What's Your Authority?

[Randy_Carson]

Gerhard Maier (Lutheran)

“Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which — in accordance with the words of the text — applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.” (“The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate,” Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58, JPK pages 16-17)

Herman Ridderbos (Contemporary Dutch Reformed)

“It is well known that the Greek word (petra) translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man’s name, however, Simon was not called petra but petros. The word petros was not an exact synonym of petra; it literally meant ‘stone.’ Jesus therefore had to switch to the word petra when He turned from Peter’s name to what it meant for the Church. There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that He was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter. Because of the revelation that he had received and the confession that it motivated in him, Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future church.” (Ridderbos, Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew [Zondervan, 1987], page 303 as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 35-36)

Eduard Schweizer (Presbyterian/Reformed)

“The ‘rock’ is Peter himself, not his confession. Only on this interpretation does the pun make sense.” (Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew [John Knox Press, 1975], page 341)

+++

For the Protestant Reformers to rationalize breaking away from what was universally acknowledged in their culture as the Christian Church, it was necessary for them to deny the Catholic Church’s authority. To maintain their positions, they were forced to portray it as a kind of “anti-Church” that was unjustly claiming the prerogatives of Christ’s true (but invisible) Church.

Their chief target was, of course, the pope. To justify breaking away from the successor of Peter, they had to undercut the Petrine office itself. They were forced to deny the plain reading of Matthew 16:18—that Jesus made Peter the rock on which he would build his Church.

More recent Protestants have been able to back away from the position that early Protestants felt forced to make and have been able to admit that Peter is, indeed, the rock. It remains to be seen whether they will start drawing the necessary inferences from this fact.

 

[eazyduzit]

The Methodist pastor studies the Word of God to show himself approved and believes he is led by the Spirit into all truth. Accordingly, he baptizes infants.

The Baptist pastor studies the Word of God to show himself approved and believes he is led by the Spirit into all truth. Accordingly, he does not baptize infants.

Are conflicting and contradictory doctrines acceptable in the Body of Christ?

No, not acceptable, but inevitable as long as we are in the flesh. Jesus said," My sheep know my voice". But not all can hear as clearly. We will just have to work with that until the perusia. But I believe God can handle it. I don’t think it took Him by surprise.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No, not acceptable, but inevitable as long as we are in the flesh.

This is a cop out.

Jesus said," My sheep know my voice". But not all can hear as clearly.

Individually, yes. But when whole denominations are unable to come to consensus about fundamental issues such as eternal security and baptismal regeneration, then there is a bigger problem.

We will just have to work with that until the perusia. But I believe God can handle it. I don’t think it took Him by surprise.

Of course not. Which is why He A) prayed for unity and B) thoroughly soaked the pages of the NT with calls for unity.

Yet, some have been led astray from hearing the voice of the shepherd Jesus appointed to watch over His flock.

 

[eazyduzit]

This is a cop out.

Individually, yes. But when whole denominations are unable to come to consensus about fundamental issues such as eternal security and baptismal regeneration, then there is a bigger problem.

Of course not. Which is why He A) prayed for unity and B) thoroughly soaked the pages of the NT with calls for unity.

Yet, some have been led astray from hearing the voice of the shepherd Jesus appointed to watch over His flock.

I think there needs to be a balance. I hope no one wants to go back to the times of The Inquisition? God wants us to respond to Him in freedom. This is why Paul said “All things are law full for me”. (But all things are not expedient). Even the angels were free to decide. I happen to enjoy the wonderful unity we have in the Pentecostal churches. Our unity is not enforced, but is born out of love and freedom. Of course there are differences on things like end time events and what have you, but it does not hinder the work of preaching the Gospel, helping the poor, and healing the sick.

 

[eazyduzit]

This is a cop out.

Individually, yes. But when whole denominations are unable to come to consensus about fundamental issues such as eternal security and baptismal regeneration, then there is a bigger problem.

Of course not. Which is why He A) prayed for unity and B) thoroughly soaked the pages of the NT with calls for unity.

Yet, some have been led astray from hearing the voice of the shepherd Jesus appointed to watch over His flock.

That’s the problem Randy. We hear the voice of this replacement shepherd all too well. We do not want to be forced to believe silly and unbiblical things like the “Immaculate Conception” which your shepherd demanded in 1954.

But, that example aside, in your opinion, is it important enforce all the Catholic traditions for there to be any degree of cooperation or functional unity with nonCatholics? What would it look like?

