R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Would it have been great if there were no divisions or strife or disagreements or misunderstandings? Sure. But human nature is what it is.
Pentecostal pastor claims Jesus did NOT build his Church on Peter?
- Status
D
Darryl_B
Guest
And yet again you avoid the question. This time by complimenting me. Sorry, I am not interested in that because it is not about me. The question still remains, can you answer it please?I agree fully that there is no automatic obligation on the part of a catholic to defend their understanding of Peter and the church to a protestant. But take a moment to remember the reason this discussion was started (oh so many pages ago in such a short time)
The OP wanted to convince a pentecostal pastor of the validity of the catholic church’s position on Peter and the church, and was looking for solid arguments to help do that. In this case the onus is on the catholic wishing to convince someone else.
I think that’s a very interesting comparison of the catholic-protestant discussion with the theist-atheist discussion. I hadn’t thought of it before, but there are similarities, having been on the theist end of such discussions.
I would say that some separate faith and reason to their detriment (resulting in poor arguments for theism-similar to the mormons arguing for the truth of the BOM from a burning in the bosom) just as some catholics are very comfortable with a version of the faith that has some distinct differences from what is presented in scripture (resulting in difficulties defending teachings or practices of certain saints or theologians that they strongly believe and identify with). And some atheists and some protestants also do the same thing in the other direction.
Good thoughts
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
STOP.Close enough and better than I usually hear.
Next question: Is it just a coincidence that Jesus, a king, confers keys upon one man, Peter, and there was no intent to establish Peter’s role as the royal steward in His kingdom?
Thanks.
You asked me a straight question about my understanding of the rock and I gave a straight answer, so now I’m going to ask you a straight question and expect the same respect in an answer before I respond to your rhetorical points in your previous post or before I move on to a next question.
Yes or no, do you have any early (1st-2nd century) citations from christians or jews that specifically contain (a) your interpretation of a connection between Isaiah and Matt 16, (b) a comparison of Jesus to Pharaoh and/or Peter to Joseph or (c) an understanding of Jesus creating a perpetual office unique to Peter that had supreme authority over the entire church (we’ve already discussed the questionable marginal reading of Cyprian from the 3rd century so let’s not go back there for now)?
(If yes, I’d appreciate you providing them here. Thanks)
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
I’m not sure what you are looking for in an answer. Why don’t you accept the mormon apostles claim to authority and follow their interpretation of the Bible? Because their claim to authority doesn’t convince you.
That’s why I don’t accept the catholic claim to authority-I don’t find it convincing based on the evidence provided.
Would you accept the mormon apostles if a mormon told you to have more faith? Why not?
That’s why your comment hasn’t changed me. It seems you are asking me to accept catholic authority before I consider whether I should accept catholic authority. If I’ve misunderstood I apologize.
T
tacdon
Guest
The rock is figurative language. The rock is the truth that Peter spoke, the rock is Jesus.
Matthew 16:15
“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Matthew 16:16
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.
Matthew 16:15
“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Matthew 16:16
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.
Z
zz912
Guest
“You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.”
Jesus doesn’t refer to Peter’s confession as “kepha”. Jesus calls Peter “Kepha”.
T
tacdon
Guest
Who would you rather build a church on Jesus or a man named Peter?
T
tacdon
Guest
Thou are Petrus and upon this petra I will build my church.
One means “a rock” the other means “a piece of rock”
R
rfournier103
Guest
I don’t think it matters what any of us would rather do; the only thing that matters is what Jesus DID do… Don’t you think?
**Matt. 16:18 **- Jesus said in Aramaic, you are “Kepha” and on this “Kepha” I will build my Church. In Aramaic, “kepha” means a massive stone, and “evna” means little pebble.
Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is “petra”, that “Petros” actually means “a small rock”, and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus’ blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used “Kepha,” not “evna.” Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.
Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the “small rock,” he would have used “lithos” which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).
**Matt. 16:18 **- also, in quoting “on this rock,” the Scriptures use the Greek construction “tautee tee” which means on “this” rock; on “this same” rock; or on “this very” rock. “Tautee tee” is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”
Matt. 16:18-19 - in addition, to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter’s leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter - you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom).
Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith.*
I would also like to point out John 21:15-17…
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, “Feed my sheep.”
Jesus CLEARLY charges Peter with a very important job that He gave to NO ONE ELSE. Did He tell any of the other Apostles (or anyone else) to feed and tend His lambs and sheep? No. Jesus singled out PETER. To say that Jesus built His Church on anything other than the ROCK is just not accurate.
So many anti-Catholics are blinded by their -]hatred and biggotry/-] mis-understanding of anything “pope-ish”; that even when a solid and logical defense of Catholic Theology is made, they remain “rock-like” in their denials. (get the joke???
)Of course the Pentecostal pastor MUST deny that Jesus build His Church on the rock of Peter; otherwise we would have to admit that there’s a Mega-Church out there that holds far more Truth than his ministry ever could.
*Special thanks to John Salza.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
"Many Protestant commentators take the position that [the phrase ‘keys of the kingdom of heaven’] refers to the Old Testament office of steward: a type of governor or prime minister in the royal household, citing Isaiah 22:20-22 as a cross-reference.
"…This office carried a “daunting degree of authority” (France, R.T. Matthew. Vol. 1 of Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, 256). William F. Albright described Peter’s role as “the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain, of the royal household in ancient Israel” (Albright, W.F., Anchor Bible: Matthew, 196), while the great Bible scholar F.F. Bruce noted that “in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward” (Bruce, F.F., The Hard Sayings of Jesus, 144).
“…Protestant commentators have come a long way twoard the Catholic view of Petrine primacy, but they usually leave out one or more crucial element of paopal opower and jurisdiction. The Catholic view alone explains all these implications and aspects (exegetical, legal and historical) in a coherent way, by holding that Peter was both the leader of the early Church and a role model for future leaders who would assume his office through apostolic succession.”
Source: Armstrong, Dave, The Catholic Verses, 59-60.
"…This office carried a “daunting degree of authority” (France, R.T. Matthew. Vol. 1 of Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, 256). William F. Albright described Peter’s role as “the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain, of the royal household in ancient Israel” (Albright, W.F., Anchor Bible: Matthew, 196), while the great Bible scholar F.F. Bruce noted that “in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward” (Bruce, F.F., The Hard Sayings of Jesus, 144).
“…Protestant commentators have come a long way twoard the Catholic view of Petrine primacy, but they usually leave out one or more crucial element of paopal opower and jurisdiction. The Catholic view alone explains all these implications and aspects (exegetical, legal and historical) in a coherent way, by holding that Peter was both the leader of the early Church and a role model for future leaders who would assume his office through apostolic succession.”
Source: Armstrong, Dave, The Catholic Verses, 59-60.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Jesus identifies himself as the builder of the Church; Peter is the rock upon which it is built.
R
rfournier103
Guest
Well said, Mr. Carson. Well said.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
If I can’t make an implicit connection between Clement’s “office” and the office of the Royal Steward as understood in the Davidic kingdom, then no.
But this is not the problem that you think it is, because there are many examples of doctrines which you and I would agree upon that are not taught explicitly by any of the earliest ECF’s. Further, neither you nor I can say with certainty what the ECF’s actually BELIEVED in this matter; we can only examine their extant writings. Neither one of us can make a case from their silence, can we?
What I do have (and I just posted them above) are a couple more PROTESTANT scholars who see the very connection that you seek to deny. Jesus referenced “keys” - a symbol of stewardship - for a reason, and you have failed to explain that.
So, what this entire discussion comes down to is the fact that under the pretext of needing first century references - an impossible standard for *many *doctrines, you are clinging to an opinion which is shaky at best in light of scholarship by the “hostile witnesses” I have provided.
Is that REALLY all you’ve got?
Hey, if my concession wins this “debate” for you, kudos.
But when you log off and have a quiet moment to reflect, you still have to deal with the preponderance of the evidence that is arrayed against you, don’t you? :sad_yes:
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
:tiphat:
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Baptist scholar D. A. Carson, writes, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary:
[T]he underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses.
