When was Peter given the keys?

[Alethiaphile]

First, full disclosure: I am presently Catholic in union with Rome, but have been seriously considering for some time, and now more than ever, becoming Orthodox.
Now, my question:

Jsesus replied, “Blest are you, Simon son of Jonah… I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…” Matt. 16: 17-19, NAB. Emphasis mine.

The use of the future tense indicates that Jesus didn’t give Peter the “power of the keys” at the time He spoke those words. Roman Catholicism maintains that Peter received a unique power and authority of “the keys”, over and above the authority given to the other apostles (something Orthodoxy does not believe). So my question is, when was this power actually given to Peter? Joe

 

[cfrancis]

First, full disclosure: I am presently Catholic in union with Rome, but have been seriously considering for some time, and now more than ever, becoming Orthodox.
Now, my question:

Jsesus replied, “Blest are you, Simon son of Jonah… I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…” Matt. 16: 17-19, NAB. Emphasis mine.

The use of the future tense indicates that Jesus didn’t give Peter the “power of the keys” at the time He spoke those words. Roman Catholicism maintains that Peter received a unique power and authority of “the keys”, over and above the authority given to the other apostles (something Orthodoxy does not believe). So my question is, when was this power actually given to Peter? Joe

What about the rest of that passage:
“whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Is there an implication that Peter did not have that power when Christ spoke the words to him?
Would you contend Christ has not yet given Peter these keys?

 

[Alethiaphile]

What about the rest of that passage:
“whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Is there an implication that Peter did not have that power when Christ spoke the words to him?
Would you contend Christ has not yet given Peter these keys?

Well, I think the language indicates such. The additional passage you give above is also in the future tense, so I don’t see how that changes the data on which I base my question. I don’t pretend to have any knowledge about the matter other than scripture and what has been taught by various parties in the Church. Joe

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

not sure, but my best guess is that whenever he received them, he didn’t use them until Christ had Ascended into Heaven.

“Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place…Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present…Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church.” Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431).

 

[cfrancis]

Well, I think the language indicates such. The additional passage you give above is also in the future tense, so I don’t see how that changes the data on which I base my question. I don’t pretend to have any knowledge about the matter other than scripture and what has been taught by various parties in the Church. Joe

Joe, I don’t see where this part, "“whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” is in future tense. Please explain.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Newman Apologetics Resources: The Pope, Holy Father
By Dr. Scott Hahn

I recommend you read the entire article.
zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/pp.html

The below covers the “keys of the kingdom”. It does not specifically get into your personal conflict with the “when”. It’s held Jesus entrusted the keys then and there.

Albright (a Protestant bible scholar) goes on in his commentary to speak about the keys of the kingdom that Jesus entrusted to Peter. Here’s what he says, “Isaiah 22, verse 15, undoubtedly lies behind this saying of Jesus. The keys are the symbol of authority and Father Roland DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is described as having the same authority.”

Now let’s just stop here and ask, “What is he talking about?” I think it’s simple. Albright is saying that Jesus in giving to Peter not only a new name, Rock, but in entrusting to Simon the keys of the kingdom, He is borrowing a phrase from Isaiah 22. He’s quoting a verse in the Old Testament that was extremely well known. This, for me, was the breakthrough. This discovery was the most important discovery of all. Let’s go back to Isaiah 22 and see what Jesus was doing when He entrusted to Peter the keys of the kingdom…

…In Isaiah 22 beginning back in verses 19 and 20, we have some very interesting background. This is where Jesus goes for a quotation to cite this passage.

What’s happening here? Well, in verse 19 it says, “I will thrust you from your office and you will be cast down from your station and on that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe and will bind your girdle on him and will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah; and I will place on his shoulder the key of the House of David.”

