Petrine Infallibility in Matthew 16:19: A Response to Steven Nemes
By: Intellectual Conservatism
Tags: Catholic, Religion, Reformation, Catholicism, Judaism

“Jesus Returning the Keys to St. Peter” — Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres (1820)

Steven Nemes has proposed two possible ways of interpreting Matthew 16:19. The first is the prospective reading wherein Peter only binds what God has already bound. Thus, we may infer that whenever Peter has bound something, it is because God already bound it, and therefore Peter’s binding and loosing will always have the divine seal. The second is the retrospective reading wherein Peter will only bind what God has clearly bound. Steven divides this option into two further interpretations based on Christ’s indicative mood in v. 19.

The first is that Jesus is assuring Peter “that he will not in fact bind or loose incorrectly.” At first glance, this sounds exactly like the prospective reading wherein God providentially secures the rulings of Peter. However, Steven insists that “as thing will actually turn out, he will not misuse his authority.” In other words, our omniscient Lord reveals to Peter that he will not bind and loose incorrectly in the future. Steven adds, “God could ensure this by acting clearly and unambiguously to guide Peter’s decisions, as in Acts 10. There is no need to be infallible where things are clear.”

The second interpretation is that Jesus is speaking in an encouraging manner, much like when we tell a friend, “If you set your heart to it, then you will never fail!” Fortunately, Steven explicitly favors the first and not the second interpretation: “I am personally more strongly inclined toward the first interpretation.”

Let me rehash Steven’s reasoning for the first interpretation. Steven rightly understands Matthew 16:19 in a polemical context. Jesus has previously critiqued the leaven of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 16:1–12), and now promises to transfer their Rabbinic binding and loosing authority to Peter and the apostles. Steven maintains that the scribes and Pharisees lost their authority because they did not obey the word of God: “Throughout the Gospel of Matthew, it is clear that Christ believes that the Pharisees do not bind and loose correctly because they do not understand and stick to the word of God.” Thus, God will now make clear what His will is and Peter is tasked with following “God’s lead”.

I believe there are five reasons to reject Steven’s interpretation, although I do briefly entertain a sixth. My case begins with the first reason to reject Steven’s view: The Syntax of Matthew 16:19.

Jesus says in Matthew 16:19, “Whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” As Charles Talbert notes in his Paideia commentary on Matthew, “The translation will have been bound/loosed in heaven represents in Greek a periphrastic future perfect passive.”

This choice of tense on Matthew’s part makes the text read rather awkwardly: “The construction is sufficiently unusual and indeed awkward in Greek to draw attention. If Matthew had wished to say ‘will be tied up,’ ‘will be untied’ (as many translations have it), he could have used the much more natural syntax of a simple future passive to say it. It seems likely, therefore, that these repeated future perfects are there for a reason.”

In continuation with the previous quote, R.T. France argues that this unusual yet specific Greek construction “change[s] the sequence of actions. With simple futures, Peter would take the initiative and heaven would follow. But with future perfects the impression is that when Peter makes his decision it will be found to have been already made in heaven, making him not the initiator of new directions for the church, but the faithful steward of God’s prior decisions. In this syntactical form the saying becomes a promise not of divine endorsement, but of divine guidance to enable Peter to decide in accordance with God’s already determined purpose.”

Remarkably enough, Talbert also demonstrates in his commentary that this has been the traditional interpretation among Biblical scholars, “Traditionally this has been interpreted to mean not that heaven ratifies Peter’s judgment but that Peter’s judgment reflects what God has already determined (Gundry 1982, 335; Chamberlain 1957, 80)… When Peter interprets, it is a reflection of what has been revealed to him.”

This is what I will call “the divine causality” interpretation. God is the cause behind the rulings, hence “Whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven.” If Peter binds something, then it will be because God has already bound that thing.

There are at two pieces of evidence for this conclusion:

1. Matthew 16:16-17 — Peter confesses that Jesus is the Messiah because of divine revelation. Jesus explicitly says this in v. 17, using causal language.

2. John 11:51–52 — Caiaphas is able to prophesy that Jesus will die for Israel and unite the children of God, and John says “he did not say this on his own” and then says, “, but as high priest of that year” connecting his prophetic declaration to his office as high priest (located in Jerusalem). We know that Jewish literature taught that the gift of prophecy was only given in Jerusalem. And the gift of prophecy comes from God.

Aside from Matthew’s intentional use of the future perfects, this interpretation coincides well with Matthew’s polemical context. We know from Jewish literature that the Rabbis believed they could bind God to their rulings. In WD Davies and Dale Allison’s International Critical Commentary on Matthew 8–18, page 639: “One recalls that the rabbis had no difficulty affirming that their halakhic decisions could ‘bind’ God. See the many texts to this effect by SB 1, pp. 741–7.” The SB here is Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck’s Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash, which is finally being interpreted into English from the original German — a major source for New Testament scholars.

