Pope may be the successor of Peter After all

MoreCoffee · Dec 23, 2015

Mediaeval said:
In Matthew 18:17 we see that it is the power of binding and loosing behind the church's authority to shut out a stubborn offender. What is that but the power of opening and shutting?

Matthew 18:18 does not mention "shutting out". To bind a person is to restrain them. In the context the restrained person is restrained from doing harm in the Church as the earthly embodiment of the kingdom of God. Here is the immediate context:

Dealing with a Brother who Sins (Luke 17:3)
¶ “If your brother sins against you, [Other mss. lack against you] go and confront him while the two of you are alone. If he listens to you, you have won back your brother. But if he doesn’t listen, take one or two others with you so that ‘every word may be confirmed by the testimony [Lit. mouth] of two or three witnesses.’ [Deut 19:15] If, however, he ignores them, tell it to the congregation. [Or church] If he also ignores the congregation, [Or church] regard him as an unbeliever [Lit. gentile ; i.e. an unbelieving non-Jew] and a tax collector.

¶ “I tell all of you [The Gk. pronoun you is pl.] with certainty, whatever you prohibit on earth will have been prohibited [Or will be prohibited] in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will have been permitted [Or will be permitted] in heaven. Furthermore, I tell all of you [The Gk. pronoun you is pl.] with certainty that if two of you agree on earth about anything you request, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven, because where two or three have come together in my name, I am there among them.” (Matthew 18:15-20 ISV*)

zippy2006 · Dec 23, 2015

icedragon101 said:
2. What do Catholics make of this in light of the Failures and Flaws of the Church.

Matthew 13:30 - Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

I'm glad to see your open-minded investigation. Knock and the door shall be opened.

hedrick · Dec 23, 2015

MoreCoffee said:
Matthew 16:17-19 does in fact contain the phrase "bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" but that does not seem to be a parallel to "when he opens and no one will shut and when he closes no one will open". The former refers to ligatures applied to a person to restrain while the latter applies to doors that may be locked with a key. These are very different.

What I always assumed is that it was speaking of binding and loosing from sins, and that this controlled whether or not one could enter heaven. The commentaries I've looked at all connect binding and loosing with Jewish understanding, where the power of the keys is the power to make authoritative interpretations of Torah. Hence it's not a matter of arbitrarily accepting some and rejecting others, but of making binding rulings on interpretation.

LittleLambofJesus · Dec 23, 2015

hedrick said:
What I always assumed is that it was speaking of binding and loosing from sins, and that this controlled whether or not one could enter heaven.
The commentaries I've looked at all connect binding and loosing with Jewish understanding, where the power of the keys is the power to make authoritative interpretations of Torah.
Hence it's not a matter of arbitrarily accepting some and rejecting others, but of making binding rulings on interpretation.

Interesting that key/keys aren't mentioned much in the OT and NT. The Messianic prophecy of Isaiah 22:22 uses "key":

https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=key&t=YLT#s=s_primary_0_1
"key"
occurs 6 times in 6 verses in the YLT.

Isa 22:22
And I have placed the key of the house of David on his shoulder,
And he hath opened and none is shutting
And hath shut, and none is opening.

Revel 3:7
'And to the messenger of the assembly in Philadelphia write:
These things saith He who is holy, He who is true, He who is having the key of David,
He who is opening and no one doth shut,
and He shutteth and no one doth open!

https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=keys&t=YLT#s=s_primary_0_1
"keys"
occurs 2 times in 2 verses in the YLT.

http://biblehub.com/matthew/16-19.htm

Young's Literal Translation
Matt 16:19
and I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of the heavens,
and whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens,
and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens.'

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/16-19.htm

Reve 1:18
and the living One! And I became dead, and behold! I am living into the Ages of the Ages,
and I am having the keys of the Hades and of the Death

.

MoreCoffee · Dec 23, 2015

hedrick said:
What I always assumed is that it was speaking of binding and loosing from sins, and that this controlled whether or not one could enter heaven. The commentaries I've looked at all connect binding and loosing with Jewish understanding, where the power of the keys is the power to make authoritative interpretations of Torah. Hence it's not a matter of arbitrarily accepting some and rejecting others, but of making binding rulings on interpretation.

