Whose Keys are These?

[Randy_Carson]

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

Oh.

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.)

William Barclay

We now come to two phrases in which Jesus describes certain privileges which were given to and certain duties which were laid on Peter.

He says that he will give to Peter the keys of the Kingdom. This is obviously a difficult phrase; and we will do well to begin by detting down the things about it of which we can be sure…All these New Testament pictures and usages go back to a picture in Isaiah (Isaiah 22:22). Isaiah describes Eliakim, who will have the key of the house of David on his shoulder, and who alone [emphasis added] will open and shut. Now the duty of Eliakim was to be the faithful steward of the house. It is the steward who carries the keys of the house, who in the morning opens the door, and in the evening shuts it, and through whom visitors gain access to the royal presence. So then what Jesus is saying to Peter is that in the days to come, he will be the steward of the Kingdom…

Oscar Cullman

“In Matthew 16:19 it is presupposed that Christ is the master of the house, who has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, with which to open to those who wish to come in. Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord lays the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so Jesus commits to Peter the keys of His house, the Kingdom of Heaven, and thereby installs him as administrator of the house.” (Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 1953).

R.T. France

“These terms (binding and loosing) thus refer to a teaching function, and more specifically one of making halakhic pronouncements (i.e. relative to laws not written down in Jewish Scriptures but based on an oral interpretation of them) which are binding on the people of God. In that case, Peter’s ‘power of the keys’ declared in (Matt) 16:19 is not so much that of a doorkeeper, who decides who may or may not be admitted, but that of the steward whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household” (Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, 1989, 247).

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.”

 

[James_Trevor]

I have many questions, I apologize in advance…

Primacy is not supremacy. St Peter was also bishop of Antioch. We claim him too. He was Orthodox. Indeed! Papal Supremacy/infallibility, which was championed and made doctrine in 1870 by Pius IX, is the biggest obstacle to reunion.

Hmm… I am unaware of the difference of primacy/supremacy please explain (if you don’t want to clog up the thread you can PM me). And could you give a source of the 1870 doctrine?

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

I would still contend that the “keys” represent authority as well as primacy is given to St. Peter since Jesus calls him out as an individual in the only passage that mentions “keys”.

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

Oops! I read it as “For the Son of thunder, the beloved Christ” Hmm… Why is Son capitalized? Do you know where the quote is from? Is St. John Chrysosotom talking about authority or “binding and loosing sins”?

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.

Well Mickey, you’ve got a friend in me! I did not take you as offensive, thank you for your charity

In Christ

 

[Mickey]

Protestant Scholars on the Keys of the Kingdom

LOL! Why would I be interested in protestant scholars?

 

[TimothyH]

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.

This is an amazing post.

 

[Mickey]

Hmm… I am unaware of the difference of primacy/supremacy please explain (if you don’t want to clog up the thread you can PM me). And could you give a source of the 1870 doctrine?

I will pm you.

I would still contend that the “keys” represent authority as well as primacy is given to St. Peter since Jesus calls him out as an individual in the only passage that mentions “keys”.

We can see how Christ ties the keys into binding and loosing and then gives that authority to the others in Matt 18:18. And as already mentioned it is discussed in John 20. It is very obvious to me that the keys were given to all the Apostles. But I am not here to change your mind.

Do you know where the quote is from?

It comes from his Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1

Well Mickey, you’ve got a friend in me! I did not take you as offensive, thank you for your charity

Peace be unto you.

Here is another quote I like. He is a post schism saint. But he is barely post schism.

He spoke as God, with authority, “I will give unto thee.” For as the Father gave you the revelation, so I give you the keys. By “keys” understand that which binds or looses transgressions, namely, penance or absolution; for those who, like Peter, have been deemed worthy of the grace of the episcopate, have the authority to absolve or to bind. Even though the words “I will give unto thee” were spoken to Peter alone, yet they were given to all the apostles. Why? Because He said, “Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted.” Also, the words “I will give” indicate a future time, namely, after the Resurrection. “The heavens” also mean the virtues, and the keys to the heavens are labors. For by laboring we enter into each of the virtues as if by means of keys that are used to open. If I do not labor but only know the good, I possess only the key of knowledge but remain outside. That man is bound in the heavens, that is, in the virtues, who does not walk in them, but he who is diligent in acquiring virtues is loosed in them. Therefore let us not have sins, so that we may not be bound by the chains of our own sins.
Blessed Theophylact of Ochrid

 

[Timonator348]

It seems making the argument of the keys being tied into the binding and loosing authority and therefore given to all the disciples seems to completely ignore the Old Testament context. I’ve seen people explain away the New Testament keys in this fashion but never in correlation to the Old Testament, particulaly Isaiah 22:22. This is easily understood in the Catholic perspective as Jesus uses almost identical wording in Matthew 16:19 and both pertain to appointing one man to watch over the kingdom.

