To what do “bind” and “loose” refer?

Explanation:

There is a general consensus across all interpreters that we should understand the terms to bind and to loose in light of first-century Judaism. We know from rabbinic sources that the Jews would use the terms to bind and to loose in the sense of to forbid and to permit.^6,7,8 Thus, we will take it that the basic meaning of to bind is to forbid and the basic meaning of to loose is to permit. The question before us then is what does it mean that Peter can forbid and permit? Does Peter forbid and permit people or behaviour? When we understand the verse in context, we see that Peter can forbid and permit people.

Before Jesus says that Peter can forbid or permit, he says that he will give Peter the keys of the kingdom. What are the keys of the kingdom? We get our best clue from Luke 11:52.⁹ There, Jesus chastises the Pharisees and lawyers. He explains that they have taken the key of knowledge so that neither they, nor their listeners, can enter the kingdom of God. The idea is that by their misrepresentation of Scripture—the revelation of God—they hinder people from the kingdom.¹⁰ Thus, God’s revelation is like a key that unlocks a door into the kingdom.

In contrast, Peter has been given the revelation that Jesus is the Christ, and he is given the keys of the kingdom through Jesus’ commission to preach. By faithfully preaching the gospel, Peter will forbid or permit people to enter the kingdom of God.¹¹ Those who reject that Jesus is the Christ are forbidden and those who accept Jesus are permitted.

Counterargument:

The fact that Peter is given the keys to the kingdom does not necessarily imply preaching. It is true that preaching and the content of God’s revelation are like a door to the kingdom. At the same time, the right behaviour is also required. For example, in Matthew 5:20 Jesus explains that unless the righteousness of his listeners exceeds that of the Pharisees, they will not enter the kingdom of heaven. In other words, Peter will be responsible for teaching all that Jesus has commanded. Since what Peter forbids and permits is based on Jesus’ teaching, God ratifies what he teaches.¹²

Response to counterargument:

While it is true that right behaviour is part of Christian living, and that the apostles were charged to exhort holy living, we know that holy living does not gain us access to the kingdom of God. Jesus says that our righteousness must exceed the Pharisees’ (Matthew 5:20), and not only that, but we are to be perfect as God the Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48). Such an undertaking is impossible for us because we are by nature sinful. Thus, Jesus truthfully explains God’s requirement of holiness, but we cannot acquire this holiness through our own behaviour. Instead, we acquire this holiness by placing our faith in Jesus Christ, whereby God reckons to us Christ’s holiness. This is not to say that proper Christian behaviour is absent from Matthew 16:19 indeed, preaching and discipleship include the exhortation to put to death the sinful nature by the power of the Holy Spirit. Still, what is ultimately forbidden and permitted, through preaching and teaching, are people. 

Explanation:

Jesus says that whatever Peter binds and looses, there is a corresponding binding and loosing in heaven. There is agreement across the board that when Jesus says there is a corresponding binding and loosing in heaven, he is not referring to heaven as a place but is using the imagery of heaven to refer to God. What is bound and loosed on earth is ratified by God in heaven.

Still, there remains an important grammatical feature which requires explanation. Jesus uses the somewhat rare future perfect passive participle form of the verbs to bind and to loose. The future perfect passive participle can be translated as a simple English future, as in, “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” It could also be translated in the sense of the English future perfect passive, as in, “Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven.”¹³ While there is some flexibility in the Greek, the future perfect passive is a rare verbal form, so we should take it that Jesus has uses this form for a reason. To paraphrase the translation, Whatever Peter forbids or permits on earth will have already been forbidden or permitted by God. The notion that what Peter forbids and permits is people, through the preaching of the gospel, makes the most sense of this grammar. God knows who will respond to the message of the gospel favourably, so that whoever is forbidden or permitted into the kingdom of heaven through the preaching of the apostles was already forbidden or permitted by God.¹⁴