In Koine Greek (the dialect of Greek used by the authors of the New Testament), petros and petra are masculine and feminine forms of words with the same root and the same definition—rock. There is no “small rock” to be found in the Greek text, either.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
J.N.D. Kelly, Anglican Scholar
Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly in his classic work Early Christian Doctrines sums up how unanimous the Church was in the patristic period, particularly the fourth and fifth centuries where the documentary evidence becomes overwhelming for the primacy and authority of the Papacy –
“Everywhere, in the East no less than the West, Rome enjoyed a special prestige, as is indicated by the precedence accorded without question to it…Thus Rome’s preeminance remained undisputed in the patristic period. For evidence of it the student need only recall the leading position claimed as a matter of course by the popes, and freely conceded to them, at the councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). We even find the fifth-century historians Socrates and Sozomen concluding…that it was unconstitutional for synods to be held without the Roman pontiff being invited or for decisions to be taken without his concurrence. At the outbreak of the Christological controversy, it will be remembered, both Nestorius and Cyril hastened to bring their cases to Rome, the latter declaring that the ancient custom of the churches constrained him to communicate matters of such weight to the Pope and to seek his advice before acting. In one of his sermons he goes so far as to salute Celestine as ‘the archbishop of the whole world’ …It goes without saying that Augustine [c. 354 - 430 AD] identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome…By the middle of the fifth century the Roman church had established, de jure as well as de facto, a position of primacy in the West, and the papal claims to supremacy over all bishops of Christendom had been formulated in precise terms…The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfilment of the divine plan.” (Kelly, pages 406, 407, 413, 417)
John Meyendorff, Orthodox Scholar
The Orthodox study The Primacy of Peter (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992) by John Meyendorff states on St. Clement of Rome and the ante-Nicene period (before 325 AD) –
“Let us turn to the facts. We know that the Church of Rome took over the position of ‘church-with-priority’ at the end of the first century. That was about the time at which her star ascended into the firmament of history in its brightest splendor…Even as early as the Epistle to the Romans, Rome seems to have stood out among all the churches as very important. Paul bears witness that the faith of the Romans was proclaimed throughout the whole world (Rom 1:8)…we have a document which gives us our earliest reliable evidence that the Church of Rome stood in an exceptional position of authority in this period. This is the epistle of Clement of Rome…We know that Clement was ‘president’ of the Roman Church…” (Afanassieff from Meyendorff, page 124)
“The epistle [Clement of Rome to the Corinthians] is couched in very measured terms, in the form of an exhortation; but at the same time it clearly shows that the Church of Rome was aware of the decisive weight, in the Church of Corinth’s eyes, that must attach to its witness about the events in Corinth. So the Church of Rome, at the end of the first century, exhibits a marked sense of its own priority, in point of witness about events in other churches. Note also that the Roman Church did not feel obliged to make a case, however argued, to justify its authoritative pronouncements on what we should now call the internal concerns of other churches. There is nothing said about the grounds of this priority…Apparently Rome had no doubt that its priority would be accepted without argument.” (Afanassieff from Meyendorff, page 125-126)
“Rome’s vocation [in the “pre-Nicene period”] consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition – that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine – and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome…” (Afanassieff from Meyendorff, page 128f, 133)
“It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and the Judaeo-Christian period, it was the Church of Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome – ‘presiding in agape,’ according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by Fr. Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement. It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance.” (Schmemann from Meyendorff, page 163-164)
Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly in his classic work Early Christian Doctrines sums up how unanimous the Church was in the patristic period, particularly the fourth and fifth centuries where the documentary evidence becomes overwhelming for the primacy and authority of the Papacy –
