Binding and Loosing
Musings on one reading from Proper 16: Matthew 16:13-20
My History with Comparative Theology
(For those who don’t care, move down to “The Text” below!)
Growing up in the Churches of Christ as I did, I was trained early on to engage in comparative theology. I don’t know that I was trained very well, but the idea was certainly engrained within me. Most weeks, the sermon from the pulpit would be doctrinal (the norm for conservative congregations), and it typical be focused upon the doctrinal error of another Christian group, including the perceived errors of other Churches of Christ to the right or to the left of the preacher. My parents owned several books that were focused on exposing doctrinal errors in other churches, including several that catalogued all the major doctrinal sins of other denominations. One of these doctrinal error books provided me with my first glimpse into church history, as the last chapter was on the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), and it recounted a very biased account of the Stone-Campbell Movement before cataloging all of the ways that the Disciples had departed from what we believed was “the faith once delivered.”
When I began to restudy my faith in my early 20s, I unwittingly adopted this approach, because it was what I had grown up with. So, not only did I reread the bible, I read in theology widely. I read Catholic doctrines (including portions of the Catechism—because who wants to read that whole thing?) and theologies and listened to Catholic podcasts, I explored the doctrines of the Reformation, and especially Reformed theology, and I explored eschatology in depth.
Apparently, the spirit of comparative theology still exists inside me, as when I read the readings for Proper 16, it did not take me long to decide to do a short study of theologies surrounding Matthew 16:13-20, the episode where Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. As I stated in my first post, I want to use this space as a way to explore Christian spirituality in ways that I did not feel free to do previously, and so, this week, I will explore Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant views on the meaning of this verse.
As a quick reminder: my formal theological training is primarily in historical studies. While I took textual studies in seminary, they were not my primary course work, and so my exposition below is limited by the fact that I am not a textual specialist.
The Text: Matthew 16:13-20
Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.
Comparing Theologies: Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, and Protestant
Most, though certainly not all, Protestant churches read the granting of the keys to Simon Peter as a personal event. Because Simon Peter was the first to confess Jesus as the Son of God, Jesus is giving him a new name, “Peter,” and granting him personal authority as a type of reward. Jesus is not, in Protestant thought, giving Peter a “type” of authority that would be passed on to those who Peter gave it to, or to the apostles as a whole.
That is, what is really going on here according to most Protestants is that Jesus is simply changing one of the apostle’s names from Simon to Peter, and declaring that he would be instrumental in building the early church. Some would also add that the rock that Jesus builds upon is not Peter, but his confession of faith. Peter, of course, in Greek, means “rock.” Jesus, in his declaration, states that “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” The most common exegesis that I have heard of this particular verse is that Jesus is engaging in a word play here: he calls Peter “rock,” and then says, “on this rock I will build my church.” Looking at the Greek in this verse, however, while it does indicated that Jesus is engaging in a word play, it also seems to indicate that something slightly different is happening here.
The name that Jesus gives Simon is Greek is Πέτρος, or Petros. According to Strong’s, the word means “a small stone,” and specifically, one that can be picked up and thrown. However, when Jesus says “and on this rock I will build my church,” the Greek word that Jesus uses is πέτρα, or petra, which describes a “mass of connected rock,” or a rock coming out of the ground and creating a cliff. Jesus, in many ways, is giving Peter a backhanded compliment. The sentence could be read (at least, for meaning), to be, “You are a throwable stone, and on this massive rock I will build my church.” It seems then that Jesus is not building his church upon Peter, but upon something else. In the gospels, Peter is often chided for being “Ye of little faith.” However, in this instance, I would have to agree with Protestant exegesis that Jesus is calling Peter’s confession that Jesus is the son of God as “petra.” It isn’t Peter that Jesus is building his church upon, and it isn’t even Peter’s faith, but instead, it is the confession of knowledge granted to Peter specifically by Yahweh. Peter then is an instrument of Yahweh in the next verse, not the foundation of the Christian faith.
This reading definitely seems to deal a blow to Catholic readings of this verse, which see Peter as the rock that Jesus will build his church upon. If Peter is not the rock upon which the faith is built, then it becomes very difficult to argue that Peter was the first Pope, who then, through apostolic succession, passed down the authorities granted to him to all of his successors down to the current day. Peter may very well have been the first Bishop of Rome, but this reading would seem to indicate that there is nothing particularly significant, biblically, anyway, about the fact that Peter held that position.
