What are the "keys" in Matthew 16:19?

[Marcia]

Well, I posted a reply and the BB froze up and went to that page that says the page you want cannot be displayed. This happens a lot when I'm on the BB.

I think the comments so far are very interesting.

 

[OldRegular]

Strangely this is one passage of Scripture I have studied very little. Therefore, I am not sure what they mean. I am sure what it does not mean. It does not mean that Peter was the first Pope. That being said I guess Jim's answers are as good as any I have read on this forum.

 

[DHK]

Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

The key is "the key of knowledge."
The Pharisees and lawyers kept it away from the Jews for years. The key of knowledge, specifically, was the knowledge of how to get to heaven, or that of eternal life. They were "hindering them from entering in."
Thus the key of knowledge is now the gospel. Without the gospel no one can enter into heaven. This "key" was given not only to Peter but to all the Apostles (Mat.16:19; 18:18,19).

But that commission, now known as the Great Commission, has been given to us all.

 

[TCGreek]

Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

The key is "the key of knowledge."
The Pharisees and lawyers kept it away from the Jews for years. The key of knowledge, specifically, was the knowledge of how to get to heaven, or that of eternal life. They were "hindering them from entering in."
Thus the key of knowledge is now the gospel. Without the gospel no one can enter into heaven. This "key" was given not only to Peter but to all the Apostles (Mat.16:19; 18:18,19).

But that commission, now known as the Great Commission, has been given to us all.

The context of Matt 18:18-19 is somewhat different than 16:19.

There's no mention of "keys" in 18:18-19. Rather, it's dealing with church discipline.

However, 16:19 is speaking of entrance into the kingdom through the church, the missional outpost of the kingdom.

But, yes, the "keys" extended to the others and even to us.

 

[Zenas]

All these explanations are certainly possibilities, although I think Ryrie forces a meaning that is not possible if you regard the plain syntax of the passage. I believe the keys are a symbol of authority right out of Isaiah 22.

15Thus says the Lord GOD of hosts,
"Come, go to this steward,
To Shebna, who is in charge of the royal household,
. . . .

19"I will depose you from your office,
And I will pull you down from your station.
20"Then it will come about in that day,
That I will summon My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah,
21And I will clothe him with your tunic
And tie your sash securely about him.
I will entrust him with your authority,
And he will become a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
22"Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder,
When he opens no one will shut,
When he shuts no one will open.

Is looks like Jesus had this in mind and He was putting Peter in charge and this becomes more obvious when read with John 21:15-17. We still have the question, "In charge of what?" Was it the church militant or the church triumphant? Both perhaps? Or, for you dispensational premillenialists, was it the millenial kingdom?

 

[Allan]

What does the binding and loosing portion of that mean?

Actaully, when you read this in the Greek the phrasing is quite interesting.

it would be read something like.
Whatever you bind on earth [will have already been bound] in heaven.
And whatever you loose on earth [will have already been loosed] in heaven.

Keys also refer to a person that has certain rights and privilages (especially when dealing with a Kings things) and they can only do those things if a decree has 'already' been set forth. Those who hold the Kings keys speak in the name/authority of the King Himself but under the Kings strict direction.

Therefore the terms could also be locked and unlocked or to shut and open as synonomous with loosed and bound.

Some say this refers to church government but not any specific investment of power and or authority but to watch care or guide the church (Matthew Henry is one). Some say it refers to the great commission of sending out those to where Christ will build His church or to not send others to certain places as of yet.

Another interesting point is that Jesus did not say "I HAVE given you the keys" but that "I WILL give you the keys" illistrating the point that Peter had not received these keys as of yet but was informed of their coming at a later time - most likely after His resurrection and the baptism of the Holy Spirit.


With all of this I think Context will bear out it's meaning if we put aside our previous notions.

First off Jesus praises Peter for his declaration of Jesus being the Messiah. He stated that flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but God did. He then stated that He (Jesus) would build His Church and the gates of hell (another point to remember) will not prevail/conquere or stop that which Christ Jesus intended - to Build His Church.