“Everywhere, in the East no less than the West, Rome enjoyed a special prestige, as is indicated by the precedence accorded without question to it…Thus Rome’s preeminance remained undisputed in the patristic period. For evidence of it the student need only recall the leading position claimed as a matter of course by the popes, and freely conceded to them, at the councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). We even find the fifth-century historians Socrates and Sozomen concluding…that it was unconstitutional for synods to be held without the Roman pontiff being invited or for decisions to be taken without his concurrence. At the outbreak of the Christological controversy, it will be remembered, both Nestorius and Cyril hastened to bring their cases to Rome, the latter declaring that the ancient custom of the churches constrained him to communicate matters of such weight to the Pope and to seek his advice before acting. In one of his sermons he goes so far as to salute Celestine as ‘the archbishop of the whole world’ …It goes without saying that Augustine [c. 354 - 430 AD] identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome…By the middle of the fifth century the Roman church had established, de jure as well as de facto, a position of primacy in the West, and the papal claims to supremacy over all bishops of Christendom had been formulated in precise terms…The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfilment of the divine plan.” (Kelly, pages 406, 407, 413, 417)
John Meyendorff, Orthodox Scholar
The Orthodox study The Primacy of Peter (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992) by John Meyendorff states on St. Clement of Rome and the ante-Nicene period (before 325 AD) –
“Let us turn to the facts. We know that the Church of Rome took over the position of ‘church-with-priority’ at the end of the first century. That was about the time at which her star ascended into the firmament of history in its brightest splendor…Even as early as the Epistle to the Romans, Rome seems to have stood out among all the churches as very important. Paul bears witness that the faith of the Romans was proclaimed throughout the whole world (Rom 1:8)…we have a document which gives us our earliest reliable evidence that the Church of Rome stood in an exceptional position of authority in this period. This is the epistle of Clement of Rome…We know that Clement was ‘president’ of the Roman Church…” (Afanassieff from Meyendorff, page 124)
“The epistle [Clement of Rome to the Corinthians] is couched in very measured terms, in the form of an exhortation; but at the same time it clearly shows that the Church of Rome was aware of the decisive weight, in the Church of Corinth’s eyes, that must attach to its witness about the events in Corinth. So the Church of Rome, at the end of the first century, exhibits a marked sense of its own priority, in point of witness about events in other churches. Note also that the Roman Church did not feel obliged to make a case, however argued, to justify its authoritative pronouncements on what we should now call the internal concerns of other churches. There is nothing said about the grounds of this priority…Apparently Rome had no doubt that its priority would be accepted without argument.” (Afanassieff from Meyendorff, page 125-126)
“Rome’s vocation [in the “pre-Nicene period”] consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition – that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine – and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome…” (Afanassieff from Meyendorff, page 128f, 133)
“It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and the Judaeo-Christian period, it was the Church of Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome – ‘presiding in agape,’ according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by Fr. Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement. It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance.” (Schmemann from Meyendorff, page 163-164)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
More and fuller Protestant quotes here:
W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann
“In commenting upon Matthew 16 and Jesus giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Isaiah 22:15 and following undoubtedly lies behind this saying. The keys are the symbol of authority and DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household of ancient Israel.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)
“It is of considerable importance, that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are discussed, the symbol of the keys is absent, since the saying applies in these instances to a wider circle. The role of Peter as steward of the kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority as was the case of the Old Testament chamberlain who held the keys.” (ibid.)
William Barclay
“We now come to two phrases in which Jesus describes certain privileges which were given to and certain duties which were laid on Peter.
“He says that he will give to Peter the keys of the Kingdom. This is obviously a difficult phrase; and we will do well to begin by setting down the things about it of which we can be sure…All these New Testament pictures and usages go back to a picture in Isaiah (Isaiah 22:22). Isaiah describes Eliakim, who will have the key of the house of David on his shoulder, and who alone [emphasis added] will open and shut. Now the duty of Eliakim was to be the faithful steward of the house. It is the steward who carries the keys of the house, who in the morning opens the door, and in the evening shuts it, and through whom visitors gain access to the royal presence. 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)
F.F Bruce
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)
NIV Study Bible
On verse 15: “…in charge of the palace. A position second only to the king…”
On verse 22: “…key to the house of David. The authority delegated to him by the king, who belongs to David’s dynasty – perhaps controlling entrance into the royal palace. Cf. the ‘keys of the kingdom’ given to Peter (Mt 16:19) .”
