Whose Keys are These?

[Timonator348]

I’ve been having a discussion with a friend reference the significance of the “keys” in Matthew 16:19 ~ “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.”” In conjunction with Isaiah 22:22 “And I will place the key of the house of David upon his shoulder. And when he opens, no one will close. And when he closes, no one will open.”

My view of the “keys” is they denote authority and were given to Peter as the earthly representative to watch over God’s kingdom on earth just as in the Old Testament. My friend was saying in this passage Jesus is giving the “keys” to all his disciples after acknowledging Peter for his profession of faith. Does anyone have any other perspectives on this topic?

 

[marica_mandic]

I’ve been having a discussion with a friend reference the significance of the “keys” in Matthew 16:19 ~ “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.”” In conjunction with Isaiah 22:22 “And I will place the key of the house of David upon his shoulder. And when he opens, no one will close. And when he closes, no one will open.”

My view of the “keys” is they denote authority and were given to Peter as the earthly representative to watch over God’s kingdom on earth just as in the Old Testament. My friend was saying in this passage Jesus is giving the “keys” to all his disciples after acknowledging Peter for his profession of faith. Does anyone have any other perspectives on this topic?

I think that is the right of priest to confess.
One sins we are in heaven.

 

[TimothyH]

Many non-Catholics will claim that the “Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven” are the Gospels or the Scriptures or the Bible, which has sufficient information to get us into Heaven. They claim that Jesus gave us the word of God in the form of the Bible and these are the keys.

But this ignores the political context of the words “Keys to the kingdom” which as you point out, are alluded to in Isaiah 22.

Jesus’ words “I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven” would have been immediately recognized by all who heard him as a political appointment. The historically predominant form of government until that time was the monarchy. Under a monarchy, the king would appoint ministers and chief among them would be his first or “Prime” minister. This man would literally be given the keys to the kings treasury from which he could pay workers, raise armies, build roads and prisons and manage the day to day affairs of the kingdom on behalf of the king.

As was pointed out in the original post, Isaiah 22 references the removal from office of a prime minister and an appointment of another in his place. Note that the keys are placed “upon your shoulder” indicating the responsiblity which comes with ministering the day to day affairs on behalf of the king. We see exactly this several times in the Old Testament. Joseph experiences an appointment to the office of Egyptian Prime Minister reporting directly to Pharoah.

You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people shall dart at your command. Only in respect to the throne shall I outrank you. Herewith," Pharaoh told Joseph, “I place you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” With that, Pharaoh took off his signet ring and put it on Joseph’s finger. He had him dressed in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain about his neck. 2 He then had him ride in the chariot of his vizier, and they shouted “Abrek!” before him. Thus was Joseph installed over the whole land of Egypt. “I, Pharaoh, proclaim,” he told Joseph, “that without your approval no one shall move hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.” (Genesis 41:40-44)

The whole event forshadows Jesus’ appointment of Peter to the office of Prime Minister of His kingdom on earth until he comes again in glory. The same thing happens to Mordecai in the Book of Esther as well.

Remember that the Jews in Jesus’ time lived under Roman rule. All Roman subjects would have been required to swear an oath of allegiance to the god-man emperor. Jesus’ words about appointing a prime minister would have been viewed as treason. Peter was a prideful man and would have likely bragged about his appointment by Jesus and this would have led to arrest and exection for setting up a rival government. This is why Jesus strictly orderd the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the messian in the very next verse.

Your friends arguments have no basis other than the verse cited. The interpretation of the keys as visible authority however is backed up by many Old Testament examples. We have to consider the political, social and ecomonimc context under which the authors of scripture and their intended audience operated when we read scrpture. The historically Catholic intepretation of the keys as an appointment to an office of authority, leadership and responsibility has a very real basis in historical facts about the way monarchies operated in Biblical times and to a certain extent, still do to this present day.

-Tim-

 

[JRKH]

I’ve been having a discussion with a friend reference the significance of the “keys” in Matthew 16:19 ~ “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.”” In conjunction with Isaiah 22:22 “And I will place the key of the house of David upon his shoulder. And when he opens, no one will close. And when he closes, no one will open.”

My view of the “keys” is they denote authority and were given to Peter as the earthly representative to watch over God’s kingdom on earth just as in the Old Testament. My friend was saying in this passage Jesus is giving the “keys” to all his disciples after acknowledging Peter for his profession of faith. Does anyone have any other perspectives on this topic?

Your friend is expressing a common protestant teaching about this passage. In the protestant mind, any connection between the person of Simon Peter and Authority (papal authority) must be denied. This is because of the protestant rejection of the Authoritative Church leadership as developed in the RC church.
However - this is obviously imposing a meaning on the text which is clearly not there. Simply walk through the sentance structure and see who “YOU” must be (a profession is a “what”, not a “who”).