 

[Bayou_Catholic]

I happen to enjoy the wonderful unity we have in the Pentecostal churches…Of course there are differences on things like end time events and what have you…

Is the doctrine of the trinity not a dividing line for the Pentecostal churches (Oneness v/s Trinitarian)? Would you consider the trinity a trivial doctrinal difference, such as how the end times will occur, or is it an essential of the Gospel? Is there an authority within the Pentecostal community to resolve this conflict in the same fashion the Church resolved the conflict of circumcision v/s baptism in Acts 15?

 

[Abu]

eazyduzit
We do not want to be forced to believe silly and unbiblical things like the “Immaculate Conception” which your shepherd demanded in 1954.

As the Catholic Church was specifically instituted by Christ to teach the whole truth it is quite false to think that She can ever teach anything else, it is accusing Christ Himself, especially as He commanded all to listen to His Church, that He wrote nothing, and His Church gave us the New Testament complete as the Word of God!

So, the Immaculate Conception
Answer by Fr. Robert J. Levis (EWTN) on 09-27-2001:
“That Mary was always sinless was formally defined in 1854 [NOT 1954] by Pope Pius IX in a dogma called the Immaculate Conception. Mary’s sinlessness was always implicitly taught by both the Greek and the Latin Fathers of the Church. The Franciscan priest, John Duns Scotus, explained Mary’s sinlessness by the doctrine of pre-redemption from Original Sin, or preservation from all sin, from the first moment of her conception. No other human being was so graced ever.”

The blessed Virgin was conceived immaculately free from Original Sin by the application of the merits of Christ’s’ Redemption preventively (instead of healing for the rest of mankind). **Lk 1:28: “Hail full of grace." This indicates a perfection of grace.**This perfection is thus intensive and extensive – over the whole of her life from conception. How could the Son of God, Jesus, be conceived or born with Original Sin?

 

[Bayou_Catholic]

We do not want to be forced to believe silly and unbiblical things like the “Immaculate Conception” which your shepherd demanded in 1954.

You should start a new thread on this, Eazy. Perhaps, there is more to our “silly and unbiblical” doctrine of the IC than you think.

is it important enforce all the Catholic traditions for there to be any degree of cooperation or functional unity with nonCatholics?

What do you define as “all the Catholic traditions”? Can you distinguish the difference between Sacred Tradition and non-sacred tradition within the Church?

 

[Randy_Carson]

That’s the problem Randy. We hear the voice of this replacement shepherd all too well.

Who established the “replacement shepherd” and why?

Peter’s Role as Vicar of Christ’s Church Proved from Scripture

In John 21:15-19, the resurrected Christ, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.”

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed (bosko) my lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of (poimanao) my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed (bosko) my sheep.

In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!

Unfortunately, many non-Catholics object to the Catholic understanding that Peter was given this unique leadership position, and they cite a passage from earlier in this same Gospel wherein Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” (John 10:11-16) Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep?

Of course, Jesus is God, and He is clearly capable of taking care of His own flock – even after He ascends to heaven. So, why does He appoint Peter to this role? Obviously, all sheep belong to Christ, and they do not cease to belong to Jesus after the ascension. Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. Jesus commissions Peter to act as His “stand-in” or “vicar” after the ascension. Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will “feed” and “tend” the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock.

Because of the implications of this earthly authority and the unique Catholic claims for the papacy, non-Catholics seek alternative explanations for Jesus’ words. One attempt is to claim that Peter simply has the same authority to care for the flock of Christ that all of the other apostles had. However, this argument fails for two reasons.

First, the extent of the authority Jesus gave to Peter can be seen quite clearly in the original Greek. For example, the word which is used for “feed” in John 21 is bosko – a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st Century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is poimanao – the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in passages such as Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. Peter, like Jesus, is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the vicarious shepherd (i.e., “supreme pastor”) of the Church in Christ’s physical absence.

While it may be argued that any shepherd would have similar responsibilities for his sheep and that the Bible is full of passages using the relationship between sheep and shepherd as a metaphor for our relationship with God, in the context of the New Testament, only Peter received this unique appointment directly from Christ Himself. Jesus took great care to identify Peter’s new responsibility as head of the Church with His own role as Head of the Body, the Church. No other Apostle received this focus.

