One More Time...Who (or What) received the 'Keys'


#1

Thank You NotWorthy (sp) and DavidFilmer (sp), (I hope I got your monikers correct) for your kind words! I hope that we can have a discussion about the receiver of the “keys” So here goes…

If Peter is just the “Pebble”, who (or what) recieved the keys? Did Jesus give to himself the keys? How does one give to oneself what is already possessed? Did Jesus hand the keys the the “Confession” that He was the Messiah, the Annointed of the Lord? How does the Confession ‘Bind and Loose?’

Based upon some thoughts the conversation went like this:

Jesus: “Who do you say that I AM?”

Peter: “You are the Son of the Living God, the Messiah, the Lord”

Jesus: “Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah. Man has not revealed this to you but my Father in heaven. You, Peter, are a little Pebble. And upon this Rock (pointing to Himself…or the ‘Words of Peter’s confession’ still hanging in the air…I will build My Church. I give you (again pointing to Himself or the Word Bubble) the “Keys” of Heaven and Earth. What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and what you loose on earth willl be loosed in heaven.”

Who received the keys? Why quote Isaiah?

Jesus is the Rock of Salvation and founder of the Church. This Truth does not mean that the Church was not founded upon Peter’s confession and with Peter’s leadership. Jesus could do both, neither of which detracts from His authority or Divinity.

Pax Christe


#2

Why are you posting this again?

(I will post commentaries on verses 18 and 19 to follow…)


#3

Ver. 18. Greek: Kago. And I say to thee, and tell thee why I before declared, (John i. 42.) that thou shouldst be called Peter, for thou art constituted the rock upon which, as a foundation, I will build my Church, and that so firmly, as not to suffer the gates (i.e. the powers) of hell to prevail against its foundation; because if they overturn its foundation, (i.e. thee and thy successors) they will overturn also the Church that rests upon it. Christ therefore here promises to Peter, that he and his successors should be to the end, as long as the Church should last, its supreme pastors and princes. (Tirinus) — In the Syriac tongue, which is that which Jesus Christ spoke, there is no difference of genders, as there is in Latin, between patra, a rock, and Petrus, Peter; hence, in the original language, the allusion was both more natural and more simple. (Bible de Vence) –Thou art Peter;[2]* and upon this* (i.e. upon thee, according to the literal and general exposition of the ancient Fathers) I will build my church. It is true St. Augustine, in one or two places, thus expounds these words, and upon this rock, (i.e. upon myself) or upon this rock, which Peter hath confessed: yet he owns that he had also given the other interpretation, by which Peter himself was the rock. Some Fathers have also expounded it, upon this faith, which Peter confessed; but then they take not faith, as separated from the person of Peter, but on Peter, as holding the true faith. No one questions but that Christ himself is the great foundation-stone, the chief corner-stone, as St. Paul tells the Ephesians; Chap. ii, ver. 20.) but it is also certain, that all the apostles may be called foundation-stones of the Church, as represented Apocalypse xxi. 14. In the mean time, St. Peter (called therefore Cephas, a rock) was the first and chief foundation-stone among the apostles, on whom Christ promised to build his Church. (Witham) — Thou art Peter, &c. As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ, so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz. that he, to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, (John i. 42.) should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be next to Christ himself, the chief foundation-stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven. — Upon this rock, &c. The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews, which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built; Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ by building his house, that is, his Church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder. (Matthew vii. 24, 25.) — The gates of hell, &c. That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself or his agents. For as the Church is here likened to a house, or fortress, the gates of which, i.e. the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or Church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the Church of Christ. (Challoner) — The gates, in the Oriental style, signify the powers; thus, to this day, we designate the Ottoman or Turkish empire by the Ottoman port. The princes were wont to hold their courts at the gates of the city. (Bible de Vence)


#4

Ver. 19. And I will give to thee the keys, &c. This is another metaphor, expressing the supreme power and prerogative of the prince of the apostles. The keys of a city, or of its gates, are presented or given to the person that hath the chief power. We also own a power of the keys, given to the other apostles, but with a subordination to St. Peter and to his successor, as head of the Catholic Church. — And whatsoever thou shalt bind, &c. All the apostles, and their successors, partake also of this power of binding and loosing, but with a due subordination to one head invested with the supreme power. (Witham) — Loose on earth. The loosing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence: the power of which is here granted. (Challoner) — Although Peter and his successors are mortal, they are nevertheless endowed with heavenly power, says St. Chrysostom nor is the sentence of life and death passed by Peter to be attempted to be reversed, but what he declares is to be considered a divine answer from heaven, and what he decrees, a decree of God himself.* He that heareth you, heareth me,* &c. The power of binding is exercised, 1st. by refusing to absolve; 2d. by enjoining penance for sins forgiven; 3d. by excommunication, suspension or interdict; 4th. by making rules and laws for the government of the Church; 5th. by determining what is of faith by the judgments and definitions of the Church. (Tirinus) — The terms binding and loosing, are equivalent to opening and shutting, because formerly the Jews opened the fastenings of their doors by untying it, and they shut or secured their doors by tying or binding it. (Bible de Vence) — Dr. Whitby, a learned Protestant divine, thus expounds this and the preceding verse: “As a suitable return to thy confession, I say also to thee, that thou art by name Peter, i.e. a rock; and upon thee, who art this rock, I will build my making laws to govern my Church.” (Tom. i, p. 143.) Dr. Hammond, another Protestant divine, explains it in the same manner. And p. 92, he says: " What is here meant by the keys, is best understand by Isaias xxii. 22, where they signified ruling the whole family or house of the king: and this being by Christ accommodated to the Church, denotes the power of governing it."