Keys are for opening and closing, locking or unlocking, access or no access…
Note how this promise of the keys is closely tied to the authority to bind and loose.
This same authority to bind and loose is also mentioned in Mt 18:15-18, but here there is no mention of “keys”.
Jesus uses the term “Church” (ekklesia) exactly twice in the Gospels. Both times in Matthew and both times in connection with granting the “Bind and Loose” authority.

So, in order for your friend’s view to be correct, he must also believe that each individual believer has the authority to “Bind and Loose”. Something that is clearly NOT taught in Mt 18:15-18.
Here it is the community (ekklesia - church) which trumps the individual. So the Authority to bind and loose resides in the “Church”. The Keys, likewise lie with the Church as a unit, and specifically with the Church leadership (the “you” of Peter, not the “what” of Peter’s confession). They do not lie with each individual…

Peace
James

 

[Hecares]

I’ve been having a discussion with a friend reference the significance of the “keys” in Matthew 16:19 ~ “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.”” In conjunction with Isaiah 22:22 “And I will place the key of the house of David upon his shoulder. And when he opens, no one will close. And when he closes, no one will open.”

My view of the “keys” is they denote authority and were given to Peter as the earthly representative to watch over God’s kingdom on earth just as in the Old Testament. My friend was saying in this passage Jesus is giving the “keys” to all his disciples after acknowledging Peter for his profession of faith. Does anyone have any other perspectives on this topic?

The new edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says in section 553 that Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter in Matthew 16:19. It also states that although Jesus entrusted “authority to absolve sins, pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions to the Church… through the ministry of the apostles”(Matt.18:18) and in particular through Peter," the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys to the kingdom."

 

[WorkerPriest]

As a minor point of clarification, not all the Reformation Churches understand things the same way.

For Confessional Lutherans, we follow the interpretation of this passage as it is found in many of the ancient Fathers, including St. John Chrysostom, which is familiar with the Eastern Churches. What Christ delivers to St. Peter in the singular is a real power to forgive and retain sins, which are in fact the Keys of the Kingdom.

What is given to St. Peter in the singular of Matthew 16, is given by Christ in the plural to the Apostles in John 20 (incidentally, that’s the Gospel text of our lectionary for Sunday’s Mass.) The Apostolic office is given these Keys to forgive and retain sins in Christ’s name, and they carry that authority out in the mission work of the Church we read in Acts (and in the early Fathers and Histories.)

So, in the Lutheran Churches, our confessional position is that this office is administered rightly by priests and bishops, rightly called and ordained into the Office of the Holy Ministry. This is also why we still maintain the Sacrament of Confession and Absolution in our churches, as can be found in our standard hymnals and liturgical texts.

Grace and peace to you.

I’ve been having a discussion with a friend reference the significance of the “keys” in Matthew 16:19 ~ “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.”” In conjunction with Isaiah 22:22 “And I will place the key of the house of David upon his shoulder. And when he opens, no one will close. And when he closes, no one will open.”

My view of the “keys” is they denote authority and were given to Peter as the earthly representative to watch over God’s kingdom on earth just as in the Old Testament. My friend was saying in this passage Jesus is giving the “keys” to all his disciples after acknowledging Peter for his profession of faith. Does anyone have any other perspectives on this topic?

 

[Mickey]

As a minor point of clarification, not all the Reformation Churches understand things the same way.

For Confessional Lutherans, we follow the interpretation of this passage as it is found in many of the ancient Fathers, including St. John Chrysostom, which is familiar with the Eastern Churches. What Christ delivers to St. Peter in the singular is a real power to forgive and retain sins, which are in fact the Keys of the Kingdom.

What is given to St. Peter in the singular of Matthew 16, is given by Christ in the plural to the Apostles in John 20 (incidentally, that’s the Gospel text of our lectionary for Sunday’s Mass.) The Apostolic office is given these Keys to forgive and retain sins in Christ’s name, and they carry that authority out in the mission work of the Church we read in Acts (and in the early Fathers and Histories.)

Indeed! That is also the understanding of the Holy Orthodox Church.

