Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 16:19 - 16:19
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_16:19. And I will give to thee the keys of the Messianic kingdom,[457] i.e. the power of deciding as to who are to be admitted into or excluded from the future kingdom of the Messiah. For the figurative expression, comp. Luk_11:52; Rev_1:18; Rev_3:7; Rev_9:1; Rev_10:1; Isa_22:22; Ascens. Isa_6:6.
δώσω ] The future expresses the idea of a promise (the gift not being, as yet, actually conferred), as in the case of οἰκοδομήσω , pointing forward to the time when Christ will no longer administer the affairs of the church in a direct and personal manner. This future already shows that what was meant cannot have been the office of preaching the gospel, which preaching is supposed to lead to admission into the kingdom of heaven, wherever God has prepared men’s hearts for its reception (Düsterdieck, Julius Müller). The similitude of the keys corresponds to the figurative οἰκοδομ ., Mat_16:18, in so far as the ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑ , Mat_16:18 (which is to be transformed into the ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑ Τ . ΟὐΡ . at the second coming), is conceived of as a house, the doors of which are opened and locked by means of keys (generally, not exactly by two of them). In regard to Peter, however, the figure undergoes some modification, inasmuch as it passes from that of the foundation of rock, not certainly into the lower one of a gate-keeper, but (comp. Luk_12:4; 1Co_4:1; 1Co_9:17; Tit_1:7) into that of an οἰκονόμος ( ΤΑΜΊΑς , Isa_22:15 ff.), from the ordinary relation of a disciple to the church to the place of authority hereafter to be assigned him in virtue of that relation. The authority in question is that of a house-steward, who is empowered to determine who are to belong and who are not to belong to the household over which his master has commissioned him to preside.[458] All this is expressed by means of an old and sacred symbol, according to which the keys of the house are promised to Peter, “that he may open and no man shut, that he may shut and no man open” (Isaiah as above).
For the forms κλεῖς and (as Tischendorf 8, on inadequate testimony) ΚΛΕῖΔΑς , see Kühner, I. p. 357.
ΚΑῚ Ὃ ἘᾺΝ ΔΉΣῌς Κ . Τ . Λ .] a necessary adjunct of this power: and whatsoever thou wilt have forbidden upon earth will he forbidden in heaven (by God), so that it will, in consequence, prevent admission into the Messianic kingdom; and whatsoever thou wilt have permitted upon earth (as not proving a hindrance in the way of admission to the future kingdom) will be permitted in heaven. It will depend on thy decision—which God will ratify—what things, as being forbidden, are to disqualify for the kingdom of the Messiah, and what things, as being allowed, are to be regarded as giving a claim to admission. δέειν and ΛΎΕΙΝ are to be traced to the use, so current among the Jews, of àñø and äúéø , in the sense of to forbid and to allow. Lightfoot, p. 378 ff.; Schoettgen, II. p. 894 f., and Wetstein on this passage; Lengerke’s note on Dan_6:8; Rosenmüller, Morgenl. V. 67; Steitz, p. 438 f. Following Lightfoot, Vitringa, Schoettgen, and others, Fritzsche, Ahrens, Steitz, Weizsäcker, Keim, Gess (I. p. 68), Gottschick in the Stud. u. Krit. 1873, also adopt this interpretation of those figurative expressions. In the face of this common usage, it would be arbitrary and absurd to think of any other explanation. The same may be said not only of the reference to the supreme administrative power in general (Arnoldi and the older Catholics), or to the treasures of grace in the church, which Peter is supposed to be able to withhold or bestow as he may deem proper (Schegg), but likewise of the view which represents the words as intended to indicate the power of admitting into and excluding from the church (Thaddaeus a S. Adamo, Commentat. 1789, Rosenmüller, Lange), and in support of which an appeal is made, notwithstanding the ὅ , to the ancient practice of tying or untying doors; as well as of that other view which has been so currently adopted, after Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Maldonatus, to the effect that what Jesus means is the remission and non-remission of sins.