That's all quite credible but binding & unbinding related to rope or chord or even chains so the idea is made visual by the expression bind & unbind just as the word keys makes visible the idea of a means of opening and closing (locking) a door or other lockable item. There is, in my opinion, a link between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 that is encapsulated in the word keys - that the keys of Matthew 16 are to the kingdom of heaven is a difference between the two passages but the idea of keys and the significance of the key of David's house does seem like a good candidate for linkage in the minds of the apostle Peter and the band of apostles because they were taught by the Lord to make links between the old covenant scriptures and what was happening around them in the work that they were doing as companions of the Lord. I do not dismiss the possibility that binding & unbinding is intended by saint Matthew to be coupled to "keys of the kingdom of heaven"

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi he put this question to his disciples, 'Who do people say the Son of man is?' And they said, 'Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.' 'But you,' he said, 'who do you say I am?' Then Simon Peter spoke up and said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Jesus replied, 'Simon son of Jonah, you are a blessed man! Because it was no human agency that revealed this to you but my Father in heaven. So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'
(Matthew 16:13-19 NJB)

The link between Christ and the old covenant figures of renown in teaching the nation is clearly set forth by the apostles' response to his question: "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." so it does not seem incredible to think that Matthew intends his readers to see a link between the passage in Isaiah 22 and the incident recorded here. The translators of the NJB make a link between the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the (apparently explanatory) phrase "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." separating it from the keys phrase by a colon. Of course that choice is a translator's choice and not something specifically included in the text that they translated. I am inclined to see the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" as distinct from binding & unbinding but not as unrelated; after all, locking & unlocking a prison door is like binding & unbinding as far as freedom to move is concerned and the passage does appear to be teaching about binding & unbinding in matters of old covenant interpretation and application. It is not, therefore, unreasonable to see a link between keys of the kingdom and binding & unbinding but I do not think the link is as strong as identifying one with the other as if they were metaphor and explanation. It appears to me to be more like office and associated power as the original post references indicate. The keys of the kingdom of heaven given to saint peter confer a title and office upon him and with that office comes power to bind & unbind in matters of interpretation. Matthew 18 grants a slightly different power - that of enforcement - to all of the apostles, saint peter included, so that they may bind & unbind in matters of discipline (as the context indicates) and the binding & unbinding of Matthew 16 is more like a court ruling on the meaning of the law in a particular case. The enforcement comes after the decision about meaning logically speaking. But, of course, this is interpretation of the passage's content rather than bare metal exegesis of the passage.

Mediaeval · Dec 24, 2015

MoreCoffee said:
Why do you make this argument when you know it is not the truth? Councils and popes, saints and the sainted doctor do not speak infallibly with every word that they utter just as every word written by the apostles is not necessarily inspired. Inspiration is restricted to the holy scriptures and similarly infallible truth is restricted to the those decrees of councils that are endorsed by the pope and are also presented as infallible truth from God. Many things written in the deliberations and interpretations (of holy scripture) of councils are only a part of the reasoning of the council fathers and not a part of any decree or canon much less are they automatically received as infallible truth binding the consciences of the faithful. This being so I think you would do better to make your case as good and persuading as you are able rather than relying on the alleged authority of councils and popes in the hope that they will make the case for you. Do you yourself accept the decrees of the councils and the views of the popes as infallible truth that settles the argument? If not is it not disingenuous to appeal to them in our discussion?

Not disengenuous, but ironic, at least in the case of appealing to the Council of Trent. Or in appealing to the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 979, where administering baptism also is considered a use of the keys of the kingdom:
"If the Church has the power to forgive sins, then Baptism cannot be her only means of using the keys of the Kingdom of heaven received from Jesus Christ."

Otherwise, the early fathers, councils, and popes are part of our common ecclesiastical heritage. The bigger irony, of course, is the fact that here a Protestant has been advocating a traditional, patristic, mediaeval, conciliar view while a Roman Catholic has disagreed by relying on his private interpretation.

How is it that Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Theophylact, Leo, Aquinas, the Lateran Council, the Council of Trent, and the CCC (this list is my own and not necessarily exhaustive) all did not restrict the keys to Peter? Was their knowledge of Scripture in error on this point?

