keys? What unique purpose do they serve, aside from being a symbol of binding and loosing?
 
Here, Peter was simply obeying the commission given to all of the apostles by Christ himself.
I’ll give you this. But that wasn’t the entirety of the point.

Peter was the one that gave the first sermon and the Jews asked Peter (not the rest of the twelve) “What shall we do”?, and Peter (not the rest of the twelve) answered.

Regarding the decision to replace Judas
This would merely seem to be a logical point, and would only constitute authority if Peter were somehow more involved in the decision making process than the other apostles, which isn’t the case according to scripture.
How did the other Apostles have any involvement in this decision. It seems the words and the decision to do this is stricly according to the whim of Peter. He doesn’t consult. He simply makes a decision and acts on it.

Regarding opening the Covenant to the Jews
Again, this is simple obedience to the commission given to all of the apostles – Christ said to go to every nation preaching and baptizing. Obedience to this is not a sign of leadership, or at least not of authority (yes, leadership and authority can be two different things).
If it was so obvious, why did it take so many years to do it? And why did it take a dream from an angel to kick it into gear?

Did the Angel come to the other Apostles and tell them to eat these unclean foods.

On the Jerusalem council:
And yet we see that it wasn’t until after James spoke that the discussion was closed, and moreover, we see that James exact suggestion was followed – they sent a letter back to Antioch (and other churches) detailing instruction as James had stated. Yes, Peter certainly provided very valuable (name removed by moderator)ut into the conversation, as I’m sure Paul did as well, but there’s no sign here of Peter exhibiting a singular authority above that of the group.
Three ponts:
  1. James acts on Peter’s words. “Peter has spoken, the prophets agree… THEREFORE…” James is coming to his decision because of Peter’s words.
  2. Peter’s words become dogma. His decision not to place the Mosaic yoke on the Gentiles is just as true today as it was in the 1st century.
  3. James’ words are simply a discipline. They certianly aren’t as binding on the faithful as Peter’s, for they were changed later on in the New Testament era.
And since this is a thread about the keys, I wonder if someone would answer the question I’ve been asking for a while now – exactly what are the keys? Are they symbols of binding and loosing authority, as would fit with the Isaiah analogy? If so, the rest of the apostles received these as well.
Yes, and they (the Apostles) represent the Magisterium. So what about this is confusing.
If not that, then what else are they keys? What unique purpose do they serve, aside from being a symbol of binding and loosing?
The power behind the keys has been demonstrated by the Council of Nicaea, Trent, and numerous other times.

Actually, I think the Church looks to the Magisterium and then the Pope’s authority only when issues can’t resolve themselves, as they should do. For instance, Nicaea came about only because the Arian Crisis would not resolve itself. Trent came about only because of the Reformation.
 
James is sometimes equated with James son of Alphaeus, sometimes not - and if he was not, he and his brothers only joined the church after the Resurrection. I believe he was not (indicated by the unbelief of Jesus’s kin).

Why would a “Johnny-come-lately” (well, Jimmy-come-lately) outrank than the Rock, who was present from the start? Paul does mention him first once in Jerusalem, but that’s because he was the bishop there and Peter (who was bishop elsewhere) wasn’t.

catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9610eaw.asp - PETER AND THE ORTHODOX: A REPRISE By Ray Ryland
 
St. Peter never was issued a divine skeleton key that would unlock the hardened hearts of those who didn’t believe that Jesus was present in the Eucharist and as a result were as dead as skeletons!
 
And since this is a thread about the keys, I wonder if someone would answer the question I’ve been asking for a while now – exactly what are the keys? Are they symbols of binding and loosing authority, as would fit with the Isaiah analogy? If so, the rest of the apostles received these as well.

If not that, then what else are they keys? What unique purpose do they serve, aside from being a symbol of binding and loosing?
To bind and loose is a term used in Rabbinic canon-law representing the legislative and judicial powers of the Rabbi. In other words they can declare certain things to be lawful or unlawful, or to prohibit or permit, or to forgive.

There is more to the keys than the power to bind and loose.
The keys entrusted to a man have always represented tthe delegation of authority (Isaiah22) Jesus has the Key of David in (Luke 1:30-31) and in (Rev 3:7) and he delegates them to Peter.

The King would delegate the authority and administration of his kingdom to a steward, who managed the kingdom (virtually ruling for the king) especially in his absence. It is a governmental position that can also be called “over the house” and “mojordomo” (if they are running the palace), “head vizier” (for Muslim governments)

A good example would be Joseph for Paraoh, or Imhotep for King Djoser. These men’s decisions carried royal authority and could not be appealed.

It was an office of state with great importance (1 kings 4:6, 18:3) and the highest office vastly superior to others ( Isaiah 36:3, 37:2)and sometimes filled by the heir to the throne. (2 Chron 26:21)

Also, being a governmental position it had succesors when the position was empty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top