Whose Keys are These?

[Dave_Noonan]

That is clear from Matthew 18. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

**“The keys of the kingdom” **

551 From the beginning of his public life Jesus chose certain men, twelve in number, to be with him and to participate in his mission.280 He gives the Twelve a share in his authority and 'sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal."281 They remain associated for ever with Christ’s kingdom, for through them he directs the Church:
As my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.282

552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve;283 Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it."284 Christ, the “living Stone”,285 thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.286

553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."287 The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep."288 The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles289 and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.

The point of the reference to Isaiah 22 (aside from the obvious re-establishment of the office) is to illustrate that the office continues in existence even when there is a change of office holder. IOW, Is. 22 not only tells us that Peter has received the office of royal steward but also that Peter’s successors will receive it, also.

Shebna was succeeded by Eliakim. Eliakim was succeeded by someone else. etc.

Peter was succeeded by Linus. Linus was succeeded by Anacletus. etc.

Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of His royal steward is eternal, also.

Neither Shebna nor Eliakim were good examples of what a royal steward should be. Some popes have not been, either.

So what?

Solely because Peter comes off so poorly in Matthew (and this rise-fall pattern as a literary type keeps being repeated in reference to Peter’s), I would say the point of the allusion to the keys of Isa 22 is that Peter’s “promotion,” like Eliakim’s, isn’t going to last very long; it’s basically a foreshadowing or tip to the reader of what is coming a few verses later when the whole thing collapses (22:25): Jesus says, “I am giving to you the keys of the kingdom…” and the reader who knows Isa 22, immediately says to him/herself, “uh-oh–this isn’t going to end very well at all.”

Also recall that the whole Jesus-as-king image is actually problematized in the Gospels, particularly in Mark and Matthew. Royal imagery is what the people in Matthew 21 clearly have in mind, but just like Peter, they don’t understand what type of “anointed one” God has in mind. Peter mistakenly thinks he’s getting some sort of big-wig royal office–clearly not understanding the real significance of Jesus’ anointing and mission. IMO it’s always a mistake to fall on the wrong side of this issue.

 

[JRKH]

You think the Pope is a baby sitter?

The Episcopal Church has a bishop who cares for her flock. Recently two female Episcopal priests married each other (in the Episcopal church). I’d imagine it will be a few short years and noncelibate same sex attracted bishops will be marrying as well.

Barb - it is really unfair to try and equate one tradition with another tradition. Please try to be charitable and remain on track.

The EO Church has held true to the Gospel for as long as We have in the Western Church. The Schism we now have is the result more of political issues and personal sins than on any insurrmountable theological issues.
Please recognize this and give the EO Church the respect it rightly deserves.

Who decides in the Orthodox faith, when Bishops have conflicting interpretation concerning the interpretation of moral issues:

contraception, abortion, euthanasia, women’s ordination, protection of marriage, chastity in same sex attraction, in vitro fertilization, heretical interpretation of Sacred Scripture, etc. ?

I am no expert in this but the EO follows a councilior model. They communicate, and try to come up with a common teaching.
We in the West do the same thing.
Do you think that the Pope sits up there, thinks deeply and then makes a pronouncement? I’m sure you do not think that.
Rather the entire Church, at one level or another and to greater or lesser extent, becomes in volved in discussion, debate, research, prayer, consideration and discernment over an issue. Eventually all of this discussion makes its way up the chain, throught he bishops and the curia to the pope. Even then it is likely to swirl around awhile before a consensus is reached and the Pope issues a teaching.
So the only difference between East And West is that in the East they give more emphasis to council where in the west we give more emphasis to the pronouncement by the Pope, but in point of fact in both churches the system works quite similarly.

Peace
James

 

[coosa]

Solely because Peter comes off so poorly in Matthew (and this rise-fall pattern as a literary type keeps being repeated in reference to Peter’s), I would say the point of the allusion to the keys of Isa 22 is that Peter’s “promotion,” like Eliakim’s, isn’t going to last very long; it’s basically a foreshadowing or tip to the reader of what is coming a few verses later when the whole thing collapses (22:25): Jesus says, “I am giving to you the keys of the kingdom…” and the reader who knows Isa 22, immediately says to him/herself, “uh-oh–this isn’t going to end very well at all.”

