When Peter, the last of the apostles to believe, finally confessed that he knew and believed that Jesus is the Son of God, Jesus responded that the information had been revealed to him by His Father. In view of the harmonized Loaves Narrative we compiled in Part 1, Jesus had identified Peter’s response as a fulfillment of Isaiah 54:13 — “all thy children shall be taught of the LORD” — just as his followers throughout the Loaves miracles had also fulfilled that same prophecy (John 6:45). As we noted in Part 3, Jesus’ promise to “build My church” upon “this rock” was plainly a reference to the “stone” foundation of His own Father’s Word, the solid foundation He had identified in Isaiah 54. His next statement — “the gates of hell shall not prevail” — as we showed in Part 4, was just one of many restatements of Jesus’ promise that people who believe His Father’s words would not perish: “He that heareth my word, and believeth … is passed from death unto life” (John 5:24). We also showed that His promise to give the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven—Knowledge and Faith—was a simple reference to the ministry of preaching that Jesus would confer upon the apostles after bestowing the Spirit. In sum, the entire conversation with Peter occurred in the context of Jesus completing His task to preach His Father’s Words, and His plan to commission His disciples to do the same. It is therefore no surprise that Jesus’ next words carried the same meaning: “and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19). Roman Catholicism has long desired to apply the power to bind and loose to a carnal, administrative ecclesiastical power to enslave the souls of men. But Jesus’ words mean nothing other than this: that He had received a task from His Father to preach the Good News, and had commissioned His disciples to preach that Good News after Him.

As we noted in Part 1, Jesus was actually speaking in the past perfect tense, so the literal translation of His words is, “whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” What indeed did He mean by “bind” and “loose,” and how is it bound and loosed in Heaven beforehand?

The Roman Catholic apologist here appeals to Rabbinic legal theory in which the terms “binding” and “loosing” refer to divinely bestowed “power and authority … to forbid and to permit” (Jewish Encyclopedia, Binding and Loosing). Roman Catholic apologist, Suan Sonna, makes that argument here, claiming that Christ had established in the Apostles a new Sanhedrin, with Peter at the helm. The Catholic Catechism says that “bind” and “loose” mean “whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his” (paragraph 1445). Binding and loosing therefore refer to “the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church” (paragraph 553). Whatever Peter and his successors declare authoritatively on earth, they say, has already been declared authoritatively in heaven.

With such a promise, Peter and his successors cannot possibly be wrong. By establishing a new Sanhedrin, sayeth Rome, Jesus is alleged to have granted to Peter and his successors the charism of infallibility, such that a man’s eternal destiny is determined by his relationship to Peter and his successors. As Patrick Madrid states in Answer Me This!, before the East-West schism in 1054 AD, “the single most important criterion” for membership in the early church was “communion with the bishop of Rome.” Small wonder that ignorant Roman Catholics and gullible Protestants, starving for God’s Word, ultimately turn to “Peter” in an attempt to satisfy their hunger. If Roman Catholicism is right about Peter’s power to bind and loose, then we have no choice but timidly to approach his throne and beg for mercy, for we cannot be reconciled to God except through the carnal religion of “Peter’s” successors.

The Scriptures, on the other hand, use binding and loosing so frequently as a literary device that, without the context of the Loaves Narrative, we are hard pressed to appeal to any of them to understand Christ’s meaning in Matthew 16 and 18. Examples are several: Satan is “bound” for a thousand years (Revelation 20:2) and then “loosed” for a time (Revelation 20:7). God “bound” the stars of the constellation Pleiades and “loosed” the belt of Orion (Job 38:31). A very ill woman was “bound” by Satan for 18 years and then “loosed” by Christ on the sabbath (Luke 13:16). The priestly breastplate was “bound” to the ephod and could not be “loosed” from it (Exodus 28:28). Paul said he who is “bound” to a wife ought not seek to be “loosed,” and he who was “loosed” ought not seek to be “bound” (1 Corinthians 7:27). To which of these “bind-loose” couplets ought we appeal to understand Christ’s words?

