Peter and the Keys

[Mungo]

In Matthew's gospel there is a very significant event, described in chapter 16 vs13-20.

There is much to extract out of this but I'm going to concentrate on verse 19 when Jesus says to Peter "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Firstly the keys. To understand the significance of the keys we need to start in Revelation.
And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write:
“The words of the holy one, the true one,
who has the key of David,
who opens and no one shall shut,
who shuts and no one opens.”
(Rev 3:7)

This Jesus who holds the key of David, who opens and closes is the same Jesus who says to Peter:
“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.”

This passage was addressed to Peter and the passage needs to be interpreted with an understanding of a 1st century Jew.

Prior to this Jesus has asked the apostles who he is. Peter has replied that he is the Messiah, the Son of the living God. He would understand that Jesus was the promised one who would sit on the throne of David (see Lk 1:32), the promised Davidic King who would rule for ever. All through Matthew’s gospel Jesus is referring to the kingdom. And Peter with his new revelation from the Father would understand this.

Therefore when Jesus gives Peter the keys we have to look at the symbolism of that in terms of Davidic kings.
The passage refers back to Isaiah 22: 20-23 when God deposes Shebna as the master of the palace and installs Heliakim instead:
In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah,
and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him,
and will commit your authority to his hand;
and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
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.
And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place,
and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house.

Note the three lines I have emboldened which parallel Mt 16:19 and Rev 3:7. Peter is being installed as the new master of the palace, the chief official in the kingdom under the king (Jesus).

The master of the Palace was the highest official in the land. Peter is being given the highest position in the kingdom (under the king -Jesus - of course) - and the authority that goes with it.

That authority is signified by the keys, but also expressed in the power to bind and loose.

I have an article on this from a poster on another forums which goes into detail on the Jewish understanding of this. It summarises:
In summary, it thus becomes obvious that the Greek translator of Matt 16.19 has used δειν and λύειν, the standard Greek translations of the Hebrew words ‘bind’ and ‘loose’, even though it is obvious that in this context these words effectively mean ‘forbid’ and ‘permit’, not ‘bind’ and ‘loose’. Jesus is therefore giving Peter the authority to make decisions regulating the life of the Church. He confers upon Peter symbols of authority, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Decisions or rulings Peter makes will have the authority of Heaven behind them, with ‘Heaven’ likely being an evasive synonym for ‘God’. Thus his decisions will be upheld by God. What Peter forbade, Heaven would forbid. What Peter permitted, Heaven would permit.

He also says:
In its primary meaning, the phrase “binding and loosing” refers to the allowing and disallowing of certain conduct, based on an interpretation of the commandments of the Torah, and thus it concerns the issue of whether or not one is in proper relationship to the will of God (contrast the reference to the Pharisees’ misuse of their authority [note implied ‘keys’!] in 23.13).

Now this was written, not by a Catholic, but by a Lutheran.

 

[Simons]

Hello Mungo, Thank you for setting out a traditional Catholic view of this passage.

In Matthew's gospel there is a very significant event, described in chapter 16 vs13-20.

I note that Peter’s confession of Jesus as Messiah makes it into all three synoptic gospels, but the granting of the keys is only mentioned by Matthew. I would think that if the granting of the keys is as important as the Catholic Church would like to think, then it should have received a bit more coverage. Here is how Luke starts out his gospel:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you,...​

So Luke is aware of many accounts/gospels, has carefully investigated everything and yet, Peter being granted the keys doesn’t make it into his gospel….nor does it manage to get mentioned ever again in scripture. Catholics want the granting of the keys to be the start of the papacy…an office that they claim has existed for almost 2000 years – an office first given to Peter and then passed on through the bishopric of Rome such that the holder of that office is the head of the Church, and no salvation is available apart from that Church ruled by the Pope. Can the granting of the keys really be that significant for the governance of the Church? Please contrast the singular mention of the key granting with the multiple mentions of this with respect to Church governance:

Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant...​

That rule for his Church, made by Jesus, makes it into all three of the synoptic gospels and is echoed in 2 Corinthians and in 1 Peter. In my opinion it is more than a little telling that, as the governance at the Church of Rome transitions from a group of elders to a monarchical bishop and then to a thing claiming universal authority, the governance of the Church of Rome takes on an ever increasing “lord it over them” style….the very characteristic that Jesus’s church should not possess.

This Jesus who holds the key of David, who opens and closes is the same Jesus who says to Peter:
“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.”

This passage was addressed to Peter and the passage needs to be interpreted with an understanding of a 1st century Jew.

Agreed.

Therefore when Jesus gives Peter the keys we have to look at the symbolism of that in terms of Davidic kings.
The passage refers back to Isaiah 22: 20-23 when God deposes Shebna as the master of the palace and installs Heliakim instead:

If Jesus was truly referring back to Isaiah 22, (and in doing so appointing Peter to a prime ministerial role) then he was rather sloppy in the process. The author of Revelation isn’t plagued by that sloppiness, for when he refers back to Isaiah he properly uses the singular “key of David” and doesn’t say “keys”. On the other hand, the author of Revelation does use “keys” with reference to Hades. Coincidentally, just before Jesus gave Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” he also mentioned the gates of Hades. Perhaps the keys aren’t about a prime ministerial role. Perhaps the keys are about salvation and the opening and closing of the gates of both heaven and hell (through preaching the gospel of salvation). A group of mainly Catholic and Lutheran scholars looked at the Matthew 16 passage in a work entitled “Peter in the New Testament”. They could not say with certainty what Jesus intended when he gave Peter “the Keys” and they also couldn’t say with certainty whether the authority attached to those keys was described with “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” As such, they couldn’t be sure if the same authority was later granted to the rest of the other disciples. With regard to the authority to bind and loose, I note that we do have reference to an instance where Peter did bind something here on earth (Galatians 2:11-14 NIV):

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?​

So Peter was forcing/binding Gentiles to follow Jewish customs. Wouldn’t it be odd if what Peter wrongfully bound here on earth was (at the same time) bound in heaven? Further, when Peter was shown the error of his ways and (presumably) loosed the Gentiles from those customs, are we to believe that heaven followed along like an obedient dog and the matter was then loosed in heaven as well?

