Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[WarriorAngel]

This isn't off topic, but bear with me...

CJ - is anyone here arguing to say that your grandmother wore army boots?

And if no one is stating it - then you have no need to give us the truth about her shoe attire...right?

The conclusion is that since it was well known VIA ALL the writings PRIOR to the 4th Century that Rome, the Pope was the leader or was the one to whom all went for truth - then obviously they didnt need to write about it to defend it....now did they?

Just as you had no need to defend your granny prior to my alledged claim she wore army boots.

So the conclusion we draw is - that the Church didn't need to defend the position of the Pope, nor did the Church need to restate what was already a known fact.

BUT when someone tried to claim otherwise, we begin to see writings to the contrary. [which happens when time slips by and ppl want proof of what is already a fact]

The Church didnt one day set up the position of the Pope and say 'There ya go, now that looks nice..'

Anyway - as i said in my post quoting St Irenaeus, its very obvious where he points to the truth being, and that all must look to Rome for it.

But hey...this would just be logical in my opinion.

Do you counter claims if no one is offering any?

 

[Albion]

It is well known that Matthew (unlike Mark or Luke) has a preference for the plural (e.g. Matt 4:3; 8:26; 12:46; 15:36).
Also, in Matt 16, we are dealing with a Heaven-earth relationship, rather than a mere earthly kingdom (as in Isaiah 22). Thus, Peter holds two keys: one Heavenly and one earthly, since his Master is a two-fold King: both the earthly successor to David and the eternal King of Heaven.

An interesting speculation, but nothing that either the Bible or history support.

In Matt 16 refer to Christ's juxtaposition of the "Kingdom of Heaven" vs. the "gates of hell." We also see this in St. Ephraem the Syrian AD 350, who writes:

By AD 350 Ephraem is reporting legend and theory thatn had gained acceptance in the more than three centuries following Christ's and Peter's time. But it's not Apostolic. It's not eyewitness. It's not even a report on what the Apostolic Church did or believed. It would be like me telling you how it was to have lived during the days of the American Revolution and you saying, "See? That proves it."

 

[Albion]

This isn't off topic, but bear with me...

CJ - is anyone here arguing to say that your grandmother wore army boots?

And if no one is stating it - then you have no need to give us the truth about her shoe attire...right?

The conclusion is that since it was well known VIA ALL the writings PRIOR to the 4th Century that Rome, the Pope was the leader

Excuse me, but this is not a fact. It is not well known. "All the writing" did NOT say this. If we are to have a meaningful discussion we cannot salt our contentions with supporting ideas that are simply made up for the purpose. Worse, you've already been made aware of this and went ahead with a claim that is false nonetheless.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Also CJ, have you ever posted in the past that your granny doesnt wear army boots?
Because there is no proof that she doesnt wear them unless you stated she doesnt last year in this forum.

Conclusion is??
She wears army boots?

That would be silly for you to defend her [in the past] since no one here made any claims that she ever wore them.

Wouldnt it?

 

[WarriorAngel]

[/b]
Excuse me, but this is not a fact. It is not well known. "All the writing" did NOT say this. If we are to have a meaningful discussion we cannot salt our contentions with supporting ideas that are simply made up for the purpose. Worse, you've already been made aware of this and went ahead with a claim that is false nonetheless.

Ever hear of an analogy?

 

[Trento]

An interesting speculation, but nothing that either the Bible or history support.


By AD 350 Ephraem is reporting legend and theory thatn had gained acceptance in the more than three centuries following Christ's and Peter's time. But it's not Apostolic. It's not eyewitness. It's not even a report on what the Apostolic Church did or believed. It would be like me telling you how it was to have lived during the days of the American Revolution and you saying, "See? That proves it."

Maybe some of the the scriptures are legend since they were not hammered out till the 370s

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Maybe some of the the scriptures are legend since they were not hammered out till the 370s

Myths........Legends.......Beware of them!!!


