Response to MT's post


MT greetings my debating partner. Blessings to you sir.

You, again, impose ideas not actually found in the passages you site. In other words you have “read into these passages” with ideas, you may have learned somewhere else, but not in Mt. 16. Instead of extracting the actual information to form your conclusions, you bloviate in my humble opinion.

For example: you said, "… Jesus gave St. Peter the keys which signifies his role as the Chief Steward/Vicar to the King. The job of the Vicar is to make authoritative decisions, binding on the kingdom, in the absence of the King. See Matthew 16.

It’s funny because when I go to Matthew 16, I DO find some of what you said, but I do not find ALL of what you said, it said. It is true Christ told Peter He would give him the “keys of the kingdom of heaven…” v19. But the part about him being the Chief Steward/Vicar to the King, was not in the inspired scripture. So you added it.

Actually, Jesus did not expound on what the keys meant, or what it meant to receive the keys of the kingdom, at least not from this one passage.

This forces us to find other like passages to hopefully glean more information. Luke 11:52 comes to mind. Similar but not exactly the same, Jesus said, "Woe to you lawyers, for you have taken away the KEY of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves and you hindered those who were entering. The passage is incredibly similar to Mt. 23 where Jesus said, “But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.” Mt. 23:13.

Wouldn’t it be more honest to say that Jesus gave Peter the keys to unlock the divine knowledge of God’s ways? At the same time we cannot say that Peter was the only one to receive this knowledge. Mt. 16 uses Peter as a point of teaching but does not imply anywhere in the passage that Peter was singled out. If so, please point that out to me.

The Pharisees, who were the elite theologians of Jesus day, were actually taking away knowledge from God’s people so that they could not enter the ways of the King. Why would they do that? So that they could have leverage and control over the people.

This whole thing about becoming a Vicar is simply your imposed idea my friend.

You also said,
The shepherd, the one in charge, is the one who feeds and tends the sheep. When Jesus gave this command to St. Peter and no other it is here that Jesus made St. Peter the visible head of the Sheep, which would include the other Apostles.

This whole thing about Peter becoming the visible head of the sheep is a half-truth. And of course you know that a half truth is a whole lie. Not to say that you are lying MT, I don’t believe that for a moment. But simply not convincing.


Continued for MT

Peter was not the only one called to be a Shepherd. Actually the Apostle Paul, when instructing the Church at Ephesus about Church leadership, included the office of shepherd=pastor. 4:11 tells us that God has given shepherds… to equip the saints for the work of ministry…"
It is only your imposed opinion to say that Peter was given a universal position as shepherd over all Churches. But I cannot find this anywhere in the inspired record. Why did you go beyond inspired word to ideas not found?

Bless you MT


I think you might have meant to respond to a particular post as opposed to creating a whole new thread.


This is a response to a post from 24 days ago in this thread that has already been closed.

If you wish to respond to that your best option is to private message the user in question.


Infallibility of what?


That’s a link to a thread which contains a post by @MT1926 which I believe was what you are trying to respond to here?


My apology.


No need to apologize, it’s quite alright. I would suggest next time using the private message feature to respond to a user about an old post. That way the user in question to whom you are responding will be notified directly and you can continue your discussion without anyone else butting in.


Um…that is what “giving someone the Keys” means.

It’s not like lending someone the keys to your car or even your house. The Keys to the Kingdom equate to the authority to administer the Kingdom on behalf of the King.


That’s very kind.


Welcome back tg, I missed you.

Not sure why you think me explaining what the “keys of the kingdom” means I’m adding to scripture? Aren’t we suppose to interpret scripture? When you pastor preaches does he ONLY read the words directly from the Bible or does he give an interpretation of their meaning?

Just because you don’t agree with my interpretation doesn’t mean I added it to the words on the page.

Why would you expect Jesus to expound on everything He said within the verse He said it?

Why would you even attempt to make a direct correlation between the keys of the kingdom and the key of knowledge? Wouldn’t it make more sense to find a passage speaking about a kingdom and the king’s keys, which is what I did?

Maybe you could explain how you can make this conclusion without “Adding” it to the text? I know of know other verse in scripture about keys unlocking divine knowledge in a kingdom. Maybe you could point me there?

17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

I don’t follow you hear. Maybe you could interpret the meaning of these verses in John for me so I can see which half I got right.

Glad your back,

God Bless


The old testament also refers to the keys - a steward was appointed to hold the keys to the kingdom while the king was away. In Peter’s case, he has the keys until Christ returns, judges, and rules as the King of Kings.