LittleLambofJesus · Dec 24, 2015

Mediaeval said:
Not disengenuous, but ironic, at least in the case of appealing to the Council of Trent. Or in appealing to the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 979, where administering baptism also is considered a use of the keys of the kingdom:
"If the Church has the power to forgive sins, then Baptism cannot be her only means of using the keys of the Kingdom of heaven received from Jesus Christ."

Otherwise, the early fathers, councils, and popes are part of our common ecclesiastical heritage. The bigger irony, of course, is the fact that here a Protestant has been advocating a traditional, patristic, mediaeval, conciliar view while a Roman Catholic has disagreed by relying on his private interpretation.

How is it that Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Theophylact, Leo, Aquinas, the Lateran Council, the Council of Trent, and the CCC (this list is my own and not necessarily exhaustive) all did not restrict the keys to Peter? Was their knowledge of Scripture in error on this point?

Great post and glad you brought up Augustine.
Here is a thread on that specific point concerning Peter and the Keys if any are interested:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...action-concerning-peter-and-the-rock.7451655/

QUOTE: "LittleLambofJesus:
Did Augustine retract/change his view of Peter and the Rock?
Is this also the view of the EOs and a lot of other non-RCs concerning the confession of Jesus being the rock?
I am just a tad confused on this.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7344034/#post51145085

Augustine explains that his view that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16 was later replaced by the view that Christ is the rock. Notice that he refers to his former view being *replaced*, not just adding a second interpretation to it. He says that the reader can decide for himself which interpretation is more likely.
He expects the reader to choose between the two, not accept both.
Thus, Augustine advocated the *rejection* of the view that Peter is the rock, and he said that others could do the same, here it is...

............... But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter.
But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable." (The Retractions, 1:20:1)

.

MoreCoffee · Dec 24, 2015

Mediaeval said:
How is it that Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Theophylact, Leo, Aquinas, the Lateran Council, the Council of Trent, and the CCC (this list is my own and not necessarily exhaustive) all did not restrict the keys to Peter? Was their knowledge of Scripture in error on this point?

Just as is the case today interpretations differ. The church fathers you mention had one view and others have a different view. That the keys are distinct from binding & unbinding is a conclusion drawn from reading the text and if it is a distinction present in the text what is wrong with pointing to it in a debate about who received the keys? As for the keys being received by saint Peter alone I don't see validity in the approach your posts take. The words addressed to saint Peter say specifically that the keys of the kingdom are given to him not to them the pronouns in verse 18 are singular not plural.

Even if the reception of keys of the kingdom of heaven confers the power of binding & unbinding on saint Peter and even with the power of binding & unbinding later said to be given to the whole band of apostles it still does not follow that they keys of the kingdom of heaven are the same thing as binding & unbinding. But I think all this has been covered already and the discussion points are already on the table so all that is left is to decide what one accepts and what one rejects.

I am inclined to see the keys as distinct from binding & unbinding but perhaps related. I see Isaiah 22 as related to the office that the keys confer. The keys and the office both imply power and the specific power mentioned in the passage is binding & unbinding and the context suggests that it is teaching that is bound or unbound. Matthew 18:18's context suggests a different focus for binding & unbinding. It's context points to church discipline as the focus.

Having said what I think I want to thank you for a civil and interesting discussion.

God be with you, my brother.

Mediaeval · Dec 26, 2015

MoreCoffee said:
Just as is the case today interpretations differ. The church fathers you mention had one view and others have a different view. That the keys are distinct from binding & unbinding is a conclusion drawn from reading the text and if it is a distinction present in the text what is wrong with pointing to it in a debate about who received the keys? As for the keys being received by saint Peter alone I don't see validity in the approach your posts take. The words addressed to saint Peter say specifically that the keys of the kingdom are given to him not to them the pronouns in verse 18 are singular not plural.

Even if the reception of keys of the kingdom of heaven confers the power of binding & unbinding on saint Peter and even with the power of binding & unbinding later said to be given to the whole band of apostles it still does not follow that they keys of the kingdom of heaven are the same thing as binding & unbinding. But I think all this has been covered already and the discussion points are already on the table so all that is left is to decide what one accepts and what one rejects.