Second, in Luke’s Last Supper account, we see quite clearly that Peter was singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. The passage is as follows:

Luke 22:31-32
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers. 33But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

In Luke 22:31-32, Satan sought to destroy all of the Apostles, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter alone that Peter might strengthen all of the other Apostles whose faith would be shaken, as well. Clearly, Peter is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all. That is a special ministry – the ministry of the vicarious shepherd. No other Apostle is given the responsibility for caring for the Twelve in this way, and this assignment is all the more significant when we consider that in the following verses (v. 33-34), Jesus predicts Peter’s three-fold denial. Despite Jesus’ foreknowledge of Peter’s denials, Jesus prays for and assigns to Peter the task of caring for the others.

In summary, we know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that there is one Shepherd and one flock (cf. John 10). Yet, in the passage from John 21, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Peter becomes the shepherd who will lead the flock after Jesus’ ascension. Therefore, while Jesus is forever our Good Shepherd reigning from heaven, He has made provision for us by naming someone else to stand in His place, to be His vicar, here on earth. The Vicar of Christ established by Jesus is the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Not only does Peter (and his successors, the Popes) hold the keys to the kingdom of God (cf. Mt 16:18, Is. 22:22), but he holds the shepherd’s crook or crozier, as well.

 

[adf417]

That’s the problem Randy. We hear the voice of this replacement shepherd all too well. We do not want to be forced to believe silly and unbiblical things like the “Immaculate Conception” which your shepherd demanded in 1954.

Greetings easy and a blessed day to you.

Why do you not feel the same about what “our shepherd demanded” in 325? You do not believe this Catholic doctrine to be silly like the majority of the church did at the time, right?

Peace!!!

 

[eazyduzit]

Who established the “replacement shepherd” and why?

Peter’s Role as Vicar of Christ’s Church Proved from Scripture

In John 21:15-19, the resurrected Christ, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.

In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!

Unfortunately, many non-Catholics object to the Catholic understanding that Peter was given this unique leadership position, and they cite a passage from earlier in this same Gospel wherein Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” (John 10:11-16) Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep?

Of course, Jesus is God, and He is clearly capable of taking care of His own flock – even after He ascends to heaven. So, why does He appoint Peter to this role? Obviously, all sheep belong to Christ, and they do not cease to belong to Jesus after the ascension. Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. Jesus commissions Peter to act as His “stand-in” or “vicar” after the ascension. Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will “feed” and “tend” the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock.

Because of the implications of this earthly authority and the unique Catholic claims for the papacy, non-Catholics seek alternative explanations for Jesus’ words. One attempt is to claim that Peter simply has the same authority to care for the flock of Christ that all of the other apostles had. However, this argument fails for two reasons.

First, the extent of the authority Jesus gave to Peter can be seen quite clearly in the original Greek. For example, the word which is used for “feed” in John 21 is bosko – a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st Century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is poimanao – the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in passages such as Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. Peter, like Jesus, is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the vicarious shepherd (i.e., “supreme pastor”) of the Church in Christ’s physical absence.

While it may be argued that any shepherd would have similar responsibilities for his sheep and that the Bible is full of passages using the relationship between sheep and shepherd as a metaphor for our relationship with God, in the context of the New Testament, only Peter received this unique appointment directly from Christ Himself. Jesus took great care to identify Peter’s new responsibility as head of the Church with His own role as Head of the Body, the Church. No other Apostle received this focus.

Second, in Luke’s Last Supper account, we see quite clearly that Peter was singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. The passage is as follow
In Luke 22:31-32, Satan sought to destroy all of the Apostles, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter alone that Peter might strengthen all of the other Apostles whose faith would be shaken, as well. Clearly, Peter is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all.

In summary, we know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that there is one Shepherd and one flock (cf. John 10). Yet, in the passage from John 21, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Peter becomes the shepherd who will lead the flock after Jesus’ ascension. Therefore, while Jesus is forever our Good Shepherd reigning from heaven, He has made provision for us by naming someone else to stand in His place, to be His vicar, here on earth. The Vicar of Christ established by Jesus is the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Not only does Peter (and his successors, the Popes) hold the keys to the kingdom of God (cf. Mt 16:18, Is. 22:22), but he holds the shepherd’s crook or crozier, as well.