An interesting point to consider here is that Jesus spoke about the gates of hell or death itself (which encompasses both the physcial and spiritual realmsl) and that Jesus Himself in Revelation declares to have the keys of hell and death. So the point I'm making is that Jesus is simply saying that hell does and will not have the authority from God to stop the work of CHrist. Also we never find Jesus giving 'these' keys to anyone else. Yet He does give the keys of heaven to Peter and we find also later on to the other apostles as well.

Sorry.. back to the context... Jesus then declares to Peter that He will give to him the keys of heaven and that whatever is loosed on earth will have already been loosed in heaven and whatever is bound on earth will have already been bound in heaven. We must keep this in context with the preceding passage speaking of Christ building His church (which means He has the keys -authority) and hell not be allowed to stop Him. So here we have Peter being given authority regarding heaven much more aptly put authority to allow access to heaven. Now in context this isn't refering to individuals but on a larger scale of peoples just as Jesus context establishes. Jesus will build it and Peter (as well as the other apostles) will govern the sending out of the gospel or not to peoples. And they will know where to send or withhold because it will already be known and so ordered in heaven from whence God instructs them.

We find many examples of this, like when Paul states he will take the gospel to the Gentiles. Why? Because God told him to.
There were places Paul wanted to take the gospel but was forbidden by the Holy Spirit and then there were other places he was lead by various means (shipwrecks, prison, ect..) for the Gospel to be proclaimed that was not on their agenda - yet

 

[Allan]

I want to re-write some of this to clarify what I am saying..

An interesting point to consider here is that Jesus spoke about the gates of hell or death itself (which encompasses both the physcial and spiritual realmsl) and that Jesus Himself in Revelation declares to have the keys of hell and death. So the point I'm making is that Jesus is simply saying that hell does and will not have the authority from God to stop the work of CHrist. Also we never find Jesus giving 'these' keys to anyone else. Yet He does give the keys of heaven to Peter and we find also later on to the other apostles as well.

"These" regarding 'these keys' is speaking of the keys of death and hell. Jesus will give to Peter the keys of heaven but no where do we find Jesus giving any other keys to anyone else.

Sorry.. back to the context... Jesus then declares to Peter that He will give to him the keys of heaven and that whatever is loosed on earth will have already been loosed in heaven and whatever is bound on earth will have already been bound in heaven. We must keep this in context with the preceding passage speaking of Christ building His church (which means He has the keys -authority) and hell not be allowed to stop Him. [1] So here we have Peter being given authority regarding heaven much more aptly put authority to allow access to heaven. Now in context this isn't refering to individuals but on a larger scale of peoples just as Jesus context establishes. Jesus will build it and Peter (as well as the other apostles) will govern the sending out of the gospel or not to peoples. And they will know where to send or withhold because it will already be known and so ordered in heaven from whence God instructs them.

For [1] - When I state 'allow access' it is not to mean he is the one who decides to go to heaven or not but that it will be through him that God will tell him where to send the gospel message.

Just to add what I did not last time.

Though I believe context shows us the above I 'also' believe that it encopasses church discipline. One of the things that shows the keys were not ONLY given to Peter is that as an apostle he had the authority to discipline those autononmous churches or demand they do certain things - like take up an offering. We know this was not bestowed ONLY on Peter because we find that Paul is the one who makes these proclaimations in scripture (though that does not mean the others or even Peter did not do such). Paul threatened to discipline those in church of Corinth. I do not remember in there Paul asking the Pastor for his permission nor do I remember Paul saying the pastor agreed with him. We also find Paul telling them they had better take up a collection as God has prospered every man so that when he comes they wont have to bother with trying to get it together then.

So yes, in context it refers the gospel message being sent out to all who will receive it (given the key) in contrast to the gates of hell - one is now loosed(heaven) the other is bound.