I am inclined to see the keys as distinct from binding & unbinding but perhaps related. I see Isaiah 22 as related to the office that the keys confer. The keys and the office both imply power and the specific power mentioned in the passage is binding & unbinding and the context suggests that it is teaching that is bound or unbound. Matthew 18:18's context suggests a different focus for binding & unbinding. It's context points to church discipline as the focus.

Having said what I think I want to thank you for a civil and interesting discussion.

God be with you, my brother.

A gracious conclusion, brother. The keys are on the short list of issues that especially interest me, so I appreciate your patience and forbearance. To my mind, the whole mountain of the case for the RCC’s being the true Church hangs by this one hair. The connection between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 is fascinating. But by emphasizing the office of Peter wherein he is key-bearer, say, à la Scott Hahn, we still must not lose sight of his actual use of the keys in opening and shutting the kingdom to men. We can then look for instances of opening and shutting in the Scriptures to see if Peter alone opens and shuts the kingdom to every man in every single instance. It was not Peter's office but the power to open and shut that especially engaged the attention of the church fathers and, I think, explains their apparent unanimity on the question of who possesses the keys. Anyway, merry Christmas and all the best.

MoreCoffee · Dec 26, 2015

I'm inclined to think the claims of the Catholic Church to antiquity rest on sacred scripture and history. The Church in Rome received a letter from saint Paul and saint Peter as well as saint Paul were martyred in the city of Rome while the Church there was persecuted almost continuously for more than 200 years. History and tradition indicates that pretty well all of the popes up to the edict of Milan were martyred. But that being said, the office of pope does indeed find one of its chief biblical supports in the gospel according to saint Matthew chapter sixteen verses thirteen to nineteen.

hedrick · Dec 26, 2015

I would agree that the Papacy is one way to implement Mat 16:18. But I don't think it's the only one or necessarily the best one.

Mediaeval · Dec 26, 2015

LittleLambofJesus said:
Great post and glad you brought up Augustine.
Here is a thread on that specific point concerning Peter and the Keys if any are interested:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...action-concerning-peter-and-the-rock.7451655/

QUOTE: "LittleLambofJesus:
Did Augustine retract/change his view of Peter and the Rock?
Is this also the view of the EOs and a lot of other non-RCs concerning the confession of Jesus being the rock?
I am just a tad confused on this.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7344034/#post51145085

Augustine explains that his view that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16 was later replaced by the view that Christ is the rock. Notice that he refers to his former view being *replaced*, not just adding a second interpretation to it. He says that the reader can decide for himself which interpretation is more likely.
He expects the reader to choose between the two, not accept both.
Thus, Augustine advocated the *rejection* of the view that Peter is the rock, and he said that others could do the same, here it is...

............... But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter.
But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable." (The Retractions, 1:20:1)

.

Augustine's works are a trove of information. Even when you don't agree with him, it is still an education to read his writings. I came across another couple of quotes relating specifically to the keys:

“After all, it is not just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity. So this is the reason for Peter’s acknowledged pre-eminence, that he stood for the Church’s universality and unity, when he was told, ‘To you I am entrusting,’ what has in fact been entrusted to all. To show you that it is the Church which has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, listen to what the Lord says in another place to all his apostles: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit; and immediately afterwards, Whose sins you forgive, they will be forgiven them; whose sins you retain, they will be retained’”. Augustine of Hippo (354-430), Sermon 295

From Sermon 214: “The Church has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, so that in her there may be remission of sins through the blood of Christ and the operation of the Holy Spirit.”

A relevant question to be asked in this connection is also when did Peter receive the keys? The keys were promised to Peter in Matthew 16 but not yet bestowed. If their bestowal is found in John 20:23 as Augustine indicates above, then the question as to who possesses the keys is quickly settled.

hedrick · Dec 26, 2015

I think even Protestant commentators today accept that Peter is the rock. It also seems clear that power of loosing and binding isn’t limited to him, if nothing, from John 20:23. We don’t need Mat 16:18 to establish authority in the Church. The only real question is whether and how Peter’s full role is passed on.

