Just searching for some perspective on this: read a whole book through Lent about Peter from a well known Methodist theologian, he never once mentioned Matthew 18:18.

Can any non Catholic types shed some light on their interpretation of it?

Your first mistake was thinking a Methodist could be a theologian!

Here is John Piper's (reformed theologian) take on the keys of Heaven. Note he is using Matthew 16 instead of 18.

https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/what-are-the-keys-of-the-kingdom-of-heaven

Note, we have to start first with noting that the protestant understanding is that the Church isn't founded on Peter, but on faithful testimony of Christ. An important thing to begin with because while the Methodist can claim apostolic succession, it doesn't matter in this context.

Quote:

---

Now, before we jump to the conclusion that Peter alone here is made the foundation of the church, notice three things.

1. Jesus did not say, "On you I will build my church," which he very easily could have said. He said instead, "On this bedrock [petra] I will build my church."

2. Even though Jesus says to Peter, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven," that very same thing Jesus says to Christians in general, with the very same words, two chapters later in Matthew 18:18: "Truly, I say to you [plural not you, Peter, but you, plural, who are gathered in my name], whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." That's the second observation.

3. Jesus does not say, "You are Petros, and on this petros I will build my church." He says, "You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my church." Petra has a different connotation than petros it's not a loose stone; it's bedrock stone. Here's what I mean: In Matthew 27:60, where it says that Jesus's tomb was cut out of the petra, the bedrock, that doesn't mean it was cut out of a loose stone like, here's a stone, it maybe weighs ten pounds, it's found on the side of the road, and he cut a grave in that stone. Well, that doesn't work.

---

Based on that, we can move on to the keys of Heaven.

Quote:

---

So, it's these teachings of Jesus that are the keys of the kingdom, when he says, "I'll give you the keys of the kingdom." Which means that when you speak, Peter or according to Matthew 18:18, when any faithful Christian who speaks the words with the bedrock of Jesus's identity at the center when you speak those words faithfully, you are using the keys of the kingdom to open the kingdom in people's lives.

Here's a clue that I think confirms we're on the right track, from Luke 11:52: "Woe to you lawyers!" Jesus said. "For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering." This is the key of the kingdom, the key of knowledge: the key of the teachings of Jesus, with the reality of Jesus himself at the center. That knowledge, that faithful proclamation of the word of Christ, with Christ's identity at the center, truly taught, opens the kingdom to people's lives. That knowledge withheld or distorted closes the kingdom to people.

And when Jesus says, "Whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven" which is the right future perfect translation of the verb tense. When Jesus says, "Whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven," he means that in all of this human key-turning turning of the keys of the knowledge of God we are doing what God has decided should come to pass. Our teaching is essential; God's will is decisive.

So, Joe, you and your friend, and I would say all faithful Christians, can take your stand and you should take your stand on the bedrock of Jesus's word, with the reality of Jesus himself at the center, and speak it. And in so doing, you will turn the key of heaven in people's lives and open the kingdom to them.

---

Quote:

---

So, it's these teachings of Jesus that are the keys of the kingdom, when he says, "I'll give you the keys of the kingdom." Which means that when you speak, Peter or according to Matthew 18:18, when any faithful Christian who speaks the words with the bedrock of Jesus's identity at the center when you speak those words faithfully, you are using the keys of the kingdom to open the kingdom in people's lives.

---

This seems a bit of a stretch to me. Especially since this is mixing two different passages as if they're contiguous.

I don't know how you get to opening the kingdom in people's lives from bound and loosed in heaven.

I also don't really understand the point or necessity of trying to kind of fate/predestine things based on future perfect tense. It also seems like an unnecessary shoehorn to me.

I agree with the general thrust about the "this" rock being the confession. It's a very common interpretation in the fathers. Not sure I put much stock in the bedrock aspect, that seems more allegoryish, but like a weird kind of linguistic translation allegory.

This post / thread covers the patristic references.

https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3136828/replies/57358431

What was the book?

Not sure I have a lot to add that hasn't been said. But I will say, I think the context of that passage is about forgiveness and reconciliation. I think the author is saying pursuits that agree with the will of God (in this case, forgiveness/reconciliation) have the power of God undergirding them/in their midst.

