Can someone help me understand Peter receiving the keys of the kingdom of Heaven?

[CanIHunt]

Catholics use the significance of Peter receiving the keys as evidence of him being the first Pope. I find it so far to be a pretty compelling argument. I would like to hear what the other side has to say. Can someone point me to a good article or perhaps give me their take? My notes on the Catholic side are below.

In verse 19, Jesus gives the keys of the kingdom to Peter. Saying “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Keys are a sign of authority, see Isaiah 22:22 and Rev 1:18, 3:7. (I see this as being authority too in my reading).

By using “key” Jesus seems to be referencing Isaiah 22:20-22 which refers to a scenario of rites of succession. How?..

-Eliakim is succeeding Shebna in the office of prime minister. He is not a king but a prime minister. The king had ministers who helped in governing. Like Jesus, who is king, appoints St. Peter as His first prime minister by giving him the keys.

-It should be noted that Jesus speaks in a future tense here, so when Peter denies Jesus later it will not void his role.

-Jesus refers to Himself as Good Shepherd John 10:16 then later in John 21 tells Peter to feed and tend His lambs.

 

[Messy]

Whut? He spoke that to the church. Peter can't bind things now.

 

[seekingsolace]

Catholics use the significance of Peter receiving the keys as evidence of him being the first Pope. I find it so far to be a pretty compelling argument. I would like to hear what the other side has to say. Can someone point me to a good article or perhaps give me their take? My notes on the Catholic side are below.

In verse 19, Jesus gives the keys of the kingdom to Peter. Saying “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Keys were also granted to the other disciples if that argument is to be used - Matthew 18:15-19

Keys are a sign of authority, see Isaiah 22:22 and Rev 1:18, 3:7. (I see this as being authority too in my reading).

By using “key” Jesus seems to be referencing Isaiah 22:20-22 which refers to a scenario of rites of succession. How?..

Jesus holds the key, Revelation 3:7-8.

-Eliakim is succeeding Shebna in the office of prime minister. He is not a king but a prime minister. The king had ministers who helped in governing. Like Jesus, who is king, appoints St. Peter as His first prime minister by giving him the keys.

-It should be noted that Jesus speaks in a future tense here, so when Peter denies Jesus later it will not void his role.

-Jesus refers to Himself as Good Shepherd John 10:16 then later in John 21 tells Peter to feed and tend His lambs.

Peter denied Jesus three times, after Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved him (note agapao/phileo variation) and with each answer He gave him a commission.

So Peter opened the three doors for the, Jews, Samaritans & Gentiles. After that there was no need for succession, for ultimately Christ holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

 

[joshuanazar]

Christ has given his authority to all believers. He calls us a nation of kings and priests, stating that we all have that authority and the ability to address God personally. We do not have lords over us, only Christ who is the head.

 

[CanIHunt]

thanks for help

 

[St Antony]

thanks for help

Of course, this is a key point of disagreement between Apostolic Churches and others. Just keep in mind, however, that strong evidence from the generation following the Blessed Apostles indicates that authority (through the ceremony of laying of hands) passed from the original Apostles to the next generation of leaders in the Church. St. Ignatius of Antioch references this authority around 100 AD as does Polycarp and Iraeneus in the 2nd century. The Real Presence of the Eucharist also is referenced in these and other early sources. Due to the scarcity of evidence from this long ago, it is likely that this can never be proved with absolute certainty, but the evidence is strong.

Ask yourself, as Christianity and Jesus come from a Jewish background where a priestly class always possessed authority, and given that in 1st and 2nd century Palestine/Rome, authority and a hierarchy in every facet of society was a given, how likely is it that small groups of Christians met, studied the Scriptures and operated as a mini-congregation totally outside any hierarchy or outside of anyone's supervision or authority. In 18-20th century culture this is natural, but to the people of that age, it would have been totally alien.

 

[CanIHunt]

Got it, thank you.

 

[clark thompson]

The keys to heaven is not in Peter but in what Peter replied to Jesus about Him being the Son of God.

 

[Job8]

Catholics use the significance of Peter receiving the keys as evidence of him being the first Pope. I find it so far to be a pretty compelling argument.

1. The first thing you need to recognize is that Peter was never the first "bishop" of Rome. Peter was the apostle to the "circumcision" (the Jews) just as Paul was to the "uncircumcision. That's how weak the Catholic position is on Peter and the papacy.

2. Before we understand what those keys were, we need to remember what the Lord said about the New Birth -- "except a man be born again, he cannot either "see" or "enter" into the Kingdom of God (Jn 3:3-8).

