Matthew 16
v. 13) When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi,
He asked His Disciples, saying, “Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am?”
v. 14) And they said, “Some say that you are John the Baptist:
some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the Prophets.”
v. 15) He said unto them, “But whom say you that I am?”
v. 16) And Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the
Christ, the Son of the Living God.”
v. 17) And Jesus answered and said unto him, “Blessed are
you, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood have not revealed it unto you, but My
Father which is in Heaven.”
v. 18) And I say also unto you, “That you are Peter and upon
this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of Hell shall not prevail
against it.”
v. 19) “And I will give unto you the keys of the Kingdom of
Heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven: and
whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”
This is the third and final
article in this series on Matthew 16 and we are seeing the Catholic Church’s
abuse and hi-jacking of this passage for their own purposes.
Last month, we saw how the
Catechism of the Catholic Church falsely claims that Peter was the only rock of
the Church (CCC #881), placing Peter
above all the other apostles; and we demonstrated that the biblical evidence certainly
points against this idea. See here:
The Catechism Strikes Again
The Catholic Catechism also
claims that Peter is the only one to whom the keys were directly given:
“…Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through
the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter,
the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.” (CCC
#553)
So, what is all this
about? What are these “keys” that Jesus
is giving to Peter? Of course, these are
not literal keys, but a metaphor. Keys
represent authority, power and access, and since they are the keys of the
Kingdom of Heaven, they must give access to Heaven. This is the binding (locking) and loosing
(unlocking) concept that Jesus was speaking of, i.e., restricting or allowing
access to Heaven.
Infallible Successors?
Catholics also claim that
this authority that Peter received from Jesus is an infallible authority, and because of this, he (Peter) cannot
officially proclaim error when teaching on faith and morals. Not only that, this infallible authority will
also be passed on to his successors. The reason they claim infallibility is
because they believe: 1) Jesus gave
Peter the legislative power (ability to make laws) to bind and loose. 2) Peter decides that a particular teaching
should become law, and makes it binding on the church. 3) God sees this action and is somehow obligated to endorse or ratify this new
law from His throne in Heaven.
And the Catholic says that
the reason that this action has to be infallible is because God cannot
lie or endorse an erroneous or false decree.
And since He must always
endorse what Peter binds or looses, He won’t ever let Peter bind or loose the
wrong things, guaranteeing freedom from error.
Sounds good, right?
But that’s not the way it
works. Man doesn’t make the rules and
then obligate God to agree with him. Nor
is God obligated to keep anyone from making bad decisions. Everyone is accountable for his own decisions
(Galatians
6:7).
You see, the keys come with
the implied understanding that you will abide by the rules of the one who gave
you the keys in the first place. This
promise from Jesus to Peter is neither a license to bind and loose whatever he
wants, nor is it a guarantee to never teach false doctrine (whether “officially”
or not). This is not about telling God
what to bind or loose. Rather, Jesus is
saying, “Peter, I will back you as long as you do My will,” He is NOT saying, “I will keep you from ever straying
from My will.” Church leaders are
expected to be more responsible and more accountable than others (1
Timothy 3:1-10; Titus 1:5-9). The
Bible tells church leaders to guard their
teachings (Acts 20:28-31; 1 Timothy 4:16; 6:20; 2 Timothy 1:14). But why tell them to “keep” or “guard” those
teachings if they are guaranteed an infallibility and protection against
error? There is no biblical evidence of anyone in the post-apostolic church who
would have infallibility.
Just Peter?
Ok, so Peter was given the
keys to the kingdom. But is he the only one who obtained these keys? No, not at all. Speaking to all the apostles in another
passage, Jesus said:
“Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye
shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:
and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew
18:18)
We can see from this verse
that Jesus is giving this same power to bind and loose to ALL the
apostles. It is the same exact wording
as Matthew
16:19 (except the “ye” and “you”). So they must necessarily all have the same
keys, that is, the same authority. Jesus
gave nothing to Peter that he didn’t also give to the other apostles. To try and say that Peter is “the only one to
whom He [Jesus] specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom” is
deceptive. The Catholic Church makes a
big deal out of isolating Peter in Matthew
16:18-19 and then they try to insert the doctrine of the papacy here.
Whose Papacy?
But the Catholic will say,
“But look at all the special things Peter did and experienced! Shouldn’t he have this ‘primacy’ and this
special role as pope?” Catholics will
argue that he was the first one to get the keys, that Jesus told him to “Feed
My sheep,” that Jesus changed Peter’s name, etc., etc. But if these sorts of accomplishments suggest
that a man should be pope, then we could suggest the apostle Paul, as well, for
this honor. After all, Paul has a better
“resume” than Peter. Whatever evidence
can be brought forth for the primacy of Peter, more (and better) evidence can
be brought forth for the primacy of Paul.