I think Matthew 16 is interesting as well but for a different reason. Not trying to thread derail, but from my Protestant perspective, it was always interesting to me that Peter is supposedly being instituted as the first leader of the Church/Pope and is almost immediately rebuked by Jesus and referred to as Satan. A very Peter-esque progression!

You need to read two chapters ahead. The keys given to Peter are not of heaven, but hell. Peter has the keys to hades of which he along with Christ will tear the foundation of the gates from its roots to set the captives free. Peter will open the gates of hell since death and the Satan no longer have power over them.

Read Matt. 16:18 alongside Matthew 18:18. They are meant to be read together.

Matthew 16:18 (LEB): And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it!

What do we know about their location? Where are Jesus and Peter? They are at the cosmological gates of hell.

Jesus and His disciples are at Caesarea Philippi, located at the base of Mount Hermon. This region is affiliated in ancient Near Eastern, Jewish, and Greek literature with the gateway to the underworld, the gods, and other spiritual beings. The ot also affiliates the region, called Bashan in the ot, with an evil giant clan and idolatry (Deut 2:1012; 3:1,1011; Josh 12:15). Jesus seems to be saying that through His power, the Church will overcome the powers of evil and death itself.

anaag75 said:

---

Not sure I have a lot to add that hasn't been said. But I will say, I think the context of that passage is about forgiveness and reconciliation. I think the author is saying pursuits that agree with the will of God (in this case, forgiveness/reconciliation) have the power of God undergirding them/in their midst.

I think Matthew 16 is interesting as well but for a different reason. Not trying to thread derail, but from my Protestant perspective, it was always interesting to me that Peter is supposedly being instituted as the first leader of the Church/Pope and is almost immediately rebuked by Jesus and referred to as Satan. A very Peter-esque progression!

---

There are all kinds of different branches of what exactly the Petrine office would/should/could mean presuming that Jesus indeed intended Peter to be the hierarchical head of a formal authoritative Magisterium and for there to be identifiable and specific individual heirs to that office.

This points at one of those very interesting questions, where you say, ok, so what? History shows us that any one guy in the chair at any given time is reasonably likely to be an objectively awful person, so the Church's gates that will always prevail and the keys thereto are going to be somewhat independent of any singular authority of one man passed down from Peter, whatever his role among the Apostles.

"Binding and loosing" was a popular phrase of the Pharisees, and it can be found in the Mishnah. The Mishnah was first written just after the New Testament, but supposedly is an oral tradition dating back much earlier. Binding refers to forbidding an activity or ostracizing a person from a community, and loosing refers to permitting an activity or accepting a person into a community. Binding can also refer to declaring fasting days and loosing to feasting days. The earthly authority was meant to be a proxy for divine authority, thus the heaven/earth references.

The immediate context of the verse is dealing with sinners within the congregation and church discipline. So putting this together, it means that the Disciples could permit or forbid activities, declare fasting or feasting days, and ostracize or accept people into the fellowship of believers. In these matters they were the proxies for the divine authority on Earth.

As far as a specifically Protestant commentary, there are two main ones of which I am aware. First, Matthew 18 is not specifically addressed to Peter until after the verse mentioned. Jesus was speaking to the entire group of Disciples at this point. So there is no textual reason to think Peter solely has the power of binding and loosing. Second, there is no Biblical evidence that any of the powers, authority, or inspiration given to the Apostles was passed to their successors. In fact, we clearly know that the ability to perform miracles and prophecy has greatly diminished if not completely disappeared among the successors of the Apostles. If these gifts have passed away, then how do we know the power to "bind and loose" hasn't also attentuated or passed away completely as well?

chimpanzee said:

---

anaag75 said:

---

Not sure I have a lot to add that hasn't been said. But I will say, I think the context of that passage is about forgiveness and reconciliation. I think the author is saying pursuits that agree with the will of God (in this case, forgiveness/reconciliation) have the power of God undergirding them/in their midst.

I think Matthew 16 is interesting as well but for a different reason. Not trying to thread derail, but from my Protestant perspective, it was always interesting to me that Peter is supposedly being instituted as the first leader of the Church/Pope and is almost immediately rebuked by Jesus and referred to as Satan. A very Peter-esque progression!