Titus 1:14 No heeding to Judean myths/muqoiV <3454> and commands of men ones turning-from/apostrefomenwn <654> (5734) the Truth.

2 Timothy 4:3 For shall be a time when the being sound teaching not they shall be tolerating, but according to the own desires to selves they shall be heaping up Teachers, being tickled of them the hearing
4 And from indeed the Truth the hearing of them they shall be turning-from, upon yet the myths/muqouV <3454> shall be being turning to/ektraphsontai <1624> (5691).

 

[Albion]

Ever hear of an analogy?

The conclusion is that since it was well known VIA ALL the writings PRIOR to the 4th Century that Rome, the Pope was the leader or was the one to whom all went for truth - then obviously they didnt need to write about it to defend it....now did they?

That (above) was no analogy. And the analogy which started us off didn't work because we do not conclude that she wore army boots in the absence of evidence that she did, whereas you want to prove the Pope was real and Apostolic in origin...from a lack of evidence.

 

[Albion]

Maybe some of the the scriptures are legend since they were not hammered out till the 370s

Fortunately, most of us know better. All the books of the Bible were written by the end of the first century. (Trying to get around the real truth by using the wording "hammered out" when you know better than to say that the scriptures were not used, available, written, etc. until 370 is creative, though.)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CJ - is anyone here arguing to say that your grandmother wore army boots?

When did I claim as dogmatic fact that she did? IF I did, then yes - the "burden of proof" would be on me to substantiate such as true. And it would be important - very important - for me to do so if such would be greatest divisive issue in Christianity.

The conclusion is that since it was well known VIA ALL the writings PRIOR to the 4th Century that Rome, the Pope was the leader or was the one to whom all went for truth - then obviously they didnt need to write about it to defend it....now did they?

1. A dogmatic fact is not simply the absense of contrary proof. You know that (and NO Catholic would EVER accept such "logic" - lol - from a Protestant!!!). Can you prove there are not 6 billion little brown creatures living on the Moon of Endor? Does that substantiate as dogmatic fact that there are? IF you are simply saying that you have no evidence, no substantiation - then say that. It doesn't mean you are wrong (nor that you'd be wrong about the 6 billion brown creatures) but it does mean that it's an unsubstantiated, unevidenced point.


2. But, at least from what NewMan99 presented (and he is a very highly esteemed Catholic Apologist very active in that ministry - although not much so at CF) that what you said is not evidence. And it's not relevant to The Catholic Papacy anyway. The Dogma of the Papacy is not that the congregations located within the City of Rome take precidence over other congregations, the dogma is that Jesus created the Office of Papacy (thus, it's been in place since at least 30 AD), that He gave the "keys" to PETER in a unique and special sense, and that ever since, whoever happens to be the bishop of the diocese of Rome (bishop - not members; discese of Rome - not church in Rome) is, by virtue of being the bishop of that specific, singular diocese, is THE Supreme, Infallible, Authoritative, powerful, lord over all Christians as the Vicar of Christ. Th topic here is not the Christians that attend congregations in the City of Rome, Italy and what is claimed for such (which I think is nothing at all). The topic here is THE PAPACY of the RCC.

So the conclusion we draw is - that the Church didn't need to defend the position of the Pope, nor did the Church need to restate what was already a known fact.

1. This is an apologetic NO Catholic would EVER accept from anyone else.

2. It could EQUALLY well be argued that no one said ANYTHING to support The Papacy of the RCC because it didn't exist and no one believed it. In fact, silence about a non-existant entity and non-held view is much more reasonable that persistent, universal, centuries-long silence about a DOGMA (a matter of highest importance) so extremely critical to the foundation of your entire ________________ (insert word you prefer for denomination - if you do).

How do you counter claims if no one is offering any?

I don't.