See this link for an interesting comparison between Peter and Paul:
Of course, no one is actually
saying that Paul is a pope, but the point is that Catholics are not consistent
when they use this argument. If someone had to be a pope based on experiences
and accomplishments, it seems it should be Paul.
Limits
Ok, so ALL the apostles had
the power of binding and loosing. But
what were the limits of this power? When
discussing the papacy, Catholics will almost always speak very highly of Peter’s authority.
But sometimes, an interesting thing happens when Catholics are pressed
about the limits of this gift to bind and loose. Someone in the discussion may well ask, since
Peter had this special primacy and authority, couldn’t he decide to proclaim
any wild teachings he desired to promote?
Could he make crazy laws for the church that everybody would have to
follow? Maybe change some existing
infallible Catholic teachings? After
all, wouldn’t God bind and loose whatever
Peter chose to bind and loose? This is a
valid question, since he is given so much attention and power in the Catholic
Church.
At this point of the discussion,
Catholics will often tone it down and say no, Peter can’t decree such things;
that’s not what this means, and they may quote something like “Pastor Aeternus” of the First Vatican
Council, which says:
“For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of
Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully
expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.” (Session 4, Chapter 4, Paragraph 6)
Ok, so according to Vatican
I, this power of binding and loosing was apparently not for creating new doctrines,
etc., but only to cause Peter to “religiously guard” and “faithfully expound”
the revelation that already existed. But
isn’t this the job of every pastor
who is worth his salt? This is the norm
for biblical churches, to try to religiously
guard and faithfully expound
God’s Word. Actually, this is every Christian’s duty. So, how does this separate Peter from the
rest? How does this make Peter’s status
any higher than the other apostles? It
doesn’t. There is nothing in Matthew 16
that calls for the Catholic Church’s exalted view of Peter.
But notice how the discussion
goes from:
A)Peter
is the Vicar of Christ, referred to as “His Holiness,” who has full, supreme and
universal power over the whole church, who has the power to make statements
that are infallible (without error) and irreformable (unchangeable; not subject
to improvement), and being under his authority is an absolute necessity for
salvation.…
To basically
B) Peter has to follow (and be faithful to) the Word of God, just like everybody else.
“A” (above) can only be concluded
by much hype and exaggeration, as well as eisegesis (reading things into the text), while “B” is much closer
to the truth, and closer to the meaning of binding and loosing in Matthew 16.
When the Catholic is pressed
on this point and this “special gift to Peter alone” is examined, we find that
ultimately, they will be forced to downplay Peter’s status.
The Grammar
To get a good idea of the nature
and scope of this power of binding and loosing, we need to look at the grammar
used in this context. The structure in the Greek grammar of both Matthew 16:19 and Matthew
18:18 is unique and very important.
Many scholars (e.g., A.T. Robertson, J.R. Mantey, Charles B. Williams,
Robert Young, Jay P. Green, Sr., and Thomas Constable, just to name a few) agree
on the type of perfect tense used in
these passages and teach that it indicates a state of completion. The Greek is literally saying, “Whatsoever
you bind / loose on earth shall have been
bound / loosed in Heaven,” “…is
already bound / loosed in Heaven,” “…shall
be what has been bound / loosed in Heaven,” “…having been already bound / loosed in Heaven,” etc. There are well over a dozen different Bible
translations that render it this way, or something very similar. This may be somewhat awkward in English, but
according to these scholars, it is faithful to the Greek, which is the inspired
language.
Ok, so why does this type
of perfect tense matter? The important
thing to note is that this structure demonstrates that the binding and loosing
in Heaven actually comes FIRST - BEFORE a man on earth has declared what is
bound or loosed.
It is interesting to note
that this very same Greek construction is also used in John 20:23 where Jesus
tells the apostles that whoever’s sins you retain / forgive are retained /
forgiven. This type of structure
indicates that God’s forgiving or retaining comes first, and then man’s proclaiming of the person’s spiritual status afterward (based on
that person’s acceptance or rejection of the gospel).
This is not a situation where a man can
decide to forgive or retain the
sinner’s sins, as in the Catholic confessional – it is a situation in which a believer
simply declares / proclaims / confirms what God has already clearly
stated in His Word, concerning the sinner’s response to the gospel. Forgiveness
depends on whether a person is repentant and how he reacts to the gospel, not
on some special formula that the priest, rabbi, or minister uses.
So, practically
speaking, this passage is simply saying 1) “Since you have accepted the gospel
on earth, you are already forgiven (loosed) in Heaven,” or 2) “Since you reject
the gospel of Jesus Christ on earth, you have already been condemned (bound) in
Heaven and excluded from eternal life.”