Now the House of David is like…the House of Bourbon. It’s a dynastic reference. The House of David is the Davidic kingdom… We know this because David has been dead for hundreds of years when this is happening in Isaiah 22, “I will give you the key of the House of David. He shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. He will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.” Look at all of the symbols of dynastic authority that are being given to this individual. First of all, an office. Second, a robe. Third, a throne and fourth, keys, the key of the House of David, these royal keys.

Now, what is going on here? I’ll just summarize it in rather simple terms. Hezekiah was at the time, the king over Israel. He was the son of David, hundreds of years after David had died. He was in the line of David and also he was ruler over the House of David. Now all kings in the ancient world had, as kings and queens have these days, cabinet officers, a cabinet of royal ministers. Like Margaret Thatcher is the Prime Minister, so there are other ministers under the Queen in Great Britain. Hezekiah, as King, had as his Prime Minister before Shebna who proved unworthy. So he was expelled, but when he was expelled, he left an office vacant. Not only did you have dynastic succession for the king, but you also have a dynastic office for the Prime Minister. When Shebna is expelled, there is an empty office that needs to be filled and that’s why Eliakim is called to fill it.

Now, Eliakim is a minister in the cabinet, but now he is being granted the Prime Minister’s position. How do we know? Because he is given what the other ministers do not have, the keys of the kingdom, the key to the House of David. That symbolized dynastic authority entrusted to the Prime Minister and dynastic succession. Why? Because it’s the key of David; it’s the House of David.

 

[catholic1seeks]

…cont.'dLet me go back and try to simplify this even further. I’ll read the quote. Albright says, “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.” Albright, a Protestant, non- Catholic insists that it’s undoubtable that Jesus is citing Isaiah 22, “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.” In other words, the Prime Minister’s office.

Other Protestant scholars admit it too, that when Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Peter is receiving the Prime Minister’s office, which means dynastic authority from the Son of David, Jesus, the King of Israel, but also an office where there will be dynastic succession. When I discovered that, it was like the blinders fell off. Within a few weeks I had gotten together with the leading Protestant theologians in the world, one of the most reputable anti- Catholic Protestant theologians and spent ten hours with him and then in a Mercedes we drove two hours and I presented this case, and his only comment was, “That’s clever.” But he said, “You don’t have to follow the Pope because of that.” I said, “Why not?” And he said, “Well, I’m going to have to think about it.” He said, “I’ve never heard that argument before.” And I said, “It’ s one of the basic arguments that Cajeton used against the Protestants in the 16th Century and Cajeton was one of the most well-known defenders of the Catholic faith and you’ve never heard of him before?” I said, “I had never heard of it before until I discovered it on my own and then found it in all these other people.” And he said, “That’s clever.” Clever, perhaps. True, definitely; enlightening, illuminating, very interesting.

…
Now, what he means there is that nowhere else, when other Apostles are exercising Church authority are the keys ever mentioned. In Matthew 18, the Apostles get the power to bind and loose, like Peter got in Matthew 16, but with absolutely no mention of the keys. That fits perfectly into this model because in the king’s cabinet, all the ministers can bind and loose, but the Prime Minister who holds the keys can bind what they have loosed or loose what they have bound. He has, in a sense, the final say. He has, in himself, the authority of the court of final appeal and even Protestants can see this.

 

[Alethiaphile]

Joe, I don’t see where this part, "“whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” is in future tense. Please explain.

Good point, I didn’t read carefully. That main verbs are in the present tense there. Nevertheless, the passage specifically dealing with the “keys” is in the future tense. I point out to you, if you weren’t already aware of it, that the power of “binding and loosing” given here is also given to all Christ’s disciples at (I think) Matt. 19. So it stills seems to me that the power which is supposed to be unique to Peter, that of the keys, was not given here but at some later point. Joe

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Good point, I didn’t read carefully. That main verbs are in the present tense there. Nevertheless, the passage specifically dealing with the “keys” is in the future tense. I point out to you, if you weren’t already aware of it, that the power of “binding and loosing” given here is also given to all Christ’s disciples at (I think) Matt. 19. So it stills seems to me that the power which is supposed to be unique to Peter, that of the keys, was not given here but at some later point. Joe

Its actually Matthew 18 which says:

16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

Although I have seen various Orthodox brethren mention one or two ECFs that assert He gave the Keys to all the Apostles, this is nowhere to be found in Scripture. Both of these verses are the basis for the Infallibility of the Pope and the rest of the Bishops when gathered under an Ecumenical Council.

