Shortly after Peter’s confession that Jesus is both Christ and God, Jesus responded in saying “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” (Matt 16:19 NIV). That same authority to “bind” and “loose” was later given to the entire church (18:18). When these terms are understood in their historic context it becomes apparent that Jesus granted to Peter judicial authority to make decisions that regulate church behaviour. It is commonly argued that such authority stemmed from his confession that Jesus is Christ and God and that he was able to fulfil this task because his discipleship would have prepared him to make judgements on what is right or wrong. Such views on the application of “binding and loosing” fail to account for the fact that in both instances where the terms “bind and loose” are used in Matthew (16:16–19 and 18:15–20), there is a focus on a “Spirit-led” application of divine wisdom. More to the point, it may be argued that Peter is granted judicial authority not so much because of his confession but rather because he could “hear from heaven.” It was his ability to be guided by the voice of God that would enable him to judge correctly.
Before this proposition is thoroughly unpacked, it is necessary to elaborate on the biblical and historical context of the phrase “to bind and loose.” When the Judeans confronted Jesus for healing a cripple on the Sabbath (John 5) he answered them, “My Father has been working until now, and I Myself am working” (v. 17). The Fourth Gospel records the ire that this response evoked among the Judeans, especially because they perceived Jesus’s claim to equality with God as blasphemous (5:18, 10:33). However, it is also noted that they were angry because Jesus had “broken the Sabbath.” The Greek word lyō used in this verse is commonly translated as “broken,” but it is actually the same word that is translated as “loose” in Matthew 16:19. The literal meaning of the word is to unfasten, undo or abrogate, thus in the legal sense “to permit” something that had formerly been forbidden, or bound. While the word “broken” implies that Jesus merely omitted to practice the law, the original sense is properly that Jesus had overwritten their laws of the Sabbath. The latter understanding fits the historical context of the debate better, for Josephus records in The War of the Jews (1:5:2) that the Pharisees under Queen Alexandra asserted the power of “binding and loosing,” meaning that they became legal administrators of public dealings and assumed the authority to penalize or pardon men (Kaufmann 1906). Later rabbinical writings record how various schools would “bind” a certain day by declaring it a day of fasting. This second sense better fits the context of Jesus’s dispute with the Judeans. They were angry because Jesus had proclaimed their additional restrictions upon the Sabbath invalid when he said, “I Myself am working.” It may be conjectured that their dispute with Jesus centred around who had the authority to proclaim halakha (“the walking out the commandments of the law”), with Jesus having witnessed that his authority came from heaven itself (19–20) and, therefore, surpassed theirs.
Yet Jesus acknowledged the authority of the scribes and Pharisees as the official interpreters of the Law when he proclaimed to the crowds that, “They sit in the seat of Moses, so observe what they instruct you to do. But do not do as they do” (Matthew 23:2–3). Thus, Jesus recognizes that the Pharisees exercised the same authority as the priests or judges that were in office at the time of Moses (see Deut 17:8–13). When he proclaimed to Peter that he will receive authority to “bind and loose” Jesus essentially granted to him (and the church, see Matt 18:18) the same authority as that which resided with the scribes and Pharisees. Should there be an issue of personal grievance within the Christian community, the issue could be addressed by two or three elders because they would receive supernatural insight from Christ in disciplinary matters (Matt 18:15–20). Thus, in the later pericope the concept of “binding and loosing” is closely associated with the authority to penalize or pardon, as assumed by the Pharisees in Josephus’s account.
Numerous contemporary scholars rightly acknowledge that Matthew 16:19 deals with the issue of regulating church behaviour, and that such regulation is the key that permits people to enter the Kingdom of God. In some sense, Peter would relay what he had heard or learnt from Christ (past tense), so that he may point people towards the kingdom of heaven (Nolland 2005, 677). This suggests that it is Peter’s enlightenment and subsequent confession of the Christ (16:16) that made him both rock and keeper of the keys, and that the knowledge he gained during his discipleship would grant him the wisdom and authority to “bind and loose.” The assumption is, therefore, that Peter would apply what he has learnt from Jesus to the life of the Church (682).
While not technically incorrect from a gnomic sense, the chief problem with this interpretation of Matthew 16:19 is that it does not conform to the context in which “binding and loosing” is used in Matthew 18:18–20. In particular, verses 19–20 would suggest that the authority to enact or repeal is linked to the abiding presence of Christ: “For where two or three have gathered in My name, I am there in their midst” (NASB). Therefore, the church can anticipate supernatural wisdom as it listens to judicial cases of grievance (Quarles 2022, 464). In other words, it is the ability of the church to be “Spirit-led,” to hear (in the moment where casuistic application is needed) the will of God, that confers on them the authority to decide issues of halakha.
More significantly, when this perspective is retrojected back to Matthew 16:19 it reveals a subtlety in the text that may have been overlooked, namely that Jesus’s excitement over Peter’s confession has less to do with his actual confession, and more to do with the fact that Peter heard “not by flesh and blood” but from God.[1] It is his ability to be “Spirit-led” that would enable him to act as the rock, to execute the authority and will of God on earth, not just his understanding of who Christ is. Certainly, the confession is significant, for true insight and authority must come from God and his Son. However, the understanding that Peter is granted authority based on the method of his revelation, as much as the revelation itself, harmonises the sense of “binding and loosing” found in Matthew 16 and 18. If, for example, all Peter’s regulatory authority were ascribed only to his listening to the aphorisms of the sermon on the Mount, then there is no reliable means for Peter, or the church, to judge matters of casuistic law, which is the central concern of Deuteronomy 17:8–13, Matthew 18:15–20, and 16:16–19.
This subtle shift in perspective may account for the narrative focus on how Peter heard in Matthew 16:17. It harmonises the use of the terms “bind” and “loose” across both Matthean pericopes, and it does not contradict the historic use of the terms, either by Josephus or later rabbinic Judaism. Most significantly, it may help with discerning a grammatical uncertainty in the Greek text. There is some academic dispute over precisely what is meant by the phrases estai dedemenon (“will be bound”) and estai lelymenon (“will be loosed”). The Greek construct is a rare future perfect periphrastic, and it is questioned whether the future perfect tense retains its perfect force here (i.e., “will have been bound”) or serves as a simple future tense (“will be bound”). If the latter, then this implies that heaven ratifies any rulings of Peter and the church. However, if the thesis is correct that Peter has been raised to the judicial status of a priest or scribe because he heard and was able to confess, then the implication is that Peter responds to heaven (Porter 1988, 158). In other words, Peter’s rulings are not of his own judicial discretion but reflect God’s will. He is communicating a casuistic ruling already established in heaven (Quarles 2022, 417). Consequently, the perfect force of the future verbs estai dedemenon (will have been bound) and estai lelymenon (will have been loosed) is most likely retained. After all, the passage records that Peter is blessed because he heard from heaven, not because of his confession; and Matthew 16:21–23 reiterates the important distinction between judging by the “flesh” or the Spirit.
In conclusion, when the method of Peter’s confession is emphasised over the content of the confession (without negating the significance of that confession), it not only clarifies the narrative focus of Matthew 16:16–19, but also expounds how Peter can serve as the keeper of the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus was excited, and Peter was blessed, because he heard from heaven. Similarly, it is the supernatural ability of the church to be led by the Spirit of God that grants her the ability and authority to convey God’s judgements and open up the Kingdom for all mankind.
[1] There may be an implied homonymic connection between his Hebrew name “Shimon” and the verb “to hear” (shema) in this pericope, but the joke would hardly scan in the original Greek manuscript.