If we must resort to guesswork, why appeal to a Rabbinic legal construct instead of, say, Job 38:31 by which we may infer that Peter and the others must have been granted authority to declare on earth the gravitational relationships of the constellations in the heavens?* Or to Revelation 20 to establish that Peter and the rest of the apostles had the authority to bind or loose Satan on earth after he had been bound or loosed in Heaven? Or to Paul to understand that Peter and the rest had the right to establish and dissolve marriages, binding and loosing at will? Such guesswork is as fruitless as the Roman appeal to the Rabbinic texts, and is wholly unnecessary. We need not and ought not guess, for Jesus established the meaning of “to bind” and “to loose” at the beginning of His preaching ministry.

The Good Tidings

The longstanding exegetical error — committed equally by the ancient writers, by Roman Catholics and by Protestants (this writer, included) — has been to take “to bind” and “to loose” as opposites with a common object. The object is either bound or loosed, but remains the same object in either case. Interpretations vary between the power to admit to or to exclude from the Church, to forgive or to deny forgiveness, to remit or retain sins, or to make things lawful or unlawful. Peter is therefore commissioned to bind and loose something at will. All that is left is to determine what that “thing” is. There are no commentaries on this passage that take any other approach, vary though they may on the object of Peter’s prerogative.

Such an approach, however, removes Jesus’ words from the Good Shepherd context in which He spoke them, and obscures the fact that Jesus had been speaking of nothing other than His Father’s words and the ministry He would soon confer on the apostles. As we have noted repeatedly, Peter was the last of the Apostles to believe, and his tardy confession was such a significant milestone in Christ’s preaching ministry that He noted its significance in the moment, and later made special mention of it to His Father.

“Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” (John 6:70)

“For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; … those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.” (John 17:8,12)

The Word of the Father is the Rock upon which Christ would build His Church, and delivering that Word to the Eleven was one of His chief objectives. Jesus said “the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me” (John 14:24). He promised to send to His disciples the Spirit to remind them (John 14:26) of those things “my Father hath taught me” (John 8:28). At the conclusion of His ministry Jesus reported to the Eleven, “all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you” (John 15:15), and to His Father, “I have given unto them the words which Thou gavest me” (John 17:8). He then prayed “for them also which shall believe on Me through their word” (John 17:20), and sent the disciples to deliver His Father’s Word to the nations (Matthew 28:20) just as He had been sent to deliver it to the apostles: “as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you” (John 20:21). Their preaching ministry was exactly the same as His, and His Father had sent Him to bind and to loose. Jesus would therefore send the apostles to bind and to loose, as well, and it had nothing to do with establishing a new Sanhedrin.

“He hath sent me to bind…”

In His first recorded public sermon, Jesus declared that He had come to preach the Good News, and by that Good News to bind up the brokenhearted and to loose the captives. Jesus stood in the Synagogue, opened the scroll to Isaiah 61 and began to read (Luke 4:16-17). While Luke only provides a partial quotation, we need only turn to Isaiah to discover the fullness of Jesus’ mission:

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty [i.e., to loose] to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; (Isaiah 61:1)

In this case, “to bind” and “to loose” are not opposites, but rather are metaphors for preaching the Good Tidings. “To bind” is to comfort the brokenhearted by the preaching of the Gospel. “To loose” is the free the captives by the preaching of the Gospel. The Father had sent Him to preach the Gospel, and Jesus would commission His apostles to do the same thing. His repeated teachings bear this out:

The Message	The Mission	The Ministry
“the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me” (John 14:24)	“…as my Father hath sent me … “(John 20:21)	“the LORD …  hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to [to loose] the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound” (Isaiah 61:1)
“all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you” (John 15:15)	” … even so send I you. (John 20:21)	“whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19, 18:18)

As the Father had sent Jesus to bind and to loose (that is, “to preach Good Tidings”), Jesus would send the disciples to bind and to loose (that is, “to preach Good Tidings”). That this is Jesus’ meaning may be easily discerned from the “Good Shepherd” context in which He mentioned binding and loosing in both Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18.