Peter’s role is tied up with the fact that Jesus first appeared to him after the Resurrection, as well as John 21:15. While the keys are present in the Church as a whole, I think the image in Mat 16:18 is one of a foundation, and this doesn’t seem like something that can be passed on.

LittleLambofJesus · Dec 26, 2015

hedrick said:
I think even Protestant commentators today accept that Peter is the rock. It also seems clear that power of loosing and binding isn’t limited to him, if nothing, from John 20:23. We don’t need Mat 16:18 to establish authority in the Church. The only real question is whether and how Peter’s full role is passed on.

Peter’s role is tied up with the fact that Jesus first appeared to him after the Resurrection, as well as John 21:15. While the keys are present in the Church as a whole, I think the image in Mat 16:18 is one of a foundation, and this doesn’t seem like something that can be passed on.

Paul, an Apostle to the Gentiles, also was called to build a foundation for the church of God/Christ.

Galatians 2:8
For God, who was at work in Peter's apostleship to the Jews/circumcised, was also at work in my apostleship to the Gentiles/uncircumcised.

Interesting that the greek word used in 1 Corin 3 is also where the english "architect" come from:

1 Corin 3:10
According to the grace of the God the being given to me as a wise Chief-artificer/arci-tektwn <753> a foundation I lay, another yet is building on it.
Each one yet let be heeding! how he is building on it.

An architect is a person who plans, designs, and oversees the construction of buildings. To practice architecture means to provide services in connection with the design and construction of buildings and the space within the site surrounding the buildings, that have as their principal purpose human occupancy or use.[1] Etymologically, architect derives from the Latin architectus, which derives from the Greek (arkhi-, chief + tekton, builder), i.e., chief builder.[2]

MoreCoffee · Dec 26, 2015

hedrick said:
I think even Protestant commentators today accept that Peter is the rock.

Yes, in the 18th century some acknowledged that and today it is very widely acknowledged as the intended meaning of Matthew 16:17-19. Yet some refuse to acknowledge it. Many who refuse are from evangelical denominations.

It also seems clear that power of loosing and binding isn’t limited to him

That is correct. Matthew 18:18 indicates that the power to bind & unbind in matters of discipline are in the hands of all of the apostles and (according to apostolic tradition) is passed on to their successors.

, if nothing, from John 20:23.

John 20:23 is specifically about Christ giving the power to forgive sins to the apostles (and according to apostolic tradition to their successors too). This is not exactly the same as binding and unbinding but it is without doubt related to it - in the context of church discipline - rather closely.

We don’t need Mat 16:18 to establish authority in the Church.

Matthew 16:17-19 is needed - contrary to your suggestion - precisely to restrain people from falsely identifying Matthew 18:18 with Matthew 16:17-19 and John 20:23 and thus incorrectly (and erroneously) conclude that the keys of the kingdom of heaven is no more than the power to exercise discipline within the church - as is the case in Matthew 18:18. Matthew 6:17-19 makes a distinction between the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and unbind and it ought also to be noted that the context in Matthew 16 points to the power to bind and unbind being a power in matters of doctrine rather than being limited to church discipline as appears to be the case with Matthew 18:18.

The only real question is whether and how Peter’s full role is passed on.

Peter’s role is tied up with the fact that Jesus first appeared to him after the Resurrection, as well as John 21:15.

While the keys are present in the Church as a whole, I think the image in Mat 16:18 is one of a foundation, and this doesn’t seem like something that can be passed on.

The keys of the kingdom of heaven are not given to the whole church except insofar as the office of saint Peter and is successors as leaders of the whole church is a gift for the whole church. It is an error to ignore what the Lord says to saint Peter in Matthew 16:17-19 and apostolic tradition attributes the gift of leadership of the whole church to saint Peter. The incident in Matthew 16:17-19 and saint Peter's role as spokesman and leader of the apostolic band is the foundation of the claims regarding his leadership of the whole church but these are not the only foundations for this belief.

Pope may be the successor of Peter After all

Repentance works.

Dragonsworn

Senior Veteran

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Repentance works.

baptizatus sum

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Repentance works.

baptizatus sum

Repentance works.

Senior Veteran

baptizatus sum

Senior Veteran

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Repentance works.

Similar threads