This, of course, however, is not the full focus of the passage. What about verse nineteen, which reads “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." What exactly does this mean? According to the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906, binding and loosing was a Rabbinic term that Jesus, the apostles, and Matthew’s Jewish audience was understand. The idea of binding and loosing was that through spiritual means, rabbis could prohibited the use of something, or loosen that prohibition to allow the thing to be used again. According to the encyclopedia, the Pharisees claimed the power of binding and loosing, and used this authority to declare someone anathema, that is, to exclude. Further, they also used this authority to forbid or allow certain activities. An example given was the use of binding to create a day of fasting, that would of course prohibit pious Jews from eating during the fast day. This was a spiritual-legal authority, meaning that those who could bind and loose did so not just spiritually, but legally.
Since Jesus does not go on to explain what he means in Matthew, and indeed, it would seem that Matthew’s audience would generally understand what Jesus meant here, it is safe to say that what Jesus is granting here was something well understood. Jesus is granting Peter the power to include and exclude, and the power to bind and loose legally. Since this is in the context of founding the church, I would argue that the power to “bind and loose” was something Jesus was investing Peter with only in the church, and that he was not granting Peter any type of temporal, stately authority.
Having dealt with the issues of the rock and the power of the keys, the final question to examine is who Jesus gave this authority to. Generally speaking, this verse is one of three used to bolster the claim of Papal authority and succession, and because of that, one that Protestants typically only use polemically. However, if we are to understand the full counsel of God, we must move beyond the polemic to understand what Jesus actually intended here. Doing so brings me to examine Orthodox theology on the matter, to see what else we can learn about this passage.
Saint Augustine (died 430) argues that the keys to the Kingdom were not given to Peter, but to the entirety of the church. In the Bishop of Hippo’s Tracate 50 on the Gospel of John, he states:
“For if in Peter’s case there were no sacramental symbol of the Church, the Lord would not have said to him, I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. If this was said only to Peter, it gives no ground of action to the Church. But if such is the case also in the Church, that what is bound on earth is bound in heaven, and what is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven, — for when the Church excommunicates, the excommunicated person is bound in heaven; when one is reconciled by the Church, the person so reconciled is loosed in heaven: — if such, then, is the case in the Church, Peter, in receiving the keys, represented the holy Church.”
Here, Augustine clearly believes that the power to bind and loose is not something simply invested within Peter, but within the church itself, and specifically, he indicates that this power is one of exclusion and inclusion. It is the ability of the church to decide its membership. It is also why traditionally Christianity has always argued that “there is no salvation outside the church.” This is not the only time Augustine made this claim, however.
In his Sermon on the Feasts of Saints Peter and Paul, in a long paragraph that bears repeating in full, Augustine states:
“Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the final days of His earthly life, in the days of His mission to the race of man, chose from among the disciples His twelve Apostles to preach the Word of God. Among them, the Apostle Peter for his fiery ardor was vouchsafed to occupy the first place and to be as it were the representative person for all the Church. Therefore it is said to him, preferentially, after the confession: "I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in the heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth: shall be loosed in heaven.” Therefore it was not one man, but rather the One Universal Church, that received these "keys" and the right "to bind and loosen." And that it was actually the Church that received this right, and not exclusively a single person, turn your attention to another place of the Scriptures, where the same Lord says to all His Apostles, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit" and further after this, "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them: and whosesoever sins ye retain, are retained;” or: "whatsoever ye bind upon the earth, shall be bound in Heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosened in heaven.” Thus, it is the Church that binds, the Church that loosens; the Church, built upon the foundational cornerstone, Jesus Christ Himself, doth bind and loosen. Let both the binding and the loosening be feared: the loosening, in order not to fall under this again; the binding, in order not to remain forever in this condition. Therefore "Iniquities ensnare a man, and everyone is bound in the chains of his own sins," says Wisdom; and except for Holy Church nowhere is it possible to receive the loosening.”
Here, Bishop Augustine makes clear that it is the “universal church” that has received the power of binding and loosing, not simply Peter. Augustine sees Peter as a symbol of the church, indeed, as the first bishop—a typology for the rest—but one who received the power on behalf of the church as a whole, and not vested simply within himself and his successors. Orthodoxy, to this day, of course, in its rejection of the Bishop of Rome as the primate of the entire church, endorses the view that the power to bind and loose is granted to all the bishops of the church, not simply to the bishop occupying the See of Rome. I could cite additional writers from the first several centuries of Christianity, including Tertullian and Origen, who argue the same.
But, is the power simply granted to bishops? St. Symeon the New Theologian (died 1022), in his Letter on Confession, argues otherwise. In his letter, St. Symeon quotes John 20:19-23, which reads:
“When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and the doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you.’ After he said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 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.”