The Good Shepherd

Some of the Good Shepherd imagery in the New Testament comes from Ezekiel 34 where the Lord observes that the sheep are without a shepherd (Ezekiel 34:5) but promises that He will “set up one shepherd over them…” (Ezekiel 34:23,27). When that time comes, the Good Shepherd would “bind” and “loose”:

I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and will bind up (h2280. חָבַשׁ ḥâḇaš;) that which was broken … and they shall be safe in their land, and shall know that I am the LORD, when I have broken the bands of their yoke… (Ezekiel 34:16,27)

Before making that promise, the Lord observed that the current shepherds had not “healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away” (Ezekiel 34:4). The passage illustrates not only that the ministry of the Good Shepherd is “to heal” and “to bind up” and to liberate, but also that the terms “bind up” and “heal” are interchangeable. That helps us understand why Jesus’ citation of Isaiah 61:1 uses “to heal the brokenhearted” (Luke 4:18) in place of “to bind up the brokenhearted” (Isaiah 61:1). The meaning is the same, and they both derive from the Good Shepherd narrative of Ezekiel 34. It is “bind up” in the Hebrew, and “heal” in the Septuagint.

The Good Shepherd narrative factors heavily in Jesus’ words in Matthew 16 and 18 in two important ways. First, what is translated as “bind up” in Ezekiel 34:16 is throughout the Old Testament translated according to its context. When referring to preparing a donkey for travel, it is translated as “to saddle” (e.g., Genesis 22:3). When it refers to fixing or attaching something, it is translated as “to bind” (e.g., Leviticus 8:13). But when medical services are rendered to the sick, it is translated as “to bind up.” The Hebrew word is the same in all cases, as is the Greek in the Septuagint, and its rendering in English is determined by context. When a shepherd administers care to an injured sheep, context demands that it be rendered, “to bind up.”

Second, in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint), the term rendered as “bind up” in Ezekiel 34:16 — “I … will bind up that which was broken” — is the same term rendered in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 as “bind” and “bound”.  In Ezekiel 34:16 καταδήσω (katadēsō) is literally “I will bind”. In Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, δήσῃς (dēsēs) is translated as “bind” and “bound”.  The root δέω (deo), “to bind,” is the same for all.

The question that remains then, is how δήσῃς ought to be translated in Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18. The answer to that question is revealed in Jesus’ application of the Good Shepherd narrative to His Gospel mission of binding and loosing. In both cases, while the Greek word is “bind,” the context of His statement is informed by the Good Shepherd narrative of Ezekiel 34. That fact ultimately requires that Jesus’ words in Matthew 16 and 18 be translated as “whatsoever thou shalt bind up,” rather than “whatsoever thou shalt bind,” because both times, His statements are in the context of a shepherd administering gospel care to his sheep. The scriptural proof of this is detailed and occasionally tedious, but necessary in order to demonstrate the flaws of the historical interpretation of these passages as an authoritative, administrative Petrine prerogative.