Also recall that the whole Jesus-as-king image is actually problematized in the Gospels, particularly in Mark and Matthew. Royal imagery is what the people in Matthew 21 clearly have in mind, but just like Peter, they don’t understand what type of “anointed one” God has in mind. Peter mistakenly thinks he’s getting some sort of big-wig royal office–clearly not understanding the real significance of Jesus’ anointing and mission. IMO it’s always a mistake to fall on the wrong side of this issue.

Why do you say Peter thought that he was getting a royal office?

 

[Byzman]

Solely because Peter comes off so poorly in Matthew (and this rise-fall pattern as a literary type keeps being repeated in reference to Peter’s), I would say the point of the allusion to the keys of Isa 22 is that Peter’s “promotion,” like Eliakim’s, isn’t going to last very long; it’s basically a foreshadowing or tip to the reader of what is coming a few verses later when the whole thing collapses (22:25): Jesus says, “I am giving to you the keys of the kingdom…” and the reader who knows Isa 22, immediately says to him/herself, “uh-oh–this isn’t going to end very well at all.”

Also recall that the whole Jesus-as-king image is actually problematized in the Gospels, particularly in Mark and Matthew. Royal imagery is what the people in Matthew 21 clearly have in mind, but just like Peter, they don’t understand what type of “anointed one” God has in mind. Peter mistakenly thinks he’s getting some sort of big-wig royal office–clearly not understanding the real significance of Jesus’ anointing and mission. IMO it’s always a mistake to fall on the wrong side of this issue.

No… what you are forgetting to mention is that in Isaiah 22:25, “the day” that this is speaking of can refer to two things…usually in the Old Testament it refers to God’s coming judgement…this can also refer to the idea that there will be a new covenant set up that the prophets speak of so strongly and therefore a change of the old. Both of these interpretations can be held by a Christian so easily. I see nothing in reference to Peter having weaknesses…instead rather what Christ said for establishing a new covenant is said on better promises…not like the Old(Hebrews 8:6). There is nothing in this text pointing anything to Peter…because after all when Christ sent the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, was he like the man in Isaiah 22? Or in other words how could something like this refer to an everlasting covenant if Christ is changing the old to a new and everlasting covenant in which Peter has the Keys?

In that day, declares the Lord of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a secure place*** will give way, and it will be cut down and fall, and the load that was on it will be cut off,*** for the Lord has spoken.”
Isaiah 22:25 ESV

Sounds alot like God’s judgment to me…not Peter’s weakness.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Why do you say Peter thought that he was getting a royal office?

I think primarily from 16:22, where Peter presumes that it is his place to advise and rebuke Jesus. Also, allusion to the keys implies such when seen in light of Isa 22, and certainly this is not beyond the general aspirations of the disciples: e.g.,Matt 10:20-26, Acts 1:6.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

No… what you are forgetting to mention is that in Isaiah 22:25, “the day” that this is speaking of can refer to two things…usually in the Old Testament it refers to God’s coming judgement…this can also refer to the idea that there will be a new covenant set up that the prophets speak of so strongly and therefore a change of the old. Both of these interpretations can be held by a Christian so easily. I see nothing in reference to Peter having weaknesses…instead rather what Christ said for establishing a new covenant is said on better promises…not like the Old(Hebrews 8:6). There is nothing in this text pointing anything to Peter…because after all when Christ sent the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, was he like the man in Isaiah 22? Or in other words how could something like this refer to an everlasting covenant if Christ is changing the old to a new and everlasting covenant in which Peter has the Keys?

Sounds alot like God’s judgment to me…not Peter’s weakness.

I certainly agree with your statement about “that day” being about God’s judgment–but not with your statement about the “new covenant”–which I think is only mentioned once in the entire O.T.

I’d say if it’s God’s judgment then it’s all the worse for Peter, if Matthew is really alluding to Isaiah 22. You can review Peter’s rise/fall motif in Matthew via the references in my earlier post (#30).

 

[Byzman]

How is it than God’s judgment on Peter? Does Jesus really call Peter Satan(since this where you base your claim as refering to Isaiah 22:25)? or does he call him something that Satan was generally known for? For instance, Peter’s mind wasnt quite ready yet…not that he now gave way…was cut down…fell…and cut off. This doesnt sound like the Peter of the NT to me. Instead, the Peter in the New Testament I know worked the same miracles as Christ.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Does Jesus really call Peter Satan(since this where you base your claim as refering to Isaiah 22:25)? or does he call him something that Satan was generally known for? For instance, Peter’s mind wasnt quite ready yet…not that he now gave way…was cut down…fell…and cut off. This doesnt sound like the Peter of the NT to me. Instead, the Peter in the New Testament I know worked the same miracles as Christ.