Here, we see a few things. First, St. Symeon, like most interpreters ancient and modern, equates the charge given to the disciples (notably, not just the Apostles) about forgiving and retaining sins, as analagous to Jesus’ charge to Peter in Matthew. St. Symeon goes on to state the following (quite long) statement:
“As we said, therefore, the holy Apostles summoned this authority in succession for those who were to hold their thrones. Not one of the rest of the disciples ever conceived of presuming upon it. The Lord’s disciples preserved with all exactitude the rightness of this authority. But, as we said, when time had gone by, the worthy grew mixed and mingled with the unworthy, with one contending in order to have precedence over another and feigning virtue for the sake of preferment. Thus, because those who were holding the Apostles’ thrones were shown up as fleshly minded, as lovers of pleasure and seekers of glory, and as inclining towards heresies, the divine grace abandoned them and this authority was taken away from them. . .
Therefore it is neither to those in the habit of monks, nor to those ordained and enrolled in the rank of the priesthood, nor yet to those who have been honoured with the dignity of the episcopate – I mean the patriarchs and metropolitans and bishops – that God has given the grace of forgiving sins merely by virtue of their having been ordained. Perish the thought! For these are allowed only to celebrate the sacraments (and I think myself that even this does not apply to many of them, lest they be burned up entirely by this service who are themselves but straw). Rather, this grace is given alone to those, as many as there are among priests and bishops and monks, who have been numbered with Christ’s disciples on account of their purity of life…”
St. Symeon, writing close to the Great Schism between the East and the West, is quite thoroughly disgusted by the spiritual state of the Priesthood, including the Episcopate. He is disgusted for good reason, as anyone with even a cursory understanding of Christian history should be aware of how corrupt the priesthood and the Episcopate had become. That said, let us break down some of the parts of St. Symeon’s argument:
A. The authority to loose and bind was delivered to the Disciples, but “the holy Apostles summoned this authority in succession for those who were to hold their thrones. Not one of the rest of the disciples ever conceived of presuming upon it".”
B. The priests and bishops were so corrupt that “divine grace abandoned them and this authority was taken away from them.”
C. That because this authority was taken from the ordained, “this grace is given alone to those, as many as there are among priests and bishops and monks, who have been numbered with Christ’s disciples on account of their purity of life…”
D. That it isn’t simply priests and bishops and monks that have this authority, but “Therefore it is neither to those in the habit of monks, nor to those ordained and enrolled in the rank of the priesthood, nor yet to those who have been honoured with the dignity of the episcopate – I mean the patriarchs and metropolitans and bishops – that God has given the grace of forgiving sins merely by virtue of their having been ordained. Perish the thought!”
E. Priests and Bishops are ordained, monks are not.
Saint Symeon presupposes that the authority to bind and loose was only claimed by the apostles, who then served as ordained bishops and priests, but that this authority has been taken from the ordained because of Yahweh’s anger that the priesthood had become corrupt. Symeon argues Yahweh gave the authority to bind and loose was not simply given to those who were ordained, but to those who’s lives reflected the spiritual and moral purity that Jesus demanded. That included unordained Monks who would hear confessions and grant pardon.
I have several quibbles with Saint Symeon’s theology here, and wish to modify it to something more useful. As I stated in my first post, one of my theological commitments is that of the Priesthood of All Believers. While Saint Symeon seems to believe that the power to loose and bind was only taken up by the Apostles, he notes, with the scripture, that Jesus had bestowed this power upon all the disciples who were present after the resurrection. We know, of course, from scripture that Jesus had many more disciples than he had Apostles, and I see no scriptural reason to believe that Jesus only meant for the apostles to have the power to loose and bind, rather than the disciples as a whole. While Saint Symeon believes that this power was only taken up by the Apostles, he also seems to believe that Jesus conferred this power upon the disciples as a whole, because he argues that the power to bind and lose is not one simply given to the ordained. So, Saint Symeon is arguing that just because only the Apostles took up this power does not mean that Jesus only gave it to them. While Symeon’s example of a non-ordained person binding and loosing is a Monk, I also see no reason to believe that he believed that only “religious” persons living in a cloister would now have that authority.
So, how does an examination of this issue provide us with some constructive theology? I would argue that Jesus granted the keys of the kingdom—the power to bind and loose—to his disciples, not just the apostles. That Jesus gave this power generally to those who would be inside the church also means that Jesus gave this power to us, in the here and now. The power to bind and loose exists within the church, and is granted to Jesus’ disciples, not simply to those who have been ordained. The power to loose and bind, then, is a power conferred through the Priesthood of All Believers onto all the faithful, and not simply the Pope in Rome, or the bishops and primates of the church wherever they are found. As such, we, as individual believers and as the universal church, must come to learn and understand what it is to bind and to loose, and how to do so.