 

[Mickey]

It seems making the argument of the keys being tied into the binding and loosing authority and therefore given to all the disciples seems to completely ignore the Old Testament context.

That is because there is no Old Testament context. There is no patristic evidence of any sort that ties it to the Matthew passage. In Revelation 3:7 Jesus quotes from Isaiah 22:22 and applies it to himself (and it is singular not plural—which has Messianic implications). It is only modern RC apologists who have attempted to unite the two passages (I think Scott Hahn started it).

“He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church.”
The City of God, by St. Augustine

 

[Mickey]

“Driven from this line of defence you will appeal to the example of the clergy. … Far be it from me to censure the successors of the apostles, who with holy words consecrate the body of Christ, and who make us Christians. Having the keys of the kingdom of heaven, they judge men to some extent before the day of judgment, and guard the chastity of the bride of Christ. But, as I have before hinted, the case of monks is different from that of the clergy. The clergy feed Christ’s sheep; I as a monk am fed by them.”
St. Jerome****

 

[pablope]

It seems making the argument of the keys being tied into the binding and loosing authority and therefore given to all the disciples seems to completely ignore the Old Testament context. I’ve seen people explain away the New Testament keys in this fashion but never in correlation to the Old Testament, particulaly Isaiah 22:22. This is easily understood in the Catholic perspective as Jesus uses almost identical wording in Matthew 16:19 and both pertain to appointing one man to watch over the kingdom.

“Mickey” is anti-pope. So, if you want the Catholic perspective, I suggest look at the Catholic responses. For those against, look at Mickey’s and those of the protestants and see how similar they are.

They both ignore the other quotes from other ECFs that discuss the primacy of the pope, or take out of context some quotes.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

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 cannot be correct because the Greek word for “you” in Matthew is in the singular–so clearly only Peter receives the keys in this passage. And I think it’s pretty clearly an allusion to Isaiah 22, although the Septuagint of Isa. 22:22 is problematic in this regard—reading something like “and I will give the glory of David to him and he will rule and no one will speak against him.” No shoulders, keys or opening or shutting or binding and loosing. However, it’s all there in the Hebrew text.

The narrative gist of Isaiah 22 is that the king takes away power over his household from Shebna (22:15) and gives it in the form of keys (he’s the master of the household) to Eliakim (22:20). However, I’m guessing because the Roman Catholic lectionary ends its reading at verse 23 (21st Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year A, I believe) there seems to be some unfamiliarity with how the story of Eliakim actually turns out. If you keep reading, you’ll note that Eliakim utterly fails in his responsibility: “I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his ancestral house. And they will hang on him the whole weight of his ancestral house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. On that day, says the LORD of hosts,* the peg that was fastened in a secure place will give way; it will be cut down and fall, and the load that was on it will perish*, for the LORD has spoken.”

This prediction from Isaiah exactly mirrors what happens in Matthew 16–in less than 10 verses, Peter goes from being “the man with the keys” to being a “Satan” (16:23). Matthew’s portrayal of Peter overall follows this same pattern–Peter usually begins well and ends poorly (14:28-31; 17:1, 18:21 and of course the whole chapter of Matthew 26).

Because of Peter’s failure in chapter 16, Jesus strikingly “re-delegates” the power to bind and loose to all of the apostles–this time using “you” in the plural (18:18-19)–clearly giving all the apostles equivalent authority.

 

[Byzman]

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

Mickey, I too am a Eastern Christian. My two favorite Eastern Fathers are, of course, St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom. With this in mind…I know some of the things that Chrysostom says is not held up in belief to this very day…though since he is my favorite, I will try to defend him in everything that he says possible.

First, it must be said that the “Keys” belong to the Church. The Fathers had no problem saying such a thing whatsoever. Today, we as Catholics, must say that the Keys were given to the Church. Nothing wrong with this view, whatsoever, for it is not a contradiction to the Primacy and Supremacy of Peter. Now, the fathers should not be misquoted though for any argument. For instance, our separated brethen would see that the fathers say the Church was given the “keys,” and this would be enough for them to ignore Peter’s Primacy. Notice I said “Primacy” because Peter was given the “Keys” only. Where does it mention “keys” given to any other apostle? But by being united to Peter as the head, one by extension posseses the “keys” in the Church. Hence, the Church has the Keys. I think this is what the proper interpretation of the Fathers are.

Lets look at Chrysostom… since you bring a quote up from him and I feel the need to defend him.