[459] So Grotius, Olshausen, de Wette, Bleek, Neander, Glöckler, Baumgarten-Crusius, Döllinger, Julius Müller, Düsterdieck. But to quote in connection with this the different and much later saying of Jesus, after His resurrection, Joh_20:23, is quite unwarranted; the idea of sin is a pure importation, and although λύειν ἁμαρτ . may properly enough be understood as meaning: to forgive sins (Isa_40:2; Isaiah 3 Esdr. Mat_9:13; Sir_28:8; and see Kypke on Mat_18:18), yet the use of ΔΈΕΙΝ ἉΜΑΡΤ ., in the sense of retaining them, is altogether without example. Exception has been taken to the idea involved in our interpretation; but considering that high degree of faith to which Peter, as their representative, here shows them to have attained, the apostles must be supposed to possess “the moral power of legislation” (objected to by de Wette) as well, if they are to determine the right of admission to the Messiah’s kingdom; see Steitz also, p. 458. This legislative authority, conferred upon Peter, can only wear an offensive aspect when it is conceived of as possessing an arbitrary character, and as being in no way determined by the ethical influences of the Holy Spirit, and when it is regarded as being of an absolute nature, as independent of any connection with the rest of the apostles (but see note on Mat_18:18). Comp. Wieseler, Chronol. d. Ap. p. 587 f. Ahrens, likewise, correctly interprets the words in the sense of to forbid and to allow, but supposes the words themselves to be derived from the practice of fastening with a knot vessels containing anything of a valuable nature (Hom. Od. viii. 447). Artificial and far-fetched, but resulting from the reference of the keys to the ταμεῖον .
ἔσται δεδεμ .] Observe how that is spoken of as already done, which is to take place and be realized immediately on the back of the ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς . Comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 267 [E. T. 311]; Kühner, II. 1, p. 35. To such a degree will the two things really harmonize with one another.
[457] See Ahrens, d. Amt. Schlüssel, 1864; Steitz in the Stud. u. Krit. 1866, p. 436 ff.; likewise the reviews of the first-mentioned work in the Erlang. Zeitschr. 1865, 3, p. 137 ff.; and that of Düsterdieck in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 743; Julius Müller, dogm. Abh. p. 496 ff.
[458] There is no force in the objection that this would be to confound the keys of the house-steward with those of the porter (Ahrens). The keys of the house are entrusted to the steward for the purpose of opening and locking it; this is all that the figure implies. Whether lie opens and locks in his own person, or has it done through the medium of a porter, is of no consequence whatever, and makes no difference as far as the thing intended to be symbolized is concerned. The power of the keys belongs, in any case, to the οἰκονόμος , and not to the θυρωρός . The view of Ahrens, that the keys are to be regarded as those of the rooms, and of the place in which the family provisions are stored, the ταμεῖον , the contents of which it is supposed to be the duty of the steward to distribute (so also Döllinger, Christenth. u. Kirche, p. 31), is in opposition to the fact that the thing which is to be opened and locked must be understood to be that which is expressed by the genitive immediately after κλείς (accordingly, in this instance, the kingdom, not the ταμεῖον ), comp. note on Luk_11:52, likewise Isaiah as above. Moreover, according to the explanation of Ahrens, those, on whose behalf the ταμίας uses his keys, would have to be regarded as already within the kingdom and participating in its blessings, so that there would be no further room for the idea of exclusion, which is not in keeping with the contrast which follows.
[459] In which case the result of apostolic preaching generally, i.e. its efficacy in judging men by the spiritual power of the word (Julius Müller, comp. Neander and Düsterdieck), ceases to have any significance other than that of a vague abstraction, by no means in keeping with the specific expression of the text, and leaving no room for assigning to Peter any special prerogative. This also in answer to Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 99, 2d ed., who holds that, originally, the words were intended to indicate merely that general commission which was given to the apostles to publish among men the call to the kingdom of God.