Again, as
with all three passages mentioned above (Matthew
16:19, 18:18, and John 20:23), it is NOT a case of a
man having power over other people’s souls, or creating laws at will, or
absolving sins and then afterward, God being obligated to give His seal of
approval. Binding and loosing (as well
as retaining and forgiving) has to do with entrance into Heaven and is simply declaring
what God has already done according to His Word. Scripture
is the standard upon which a person can bind or loose something. The keys that were first given to the
apostles are simply the gospel of Jesus
Christ, because THAT is “…the power of God unto salvation” (Romans
1:16). And these keys are, by
extension, given to every Christian through the Great Commission (Matthew
28:18-20). When Christians are
obedient in proclaiming the truth about a person’s acceptance or rejection of
the gospel, God will ratify (or has already ratified) that proclamation in
Heaven.
Isaiah 22
Another argument that Catholics
often use to justify Peter’s primacy as pope is to parallel Matthew
16:19 with Isaiah 22:20-22. Here is
the passage:
v. 20) And it shall come to pass in that
day, that I will call My servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah.
v. 21) And I will clothe him with thy
robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into
his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the
house of Judah.
v. 22) And the key of the house of David
will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he
shall shut, and none shall open.
Since there is a key involved,
and since there is opening and shutting (“loosing” and “binding”) involved, and
what seems to be a type of “prime minister” position, Catholics believe that
this is symbolic of Jesus giving the keys to Peter, with Peter ruling over the
Church by way of a papacy.
But this Isaiah passage is
actually about a man named Shebna (v. 15) who, because of his pride, was about
to lose his position as second only to the king (Hezekiah), and God was handing
his position over to another man named Eliakim.
So, Catholics compare Peter to Eliakim, who was to receive the “key of the
house of David” (v. 22). And they say
that Jesus is giving Peter these same keys to be a sort of “prime minister” of
the Catholic Church. This is Catholic
typology.
But this is far from good biblical
typology. The Bible mentions several
different keys (or sets of keys). Does
each and every one of these also
apply to Peter just because keys are mentioned?
What is it in Isaiah 22 that demands a parallel with Peter? If this typology is accurate, then who represents
Shebna in the Matthew 16 scenario? Who
did Peter replace? The truth is, he
replaced no one, since the apostles
were the foundation of the church
era. And if this passage points to
Peter, then what is the significance of Isaiah 22:25, that is, how was Peter
ever “removed” or “cut down”? We would
think that Catholics would be cautious about applying this to Peter or his
papacy.
The Jewish Connection
And it doesn’t apply for good
reason. This Eliakim (whose name means
“God will raise up”) is a type of Jesus
Christ, not Peter. It is Jesus who will have the glorious throne
in v. 23 (the everlasting throne of David - 2 Samuel 7:12-16; Isaiah 9:6-7;
Luke 1:31-33; Acts 2:30). And it
is Jesus who has the “key of David” (Revelation
3:7).
The “key of the house of
David” in Isaiah 22, we believe, focuses more on the promises of David’s throne,
the setting up and fulfillment of his kingdom.
The “house of David” is about the ancestry or the line of David. Again, the key (singular) of the house of David (Isaiah 22:22) had to do
with Israel (note the reference to Jerusalem and Judah in v. 21), while the keys (plural) of the kingdom of Heaven (Matthew
16:19) have more to do with the church.
There may be similarities
between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16, but they are not the same thing.
Conclusion
We have often said that
extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The Catholic Church’s claim to Matthew
16:13-19 is no different, in fact, it is one of their most fervent
claims, but their focus is on the wrong person.
They have a lot to lose if they are proven wrong here. That’s why they fight tooth and nail to
promote these ideas.
Once again, this passage is
NOT about Peter and his “primacy.” It is
about the person, the work, and the message of Jesus Christ, the Son of the
Living God. It is about His gospel of
salvation through faith in that glorious work on the cross… and that
alone. He has also called all Christians to share this gospel with
a lost and dying world. As we said
earlier, the gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God unto salvation (Romans
1:16), and it is exactly what this passage (Matthew 16:13-19) and
this series of articles is all about.
We are not against
Peter. He was definitely a leader in the
church who has done much for the gospel.
He became a great man of faith, in spite of his initial shortcomings,
and he will sit on a throne just as all the other apostles will. But we must be ever mindful of
over-emphasizing anyone, be it an apostle, Mary, a “saint,” or any minister. And this is exactly what the papacy
does: It wrongly focuses on, and exalts,
a mere man rather than Jesus Christ.
According to God’s infallible
Word, there IS no papacy, there IS no pope, there IS no one ruler on earth over
the whole church.