I would fain inquire then of those who desire to lessen the dignity of the Son, which manner of gifts were greater, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave him? For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to a mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven. “For heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away.” Matthew 24:35 How then is He less, who has given such gifts, has effected such things?

And these things I say, not dividing the works of Father and Son (“for all things are made by Him, and without Him was nothing made which was made”): but bridling the shameless tongue of them that dare so to speak.

But see, throughout all, His authority: “I say unto you, You are Peter; I will build the Church; I will give you the keys of Heaven.”

newadvent.org/fathers/200154.htm

 

[Mickey]

“Mickey” is anti-pope. So, if you want the Catholic perspective, I suggest look at the Catholic responses. For those against, look at Mickey’s and those of the protestants and see how similar they are.

They both ignore the other quotes from other ECFs that discuss the primacy of the pope, or take out of context some quotes.

On the contrary…the protestants broke from Rome. There are many protestant opinions in agreement with your own. I am not anti-pope. There were many great saint popes before the schism. You will see some ECF’s talk about St Peter receiving the keys. You will see others talk about all the Apostles receiving the keys (sometimes the same Fathers who said St Peter received the keys). It means that they** all** received the keys. What’s the big deal?

 

[Mickey]

First, it must be said that the “Keys” belong to the Church.

Amen.

Notice I said “Primacy” because Peter was given the “Keys” only.

The keys belong to St Peter, all the Apostles, and the Church.

Where does it mention “keys” given to any other apostle?

It is a no-brainer my friend. It is so very obvious that the keys are linked with binding and loosing…multiple Church Fathers have said this…and I have quoted some of them.

 

[Mickey]

Lets look at Chrysostom… since you bring a quote up from him and I feel the need to defend him.

That is a wonderful quote…and the Holy Orthodox Church would not disagree with anything that he said here. St Peter was absolutely given the keys. But St John Chrysostom does not say that he was the only one. The Orthodox Church has a great veneration of St Peter. We have a feast dedicated to him and St Paul preceded by a four week fast. St John, the Golden-mouthed, had multitudes of wonderful quotes. We take them all into consideration when reading his works.

 

[Byzman]

That is a wonderful quote…and the Holy Orthodox Church would not disagree with anything that he said here. St Peter was absolutely given the keys. But St John Chrysostom does not say that he was the only one. The Orthodox Church has a great veneration of St Peter. We have a feast dedicated to him and St Paul preceded by a four week fast. St John, the Golden-mouthed, had multitudes of wonderful quotes. We take them all into consideration when reading his works.

Maybe you missed it when I said how the Church, that is the rest of the Church, posseses the keys. It is only done by extension by being united to Peter as their head. Without this, than no keys are possesed.

 

[Mickey]

Maybe you missed it when I said how the Church, that is the rest of the Church, posseses the keys. It is only done by extension by being united to Peter as their head. Without this, than no keys are possesed.

Maybe you missed it where I said by virtue of the binding and loosing, all the Apostles hold the keys. St Peter was not the “supreme” Apostle.

Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

 

[Byzman]

Maybe you missed it where I said by virtue of the binding and loosing, all the Apostles hold the keys.

Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

Where are the “keys” mentioned in Matthew 18:18? Do “keys” only mean just binding and loosing, or is the excercising of the binding and loosing one aspect of possesing the “keys?” I think this is the most possibility. In fact, I say “keys” mean something more than binding and loosing…perhaps this is why “keys” are not mentioned in Matthew 18:18.

 

[Mickey]

Where are the “keys” mentioned in Matthew 18:18?

Are you are sola Scripturist? I thought that was a protestant apologetic to say: “Show me where it says that in Scripture.”

A belief that the Son of God is Son in name only, and not in nature, is not the faith of the Gospels and of the Apostles…whence I ask, was it that the blessed Simon Bar–Jona confessed to Him, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God?..And this is the rock of confession whereon the Church is built…that Christ must be not only named, but believed, the Son of God. This faith is that which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven…The very reason why he is blessed is that he confessed the Son of God. This is the Father’s revelation, this the foundation of the Church, this the assurance of her permanence. Hence has she the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence judgment in heaven and judgment on earth…Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter’s mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God.
St Hilary of Poitiers

 

[Barbkw]

Maybe you missed it where I said by virtue of the binding and loosing, all the Apostles hold the keys. St Peter was not the “supreme” Apostle.

Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

Jesus said, “Kepha (Peter)…do you love Me more than these?”

Jesus said to Kepha, “Feed my lambs.” “Tend my sheep.” “Feed my sheep.”

 

[Mickey]

Jesus said to Kepha, “Feed my lambs.” “Tend my sheep.” “Feed my sheep.”

Yes. The triple affirmation to atone for the triple denial. But that is for another thread.