The “Good Shepherd” in Matthew 16:19

If we look at Peter’s confession only in its immediate context—e.g., “Whom say ye that I am?”—we miss the unfolding of the Loaves Narrative as the context of Jesus’ response to him. Jesus’ answer occurs within the context of a narrative that began shortly after John the Baptist was killed (Matthew 14:1-12, Mark 6:14-29, Luke 9:7-9), concluding with the journey to Caesarea Philippi after the miracles of multiplication (Mt 16:13; Mk 8:27). When Jesus first saw the crowds, He was “moved with compassion toward them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd” (Mark 6:34). This compassion is restated at the beginning of the second miracle (Matthew 15:32, Mark 8:2), and the unfolding narrative has Jesus seeking (Mark 6:56, 7:24, 31), healing (Matthew 15:30; Mark 6:56) and feeding His flock (Matthew 15:32; Mark 6:37) upon the mountains of Israel (Matthew 15:29), by the rivers (Matthew 16:13, Mark 8:27) and throughout the countryside (Mark 6:56). At the same time, Jesus speaks very sternly to the scribes and pharisees (Matthew 15:1-14; Mark 7:1-13), rebuking them for abusing the sheep and nullifying the Word of God by their traditions.

According to Ezekiel 34, the Good Shepherd will seek, heal and feed His sheep “upon the mountains of Israel by the rivers, and in all the inhabited places of the country” (Ezekiel 34:12-16), but of “the fat and the strong” shepherds, “I will feed them with judgment,” a metaphor for a sharp rebuke (Ezekiel 34:16). The Loaves Narrative is thus infused with the Good Shepherd covenant promises of Ezekiel 34—”And I will set up one shepherd over them” (Ezekiel 34:23)—and in particular His duty to “seek that which was lost”, to “feed my flock” and to “bind up that which was broken” (Ezekiel 34:15-16), to break their shackles (Ezekiel 34:27), and to rebuke the irresponsible shepherds. All these things Jesus had been doing from the death of John the Baptist until Peter’s confession.

By the time Jesus confirms that Peter, too, had been taught by the Father (Matthew 16:18) as had the other sheep before him (John 6:44-45), it is clear that His words arise from the natural soil of the Good Shepherd narrative of Ezekiel 34. Thus, we must take that context into account when translating δήσῃς (dēsēs) in Matthew 16:19. Keeping in mind that Jesus had been speaking in the past perfect tense, we can say with confidence that the verse ought rather be rendered,

“…and whatsoever thou shalt bind [up] on earth shall have been bound [up] in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19)

The context of the statement was that of a Good Shepherd delivering the Good Tidings to the sheep—as Jesus had done throughout the Loaves Narrative—and the commission was for Peter, too, to preach the Good Tidings by following suit: binding up the brokenhearted and loosing the captives. The Greek word in Matthew 16 is “bind,” but the context is established by the healing and bandaging of the brokenhearted in Ezekiel 34, and the commission Jesus had received from His Father in Isaiah 61. It should therefore be rendered accordingly here: “bind up” and “bound up.”

The “Good Shepherd” in Matthew 18:18

We find the same context, and thus the same rendering, when Jesus addresses the same words to the apostles two chapters later. Unfortunately, because Matthew 18:18 follows immediately upon Jesus’ instructions on how to restore or dismiss the sinner, the binding and loosing in this verse are typically taken to refer to the authority of the Church to deal with sinners and to excommunicate them:

“Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” (Matthew 18:15-17)

That limited context thus creates the impression that “to bind” and “to loose” must refer to the power of the Church to regulate membership and forgiveness of sins. It also has the unfortunate side effect of confounding Jesus’ clear admonition to the disciples to be good shepherds, which was in fact the sole focus of His response to them.

Jesus’ admonition in chapter 18 was in response to their question about “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:1). Jesus publicly rebuked the scribes and pharisees for such thinking, because they “love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues” (Matthew 23:6; Mark 12:39; Luke 20:46). The apostles were exhibiting that same carnal ambition and required immediate correction. Gentile rulers love to lord their authority over their subjects, Jesus said to them, “but it shall not be so among you” (Matthew 20:25-26; Mark 10:42-43; Luke 22:25-26). A corrective rebuke was in order.