Yes, Jesus calls Peter “Satan” in Matt 16:23, because Peter has set his mind on human affairs (his position and future status) rather than divine affairs.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Why do you say Peter thought that he was getting a royal office?

Sorry, I also meant to include Matt 16:23.

 

[Byzman]

Yes, Jesus calls Peter “Satan” in Matt 16:23, because Peter has set his mind on human affairs (his position and future status) rather than divine affairs.

Future Status? Based on what you think of how Peter understood Isaiah 22? So you are saying that Peter thought “well now…hey Jesus!..um I have say so now.” I dont think so…you are now taking it out of context from what Peter said to Christ out of a love for Him(at least the love he thought for Him at that time).

From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” Matthew 16:21-22 ESV

I say this is out of love for Christ…think about it…Peter had just recieved a blessing from Christ. In no way would Peter want Him to go now!

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Future Status? Based on what you think of how Peter understood Isaiah 22? So you are saying that Peter thought “well now…hey Jesus!..um I have say so now.” I dont think so…you are now taking it out of context from what Peter said to Christ out of a love for Him(at least the love he thought for Him at that time).

I say this is out of love for Christ…think about it…Peter had just recieved a blessing from Christ. In no way would Peter want Him to go now!

Read 16:23 again. Jesus condemns Peter’s words in no uncertain terms.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Folks-

I want to expand upon an exchange I had with Mickey early in this thread.

Mickey asserted that the connection between Is. 22 and Mt. 16:18 was an invention of modern Roman Catholic apologists in post #16. He mentioned Scott Hahn specifically in post #27.

I responded with quotes from several Protestant scholars who also agree that the connection is valid in post #21.

He blew this off in post #23 saying:

“LOL! Why would I be interested in protestant scholars?”

Well, if Protestants agree that Is. 22 is behind Jesus’ thinking in Mt. 16, then it’s not JUST an invention of Catholic apologists, is it?

We all know that Protestant scholars have no interest in advancing the cause of Catholicism, yet some of them seem to agree with the idea that Peter was receiving something uniquely tied to the office of royal steward.

This connection cannot be dismissed so lightly. While I understand the position of the Orthodox Christians (to a limited degree), I do not think they should ignore the fact that Jesus established one man as the royal steward of His kingdom, and the successors of that man continue in that office to this very day.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Solely because Peter comes off so poorly in Matthew (and this rise-fall pattern as a literary type keeps being repeated in reference to Peter’s), I would say the point of the allusion to the keys of Isa 22 is that Peter’s “promotion,” like Eliakim’s, isn’t going to last very long; it’s basically a foreshadowing or tip to the reader of what is coming a few verses later when the whole thing collapses (22:25): Jesus says, “I am giving to you the keys of the kingdom…” and the reader who knows Isa 22, immediately says to him/herself, “uh-oh–this isn’t going to end very well at all.”

A conclusion forced by your ecclesiology. More to the point, however, is the fact that the OFFICE of royal steward continued even when the office holder was replaced.

Consequently, if you agree that Peter was made steward by the keys because of the connection to Is. 22, then the case for apostolic succession as understood by the Catholic Church is made.

Also recall that the whole Jesus-as-king image is actually problematized in the Gospels, particularly in Mark and Matthew. Royal imagery is what the people in Matthew 21 clearly have in mind, but just like Peter, they don’t understand what type of “anointed one” God has in mind. Peter mistakenly thinks he’s getting some sort of big-wig royal office–clearly not understanding the real significance of Jesus’ anointing and mission. IMO it’s always a mistake to fall on the wrong side of this issue.

Can you expand upon Peter’s mistake with a few verses so that I can be sure of what you’re referring to here? Thanks.

 

[Timonator348]

We all know that Protestant scholars have no interest in advancing the cause of Catholicism, yet some of them seem to agree with the idea that Peter was receiving something uniquely tied to the office of royal steward.

This connection cannot be dismissed so lightly. While I understand the position of the Orthodox Christians (to a limited degree), I do not think they should ignore the fact that Jesus established one man as the royal steward of His kingdom, and the successors of that man continue in that office to this very day.

