could any one tell why god gave peter some keys was it to open things or close them
the man with the key
by boatman 20 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
galaxy7
to funny
-
Leolaia
The story you alluded to is the one where Simon Peter confesses Jesus as the Christ, and in its current form Jesus appears to delegate authority to Peter by giving Peter "the keys of the kingdom of heaven: whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (16:19 ). This is because this statement follows the naming story where Jesus implies that his Church would be built on "Peter".
But this focus on authority is probably not the original meaning of the saying. By being the first to declare Jesus as the Christ, Peter is blessed as being the first to receive the keys and is blessed by being called "Peter", the "rock" on which Jesus would build his church. The meaning of the name is that Peter, as the first of the disciples to correctly determine Jesus' significance, serves as the foundation stone of the Church -- just as Abraham served as the foundation of Israel (cf. Hebrews 11:8-10). The saying in Matthew draws on a traditional saying later attested in rabbinical literature which states: "Upon Abraham as top of the rocks God said I shall build my kingdom" (Mishnah Yalk. 1.766). But with the theme of the first being last and the last first, Peter has no special status in being the first foundation stone. The exegetical focus on authority developed later on as it became more important to appeal to apostolic authority. The saying on "binding and loosing" however is separately attested in Matthew 18:18 and here it is given to all the disciples and has nothing to do with a particular individual's authority but refers to the authority of the whole body of followers to permit and forbid what they see fit. This verse suggests that the Church as a whole has the "keys" to interpret the Law as they see fit; Peter does not have any unique ability to loosen and bind between heaven and earth, if Matthew 18:18 is to be understood.
"Binding and loosing" is actually a rabbinical term that refers to the power to "forbid and permit" and conceptually derives from the belief of the Law tying up or releasing a forbidden object from divine censure. It was used by the Sanhedrin to express their authority over interpretation of the Law. Rejecting the authority of such "official" law-givers, Jesus instead declares that his followers have the authority to discipline and forgive others, regardless of the official penalties. But Jesus makes absolutely clear that this authority does not exalt any particular follower over others:
"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. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, and every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile or a tax collector. 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. 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. For where two or three are gathered in my midst, there am I in the midst of them....Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 'The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders ; but they themselves will not move them with their finger....But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ. He who is greatest among you shall be your servant, whoever exalts himself will be humbled and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." (Matthew 18:15-20; 23:1-12)
When we look at the overall context, we see again that the power to "bind and loose" is not a matter of special status or authority but something shared by all Jesus' disciples. In effect, Jesus is declaring that all his followers are rabbis, all have the same power that rabbis have in declaring things clean and unclean, in blessing and cursing, and in approaching God. But Jesus stresses that no one should take this power and think of himself or himself as a person with special status, and call himself rabbi or father or master, over others. And since Jesus says the same thing to Peter about binding and loosing, it seems quite probable that all Christians have the "keys", all are free from the rabbinical interpretation of the Law, and not just Peter alone.
-
peacefulpete
Leolaia disagrees with Narkissos and I about the character of Peter and this verse is an example of our different opinions affecting the interpretation. Leolaia sees a later redaction (amendment and addition) as responsible for the identification of Peter as the holder of the keys and foremost leader of Church. I see the passage as a whole as a late insertion to provide legitamacy to the protoCatholic hierchy.(perhaps using familiar gnostic language in a new and literal way)
Either way of course the verse was used to anchor the Papacy of Rome and was not in it's present form a part of Matt. -
seattleniceguy
Boatman, welcome to the board!
From your friendly SeattleNiceGuy
-
Narkissos
Welcome aboard Boatman!
One could add as an echo to Leolaia's comments the so-called "Johannine Pentecost" (John 20:21ff):
Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you."
When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."Peacefulpete:
Leolaia disagrees with Narkissos and I about the character of Peter and this verse is an example of our different opinions affecting the interpretation. Leolaia sees a later redaction (amendment and addition) as responsible for the identification of Peter as the holder of the keys and foremost leader of Church. I see the passage as a whole as a late insertion to provide legitamacy to the protoCatholic hierchy.(perhaps using familiar gnostic language in a new and literal way).
I have not checked yet the new reference on Petrine tradition Leolaia referred us to. Whatever the case, it is very interesting to see that the motif of binding and loosing is independent. My further question would be: is it identical with the key motif? There seems to be a distinct tradition, implying authority, behind it (Isaiah 22:22; Revelation 1:18; 3:7; note also the relation with "Hades", both in Revelation and Matthew 16).
