Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

NewMan99 · May 22, 2009

Ah, so GOD had them.
And God STILL has them. I see....

First of all, you can lose the sarcasm.

You asked about the "keys of Isaiah" - you read the text. Did God hand the keys over to Eli'akim or not? Yes or no? So...with regard to the text that you asked about...yes - God had them.

So then God still has them and always has them because they are HIS keys to begin with. Even when Eli'akim had possession of the keys they were still God's. Don't you remember Jesus speaking to Pilate (who ruled Judea in the name of Caesar) and saying to him that "You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above"? They are GOD'S keys no matter who might have *physical* possession of them at any one given moment in time...just as it is still God's flock no matter who happens to be shepherding it in God's name throughout time.

And that documents what about the current bishop of the diocese of Rome?

Why do you keep inserting the word "diocese"? That doesn't make sense. Just call him the Bishop of Rome. He oversees much more than just the local diocese.

In any case, if you are looking for a DIRECT and explicit reference to it...well...we never claim that it does. So what? There are DOZENS, if not HUNDREDS, of things in the New Covenant that are only foreshadowed or alluded to in the Old Covenant. So what? You should be careful going down this trail, because if you require explicitness in everything then we might as well ignore most of the Old Testament prophesies and foreshadowings. Would you care to apply this same methodology across the board? I would hope not.

Now, I'm wondering, where does this text say that God gave them to Eliakim and thus all the successors of Eliakim still have them to this day? I'm wondering about the 800 years between Eliakim and Jesus, as well as the 2000 years since Jesus - and those keys; what does this text state about that?

Why would it need to? Do you think the Bible needs to be read in only a hyper-literalistic fashion like it is a college textbook?

What happened to those keys when Eliakim died, according to the text?

What does this text state about Peter? And about what happened when Peter died?

You are missing the point.

Let's try looking at it another way, okay? A way we haven't talked about yet.

Now...it is our contention that when Jesus spoke to Peter about keys and "binding and loosing" that this meant something to Peter and the Apostles. We contend that the Apostles automatically knew what Jesus meant. We contend that they knew that Jesus was giving Peter the keys of authority to rule His Kingdom in His name.

So, someone hearing this can ask the question, "How do you know that they knew what this meant?"

Our answer would be, "Because this was a very commonly known concept in that culture and the phrases 'keys of the kingdom' and 'binding and loosing' would be equally well-known."

To which the person could press the point with the question, "How do you know that this was a commonly known concept and common phrase from that culture?"

Our answer would be, "Well, look to Isaiah 22 and all the elements are there - so it is not unheard of for keys of authority and binding and loosing to be mentioned as part of that culture."

The other person replies, "But that was 800 years earlier. How do you know that this was still a part of their culture?"

Our response would be, "Well, aside from the fact that most Jews of that time (ESPECIALLY JESUS AND THE APOSTLES) would be familiar with Isaiah 22...all you have to do is read various history books to see keys of authority mentioned in almost all countries in the Near East...even to this day...and...Jewish writings (the Talmud etc...) are filled with references to binding and loosing. It was COMMON. The Apostles would know immediately that Jesus was handing the authority of chief steward/prime minister to Peter because that is what those words and those phrases meant in that culture at that time."

So my point, CJ, is that Isaiah did not need to refer to Peter (who wasn't born yet) or talk about what happened after Peter's death. All we really need to note is that Jesus' handing keys of the kingdom to Peter and giving him authority to bind and loose MEANT SOMETHING in that culture. The keys ALWAYS belonged to the king - and the king ALWAYS gave them to someone to rule in his name. A person reading Isaiah 22 - or an Apostle hearing Jesus in Matthew 16 - would not wonder, "What about when Eli'akim died? Did the King of the House of David no longer have a chief steward to run the daily affairs of the kingdom? What about when Peter died? Would Jesus no longer desire for a successor to tend the flock until His return in Glory?" No. When Ali'akim died the office he held continued on and someone else - Eli'akim's successor - held that vicarious office and ruled in the king's name. And the same concept applies to Peter. When he died, the keys went to his successor.

Where does Scripture say that the bishop of the singular diocese of Rome is Jesus' Prime Minister?

Be serious. Scripture says that Jesus made Peter the chief steward/prime minister in Matthew 16. It doesn't need to mention "Rome" for the successor of Peter to inherit the special petrine ministry.