The master of the Palace was the highest official in the land. Peter is being given the highest position in the kingdom (under the king -Jesus - of course) - and the authority that goes with it.

If Peter was truly given the highest position in the kingdom, isn’t it odd that at the start of Matt 18 (also in Mark 9 and Luke 9) the disciples are still asking: “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” and arguing about who of them will be the greatest…and why does the mother of James and John still think (in Matt 20) that seats are still available at both the left and right hands of Jesus?

No doubt there is some significance and some authority associated with the granting of the keys, but (to me) the Catholic interpretation misses the mark. It is a pity that the scriptures don’t expressly state what it was all about.

 

[Mungo]

Hello Mungo, Thank you for setting out a traditional Catholic view of this passage.

I note that Peter’s confession of Jesus as Messiah makes it into all three synoptic gospels, but the granting of the keys is only mentioned by Matthew. I would think that if the granting of the keys is as important as the Catholic Church would like to think, then it should have received a bit more coverage. Here is how Luke starts out his gospel:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you,...​

So Luke is aware of many accounts/gospels, has carefully investigated everything and yet, Peter being granted the keys doesn’t make it into his gospel….nor does it manage to get mentioned ever again in scripture. Catholics want the granting of the keys to be the start of the papacy…an office that they claim has existed for almost 2000 years – an office first given to Peter and then passed on through the bishopric of Rome such that the holder of that office is the head of the Church, and no salvation is available apart from that Church ruled by the Pope. Can the granting of the keys really be that significant for the governance of the Church? Please contrast the singular mention of the key granting with the multiple mentions of this with respect to Church governance:

Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant...​

That rule for his Church, made by Jesus, makes it into all three of the synoptic gospels and is echoed in 2 Corinthians and in 1 Peter. In my opinion it is more than a little telling that, as the governance at the Church of Rome transitions from a group of elders to a monarchical bishop and then to a thing claiming universal authority, the governance of the Church of Rome takes on an ever increasing “lord it over them” style….the very characteristic that Jesus’s church should not possess.

Agreed.

If Jesus was truly referring back to Isaiah 22, (and in doing so appointing Peter to a prime ministerial role) then he was rather sloppy in the process. The author of Revelation isn’t plagued by that sloppiness, for when he refers back to Isaiah he properly uses the singular “key of David” and doesn’t say “keys”. On the other hand, the author of Revelation does use “keys” with reference to Hades. Coincidentally, just before Jesus gave Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” he also mentioned the gates of Hades. Perhaps the keys aren’t about a prime ministerial role. Perhaps the keys are about salvation and the opening and closing of the gates of both heaven and hell (through preaching the gospel of salvation). A group of mainly Catholic and Lutheran scholars looked at the Matthew 16 passage in a work entitled “Peter in the New Testament”. They could not say with certainty what Jesus intended when he gave Peter “the Keys” and they also couldn’t say with certainty whether the authority attached to those keys was described with “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” As such, they couldn’t be sure if the same authority was later granted to the rest of the other disciples. With regard to the authority to bind and loose, I note that we do have reference to an instance where Peter did bind something here on earth (Galatians 2:11-14 NIV):

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.​

​

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?​

So Peter was forcing/binding Gentiles to follow Jewish customs. Wouldn’t it be odd if what Peter wrongfully bound here on earth was (at the same time) bound in heaven? Further, when Peter was shown the error of his ways and (presumably) loosed the Gentiles from those customs, are we to believe that heaven followed along like an obedient dog and the matter was then loosed in heaven as well?

If Peter was truly given the highest position in the kingdom, isn’t it odd that at the start of Matt 18 (also in Mark 9 and Luke 9) the disciples are still asking: “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” and arguing about who of them will be the greatest…and why does the mother of James and John still think (in Matt 20) that seats are still available at both the left and right hands of Jesus?

No doubt there is some significance and some authority associated with the granting of the keys, but (to me) the Catholic interpretation misses the mark. It is a pity that the scriptures don’t expressly state what it was all about.

That something appears in only one piece of scripture does not reduce it's significance otherwise we would be discarding many sections of scripture.
The gospel writers had different audiences in mind and different things they wanted to portray about Jesus and his teachings.

A painting is not a photograph. By that I mean that a photograph depicts a scene as it is but with a painting the artist selects what he wants to include and exclude to convey his message. Similarly with the writers of scripture.

In his account of the event of Peter's confession of faith Matthew includes many things that Mark does not and Luke gives even less. For example as you point out Luke is "aware of many accounts/gospels, has carefully investigated everything" yet he does not even include that this happens at Caesarea Phillipi, or binding and loosing or Peter being the rock on which Jesus will build his church.

Only Paul mentions Peter's not eating with Gentiles. Yet Protestants make a huge issue of it.

In the example of Matthews' account of Peter's profession of faith I think it's important to recognise that Matthew is a Jew, writing to Jews whereas Luke is writing to Gentiles.Matthew's gospel is full of references to the Old Testament to show how Jesus fulfill prophecies. Some are explicit and some are not. But they would have been noticed by his Jewish audience.

Rather than divert this thread I will post a new one on the issue of Peter's Profession of faith.