And therefore it is said to him, preferentially, after the confession: "And I give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and if thou bindest upon the earth, it will be bound in the Heavens: and if thou loosenest upon the earth, it will be loosened in the Heavens (Mt 16; 19). Wherefore it was not one man, but rather the One Universal Church, that received these “keys” and the right “to bind and loosen.” And that actually it was the Church that received this right, and not exclusively a single person, turn your attention to another place of the Scriptures, where the same Lord says to also all His Apostles: “Receive ye the Holy Spirit” – and further after this: “Whoseso sins ye remit, are remitted them: and whoseso sins ye retain, are retained” (Jn 20:22-23); or: “with what ye bind upon the earth, will be bound in Heaven: and with what ye loosen upon the earth, will be loosened in the Heavens” (Mt 18:18). Thus, it is the Church that binds, the Church that loosens; the Church, built upon the foundational corner-stone – Jesus Christ Himself (Eph 2:20) doth bind and loosen. Let both the binding and the loosening be feared: the loosening, in order not to fall under this again; the binding, in order not to remain forever in this condition. Wherefore “by the passions of his own sins – says Wisdom – is each ensnared” (Prov 5:22); and except for Holy Church nowhere is it possible to receive the loosening.
St Augustine

 

[Randy_Carson]

My friend was saying in this passage Jesus is giving the “keys” to all his disciples after acknowledging Peter for his profession of faith. Does anyone have any other perspectives on this topic?

Your friend has to think that to avoid the obvious Catholic implications.

Peter – The Rock, Keeper of the Keys and Royal Steward

"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:13-19)

Peter’s understanding that Jesus was the Son of God did not come from working it out on his own. Instead, God the Father infused this revelation into Peter’s mind thus imprinting His seal of approval upon this humble fisherman. Jesus recognized that Simon had already been anointed by His Father in this way and declared, “Blessed are you.” The Father had blessed Simon with knowledge of the Son.

Jesus gave him the name, “Kepha”, an Aramaic word that means “rock”. In the original, the passage would read, “You are kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus also announces the establishment of His Church, and clearly delineates Kepha as its leader. Although Jesus spoke Aramaic, the New Testament was written in Greek, and “Kepha” would have been translated into the Greek words for “rock” which are “petra” or “petros”. “Petra” is the feminine form of the masculine word, “petros”. Petros is more suitable for a man. Therefore, from “petros” we derive the English name, “Peter”. For us modern readers then, Jesus’ pronouncement reads, “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church.” What is it about Peter’s character that caused Jesus to compare him to something as solid as rock? Isn’t this the same Peter who Jesus called “Satan” just a few verses later? (cf. Mt 16:23) Isn’t this the same Peter who would deny the Lord three times after his arrest? (cf. Lk 22:34) Surely this unstable character is anything but solid rock upon which a Church could be built; yet, Jesus sees something deeper in Peter’s character, and His choice would be vindicated when Peter ultimately received a martyr’s crown via crucifixion.

Jesus gave Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven”. In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:

"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 the passage above, God is speaking, and He confirms the existence of the office, the key, and the continuation of the office despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else.

In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

The passage quoted above from Matthew tells us that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, and the successors of Peter have taken his place in the eternal office that Jesus established in His royal court.

In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:

"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)

Jesus specifically referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter. Peter has received authority from Jesus to speak in His name. To do so faithfully, Peter must not teach error; therefore, Peter (and his successors who hold the office) are protected by God through the charism of infallibility.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What Christ delivers to St. Peter in the singular is a real power to forgive and retain sins, which are in fact the Keys of the Kingdom.

What is given to St. Peter in the singular of Matthew 16, is given by Christ in the plural to the Apostles in John 20

.

There is no mention of “keys” in Matthew 18 or John 20. The keys were given to Peter alone, and this is because they signify MORE than the authority to bind and loose or to forgive and retain (which the other apostles did receive).

Luther understood that Peter alone had received the keys from Jesus. He wrote:

“So we stand here and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Matthew 16:19 that He will give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys, but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has, and no others. It is as if He were saying: why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of Heaven, but they are not found in Heaven. I left them on earth. Don’t look for them in Heaven or anywhere else except in Peter’s mouth where I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing.” (*Martin Luther, The Keys, in Conrad Bergendoff, ed. trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergendoff, Luthers Works, vol. 40, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958, p. 365-366.) *

 

[Mickey]

Jesus specifically referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter.

I have heard that argument from modern day Roman Catholic apologists…but I have never seen patristic sources.

 

[Barbkw]

Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

And so I say to you, you are Kepha (rock), and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. **Whatever you bind **on earth shall be bound in heaven; and **whatever you loose **on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

I own a business and I have a set of master keys to various parts of my building.

I have one employee whom I trust above all the others.

To him only, I’ve given one of those master keys to access various areas.

And, I have selected him to direct and dictate how work is completed and handled in my absence.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I own a business and I have a set of master keys to various parts of my building.

I have one employee whom I trust above all the others.

To him only, I’ve given one of those master keys to access various areas.

And, I have selected him to direct and dictate how work is completed and handled in my absence.