Is a Prime Minister infallible, supreme over all

Infallible? No, not in the sense you are asking. The doctrine of papal infallibility flows as a derivitive from the broader doctrine of the infallible Church. A chief steward/prime minister WAS most certainly "supreme over all" EXCEPT when the king was present. If you don't believe me, then do some time-travelling...head over to the ancient Davidic kingdom, and see if anyone dared to disobey Eli'akim. That is what those words meant: an authoritative vicarious office. And that is what those words still meant 800 years later in MANY cultures around the world. And that is what those words STILL mean even today in many cultures.

Well, what I'm curious about is how that Isaiah passage gets to the critical issue of taking the keys away to the one to whom the king gives them and giving them to one to whom the king did not. How, exactly, did that work with Elikim?

It's a vision to a prophet, Josiah. As I pointed out before, even the king has power only because God gave it to him. Woe be to the king to tell a prophet that Eli'akim would not succeed Shebna in the role of the VICARIOUS ruler of the kingdom.

And I'm STILL wondering where Isaiah said ANYTHING relevant to our topic? He's speaking of a specific situation with a specific king and individual over 2800 years ago, it seems to me.

On a legalistic and hyper-literalistic level he was speaking of a specific person and a specific situation. But that only begs the question, CJ. WHY would God tell us through His Word about this specific person and situation if not to tell us something deeper?

The principle of a vicarious chief steward ruling in the name of the king is what needs to be paid attention to in Isaiah 22. THAT is the point. Do we really need to know that some guy named Eli'akim replaced another guy named Shebna? No. But we do need to know that when Jesus spoke to Peter in Matthew 16 using certain words and phrases commonly known in their culture...the principle of a vicarious chief steward ruling in the name of the King (of Kings) would have naturally been what such words would have evoked in the minds of the Apostles and the Early Church.

God's Peace,

NewMan

NewMan99 · May 22, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
... that's all you have to say.... :o

Yes.

You just commented about me going on and on for 40 pages. Don't you think that is enough?

Now drop it. This is unseemly and has been for a long time (and no - I am not blaming you alone - I will share in that). Enough is enough.

CaliforniaJosiah · May 22, 2009

Trento said:
You should be lost

Why do you WANT us to be lost on this? Or is it just ME that you want to be lost?

Why are you posting if you desire people to not follow or understand you?

i'm not responding to you.

... but you did, specifically to say you want me to not understand you, that I SHOULD be lost.

.

Albion · May 22, 2009

WarriorAngel said:
MAYBE the misunderstanding of what the keys mean is the problem.

Sure. That's why I was hoping for a willingness on the part of all of us to look carefully and openly at all the possibilities. But when it is said, up front, that the Chair of Moses proves something according to a verse which doesn't say anthing about the Chair, or that we have to obey the Pope because of a verse in which Jesus says to the Hebrews to obey the Scribes and Pharisees (not the Pope), or when it is said that X or Y was always believed in the church when history shows that to be untrue...we are not having a serious discussion.

You (or anyone else) can't just begin with an idea that is unsettled and immediately take the position, "Since that is so, what do you feel about what follows?" Or "What do you do next?"

Well, it ISN'T necessarily so. These matters of interpretation and history have divided millions of Christians for many centuries. We can't just assume the truth of something that is not known to be the truth. But we could commit to taking an honest look.

Albion · May 22, 2009

NewMan99 said:
Read the actual text of Isaiah 22:15-25, CJ:

This passage comes from a vision from God to Isaiah using imagery that the Davidic kingdom would understand.

In this vision, who gave the "keys of Isaiah" to Eli'akim in the first place? GOD did. They are GOD'S keys...and hence JESUS had/has them. The keys belong to the King of Kings, and hence his Prime Minister, who rules because it is God's Will.

Aside from the fact that there was no such a thing as a Prime Minister in those days, or anything like it, and the verse in Isaiah speaks of a KEY, not KEYS, I'll agree.

There was a reference to a key. But you can't seriously think that this has anything to do with the Papacy. Nothing fits except that key is, well, similar to keys. The office is different, the conditions are different, and there is nothing in what Jesus said to Peter that refers back to the OT.

prodromos · May 22, 2009

WarriorAngel said:
JUST like when Jesus took mud to open the blind man's eyes.
DID He really need mud? No. He used a symbol... to show the reality.