Thanks for acknowledging that Jesus is the Good Shepherd!
You tell me that it should be “clear” that Peter is not just another apostle. Maybe for you, if you take only certain verses and put them in a Catholic bubble. You cite Lk22:32 for support as if it means “when thou art converted,take charge over thy subordinates”, rather than “strengthen thy brethren” meaning to care for your brothers, not assume the rule over them. As further evidence, Peter introduces himself in his first letter only as “an apostle of Jesus Christ”. Again in ch.5, he addresses the elders while describing himself as “also an elder”. Then you offer me Is.22:22, about this man Eliakim in which a prophesy states, “I will commit thy government into his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah”. This is a prophesy that can only be reasonably fulfilled by Christ and not Peter.
Can you get a little feeling of how UNCLEAR your evidence is to me? I need to consider the whole of scripture, because that’s all I have. I can know nothing more and I must prove all things by scripture. (as the example of the Bereans in Acts). You see all things through Tradition, and you are welcome to all the Tradition you want. But it doesn’t work to convince a Pentecostal. I was not always Pentecostal. I used to think it was weird and unbiblical, but gradually God broke me out of my Baptist box. I need to be willing to change because God is always doing a new thing. I believe the latter reign will be greater than the former.

Hope you had a profitable day in the house of the Lord.

 

[eazyduzit]

Greetings easy and a blessed day to you.

Why do you not feel the same about what “our shepherd demanded” in 325? You do not believe this Catholic doctrine to be silly like the majority of the church did at the time, right?

Peace!!!

The Council of Nicaea was called by Constantine. He was confused by all the different teachings about the nature of Jesus and how He fits in the Trinity. At this time there was not yet much Tradition and the Pope didn’t just say here’s how it is. Athanasius had to fight it out against Arius mainly on Biblical grounds.
Hmm, Why didn’t they just go to the Pope for the answer?

 

[Bayou_Catholic]

Then you offer me Is.22:22, about this man Eliakim in which a prophesy states, “I will commit thy government into his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah”. This is a prophesy that can only be reasonably fulfilled by Christ and not Peter.

The context of Is 22:22 speaks to the authority given to the royal steward who serves the Davidic King by governing on the King’s behalf. The royal steward has authority to open & shut/bind & loose only insomuch as he has been granted that authority by the King. No doubt Jesus has ultimate authority to govern and be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem… But, if you say Jesus fulfills the role of the royal steward, to which Is 22:22 speaks, then who do you see as the king? We, Catholics, say the one and only King is Jesus (see Lk 1:32). Peter and his successors are but the royal stewards as was Eliakim.

It is not either Jesus was committed the government…, or Peter was committed the government.

It is both Jesus as King was committed the government…, and Jesus as King committed the government to Peter, His royal steward.

Hope this helps!

 

[Bayou_Catholic]

Why didn’t they just go to the Pope for the answer?

You misunderstand how the Church functions. While the Successor of Peter holds the Keys and has the authority to bind and loose, the Bishops in union with the Chair of Peter also have the authority to bind and loose. Acts 15 is a perfect example of how the Church from the very beginning has functioned to resolve issues. The model of Mt 18:17-18 and Acts 15 is still used by the Church to this day.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thanks for acknowledging that Jesus is the Good Shepherd!

Seriously, dude?

You tell me that it should be “clear” that Peter is not just another apostle. Maybe for you, if you take only certain verses and put them in a Catholic bubble. You cite Lk22:32 for support as if it means “when thou art converted,take charge over thy subordinates”, rather than “strengthen thy brethren” meaning to care for your brothers, not assume the rule over them.

The weak are strengthened by those who are stronger.

As further evidence, Peter introduces himself in his first letter only as “an apostle of Jesus Christ”. Again in ch.5, he addresses the elders while describing himself as “also an elder”.

Of course he does. This is an act of humility. Even today, the Pope writes to his “brother bishops” which honors them while they, in turn, refer to him as “Your Holiness” which honors him. This is basic protocol.

However, many non-Catholics try to minimize the authority of the Catholic Papacy by pointing to 1 Peter 5:1 where Peter calls himself a “fellow elder” and claiming that Peter was nothing special because he considers himself equal to all the other elders?

However, could it be possible that the fifth chapter of 1 Peter is all about humility, and that Peter is modeling the very behavior he is exhorting others to exhibit?

1 Peter 5:1-7
1To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. 5Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” 6Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. 7Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.

Peter’s desire was that some of the recipients of this letter might have been moved by seeing that he of all people had humbled himself by calling himself a mere “fellow elder”? Would this have inspired them to practice humility, also?