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
John Calvin
Some commentators have viewed this passage as referring to Christ, but improperly; for the Prophet draws a comparison between two men, Shebna and Eliakim. Shebna shall be deprived of his office, and Eliakim shall succeed him. What has this to do with Christ? For Eliakim was not a type of Christ, and the Prophet does not here describe any hidden mystery, but borrows a comparison from the ordinary practice of men, as if the keys were delivered to one who has been appointed to be steward, as has been already said. For the same reason Christ calls the office of teaching the word, (Matthew 16:19,) “the keys of the kingdom of heaven;” so that it is idle and foolish to spend much time in endeavoring to find a hidden reason, when the matter is plain, and needs no ingenuity. The reason is, that ministers, by the preaching of the word, open the entrance into heaven, and lead to Christ, who alone is “the way.” (John 14:6.) By the keys, therefore, he means here the government of the king’s house, because the principal charge of it would be delivered to Eliakim at the proper time.
Note well what Calvin says here, friends: keys are delivered to those appointed to be stewards. The kingdom of David was inherited by Jesus who delivered the keys to Peter.
Now, it’s fair to say that Calvin would not arrive at a Catholic interpretation, but he has made the connection between Mt. 16:19 and Is. 22:22 that some argue the ECF’s did not make.
- And the key of the house of David. 92 This expression is metaphorical, and we need not spend much time, as some do, in drawing from it an allegorical meaning; for it is taken from an ordinary custom of men. **The keys of the house are delivered to those who are appointed to be stewards, that they may have the full power of opening and shutting according to their own pleasure. By “the house of David” is meant “the royal house.” This mode of expression was customary among the people, because it had been promised to David that his kingdom would be for ever. **(2 Samuel 7:13; Psalm 132:11, 12.) That is the reason why the kingdom was commonly called “the house of David.”
Some commentators have viewed this passage as referring to Christ, but improperly; for the Prophet draws a comparison between two men, Shebna and Eliakim. Shebna shall be deprived of his office, and Eliakim shall succeed him. What has this to do with Christ? For Eliakim was not a type of Christ, and the Prophet does not here describe any hidden mystery, but borrows a comparison from the ordinary practice of men, as if the keys were delivered to one who has been appointed to be steward, as has been already said. For the same reason Christ calls the office of teaching the word, (Matthew 16:19,) “the keys of the kingdom of heaven;” so that it is idle and foolish to spend much time in endeavoring to find a hidden reason, when the matter is plain, and needs no ingenuity. The reason is, that ministers, by the preaching of the word, open the entrance into heaven, and lead to Christ, who alone is “the way.” (John 14:6.) By the keys, therefore, he means here the government of the king’s house, because the principal charge of it would be delivered to Eliakim at the proper time.
Note well what Calvin says here, friends: keys are delivered to those appointed to be stewards. The kingdom of David was inherited by Jesus who delivered the keys to Peter.
Now, it’s fair to say that Calvin would not arrive at a Catholic interpretation, but he has made the connection between Mt. 16:19 and Is. 22:22 that some argue the ECF’s did not make.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Luther on the Keys
“So we stand here and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Matthew 16:19 that He will give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys, but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has, and no others. It is as if He were saying: why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of Heaven, but they are not found in Heaven. I left them on earth. Don’t look for them in Heaven or anywhere else except in Peter’s mouth where I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing.” (Martin Luther, The Keys, in Conrad Bergendoff, ed. trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergendoff, Luthers Works, vol. 40, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958, p. 365-366.)
“So we stand here and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Matthew 16:19 that He will give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys, but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has, and no others. It is as if He were saying: why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of Heaven, but they are not found in Heaven. I left them on earth. Don’t look for them in Heaven or anywhere else except in Peter’s mouth where I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing.” (Martin Luther, The Keys, in Conrad Bergendoff, ed. trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergendoff, Luthers Works, vol. 40, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958, p. 365-366.)
D
Darryl_B
Guest
I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Do you understand the meaning of those words? I really struggle to think how you can bring in mormonism to the equation as a comparison, cult vs kingdom. I’m sorry my friend it is a very very bad comparison and I expected better of you.
But anyway you seem to be entirely unable to answer the question what is the value. That is because much like the atheist you have to consider it from two perspectives. One the common good of the Church, (which you deep down think is of value) the other is your own personal self. You want a door that you can escape your current church just in case it lets you down. That is the protestant perspective.
- Status