Who was the Rock in Matthew 16:18?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal_Son1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is something that Catholics bring up very frequently, and I still don’t know why. So I’ll bite. Please tell me precisely what it means to “claim authority” and why it matters so much to you. And please tell me what the main goal of that line of discussion is.

Is it something other than an attempt to justify listening to Catholics and categorically rejecting anything that comes from Protestants? I consistently get the feeling that these sorts of “by what authority?” questions are primarily intended to uphold some form of the genetic fallacy.
Mike-

Author Mark Shea explored this issue as he was considering converting to Catholicism. It might be a helpful read:

ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51SBMYXJ53L.BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01.jpg
 
You first say the writing is Gnostic and when proven wrong you change the spin to remain in disagreement?
Sorry, poor grammer looked like I was including the Didache with the Gnostic Scriptures.
Do any of the Gospels, or any other book of the New Testament bear any dates? While we’re on the subject, do any of the Gospels, or any other book of the New Testament provide us a list of which writings should be included in the New Testament?
No, scholars have given us a good estimate as to when they were written originally and we know that Paul was using Gospel when he was writing and he died around 67AD. Early Church Fathers used and referenced Gospel in their writings.
I said- The original writers and their students knew if they were truth and inspired. someone said - You’re saying that the early Christians just “knew” what books were inspired? Do you have a chapter and verse that says this? Do you have a Scripture verse for this, shaick? Chapter and verse, please.
Yes I am. No need for a Scripture on that of course the first disciples and students of the disciples and eyewitnesses to the events of Jesus’ life would know if Gospel was truth. Please see the Didache. We have history. The earliest Church Fathers were using the very Gospel we use.

“The official canon was a confirmation of what was already known to be true.” As in it was the Gospel that Paul, the disciples, the earliest church fathers, were using to teach about Jesus.

The Old Testament canon was the one used by the Jews-their official canon.
As some have repeatedly posted the statement that Catholis must believe what the magisterium tells them to believe, that is not true! Catholics choose, through Christian faith and faith in Christ’s Church to believe what the magisterium of the Church teaches.
OK, I say that **not all **Catholics choose through their Christian faith and faith in Christ’s Church believe what the magisterium of the Church teaches.

Are these “Catholics” considered hypocrites by the Catholic Church?

Back to Keys of Heaven-

Are Catholics saying that **only the Pope **has authority to appoint Bishops and Deacons through the holding of the Keys of Heaven?

Which if the answer is yes comes back to the question I have already asked -then why doesn’t the Pope appoint his successor? and recieved an answer to. That the Popes infallibiltiy does not represent the Keys of Heaven.

What does having the Keys of Heaven get you? I know you have said authority.

The root of some of my confussion-how all these pieces fit togther?

I asked about the authority of Popes appointing a successor and was answered - Pope infallibility is only to pronounce new Church Doctrine and “does not represent the Keys of Heaven.”

Does infallibility of the Pope represent the Keys of Heaven?

Am I understanding this correctly - The Pope holds the Keys of Heaven until he dies. The Bishops then are handed the keys by** [someone?] **and hold the Keys of Heaven until the next Pope is seatted. The Bishops hand over the Keys to the new Pope and he holds them until he dies and the cycle begins all over.

When did Bishops receive the authority to hold the Keys of Heaven?

Was the pronouncement of infallibility of Popes retroactive to all previous teachings?
 
Sorry, poor grammer looked like I was including the Didache with the Gnostic Scriptures.

No, scholars have given us a good estimate as to when they were written originally and we know that Paul was using Gospel when he was writing and he died around 67AD. Early Church Fathers used and referenced Gospel in their writings.
Paul was using what he had learned through the oral tradition, which some came from those who wrote the Gospels. But this is a sidetrack from the point of my question. If the Bible is the only authority, why doesn’t it list those letters and epistles that should have been included in the New Testament canon?

Early Church fathers wrote what they learned about the Gospels through oral tradition, that is they wrote the interpretation that was passed to them from those that they succeeded. The differences in interpretations didn’t happen until much later in history.