The exact quote is

15 Thus says the Lord God of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him: 16 What have you to do here and whom have you here, that you have hewn here a tomb for yourself, you who hew a tomb on the height, and carve a habitation for yourself in the rock? 17 Behold, the Lord will hurl you away violently, O you strong man. He will seize firm hold on you, 18 and whirl you round and round, and throw you like a ball into a wide land; there you shall die, and there shall be your splendid chariots, you shame of your master’s house. 19 I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. 20 In that day I will call my servant Eli′akim the son of Hilki′ah, 21 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. 22 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. 23 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. 24 And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. 25 In that day, says the Lord of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a sure place will give way; and it will be cut down and fall, and the burden that was upon it will be cut off, for the Lord has spoken.”

Isaiah 22 (RSVCE)


Yes but not all passages of scripture draw solid conclusions on any given topic. Thus we appeal to the SUM of Thy Word to apply a checks and balance approach. The Mt 16 passage is inconclusive to answer the very narrow questions about the keys, standing by itself?
We all can come up with our own biased opinion, but does the word of God actually address it distinctively and conclusively seeing that we are dealing with a figure of speech. No one argues the keys were literal and physical keys. It was a figure of speech.

But the real argument here is more to the idea that you say these keys were exclusively given to Peter and that by doing so, it elevated his position as an apostle over all other apostles.

This is where I have most of the problem because I cannot find these narrow ideas capsulated within the Mt. 16 passage in question. Can you? … please point it out to me.

Secondly, there are no checks and balances offered by other N.T. authors saying the same thing that you say. Who else among the Apostles taught that Peter now has authority over them? That’s two strikes right there. And lastly, where did Jesus teach us that He would leave us with one “visible” chief shepherd to rule over the eleven here on the earth, as if we needed this specific role?.. Please site that verse.

The biblical response to all of these questions is an emphatic NO.


It was Jesus who said the Pharisees took away the KEY of knowledge… they did not enter in themselves. So knowledge is something to be entered into. And they, through their manipulation, forbid others to also enter this 'KNOWLEDGE," which came through a KEY they possessed.

The Pharisees were sitting in the chair of Moses (Mt. 23) whether they deserved to sit there or not. That was the spiritual authority they claimed. And they had what Jesus called a KEY of knowledge.

Obviously the word KEY is a figure of speech. I doubt he was talking about a physical key. A key unlocks stuff… In this case (Luke 11:52) it unlocked knowledge.
Jesus brought up a set of KEYS and said to Peter, after Peter declared Him to be the Christ, “I will give you the KEYS of the kingdom of heaven…” Mt 16:19.
Question: Should we believe that Peter alone received these keys, seeing that there is no other passage using this expression with any other apostle? …
Well, if I went along with the Catholic view, to say YES, then what are we really left with.

If Peter alone holds these KEYS, to which Jesus said was knowledge. Then Peter alone had the greatest knowledge. If Jesus didn’t mean that the keys were a metaphor for knowledge in Matthews gospel, then we are left with a question mark as to what the keys actually represent.

If you say the keys represent authority to bind and loose, then we are still left with a problem because Jesus repeated himself in Mt. 18:18 to His entire circle of disciples when He said, “… whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven…”

So if the keys were a special authority only for Peter to bind and loose, apparently the other Apostles could also use the KEYS.

What a quandary.
Blessings MT


Is Peter the only one who understood Jesus to be the Christ?.. are you kidding MT?


Agree. I never claimed it was.

We sure can. I think Jesus would have been smart enough to figure out a way for us to check and see that we all get the same answer, don’t you? You know kind of like a continual line of teacher all teaching the same thing.

Agree, not sure why you think I am arguing that Jesus physically handed St. Peter a set of keys.

Feel free to point out where Jesus singled out any of the other Apostles and gave them the keys.

That’s the difference in our theologies. Your’s requires it to be narrowly encapsulate. As for us Catholics we read the Bible as a whole. When Jesus says I give you the keys to my Kingdom. We can see that Jesus is the new King in the line of King David. We can see from Isiah 22 what @Dlee and @Elf01 post above :point_up_2:.

The NT is full of writings that shows Peter’s authority, you just refuse to see them…

Let’s start with Matthew 16. Why did Jesus change Peter’s name in the first place? Was He just tired of saying the name Simon? OR Does God use name changes in the Bible to indicate something of importance? Like say … “Abraham” meaning farther of many nations.

Peter had Judas’ place filled - Acts 1

Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcision - Acts 15

Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognized by, Peter - Gal 1:18.

Peter often spoke for the rest of the Apostles (Mt 19:27; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69).

The Apostles are sometimes referred to as “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7; Acts 2:37).

Peter’s name always heads the list of the Apostles (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13).

Peter’s name is mentioned 191 times, which is more than all the rest of the Apostles combined (about 130 times).

Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14)

Peter received the first converts (Acts 2:4 1).

Peter performed the first miracle (Acts 3:6-7)

Peter inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11),

Peter excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:2 1).

Peter is the first to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-4 1).

Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16)

Peter commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).


Us having this disagreement is proof positive that we need this specific role.

God Bless


I never said they were physical keys.

All I asked is why you are relating the keys of the kingdom to the keys of knowledge?

Yes in Luke THAT KEY unlocks knowledge. But in Matthew Jesus’ KEYS (notice this is plural meaning all of the KEYS not just one) are to HIS KINGDOM.

Sure when guided by the Holy Spirit I could see this being possible. But like I said Jesus gave St. Peter a set of KEYS not just one.

Anyway is the keys can ONLY represent knowledge that wouldn’t that mean Jesus didn’t give St. Peter keys to a physical reality (a real heaven) He only gave St. Peter the keys to something that exists in our minds?

Why are you focusing on the word KEYS? You need to focus on the word in context. It’s “KEYS OF THE KINGDOM”. There is no way you can figure out what this means by going to Luke talking about the “KEY OF KNOWLEDGE”.

If we use your style of interpretation why don’t we just go to Revelation 1:18…

I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.

This verse symbolizes that Christ has royal and judicial power over life and death. Should we just blindly say see these are the KEYS given to St. Peter?

Maybe we can go with Rev 9:1 or 20:1 and say see Jesus gave St. Peter the key to the bottomless pit.

Interpretation doesn’t blindly work that way.

We need to start with context…

The verse states I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven

You need to first ask is there a kingdom of heaven? YES or NO?

If your answer is YES then these KEYS have to be directly related to the Kingdom of heaven. To try to say Jesus is speaking of knowledge here makes no sense.

Nope no question mark. The only ones with the question mark are the ones incapable of accepting the Biblical truth.

Jesus is a King, Yes or No?

Jesus is the one true King in the Line of David, Yes or No?

Jesus has a Kingdom, Yes or No?

David had a kingdom, Yes or No?

The authority of David’s kingdom was symbolized by a key, Yes or No?

Jesus now has the Key of David, Yes or No

David’s house, his kingdom, had a chief steward who held onto the keys (authority) in his absence (Is 22) Yes or No?

Answer all of these and then reread Matthew 16

Now answer

Did Jesus appoint a Chief Steward and give Him the KEYS (Jesus authority) to hold onto in His absence until He returns, Yes or No?

You just need to ask yourself why is it important that Jesus is from the line of David if nothing that occurred in David’s Kingdom has any meaning in the NT?

God Bless


I never said the keys represent authority to bind and loose.

Let me try this again…

In the Bible the KEYS OF THE KINGDOM represent the King’s Authority, being placed in the hands of the Chief Steward, who is left in charge in the absence of the King. The authority to bind and loose is one TYPE of Authority given to the Chief Steward who is the holder of the KEYS but just because you have this authority does not mean you also hold the keys.

Read some history, the King only had ONE chief steward, not 12 all holding the same amount of authority.

Nope no quandary. First off look closer at Matthew 16, it says I will give you the keys AND. The word AND delineates a separate action here. If Jesus meant the keys were the symbol of being able to bind and loose He would have said I give you the keys SO THAT. He would have used wording to connect the two into one, not separate them into two distinct actions.

Also, you are adding the keys to Matthew 18.

Let’s take a closer look at the verses in question.

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,[h] and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 18:18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.[i]

In Matthew 16:19 the phrase is “you bind”. The Greek here is dēsēs which is a 2nd person SINGULAR verb.

In chapter 18 St. Matthew changes the word here to dēsēte which is a 2nd person PLURAL verb.

This is very important because it tells us that in Matthew 16 Jesus was giving St. Peter the authority to to bind and loose all on his own. Thus the reason for using the singular form of the verb. Where as in Matthew 18 Jesus also gave this same authority to all of the Apostles, AS A GROUP. Thus the reason for using the plural form of the verb.

Basically, Jesus gave this authority to St. Peter (the Pope) on his own as well as to the Apostles (the Church Magisterium spoken of in verse 17) as a group. This is Catholic teaching. You are the one claiming it has to be either/or, but us Catholics understand that Jesus is saying it is Both.

You need to read verse 16 in context. Jesus and St. Peter weren’t alone, the other Apostles were present. They would have heard and understood that Jesus was speaking directly and only to St. Peter here.

I couldn’t even imagine being in charge of a project and saying to 12 men, hey guys I give each one of you full authority to decide how we will complete this project. That would be a nightmare. You would have 12 guys all wanting to do it their way.

Leaving no one to have the deciding vote when the Apostles came to a disagreement is the only quandary I could ever imagine here.

God Bless


Sorry you lost me here.

I reread my response, that you quoted, and I’m not seeing where I said St. Peter is the only one who understood Jesus to be the Christ.

Could you point it out for me because I honestly don’t know what I am “kidding” about.


God Bless

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