I just note the RCC hasn't offered anything to substantiate its claim of self for self - perhaps the single most divisive issue in all of Christianity. I just have a hunch if I (just little old me - not a huge ___________) claimed that I am the infallible, supreme, authoritative interpreter of the Scripture in my heart and the Tradition of my choosing and whatever I say is what Jesus says and you must accept it with docility because I so insist that you do - I just have a hunch (that's all, just a hunch) that you'd ask for some evidence. And if my response was: Well, show me where the ECF ever said that I wasn't? THEREFORE, they MUST have beleived that I am: Case settled, DOGMA for certain! But that's just my hunch.



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah



.

 

[WarriorAngel]

BUT then CJ can conclude something in absense of anything to counter it?

That's the point.

There is nothing that countered any claims that the Pope was not who we claim he is.
In fact, there is evidence that i already posted that St Irenaeus wrote that ROME is the Church with the truth.

So if no one in all the years - ever suggested the Pope didnt exist, but now CJ claims that because of the absense of anyone stating the Pope exists, that we can conclude he didnt exist.

O ic.

But since no one here ever discussed CJ's granny, then we can conclude in the absense of writing a defense, that she did wear them? Because i specifically dont recall CJ telling us last year that she did not wear them.

SO with absense, we have fact?

My point is exactly what i just showed you.
JUST because the ECF's didn't sit down and write a full discertation that the Pope existed and he was the Church leader - that we need conclude the Pope didnt exist until the 4th Century?

But why then did St Irenaeus and Eusebius give a list to the successors if they didnt exist?
OR if the Pope didnt matter????

That's what an analogy does.
It compares apples to apples and not oranges.

 

[Trento]

Fortunately, most of us know better. All the books of the Bible were written by the end of the first century. (Trying to get around the real truth by using the wording "hammered out" when you know better than to say that the scriptures were not used, available, written, etc. until 370 is creative, though.)

LOL If you study the Fathers and Divided into time periods, here is what the Fathers thought:
30 a.d. - 160 a.d.

Summary - The New Testament is not clearly distinguished from other Christian writings.
Gospels - Generally accepted by 130
Justin Martyr's "Gospels" contain apocryphal material
Polycarp was the first to use the four Gospels we have today.
Pauline Writings - Generally accepted by 130, though quotations from them are rarely introduced as scriptural.
Acts - Scarcely known or quoted from
Philippians, 1 Timothy - Rejected as scriptural by Justin Martyr
2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon - Rejected as scriptural by Polycarp and Justin Martyr
Hebrews - Not considered canonical by majority, and expressly rejected as scriptural by Polycarp and Justin Martyr
James - Not considered canonical, and never quoted from; expressly rejected as scriptural by Polycarp and Justin Martyr
1 Peter - Not considered canonical
2 Peter - Not considered canonical and never cited
1,2,3 John - Not considered canonical and rejected as scriptural by Justin Martyr, and partially rejected by Polycarp
Jude - Not considered canonical and rejected as scriptural by Polycarp and Justin Martyr
Revelation - not canonical and rejected as scriptural by Polycarp
Ignatius of Antioch was unaware of half the Gospels and the majority of the Pauline writings.

160 a.d.- 250 a.d.
Summary - Awareness of a Canon begins toward the end of the 2nd century. Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria were the first to use the phrase "New Testament" in the 2nd and 3rd century.
Gospels - Accepted
Acts - Gradually accepted
Pauline Writings - Accepted with certain exceptions
2 Timothy - Rejected by Clement
Philemon - Rejected by Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, and Clement
Hebrews - Not considered canonical until the 4th century in the West. Disputed by Origen. First accepted by Clement.
James - Not canonical. First mentioned and disputed by Origen. Rejected by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement
1 Peter - Gradual acceptance. First accepted by Irenaeus and Clement
2 Peter - Not canonical. First mentioned and disputed by Origen. Rejected by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement
1 John - Gradual acceptance. First accepted by Irenaeus, and rejected by Origen.
2 John - Not canonical. Disputed by Origen and rejected by Tertullian and Clement
3 John - Not canonical. Disputed by Origen and rejected by Tertullian and Clement
Jude - Gradual acceptance. Accepted by Clement and rejected by Origen.
Revelation - Gradual acceptance. First accepted by Clement and rejected by the Barococcio Canon of 206
Epistle of Barnabas - Accepted by Clement
Shepherd of Hermas - Accepted by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Clement
The Didache - Accepted by Clement
The Apocalypse of Peter - accepted by Clement
The Acts of Paul - Accepted by Clement, and appears in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Arabic translations
Gospel of Hebrews - Accepted by Clement. Accepted by Muratorian Canon of 190 which excluded Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and included The Apocaplypse of Peter and Wisdom of Solomon.

