Peter and the "Keys"

[Fides_et_Ratio]

I tried the reference section, but couldn't find anything that was "satisfactory" for me.

Anyhow, I'm discussing the Papacy with a good natured Protestant who responds to Jesus' giving Peter the "keys" in a way that would limit succession to Peter and no further need for a successor:

[i]Here is an excerpt from the Fourfold Gospel referring to the use of the keys.


I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Continuing his metaphorical language, Jesus promised to Peter the keys, that is, the authority to lay down the rules or laws (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, however) for admission to or exclusion from the kingdom or church. This office was, of course, given to Peter in a secondary sense, since it must ever belong to Christ in a primary sense (Revelation 3:7). The figure of key-bearer is taken from Isaiah 22:22. Peter used the keys on the day of Pentecost to open the church to the Jews, and about seven years afterward, at Caesarea Palestinae, he used them again to admit the Gentiles. In fixing the terms of admission, he also fixed the terms of exclusion, for all who are not admitted are excluded. The keys as used by Peter have never been changed; that is to say, the terms of admission abide forever. Plurality of keys is merely part of the parabolic drapery, since cities were accustomed to have several gates, thus requiring a plurality of keys. The kingdom was not opened to Jews and Gentiles by different keys, since both were admitted on the same terms.

From this aspect Peter was given authority to open the church to the Jews and to the Gentiles, which as you see he did on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2)and then in Ceaserea (Acts 10). That is the extent of the authority given to him and no succession of that authority was ever needed. No papal succession is ever mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

Where is the succession of Peter mentioned in the Bible? And then where is the succession of passing these keys to others?

As far as the answer to your question is, the definition of what the keys are show the extent/limitation of this authority. The Bible clearly shows that the way of salvation is opened to both Jews and Gentiles at the points mentioned above, so once the door was open, there is no longer a need for keys.

When you go home from work or elsewhere and you unlock your doors, do you need your keys after that, except to unlock other doors? In Peter's case, once the door was opened to the Jews and Gentiles alike, the door remains open. Therefore, there is no need to pass these keys on, and also there is no mention of him doing so or needing to do so.[/i]



Edification would be greatly appreciated.

[goldenchild17]

[quote]I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Continuing his metaphorical language, Jesus promised to Peter the keys, that is, the authority to lay down the rules or laws (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, however) for admission to or exclusion from the kingdom or church. This office was, of course, given to Peter in a secondary sense, since it must ever belong to Christ in a primary sense (Revelation 3:7). The figure of key-bearer is taken from Isaiah 22:22. Peter used the keys on the day of Pentecost to open the church to the Jews, and about seven years afterward, at Caesarea Palestinae, he used them again to admit the Gentiles. In fixing the terms of admission, he also fixed the terms of exclusion, for all who are not admitted are excluded. The keys as used by Peter have never been changed; that is to say, the terms of admission abide forever. Plurality of keys is merely part of the parabolic drapery, since cities were accustomed to have several gates, thus requiring a plurality of keys. The kingdom was not opened to Jews and Gentiles by different keys, since both were admitted on the same terms.[/quote]
This is interesting. What Scripture does he use to support this idea that the keys are limited to this?


[quote]From this aspect Peter was given authority to open the church to the Jews and to the Gentiles, which as you see he did on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2)and then in Ceaserea (Acts 10). That is the extent of the authority given to him and no succession of that authority was ever needed. No papal succession is ever mentioned anywhere in the Bible.[/quote]
Well, he mentioned that this comes from Isaiah 22. This chapter is a direct example of succession being passed on from one man to another, Isaiah 22:19-22 "[color=blue]I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station. On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open[/color]"

Here it gives a pretty clear example of a man, Shebna, who has the keys to the house. God takes his authority away from him and gives it to Eliakim. This is succession. If the person you are talking to realizes that the passing of the keys comes from Isaiah 22, then it should be pretty clear for him to understand that succession comes from this passages as well.



[quote]Where is the succession of Peter mentioned in the Bible? And then where is the succession of passing these keys to others?[/quote]

See above. There is more for Apostolic Succession, but I just wanted to point out where it is in Isaiah 22 as that seems to be the important passage in question.

[quote]As far as the answer to your question is, the definition of what the keys are show the extent/limitation of this authority. The Bible clearly shows that the way of salvation is opened to both Jews and Gentiles at the points mentioned above, so once the door was open, there is no longer a need for keys.


When you go home from work or elsewhere and you unlock your doors, do you need your keys after that, except to unlock other doors? In Peter's case, once the door was opened to the Jews and Gentiles alike, the door remains open. Therefore, there is no need to pass these keys on, and also there is no mention of him doing so or needing to do so.[/i][/quote]

I just don't see what he is using from the Bible to show this. Isaiah 22 clearly shows that this office and the keys are passed on. I don't see where Scripture says that the keys are used solely for letting the Jews and Gentiles into the kingdom and then never used again.

