Question: Jesus told Peter and later other apostles that whatever they will bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatsoever they shall lose on earth will be also in heaven. This was when he told Peter that he will build his church on him (Peter). To whom is this authority conferred today, seeing that before the reformation only the Roman and the Eastern churches were the legitimate Christians?

Joseph

Answer: Dear Joseph,

Your question seems to involve two major issues:

1. How do we understand/interpret/exegete Matthew 16:19 – the passage about binding and loosing?
2. Who are "legitimate" Christians? What does it take to become one?

have a more authentic claim to "true Christianity" than others? Is there such a thing as the "one and only" true church – and if not, are some churches at least better than others because of historical heritage/"better" doctrine, etc.?

Some points to consider:

1. How do we understand the verb tense of Matthew 16:19? And, to whom and from whom is this passage addressed? How do we apply this passage in today’s world? "Shall have been loosed" – what divine connection/support – indeed authority – is being given, if any, and to whom?

There was a time when the only Christians were not organized into what we now

know as the western or Roman church – known officially as the Roman Catholic church. If we are searching for one group of authentic/"true" people, then surely this logic could lead anyone to be able to subjectively claim that they/their group is more authentic than another (and believe me, some people do!), because they claim to more closely replicate the New Testament church, and therefore, have the divine mandate, whatever it may be, that Matthew 16:19 may refer to.

OR – one cold take the view that the Roman Catholic church is the "only true church" (many people do), because the Eastern church "rebelled" in the debate about the "filioque" of the Holy Spirit.

OR – we could say that there are only two authentic, true churches – the eastern and the western – because the Protestants rebelled (protest-ed) against church authority, however corrupt it may have been.

OR – we could take the view that some Protestants take – that both the west and the east were so corrupt that they had ceased to be Christian, and the only "true" Christians are those who reformed in the exact manner as the specific Protestant denomination to which they belong (although such a claim sounds exclusivist, it is no more self-serving than the other views, all of which seek to the "king of the mountain" – to discount and discredit all other Christians because they belong to the "wrong" church).

OR – we could take the broader view, which most Christians take – including many (but not all) Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Protestants that the body of Christ is composed of many parts (1 Corinthians 12) and that we are placed in the body where it most pleases God. Further, most Protestants would take the view that Christians are all part of the priesthood of all believers, and that no one incorporated entity has the divine authority to legislate over all Christians.

The real question – according to most Christians – is not which incorporated entity is authentic – but whether the believer is in a healthy, well-balanced, Christ-centered church – and whether that believer has an authentic personal relationship with God.

2. Does binding and loosing speak of "things" or of "people"? The Greek language does not give us exact meaning – as "whatever" is neuter in the Greek. This question is closely related to the issue of the word "ecclessia" – in chapter 16 and in chapter 18 – and what Christ meant by using it.
3. What do the keys of the kingdom have to do with binding and loosing? Are keys things that open or things that lock up and prevent entry – or are they both? And how should the keys of the kingdom be used in the context of the gospel (see John 3:16)? Does this imply that someone (like Peter in the immediate context of the event spoken of) or others (Peter’s "legitimate" heirs, as opposed to "imposters") have a direct pipeline to heaven, denied to others? If so, the entire New Testament is invalidated, for we are told that there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female, we are all one in Christ (Galatians 3:28). We are told that the walls between Jews and Gentiles were torn down – the walls of the old covenant (see Ephesians 2:14-22). Are we to conclude that Jesus’ work on the cross brought us all together, only so that one divinely appointed human franchise – a super righteous designer label, name brand of Christianity – could come along and pronounce that it is/was better than others, and alone has authority that other imposters do not have? Sounds like the old covenant.
4. Is this promise given to all of the disciples (not only Peter) – and not simply all of Jesus’ disciples – but to all disciples at all times? If we use the logic that this promise was only given to Peter, and perhaps to the immediate disciples who were present, and then by implication only those who are the "legitimate" – "only true" heirs – however we might struggle to try to prove that, then what do we do with other statements given to the disciples? Are they all simply for one group? Does only one group need to "go forth and proclaim the gospel" (Matthew 28)? What about ethical imperatives, etc, etc.?