Just as you seem to try and prove the Bible is the only authority, it seems you lack the scripture and verse that teaches that.

The Bible is the inspired word of God, on that I think we both agree. Why did God inspire it written that the Church of the living God is the pillar and ground of truth, instead of scriptures? Why did God inspire it be written that the Church may make known the manifold wisdom of God, instead of scriptures? Why did God inspire it be written to hold to traditions whether by word or epistle, instead of scriptures alone?
OK, I say that **not all **Catholics choose through their Christian faith and faith in Christ’s Church believe what the magisterium of the Church teaches.

Are these “Catholics” considered hypocrites by the Catholic Church?
I do not assume one’s disposition with God. It is my hope and prayer that all will be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

It seems some attempt to use disagreements between Catholics as a justification of their own faiths. Does two wrongs make a right?

The rest of your post has been addressed in this thread. Providing a ‘list’ of questions in one post appears to be an attempt to overwhelm another in a discussion. Are you going somewhere? Why can’t we discuss one question at a time?

How many times do we have to discuss the keys to the kingdom of heaven? Keys open and allow entry; authority to bind and loose is authority to set doctrines. Chrst spoke specifically to His Apostles, the authority of His Church, and told them they had the authority to forgive and retain sins.

The Church is infallible because Christ has the power to protect His truth, even through sinful men. Christ taught the people to listen to those who sat upon the chair of Moses, the authority over faith and morals, and do whatsoever they say, but because they, those who sat upon the seat of Moses, were sinful men don’t do as they do. Also, didn’t Christ promise the Apostles to be with them unto the consummation of the world, mortal men who would die before the consummation of the world? Christ’s promise was to the men of His Church.

Some try and diminish the Catholic faith as less than what they believe. What takes more faith, that God can only protect His inspired written word, or God can protect His inspired written or spoken word through His Church?
 
Back to Keys of Heaven-

Are Catholics saying that **only the Pope **has authority to appoint Bishops and Deacons through the holding of the Keys of Heaven?
The pope names the person to be consecrated as Bishop, and typically multiple Bishops participate in that ordination ceremony. Kind of a cross-pollenization thing to ensure that succession is always valid. Deacons and priests are ordained by Bishops.
Which if the answer is yes comes back to the question I have already asked -then why doesn’t the Pope appoint his successor? and recieved an answer to. That the Popes infallibiltiy does not represent the Keys of Heaven.

What does having the Keys of Heaven get you? I know you have said authority.

The root of some of my confussion-how all these pieces fit togther?

I asked about the authority of Popes appointing a successor and was answered - Pope infallibility is only to pronounce new Church Doctrine and “does not represent the Keys of Heaven.”

Does infallibility of the Pope represent the Keys of Heaven?

Am I understanding this correctly - The Pope holds the Keys of Heaven until he dies. The Bishops then are handed the keys by** [someone?] **and hold the Keys of Heaven until the next Pope is seatted. The Bishops hand over the Keys to the new Pope and he holds them until he dies and the cycle begins all over.

When did Bishops receive the authority to hold the Keys of Heaven?

Was the pronouncement of infallibility of Popes retroactive to all previous teachings?
Infallibility is a charism of the office - not the person. Therefore, whoever hold the office is protected from formally teaching error. Consequently, I don’t see any need to get tied up in knots about whether the Bishops hold the keys or not.

The keys are sitting on the desk when the newly elected pope walks in, and he just puts them in his pocket. 😛
 
Believers all have the keys to Jesus thru our faith in Him and the Bible.
 
Believers all have the keys to Jesus thru our faith in Him and the Bible.
yes,well fundamentally Christians could say that, however that is not what this debate is about is it. I think the subject has been covered pretty much all around.🤷:)Carlan
 
Believers all have the keys to Jesus thru our faith in Him and the Bible.
That’s great news!

However, that’s not what Jesus was referring to in Matthew 16:18-19 when He spoke to Peter alone.