[phatcatholic]

approach this from a logical standpoint too. why would Jesus pass on authority over his Church to Peter, just to have it stop with him? the whole purpose of passing on authority in the first place is so that the leader of the household always has his authority present in his absense. no competent leader leaves his house protected only for a time. instead, he leaves it protected as long as he is gone--or put another way, until he comes again.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Jan 7 2005, 01:32 PM'] I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Continuing his metaphorical language, Jesus promised to Peter the keys, that is, the authority to lay down the rules or laws (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, however) for admission to or exclusion from the kingdom or church. This office was, of course, given to Peter in a secondary sense, since it must ever belong to Christ in a primary sense (Revelation 3:7). The figure of key-bearer is taken from Isaiah 22:22. Peter used the keys on the day of Pentecost to open the church to the Jews, and about seven years afterward, at Caesarea Palestinae, he used them again to admit the Gentiles. In fixing the terms of admission, he also fixed the terms of exclusion, for all who are not admitted are excluded. The keys as used by Peter have never been changed; that is to say, the terms of admission abide forever. Plurality of keys is merely part of the parabolic drapery, since cities were accustomed to have several gates, thus requiring a plurality of keys. The kingdom was not opened to Jews and Gentiles by different keys, since both were admitted on the same terms.

From this aspect Peter was given authority to open the church to the Jews and to the Gentiles, which as you see he did on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2)and then in Ceaserea (Acts 10). That is the extent of the authority given to him and no succession of that authority was ever needed. No papal succession is ever mentioned anywhere in the Bible. [/quote]
but, the keys are not to be restricted to how one becomes a member of the church (for example, thru baptism). if we are talking about "admission to or exclusion from the kingdom or church" (as your opponent admits) then we must also speak of these keys w/in the context of forgiveness of sins. afterall, nothing excludes one from the kingdom like sin does, and nothing brings them back into communion like forgiveness. and since this language of "binding and loosing" parallels the language of "forgiving and retaining" that Jesus uses when he give his apostles the authority to forgive sins ([url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=John+20%3A21-23&section=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=20&NavCurrentChapter=20"][b]John 20:21-23[/b][/url]), we must see the keys as having the power of perform this role.

this binding and loosing of the keys is also seen, in Mat 18, w/in the context of disciplining those members of the Church who willfully separate themselves from her:

[b]Mat 18:15-19[/b]
[b]15 [/b]"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
[b]16 [/b]But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
[b]17 [/b]If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
[b]18 [/b]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.
[b]19 [/b]Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.

so, i think this shows a legislative component to the power of the keys as well. but, i think if we look at the event from Isaiah, from which Jesus draws his language about the keys, we find that they really weren't restricted in any way. if you have the keys to the gate of the house, it is b/c you obtain total authority over the house. you aren't just the gatekeeper. you are the ruler of the house. admittance into the house is no casual affair. it only makes sense that the person in charge of admittance into the house is the one who is resposible for every way in which admittance may effect the house. if you have the keys to the gate you are responsible for the defense of the house and its perseverence as long as it is under your power.

the owner of the keys has a grand responsibility, entrusted to him w/ the upmost care by the ruler of the house in his absense. the scope of this event is far greater than your opponent may wish to admit.


[quote]Where is the succession of Peter mentioned in the Bible? And then where is the succession of passing these keys to others?[/quote]
we see the succession of Peter in the bible where we see the succession of any apostle or bishop, for Peter too is an apostle/bishop--he is just the pre-eminent one. apostolic succession is established in [url="http://scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html"][b]these verses[/b][/url]


[quote]As far as the answer to your question is, the definition of what the keys are show the extent/limitation of this authority. The Bible clearly shows that the way of salvation is opened to both Jews and Gentiles at the points mentioned above, so once the door was open, there is no longer a need for keys.

When you go home from work or elsewhere and you unlock your doors, do you need your keys after that, except to unlock other doors? In Peter's case, once the door was opened to the Jews and Gentiles alike, the door remains open. Therefore, there is no need to pass these keys on, and also there is no mention of him doing so or needing to do so.[/quote]
for one thing, i hope i have already shown the the import of the keys is not as limited as he claims. secondly, think of the impact on the metaphor this has if a door stays open once you open it. if we understand "open" as "to allow" and "close" as "to reject" then if we have a perpetually open door, then we have a floodgate that allows anything and everything. this is not responsible authority over the house and the gate.


i hope this helps

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Thanks all. I think I need to read over everything again (so I can use my own words like a big girl ) and I'll post again if I have any further questions.


Oh, and when I said the reference section was not satisfactory... I only meant I couldn't find exactly what I was looking for-- it was a moment of frustration! I love the reference section!

Edited January 8, 2005 by Fides_et_Ratio

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Jan 7 2005, 07:26 PM'] Oh, and when I said the reference section was not satisfactory... I only meant I couldn't find exactly what I was looking for-- it was a moment of frustration! I love the reference section! [/quote]
no worries

[Crusader_4]

Another interesting argument would be that Jesus Christ is the Eternal King from the Messanic line and thus Peter has that power from Christ in his eternal kingdom. My one question would then be when Christ returns is the authority returned also ( i dont know) ...but until then it is quite obvious that Peter is the chief steward on Earth.

Edited January 8, 2005 by Crusader_4

[phatcatholic]

no need for a pope once Jesus returns