N
Nicea325
Guest
And yet many Protestants will argue that it is wrong? :ehh:
Pentecostal pastor claims Jesus did NOT build his Church on Peter?
- Status
N
Nicea325
Guest
So Jesus was speaking to himself and making reference to himself,when he directly spoke to Peter in Matthew 16:18? :ehh:
M
MacQ
Guest
Of COURSE the pentecostal preacher claims that. And believes it no doubt.
otherwise, he’d have to be a …Catholic!
P
Publisher
Guest
This friend speaks my mind
G
glendab
Guest
While much of what you say is commendable, there are a few things that are iffy.
There is no universal communion with Rome that exists simply because a Bishop is a Bishop. Currently there are Bishops who though Ordained and retaining the fullness of the Sacrament of Ordination, in that regards truly Bishops, they have strayed into error, heresy and schism. SSPX is one example.
Secondly God sent His Church out to Baptize the nations in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and this is what has come to be called the Great Commission. It wasn’t Peter who said that the Gentiles should come into the Church. God did and Peter is assuring that God’s will is done. He is settling a dispute, no extending God’s will.
Glenda
G
glendab
Guest
Hello Nicea.
Poor God can’t save anyone at all till He gets it all together. :doh2:
Glenda
Yeah…that’s it!!! Jesus was talking to Himself and then He said I give up. They’ll never get it. I guess I can’t build anything till some Pentecostal guy gets born in the Twentieth Century and then I’ll be able to save a few folks. Ooooops what a minute. I’ll save a few too after I give Guttenberg a press and then the Bible will be published on Newsprint and eventually I’ll save a few more folks and oh yeah while I’m at it, I know that I’ll make a guy by the name of David Koresh who’ll use that same Bible to…oooops…wrong idea.So Jesus was speaking to himself and making reference to himself,when he directly spoke to Peter in Matthew 16:18? :ehh:
Poor God can’t save anyone at all till He gets it all together. :doh2:
Glenda
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
The Catholic Church is not immune to schematics, heretics and traitors, Just as Jesus suffered Judas one of His own.
Apart from these “ALL”, Bishops world wide are in full communion with the bishop of Rome and with each other. If a bishop moves out of communion with Peter’s Chair it is known the communion suffers. These are of a different circumstance, I did not reference those in schism, heretics or traitors to the body of Christ.
And every True and valid bishop world wide knows that you cannot call an Ecumenical council of the whole Church without Peter, this includes those bishops who are in schism and out of communion with Peter’s chair. That said. God gave Peter the vision to allow into His Church any and those whom God makes clean, Peter is to allow into the Church.
While the Jewish Christians were forcing the new Christians to enter The Way by circumcism, God gave Peter the vision to allow those new Christians into the Church by way of the sacramental baptism.
In all of this it is never Peter’s will that this done, but God’s will. Peter settles the dispute hands down because Peter heard from heaven directly, that all those present in council know of this vision that they all fell silent, after they heard the words from Peter’s mouth. As the world re-known saying goes; “Peter has spoken”.
I find no iffy in your assertion of my commentary, but thank you for allowing me to make clear my post.
Peace be with you
M
MacQ
Guest
What’s your point? What are you getting at?
M
MacQ
Guest
N
Nicea325
Guest
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
Why does it seem huge to you? Because you approach it with the preconceived notions that catholicism requires the verse to support for those notions to be true. To me it speaks of Jesus making a series of promises to Peter (I think we agree on that) which are then fulfilled in the Book of Acts to the point where Peter speaks of them in the past tense.
We see he had the tremendous privilege, in spite of his denial, in spite of his arguing with Jesus, to declare him as the Christ on Pentecost, (building the church) and to the Gentiles (loosing salvation to them as well, so that death and hell cannot hold them any longer, further building the church and making Jesus their Christ (messiah) as well.
It’s an amazing grace that was given to Peter by God, that no one else will ever experience, and he refers to it as proof of God’s dealings with the Gentiles and his role in it during the council in Acts 15.
So while it does immediately open up the church to everyone instead of just the jews, we should be equally excited to see Paul declaring that he built the local churches he is writing to on the foundation of Jesus. This is why these church are to be examples to us, because they are built on Jesus, not because some faction has identified with a particular Apostle.
