Jesus treats Peter and John differently when speeking about them

[Tom]

DavidB:

When Jesus gave the keys to Peter in Matthew 16:19, he says "
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
Jesus then extends those same keys to ALL of the disciples when in chapter 18 he says, “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

He did no such thing. That is not only Non-Scriptural it goes against Scripture. As Ryan has pointed out Jesus is establishing Peter as His Prime minister as prophecised in Isaias:
DR:

Prophecy Of Isaias Chapter 22:20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias, 21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. 22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. 23 And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father.

A brief reading of the over 150 citations of Peter in the New Testament attest to Peter indeed being placed in charge of the Church by Jesus. This certainly does not diminish the importance of the Apostles, they knew Peter was in charge.

 

[cathlicnlovinit]

I may be wrong but I thought that one of the primary uses of the passage where Jesus places Mary in John’s care was to place emphasis on the fact that Jesus was Mary’s only child. In other words apologetically speaking why would Jesus “give” Mary to John if she had other children. I’ve never seen it used as a proof text that Mary is all of our mother. I assumed that that concept grew out of the Tradition of the Church and that that verse could be used in essence to assume that when she was entrusted to John’s care naturally all of the disciples cared for her and looked to her as she was the closest natural being to Christ. She then became “mom” to all. Similarly a mom who has lots of interaction with her childrens friends might grow to be called mom by all of them. Not that I am trying to minimize the relationship but that is how I viewed it. So I personally have no problem discriminating between the “Thou art Peter” and “the Son behold your mother” verses.

 

[DavidB]

The keys to the kingdom does draw from Isaish 22:15-25 where Eliakim is given “the key of the house of David,” which he authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (Isaiah 22:22), a clear reference to “whatever you bind/loose in heaven”. There are many instances in rabbinic literature of the binding-loosing imagery. Of the several meanings given include: the giving of authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of excommunication. Both are the keys that Jesus gave to the apostles, not just Peter.

My views align themselves with the commentaries of Matthew written by the early church fathers. If you’d like to dispute them, fine. But I’ve read the Matthew commentaries of Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, and Theodoret and NOT one of them applies the keys to Peter alone. In fact, none of the early church commentaries support your view. They interpret Matthew 16:18-19 to mean faith in Christ Himself or apply equally to all of the apostles.

David

 

[RyanL]

DavidB:

The keys to the kingdom does draw from Isaish 22:15-25 where Eliakim is given “the key of the house of David,” which he authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (Isaiah 22:22), a clear reference to “whatever you bind/loose in heaven”. There are many instances in rabbinic literature of the binding-loosing imagery. Of the several meanings given include: the giving of authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of excommunication. Both are the keys that Jesus gave to the apostles, not just Peter.

My brother in Christ,

Again…chapter and verse where the “keys” are given to anyone other than Peter. I have already agreed that “binding and loosing” were given to certain others of Jesus’ choosing. That said, I am looking for that specific word - “keys”. Chapter and verse, please. Also, you haven’t answered as to why Christ would parallel these two texts. Are you the Prime Minister of Christ, empowered to speak with His full authority on any and all matters of binding and loosing? Am I as well? If we bind eachother in sin, will Jesus respect that? Do we have that power?

Again, the Prime Minister in a Davidic kingdom was a singular person. Is Christ not a Davidic king? How are you separating the king from His kingdom?

DavidB:

My views align themselves with the commentaries of Matthew written by the early church fathers… But I’ve read the Matthew commentaries of Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, and Theodoret and NOT one of them applies the keys to Peter alone. In fact, none of the early church commentaries support your view. They interpret Matthew 16:18-19 to mean faith in Christ Himself or apply equally to all of the apostles.

Since you brought them up:

Origen

“*f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (*Commentary on Matthew **13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Augustine

“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (*Sermons *

295:2 [A.D. 411]).

“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies” (*Commentary on Psalm 108 *1 [A.D. 415]).

“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (*Commentary on John *56:1 [A.D. 416]).

“There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]” (*Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” *5 [A.D. 397]).

“[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!” (*Sermons *131:10 [A.D. 411]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]” (ibid., 17:27).

Should I go on?
May God bless you and your family richly,
RyanL

 

[DavidB]

RyanL:

Should I go on?
May God bless you and your family richly,
RyanL

Yes, please do. I’d love to hear your explanation for why Ephesians 2:20 says that the Church is built on ALL of the apostles and not just Peter.