I felt a need to comment on this.
Jesus used mud to make eyeballs for a man born without eyes in the same way as He took dirt and made Adam's flesh. Though it is not stated outright that the man was born without eyes, it can be understood from the the response of those who knew him. They found it difficult to accept that it was the same man, even his parents, so dramatically was his appearance changed.

John

Trento · May 22, 2009

Albion said:
Aside from the fact that there was no such a thing as a Prime Minister in those days, or anything like it, and the verse in Isaiah speaks of a KEY, not KEYS, I'll agree.

There was a reference to a key. But you can't seriously think that this has anything to do with the Papacy. Nothing fits except that key is, well, similar to keys. The office is different, the conditions are different, and there is nothing in what Jesus said to Peter that refers back to the OT.

An important office in the Old Testament court was that of the Prime Minister or Chief Steward. The passage is too long to quote, but Isaiah chapter 22 describes this office in full. To be brief, the Prime Minister acted in the stead of the king and had authority "to bind and loose". The prime minister also bore the "key" of the kingdom (cf. Isaiah 22:22).
When Christ restored the Kingdom, he said to Peter: "You are Peter and all this Rock I shall build my ChurchI will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:18).
Saint Peter and the subsequent Popes serve as the Prime Ministers of the Church. They serve as Christs representatives and bear the keys of the kingdom on earth.

Albion · May 22, 2009

Trento said:
An important office in the Old Testament court was that of the Prime Minister or Chief Steward.

The position of Prime Minister was unknown in ancient times and is purely a creation of the 18th century AD.

The passage is too long to quote, but Isaiah chapter 22 describes this office in full. To be brief, the Prime Minister acted in the stead of the king and had authority "to bind and loose". The prime minister also bore the "key" of the kingdom (cf. Isaiah 22:22).

There is no mention of any Prime Minister in that chapter.

When Christ restored the Kingdom, he said to Peter: "You are Peter and all this Rock I shall build my Church…I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:18).

This has already been explained several times. Peter was to bring in the first surge of converts to the church and so was, in fact, one who "built" it, as Christ foretold. Nothing in that has any relationship to the Papal office that was created gradually 300-400 years later.

Saint Peter and the subsequent Popes serve as the Prime Ministers of the Church.

They do not. Peter, in fact, has long since passed on to his eternal reward.

They serve as Christ’s representatives and bear the keys of the kingdom on earth.

I'm sure that they want you to believe that. Joseph Smith also dug up golden plates in New York, the Jehovah's Witnesses are the restored Church of Christ which apostacized in Apostolic times, and the Virgin Mary recently appeared in the form of a corn flake, no it was a stain on an overpass, no it was a shadow on a window. I also have land in Arizona just perfect for rice farming--if you are interested in buying.

Standing Up · May 22, 2009

Trento said:
Eusebius ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 207

CHAPTER XXIII.

The question then agitated respecting the passover.*

There was a considerable discussion raised about this time,
in consequence of a difference of opinion respecting the observ-
ance of the paschal season. The churches of all Asia, guided by
a remote tradition, supposed that they ought to keep the four-
teenth day of the moon for the festival of the Saviour's passover,
in which day the Jews were commanded to kill the paschal lamb ;
and it was incumbent on them, at all times, to make an end of
the fast on this day, on whatever day of the week it should hap
pen to fall. But as it was not the custom to celebrate it in this
manner in the churches throughout the rest of the world, who
observe the practice that has prevailed from apostolic tradition
until the present time, so that it would not be proper to terminate
our fast on any other but the day of the resurrection of our Sa-
viour. Hence there were synods and convocations of the bishops
on this question ; and all unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical
decree, which they communicated to all the churches in all places,
that the mystery of our Lord's resurrection should be celebrated
on no other day than the Lord's-day ; and that on this day alone
we should observe the close of the paschal fasts. There is an
epistle extant even now, of those who were assembled at the time;
among whom presided Theophilus, bishop of the church in Ce-
sarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem.
CHAPTER XXV.

All agree to one opinion respecting the passover.