250 a.d. – 325 a.d.Summary - The “Catholic epistles” and Revelation are still being disputed
The “Catholic,” or general, epistles are the terms sometimes used for the letters written by James, Peter, John, and Jude. They are so called because they are addressed to Christians in general, not to any church or person in particular such as the epistles to the Corinthians, Thessalonians etc. The word "catholic" originated from Greek and then Latin words which simply meant “throughout the whole.”
Gospels, Acts, Pauline Writings - Accepted
Hebrews - Accepted in the East. Disputed and rejected in the West.
James - Disputed and rejected in the East, and rejected in the West.
1 Peter - Fairly well accepted
2 Peter - Still disputed
1 John - Fairly well accepted
2, 3 John, Jude - Still disputed
Revelation - Disputed, especially in the East. Rejected by Dionysius

Council of Nicaea (325 a.d.)
Questions canonicity of James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude

From 325 a.d. to Council of Carthage (397 a.d.)
Summary - St. Athanasius first lists our present 27 New Testament books as such in 367 a.d. Disputes still persist concerning several books, almost right up until 397, when Canon is authoritatively closed.
Gospels, Acts, Pauline Writings, 1 Peter, 1 John - Accepted
Hebrews - Eventually accepted in West
James - Slow acceptance. Not even quoted in the West until around 350 a.d.!
2 Peter - Eventually accepted
2, 3 John, Jude - Eventually accepted
Revelation - Eventually accepted. Rejected by Cyril, John Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen
Epistle of Barnabas - Accepted by Codex Sinaiticus in late 4th century
Shepherd of Hermas - Accepted by Codex Sinaiticus in late 4th century. Used as a textbook for catechumens (those studying to become Christian).
1 Clement, 2 Clement - Accepted by Codex Alexandrinus in late 5th century!

 

[WarriorAngel]

Questions:

1-IF St Irenaeus wrote the list of the successors to Peter but said it would be too lengthy to write all the successions - but the important one was from Peter - did he do so in vain because it was actually unimportant?

2-And why did he then say, the Church of Rome had the truth and all should follow it?

3-Why would anyone even know the successions WHEN requested to write them if they didn't exist?

4-AND finally, how did he even know about St Clement l knowing the Apostles [having been ordained by Peter himself] if all of that is unimportant?


Written in 175 AD

Also a list composed by Eusebius exists of the same names...
So why did two people write the same list - if there were no successors?

 

[Trento]

No one said it was a moot point. I said there is another meaning. A key opens something, and that's the usual symbolism. Peter, as we know, opened the world to the Gospel by preaching that miraculous sermon on Pentecost that brought in thousands of converts for the first time. No othe explanation of "keys" fits the facts.[/quote]

I can confidently conclude, therefore, that when Old Testament usage and the culture of the hearers is closely examined, the phrase keys of the kingdom of heaven must have great significance (for Peter and for the papacy) indeed, all the more so since Christ granted this honor only to St. Peter.
The following commentary is all from well known Protestant scholars.

[The steward is] the king's friend, or principal officer of the court (1 Kings 4:5; 18:3; 1 Chronicles 27:33, the king's counsellor) . . .