---

There are all kinds of different branches of what exactly the Petrine office would/should/could mean presuming that Jesus indeed intended Peter to be the hierarchical head of a formal authoritative Magisterium and for there to be identifiable and specific individual heirs to that office.

This points at one of those very interesting questions, where you say, ok, so what? History shows us that any one guy in the chair at any given time is reasonably likely to be an objectively awful person, so the Church's gates that will always prevail and the keys thereto are going to be somewhat independent of any singular authority of one man passed down from Peter, whatever his role among the Apostles.

---

Replying to myself to add, I recognize the Vatican's response to be that you separate anything bad the Bad Popes did from anything regarding the Church while validating that they still had the good power, discernment and were the exclusive way to Christ even while being incredible jerks through generations of humanity that were yearning for salvation. It's one of those theoretically possible to line up in hindsight type of positions, but there still has to be a Church that persists in spite of this supposed one true seat of authority.

I disagree, you are missing the immediate context of the binding and loosing used two chapters earlier in Matthew 16:18.

(1) If what you are saying is true then why didn't Jesus ostracize the children from his group? In fact, in response to the question of who was the greatest (who should obtain authority) Jesus said it was the child, who was not a disciple. Surely the disciples of Jesus should be more righteous than a child who had done nothing? Apparently not.

(2) The verse talks about binding and loosing on earth and then talks about binding and loosing in heaven, this indicates that this is not only about an earthly ostracism, of which even ancient Athenian pagans practiced, but also of a heavenly subject matter. Two chapters earlier the binding and loosing language is used to describe the conquering of evil spiritual forces.

This is clearly a reference to the destruction of rebellious evil spirits. The eye and hand references are about angels who rebelled against God. They are described as the eyes of God. God is promising their ultimate destruction.

Also, I don't think a Jewish source written later than these verses is a good context for this writing. How can the binding and loosing refer to something that is not written yet? The Jews had tons of secondary writings about secondary Synagogue practices. I find it hard to believe they did not write what you are describing down until after the bible existed? It makes no sense.

Also, Jesus says to treat sinners like tax collectors. Did not Jesus preach to tax collectors and sinners? Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners. To ostracize someone because they are a tax collector or sinner does not follow the behavior that Jesus had towards tax collectors and sinners.

There was some cynicism in Jesus' comments, imho. Peter was after all the first to question Jesus, whether on the boat in the storm, fishing, (missing) at the cross, denying him 3 times after his arrest, doubting the women after his resurrection, his weeping/bitter repentance etc.

Calling him a rock was akin to a soft joke, to the extent it was even directed at him individually (hint, it wasn't).

'Simon Peter' by Adam Hamilton

The Mishnah was written in the early 2nd century, but it clearly quotes rabbis from much earlier. Even if you don't buy that, they are still 1900 years closer to the text than you. So by your own "standards" of Bible interpretation, they are better sources than you for understanding the context.

As an aside, it's gets really repetitive and boring when people fixate on one single idea and try to shoehorn every single event and verse in the Bible to fit that. It's annoying when Calvinists do it with predestination, and it's annoying when you do it with evil spirits. The Bible is a rich and varied set of materials that covers thousands of years and a huge number of different people in many different situations interacting with God in many different ways. Trying to dumb it all down to "evil spirits bad" is insulting to both the texts and anyone trying to analyze them.

So you think the kingdom of God is limited to a feast day? I guess Chuckie Cheese was what God was really thinking about on the mountain of bashan?

"Being on the symbolic gates of hell makes me hungry, let's have a party!"
-Jesus

AF DOC said:

---

'Simon Peter' by Adam Hamilton

---

Lol. That's exactly what my guess was.

As a former UMC pastor, I can assure you that we make Adam Hamilton jokes all the time. He's a good administrator but his theology is as deep as the Jordan River.

I would support a separate thread for Adam Hamilton jokes.

He and his ilk (Scott Jones) are seriously damaging the UMC, imho. They are instrumental in driving the pending schism, entirely out of ego.

codker92 said:

---

You need to read two chapters ahead. The keys given to Peter are not of heaven, but hell. Peter has the keys to hades of which he along with Christ will tear the foundation of the gates from its roots to set the captives free. Peter will open the gates of hell since death and the Satan no longer have power over them.

Read Matt. 16:18 alongside Matthew 18:18. They are meant to be read together.