But by implication of context it also refers to the authority to discipline so there is both order and peace in the house of God.

 

[DHK]

All these explanations are certainly possibilities, although I think Ryrie forces a meaning that is not possible if you regard the plain syntax of the passage. I believe the keys are a symbol of authority right out of Isaiah 22. Is looks like Jesus had this in mind and He was putting Peter in charge and this becomes more obvious when read with John 21:15-17. We still have the question, "In charge of what?" Was it the church militant or the church triumphant? Both perhaps? Or, for you dispensational premillenialists, was it the millenial kingdom?

Peter was not always in charge.
It was Peter who said: "I go a fishing," with an attitude of almost giving up and going back to a secular job rather than following Christ.

It was Peter that denied the Lord three times.

It was Peter that was rebuked by Paul, and had to be put in his proper place by Paul in Gal. 2.

How can you say that Peter was always always in charge? He wasn't. In fact Christ rebuked that kind of presumptuous when He was on earth. They were equals.

 

[Zenas]

Peter was not always in charge.
It was Peter who said: "I go a fishing," with an attitude of almost giving up and going back to a secular job rather than following Christ.

It was Peter that denied the Lord three times.

It was Peter that was rebuked by Paul, and had to be put in his proper place by Paul in Gal. 2.

How can you say that Peter was always always in charge? He wasn't. In fact Christ rebuked that kind of presumptuous when He was on earth. They were equals.

You wil search my post in vain for any assertion that Peter was always in charge. However, even a casual reading of the N.T. shows that Peter was the most respected, most listened to, most written about and best known of the apostles.

Peter is always mentioned first whenever some or all of the apostles are named in the N.T. He is the most prominent member of the group.

It was Peter who received the keys from Jesus.

It was Peter to whom Jesus entrusted his sheep in John 21.

It was Peter who took the initiative to replace Judas with Matthias.

It was Peter who preached the first sermon on the day of Pentecost. In fact there are no recorded sermons by any of the other 11 disciples.

It was Peter who confronted and exposed Ananias and Sapphira.

It was Peter whose shadow the sick and infirm were hoping would fall on them as they lay by the streets of Jerusalem.

It was Peter who made the first contact with the Gentiles.

At the Jerusalem counsel, it was Peter who ended the debate when he stood and talked.

It was Peter who Paul sought out when he went to Jeruaslem after his vacation in Arabia.

Without a doubt, Peter seemed to make more mistakes than the others but we have to recognize that he got a lot more press than any of the others. No one can read through the N.T. objectively and then deny that Peter was first among equals.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

At the Jerusalem counsel, it was Peter who ended the debate when he stood and talked.

I though James proclaimed the end of the debate.

You forgot it was Peter who went Fishing
It was Peter who cut off the soldiers ear
It was Peter who who denied Christ three times
It was Peter who cursed
It was Peter who was most confussed
It was Peter who didn't trust Paul at their first meeting
It was Peter Who wouldn't go to Cornelius house because they ate unclean foods


Sorry, my mischeivousness got the better of me.

 

[Zenas]

I though James proclaimed the end of the debate.

You forgot it was Peter who went Fishing
It was Peter who cut off the soldiers ear
It was Peter who who denied Christ three times
It was Peter who cursed
It was Peter who was most confussed
It was Peter who didn't trust Paul at their first meeting
It was Peter Who wouldn't go to Cornelius house because they ate unclean foods


Sorry, my mischeivousness got the better of me.

James was presiding over the council and indeed he did stop the debate, but only after Peter spoke. In fact we don't know what anyone said except Peter and James. Like I said, Peter got a lot more press than the others. Comparing Peter to any of the other apostles (except perhaps John) is like comparing Abraham Lincoln to Martin VanBuren. One is prominent, the other is obscure.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

James was presiding over the council and indeed he did stop the debate, but only after Peter spoke. In fact we don't know what anyone said except Peter and James. Like I said, Peter got a lot more press than the others. Comparing Peter to any of the other apostles (except perhaps John) is like comparing Abraham Lincoln to Martin VanBuren. One is prominent, the other is obscure.