Matthew 16:18-19 (New International Version)

18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

You personally don’t have the authority to bind and loose in and and on earth and neither do I, so it is obvious that Jesus was giving this unique authority to the head of the Church. Later, He included the other Apostles who formed the proto-magisterium of the early Church.
 
That’s great news!

However, that’s not what Jesus was referring to in Matthew 16:18-19 when He spoke to Peter alone.

Matthew 16:18-19 (New International Version)

18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

You personally don’t have the authority to bind and loose in and and on earth and neither do I, so it is obvious that Jesus was giving this unique authority to the head of the Church. Later, He included the other Apostles who formed the proto-magisterium of the early Church.
Please show us where Jesus told Peter to pass down the authority through the priesthood of popes in the CC. If it’s personal to Peter alone, how is it the authority got passed down (excluding sacred tradition where the CC says it has the authority).
 
Please show us where Jesus told Peter to pass down the authority through the priesthood of popes in the CC. If it’s personal to Peter alone, how is it the authority got passed down (excluding sacred tradition where the CC says it has the authority).
Why is Sacred Tradition to be excluded? It is the Word of God every bit as much as Sacred Scripture. 🤷

Apostolic Succession Proved from Scripture and History

Many people deny that the modern Catholic Church is the one Church Jesus promised to build (cf. Mt. 16:18-19) claiming that the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is not found in the Bible. Is this argument valid?

Let’s begin by examining the evidence contained in scripture as well as the non-scriptural writings of the earliest Christians for evidence of Apostolic Succession. The Bible contains clear indications that the Apostle Paul taught Apostolic Succession to his disciples and fellow workers, Timothy, Titus and Clement. Here are the relevant passages:

2 Timothy 2:1-2
You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

In the passage above, there are four generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Paul himself, 2. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 3. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 4. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach. Paul commanded Timothy to hand on the gospel to reliable men and further to ensure that those men would also hand on the gospel reliably.

Titus 1:5
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

In the passage above, we see that Paul was concerned with the appointing of capable leaders in the Cretan church. So in addition to his concern for the content of the message, he is concerned with the succession of the leadership, as well.

Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

In the passage from Philippians, Paul mentions one of his fellow workers, Clement, who was ordained by the Apostle Peter and later became the fourth Bishop of Rome (after Peter, Linus, and Anacletus). Like Paul, who addressed to epistles to the Church of Corinth, Clement wrote his own letter to the Corinthians around 80 AD. In that letter, he stated:

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (*Letter to the Corinthians *42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

“We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. (ibid.)

From these two passages, we can see that Clement had witnessed his mentors, the Apostles Peter and Paul, naming men to the office of Bishop and had received instructions from them that other men should succeed those Bishops appointed by the Apostles in the event that these first Bishops should die. Thus, history records that both the Apostles and their disciples such as Clement, Timothy and Titus understood and followed the practice of appointing successors to the Apostles in the Church.

(cont.)
 
While many seem to believe that anyone with a Bible may become a “pastor” by simply gathering around himself a group of fellow believers to form a church, the Bible itself teaches that true leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ must be ordained by those who were ordained before them. This process, known as Apostolic Succession, maintains an unbroken chain of continuity from Jesus, Peter and the Apostles to the leaders of the early Church.

The writings of other members of the early Church supports the idea of continuing Apostolic Succession. For example, the Apostle John discipled a man known today as Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp, in turn, discipled a man known as Irenaeus of Lyons. Around 180 AD, Irenaeus recorded the names of the leaders of the early church beginning with Peter down to his own day; thus, we have the following from a second-century (pre-Constantinian) Christian with impeccable credentials:

“3The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen from the episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that He still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the Apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded; and Alexander succeeded Evaristus. Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who also was gloriously martyred. Then Hyginus; after him, Pius; and after him, Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the Apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us.” (Against Heresies 3.3.3, [A.D. 180])

In this passage, Irenaeus traces the succession of the early Christian Church leaders from Peter down to Eleutherus in his own day—a span of approximately 120 years. Using other historical records, we can continue to trace the leadership of that same Church from Eleutherus all the way down to Pope Benedict XVI today.