The bishops indeed of Palestine, whom we have just men
doned. Narcissus and Theophilus, and Cassius with them, the
bishop of the church at Tyre, and Clarus of Ptolemais, and those
that came together with them, having advanced many things
respecting the t>radition that had been handed down to them by
succession from the apostles, regarding the passover, at the close
of the epistle, use these words : " Endeavour to send copies of
the epistle through all the church, that we may not give occasion
to those whose minds are easily led astray. But we inform you
also, that they observe the same day at Alexandria, which we
also do ; for letters have been sent by us to them, and from them
to us, so that we celebrate the holy season with one mind and at
one time."

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Thank you, but I'm entirely lost....

What in the world does this man's opinion have to do with supplying documentation for the Dogma of the Catholic Papacy? How does it substantiate that from 30 AD, all regarded whoever was the bishop of the specific, singular, particular diocese of Rome as THEREBY the unique holder of Peter's "keys" and thus SUPREME, infallible, authoritative, powerful over all and lord of all Christian?

Could you let me know how this opinion (what's the date of this book, BTW) substantiates the Dogma of the Papacy?

Thanks!!!

Pax

- Josiah

.

Here is the same reply.

ANF08. The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementia, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
"[a.d. 180.] When Eusebius says that the churches of “all Asia” concurred in the Ephesine use concerning the Paschal, he evidently means Asia Minor, as in the Scriptures and elsewhere.37843784 See (Polycrates) p. 773, supra, and Eusebius, H. E., book v. cap. xxiii., etc., pp. 222–226. Throughout “the rest of the world,” he testifies, however, that such was not the use. The Palestinian bishops, after the Jewish downfall, seem to have been the first to comprehend the propriety of adopting the more Catholic usage; and our author presided over a council in Cæsarea, of which he was bishop, assisted by Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, with Cassius of Tyre and Clarus of Ptolemais, which confirmed it. It is to be noted, that Alexandria is cited by Theophilus as authority for this custom; and it is not quite correct to say that the Western usage prevailed at Nicæa, for it was the general use, save only in Asia Minor and churches which were colonies of the same. This fact has been overlooked, and is very important, in history."

I know this stuff may cut close to home folks, but God is faithful.

Standing Up · May 22, 2009

WarriorAngel said:
-snip-

What does that mean???
It means that the man who has the keys - can open and shut. OR give authoritively the doctrines for man to follow.

-snip-

These are incredible admissions.

Is this official RCC?

Ave Maria · May 22, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
.

The following is from an article by a Greek Orthodox Archbishop. The Archbishop 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...

Now let us see what we can learn from the original account of the events in question:

(a) We should first consider that passage from the Gospel according to St. Matthew upon which the Roman Catholics base the primacy of St. Peter. Our Lord was at Caesarea of Philippi (Matt. 16) when He asked His Disciples: Whom do men say that I am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, but whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for the flesh and blood hath not revealed it into thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matt. 16:13-18)

It is quite evident from these words of our Lord that He built His Church not upon Peter for then He would have clearly said, Thou art Peter and upon thee I will build my Church, but upon the rock of the true Faith which Peter confessed. Christ our Lord clearly said that His Church is built upon the truth which Peter declared that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God. Only through considerable distortion of the text can one draw the conclusion of the Roman Catholics, that Christ built the Church upon Peter.

(b) It is also clear from the Scriptures that St. Peter had no authority over the Apostles. In his Epistle to the Galatians, St. Paul states that when he saw Peter was not thinking correctly, he corrected him in the presence of others, But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. (Gal. 2:11) Further down St. Paul elaborates by saying, . . . when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all) if thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (Gal. 2:14) On the basis of these words of St. Paul we may justly question, Is there even a trace of recognition here of Peters authority to teach without the possibility of error?

(c) Concerning the foundation of the Christian Church in Rome there is authoritative testimony that it was not accomplished by St. Peter. It was established by Christians who settled in Rome. Moreover, St. Paul considered it his Church. He mentioned this in his epistle to the Romans, . . . from Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another mans foundation ... for which, cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you. But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you; whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey. (Rom. 15:19-20, 22-23)

From this passage, therefore, we clearly see that St. Paul had no knowledge that Peter was in Rome or that St. Peter had founded the Church there. On the contrary, he says that he feels obliged to preach the gospel where no other Apostle taught so that he would not build upon the foundation laid by another. Surely this is an explicit testimony that St. Peter was in no way connected with the foundation of the Church of Rome. Actually St. Peter served the Church for many years in Antioch, as verified by St. Jerome, and then went to Rome where he suffered martyrdom with St. Paul.

