What Day is the Sabbath? Do we still need to keep it?

Theology
101

Keys, plural, represent authority of/over something.

If one, say, is a jailer with authority over a jail, they have keys–they have the authority to open and close the doors of the jail. Keys, plural, because the symbolism is one of having the authority to open/close doors. In Revelation 1:18 Jesus says He died, but is alive forever, He has “the keys of Hades and of death” meaning He has overcome death and hell, He is the One with victory and authority–death and hell has no power over Him, He has power over them.

Likewise when Jesus says He gives to Peter (not exclusively to Peter, as He echoes the same thing He said to Peter to the other Apostles in Matthew 18:18, and also in John 20:21-23) the Keys of the kingdom, to bind/loose (open/close) it is about Christ as the One with authority, and by giving those Keys He is giving that authority to His Church (via Peter/the Apostles).

Keys symbolically represent authority. Jesus as the King, means His is the kingdom–i.e. the royal power and authority as King–and to give the keys of the kingdom is to share His Kingly-authority with the one(s) He shares it with. I.e. His Church. It is, of course, within a specific context here: the authority to declare forgiveness “whoever’s sins you forgive are forgiven them” and retain “whoever’s sins you retain are retained”. I can’t go around saying “I forgive you” or “I don’t forgive you” as though I have this authority (I don’t) but through the Apostles it is vested to the Church, and the Church historically therefore has designated certain people as ministers–servants–to exercise the Keys; that is why pastors historically are vested by the Church to preach, to teach, to administer the Sacraments (not in a sacerdotal way, but vocationally and ministerially). In order that, for the good order of Christian life and community, responsible men are trusted with these things (it’s why we see in St. Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus rigorous criteria about who is to be vetted as a pastor–bishop, presbyter, deacon, etc) Pastors, in this way, are continuing in the apostolic ministry, by holding firm to the apostolic teaching, passing on that teaching through preaching, comforting the Faithful with the Good News of Jesus and calling the Faithful to obedience godly lives and repentance by preaching God’s Commandments, by proclaiming the word (we should remember that for most of Christian history there was no such thing as mass-produced books, and most people were illiterate, and so the ordinary way the majority of Christians encountered and experienced the Bible was when Scripture was read out loud at Christian worship). So pastors were expected to be shepherds, councilors, preachers, teachers, and defenders of the faith for those entrusted to their spiritual care–very much an apostolic work especially after the time the apostles had died and passed on the torch to the next generation–to the pastors of the churches.

102

Theo…

Nice read. I appreciate your thoughts. I’m reading an amplified version of what you said before with additional commentary about the traditional role of “pastor”.

I’m not reading much clarity on why “keys” is plural some places, and singular in others. Is there significance to the deviation?

I have TONS of thoughts on your defense of traditional roles within the church, but maybe another time, and another topic.

KP

103

Doing a word search for “key”, what I notice is that in the singular “key” seems to be used in the same way “keys” are. Isaiah 22:22 for example. The language of Isaiah 22:22 is then echoed in Revelation 3:7 where the Lord is the One who is the Son of David (in the total fulfillment of what was said to Eliakim by Isaiah) and thus as Messiah has the key, the authority; and He opens the door and none may shut it.

So I’m not sure if there is some principle we can find that renders “key” and “keys” as significantly different–key and keys are used to denote authority.

104

You raise a good point, and you are halfway there, but you have stopped just short of what the text is actually revealing.

Yes, both “key” and “keys” denote authority.
But you assume that because both involve authority, the singular and plural forms are interchangeable.
They are not.
In Scripture, number always matters, especially when symbols are being used in prophetic, typological, or apocalyptic texts.

Let us start where you began: Isaiah 22:22.

“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.” (Isa_22:22)

The Hebrew word here is מַפְתֵּחַ (maphteach), a singular noun from the root פָּתַח (pāthach, to open).
Eliakim is given the key, singular, because it denotes exclusive jurisdiction over the house.
This was a stewardship office, the Asher al-Habayith, second only to the king (cf. 1Ki_4:6, Isa_22:15), managing access to the royal chambers.
This is why the key is placed on his shoulder, symbolic of bearing authority (cf. Isa_9:6).

Now fast forward to Revelation 3:7:

“These are the words of the Holy One, the True One, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.” (Rev_3:7)

The Greek here is τὴν κλεῖν Δαυείδ — ten klein Dauid — feminine singular accusative of κλείς (kleis, key).
It mirrors the Isaiah passage exactly because Christ is the fulfillment of that steward office, not as servant but as Son (Heb_3:6).