The existence and leadership of this Church is well-documented and unassailable historical fact. The connection between the modern Catholic Church and the pre-Constantinian Church of Peter, James and John is undeniable.

These early eyewitness accounts together with the testimony of Sacred Scripture prove the doctrine of Apostolic Succession and the existence of the Catholic Church prior to Constantine, and they drive a stake through the heart of any argument that the New Testament churches were independent of one another and not actually local congregations of the One Church led by the local Bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter.
 
Why is Sacred Tradition to be excluded? It is the Word of God every bit as much as Sacred Scripture. 🤷

Apostolic Succession Proved from Scripture and History

Many people deny that the modern Catholic Church is the one Church Jesus promised to build (cf. Mt. 16:18-19) claiming that the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is not found in the Bible. Is this argument valid?

Let’s begin by examining the evidence contained in scripture as well as the non-scriptural writings of the earliest Christians for evidence of Apostolic Succession. The Bible contains clear indications that the Apostle Paul taught Apostolic Succession to his disciples and fellow workers, Timothy, Titus and Clement. Here are the relevant passages:

2 Timothy 2:1-2
You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

In the passage above, there are four generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Paul himself, 2. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 3. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 4. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach. Paul commanded Timothy to hand on the gospel to reliable men and further to ensure that those men would also hand on the gospel reliably.

Titus 1:5
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

In the passage above, we see that Paul was concerned with the appointing of capable leaders in the Cretan church. So in addition to his concern for the content of the message, he is concerned with the succession of the leadership, as well.

Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

In the passage from Philippians, Paul mentions one of his fellow workers, Clement, who was ordained by the Apostle Peter and later became the fourth Bishop of Rome (after Peter, Linus, and Anacletus). Like Paul, who addressed to epistles to the Church of Corinth, Clement wrote his own letter to the Corinthians around 80 AD. In that letter, he stated:

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (*Letter to the Corinthians *42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

“We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. (ibid.)

From these two passages, we can see that Clement had witnessed his mentors, the Apostles Peter and Paul, naming men to the office of Bishop and had received instructions from them that other men should succeed those Bishops appointed by the Apostles in the event that these first Bishops should die. Thus, history records that both the Apostles and their disciples such as Clement, Timothy and Titus understood and followed the practice of appointing successors to the Apostles in the Church.

(cont.)

Paul spoke of appointing leaders but no mention of ‘keys’ or ‘loosing and binding’.​

That was Paul. I asked where Jesus told Peter to pass on the keys. And then the Scripture that tells us the keys are to be passed through and to the CC.
 

Paul spoke of appointing leaders but no mention of ‘keys’ or ‘loosing and binding’.​

That was Paul. I asked where Jesus told Peter to pass on the keys. And then the Scripture that tells us the keys are to be passed through and to the CC.
Oh…you want to focus specifically on the keys.

Fine.

Jesus gives to Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. This alludes to the prophecy of Isaiah that reads,

"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Isaiah 22:22)

In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command or prime minister who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. Jesus gives Peter the authority to speak in His name and extends his authority beyond the earthly realm when he gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.”

The office continues even when the person holding the office dies or is replaced as shown by the fact that Eliakim took Shebnah’s place as royal steward.

Jesus is an eternal king, and the office of royal steward in His court is eternal, also.

Finally, Paul never spoke of handing on the keys because HE did not have them; Peter did.
 
Oh…you want to focus specifically on the keys. Isn’t that what the issue was that I was commenting on? Keys and binding and loosing???
Fine.

Jesus gives to Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. This alludes to the prophecy of Isaiah that reads,

"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Isaiah 22:22) - This reminds me of the reason the JW’s believe Jesus is the archangel Michael … 1Th 4:16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.

In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command or prime minister who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. Jesus gives Peter the authority to speak in His name and extends his authority beyond the earthly realm when he gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.” - You have far more faith than I do to be able to find that understanding in the Bible.
 