 

[Alethiaphile]

Newman Apologetics Resources: The Pope, Holy Father
By Dr. Scott Hahn
I recommend you read the entire article.
zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/pp.html
[/INDENT]

Ok, as you recommendd, I read the enitre article. As you said, it doesn’t address the specific question in this thread. But I did note at least one very problematic passage in the section “Peter’s Place in the Early Church”:

Dr. Hahn: But the crisis reaches an even higher point in chapter 15. We have the famous Council of Jerusalem where there’s a huge debate tearing apart the Church. These Gentile believers, do we circumcise them or not? Well you might say, “How important is that?” Well, gentlemen, if you were in your twenties, thirties and forties and you were considering conversion and along with conversion, you had to get circumcised, you might end up considering conversion a lot longer than if all you needed was baptism, right? There was sort of a strategic purpose behind all of this. But notice, as the debate is raging, all of a sudden it stops. When? Verse 6 and 7, “The Apostles and elders met together. After much debate Peter stood up and addressed them,” and he basically says the Holy Spirit purified their hearts through Baptism, circumcision isn’t needed; end all debate! The only thing that follows is that James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, adds the kind of qualifying proviso so that the Jews are not needlessly scandalized in Gentile lands. But Peter’s word was final and absolute. The debate ended. Peter had spoken.

That is a blatantly dishonest summary of Acts 15, and it’s especially disappointing to me to find it enunciated by someone, Dr. Hahn, who I used to have some respect for. Acts 15 clearly states that after Peter spoke, Barnabas and Paul soke, and then, most importantly, James addresses the council and says “It is my judgment therefore, that we ought not to cause God’s Gentiles converts any difficulties”, clearly referring to the basic dispute before the council, “we should merely write to them to abstain from anything contaminated by idols…” Acts 15:19-20. That is far cry from “adds a qualifying proviso…” as Dr. Hahn puts it. After reading that, Dr. Hahn gets little further credibility from me. Joe

 

[Belloc_Fan]

First, full disclosure: I am presently Catholic in union with Rome, but have been seriously considering for some time, and now more than ever, becoming Orthodox.
Now, my question:

Jsesus replied, “Blest are you, Simon son of Jonah… I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…” Matt. 16: 17-19, NAB. Emphasis mine.

The use of the future tense indicates that Jesus didn’t give Peter the “power of the keys” at the time He spoke those words. Roman Catholicism maintains that Peter received a unique power and authority of “the keys”, over and above the authority given to the other apostles (something Orthodoxy does not believe). So my question is, when was this power actually given to Peter? Joe

I didn’t read all of the responses, so I’m sorry if someone else has already addressed this. But in the context, it says (this is the NET Bible translation, so it’s not the greatest):

16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not overpower it. 16:19 **I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. **Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven.”

So it sounds to me that the handing over of the power of the keys occurs at the moment the Church is founded. Which raises the obvious second question, when was the Church founded? Seemingly Pentecost.

The power of the keys harkens back to Isaiah 22:15-25. I’m not sure, but it seems at least possible that the Pharisees have the keys prior to the Papacy - cf. Luke 11:52. It could just be coincidentally similar language, though - “the key of knowledge” could be something totally different. But since Isaiah 22 is about a passing on of keys, with a prophesy that someday these keys would be taken away and given to someone else (cf. Isaiah 22:25), it makes sense also that the Pharisees would be given the keys for a time, then have them finally reside in the Papacy, where Jesus says “the gates of hell will not overcome” His Church.