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that the future perfect passive participle does not favour people over behaviour. The question we want to answer is whether Peter forbids and permits people or behaviour. The fact that the participles are in the form of the future perfect passive, and therefore imply that God has already ratified what Peter forbids or permits, makes sense whether Peter forbids or permits people or behaviour. If Peter forbids and permits people, this means God foreknows who will respond favourably to the gospel. If Peter forbids and permits behaviour, it is behaviour that Peter teaches based on the ministry of Jesus, and therefore has previously been approved by God.¹⁵

Explanation:

In the book of Acts we see that Peter’s preaching forbids and permits people from entering the kingdom of God. For example, in Acts 4:11–12, Peter stands before the Jewish council explaining that Jesus is the cornerstone, and that there is no salvation outside the name of Jesus. We also see that Peter’s preaching permits people into the kingdom. In Acts 2:37–41, Peter’s listeners are cut to the heart when they realize they have crucified the Christ. Peter assures them of their forgiveness if they repent and put their faith in Christ, and those who received Peter’s preaching were baptized (Acts 2:41). We also have examples from Acts that support the future perfect passive participles in Matthew 16:18. For example, in Acts 18:9–10, Jesus comes to Paul in a vision and assures him that no one will harm him when he preaches in the city of Corinth, because many of his people live there.¹⁶

Counterargument:

The problem here is that this argument is consistent with the notion that what Peter forbids and permits is behaviour. For example, in Acts 15:1–41 we learn that as the gospel was preached to the Gentiles, some of the Jews argued that the Gentiles had to follow Jewish customs and be circumcised (Acts 15:1). Paul and Barnabas object and bring the matter to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem (Acts 15:2). Peter stands before the group and explains that since the Holy Spirit is poured on the Gentiles, they must be included in the gospel, and should not be burdened by Jewish laws (Acts 15:7–11). James agrees, and they send a letter to the Gentile Christians with some instructions on the matter (Acts 15:13–21). Thus, the apostles are responsible for forbidding and permitting certain behaviours.

Response to counterargument:

It is true that in Acts 15:1–41 the apostles express what is forbidden and permitted through their instructions to the Gentiles. Still, the instructions that the apostles provide are not forbidden and permitted from a divine perspective, which is to overlook the fact that what is forbidden or permitted will have already been forbidden or permitted by God. Rather, the specific instructions are a compromise that will appease both the Jewish and Gentile Christians. James says that they should refrain from food sacrificed to idols, sexual immorality, what has been strangled and from blood. We know from Corinthians that Paul does not strictly forbid food sacrificed to animals, while sexual immortality is clearly forbidden by all the apostles. When it comes to strangled meat or meat with blood in it, this seems to be a Jewish custom that is not binding on all Christians.

On the other hand, there are many clear examples of the apostles, including Peter, preaching the gospel so that some are forbidden from the kingdom and others permitted.

Possible weaknesses:

If we take it that to bind is akin to to forbid and to loose is akin to to permit, it is not obvious that preaching forbids and permits entrance into the kingdom. It is more common to think of preaching as something like offering access to the kingdom. If Jesus is talking about preaching, we are inclined to take him to mean, Whomever you offer access, will have access, and whomever you do not offer access, will not have access. Still, there is a deeper sense in which preaching confronts the listener to either accept or reject Jesus as the Christ. In this sense, preaching does seem to forbid and permit access to the kingdom. 

Explanation:

In Greek, the relative pronoun along with the distinctive conjunction ἐάν is translated as whatever. We have this construction in Matthew 16:19 as Jesus says, Whatever [ὃ ἐὰν] you bind on earth… There are different genders in Greek grammar: masculine, feminine, and neuter. These sometimes influence the meaning of the text. For example, when a relative pronoun is in the masculine gender, it often refers to people, and when it is neuter, it often refers to things.^22,23 In the case of Matthew 16:19, we find that the relative pronoun, ὁ, is in the neuter. This means that whatever likely refers to things and not people. So when Jesus says that whatever is bound on earth will be loosed in heaven, he likely does not mean people, but rather, behaviour.²⁴

Counterargument:

There are three problems with this view. First, it is not a hard and fast rule of Greek grammar that when a relative pronoun is in the neuter, it must refer to things, and when it is masculine, it must refer to people.²⁵ Second, even if it were a hard and fast rule that the neuter always refers to things, it is hard to see how behaviour could be classified as a thing. People are more like things than behaviour, which are actions of people. Third, when we look at the phrase in context, we see that it has to do with forbidding and permitting entry into the kingdom of heaven. Peter will be given the keys to the kingdom, and it is people that enter the kingdom, not behaviour.²⁶

Response to counterargument:

Each of these points can be rebutted. First, the point here is not that the neuter always refers to things but that it often does. This means that, all things being equal, the neuter form of the relative pronoun combined with the disjunctive particle ἐάν more likely refers to things than people. Second, the difference between people as things, and behavior, is not relevant to the discussion. Rather, the point is the difference between people and non-people.²⁷ The masculine will often be used to refer to people, while the neuter will be used to refer to non-people. Behaviours are non-people, even if they are not technically things. Third, the behaviour of Christians is closely related to entering the kingdom of heaven. While it is true that we do not enter the kingdom because of our behaviour, our faith is empty unless we demonstrate the right behaviour (James 2:17). In other words, behaviour is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of faith. For some, this change in behaviour might entail a simple change in attitude from one of disbelief to belief in the last moments of their life. In any case, it is faith in Christ that unites us to his benefits, and while faith is not a matter of merit, it is one of behaviour.

Explanation:

Jesus says to Peter that whatever is bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever is loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven. We already know that we should understand the verbs to bind and to loose against the Jewish background, and thus to bind means to forbid and to loose means to permit. Now we want to know what Peter forbids and permits. Does he forbid and permit people or conduct? If Jesus is here speaking about bringing salvation to people, we expect the verbs to bind and to loose to be reversed.²⁸ Instead, we find that Jesus prioritizes what is forbidden. More likely this applies to behaviour than people.²⁹ Jesus is saying that Peter is responsible for teaching people right conduct. Since Peter has learned from Jesus how to behave according to God’s will, whatever he forbids according to these teachings is forbidden, and what is permitted, is permitted.

Counterargument:

If we take to bind and to loose to mean to forbid and to permit, then, if Jesus is talking about people entering the kingdom, we do expect him to reverse these verbs. Still, our expectations are not always met. We know that we should understand these terms against a Jewish background. Maybe it was conventional for rabbis to discuss binding before loosing. Or maybe Jesus wanted to emphasize that many people will be forbidden entry to the kingdom because they will not confess that he is the Christ. In any case, the placement of the verbs is not enough to show that Jesus does not have people in mind.

Explanation:

Christianity sprung out of Judaism. God established a covenant with Abraham and his descendants, Israel. On account of this covenant God provided the Mosaic law and sacrificial system, protected Israel from her enemies, and disciplined her. When the time was right, the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, was born into the Jewish heritage. Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses and ushered in a new covenant, while introducing a fuller understanding of God’s will for his people. Thus, when Jesus ascended into heaven, he gave his apostles, including Peter, the authority to teach the new Christian community how to live according to God’s will. No longer was the Mosaic law as interpreted by the Pharisees the standard on which the people of God were to live. Instead, they were to live by the law of Christ, as explained by the apostles.³⁰ Thus, Peter and the apostles were tasked with explaining what was forbidden and permitted according to Christ’s teaching.³¹

Counterargument:

It is true that the apostles would explicate Jesus’ teachings to the first generation of Christians. Still, the purpose of explicating Jesus’ teaching is connected with Matthew 16:19a. There we read that Peter is given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. If Peter’s task in this context is simply to teach behaviour according to Jesus’ ministry, what is the relevance of the keys of the kingdom? It is people who enter the kingdom, not behaviour. Thus, even though the apostles were tasked with clarifying God’s will in light of Jesus ministry, it seems the purpose of such clarification is to forbid and permit people into the kingdom.

Possible weaknesses:

This view has much going for it because there is a sense in which the apostles were called to train the first generation of Christians in how to live according to Christ’s ministry. Still, when we survey the book of Acts for insight into the apostle’s mission, emphasis is placed on preaching the kingdom, not on teaching behaviour. It’s the identity of Christ as the cornerstone of salvation that is the focal point of the apostle’s mission, not Christian behaviour.