---

First, Jesus was clearly speaking of the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven in Matt 16. It is quoted directly from his mouth...

Quote:

---

18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 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."

---

Your "context" is awful here. Sorry.

Secondly, where do you get the idea that Matt 16:18 is intended to be read together with Matt 18:18? Seems to me if they were Intended to be read together they would have been written together, no? I am not suggesting they are not related passages but they are also not identical in what they are conveying.

The "keys" are only present and given specifically to Peter, Rock, who is the only one at that time given the authority's power to bind and loose on earth and also in Heaven. Later, and at a separate time, the authority to bind and loose was also given to the other apostles but the "keys" were not mentioned. This is an important distinction. Peter is given the keys AND the power to bind and loose in the singular, while the apostles were given the power to bind and loose collectively and were not given the keys individually. The power is similar but not the same.

Now you can say whatever you want about the keys and what and where they signified, but I'm gonna have to go with the Jesus on this one over codker92 and trust that Jesus knew what he was saying when he said the keys were to the Kingdom of Heaven.

You are wrong because the Greek word for heavens there does not literally refer to heaven as paradise, the way post-moderns like you think of it. The Greek word for heaven (as used here) is ouranos, which can mean sky or the heavenly realm. The stars in the sky were called gods. So it refers to the keys to the sky which contained "gods"/stars. The key to heaven means key to the sky, where the ancients thought that the gods lived or resided. Peter too would have power over evil spirits.

And so from that you get keys to Hell?

And what about combining Matt 16:18 and 18:18?

Also, do you think Jesus was speaking Greek?

Jesus knew Greek. In Matthew 8:5-13, for example, Jesus entered into dialogue with a Roman centurion. The centurion almost certainly spoke in Greek. It is plausible that Jesus used Greek in Matthew 16 to prove a point as a polemic.

In regards to you other question I have all the points to rebut it. I will list them out later. It takes a lot more work.

Isiah 22:15-25 to understand the giving of the keys.

The make/female distinction of petros/petra in Greek is a quirk not found in the Aramaic word Jesus would have used that was then translated to Greek.

I don't expect anyone to read this, but it's borrowed from Tim Staples -

All twelve apostles were present, yet Jesus promised to give to Peter alone the keys of the kingdom, symbolizing the authority of Christ the authority of heaven over the kingdom of heaven on Earth, which is the Church. What is the reason for suggesting that there is a distinction in meaning in the Greek text between the two "rocks" that would eliminate Peter from consideration for being the rock?

Peter is undeniably the rock:

We have biblical evidence (John 1:42) that points to Jesus using Aramaic in the naming of Peter: "[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, 'So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas'" (which means Peter).

The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic Kepha, which means simply "rock." There would have been no "small rock" to be found in Jesus' original statement to Peter.

Even well-respected Protestant scholars will agree on this point. Baptist scholar D. A. Carson, writes, in The Expositor's Bible Commentary:

[T]he underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ("you are kepha" and "on this kepha"), since the word was used both for a name and for a "rock." The Pe****ta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses.

In Koine Greek (the dialect of Greek used by the authors of the New Testament), petros and petra are masculine and feminine forms of words with the same root and the same definition: rock. There is no "small rock" to be found in the Greek text, either.

So why did Matthew use these two words in the same verse? Petra was a common word used for "rock" in Greek. It's used fifteen times to mean "rock," "rocks," or "rocky" in the New Testament. Petros is an ancient Greek term that was not commonly used in Koine Greek at all. In fact, it was never used in the New Testament, except for Peter's name after Jesus changed it from Simon to Peter.

It follows that when Matthew was translating, he would have used petra for "rock." However, in so doing, he would have encountered a problem. Petra is a feminine noun. It would have been improper to call Peter Petra. This would be equivalent to calling a male "Valerie" or "Priscilla" in English. Hence, petros was used instead of petra for Peter's name.

Craig S. Keener, another Protestant scholar, on page 90 of The IVP Bible Background Commentary of the New Testament, states: "In Greek (here), they (referring to petros and petra) are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period" D. A. Carson points out the big/small distinction did exist in Greek, but is found only in ancient Greek (used from the eighth to the fourth century B.C.), and even there it is mostly confined to poetry. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek (used from the fourth century B.C. to the fifth century A.D.). Carson agrees with Keener that there is no distinction in definition between petros and petra.