:clapping:

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have heard that argument from modern day Roman Catholic apologists…but I have never seen patristic sources.

Me, either.

Do you think the Fathers missed it or was this simply too obvious for them to comment upon?

 

[James_Trevor]

I have heard that argument from modern day Roman Catholic apologists…but I have never seen patristic sources.

Apart from the account in Matthew (patristic I would think), this site includes quotes from Tertullian, St. Francis, St. Irenaeus, and St. Cyprian of Carthage. catholicfaithandreason.org/papal-supremacy-in-the-bible-and-church-fathers.html

I would submit that I have never seen patristic sources denying Papal supremacy. Please, if you do have any, show them.

In Christ

 

[Mickey]

Apart from the account in Matthew (patristic I would think),

Matthew is not interpreting himself.

this site includes quotes from Tertullian, St. Francis, St. Irenaeus, and St. Cyprian of Carthage.

St Francis is post schism. But I see nothing in these quotes which claims that the keys are exclusively given to St Peter or that there is a link to the passage in Isaiah (apart from the author’s opinion).

I would submit that I have never seen patristic sources denying Papal supremacy. Please, if you do have any, show them.

“Papal supremacy” is a post schism Roman Catholic development. I can show you dozens of quotes contrary to it, but this thread is not about “papal supremacy.”

 

[Mickey]

Do you think the Fathers missed it

I think it is innovation by the modern day RC apologists.

 

[JRKH]

Me, either.

Do you think the Fathers missed it or was this simply too obvious for them to comment upon?

In this I think it best to look at the overall history of the Church.
By what little I know, the split between East and West, the problem was less over the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as Peter’s successor, as it was over the definitition and application of that primacy as it related tot he other Ancient Sees.

So, It may well be that, as you say above, it was something too obvious to comment on, but there most certainly would have been an element of differing understandings in what “primacy” (holding the keys) entailed.

Peace
James

 

[Mickey]

For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now.
St John Chrysosotom

 

[James_Trevor]

St Francis is post schism.

Point taken.

But I see nothing in these quotes which claims that the keys are exclusively given to St Peter.

Writing in 251 A.D., St. Cyprian of Carthage noted:

And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep’ (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"

or that there is a link to the passage in Isaiah (apart from the author’s opinion).

Agreed, this particular site gives no quote from Church father’s saying that there is a link to Isaiah.

“Papal supremacy” is a post schism Roman Catholic development.

No I’m afraid not, even if you deny the patristic sources you can’t deny that controversy over the authority of the Bishop of Rome was a part of the schism.

I can show you dozens of quotes contrary to it, but this thread is not about “papal supremacy.”

This thread is about whether God gave the “keys” to Peter in particular and, if true, what those keys represent. I, along with other posters, have submitted that Peter alone received the keys and they represent authority. The Papacy, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, is the Chair of St. Peter. So please, show us patristic sources denying “the authority given to Peter by the reception of the keys”.

For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now.

Roman Catholic’s do not deny that God Himself has authority over all. That is what this is saying. Are you submitting that by “Son of thunder” St. John Chrysosotom was talking about James and John? That is proven wrong contextually.

I apologize if any of this sounds rude or too blunt. I’m attempting to sound charitable…

In Christ

 

[Mickey]

Writing in 251 A.D., St. Cyprian of Carthage noted:

And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep’ (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"

Primacy is not supremacy. St Peter was also bishop of Antioch. We claim him too. He was Orthodox.

No I’m afraid not, even if you deny the patristic sources you can’t deny that controversy over the authority of the Bishop of Rome was a part of the schism.

Indeed! Papal Supremacy/infallibility, which was championed and made doctrine in 1870 by Pius IX, is the biggest obstacle to reunion.

This thread is about whether God gave the “keys” to Peter in particular and, if true, what those keys represent. I, along with other posters, have submitted that Peter alone received the keys and they represent authority. The Papacy, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, is the Chair of St. Peter. So please, show us patristic sources denying “the authority given to Peter by the reception of the keys”.

Of course St Peter was given the keys! All the Apostles were given the keys by virtue of the power to bind and loose.

Roman Catholic’s do not deny that God Himself has authority over all. That is what this is saying. Are you submitting that by “Son of thunder” St. John Chrysosotom was talking about James and John? That is proven wrong contextually.

He is talking about St John…and he mentions that he holds the keys to heaven.

I apologize if any of this sounds rude or too blunt. I’m attempting to sound charitable.

Likewise. I have been in this debate too many times and it gets contentious very quickly. I am simply setting forth the Orthodox side as best I can with patristic quotes and bit of historical perspective. I do not mean to offend.

Christ is Risen!