(p.s. for Gabriel who was asking about my interpretation of Matthew 16, here it is)
So while I agree that the experience mentioned in Acts was huge for Peter, we see it repeated in each new church established by the apostles, salvation loosed in a new city, people freed from the grip of hell and the grave-that it grew and so many built on the foundation laid by Peter and Paul-Jesus, is infinitely greater than his initial experience.
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
I am going to keep this short and sweet because you have provided nothing in response. We both agree that Jesus spoke to Peter and we have a record of those words-you keep assuming your interpretation is correct and your only interaction with the arguments against your interpretation is to keep repeating your interpretation as if it were already proven.
In your previous post you claimed you had first century interpretations of the verse, but you have provided none, you’ve only repeated your claim without evidence. So again, where are these first century quotes that specifically interpret Matthew 16 as speaking about an office Jesus started with Peter?
You claim Paul’s comments about factions don’t apply to you because Peter is in charge of the whole church-again that isn’t evidence, that’s asserting your statement without evidence. Paul specifically mentions the faction dedicated to Peter as being as much in the wrong as the others, so he didn’t see following Peter as some sort of special exception.
You asked for my understanding of Matthew 16 and I provided it in my response to Randy Carson. It harmonizes with Peter’s explanation of God’s special role for him, and the other passages in Acts-your explanation of Matthew does not line up with his explanation. So again, I’ll stay with what Peter said about his discussion with Jesus instead of your interpretation of it unless you can provide more evidence.
Again I don’t believe the pentecostal pastor would be moved by these continuous assertions without evidence and recommending this approach to the OP will likely on result in a negative experience if they try to have such a discussion, just like it has here.
If you want to continue the discussion, please bring some evidence, and I’ll be happy to reply to it. Thanks.
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
I agree that the orthodox see Peter as having an important role. I see that as well. I think you’ll that they see more than one successor to Peter and that their version of his job description looks very different than the one I quoted from the CCC.Indeed - and yet (I believe) even among the Orthodox they are willing to accept the Bishop of Rome as successor to Peter and overall head of the Church. We differ in the details…and some other things…but we are talking…
Speaking of which, do you belief the council they are calling in 2016 will have “no authority” as the CCC says because the pope won’t be in attendance? Or do you feel that it wil have an authority of some sort?
We certainly have different understandings of how unity will come about and how the verse about the spirit leading us into all truth should be interpreted. For me the two concepts go hand in hand, although if a group of believers claims to possess the truth where they are, how can they be led per Jesus’ words.
I think there needs to be movement in understanding to fulfill that scripture, and it is with that movement on all sides that unity is achieved.
Thoughts?
J
JRKH
Guest
Forgive me for picking this single point out of you very fine post…and this is a bit off topic…but I think it speaks to something of the very different frame of mind that Catholics and Protestants come from.
Pointing it out might help us to understand each other a bit more.
From the Catholic view the Apostles did not establish “new churches” in each new city. Rather, they established new communities of the one Church - For Jesus said He would build His “Church” (singular) not “Churches”.
The protestant view of a much more diversified and independent local church (churches) is quite foreign to our way of thinking.
The Council in Acts 15, Paul’s laying out his teaching for Peter and James, and Paul confronting Peter over Peter’s actions, along with the fact that we see the Apostles moving among the various local communities, clearly illustrates this idea that all the local communities were interconnected and that the leadership (Apostles and Elders of the Church) were in communication with each other and sought harmony of teaching.
In conversations like this I have often seen protestants debate the role of James and Peter at the council of Jerusalem…and indeed there is room for consideration there…but I rarely see the protestant really address the larger and (in my mind) more significant ramification of the council of Jerusalem…The authority of the one Church to set doctrine.
As I said, it is a bit off topic…but just wanted to get that out there.
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
Oh - you are absolutely right. Their view of the “job description” is quite different.
Well - Honestly I was unaware of this call…it’s purpose or agenda etc…so I really don’t feel qualified to comment on it too much.
That said - my basic opinion is this…1) The Holy Spirit will be present among the Church leadership in the council. 2) I doubt that Pope Francis stands in opposition to the council. 3) I would even suggest that the Holy Father would send his prayers and hopes that such a council would lead to greater understanding between the “two lungs” as St John Paul II called the two Churches.