Mark 9:33-35
33They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. 35Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all.”

Peter was first among the Apostles, and he viewed himself as the servant of all - a “fellow elder” - just as Jesus had taught him to do. Peter’s unwillingness to trumpet his own importance is evidence that he truly was “first” among the Twelve.



(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

hen you offer me Is.22:22, about this man Eliakim in which a prophesy states, “I will commit thy government into his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah”. This is a prophesy that can only be reasonably fulfilled by Christ and not Peter.

Is Jesus the King? Or the Royal Steward who serves the King?

Eliakim was not the king and therefore cannot be a type of Christ, And lots of Protestant scholars admit this. I do hope THEIR evidence is clear enough.

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, Grabd 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:

1. “Master of the palace” {Jerusalem Bible / New American Bible}
2. “In charge of the palace” {New International Version}
3. “Master of the household” {New Revised Standard Version}
4. “In charge of the royal household” {New American Standard Bible}
5. “Comptroller of the household” {Revised English Bible}
6. “Governor of the palace” {Moffatt}

As the robe and the baldric, mentioned in the preceding verse, were the ensigns of power and authority, so likewise was the key the mark of office, either sacred or civil. This mark of office was likewise among the Greeks, as here in Isaiah, borne on the shoulder. In allusion to the image of the key as the ensign of power, the unlimited extent of that power is expressed with great clearness as well as force by the sole and exclusive authority to open and shut. Our Saviour, therefore, has upon a similar occasion made use of a like manner of expression, Matt 16:19; and in Rev 3:7 has applied to himself the very words of the prophet. (Adam Clarke, [Methodist], Commentary on the Bible, abridged ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1967 [orig. 1832], 581)

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

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)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Can you get a little feeling of how UNCLEAR your evidence is to me? I need to consider the whole of scripture, because that’s all I have.

Yes, this is a sad result of the unfortunate errors of the 16th century. Happily, you can correct this weakness with some study.

I can know nothing more and I must prove all things by scripture. (as the example of the Bereans in Acts).

Oh, those poor Bereans…always being misrepresented by Bible Only folks.

If one group could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).

When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the “dogs,” not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was “unbiblical.”

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they “received the word with all eagerness.” Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were “noble-minded” not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, “The Acts of the Apostles” in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel and not a “tradition,” it is clear that the Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures. These Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as an “extension” of, the Torah. This is further illustrated by the Christian community’s reception of Paul’s epistles as divinely inspired Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges Paul’s writings as equal to the “other Scriptures,” which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).

+++

Those who followed the doctrine of sola scriptura, the Thessalonians, rejected Paul’s oral preaching and the long awaited Messiah. Those who accepted oral teaching AND scripture, the Bereans, accepted the Gospel and the Messiah.

Additionally, although both groups searched the scriptures, they came to contradictory conclusions about the Messiah. Clearly, scripture alone is insufficient to ensure proper interpretation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You see all things through Tradition, and you are welcome to all the Tradition you want.

Actually, I try to see all things through Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church.

You, due to Luther’s weaknesses, are left with sola scriptura.

But it doesn’t work to convince a Pentecostal. I was not always Pentecostal. I used to think it was weird and unbiblical, but gradually God broke me out of my Baptist box. I need to be willing to change because God is always doing a new thing. I believe the latter reign will be greater than the former.

And I used to be a Charismatic. I know all about Azusa Street and the Welsh Revival. I’ve been to Toronto and done carpet time there. I’ve read David DuPlessis, Watchman Nee, and Smith Wigglesworth. And Jessie Penn-Lewis and T. Austin-Sparks. I owned every Vineyard Music CD at one point, and I had a subscription to Charisma and New Covenant magazines for more than a decade. Are you hearing me?

My point will be this…it’s great that you were open to the change that you have made so far. Just don’t get too comfortable, because you aren’t all the way home, yet.

Hope you had a profitable day in the house of the Lord.

Every day in the house of the Lord is profitable.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Council of Nicaea was called by Constantine. He was confused by all the different teachings about the nature of Jesus and how He fits in the Trinity. At this time there was not yet much Tradition and the Pope didn’t just say here’s how it is. Athanasius had to fight it out against Arius mainly on Biblical grounds.
Hmm, Why didn’t they just go to the Pope for the answer?

Simple.

Because infallibility does not mean that the Pope knows all the answers. It just means that he cannot formally teach error and lead the entire Church astray.