Question: In Matthew 16:18-19 Jesus told Peter and the disciples:

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 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.

To whom is this authority conferred today? Before the reformation it seems that only the Roman and the Eastern churches were the legitimate Christians authorities.

Answer: Your question seems to involve two major issues: 1) How do we interpret Matthew 16:19 – the passage about binding and loosing? 2) Who are "legitimate" Christians? What does it take to become one?

Further questions might be: Do any groups or organizations 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 or "better doctrine"?

First, let's consider the passage in Matthew 19. How do we understand the verb tense in this verse? To whom and from whom is this passage addressed? How do we apply this passage in today’s world? "Will be bound" and "will be loosed" can also be translated "shall have been bound" and "shall have been loosed." What divine support and authority, if any, being given -- 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 subjectively claim that 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 procession of the Holy Spirit (known as the filioque controversy).

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 -- a position as self-serving as the other views, all of which seek to be "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 that all Christians are 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 does not involve a quest to discover which incorporated entity is authentic – but whether the believer has an authentic personal relationship with God. Which brings us to the second major issue listed above. Real,"legitimate" Christians are all those who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Whether or not we are members of some human organization, whether or not we attend or worship in any building or with any group -- we who believe are all members of the universal church, the Body of Christ.

The nature and role of human ecclesiastical authority has changed through the millennia, driven largely by the nature of society. On a fundamental level, human organizations and groups always develop some set of rules or expectations (even if they are unspoken), and leaders or "gatekeepers" always emerge to enforce such rules. Even Facebook groups, for example, have administrators who keep order and remind group members to be civil. Occasionally, someone gets dismissed from the group for making inappropriate comments. Such structures, procedures and authority may not be wrong in and of themselves -- but in the context of Christendom, leaders of groups, organizations and churches are often tempted to claim that their authority derives directly from God.

In the early days of the apostles, although communication was difficult over long distances, there was some "unity of command" among Christians. A person who was dismissed from one congregation for teaching heresy, for example, probably would not be welcome in another. Much later, when the institutionalized church became backed by the power of the state -- heresy was often punishable like any other crime against the state -- death. Heresy became more broadly defined to include any difference of opinion with clergy, or violation of church rules and regulations. Even non-attendance was a crime punishable by a civil penalty under some governments. Parish priests and pastors enjoyed literal "captive audiences" for their weekly sermons! Thank God, that is no longer the case.

Today, in most western countries, we enjoy freedom of faith. Churches, fellowships and groups of every possible persuasion abound. People who may leave one church can walk down the street and be welcome at another, or simply "fellowship" over a cup of coffee with a friend. In this cultural context, church organizations must re-examine the way they interpret Biblical passages regarding ecclesiastical authority.

Some still seem to be living in the middle ages, as the debate and conflict continues over who will hold the reigns of power -- the "keys of the kingdom" -- assuming Jesus intended that to be a metaphor for organizational, religious and even temporal power over his people. But how does that idea square with Matthew 20:25-28?

Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Returning to our passage in Matthew 16 -- a few more questions to ponder:

• 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 – translated "church" in chapter 16 and in chapter 18 – and what Christ meant by using it.
  
  
• 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 (such as Peter in the immediate historical context of the passage) 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, so that one divinely appointed human franchise – a super-righteous designer label, name brand of Christianity – could come along and pronounce itself better than others, and that it alone has the legitimate authority that other imposters do not have?
  
  
• Is this promise given to all of the disciples (not only Peter) – and not simply all of Jesus’ disciples then – 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)?

Just a few thoughts for your consideration.

In Christ
Greg Albrecht