-
Leolaia
I don't necessarily see in Matthew a reference to the proto-Catholic papacy, much less a tradition about Rome. If the provenance of the pre-Matthean redaction of Q was in a Greek-speaking Jewish-Christian community in Syria (i.e. Antioch), one could certainly see in Matthew the same sort of appeal to Peter's apostolic prestige that one finds in cognate Jewish-Christian works believed to have come from Syria, such as the Kerygma Petrou and the Ascents of James. It wasn't just Rome where Peter was regarded as a significant figure.
-
Leolaia
I think Narkissos might be right....there could have been a conflation of a separate "key" motif with the rabbinical tradition of "binding and loosing," which originally did not draw on the key motif. The strong connection with Revelation suggests here an apocalyptic streak cognate with 1 Enoch (cf. "the gates of heaven" in 1 Enoch 9:1, 10), especially with regard to Hades and/or other places in the underworld as a "prison" for the damned (cf. 1 Enoch 10:14; 18:14; 21:10; 69:28). I am especially struck by the tradition throughout the Petrine pseudepigrapha on "the spirits in prison" or "Tartarus" (cf. 1 Peter 3:18; 2 Peter 2:4), particularly in the Apocalypse of Peter where Peter is given a visionary tour of hell in a manner very reminiscent of 1 Enoch. There is an interesting connection between 2 Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter in that both mention the worldwide conflaguration motif and the Apocalypse of Peter (like the Apocalypse of Paul) gives the name of the angel presiding over the damned as Tartarus (specifically, Tartaruchos). Even more interesting is the story of Peter's own imprisonment in Acts, which shows links with both the tradition about Peter's martyrdom and the story of Jesus' death and resurrection. There thus appears to have been an early association of Peter with things relating to death and Hades.
-
Narkissos
Wow! Now the other references I had dropped in Revelation do make sense:
And the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from heaven to earth, and he was given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pit (abyss); he opened the shaft of the bottomless pit, and from the shaft rose smoke like the smoke of a great furnace, and the sun and the air were darkened with the smoke from the shaft. Then from the smoke came locusts on the earth, and they were given authority like the authority of scorpions of the earth. (...) They have as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek he is called Apollyon. (9:1-11)
Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and locked and sealed it over him, so that he would deceive the nations no more, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be let out for a little while. (20:1ff)
(Btw, I suggest we now call the Apostle Peter InfernalPete to avoid any confusion with PeacefulPete )
-
Leolaia
I have not checked yet the new reference on Petrine tradition Leolaia referred us to.
There is a full discussion of the texts in F. Lapham's Peter: The Myth, the Man and the Writings: A Study of the Early Petrine Text and Tradition (Sheffield: 2003). Basically, there was an early Ebionite Kerygma Petrou (KP), used by Clement of Alexandria, which was then expanded and revised into an even more overt Jewish-Christian Kerygmata Petrou (Pr. P.), which was then compiled by a Jewish-Christian editor into a source document (G) with other Ebionite works (e.g. the Ascents of James and the Itinerary of Peter)....then (G) was appended with the Epistola Clementis and other additions and published as the Pseudo-Clementines. The documents in (G) show a Syrian provenance (e.g. Peter as living in Antioch and evangelizing in Tyre, Sidon, Tripolis, Berytus, etc.), and provide early evidence against the view that Peter lived in Rome. Ep. Clem., which serves as a preface to the collection for orthodox Christianity, tries to harmonize this Syrian tradition with the Catholic tradition about Rome, and even connects Peter's Roman supremacy with the tradition in Matthew 16:18 (cf. Ep. Clem. 2:1-4; 6:3). It is in this document that Peter makes Clement his successor as bishop of Rome. But in the Homilies, drawing on the earlier Ebionite Itinerary of Peter, Peter instead makes Zacchaeus his successor in Caesarea, giving him the "chair of Christ" and the power "to loose what is to be loosed and to bind what is to be bound" (Hom. 3.72.4). The tradition in Matthew 16:18 has thus a specifically Eastern understanding quite apart from the later Catholic interpretation applying it to the Roman church. And Lapham argues convincingly imho that the account of Clement's succession to Peter at Rome is directly modeled on the earlier Jewish-Christian story about Zacchaeus' appointment to Peter's presidential chair in Caesarea; there are no less than nine parallels. There is thus an intriguing possibility: that Peter's authority in Caesarea, which was the seat of Roman government in Judea, was later transferred to Rome as "Caesarea" came to be identified with "Rome". In this connection, there is the Martyrdom of Peter (later compiled into the Acts of Peter) which specifically has Peter martyred by Agrippa II of Judea. Finally, to add to the mix, there is the local Syrian tradition which designated Peter as the first bishop of Antioch and claims that he installed Ignatius as his successor as the second bishop of Antioch. All of this attests Peter's local authority and prestige in the East -- so one should not automatically assume that any reference to Peter's prestige necessarily refers to Catholic Christianity or the Roman church.