Because of this, I would suggest that the council will act with great wisdom and even authority…but it will not be able to act infallibly.
As I said…this is just an opinion…more general…
I like what you say here since it mirrors my own views.
Movement towards unity indeed requires that we understand how to fulfill Scripture - and that means a recognition among certain elements in the Protestant community that the NT calls for a single and visibly unified and authoritative Church. Not a bunch of locally independent communities with each one interpreting scripture as they see fit.
I don’t mean the above as a swipe at anyone - but simply a statement of fact - - that greater unity among Christians will require two things from us. One is more councils (ala Acts 15) and councils can only be effective if the laity are willing to submit to them.
In the mindset of the larger protestant community - this second seems to be the larger sticking point and I believe this is because one of the very foundations of the protestant movement was (and is) a rejection of such submission.
Would you agree?
Be careful what you ask for…
Seriously - I won’t be able to reply until tomorrow afternoon sometime, but I do look forward to your response. Such thoughtful conversation is wonderfully stimulating and helpful.
Peace
James
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
It is huge because if Peter really was established as the rock upon which the Church would be founded and the Royal Steward (cf. Is. 22:22), etc., then all non-Catholics who see this must ask themselves whether the church they currently attend has any real connection to Peter and his successors at all.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
First century? Wow…we don’t have first century writings on the trinity or the hypostatic union. But okay, since you asked:
Clement of Rome
“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).
“We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. (ibid.)
Now, does that tie directly to Matthew 16:18? No, but these do:
**Tertullian **
“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
“Was anything hidden from Peter, who was called the Rock whereon the Church was to be built; who obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the power of loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth?” (De Praescript Haeret, n.22, p. 209, in Colin Lindsay, The Evidence for the Papacy, (London: Longmans, 1870), 19, c.A.D. 200-220,)
Cyprian of Carthage (251 A.D.)
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven.’ And again He says to him after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’ On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).
Note that Tertullian also wrote:
“[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]).
So from Clement (first century) we learn of the office of Bishop. From Tertullian and Cyprian, we get the idea of Peter as Rock in Matthew 16:18 as well as the connection between the office of Bishop and the chair of Peter. Finally, we see the succession of the bishops held up as evidence that the One Church founded by Jesus upon Peter the rock was legitimate.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Your understanding of Matthew 16:18 is too small.
Here is more:
Peter – The Royal Steward
In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:
Isaiah 22:20-22
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
In the passage above, God is speaking, and He confirms the existence of the office, the key, and the continuation of the office despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else. God Himself passes the key from one steward to the next.
In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.
Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.
We also read the following:
Matthew 16:13-19
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
The passage quoted above from Matthew tells us that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never end. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, but the successors of Peter have taken his place in the perpetual office that Jesus established in His royal court.
In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:
"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)
Jesus specifically referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter. Peter has received authority from Jesus to speak in His name. To do so faithfully, Peter must not teach error; therefore, Peter (and his successors who hold the office) are protected by God through the charism of infallibility.
Biblical Parallels
Joseph - Genesis 41:40-44
40 You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people are to submit to your orders. Only with respect to the throne will I be greater than you.” 41 So Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” 42 Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. 43 He had him ride in a chariot as his second-in-command, and people shouted before him, “Make way!” Thus he put him in charge of the whole land of Egypt. 44 Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I am Pharaoh, but without your word no one will lift hand or foot in all Egypt.”
• Steward over Pharaoh’s kingdom
• Second in command
• Dressed in robes with gold chain around neck as symbols of authority
• Universal jurisdiction throughout the land of Egypt
• No one lifts hand or foot without Joseph’s word
Eliakim - Isaiah 22:20-22
20 “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
• Steward over Hezekiah’s kingdom
• Second in command
• Dressed in robe and sash with key on shoulder as symbols of authority
• Universal jurisdiction throughout Jerusalem and Judah
• No one opens or shuts without Eliakim
Peter - Matthew 16:18-20
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
• Steward over Jesus’ kingdom
• Second in command (cf. John 21:15-19 vicarious shepherd of the one flock)
• Given keys as symbol of authority
• Universal jurisdiction over all of Jesus’ kingdom
• Authority to bind and loose
Finally, just so you know this is not just some Catholic convert spouting his own eisegesis:
(cont.)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Protestant Scholars and Commentaries on Peter as Royal Steward
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown
[The steward is] the king’s friend, or principal officer of the court (1 Kings 4:5; 18:3; 1 Chronicles 27:33, the king’s counsellor) . . .