3. Then we need to see what happenend on the Day of Pentecost, and Peter's role in bringing about 3,000 Jews to salvation (Acts 2). Peter preached the Gospel, the Jews were convicted, they repented and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, and then they were saved (experienced the New Birth), baptized, and most of them became a part of the church at Jerusalem. Thus Peter used the Gospel (under the anointing of the Holy Spirit) as the "key" to the Kingdom.

4. Then we see Peter and John preaching the Gospel to the Samaritans, and bringing them into the Kingdom of God.

5. Finally we see Peter -- the apostle to the circumcision -- compelled by the Holy Spirit to bring the Gospel to a Gentile household (that of Cornelius). Once again the key of the Gospel brought Gentiles into the Kingdom of God.

It is the Gospel -- the "seed" of the Word of God -- which produces the New Birth under the conviction and convincing of the Holy Spirt. So those are indeed the keys of the Kingdom of God. As to the papacy and all the fables associated with it, there is absolutely no Scripture to support this preposterous idea. When the apostles passed on, the Church -- believers -- continued to preach the Gospel and souls continued to be added to the Church,

 

[joshuanazar]

Of course, this is a key point of disagreement between Apostolic Churches and others. Just keep in mind, however, that strong evidence from the generation following the Blessed Apostles indicates that authority (through the ceremony of laying of hands) passed from the original Apostles to the next generation of leaders in the Church. St. Ignatius of Antioch references this authority around 100 AD as does Polycarp and Iraeneus in the 2nd century. The Real Presence of the Eucharist also is referenced in these and other early sources. Due to the scarcity of evidence from this long ago, it is likely that this can never be proved with absolute certainty, but the evidence is strong.

Ask yourself, as Christianity and Jesus come from a Jewish background where a priestly class always possessed authority, and given that in 1st and 2nd century Palestine/Rome, authority and a hierarchy in every facet of society was a given, how likely is it that small groups of Christians met, studied the Scriptures and operated as a mini-congregation totally outside any hierarchy or outside of anyone's supervision or authority. In 18-20th century culture this is natural, but to the people of that age, it would have been totally alien.

To be honest, I do not care what these people said. The only word that has authority is God's word. God's word said that we are not to have lords or masters. He said that those who will be first, will have to put themselves last. This is against the Catholic hierarchy and the splendor and privileges of their church offices. Christianity is alien. It goes against everything this world tells us. So yea, the early church would not have had a hierarchy. If Peter was the first pope, then wouldn't Paul have been against God's will when he thought that it was ok to rebuke Peter on his hypocrisy? I mean Peter would have been like a high priest. I mean almost all of Paul's writings would have been against God's will since Paul often taught that there is no hierarchy and that all Christians had the same rights and unlimited access to come boldly into the throne room of God, that Jesus is the only high priest and mediator that we need, and that we are all a nation of kings and priests. Wait, that last one was John. Apparently he was against church hierarchy too. So who should we really believe? The Word of God, or the traditions of the Catholic church?
"for the traditions of man has made my word of no effect" - Jesus

I also read that the Catholic church believes that Peter also started the tradition of celibacy. I find that hard to believe since Peter was married.

 

[St Antony]

To be honest, I do not care what these people said. The only word that has authority is God's word. God's word said that we are not to have lords or masters. He said that those who will be first, will have to put themselves last. This is against the Catholic hierarchy and the splendor and privileges of their church offices. Christianity is alien. It goes against everything this world tells us. So yea, the early church would not have had a hierarchy. If Peter was the first pope, then wouldn't Paul have been against God's will when he thought that it was ok to rebuke Peter on his hypocrisy? I mean Peter would have been like a high priest. I mean almost all of Paul's writings would have been against God's will since Paul often taught that there is no hierarchy and that all Christians had the same rights and unlimited access to come boldly into the throne room of God, that Jesus is the only high priest and mediator that we need, and that we are all a nation of kings and priests. Wait, that last one was John. Apparently he was against church hierarchy too. So who should we really believe? The Word of God, or the traditions of the Catholic church?
"for the traditions of man has made my word of no effect" - Jesus

I also read that the Catholic church believes that Peter also started the tradition of celibacy. I find that hard to believe since Peter was married.

God's Word? Yes, but what exactly is that? Most Bible scholars agree that Paul's Epistles were written first, probably in the 40s-50s. Next cam the Gospels, with Mark close to the destruction of the Temple in 70, then Matthew, Luke-Acts and John last. The pastoral letters were probably not written until 100-150. There was no immediate consensus over which writings rose to the level of Scripture, inerrant and their writing guided by the Holy Spirit. Not until the middle of the 3rd century at the earliest is any list of writings constituting the Sacred Scripture found. A final decision wasn't made until the 4th century in the Council of Carthage.