In response to their ungodly ambition, Jesus directed four, finely tuned instructional rebukes at their carnality. Each rebuke was elaborate and substantive, but for brevity, we shall list them simply as 1) do not offend the little ones (the Millstone Narrative), 2) pluck out the eye that offends, 3) seek the missing sheep, and 4) treat the unrepentant as heathen. These diverse and sundry admonitions appear to be largely unrelated to the apostles’ original question, and historically have been interpreted in isolation from it. But when they are viewed through the lens of the Good Shepherd narrative in which He spoke them, it is clear that each of these four rebukes was directed squarely at their ungodly desire to lord their authority over the sheep. Instead, they ought to have desired to be better shepherds than the scribes and Pharisees had been.

Do not Offend the Little Ones (Matthew 18:2-6)

When the apostles wondered among themselves who would be greatest, “Jesus called a little child unto him,” implored them to become as a child, and then issued a dire warning:

“But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matthew 18:6)

This Millstone Narrative occurs three times in the synoptic gospels, and we shall return to it repeatedly. The admonition about offending the little ones was not merely that each apostle must “humble himself as this little child” to be “greatest in the kingdom of heaven,” but also that he must resist the temptation to lord his authority over the sheep as the scribes and Pharisees had. In their carnality, the scribes and Pharisees had not entered the kingdom themselves, and hindered those who would enter (Matthew 23:13; Luke 11:52). The apostles were to avoid such behavior, lest the little ones perish. “It were better” for such a man, Jesus continues, “that a millstone were hanged about his neck” and drowned in the sea (Matthew 18:6).

That Jesus had the Good Shepherd narrative in mind here is evident by inspection. Only a few verses hence, He highlights the need to go after the missing sheep, and having said as much returns to the obligation of the shepherd to seek after these little ones: “Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish” (Matthew 18:14). This is resonant of the Lord’s criticism of the bad shepherd in Zechariah 11:16, who “shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one.” Humbling oneself and caring for the little ones, avoiding sin against them and seeking those that stray, is part and parcel of the role of a shepherd, and the apostles were well advised to follow suit. His answer to their question, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”, was that they should embrace their role as good shepherds. That included becoming humble “as little children,” and being careful not to “offend one of these little ones.”

Pluck out the Eye that Offends (Matthew 18:7-11)

In a seemingly unrelated diversion from His discourse, Jesus admonishes the disciples to cut off the hand or foot, or to pluck out the eye, that “offends thee.” Given the context, a more apt rendering is to remove the member that “causes thee to offend.” This passage is typically interpreted as instruction in self-control and avoiding personal sin, but such an interpretation isolates it from the fuller context of the question at hand—namely, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”  This second admonition, too, is directly related to the care of the sheep, for it follows on His warning against “offend[ing] one of these little ones” (Matthew 18:6). He warns against offending by hand, foot and eye (Matthew 18:7-9), and then returns to His point: “Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones” (Matthew 18:10). The warning was to guard against offending the sheep.

That Jesus’ intent was that they guard the sheep by avoiding offenses against the sheep is evident in two ways. First, Mark’s account of the Millstone Narrative has Jesus transitioning from the warning against offending “these little ones” — e.g., “it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck” (Mark 9:42) — directly to the severe preventive measures against such offenses: “And if thy hand offend thee … And if thy foot offend thee … And if thine eye offend thee.” (Mark 9:43, 45, 47). Clearly “the offenses” of Matthew 18:7-9 are offenses against “these little ones,” the sheep of the fold.

Second, the discipline of maiming an arm or plucking out an eye is a punishment explicitly reserved for the bad shepherd in Zechariah 11. Woe to him who offends the sheep, both Zechariah and Jesus warn:

“Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock!
the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye” (Zechariah 11:16).

“… woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, … . And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out …” (Matthew 18:7-9)

The shepherd’s duty was to use his feet to go after the missing, his eyes to search for them and his hands to bind up their wounds. “Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones” (Matthew 18:10), Jesus says. Seek them, feed them and care for them. Amputation was a fitting illustration and warning to those shepherds who desired to be greatest in the kingdom, but lacked the requisite desire to go after the sheep, search for them and bind up their wounds. His words are of course hyperbolic, but nevertheless derivative of Zechariah’s warning. Here, Jesus’ answer to their question, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”, was that they should embrace their role as good shepherds by not sinning against the sheep. That included considerable self discipline lest they “offend one of these little ones” by presuming to be the greatest, but not caring for them as a servant shepherd.