Keys are carried sometimes in the East hanging from the kerchief on the shoulder. But the phrase is rather figurative for sustaining the government on one’s shoulders. Eliakim, as his name implies, is here plainly a type of the God-man Christ, the son of “David,” of whom Isaiah (ch. 9:6) uses the same language as the former clause of this verse [and the government will be upon his shoulder] (Jamieson, Robert, Andrew R. Fausset & David Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1961 [orig. 1864; Fausset and Brown were Anglicans, Brown Presbyterian], 536 – on Isaiah 22:15,22).
New Bible Dictionary
In the . . . exercise of the power of the keys, in ecclesiastical discipline, the thought is of administrative authority (Is 22:22) with regard to the requirements of the household of faith. The use of censures, excommunication, and absolution is committed to the Church in every age, to be used under the guidance of the Spirit . . .
So Peter, in T.W. Manson’s words, is to be ‘God’s vicegerent . . . The authority of Peter is an authority to declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community. His decisions will be confirmed by God’ (The Sayings of Jesus, 1954, p.205). (New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1018)
In the Old Testament a steward is a man who is ‘over a house’ (Gen 43:19, 44:4; Is 22:15, etc). In the New Testament there are two words translated steward: ‘epitropos’ (Mt 20:8; Gal 4:2), i.e. one to whose care or honour one has been entrusted, a curator, a guardian; and ‘oikonomos’ (Lk 16:2-3; 1 Cor 4:1-2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet 4:10), i.e. a manager, a superintendent – from ‘oikos’ (‘house’) and ‘nemo’ (‘to dispense’ or ‘to manage’). The word is used to describe the function of delegated responsibility. (New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1216)
Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary
In accordance with Matthew’s understanding of the kingdom of heaven (i.e., of God) as anywhere God reigns, the keys here represent authority in the Church. (Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, ed. Allen C. Myers, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rev. ed., 1975, 622)
New Bible Commentary
Eliakim stands in strong contrast to Shebna . . . Godward he is called ‘my servant’ (v.20; cf. ‘this steward’, v.15); manward, he will be ‘a father’ to his community (v.21) . . .
The opening words of v.22, with their echo of 9:6, emphasize the God-given responsibility that went with it [possession of the keys], to be used in the king’s interests. The ‘shutting’ and ‘opening’ mean the power to make decisions which no one under the king could override. This is the background of the commission to Peter (cf. Mt 16:19) and to the church (cf. Mt 18:18). (New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 603)
The phrase is almost certainly based on Is 22:22 where Shebna the steward is displaced by Eliakim and his authority is transferred to him. ‘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.’ (This is applied directly to Jesus in Rev 3:7). (New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 837)
Adam Clarke
For further references to the office of the steward in Old Testament times, see 1 Kings 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18, where the phrases used are “over the house,” “steward,” or “governor.” In Isaiah 22:15, in the same passage to which our Lord apparently refers in Matt 16:19, Shebna, the soon-to-be deposed steward, is described in various translations as:
(cont.)
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown
[The steward is] the king’s friend, or principal officer of the court (1 Kings 4:5; 18:3; 1 Chronicles 27:33, the king’s counsellor) . . .
Keys are carried sometimes in the East hanging from the kerchief on the shoulder. But the phrase is rather figurative for sustaining the government on one’s shoulders. Eliakim, as his name implies, is here plainly a type of the God-man Christ, the son of “David,” of whom Isaiah (ch. 9:6) uses the same language as the former clause of this verse [and the government will be upon his shoulder] (Jamieson, Robert, Andrew R. Fausset & David Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1961 [orig. 1864; Fausset and Brown were Anglicans, Brown Presbyterian], 536 – on Isaiah 22:15,22).