(d) In conclusion it should be pointed out that the order of precedence given to the Apostolic Sees was determined exclusively by the political importance of various cities. The Bishop of Rome was recognized as first because Rome was capital of the empire, nothing more. Originally, the Bishop of Constantinople was designated as second by the Second Ecumenical Council. Subsequently, when Constantinople became the capital of the Byzantine Empire and was referred to as New Rome, the Fourth Ecumenical Council proclaimed the Bishop of Constantinople equal in rank with the Bishop of Rome.

The Schism of the Roman Catholic Church from the Eastern Orthodox - Church History

Comments?

Pax!

- Josiah

.

I just want to say one thing. I disagree with the title of that last link. The Roman Catholic Church did not schism from the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church schismed from the Catholic Church.

Rick Otto · May 23, 2009

Neither of them prevailed.
Both lost fullness.

Mikeb85 · May 23, 2009

Ave Maria said:
I just want to say one thing. I disagree with the title of that last link. The Roman Catholic Church did not schism from the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church schismed from the Catholic Church.

Obviously we have different perspectives on this... Keep in mind that website states the Orthodox perspective. And we have never claimed that the Orthodox Church is anything but the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

WarriorAngel · May 23, 2009

Albion said:
Sure. That's why I was hoping for a willingness on the part of all of us to look carefully and openly at all the possibilities.

So that means you read what i wrote?

But when it is said, up front, that the Chair of Moses proves something according to a verse which doesn't say anthing about the Chair, or that we have to obey the Pope because of a verse in which Jesus says to the Hebrews to obey the Scribes and Pharisees (not the Pope),

First of all - if you really look at what Jesus said - you would know Jesus was referring to Tradition and nothing that was ever written before by the prophets - because it was ALREADY KNOWN...via [again] Tradition.

And then in turn we see in Tradition - [ecf's] that there is a Chair of Peter - it is not written but it is ALREADY KNOWN.

This is where there are too many holes for non Traditional supplications applied to scriptures.

IF there was no point to Tradition - why did Jesus adhere to it?

or when it is said that X or Y was always believed in the church when history shows that to be untrue...we are not having a serious discussion.

You (or anyone else) can't just begin with an idea that is unsettled and immediately take the position, "Since that is so, what do you feel about what follows?" Or "What do you do next?"

I take my cues off the only Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that endured through out history.
Which includes one line of ordination....unbroken.

As much as this pains those who do not have this - it is still the fact of the matter.

Well, it ISN'T necessarily so. These matters of interpretation and history have divided millions of Christians for many centuries. We can't just assume the truth of something that is not known to be the truth. But we could commit to taking an honest look.

Jesus assumed Tradition and no one there argued with Him about following Tradition - did they?

I didnt see one of the crowd or even His disciples say - 'Lord, it is not written that there is a chair of Moses...where did you get that?'
Jesus wasn't questioned - was He?

Even tho He admonished those on the chair - He still stood behind - what ? - Tradition is the correct answer.

prodromos said:
I felt a need to comment on this.
Jesus used mud to make eyeballs for a man born without eyes in the same way as He took dirt and made Adam's flesh. Though it is not stated outright that the man was born without eyes, it can be understood from the the response of those who knew him. They found it difficult to accept that it was the same man, even his parents, so dramatically was his appearance changed.

John

True, this is the reason - no doubt.
BUT did God 'need' to use mud?

He said - that others after Him would do more miraculous things than He.
And obviously, with faith - this could again occur - without the use of mud.

Mankind needs a tangible substance to believe....because even St Thomas questioned the Resurrection of Jesus without seeing.
Jesus knows mankind needs to visualise in order to have faith.

But Blessed is he who does not see, and believes.
[This could include those who believe in Tradition without seeing it written] However, eventually it was written as you also know.
*INTERESTING ASPECT ABOUT TRADITION - when it was written there were NO arguements within the Church to repudiate what was already common known facts... just as there weren't any naysayers when Jesus said to obey the Chair of Moses.

WHICH we know is written absolutely no where else in scriptures in the OT.

*This is why He uses tangible substances for the sacraments.

Standing Up said:
These are incredible admissions.

Is this official RCC?

No, these are 'follow the dots' common sense.

The scriptures alone would seem to contradict themselves, taken as an entire whole + with a light shining on them via the actual writers in the Church - it comes together and nothing is puzzling.