Sorry if that was convoluted and unhelpful.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Well, I think the language indicates such. The additional passage you give above is also in the future tense, so I don’t see how that changes the data on which I base my question. I don’t pretend to have any knowledge about the matter other than scripture and what has been taught by various parties in the Church. Joe

Note, when all the Apostles are given the power to forgive sins, it is in the Present tense.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Ok, as you recommendd, I read the enitre article. As you said, it doesn’t address the specific question in this thread. But I did note at least one very problematic passage in the section “Peter’s Place in the Early Church”:

Dr. Hahn: But the crisis reaches an even higher point in chapter 15. We have the famous Council of Jerusalem where there’s a huge debate tearing apart the Church. These Gentile believers, do we circumcise them or not? Well you might say, “How important is that?” Well, gentlemen, if you were in your twenties, thirties and forties and you were considering conversion and along with conversion, you had to get circumcised, you might end up considering conversion a lot longer than if all you needed was baptism, right? There was sort of a strategic purpose behind all of this. But notice, as the debate is raging, all of a sudden it stops. When? Verse 6 and 7, “The Apostles and elders met together. After much debate Peter stood up and addressed them,” and he basically says the Holy Spirit purified their hearts through Baptism, circumcision isn’t needed; end all debate! The only thing that follows is that James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, adds the kind of qualifying proviso so that the Jews are not needlessly scandalized in Gentile lands. But Peter’s word was final and absolute. The debate ended. Peter had spoken.

That is a blatantly dishonest summary of Acts 15, and it’s especially disappointing to me to find it enunciated by someone, Dr. Hahn, who I used to have some respect for. Acts 15 clearly states that after Peter spoke, Barnabas and Paul soke, and then, most importantly, James addresses the council and says “It is my judgment therefore, that we ought not to cause God’s Gentiles converts any difficulties”, clearly referring to the basic dispute before the council, “we should merely write to them to abstain from anything contaminated by idols…” Acts 15:19-20. That is far cry from “adds a qualifying proviso…” as Dr. Hahn puts it. After reading that, Dr. Hahn gets little further credibility from me. Joe

In Acts 15:6-7, the group is arguing about whether Paul and Barnabas’ position is acceptable or not. Peter speaks to them in v. 7-11, and it says in v. 12 that “The whole group kept quiet and listened to Barnabas and Paul while they explained all the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.” So it does seem that the whole group was respecting Peter’s opinion in an authoritative capacity. And James actually grounds his position in Peter’s (v. 14) and the Old Testament (v. 15-18).

What are your reasons for wanting to leave the Church? Maybe addressing some of those head-on will be of more help. I don’t mean any disrespect, of course, but it seems that exegesis isn’t really what’s motivating your desired interpretation of these verses, or Peter’s role.

 

[Todd_Easton]

So my question is, when was this power actually given to Peter? Joe

I think Jesus gave the power of the keys to Peter after His resurrection when He appeared to His disciples on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias and commissioned Peter as the universal shepherd of His Church, saying, “Feed my lambs…tend my sheep…feed my sheep.” (John 21:16-17)

 

[Usagi]

Under the Catholic understanding of what the keys represent (the authority of the Kingdom’s chief minister), Peter and the Church would not have needed the power of the keys while Jesus walked with them as a man. (The king’s minister doesn’t go around making binding decisions on his own if the king is standing right there.)

Sometime between the incident at Caesarea Philippi and Jesus’ Ascension, then, would be logical. The “feed my sheep” dialogue is a popular option, but we are not told explicitly.

Then again, it could be that Jesus never granted the keys in person, but merely informed Peter that he would be the recipient when the time was right. Then the power would have been conveyed following the Ascension, probably taking effect on Pentecost when all of the Apostles were empowered to carry out their mission.