New Bible Dictionary
In the . . . exercise of the power of the keys, in ecclesiastical discipline, the thought is of administrative authority (Is 22:22) with regard to the requirements of the household of faith. The use of censures, excommunication, and absolution is committed to the Church in every age, to be used under the guidance of the Spirit . . .
So Peter, in T.W. Manson’s words, is to be ‘God’s vicegerent . . . The authority of Peter is an authority to declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community. His decisions will be confirmed by God’ (The Sayings of Jesus, 1954, p.205). (New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1018)
In the Old Testament a steward is a man who is ‘over a house’ (Gen 43:19, 44:4; Is 22:15, etc). In the New Testament there are two words translated steward: ‘epitropos’ (Mt 20:8; Gal 4:2), i.e. one to whose care or honour one has been entrusted, a curator, a guardian; and ‘oikonomos’ (Lk 16:2-3; 1 Cor 4:1-2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet 4:10), i.e. a manager, a superintendent – from ‘oikos’ (‘house’) and ‘nemo’ (‘to dispense’ or ‘to manage’). The word is used to describe the function of delegated responsibility. (New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1216)
Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary
In accordance with Matthew’s understanding of the kingdom of heaven (i.e., of God) as anywhere God reigns, the keys here represent authority in the Church. (Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, ed. Allen C. Myers, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rev. ed., 1975, 622)
New Bible Commentary
Eliakim stands in strong contrast to Shebna . . . Godward he is called ‘my servant’ (v.20; cf. ‘this steward’, v.15); manward, he will be ‘a father’ to his community (v.21) . . .
The opening words of v.22, with their echo of 9:6, emphasize the God-given responsibility that went with it [possession of the keys], to be used in the king’s interests. The ‘shutting’ and ‘opening’ mean the power to make decisions which no one under the king could override. This is the background of the commission to Peter (cf. Mt 16:19) and to the church (cf. Mt 18:18). (New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 603)
The phrase is almost certainly based on Is 22:22 where Shebna the steward is displaced by Eliakim and his authority is transferred to him. ‘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.’ (This is applied directly to Jesus in Rev 3:7). (New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 837)
Adam Clarke
For further references to the office of the steward in Old Testament times, see 1 Kings 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18, where the phrases used are “over the house,” “steward,” or “governor.” In Isaiah 22:15, in the same passage to which our Lord apparently refers in Matt 16:19, Shebna, the soon-to-be deposed steward, is described in various translations as:
- “Master of the palace” {Jerusalem Bible / New American Bible}
- “In charge of the palace” {New International Version}
- “Master of the household” {New Revised Standard Version}
- “In charge of the royal household” {New American Standard Bible}
- “Comptroller of the household” {Revised English Bible}
- “Governor of the palace” {Moffatt}
(cont.)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
R.T. France
Not only is Peter to have a leading role, but this role involves a daunting degree of authority (though not an authority which he alone carries, as may be seen from the repetition of the latter part of the verse in 18:18 with reference to the disciple group as a whole). The image of ‘keys’ (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration (cf. Is 22:22, in conjunction with 22:15). The issue then is not that of admission to the church . . . , but an authority derived from a ‘delegation’ of God’s sovereignty. (R.T. France; in Morris, Leon, Gen. ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, 256)
Oscar Cullman
Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord puts the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so does Jesus hand over to Peter the keys of the house of the kingdom of heaven and by the same stroke establishes him as his superintendent. There is a connection between the house of the Church, the construction of which has just been mentioned and of which Peter is the foundation, and the celestial house of which he receives the keys. The connection between these two images is the notion of God’s people. (Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1952 French ed., 183-184)
Raymond Brown, Karl Donfried and John Reumann
The prime minister, more literally ‘major-domo,’ was the man called in Hebrew ‘the one who is over the house,’ a term borrowed from the Egyptian designation of the chief palace functionary . . .