Keys are carried sometimes in the East hanging from the kerchief on the shoulder. But the phrase is rather figurative for sustaining the government on one's shoulders. Eliakim, as his name implies, is here plainly a type of the God-man Christ, the son of "David," of whom Isaiah (ch. 9:6) uses the same language as the former clause of this verse [and the government will be upon his shoulder].

(Jamieson, Robert, Andrew R. Fausset & David Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1961 [orig. 1864; Fausset and Brown were Anglicans, Brown Presbyterian], 536 -- on Isaiah 22:15,22)

In the . . . exercise of the power of the keys, in ecclesiastical discipline, the thought is of administrative authority (Is 22:22) with regard to the requirements of the household of faith. The use of censures, excommunication, and absolution is committed to the Church in every age, to be used under the guidance of the Spirit . . .

So Peter, in T.W. Manson's words, is to be 'God's vicegerent . . . The authority of Peter is an authority to declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community. His decisions will be confirmed by God' (The Sayings of Jesus, 1954, p.205).

(New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1018)

In accordance with Matthew's understanding of the kingdom of heaven (i.e., of God) as anywhere God reigns, the keys here represent authority in the Church.

(Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, ed. Allen C. Myers, Grabd Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rev. ed., 1975, 622)

The phrase is almost certainly based on Is 22:22 where Shebna the steward is displaced by Eliakim and his authority is transferred to him. 'And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.' (This is applied directly to Jesus in Rev 3:7).

(New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 837)

In the Old Testament a steward is a man who is 'over a house' (Gen 43:19, 44:4; Is 22:15, etc). In the New Testament there are two words translated steward: 'epitropos' (Mt 20:8; Gal 4:2), i.e. one to whose care or honour one has been entrusted, a curator, a guardian; and 'oikonomos' (Lk 16:2-3; 1 Cor 4:1-2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet 4:10), i.e. a manager, a superintendent -- from 'oikos' ('house') and 'nemo' ('to dispense' or 'to manage'). The word is used to describe the function of delegated responsibility.

(New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1216)

For further references to the office of the steward in Old Testament times, see 1 Kings 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18, where the phrases used are "over the house," "steward," or "governor." In Isaiah 22:15, in the same passage to which our Lord apparently refers in Matt 16:19, Shebna, the soon-to-be deposed steward, is described in various translations as:

1) "Master of the palace" {Jerusalem Bible / New American Bible}
2) "In charge of the palace" {New International Version}
3) "Master of the household" {New Revised Standard Version}
4) "In charge of the royal household" {New American Standard Bible}
5) "Comptroller of the household" {Revised English Bible}
6) "Governor of the palace" {Moffatt}
​

As the robe and the baldric, mentioned in the preceding verse, were the ensigns of power and authority, so likewise was the key the mark of office, either sacred or civil. This mark of office was likewise among the Greeks, as here in Isaiah, borne on the shoulder. In allusion to the image of the key as the ensign of power, the unlimited extent of that power is expressed with great clearness as well as force by the sole and exclusive authority to open and shut. Our Saviour, therefore, has upon a similar occasion made use of a like manner of expression, Matt 16:19; and in Rev 3:7 has applied to himself the very words of the prophet.

(Adam Clarke, [Methodist], Commentary on the Bible, abridged ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1967 [orig. 1832], 581)

Eliakim stands in strong contrast to Shebna . . . Godward he is called 'my servant' (v.20; cf. 'this steward', v.15); manward, he will be 'a father' to his community (v.21) . . .

The opening words of v.22, with their echo of 9:6, emphasize the God-given responsibility that went with it [possession of the keys], to be used in the king's interests. The 'shutting' and 'opening' mean the power to make decisions which no one under the king could override. This is the background of the commission to Peter (cf. Mt 16:19) and to the church (cf. Mt 18:18).

(New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 603)

Not only is Peter to have a leading role, but this role involves a daunting degree of authority (though not an authority which he alone carries, as may be seen from the repetition of the latter part of the verse in 18:18 with reference to the disciple group as a whole). The image of 'keys' (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration (cf. Is 22:22, in conjunction with 22:15). The issue then is not that of admission to the church . . . , but an authority derived from a 'delegation' of God's sovereignty.