Usagi

 

[cfrancis]

Ok, as you recommendd, I read the enitre article. As you said, it doesn’t address the specific question in this thread. But I did note at least one very problematic passage in the section “Peter’s Place in the Early Church”:

Dr. Hahn: But the crisis reaches an even higher point in chapter 15. We have the famous Council of Jerusalem where there’s a huge debate tearing apart the Church. These Gentile believers, do we circumcise them or not? Well you might say, “How important is that?” Well, gentlemen, if you were in your twenties, thirties and forties and you were considering conversion and along with conversion, you had to get circumcised, you might end up considering conversion a lot longer than if all you needed was baptism, right? There was sort of a strategic purpose behind all of this. But notice, as the debate is raging, all of a sudden it stops. When? Verse 6 and 7, “The Apostles and elders met together. After much debate Peter stood up and addressed them,” and he basically says the Holy Spirit purified their hearts through Baptism, circumcision isn’t needed; end all debate! The only thing that follows is that James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, adds the kind of qualifying proviso so that the Jews are not needlessly scandalized in Gentile lands. But Peter’s word was final and absolute. The debate ended. Peter had spoken.

That is a blatantly dishonest summary of Acts 15, and it’s especially disappointing to me to find it enunciated by someone, Dr. Hahn, who I used to have some respect for. Acts 15 clearly states that after Peter spoke, Barnabas and Paul soke, and then, most importantly, James addresses the council and says “It is my judgment therefore, that we ought not to cause God’s Gentiles converts any difficulties”, clearly referring to the basic dispute before the council, “we should merely write to them to abstain from anything contaminated by idols…” Acts 15:19-20. That is far cry from “adds a qualifying proviso…” as Dr. Hahn puts it. After reading that, Dr. Hahn gets little further credibility from me. Joe

Seems you’re looking for that which is not there.
In this passage of Acts, of what do Paul and Barnabas speak when they speak after the assembly fell silent?

 

[Mickey]

That is a blatantly dishonest summary of Acts 15, and it’s especially disappointing to me to find it enunciated by someone, Dr. Hahn, who I used to have some respect for. Acts 15 clearly states that after Peter spoke, Barnabas and Paul soke, and then, most importantly, James addresses the council and says “It is my judgment therefore, that we ought not to cause God’s Gentiles converts any difficulties”, clearly referring to the basic dispute before the council, “we should merely write to them to abstain from anything contaminated by idols…” Acts 15:19-20. That is far cry from “adds a qualifying proviso…” as Dr. Hahn puts it. After reading that, Dr. Hahn gets little further credibility from me.

There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
St John Chrysostom

 

[Isa_Almisry]

In Acts 15:6-7, the group is arguing about whether Paul and Barnabas’ position is acceptable or not. Peter speaks to them in v. 7-11, and it says in v. 12 that “The whole group kept quiet and listened to Barnabas and Paul while they explained all the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.” So it does seem that the whole group was respecting Peter’s opinion in an authoritative capacity. And James actually grounds his position in Peter’s (v. 14) and the Old Testament (v. 15-18)

And adds to it (the blood, strangled things, fornication, etc.), and he states “Ijudge [emphasis his]”, and the decision is his words, not St. Peter’s.

What are your reasons for wanting to leave the Church? Maybe addressing some of those head-on will be of more help. I don’t mean any disrespect, of course, but it seems that exegesis isn’t really what’s motivating your desired interpretation of these verses, or Peter’s role.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

not sure, but my best guess is that whenever he received them, he didn’t use them until Christ had Ascended into Heaven.

“Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place…Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present…Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church.” Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431).

Only one problem: Rome had condemned Nestorius before Ephesus.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I agree. I think the reasons for leaving the Catholic Church should be addressed, rather than a simple difficulty of interpretation. For, the one who is Catholic ought not to worry about this simple thing. You, however, who are considering leaving the Catholic Church, consider rejecting its authority and its ability to provide the truth.

So…

What’s the main issue?