This brings up a good point and it is important to note even most secular organizations or world governments operate under a similar system as they are actually modeled after the Church’s canon law and hierarchal structure. The President is the one visible head of America but he has successors as someone must always fill his office. I also think of it this way in a Police organization the Chief of Police has supreme power with Lieutenants/Commanders, Sergeants and patrol officers underneath him. Yet he always leaves one person in charge otherwise there would be chaos. The Kingdom of Heaven is not a democracy. One person has to hold the keys of ultimate authority as Christ’s prime minister on earth.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Noonan
So you would at least agree then that all disciples in Matthew’s Gospel have the equivalent power to bind and loose?

Yes,no arguments there,but why do many Protestants and Orthodoxs assume ALL received the keys? No where does Jesus even hint the other 11 received keys. If so,where and why? Unless I am mistaken,but in the OT only one person received the keys,not multiple people. I believe many want to down-grade Peter in order to debunk the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Second, unless there is another Tradition from the earlyy church teaching ALL received the keys,I would like to read those ‘unknown’ sources?

 

[PJM]

=Timonator348;7810652]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?

**Mt. 16: 19 **can ONLY be understood that Christ gave the key’s to Peter. However in **Mt. 18:18 **the authority is extended to all of the Apostles THROUGH PETER. Mt. 28:19-20 verifies this as do other passages.

 

[Timonator348]

**Mt. 16: 19 **can ONLY be understood that Christ gave the key’s to Peter. However in **Mt. 18:18 **the authority is extended to all of the Apostles THROUGH PETER. Mt. 28:19-20 verifies this as do other passages.

AMEN!!!

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Can you expand upon Peter’s mistake with a few verses so that I can be sure of what you’re referring to here? Thanks.

I think this is pretty much asked and answered with the verses cited in my previous posts. The problem isn’t with Peter’s office (except for Jesus’ re-allocation of the authority to bind and loose to all the other disciples later in Matthew), or in the succession of the office, it’s with Peter’s (mis)understanding of the nature of the office and of what/who the messiah is in general (16:23). This plays itself out repeatedly in the rise/fall motif in Matthew.

One of the major themes of Mathew’s gospel is the identity of Jesus as the anointed Son of David—and how basically everyone (including Peter) misconstrues what this means. If people think the messiah is about things like kingship and cult, political power and temporal authority (20:25), they are missing the boat entirely.

I’d commend to you John P. Meier’s commentary on Matthew. Even though it’s pretty old by now, I think it will enhance understanding of what this text is about.

 

[Byzman]

Can you expand upon Peter’s mistake with a few verses so that I can be sure of what you’re referring to here? Thanks.

He is basically saying that Isaiah 22:25 is also a reference to Peter soon after the moment he received the keys, for Jesus called Peter “Satan”…therefore Dave Noonan says that Peter took his responsibility that Jesus gave him and did not understand it correctly and thought he was now head over Jesus and tried to stop Him from fulfilling His mission…it was at this moment Jesus called him “Satan” and took away his keys.

This, of course, is his, not mine, interpretation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think this is pretty much asked and answered with the verses cited in my previous posts. The problem isn’t with Peter’s office (except for Jesus’ re-allocation of the authority to bind and loose to all the other disciples later in Matthew), or in the succession of the office, it’s with Peter’s (mis)understanding of the nature of the office and of what/who the messiah is in general (16:23). This plays itself out repeatedly in the rise/fall motif in Matthew.

Right. Peter blew it, so Jesus went to Plan B reallocating the keys to all the gang.

Oh, wait…Jesus knew who would betray Him…He must have known that Peter would have a few moments like that in Matthew 16:23. No, after THINKING about this, it is clear that Jesus didn’t “re-allocate” anything…He knew Peter would deny Him three times and He gave Him the keys anyway.

Sheesh. What lengths non-Catholics go to in order to avoid having to submit to the pope.

One of the major themes of Mathew’s gospel is the identity of Jesus as the anointed Son of David—and how basically everyone (including Peter) misconstrues what this means. If people think the messiah is about things like kingship and cult, political power and temporal authority (20:25), they are missing the boat entirely.

This makes no sense. If Matthew is identifying Jesus as the “annointed Son of David”, then Matthew is identifying Jesus as inheriting the kingdom of David. He also uses the word “kingdom” more than 50 times. Jesus specifically uses the language and imagery of royalty. So, yeah, it is about kingship, and thrones and the like to a large degree.