I'm not sure Martin VanBuren was a good comparison. It overstates your point.

 

[Jim1999]

Whilst all these things are true about Peter, showing that the churchs are filled with people full of sins, but saved by grace.

It doesn't, however, negate the fact that Jesus is addressing Peter in Matthew when He calls him the rock (pebble, as it were, depending on how one translates Petro and petras) and gives him (Peter) the keys to the kingdom and upon this tock of Peter Christ would build the church.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Whilst all these things are true about Peter, showing that the churchs are filled with people full of sins, but saved by grace.

It doesn't, however, negate the fact that Jesus is addressing Peter in Matthew when He calls him the rock (pebble, as it were, depending on how one translates Petro and petras) and gives him (Peter) the keys to the kingdom and upon this tock of Peter Christ would build the church.

Cheers,

Jim

Still a strong suggestion that possibly used Kepha rather than Petros.

 

[DHK]

James was presiding over the council and indeed he did stop the debate, but only after Peter spoke. In fact we don't know what anyone said except Peter and James. Like I said, Peter got a lot more press than the others. Comparing Peter to any of the other apostles (except perhaps John) is like comparing Abraham Lincoln to Martin VanBuren. One is prominent, the other is obscure.

My, you certainly are a "Peter-fan" aren't you?

The Book of Acts is divided into two parts.
Chapters one to twelve revolve around the ministry of Peter.
Chapters thirteen to the end (chapter 28) revolve around the ministry of Paul.
You are wrong when you say that "we don't know what anyone said except Peter and James. We know plenty.

First the Judaizers presented their case--that circumcision and the law need to be kept as a requirement for salvation.
Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

Then Paul and Barnabas, after they had "passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren,"..."declared all things that God had done with them." This they declared to the Jerusalem Council before all the apostles and the others that were present. Having gone on three missionary journeys, Paul had no doubt much more to say than Peter, and thus it is not all recorded.

It was then that the apostles and the elders that came together. Peter was not a leader here. The leader was James. Peter was simply one of the apostles. At this time Paul would have had more authority than Peter. It was his ministry that was the focus in this part of the book.

However, in verses 7-10 we have recorded the conclusion of Peter, though it was given among much confusion and disputes.

But note what happens in verse 12, when Paul spoke:
Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
--The multitude kept silent. The listened with intent. It is not recorded how much Paul and Barnabas spoke or how long they spoke. It must have been a fair bit. The declared what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them--which were many--too many for Luke to record.

Then from verse 13 to 21 is recorded the final decision by James, the pastor of the church, to whom they all held their peace. They were satisfied with the decision of James.

All in all Peter's part was minor compared to Paul's. He was not the leader compared to Paul and James.
--You are looking at Peter through rose-colored glasses and not objectively.

 

[Allan]

Still a strong suggestion that possibly used Kepha rather than Petros.

No actually there isn't a strong suggestion of it. Only 2 vague references from 2 early church fathers that Matthew had wrtten the gospel in "Aramaic" but even then it does not suggest it was only written in Aramaic because he could very well have written one or more in various languages such as Greek and Hebrew. Greek was the comman language of the day due to Roman rule and commerce. If there are any two languages most probable that Matthew's gospel was written in it would be either Hebrew or Greek. And since Greek was the most used it would be more likely to be the original and thus more widely read by the many different Jews who were and would be saved.

However the fact is what we have is the Greek manuscripts and even IF Matthew's gospel was written in Aramaic those who translated it did so appropriately in referencing this word. To assume the term "Kepha" (Aramaic) was used without discriptors like large and or small is be dogmatic about something which is absolutely unprovable.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No actually there isn't a strong suggestion of it. Only 2 vague references from 2 early church fathers that Matthew had wrtten the gospel in "Aramaic" but even then it does not suggest it was only written in Aramaic because he could very well have written one or more in various languages such as Greek and Hebrew. Greek was the comman language of the day due to Roman rule and commerce. If there are any two languages most probable that Matthew's gospel was written in it would be either Hebrew or Greek. And since Greek was the most used it would be more likely to be the original and thus more widely read by the many different Jews who were and would be saved.