 

[DavidB]

And Ryan, if you’re going to quote from Origen’s Commentary on Matthew, let’s please reference all of the relevant passages so as not to deceive people, for Origen also said in chapters 10-11 of the commentary:

"And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.

But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My church’? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?

‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him…he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters…And to all such the saying of the Saviour might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the ‘it’? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the church, or is it the church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds the church, nor against the church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which Christ builds the church, nor the church built by Jesus upon the rock."

Allan Menzies, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen’s Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11.

Rather disturbingly direct refutation I must say. Now’s the time when he pulls out the “Origen” was a heretic card I’m sure. At least that’s the usual course this plays on - quote him when he agrees with you, revile him when he refutes you.
David

 

[mercygate]

DavidB:

Rather disturbingly direct refutation I must say. Now’s the time when he pulls out the “Origen” was a heretic card I’m sure. At least that’s the usual course this plays on - quote him when he agrees with you, revile him when he refutes you.
David

Not necessarily a refutation. And despite the ‘heretic’ charge, Origen remains one of the pillars of early Christian theology and the most quoted Christian author of the third Century.

In this case, he is addressing the fact that the power of the keys resides in the Church. Grammatically, in Mt. 16:19 the keys are given to PETER. Yet he authority of the keys applies to the entire Church – in union with Peter.

When Origen wrote, there was no schism (there were heretics, but no schism), there were no Protestants. The undivided Church presents a different picture from today’s chaos. This passage in no way refutes the Catholic claim: Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia. Where Peter is, there is the Church. This passage does not detract from Peter’s privileged posession of the keys.

 

[DavidB]

And with respect to Augustine, there are lots of quotes that support my view there - 2 are specifically listed below.

They clearly state that the Church is built on Peter’s confession, and not on Peter himself. AND that the “keys of the kingdom” are in fact the “binding and loosing” power PLUS the fact that those keys were given to the entire Church. Read on:

"Remember, in this man Peter, the rock. He’s the one, you see, who on being questioned by the Lord about who the disciples said he was, replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On hearing this, Jesus said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you’…‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ.
Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.

John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327.

"And this Church, symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle; but when it was said to him, ‘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,’ he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by divers temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falleth not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins**.** For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church.

Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VII, St. Augustin, On the Gospel of John, Tractate 124.5.
David

 

[DavidB]

mercygate:

Not necessarily a refutation. And despite the ‘heretic’ charge, Origen remains one of the pillars of early Christian theology and the most quoted Christian author of the third Century.

In this case, he is addressing the fact that the power of the keys resides in the Church. Grammatically, in Mt. 16:19 the keys are given to PETER. Yet he authority of the keys applies to the entire Church – in union with Peter.

When Origen wrote, there was no schism (there were heretics, but no schism), there were no Protestants. The undivided Church presents a different picture from today’s chaos. This passage in no way refutes the Catholic claim: Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia. Where Peter is, there is the Church. This passage does not detract from Peter’s privileged posession of the keys.

Actually, the quotes are clear refutation of Ryan’s argument that the keys are something other than the power to bind and loose and that they were given to Peter alone and not to the whole Church.

I agree with your opinion of Origen, I was just anticipating the usual response I get whenever I mention something he wrote.

David

 

[mercygate]

You can’t get past the grammar that the keys are given to Peter alone.

Again, Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia. All of the Apostles receive the Holy Spirit for forgiving/retaining sin, they all receive the power of binding and loosing in Mt. 18. The Apostolic authority (. . . that they all might be one) resides equally in all of the Apostles, that is, throughout the Church. But the words of Jesus give the keys to Peter alone. Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia.

 

[Tom]

DavidB:

"And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc.

Absolutely correct “if” flesh and blood had not revealed it to us this would be true. Are you saying God the Father revealed it to you? Or is this what you were taught by man (flesh and blood)? Big difference. So there is no disparity here, we simply need to read the words. Peter on the other hand did not have Scripture to fall back on, this indeed was revealed to him by His Father in heaven. Or do you claim the same divine revealation?
The point of this passage is not that Peter was not specifically chosen, but that he was, it goes on to explain how we should emulate not only Peter but all of His Apostles.

 

[Tom]

DavidB:

"Remember, in this man Peter, the rock. He’s the one, you see, who on being questioned by the Lord about who the disciples said he was, replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On hearing this, Jesus said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you’…‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19).