Ever do connect the dots and when you are finished you can see the picture.
That's what scriptures are... but the Church gives us the numbers to follow to put it together.

LittleLambofJesus · May 23, 2009

Mikeb85 said:
Obviously we have different perspectives on this... Keep in mind that website states the Orthodox perspective. And we have never claimed that the Orthodox Church is anything but the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Greeting Mike.
Yes there are different perspectives of Apostolic tradition between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.
Hope everyone has a blessed Memorial day weekend

http://www.christianforums.com/t5805969/
What would it take for Orthodoxs to come under Pope

quote: The Pope would renounce his Roman Catholicism and become Orthodox. There is nothing that would cause the Church as a whole to join with him.

Trento · May 23, 2009

Albion said:
The position of Prime Minister was unknown in ancient times and is purely a creation of the 18th century AD.

There is no mention of any Prime Minister in that chapter.

Well Stewart may be a better word and
the following commentary is all from Protestant Bibical scholars who back me on this one.

The following commentary is all from Protestant Bibical 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)

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)

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:

<B>

1) "Master of the palace" {Jerusalem Bible / New American Bible}

</B>

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)

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)

I'm sure that they want you to believe that. Joseph Smith also dug up golden plates in New York, the Jehovah's Witnesses are the restored Church of Christ which apostacized in Apostolic times.

We are finding small amounts of Gold here in Arizona in some of the washes but at the price of gold at this time in history we don't need to find much in order to build up a bank account.

Standing Up · May 23, 2009

Standing Up said:
These are incredible admissions.

Is this official RCC?

WarriorAngel said:
-snip-

No, these are 'follow the dots' common sense.

The scriptures alone would seem to contradict themselves, taken as an entire whole + with a light shining on them via the actual writers in the Church - it comes together and nothing is puzzling.

Ever do connect the dots and when you are finished you can see the picture.
That's what scriptures are... but the Church gives us the numbers to follow to put it together.

Do you have any sense at all why it (RCC can give authoritative doctrines for man to follow) is an incredible admission RCC has made for itself? Any idea given the rest of the posts already made? Anyone?

Standing Up · May 23, 2009

Standing Up said:
FWIW: Link to seat of Moses article

Sitting in the Seat of Moses

WarriorAngel said:
-snip-

Jesus assumed Tradition and no one there argued with Him about following Tradition - did they?

I didnt see one of the crowd or even His disciples say - 'Lord, it is not written that there is a chair of Moses...where did you get that?'
Jesus wasn't questioned - was He?

Even tho He admonished those on the chair - He still stood behind - what ? - Tradition is the correct answer.
-snip-

Jesus stood solely and only on "thus it is written". Never in Scripture did He ever say follow the Tradition of men.

NewMan99 · May 23, 2009

Standing Up said:
Jesus stood solely and only on "thus it is written". Never in Scripture did He ever say follow the Tradition of men.

Actually, Jesus only objected to the elevation of traditions of men to the point where it was being followed as if it was of God. He had nothing against traditions of men. It's like many Christians have Christmas trees as an outward symbol of evergreen (eternal) life in the dead of winter, so to speak. It's an outward expression of our faith. But that is ONLY what it is. Now, if someone were to elevate this tradition of man and say something like, "You cannot be saved unless you have a Christmas tree"...then you have treated this man-made tradition as if it was a Tradition of God. And that was the kind of thing that Jesus objected to.

WarriorAngel · May 23, 2009

Standing Up said:
Jesus stood solely and only on "thus it is written". Never in Scripture did He ever say follow the Tradition of men.

Indeed.
The Traditions of God are different - correct?
So why did HE say to obey the Chair if it was man's tradition?

Does He contradict Himself?

How do you get around that?

Obviously it is God's Tradition to obey the Chair.

Then He hands the keys to Peter and obviously - as did Moses have the authority and a succession with a chair - so does Peter.

He didnt leave us without an authority. The Church knew and understood this when they made note of Peter's successors.

Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

New CF: More Political, Less Charity, No Unity

New CF: More Political, Less Charity, No Unity

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Facilitator

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Facilitator

On and on

On and on

Ave Maria Gratia Plena

The Dude Abides

Mikeb85

Guest

I close my eyes and see you smile

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

Senior Veteran

On and on

On and on

New CF: More Political, Less Charity, No Unity

I close my eyes and see you smile

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency