Are the "Keys of the Kingdom" really that special?

[Gjallarhorn]

"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."

Isn't this just Jesus's "do unto others" comments rephrased?

“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

 

[2ndpillar]

"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."

Isn't this just Jesus's "do unto others" comments rephrased?

“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

Yeshua came to fulfill Scripture. (Mt 5:17) The Scripture he was fulfilling by giving the keys to Peter was Isaiah 22, whereas the two holders of the keys failed, and those hanging on to the second holder, would be cut off when he fell. They are represented by Peter and his heir, the pope.

 

[CMike]

Yeshua came to fulfill Scripture. (Mt 5:17) The Scripture he was fulfilling by giving the keys to Peter was Isaiah 22, whereas the two holders of the keys failed, and those hanging on to the second holder, would be cut off when he fell. They are represented by Peter and his heir, the pope.

Oy vey.

 

[Benoni]

You see, Peter is not the issue. The kind of power Jesus did or did not bestow on Peter is not what this is about. Rather, Jesus was talking about something new and wonderful that had come to earth — the Kingdom of God itself and the possibility and plan for every son and daughter of Adam to enter into a new realm and participate in that whole new dimension of life.

So different, however, was this Kingdom, that only a company of very special people with unique purpose and particular qualifications would be able to successfully unlock all of its riches and judiciously administer all of its benefits fully to every man according to the will of the King. The issue is not what the people think they want, or what the administrators want, but a matter of the King’s decree!

Any who would illegally grasp after that which is not theirs must be quickly and effectively dealt with — but in the end every man would receive his share. Those unfaithful servants who would deny the blessings to some because of their own ignorance, unbelief, or rebellion, must be punished, but in the end every man will receive his inheritance.

For any man to live as he had previously lived would impugn the wonder of the gift. But for any man to express contempt for the gift, or to secure it by illegal means, or to mistreat it in any way, would bring swift judgment by authority of the King. So the person holding the keys was not only to open up this marvel of grace and glory, but to protect it from ruin as well. Every man must be so dealt with that he will ultimately accept the gift and live in the power of its provision. So the work of the keeper of the keys goes way beyond just passing out gifts; it involves the ability to convince every man to joyfully receive the gift and to prepare every man to properly appropriate the gift. The intention and provision of the King is very wise and thorough!

“You understand me, Peter,” the Lord seemed to be saying, ‘you are someone to whom I can entrust the keys of my Kingdom!” What a day of days it must have been for Peter, who had already seen so much beyond what other men had seen, to now be given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven! Many make the mistake of thinking that only Peter was given these keys! Notice, however, the qualifying statement that follows which explains how the keys work. “ J Preston Eby

 

[e.r.m.]

"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."

Isn't this just Jesus's "do unto others" comments rephrased?

“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

Not at all.
The keys to the kingdom was to open the door to the kingdom of God as Peter did at Pentecost.
We are to forgive people when they sin. But that's npt hold anything against them, whereas Peter was given the authority to affect the removal of people's sins, which we cannot do.

 

[e.r.m.]

Yeshua came to fulfill Scripture. (Mt 5:17) The Scripture he was fulfilling by giving the keys to Peter was Isaiah 22, whereas the two holders of the keys failed, and those hanging on to the second holder, would be cut off when he fell. They are represented by Peter and his heir, the pope.

Peter did not have a Pope as his heir. Peter put Ignatius of Antioch in charge of Antioch only, not even as an apostle. Jesus never promised Peter an heir.
Bishop Leo 1, took it upon himself to establish the papacy and take over all the churches under his own authority. There was no scriptural basis for this.

 

[metis]

You see, Peter is not the issue. The kind of power Jesus did or did not bestow on Peter is not what this is about.

Actually, there's pretty good evidence to support that you're wrong on this. Peter has a special designation found in the "N.T." that is not bestowed on the others. Essentially, he was the spiritual head (not political head) of "the Way", his name is always mentioned first if two or more of the apostles with him being among them are listed, he was told by Jesus to "feed my sheep" three times with the middle command being slightly different, and Simon's name was changed to Peter (Petros, which means "rock") undoubtedly for a reason.

When Jesus says to Peter, "Thou art Peter ["rock"]...", I do think Peter knew his name, so what takes place next is a play on words using his name; "... and upon this rock ["petra" in this case] I will build my church,...". Did this happen? Yes, and the early apostolic church recognized Peter as such, such as what we find in Clement I whereas Clement says that the Roman church was the model for the others and should be relied upon to settle disputes.

Jesus quite obviously realizes that the church needed leadership, which is why the Twelve were undoubtedly appointed in the first place, but also there were different "gifts of the spirit", so we find different roles for the Twelve, and for others as they joined.

 

[metis]

Peter did not have a Pope as his heir. Peter put Ignatius of Antioch in charge of Antioch only, not even as an apostle. Jesus never promised Peter an heir.
Bishop Leo 1, took it upon himself to establish the papacy and take over all the churches under his own authority. There was no scriptural basis for this.

But the concept of the "Chair of Peter" did have meaning in the early church, and that was designated as being the Bishop of Rome, whomever that might be. Nor was it ever assumed that this bishop would somehow be perfect, as Peter himself was certainly not perfect. Obviously, the title "Pope" was not used until much later.

BTW, actually the scriptural basis was cited in the OP, plus the fact that it was the church that chose the scriptures and not the other way around, but not until the 4th century. The idea that Jesus and the apostles would leave the church leaderless makes so little sense, especially since the "N.T." scriptures hadn't been compiled and agreed upon until later.

 

[e.r.m.]

But the concept of the "Chair of Peter" did have meaning in the early church, and that was designated as being the Bishop of Rome, whomever that might be. Nor was it ever assumed that this bishop would somehow be perfect, as Peter himself was certainly not perfect. Obviously, the title "Pope" was not used until much later.

BTW, actually the scriptural basis was cited in the OP, plus the fact that it was the church that chose the scriptures and not the other way around, but not until the 4th century. The idea that Jesus and the apostles would leave the church leaderless makes so little sense, especially since the "N.T." scriptures hadn't been compiled and agreed upon until later.

If there was any geographical seat of authority, it was Jerusalem Acts 15. And in Acts 15 it is demonstrated that Peter did not have any more authority than the other apostles. The keys given to him, he used to open the door to the kingdom, so to speak. The keys did not make him the chief apostle. Later, people looked to Rome informally as a central authority. Perhaps because Peter died there.

I agree that no bishop was perfect.

Perhaps you can elaborate on the scriptural basis in the OP. I'm not seeing the connection.
Thank you.

 

[2ndpillar]

Peter did not have a Pope as his heir. Peter put Ignatius of Antioch in charge of Antioch only, not even as an apostle. Jesus never promised Peter an heir.
Bishop Leo 1, took it upon himself to establish the papacy and take over all the churches under his own authority. There was no scriptural basis for this.

The Roman church had no Scriptural authority to produce it's Nicene Creed, its canon, and its doctrines, which for the most part are accepted by her daughter churches. But as a daughter of the woman who sat on the beast with 7 heads (Rev 17:3), she had the power of the state to enforce whatever she could get the state to act on. Constantine, who convened the Council of Nicaea, and chaired the Council, as Pontifex Maximus (chief priest of the gods and calendar), made sure the church unified his empire. Any dissent, as in the case of Arias, was met with fire, and the Roman position of Pontiff, was passed to the pope. It is a Pauline based church, based on the power of Rome, with Peter as its head. It has almost nothing to do with the testimony of Yeshua, but indeed Yeshua knew it was coming, because it was in Scripture (Is 22 & Ze 11 & Ez). Simon bar Jonas, Paull, and even Judas Iscariot, were chosen to fulfill those Scriptures. Although Peter was dead, he was used along with Paul, as one of the two horns of the beast who was to deceive "those who dwell on the earth" (Rev 13:14) Constantine built basilicas for both Peter and Paul to glorify both. Constantine is dead, but his paganized Roman church claims 1.2 billion followers, with 800,000,000 Protestants following her articles of faith enforced by Constantine, the beast who was to deceive those who dwell on the earth.

"In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offence, he shall be submitted for capital punishment....."

— Edict by Emperor Constantine against the Arians[8]

 

[CMike]

Yeshua came to fulfill Scripture. (Mt 5:17) The Scripture he was fulfilling by giving the keys to Peter was Isaiah 22, whereas the two holders of the keys failed, and those hanging on to the second holder, would be cut off when he fell. They are represented by Peter and his heir, the pope.

Yanno...if you guys actually read the passages above what you are quoting you would have the context.

Yeshayahu - Chapter 22 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

Isaiah 22

20. And it shall come to pass on that day, that I will call My servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah.

21. And I will dress him [with] your tunic, and [with] your girdle I will gird him, and your authority will I place into his hand, and he shall become a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.

22. And I will give the key of the House of David on his shoulder, and he shall open and no one shall close; and he shall close and no one shall open.

Was Peter Eliakim son of Hilkiah?

Was the Pope Eliakim son of Hilkiah?

In case you are interested whom Eliakim was, from Rashi:

to Eliakim: He was appointed over the house when Sennacherib took him, (i.e., Shebna,) as we find, when they went out to Rabshakeh, and he revealed to him Shebna and his company, and they dragged him with their horses’ tails, as is related in San. (26b). When Sennacherib went to Tirhakah, king of Cush, he swept away Shebna and his company and went away. We learned this in Seder Olam (ch. 23).

 

[e.r.m.]

The Roman church had no Scriptural authority to produce it's Nicene Creed, its canon, and its doctrines, which for the most part are accepted by her daughter churches. But as a daughter of the woman who sat on the beast with 7 heads (Rev 17:3), she had the power of the state to enforce whatever she could get the state to act on. Constantine, who convened the Council of Nicaea, and chaired the Council, as Pontifex Maximus (chief priest of the gods and calendar), made sure the church unified his empire. Any dissent, as in the case of Arias, was met with fire, and the Roman position of Pontiff, was passed to the pope. It is a Pauline based church, based on the power of Rome, with Peter as its head. It has almost nothing to do with the testimony of Yeshua, but indeed Yeshua knew it was coming, because it was in Scripture (Is 22 & Ze 11 & Ez). Simon bar Jonas, Paull, and even Judas Iscariot, were chosen to fulfill those Scriptures. Although Peter was dead, he was used along with Paul, as one of the two horns of the beast who was to deceive "those who dwell on the earth" (Rev 13:14) Constantine built basilicas for both Peter and Paul to glorify both. Constantine is dead, but his paganized Roman church claims 1.2 billion followers, with 800,000,000 Protestants following her articles of faith enforced by Constantine, the beast who was to deceive those who dwell on the earth.

"In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offence, he shall be submitted for capital punishment....."

— Edict by Emperor Constantine against the Arians[8]

I agree with the overall idea.

 

[jtartar]

"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."

Isn't this just Jesus's "do unto others" comments rephrased?

“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”[/quote

Gjallarhorn,
These Keys that Jesus gave to Peter were very important, that is, if you fully understand what Jesus was speaking about, Matt 16:19.
These Keys had to do with who, and when different peoples would be allowed into the Congregation of God.
The first key was used on Pentecost, when Peter gave his great speech, and told the Jews to get saved from that wicked generation and get baptized for the forgiveness of their sins, Acts 2:36-41.
Peter used the second Key when he went to Samaria and gave the Holy Spirit to the Samaritans, who were relatives of the Jews, Acts 8:14-17.
Later, when Peter baptized Cornelius, who was the very first of the UNcircuncised gentiles, along with his household, Peter used the third Key, Acts 10th chapter. The Jews did not believe that anyone except them should be accepted, so they argued with Peter about what he had done, Acts 11:th chapter, Peter explained how it all came about Acts 11:1-18. In chapter 15, another argument took place among the Jews, and Peter mentions to them about him being given the authority to allow the Gentiles to enter the Congregation. Beginning in verse 15:7-10, Peter explains the matter.
This giving of the Keys of the Kingdom exactly followed the instruction given by Jesus just before he went back to heaven, first to the repentant Jews, then to the Samaritans then to the gentiles, Acts 1:8.
So, you see that the Keys of the Kingdom were very important, especially to us, who are mostly Gentiles, not fleshly Jews. Very few understand this concept. Understand this and a priceless jewel, that cannot be taken from you, is yours.
he third Key was used

 

[2ndpillar]

Yanno...if you guys actually read the passages above what you are quoting you would have the context.

Yeshayahu - Chapter 22 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

Isaiah 22

20. And it shall come to pass on that day, that I will call My servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah.

21. And I will dress him [with] your tunic, and [with] your girdle I will gird him, and your authority will I place into his hand, and he shall become a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.

22. And I will give the key of the House of David on his shoulder, and he shall open and no one shall close; and he shall close and no one shall open.

Was Peter Eliakim son of Hilkiah?

Was the Pope Eliakim son of Hilkiah?

In case you are interested whom Eliakim was, from Rashi:

to Eliakim: He was appointed over the house when Sennacherib took him, (i.e., Shebna,) as we find, when they went out to Rabshakeh, and he revealed to him Shebna and his company, and they dragged him with their horses’ tails, as is related in San. (26b). When Sennacherib went to Tirhakah, king of Cush, he swept away Shebna and his company and went away. We learned this in Seder Olam (ch. 23).

Dear Mike,
Peter is not Shebna, nor is the pope Eliakim, they are shadows of the two, whereas both Peter and Shebna are characterized by finding a resting place "in the rock". Both Shebna & Eliakim were holders of the key of David, and they both failed, and in "that day", the "Day of the Lord", which is the "tribulation" of Mt 24, the shadow of Eliakim, the pope, will also "give way", and the "load hanging on it will be cut off". According to history, holding the key of David is not necessarily a good thing.

As far as Peter tending the flock, and seeking the lost sheep of Israel (Mt 10:6), according the church traditions of Acts 25:7, Peter instead said he would preach to the Gentiles. Which was a fulfillment of Ze 11:16-17, whereas the "worthless shepherd" "leaves the flock" (Mt 10:6) B]

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Gjallarhorn,
These Keys that Jesus gave to Peter were very important, that is, if you fully understand what Jesus was speaking about, Matt 16:19.
These Keys had to do with who, and when different peoples would be allowed into the Congregation of God.
The first key was used on Pentecost, when Peter gave his great speech, and told the Jews to get saved from that wicked generation and get baptized for the forgiveness of their sins, Acts 2:36-41.
Peter used the second Key when he went to Samaria and gave the Holy Spirit to the Samaritans, who were relatives of the Jews, Acts 8:14-17.
Later, when Peter baptized Cornelius, who was the very first of the UNcircuncised gentiles, along with his household, Peter used the third Key, Acts 10th chapter. The Jews did not believe that anyone except them should be accepted, so they argued with Peter about what he had done, Acts 11:th chapter, Peter explained how it all came about Acts 11:1-18. In chapter 15, another argument took place among the Jews, and Peter mentions to them about him being given the authority to allow the Gentiles to enter the Congregation. Beginning in verse 15:7-10, Peter explains the matter.
This giving of the Keys of the Kingdom exactly followed the instruction given by Jesus just before he went back to heaven, first to the repentant Jews, then to the Samaritans then to the gentiles, Acts 1:8.
So, you see that the Keys of the Kingdom were very important, especially to us, who are mostly Gentiles, not fleshly Jews. Very few understand this concept. Understand this and a priceless jewel, that cannot be taken from you, is yours.
he third Key was used

Sounds insubstantial.

 

[metis]

If there was any geographical seat of authority, it was Jerusalem Acts 15.

Sorry for the delay as I was out of town.

Some theologians do believe that one of the main purposes of Luke writing Acts was to justify the movement out of Jerusalem into Antioch and then to Rome, and this was probably to justify the shift of authority there.

And in Acts 15 it is demonstrated that Peter did not have any more authority than the other apostles. The keys given to him, he used to open the door to the kingdom, so to speak. The keys did not make him the chief apostle. Later, people looked to Rome informally as a central authority. Perhaps because Peter died there.

As I previously mentioned, Peter was treated as the spiritual head of the apostolic church, but James and Judas shared some other responsibilities as well. Obviously, the influence that Peter had was less than what the Popes eventually had especially as far as running the apostolic church is concerned.

 

[metis]

Perhaps you can elaborate on the scriptural basis in the OP. I'm not seeing the connection.
Thank you.

The apostolic church even in its infancy was not a "loosey-goosey" entity, which is clearly obvious when one takes a step back from the scriptures and consider the gospels and epistles as whole. The apostles had powers, plus they appointed others to continue on with those powers.

Long before the scriptures were canonized, the mark of the apostolic church as it spread into the diaspora was whether your episcopoi (bishops) were appointed by one of the apostles or others that were appointed by the apostles, which is called "apostolic succession". If you read some of the writings of the 2nd century leaders, this is oft repeated. Again, it appears convincingly so because there was no point or intent just to let every church do their own thing, which is one reason why Paul keeps on demanding that they operate as "one body".

Even Luther recognized this, and his main contention was that the leadership had gotten too corrupt, which no doubt was true, but he felt that a split should only be temporary in order to get the church to change. What many don't realize is that Luther died a very depressed man because he never wanted a permanent split, plus he was disgusted that so many others broke away as well, thus fragmenting the church are making far less "one body".

BTW, I am not Catholic.

 

[dawny0826]

"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."

Isn't this just Jesus's "do unto others" comments rephrased?

“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

Not when considering context.

Matthew 16:18 (NKJV)
In Chapter 16, Christ is declaring what is to come with the church that's to be established and foretelling that which is to come.

The keys of the kingdom are symbolic as both the authority given to Peter to establish the church but also the authority given to "the church".

Matthew 7:1-6 (NKJV)
In these specific verses, Christ is addressing the topic of judgement upon each other.

 

[Pegg]

"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."

Isn't this just Jesus's "do unto others" comments rephrased?

“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

not at all.

Jesus gave Peter a special assignment with regard to carrying on the work that Jesus started. The keys of the kingdom refer to that work. Peter was the first one to use those figurative keys when he baptised the first gentile family.

 

[Pegg]

Yeshua came to fulfill Scripture. (Mt 5:17) The Scripture he was fulfilling by giving the keys to Peter was Isaiah 22, whereas the two holders of the keys failed, and those hanging on to the second holder, would be cut off when he fell. They are represented by Peter and his heir, the pope.

The christian greek scriptures do not mention this. The last apostle alive toward the end of the first century was John.... and he doesnt mention any pope who took over from Peter, why not?