One of the most respected and referenced Greek dictionaries among Evangelicals is Gerhard Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. In a most candid statement about Matthew 16:18, Dr. Oscar Cullman, a contributing editor to this work, writes:

"The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and Petros . . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . . For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of "thou art Rock" and "on this rock I will build" shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected."

Moving past the distinction issue, notice what Jesus says to Peter in Matthew 16:17-19:

"And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.""

Jesus uses the second person personal seven times in just three verses. The context is clearly one of Jesus communicating a unique authority to Peter.

Further, Jesus is portrayed as the builder of the Church, not the building. He said, "I will build my church." Jesus is "the wise man who built his house upon the rock" (Matt. 7:24) in Matthew's Gospel. Once again, it just does not fit the context to have Jesus building the Church upon himself. He's building it upon Peter.

Then there is Simon's name change to Peter. When God revealed to certain of his people a new and radical calling in Scripture, he sometimes changed their names. In particular, we find this in the calling of the Patriarchs. Abram ("exalted father" in Hebrew) was changed to Abraham ("father of the multitudes"). Jacob ("supplanter") to Israel ("One who prevails with God"). In fact, there is a very interesting parallel here between Abraham and Peter. In Isaiah 51:1-2, we read:

"Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you who seek the Lord; look to the rock from which you were hewn. . . . Look to Abraham your father."

Jesus here makes Peter a true "father" over the household of faith, just as God made Abraham our true "father" in the Faith (cf. Romans 4:1-18; James 2:21).

Finally, when we understand that Christ is the true "son of David" who came to restore the prophetic Kingdom of David, we understand that Christ in Matthew 16, like the King of Israel, was establishing a "prime minister" among his ministers the apostles in the Kingdom. Isaiah 22:15-22 gives us insight into the ministry of the "prime minister" in ancient Israel:

"Thus says the Lord God of hosts, "Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him . . . Behold the Lord will hurl you away violently. . . . I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, 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. 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.

In Revelation 1:18, Jesus declares, "I have the keys of Death and Hades." He then quotes this very text from Isaiah in Revelation 3:7:

And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: "The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens."

No Christian would deny Jesus is the King who possesses the keys. Who does he give the keys to? Peter!

Of course Jesus knew Greek...He's God. That wasn't my question. Do you think all of the disciples present for this event spoke Greek? Would Greek have been the language being spoken here by Jesus?

And I find it quite a stretch to go from speaking of the keys to the stars or sky or heavens or whatever case you are attempting to make and going in the complete opposite direction to the keys being to hell.

The city of Caesaria Phillipi was formerly called Paneas because it housed a cave and spring dedicated to the Greek god Pan. A temple to Pan was built in the midst of the city at the mouth of this cave, where people would make sacrifices to him. According to a narrative at his temple, Pan was one of the few gods who could cross into Hades and return to earth. As result, this site was recognized as the gate of Hades in the disciples' day. Christ's declaration about the Church was given powerful significance because it was uttered here.
Given this, Peter confessed Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of the living God" at the temple of a false god (Matt 16:16)

Perhaps Jesus spoke in Greek to demonstrate His power over the Greek Gods?


Prepare to be amazed then.

Thanks. I am aware of the location and the backdrop and the significance. This was believed to be the entrance to the netherworld. Despite what you may think you are not the only person aware of the location. I have yet to be amazed or even slightly persuaded by anything you have posted here or on any other thread. Maybe you can change that but I'm not holding my breath.

Making friends again, I see.

I disagree. A few verses earlier Jesus literally said that the child was greater than Peter. The disciples were arguing because Jesus first told Peter about the keys in Matthew 16.

codker92 said:

---

I disagree. A few verses earlier Jesus literally said that the child was greater than Peter. The disciples were arguing because Jesus first told Peter about the keys in Matthew 16.

---

I really struggle to understand your selective interpretation of Biblical text and proper context. Jesus literally says He will give Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven but you tell us Jesus was really speaking of the keys to hell or something other than Heaven. Now you apply other uncited versus to change the meaning of the verse in the discussion. Your arrogance is quite off putting.