The power of the key of the Davidic kingdom is the power to open and to shut, i.e., the prime minister’s power to allow or refuse entrance to the palace, which involves access to the king . . . Peter might be portrayed as a type of prime minister in the kingdom that Jesus has come to proclaim . . . What else might this broader power of the keys include? It might include one or more of the following: baptismal discipline; post-baptismal or penitential discipline; excommunication; exclusion from the eucharist; the communication or refusal of knowledge; legislative powers; and the power of governing. (Peter in the New Testament, Brown, Raymond E., Karl P. Donfried and John Reumann, editors, Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House/New York: Paulist Press, 1973, 96-97. Common statement by a panel of eleven Catholic and Lutheran scholars)
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
In biblical and Judaic usage handing over the keys does not mean appointment as a porter but carries the thought of full authorization (cf. Mt. 13:52; Rev. 3:7) . . . The implication is that Jesus takes away this authority from the scribes and grants it to Peter. (J. Jeremias, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, abridgement of Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985, 440)
All these New Testament pictures and usages go back to a picture in Isaiah (Is 22:22) . . . Now the duty of Eliakim was to be the faithful steward of the house . . . So then what Jesus is saying to Peter is that in the days to come, he will be the steward of the Kingdom. (William Barclay, Gospel of Matthew, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975, vol. 2, 144-145)
Isa 22:15 ff. undoubtedly lies behind this saying . . . The keys are the symbol of authority . . . the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain, of the royal household in ancient Israel. Eliakim is described as having the same authority in Isaiah. (William F. Albright and C.S. Mann, Anchor Bible: Matthew, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971, 196)
And what about the “keys of the kingdom”? . . . About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . (Isa. 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward. (F.F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1983, 143-144)
Not only is Peter to have a leading role, but this role involves a daunting degree of authority (though not an authority which he alone carries, as may be seen from the repetition of the latter part of the verse in 18:18 with reference to the disciple group as a whole). The image of ‘keys’ (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration (cf. Is 22:22, in conjunction with 22:15). The issue then is not that of admission to the church . . . , but an authority derived from a ‘delegation’ of God’s sovereignty. (R.T. France; in Morris, Leon, Gen. ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, 256)
Oscar Cullman
Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord puts the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so does Jesus hand over to Peter the keys of the house of the kingdom of heaven and by the same stroke establishes him as his superintendent. There is a connection between the house of the Church, the construction of which has just been mentioned and of which Peter is the foundation, and the celestial house of which he receives the keys. The connection between these two images is the notion of God’s people. (Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1952 French ed., 183-184)
Raymond Brown, Karl Donfried and John Reumann
The prime minister, more literally ‘major-domo,’ was the man called in Hebrew ‘the one who is over the house,’ a term borrowed from the Egyptian designation of the chief palace functionary . . .
The power of the key of the Davidic kingdom is the power to open and to shut, i.e., the prime minister’s power to allow or refuse entrance to the palace, which involves access to the king . . . Peter might be portrayed as a type of prime minister in the kingdom that Jesus has come to proclaim . . . What else might this broader power of the keys include? It might include one or more of the following: baptismal discipline; post-baptismal or penitential discipline; excommunication; exclusion from the eucharist; the communication or refusal of knowledge; legislative powers; and the power of governing. (Peter in the New Testament, Brown, Raymond E., Karl P. Donfried and John Reumann, editors, Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House/New York: Paulist Press, 1973, 96-97. Common statement by a panel of eleven Catholic and Lutheran scholars)
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
In biblical and Judaic usage handing over the keys does not mean appointment as a porter but carries the thought of full authorization (cf. Mt. 13:52; Rev. 3:7) . . . The implication is that Jesus takes away this authority from the scribes and grants it to Peter. (J. Jeremias, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, abridgement of Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985, 440)
All these New Testament pictures and usages go back to a picture in Isaiah (Is 22:22) . . . Now the duty of Eliakim was to be the faithful steward of the house . . . So then what Jesus is saying to Peter is that in the days to come, he will be the steward of the Kingdom. (William Barclay, Gospel of Matthew, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975, vol. 2, 144-145)
Isa 22:15 ff. undoubtedly lies behind this saying . . . The keys are the symbol of authority . . . the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain, of the royal household in ancient Israel. Eliakim is described as having the same authority in Isaiah. (William F. Albright and C.S. Mann, Anchor Bible: Matthew, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971, 196)
And what about the “keys of the kingdom”? . . . About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . (Isa. 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward. (F.F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1983, 143-144)
- Status