However the fact is what we have is the Greek manuscripts and even IF Matthew's gospel was written in Aramaic those who translated it did so appropriately in referencing this word. To assume the term "Kepha" (Aramaic) was used without discriptors like large and or small is be dogmatic about something which is absolutely unprovable.

Just because I stated that I believe Jesus used Kepha rather than Petros has no baring on the Keys its just a point of fact. whether or not Matthew wrote in Greek or Hebrew doesn't bare on the point that Jesus was most likely speaking in Aramaic. You could argue he was speaking in Hebrew which is fine. I just think its not as likely since Hebrew of Jesus day resembles in some respect latin of today. Primarily the high priestly and legal language of the day. I don't see it being a great argument for or against either side of the Peter issue.

 

[DHK]

Just because I stated that I believe Jesus used Kepha rather than Petros has no baring on the Keys its just a point of fact. whether or not Matthew wrote in Greek or Hebrew doesn't bare on the point that Jesus was most likely speaking in Aramaic. You could argue he was speaking in Hebrew which is fine. I just think its not as likely since Hebrew of Jesus day resembles in some respect latin of today. Primarily the high priestly and legal language of the day. I don't see it being a great argument for or against either side of the Peter issue.

The point is that you can drop this argument: "Jesus was most likely speaking in Aramaic." It is pure speculation on your part, and therefore has no real bearing on the debate at hand. There is no need even to bring it up. The NT MSS are written in Greek, inspired in Greek. And that is what we must go by.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The point is that you can drop this argument: "Jesus was most likely speaking in Aramaic." It is pure speculation on your part, and therefore has no real bearing on the debate at hand. There is no need even to bring it up. The NT MSS are written in Greek, inspired in Greek. And that is what we must go by.

How many things have you speculated on in scripture? I would disagree with you on a point from your statment which I bolded. What we must go by are the text which we have that are exant. We know for sure the documents exist in Greek but that does not mean that there werent documents in Hebrew or aramaic. There are just none that are exant as far as we know. Just like the Qumran find showed a few interesting points about scriptures. I believe the words when spoken by Jesus were inspired. Do you believe that the modern translations are inspired? Or just the original text? If just the original text that are inspired non are exant so nothing is considered inspired since the autographs.

 

[DHK]

How many things have you speculated on in scripture? I would disagree with you on a point from your statment which I bolded. What we must go by are the text which we have that are exant. We know for sure the documents exist in Greek but that does not mean that there werent documents in Hebrew or aramaic. There are just none that are exant as far as we know. Just like the Qumran find showed a few interesting points about scriptures. I believe the words when spoken by Jesus were inspired. Do you believe that the modern translations are inspired? Or just the original text? If just the original text that are inspired non are exant so nothing is considered inspired since the autographs.

Nothing has been inspired since the autographs. Only the original autographs were inspired. Most Baptist statement of faiths will state this (that are non-KJVO). You should research this topic in the Versions Forum. Translations are not inspired.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Only those holy men of God: Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Peter, John, Paul, etc. did God move by the Holy Spirit to pen the very words of God, the inspired Word of God, in the original MSS. And you are right: we don't have those now.

Preservation is another topic. God has promised to preserve His Word, and He has. Paul wrote at least four epistles to the Corinthians. He also wrote an epistle to the Laodiceans. But God saw fit only to inspire the two letters to the Corinthians, and not those other three, even though they came from the hand of Paul.

Here is what John says about the writings of Jesus:
John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
--But only the works recorded in the gospels are inspired, and that only in the original manuscripts. God inspired John, not the KJV translators, or any other translators.