Read carefully please, you are combining three separate teachings here and attempting to imply they are one. Absolutely Jesus is establishing His Church on the faith or revealation of Peter, and the gates of hell shall not prevail. Then there’s that pesky period, starting a new teaching:
“To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom.” And then another teaching: “Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven”, now these last two teachings are strictly to the person of Peter. Later He gives this final power, to bind and loose to all of His Apostles.

 

[DavidB]

mercygate:

You can’t get past the grammar that the keys are given to Peter alone.

That’s not what Augustine believed and stated clearly there. The keys ARE the power to bind and loose which was given to everyone in the Church.

David

 

[RyanL]

David,

Couple of things. First, you are trying to create a false dichotomy. Let me show you how the Catholic Church understands Matt 16:18 (from the Catechism of the Catholic Church):

**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.

**552 **Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Christ, the “living Stone”, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

Here we see the CCC stating that “the rock” is both Peter and the confession of faith. Is the CCC contradicting itself? Nope. Have your quotes contradicted mine? Nope. Scripture is *polyvalent, *meaning that several interpretations can be made - just NOT TO THE EXCLUSION of the others. It is only with this understanding that the quotes you gave and the quotes I gave can be reconciled. If you need more from the fathers:
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp
catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp

Quick quote from Origen:

“Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]” (*Homilies on Exodus *5:4 [A.D. 248]).

Feel free to reply to this, but I understand if you don’t (as it is a bit off topic).

Now, please address the direct questions: If Isaiah 22:22 shows a prime minister within a Davidic kingdom, and the “keys” connote this singular office with successors, what was Jesus doing when He “gave the keys” to Peter? Did Jesus not know what He was saying? Is Jesus not a Davidic king? Why the striking parallel?

God bless, and thank you for your patience with this!
RyanL

 

[DavidB]

Tom:

Read carefully please, you are combining three separate teachings here and attempting to imply they are one. Absolutely Jesus is establishing His Church on the faith or revealation of Peter, and the gates of hell shall not prevail. Then there’s that pesky period, starting a new teaching:
“To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom.” And then another teaching: “Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven”, now these last two teachings are strictly to the person of Peter. Later He gives this final power, to bind and loose to all of His Apostles.

No, the keys ARE the power to bind and loose . . . again, here’s Augustine, “The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins.”

It can’t be stated any plainer than that. Argue with Augustine if you’d like. But he’s the great Doctor of your Church.

David

 

[DavidB]

RyanL:

Now, please address the direct questions: If Isaiah 22:22 shows a prime minister within a Davidic kingdom, and the “keys” connote this singular office with successors, what was Jesus doing when He “gave the keys” to Peter? Did Jesus not know what He was saying? Is Jesus not a Davidic king? Why the striking parallel?

God bless, and thank you for your patience with this!
RyanL

I’d prefer to stick to the topic for a little while longer only. It seems we can throw church father quotes at each other ad nauseum. But as I have demonstrated, the scripture combines them into a single sentence and topic and Augustine does not interpret your keys in the way you have, he states they are the power to bind and loose, not some separate implied Davidic kingdom that Christ alone holds.

David

 

[RyanL]

Bill,
Since Augustine speaks of it frequently, I would like you to answer me this:

Augustine: “If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?” (*Against the Letters of Petilani *2:118 [A.D. 402]).

What is “Peter’s Chair”?

Blessings and prayers,
RyanL

 

[DavidB]

RyanL:

Bill,
Since Augustine speaks of it frequently, I would like you to answer me this:

What is “Peter’s Chair”?

Blessings and prayers,
RyanL

Anywhere Peter parked his butt?

 

[mercygate]

DavidB:

That’s not what Augustine believed and stated clearly there. The keys ARE the power to bind and loose which was given to everyone in the Church.

David

You still can’t get past the Greek grammar: not even if you are Augustine. And that was the undivided Church. That is a huge difference.

 

[Tom]

7 John 21:15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.

Please, see for yourself who He is referring to as “more than these”

John 21:16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
John 21:17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

These are all specifically directed to one person, Peter, not all of the Apostles. Likewise the keys are given to one Apostle, Peter. Jesus separates Peter, not as one of the twelve, but individually. Note also how Peter is mentioned in Scripture; Peter and the Apostles, as Peter being unique, separate and first, amongst the others.