#5

[quote=YADA]Thank You NotWorthy (sp) and DavidFilmer (sp), (I hope I got your monikers correct) for your kind words! I hope that we can have a discussion about the receiver of the “keys” So here goes…

If Peter is just the “Pebble”, who (or what) recieved the keys? Did Jesus give to himself the keys? How does one give to oneself what is already possessed? Did Jesus hand the keys the the “Confession” that He was the Messiah, the Annointed of the Lord? How does the Confession ‘Bind and Loose?’

Based upon some thoughts the conversation went like this:

Jesus: “Who do you say that I AM?”

Peter: “You are the Son of the Living God, the Messiah, the Lord”

Jesus: “Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah. Man has not revealed this to you but my Father in heaven. You, Peter, are a little Pebble. And upon this Rock (pointing to Himself…or the ‘Words of Peter’s confession’ still hanging in the air…I will build My Church. I give you (again pointing to Himself or the Word Bubble) the “Keys” of Heaven and Earth. What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and what you loose on earth willl be loosed in heaven.”

Who received the keys? Why quote Isaiah?

Jesus is the Rock of Salvation and founder of the Church. This Truth does not mean that the Church was not founded upon Peter’s confession and with Peter’s leadership. Jesus could do both, neither of which detracts from His authority or Divinity.

Pax Christe
[/quote]

Why quote Isaiah? Because of the obvious parallel between the two. You can read in context the authority our Lord is giving to Peter in light of Isaiah. Yes Christ is the rock. So is Abraham. And so are the other apostles, and so is the confession of Peter but Peter is also a rock. He is the rock on which the Church was built.


#6

Where did the “you are just a little pebble” come from? I have never seen that before in the Bible. Is that a new translation?

I’m not being sarcastic, I really am curious. I have never heard that phrase before and would like some reference for it.

Because I am unfamiliar with the ‘you are just a little pebble’ thing, I believe (one more time) that the correct interpretation is the one subscribed to by the Catechism.

Still, I am curious as to where the other originated. Thank you.


#7

[quote=YADA]Thank You NotWorthy (sp) and DavidFilmer (sp), (I hope I got your monikers correct) for your kind words! I hope that we can have a discussion about the receiver of the “keys” So here goes…

If Peter is just the “Pebble”, who (or what) recieved the keys? Did Jesus give to himself the keys? How does one give to oneself what is already possessed? Did Jesus hand the keys the the “Confession” that He was the Messiah, the Annointed of the Lord? How does the Confession ‘Bind and Loose?’

Based upon some thoughts the conversation went like this:

Jesus: “Who do you say that I AM?”

Peter: “You are the Son of the Living God, the Messiah, the Lord”

Jesus: “Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah. Man has not revealed this to you but my Father in heaven. You, Peter, are a little Pebble. And upon this Rock (pointing to Himself…or the ‘Words of Peter’s confession’ still hanging in the air…I will build My Church. I give you (again pointing to Himself or the Word Bubble) the “Keys” of Heaven and Earth. What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and what you loose on earth willl be loosed in heaven.”

Who received the keys? Why quote Isaiah?

Jesus is the Rock of Salvation and founder of the Church. This Truth does not mean that the Church was not founded upon Peter’s confession and with Peter’s leadership. Jesus could do both, neither of which detracts from His authority or Divinity.

Pax Christe
[/quote]

Excellent exposition There are a couple of key points to note here. The man Jesus was talking to was named Simon bar Jonah. Jesus changes Simons name to Rock, you see. Petros and Petra are a quirk of Greek which gives different forms of the word depending on gender. However, Jesus was speaking in Aramaic. There is only one word Kephas, there is no gender distinction in Aramaic. When this was translated into Greek by the writer, he was forced to use the masculine form of the word since Peter is a man. Equiped with these facts, it clarifies the interpretation considerably.


#8

Thank you for all of the posts so far. :slight_smile:

But this is the “Choir singing” :smiley:

Why post again? Because I was asked to post this again.

Little Pebble, why that is a classic non-catholic rendering of the passage.

The “Why quote Isaiah?” question is posed to understand why our seperated Christain Brethren disregard the quote as if it is meaningless or should be dismissed.

I an not asking these questions to get my own understanding (Catholic) echoed back but to try to understand how others consider or perhaps have not considered the passage in context. A position at least one other poster must be curious about because they asked me to “try the post again” Come on people I am not the enemy and would not be even if I was not Catholic! :yup:

Pax


#9

[quote=YADA]Thank you for all of the posts so far. :slight_smile:

But this is the “Choir singing” :smiley:

Why post again? Because I was asked to post this again.

Little Pebble, why that is a classic non-catholic rendering of the passage.

The “Why quote Isaiah?” question is posed to understand why our seperated Christain Brethren disregard the quote as if it is meaningless or should be dismissed.

I an not asking these questions to get my own understanding (Catholic) echoed back but to try to understand how others consider or perhaps have not considered the passage in context. A position at least one other poster must be curious about because they asked me to “try the post again” Come on people I am not the enemy and would not be even if I was not Catholic! :yup:

Pax
[/quote]

I realized what side you represented, I was merely curious as to why this same thread was started up again.

Who wanted you to re-post it?


#10

I was private messaged so perhaps they want to remain ‘a-non-a-mouse’ At any rate, it seemed worthy of another go. I was just attempting to move the discussion of the papacy further into the passage and in context with the Hebrew text.

Your writings show great depth, have enjoyed reading them.


#11

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.