(R.T. France; in Morris, Leon, Gen. ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, 256)

Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord puts the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so does Jesus hand over to Peter the keys of the house of the kingdom of heaven and by the same stroke establishes him as his superintendent. There is a connection between the house of the Church, the construction of which has just been mentioned and of which Peter is the foundation, and the celestial house of which he receives the keys. The connection between these two images is the notion of God's people.

(Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1952 French ed., 183-184)

The prime minister, more literally 'major-domo,' was the man called in Hebrew 'the one who is over the house,' a term borrowed from the Egyptian designation of the chief palace functionary . . .

The power of the key of the Davidic kingdom is the power to open and to shut, i.e., the prime minister's power to allow or refuse entrance to the palace, which involves access to the king . . . Peter might be portrayed as a type of prime minister in the kingdom that Jesus has come to proclaim . . . What else might this broader power of the keys include? It might include one or more of the following: baptismal discipline; post-baptismal or penitential discipline; excommunication; exclusion from the eucharist; the communication or refusal of knowledge; legislative powers; and the power of governing.

(Peter in the New Testament, Brown, Raymond E., Karl P. Donfried and John Reumann, editors, Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House/New York: Paulist Press, 1973, 96-97. Common statement by a panel of eleven Catholic and Lutheran scholars)

In biblical and Judaic usage handing over the keys does not mean appointment as a porter but carries the thought of full authorization (cf. Mt. 13:52; Rev. 3:7) . . . The implication is that Jesus takes away this authority from the scribes and grants it to Peter.

(J. Jeremias, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, abridgement of Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985, 440)

All these New Testament pictures and usages go back to a picture in Isaiah (Is 22:22) . . . Now the duty of Eliakim was to be the faithful steward of the house . . . So then what Jesus is saying to Peter is that in the days to come, he will be the steward of the Kingdom.

(William Barclay, Gospel of Matthew, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975, vol. 2, 144-145)

Isa 22:15 ff. undoubtedly lies behind this saying . . . The keys are the symbol of authority . . . the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain, of the royal household in ancient Israel. Eliakim is described as having the same authority in Isaiah.

(William F. Albright and C.S. Mann, Anchor Bible: Matthew, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971, 196)

And what about the "keys of the kingdom"? . . . About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . (Isa. 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward.

(F.F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1983, 143-144)

The symbol of the keys, in the East, always implied power and authority, and the giving of the keys the transfer of that authority. Even in our day when we wish to honor a visitor of prominence we give him the keys of the city . . .

'The gift of the keys,' writes Lagrange, 'is, therefore, an investiture of power over all the house. The owner still keeps the sovereign power, but delegates its exercise to a major-domo . . . Christ has the keys of David (Rev 3:7); He gives St. Peter the keys. St. Peter's authority, therefore, is the authority of Jesus, which He ratifies in heaven' (Evangile selon S. Matthieu, 328).

(Bertrand Conway, The Question Box, New York: Paulist Press, 1929, 146)

 

[WarriorAngel]

Summary - St. Athanasius first lists our present 27 New Testament books as such in 367 a.d. Disputes still persist concerning several books, almost right up until 397, when Canon is authoritatively closed.

It was the CHURCH who finally choose and closed it.
But no one argues the Tradition of this acceptance as the Bible scriptures of the NT.

 

[WarriorAngel]

The symbol of the keys, in the East, always implied power and authority, and the giving of the keys the transfer of that authority. Even in our day when we wish to honor a visitor of prominence we give him the keys of the city . . .

'The gift of the keys,' writes Lagrange, 'is, therefore, an investiture of power over all the house. The owner still keeps the sovereign power, but delegates its exercise to a major-domo . . . Christ has the keys of David (Rev 3:7); He gives St. Peter the keys. St. Peter's authority, therefore, is the authority of Jesus, which He ratifies in heaven' (Evangile selon S. Matthieu, 328).