Dokimas-

Your responses come so quickly that it is not possible for you to have seriously considered the evidence. Perhaps if you took more than 5-10 minutes to read, reflect and pray about these things, you would find that they really do make sense.

Here is what some Protestant scholars have said after MUCH study:

Protestant Scholars on the Keys of the Kingdom

W.F. Albright


“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.)

Oscar Cullman (Lutheran)

“The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and petros: petra = Kepha = petros…Since Peter, the rock of the Church, is thus given by Christ Himself, the master of the house (Is. 22:22; Rev. 3:7), the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he is the human mediator of the resurrection, and he has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection…The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story…For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art Rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom He has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Cullmann, article on “Rock” (petros, petra) trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Eerdmans Publishing, 1968], volume 6, page 98, 107, 108)

R.T. France (Anglican)

"The name Peter means ‘Rock’, and Jesus played on this meaning to designate Peter as the foundation of the new people of God. His leadership would involve the authority of the steward, whose keys symbolized his responsibility to regulate the affairs of the household. Peter would exercise his leadership by his authority to declare what is and is not permissible in the kingdom of heaven (to bind and to loose have this meaning in rabbinic writings)…

Gerhardt Meier

“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 and conservative theologians agree…Matthew 16:18 ought not to be interpreted as a local church. The church in Matthew 16:18 is the universal entity, namely the people of God. There is an increasing consensus now that this verse concerning the power of the keys is talking about the authority to teach and to discipline, including even to absolve sins.The End of the Historical Critical Method, pp. 58-60].

The Interpreter’s Bible

“The keys of the kingdom would be permitted to the chief steward in the royal household and with them goes plenary authority, unlimited power, total. Post- apostolic Christianity is now beginning to ascribe to the Apostles the prerogatives of Jesus.”
 
Dokimas-

Your responses come so quickly that it is not possible for you to have seriously considered the evidence. Perhaps if you took more than 5-10 minutes to read, reflect and pray about these things, you would find that they really do make sense.

Here is what some Protestant scholars have said after MUCH study:

Protestant Scholars on the Keys of the Kingdom

W.F. Albright


“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.)

Oscar Cullman (Lutheran)

“The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and petros: petra = Kepha = petros…Since Peter, the rock of the Church, is thus given by Christ Himself, the master of the house (Is. 22:22; Rev. 3:7), the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he is the human mediator of the resurrection, and he has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection…The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story…For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art Rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom He has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Cullmann, article on “Rock” (petros, petra) trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Eerdmans Publishing, 1968], volume 6, page 98, 107, 108)

R.T. France (Anglican)

"The name Peter means ‘Rock’, and Jesus played on this meaning to designate Peter as the foundation of the new people of God. His leadership would involve the authority of the steward, whose keys symbolized his responsibility to regulate the affairs of the household. Peter would exercise his leadership by his authority to declare what is and is not permissible in the kingdom of heaven (to bind and to loose have this meaning in rabbinic writings)…

Gerhardt Meier

“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 and conservative theologians agree…Matthew 16:18 ought not to be interpreted as a local church. The church in Matthew 16:18 is the universal entity, namely the people of God. There is an increasing consensus now that this verse concerning the power of the keys is talking about the authority to teach and to discipline, including even to absolve sins.The End of the Historical Critical Method, pp. 58-60].

The Interpreter’s Bible

“The keys of the kingdom would be permitted to the chief steward in the royal household and with them goes plenary authority, unlimited power, total. Post- apostolic Christianity is now beginning to ascribe to the Apostles the prerogatives of Jesus.”
Who is this verse speaking of?

Rev 3:7 ¶ "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write, ‘These things says He who is holy, He who is true, “He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens”:
 
Believers all have the keys to Jesus thru our faith in Him and the Bible.
Hey tweetymom,

I already said that I could understand how you arrived at your interpretation and asked you to please explain how each individual believer has the authority to bind and loose. Are you going to respond and provide your interpretation on the context of the passage?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top