Matthew 18:17 (LEB): At that time the disciples came up to Jesus, saying, "Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" 2 And calling a child to himself, he had him stand in their midst 3 and said, "Truly I say to you, unless you turn around and become like young children, you will never enter into the kingdom of heaven! 4 Therefore whoever humbles himself like this child, this person is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, 5 and whoever welcomes one child such as this in my name welcomes me. 6 But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him that a large millstone be hung on his neck and he be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of causes for stumbling, for it is a necessity that causes for stumbling come; nevertheless, woe to the person through whom the cause for stumbling comes.

Seems like we have contradicting evidence. Peter has keys but isn't the greatest? I guess that makes him a bellhop?

Faithful Ag said:

---

codker92 said:

---

You need to read two chapters ahead. The keys given to Peter are not of heaven, but hell. Peter has the keys to hades of which he along with Christ will tear the foundation of the gates from its roots to set the captives free. Peter will open the gates of hell since death and the Satan no longer have power over them.

Read Matt. 16:18 alongside Matthew 18:18. They are meant to be read together.

---

First, Jesus was clearly speaking of the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven in Matt 16. It is quoted directly from his mouth...

Quote:

---

18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 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."

---

Your "context" is awful here. Sorry.

Secondly, where do you get the idea that Matt 16:18 is intended to be read together with Matt 18:18? Seems to me if they were Intended to be read together they would have been written together, no? I am not suggesting they are not related passages but they are also not identical in what they are conveying.

The "keys" are only present and given specifically to Peter, Rock, who is the only one at that time given the authority's power to bind and loose on earth and also in Heaven. Later, and at a separate time, the authority to bind and loose was also given to the other apostles but the "keys" were not mentioned. This is an important distinction. Peter is given the keys AND the power to bind and loose in the singular, while the apostles were given the power to bind and loose collectively and were not given the keys individually. The power is similar but not the same.

Now you can say whatever you want about the keys and what and where they signified, but I'm gonna have to go with the Jesus on this one over codker92 and trust that Jesus knew what he was saying when he said the keys were to the Kingdom of Heaven.

---

The real context of Matthew 18:18:


While post-moderns would have the reasonable human being believe the author of Matthew had doctrines from the later written Mishnah "beamed" into his head before it was written like the x-files, real written evidence from the second temple period suggests that binding and loosing does not encompass church discipline or pagan ostracism practices, but the binding and loosing of demons. The Second Temple period literature was written before the New Testament and is a context for the New Testament. The later rabbinic Mishnaic material is not.

Most commonly, however, in intertestamental writings and in the NT the terms "binding" and "loosing" refer to the binding of Satan or satanic beings (e.g., demons) and the loosing of such beings or their erstwhile victims.

(1)
Tobit is kind of the obvious one, if you've ever read the Apocrypha. Tobit has a big buildup to a scene where there's an angel in the story (Raphael) who binds the demon Asmodeus. This is Tobit 3:17 and Tobit 8:3. When Asmodeus is bound, the woman he was afflicting (whose name is Sarah) is freed. Now when she's freed, the part about her freeing doesn't use the same loosing verb, even though the binding is the same. But the loosing verb is used of exorcisms elsewhere in literature of the same period. The cognate verb apoly is used with respect to the freeing of persons from demons in Josephus's description of exorcisms. For example, it's in Antiquities 8.2.5, paragraph 46. T

(2) Perhaps the most significant intertestamental (second temple) references to the binding or overpowering of Satan and the demons are found in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. The classic passage in [Testament of] Levi 18:10-12 refers to the activities of the "new priest" whom God would raise up as king in the era to come [MH: it's an obvious messianic reference]:

And he shall open the gates of paradise, And he shall remove the threatening sword against Adam. And he shall give to the saints to eat from the tree of life, And the Holy Spirit shall be on them And Beliar shall be bound by him, And he shall give power to his children to tread upon the evil spirits. Similar hope [MH: this ultimate messianic hope] comes to expression in T. Sim[eon] 6:5-6 and [Testament of] Zeb[ulon] 9:8. The assurance that human beings will have power to "tread upon" or subdue the evil spirits means that these spirits will no longer be able to harm them. Such clearly seems to be the meaning of Jesus' statement to the seventy when they return from their mission, reporting that they have found the demons subject to them in his name: "Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall hurt you" (Luke 10:19). The "enemy" here, of course, is Satan