Moreover, in our debate on Pints with Aquinas, Steven mentions the defeat of Rabbi Eliezer despite having divine approval. I rebutted that God nonetheless deferred to the other Rabbis on the basis that they followed the proper procedure. Michael S. Berger in his book Rabbinic Authority writes, “The famous talmudic story of ‘the oven of Akhnai,’ however, seems to suggest that at least on one occasion, God’s will was, indeed, determinate regarding the law in question, siding with R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus; nevertheless, God ‘deferred’ to the majority of the Sages who argued against that view, since they followed proper legal procedure in reaching a decision. This case is a rather bold articulation of the view that error is conceptually impossible for the talmudic Rabbis when they follow the proper rules.”

It would appear that in the halakhic courts of the New Moses, such a possibility would no longer exist. Rather, Jesus, in fulfillment of the Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 1:26–27, restored the courts of Moses and God’s place of honor as the originator of the halakha — it is God who binds and man who follows, not the other way around.

The Reasons Summarized

There are, in total, at least five grounds for rejecting Steven’s retrospective interpretation:

(1) the syntax of Matthew 16:19 supports a divine causality view

(2) the prospective interpretation also coincides well with the polemical context of Matthew 16:19 by fundamentally restoring God to a place of honor as the originator of the halakha and having His institutional authorities remain bound by Him.

And, as I have argued previously here and here, God did not intend for the institutions He built in the Old Testament to die in the New Covenant.

Thus, (3) the prospective interpretation better preserves the continuity between the Old and New Testament portrayal of God, including the New Testament evidence for an institutional Church, by reordering rather than destroying the role of divine causality in the courts of Moses. Steven’s Protestant ecclesiology would spell the end and not the revitalization of the Mosaic courts.

The fourth reason is that Scripture appears to provide a counter-example to Steven’s vision. Steven believes that “God makes His decision to bind or loose ‘publicly’ apart from Peter, and Peter is expected to follow God’s lead.” Yet, notice what happens in Matthew 16:15–19:

15 He said to them, “But who do you yourselves say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

Jesus merely asks a question, Peter answers, and then Jesus reveals to Peter that God the Father had revealed this to Peter. Notice that there was not a prior public revelation that led Peter to answer properly. It is uncertain whether or not Peter would have even known he had received divine revelation were it not for God the Son making it clear. Thus, Peter received private guidance from God to publicly declare Jesus’ messiahship.

This also reminds me of John 11:51–52, which I argued is another direct counter-example to Steven’s objections to infallibility, in that God was able to use Caiaphas to prophesy the Messianic accomplishments of Jesus. Steven objects on Pints with Aquinas that Caiaphas didn’t appear to know what he was saying or didn’t follow through on it faithfully — which would actually make my point even stronger! It was God using a man who, despite his personal flaws and limitations or even his lack of experiencing himself as infallible, gave correct prophecy on the Messiah!

The Gospels seem to have a unified theme of God as the true power behind our regeneration as children of God or even the gift of infallibility. It is a proper reordering of things with God as the primary cause behind the greatness He desires to bring out of us.

The fifth and final reason to reject Steven’s interpretation is an argument Steven originally raised here. Steven attempted to introduce a double-bind: If Suan argues that some doctrine is clearly in scripture, then we don’t need the magisterium; but, if Suan argues that we don’t always need clear scriptural support for magisterial teaching, then how do we know the teaching is correct?

I’d like to reverse the argument like this: If God has already made publicly clear what His will is, then why does He need Peter or anyone else to bind and loose? Rather than issuing rulings, Peter and the apostles would just have to reference what God has already made public. After all, if the teaching is publicly revealed, then why would there be a hierarchical structure in the first place with the apostles above the laity as Steven has explained here (or here)?

But, if God has Peter and the apostles defend and make clear what God has already made public, then it would appear that it is not the public revelation alone that is enough but the living apostolic authority that secures the public revelation for the people’s understanding. This is precisely what Catholics have been saying about why sola scriptura is unsustainable and why a living magisterium is needed!

One might respond that God makes His teachings public to the apostles and then uses them to disseminate His teaching. But, notice what Steven says,

“On the prospective reading, God makes ‘public’ or ‘visible’ His eternal decision to bind or loose through Peter. Peter becomes the mouthpiece and hand of God. On the retrospective reading, God makes His decision to bind or loose ‘publicly’ apart from Peter, and Peter is expected to follow God’s lead. Peter may be a leader of the Church, but God is outside of Peter just as He is outside of any other person in the Church.”

There appears to be not only an ambiguity here in what “apart from Peter” constitutes, but even if Steven opts for this revised interpretation, then it would still seemingly fall into the second horn of the dilemma.

I am currently developing the sixth reason why Steven’s interpretation is erroneous, which is that I think he misunderstands Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees. After all, Jesus appears to recognize their authority in Matthew 23:2–3 when He says, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach.”

I’ve been graced with help from Jewish and other Christian New Testament scholars in this area, and I intend to publish my work in an academic journal. Let me just emphasize that if Jesus recognizes the validity of the Pharisaical office but believes they have exceeded their proper jurisdiction and hence ought not to be obeyed in those extra-judicial areas (which I have argued for here and here), then this would coincide better with the Catholic and Orthodox view that Jesus did not abolish but really did transfer the authority of the Rabbis to the apostles and their successors. My thesis is that Jesus endorses absolute obedience to official high court rulings and not Rabbinic legislation.