give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
I was told in the Protestant seminary that the “keys of the kingdom” were the preaching of the Gospel. When Peter preached the Gospel, those who accepted it would be “loosed in heaven” (saved) and those who rejected it would be “bound in heaven” (damned).
I accepted that view because I didn’t know any better. I didn’t know the Old Testament background for this verse. What I am about to show you was never shown to me in the seminary, and it rocked my world when I first saw it. Matthew 16:18–19 is actually drawing on a famous passage from the prophet Isaiah.
Thus says the Lord GOD of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him: What have you to do here and whom have you here, that you have hewn here a tomb for yourself, you who hew a tomb on the height, and carve a habitation for yourself in the rock?… I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” (Is 22:15–22)
Again, it amazes me that, even though we discussed Matthew 16:18–19 in several different classes in my seminary, no one ever pointed out the connection with the Isaiah passage, even though the connection is well-known among Bible scholars and mentioned in several commentaries. After all, there are only two places in the Old Testament where the word “key” is used (Judg 3:25; Isa 22:22), so when we look for the Old Testament background of Jesus’ teaching (which we should always do), it doesn’t take long to find the connection between Matthew 16:19 and Isaiah 22:22.
Be that as it may, let’s discuss this passage of Isaiah and explain its relevance to Matthew 16:18–19.
The passage rebukes a certain man named Shebna. This Shebna was the royal steward, in Hebrew “the one over the house.” In the ancient kingdom of David, the royal steward was second in power only to the king. He ran the king’s household, and he had the keys to the palace. He controlled access to the king: he could lock or unlock the palace, let you in to see the king or keep you out.
Now, this particular royal steward, Shebna, had let his power go to his head. He began to think of himself as equal to the king, and was having a tomb carved for himself in the royal cemetery. If you are familiar with Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, think of the character of Denethor, steward of Gondor. Tolkien was something of a Bible scholar himself (he assisted in a Catholic translation of the Bible) and was well aware of the role of the royal steward. He modeled Denethor after Shebna. Both fell prey to pride and a desire to take the place of the king.
God sent Isaiah to Shebna with a message of rebuke. God would put Shebna out of office and replace him with a better man, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. Look what he says about Eliakim:
“I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.”
Let’s note two things. First, the “robe” and “girdle” were priestly garments because the royal steward was connected with the priesthood. It is highly probable that Eliakim was of priestly descent because his father’s name, “Hilkiah,” was popular within the Levitical priesthood.3 Second, Eliakim will be a “father” to Jerusalem and the House of Judah. The “House of Judah” was a name for the entire kingdom of David. So, we see that the royal steward had a paternal or fatherly role for all the citizens of the kingdom. They looked to him as a father-figure: a provider and protector.
Do you see where this is going? The ancient kingdom of David had an important role for a second-in-command figure, a priestly character who was a “father” or “papa” to all the people in the kingdom. Sound familiar?
Before we bring home all the implications of that, let’s proceed to the next verse:
“And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.”
Apparently, the key to the royal palace (“the key of the house of David”) was worn on the shoulder of the royal steward as a sign or badge of his office. Perhaps it was tied there on his garment.4 The statement “he shall open, and none shall shut” emphasizes the royal steward’s authority no one but the king himself could oppose the steward’s decisions.
Finally, let’s notice the royal steward held a well-defined office or position that would be filled by another after he died or retired. So, God says to Shebna: “I will thrust you from your office (Hebrew matsav) and cast you down from your station (Hebrew ma’amadh).” It wasn’t a charismatic role held by one person that disappeared with him, but the role continued perpetually.
With this background in mind, let’s return to Matthew 16:19:
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
This statement is clearly modeled on the ancient prophecy of Isaiah, because we see the parallelism of the promise of the gift of the key followed by the promise of authority. The phrase “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” is strongly parallel to “He shall shut, and none shall open.”
However, the difference between “binding and loosing” versus “shutting and opening” is just as instructive as the parallel.
In Jesus’ day, the terms “binding and loosing” referred to the authoritative interpretation of divine law. In Jewish culture, this was (and is) called “halakhic” judgment. In Judaism, the halakhah refers to the way you put the Law of Moses into practice. It derives from halakh, the verb “to walk,” and one could translate the term literally as “how one walks,” or “how one behaves.” Others have defined it as “the law as practiced.”
We need to realize that the Law of Moses (and all law) requires interpretation. For example, the Law of Moses says to “rest” on the Sabbath day and refrain from “work.”
Now, let’s say one is truly serious about obeying that command. Then several questions have to be answered: exactly when does the Sabbath begin, and when does it end, so I can be sure I’m not violating it? What constitutes “work” or “rest”? Is it “work” if I walk too far on the Sabbath? Is it “work” to light a fire? All these questions and hundreds more need to be answered if one is seriously going to obey the command to “rest.”
All such questions are “halakhic” issues. As a matter of fact, the Jewish rabbis eventually decided that lighting a fire was work. Therefore, one could not cook or do any other activity requiring a fire to be lit on the Sabbath. Furthermore, any walk longer than about a kilometer from one’s property became “work.” So, Jewish communities tend to eat cold food on Saturday and build houses within a short distance from their synagogue.
The authority to make all these kinds of decisions about the interpretation of God’s law was collectively termed “binding and loosing.” To “bind” something was to forbid it; to “loose” something was to permit it. Lighting a fire was “bound” on the Sabbath, but walking a kilometer was “loosed.”
So,