The important thing to remember is that the Church came first. The Apostles and other early Christians wrote down their recollections of what Jesus said and did and preserved it for future generations. Before there was a Bible, however, there was liturgy, hierarchy, and a Church. Those Apostles and others probably saw no great need to go into detail about these things in writing because the weekly liturgy, the Eucharist, the authority of bishops, among other things, were commonly known to the early Christians and not subject to dispute. When some Christians adopt a Sola Scriptura attitude and resist the well-established Tradition of the Church, much of which dates back to Jesus and the Apostles, these Christians get a distorted view of the faith.

Also, regarding "God's Word", it should be recognized that from the 4th Century councils until the 16th century, over 1,000 years, there was no dispute over which writings constituted Holy Scripture. Then, some of the Reformers suddenly decided that several books at the end of the Old Testament were not part of the canon. The stated reason was that these books were originally written in Greek instead of Hebrew. Really, one of these books contained passages of Scripture supporting purgatory as a stage that saved sinners must endure before passing to heaven.

Before you rely on "God's word" as the sole authority, keep in mind that deciding the meaning of God's word" without the context and additional information provided by Tradition, may lead you astray.

 

[CanIHunt]

Thank you for the help. I am going to stop reviewing this thread now.

 

[joshuanazar]

God's Word? Yes, but what exactly is that? Most Bible scholars agree that Paul's Epistles were written first, probably in the 40s-50s. Next cam the Gospels, with Mark close to the destruction of the Temple in 70, then Matthew, Luke-Acts and John last. The pastoral letters were probably not written until 100-150. There was no immediate consensus over which writings rose to the level of Scripture, inerrant and their writing guided by the Holy Spirit. Not until the middle of the 3rd century at the earliest is any list of writings constituting the Sacred Scripture found. A final decision wasn't made until the 4th century in the Council of Carthage.

The important thing to remember is that the Church came first. The Apostles and other early Christians wrote down their recollections of what Jesus said and did and preserved it for future generations. Before there was a Bible, however, there was liturgy, hierarchy, and a Church. Those Apostles and others probably saw no great need to go into detail about these things in writing because the weekly liturgy, the Eucharist, the authority of bishops, among other things, were commonly known to the early Christians and not subject to dispute. When some Christians adopt a Sola Scriptura attitude and resist the well-established Tradition of the Church, much of which dates back to Jesus and the Apostles, these Christians get a distorted view of the faith.

Also, regarding "God's Word", it should be recognized that from the 4th Century councils until the 16th century, over 1,000 years, there was no dispute over which writings constituted Holy Scripture. Then, some of the Reformers suddenly decided that several books at the end of the Old Testament were not part of the canon. The stated reason was that these books were originally written in Greek instead of Hebrew. Really, one of these books contained passages of Scripture supporting purgatory as a stage that saved sinners must endure before passing to heaven.

Before you rely on "God's word" as the sole authority, keep in mind that deciding the meaning of God's word" without the context and additional information provided by Tradition, may lead you astray.

First, I want to point out that I am not against Catholics, I am against traditions whether Catholic or Protestant. We just so happen to be talking about the Catholic church right now.

I repeat what Jesus said, "making the word of God of none effect through your traditions". Mark 7: 13 (also in Matthew 15:6). You see the Pharisees had a saying that the writings of the elders were weightier than the Law. basically meaning that the traditions that the priests and teachers established were more important than God's word. That pretty much sounds exactly like what you just said. Tradition in church creates religion, and religion takes the power out of God's Word. Tradition did not take on flesh and die for my sins, the Word of God did. But wasn't it Catholic tradition to sell indulgences? How can a church try to sell someone something that God has given them for free? I also do not care about what any council has to say. God's Word is Spirit and it is life. I have read the 66 books that are in the bible and I have found life in them. I have also read other books, including the books at the end of the Catholic bible, and I have not found any life. In fact the author of Maccabees basically admits to not having divine inspiration. Some are good books. But they are not God's Word. Only grace can free us from the traditions that the world tries to bind us with. Also you have not answered anything of the scriptural proof of the early church not having a hierarchy that I presented. You just tried to discredit my source without discussing the evidence.

 

[Sketcher]

Peter was given the keys, but the purpose of which was to unlock the Kingdom of God to the people, as God had unlocked it in Heaven. He did this with the Jews when he gave his sermon at Pentecost, and he did this later with the Gentiles at Cornelius's house. He was God's chosen tool in both instances to deliver the Gospel to both people groups for the first time since Jesus preached it himself, and the church grew from the Spirit's action in both events.