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It was the CHURCH who finally choose and closed it.
But no one argues the Tradition of this acceptance as the Bible scriptures of the NT.

And we all appreciate that

 

[WarriorAngel]

[The steward is] the king's friend, or principal officer of the court (1 Kings 4:5; 18:3; 1 Chronicles 27:33, the king's counsellor) . . .

Keys are carried sometimes in the East hanging from the kerchief on the shoulder. But the phrase is rather figurative for sustaining the government on one's shoulders. Eliakim, as his name implies, is here plainly a type of the God-man Christ, the son of "David," of whom Isaiah (ch. 9:6) uses the same language as the former clause of this verse [and the government will be upon his shoulder].

This is why Isaias is very prophetic to not only Christ - but to the Church He would build.
And satan could not pervert.

He can strike at it - and does with his temptations of man. But he cannot affect the doctrines that stand the test of time.

 

[kenblaster5000]

The following is the view of a Greek Orthodox priest, who is part of the Orthodox Research Institute. I'd share the link but I don't think that's allowed anymore. The whole article is extensive but it simply develops these thoughts more fully. The Father is exploring the text about Jesus, the "keys," Peter's Confession and Peter and the concept of "pope." I found it interesting and perhaps worthy of an ecumenical discussion...

Hello Josiah,

I don't know what this may spark but I was blessed by God to understand the "Keys".

A few years ago, I was involved in a discussion with a woman about consulting spirits of the dead. I began to pray about this and the Holy Spirit came upon me and I began to pray in the Spirit. All sorts of wonderous praise for the Father was pouring forth. This went on for a period of time when suddenly God said, "The key is the cross or the cross is the key", I'm not sure now which way it went but the meaning is the same. God also gave me the knowledge that this revlation apllied to Matthew 16.

The revelation hit me like a sledge hammer and shook me out of my prayer. I wasn't sure exactly how this applied to what Matthew had said so I began to pray to find a greater clarity. I received nothing. As the day went on I continued to pray searching for the answer but still nothing came.

Later, I decided to start a thread on a Christian forum and ask for help. As I began to type out my request the Spirit began to let me know that that wasn't what God wanted of me. After more prayer I decided to look through the scriptures to try and see exactly what was said about "keys."

I began to see that keys were about access, opening or closing. Suddenly God gave me a vision. I saw a cross in a field. A large hand then reached down and picked up the cross by its base. It then lifted the cross up and turned it onto its side and inserted it into the lock of a huge door, turn it and unlocked the door. The door then opened.

I then understood. Jesus is the door and the cross is our key to open the door. The keys of Matthew were the cross.

Then something else came to my mind. If Jesus had given the keys to the Apostles in Matthew 16 and 18, why did Judas receive them? But when I reread the scripture something popped out at me.
Matthew 16: 19 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."

Jesus didn't give the keys to Peter in Matt. 16:19 he said I will give you the keys. Why? Because he hadn't gone to the cross yet. The Apostles and all the believers received the cross after Jesus' death just as Jesus gives the cross to those that truely have faith.

In the cross, we have the key that opens the door into heaven.



Judas didn't receive anything because he dies before the cross.


God Bless,
Yarddog

Good insight. The key of the kingdom is picking up your cross. But to truly pick up your cross is easier when the Lord gives you power to pick it up. So a key to truly picking up the key is the key, the Holy Spirit, His power and His might. I have been praying for more boldness in the face of persecution, for the Lord to increase my faith, for the word to become real, and it is happening. I find people put in my path as divine moments. Anyway, I am just all messed up lately. It is glorious, praise the Lord, whatever comes, amen.

 

[WarriorAngel]

WHy was Peter the only one given the keys...plural?

Why didnt He just hand them to them all and state they were for everyone?

Because He made a point to handing them to Peter because He was fulfilling the prophecy of Isaias.

There are not many stewards - only one.