So yes, the singular key in Isaiah and Revelation points to exclusive messianic authority.

But here is where you missed the mark:

Matthew 16:19 does not say “key.” It says “keys,” plural, and that difference is the whole point.

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…” (Mat_16:19)

Greek: δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖς — future active indicative of δίδωμι (to give), plus τὰς κλεῖς, tas kleis — accusative feminine plural of κλείς (key).
It is plural, and not by accident.

So what gives?

Christ alone has the key of David (singular), meaning sovereign authority over salvation history.
But He delegates keys (plural) to Peter, which implies a representative stewardial authority rather than supreme sovereignty.

Just as Joseph had Pharaoh’s ring (Gen_41:42), but not Pharaoh’s throne.
Just as Eliakim had David’s key, but only as steward, while the king himself still ruled.

In Matthew 16, the plural keys reflect multiple dimensions of delegated authority:

Binding and loosing, legal-ecclesial categories rooted in rabbinic halakhah.

Doctrinal stewardship, a role later echoed in apostolic succession (cf. Act_15:7–11).

Judicial and evangelistic access, seen in Acts, where Peter opens the gospel first to Jews (Acts 2), then to Gentiles (Acts 10), in exact fulfillment of Christ’s commission.

Compare also Matthew 23:13:

“You shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.”

This is not metaphorical. The keys control access — proclamation, doctrine, judgment — not in arbitrary human fashion, but under the King’s decree.

So no, “key” and “keys” are not interchangeable.
They are layered.

The key of David, singular, speaks of the Messiah’s sovereign authority (Isa_22:22, Rev_3:7).
The keys of the kingdom, plural, speak of delegated apostolic authority to mediate, proclaim, and bind or loose within covenantal boundaries (Mat_16:19).

To collapse the plural into the singular is to flatten the typology and miss the distinction between ownership and stewardship.

Christ holds the key. No one else does.
Peter is given the keys, but only as servant in the house.

And finally, remember what Jesus said in Luke 11:52:

“Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering.”

There again, key, singular, because true knowledge of God is one, and it belongs to Christ.

So do not blur the lines.
Let the singular remain singular.
Let the plural speak for itself.

There is one King.
And there are many servants.

The key opens the throne room.
The keys open the gates for others.

Both speak of authority.
But one is original, the other derivative.
One is Messianic.
The other is apostolic.

Shalom.

J.

1 Like
105

I suspect that we should probably move this side-conversation elsewhere so we don’t continue to clog this up. I’ve created a new topic and am responding to your post here, over there.

106

Very nice job here. Well done.

1 Like
107

How do I respond to others @KPuff? Just hitting the reply button?

Johann.

108

Not exactly sure what you are asking, but each post comes with its own “Reply” button., I f you use that button (grey, at the bottom ot the specific post) you will be replying to that post specifically. The platform will track it. If you use the blue “Reply” button at the bottom menu, in line with [“Share”, “Bookmark”, “Flag”, “Mark Unread”, “Reply”], you will be replying to the entire post, not directly to a previous post. is this what you are asking?
KP

109

I only have a “grey” reply button brother, but thank you for the response.

Wait—I see it now!

God bless.

J.

110

Woo Hoo! Woo Hoo! (trying to satisfy the 20 character poilce)

111

Beg your pardon? Trying to satisfy the 20 character POILCE?

What’s with the “Woo Hoo?”

J.

112

I was celebrating with you, but this post-box will not take a message less than 20 characters, so I said it twice.

1 Like
113

My apologies brother, I’m learning something new–didn’t know about the 20 characters,

Johann.

114

Blockquote [rstrats]![|24x24]
“Acts 20:7 NET…On the first day of the week, when we met to break bread, Paul began to speak to the people, and because he intended to leave the next day, he extended his message until midnight.”

Actually, as far as scripture is concerned, there are only two times mentioned with regard to anybody getting together on the first (day) of the week - John 20:19 and Acts 20:7. There is never any mention of them ever again being together on the first.

This was a havdalah service. In the Jewish way of telling time, the “first day of the week” starts at sundown on the seventh day. It is a brief ceremony (now) to mark the end of the sabbath and the beginning of the work week. A good clue that this was after dark was that Paul preached to midnight. Do you think he REALLY started at 8 or 9 am on Sunday? The text also says he was planning on traveling in the morning. Travel was prohibited on Sabbath and was dangerous at night. So he leaves at first light on Sunday morning.

115

Before one can answer this question, I think one needs to understand the purpose of the sabbath.