(3)
The terms "binding" and "loosing" also appear in the Gospels in connection with exorcisms. The locus classicus for "binding" is Mark 3:27 and parallels, the parable about binding a strong man and plundering his goods. The context makes it clear that the strong man represents Satan and/or his demons. In many of the reported exorcisms, the demon is ordered or thrown out; to "cast out" evidently means much the same thing as to "bind" a demon. [MH: In other words, you have the power over it now.] Matthew follows Mark in describing Jesus' exorcism of demons in terms of "binding" (Matt 12:29). Through exorcism or binding, the demon is brought under control by one who has superior power. The sense of Mark 3:27 is that by binding the demon the erstwhile demoniac is liberated from his afflicting demon. Thus binding and loosing occur simultaneously: the demon is bound while its victim is loosed. The term lyein ("to loose") occurs with just this meaning in Luke 13:16: "And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan has bound for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?" Here the terms dein ("to bind") [MH: that's the infinitive form of deo] and desmos ("bond") relate to Satan's activity, presumably through the demons, in afflicting his victims A related idea is expressed by the verb phimoun, used in the exorcism story in Mark 1:25 [MH: which is the same as Luke 4:35]. Literally it means "to tie shut" or "silence." Silencing the demons elsewhere seems to have been part of Jesus' technique in "rebuking," that is, overpowering them The term "to bind" is used, then, both with respect to the affliction of a person by Satan (or by demons) and to the binding of a demon (or of Satan) by an exorcist who thereby frees or looses the erstwhile victim.

(4) Behold, I have given you authority (exousia) to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall hurt you" (10:18-19). This statement, in effect, summarizes the substance of the kind of authorization reported in Mark 6:7 and parallels. This assurance and also, probably, Jesus' saying in Matt 10:16b, are echoed by Paul in Rom 16:20: "I would have you wise as to what is good, and guileless as to what is evil; then the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet." What is new for Jesus' disciples is that they have found this power effective: they have been exorcising demons. Jesus' own authority over the demons had been a source of amazement from the beginning of his public activity (Mark 1:23-27 = Luke 4:33-36). Now the disciples too have authority over the demonsnot, as often is asserted, because Satan has been bound, but because, as stated in Luke 10:19 and elsewhere, Jesus has given them this power

So there we have the evidence. Four good reasons why you are wrong.

It makes sense then that the keys are to hades since the power is over satan and his minions.

The reference to "keys" of the kingdom of heaven in Matt 16:19 also has possible exorcistic connotations. In Revelation 20 an angel is seen coming down from heaven at the end of the age, "holding in his hand the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain," in order to seize and bind Satan and imprison him in "the pit" for a thousand years. Here, as in Matthew 16, "key" is associated with "binding" and also with "the pit," that is, Hades, and it is clear that all this has to do with overpowering Satan. In the one case, it is the key to the pit; in the other, the key to the kingdom of heaven. In Rev 1:18, the risen Jesus declares, "I have the keys of Death and Hades," again suggesting power over against the forces of evil. The connection between the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" and "binding and loosing" in Matt 16:19 then may well be this: when the disciples bind Satan and the demons, the latter's erstwhile victims are loosed and made ready for their new life in the kingdom of heave

If you want to have authority why don't you go play with a scorpion?

https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/NB-329-Transcript.pdf

I wish you well in your efforts and your faith. I am not impressed nor amazed by your so-called "evidence" or interpretations. Also, I do not think it wise to go outside the Church and outside the scriptures in an attempt to support your views. I accept the binding and loosing of demons as a part of the authority bestowed upon Peter and the apostles - but not at the exclusion of everything else. It's both/and not either/or.




...oh, and you might want to check out the part in the 12 patriarchs in Levi about arrogance. Cheers.

Catholic bros, he asked for Protestant opinions. Let them have their say

" Your first mistake was thinking a Methodist could be a theologian!"

Bob Tuttle is an exception to this rule and perhaps Stanley Hauerwas, who taught at Notre Dame and the University of Aberdeen.

I suggest you read the actual literature that influence the biblical writers instead of material that has no bearing on it at all.

You don't read The Declaration of Independence or The Bill of Rights to understand the Magna Carta, you read the Magna Carta to understand the Bill of Rights. Its basic.