[NOTE: We will take a moment here to observe that Jesus used the same language in the Sermon on the Mount, namely, “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, … . And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off…” (Matthew 5:29-30). Situated as it is after instruction against lustful glances (Matthew 5:28), the application is typically limited to the self control of one’s eyes and hands lest one stumble into sins of the flesh. That interpretation, however, creates an awkward non sequitur in Matthew 5:29-30. While one may indeed “looketh on a woman” with one’s eye (Matthew 5:29), it is impossible to “looketh on a woman” with one’s hand. Thus, it is not clear how the hand could have caused one to stumble into looking, or how its removal could possibly prevent further offenses. We must look instead to the broader context of the Sermon on the Mount to understand Jesus’ illustration.

The Sermon was addressed to His disciples, informing them that if they would be greatest in the kingdom, they must be better teachers and examples — in a word, shepherds — than the scribes and the Pharisees had been:

“Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:19-20)

The “righteousness” here is the quality of godly instruction of the sheep and godly behavior of the shepherds, and what follows thereafter is a lengthy list of corrections to the errant teaching and behavior of the scribes and Pharisees. When Matthew 5:19 is viewed together with Matthew 18:4 it is clear that Jesus is instructing His disciples to be humble, godly shepherds of the flock, if they would be great in the kingdom:

“whosoever shall do and teach [these commandments], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Mathew 5:19)

“Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:4)

That Peter understood this construct in this way is evident by the written instructions he left for us, using the Good Shepherd motif to convey the truth he had received from Christ:

Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. (1 Peter 5:2-3)

The scribes and Pharisees were the bad shepherds of whom Ezekiel had written in chapter 34, whom Jesus had fed with judgment during the Loaves Narrative, and for whom Zechariah had prescribed the suitable punishment of maiming the arm and blinding the right eye. Jesus’ hyperbolic instruction to cut off the hand or pluck out the eye was an admonition to avoid behaving like the scribes and Pharisees who were neither good teachers nor good examples. The maiming of hand and eye is a prophetic construct found only in Zechariah’s words against the bad shepherds, and since the Sermon on the Mount was directed against the teaching and behavior of those bad shepherds — the scribes and Pharisees — Jesus’ reference to that prophetic construct ought to be understood accordingly.]

Seek the Missing Sheep (Matthew 18:12-14)

Little commentary is needed here to illustrate Jesus’ continued appeal to the Good Shepherd narrative, for He says plainly, “How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray…” (Matthew 18:12). He is clearly talking about the role of a good shepherd. It is nevertheless instructional to notice the parallels between what Jesus says here, what Ezekiel 34 had prophesied, and what Jesus himself had done throughout the Loaves Narrative. When Jesus saw the multitude, He had compassion for they were “as sheep having no shepherd” (Matthew 18:36). He sought, healed and fed them on the mountains, by the rivers and throughout the countryside. When the scribes and Pharisees complained that He dined with sinners, He responded with a parable:

“What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?” (Luke 15:4).

As Jesus had been sent to find the lost sheep (Matthew 15:24), so too were the twelve (Matthew 10:6). This is what Ezekiel had prophesied. Jesus’ answer to their question, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”, was that they must embrace their role as good shepherds by seeking the sheep instead of misleading, neglecting, and lording authority over them, for it is not the Father’s will “that one of these little ones should perish” (Matthew 18:14).

Treat the Unrepentant as Heathen (Matthew 18:15-17)

In yet another apparently unrelated diversion from His discourse, Jesus admonishes the disciples to deal with sins privately if possible, but to elevate them to the attention of the church if not. On its face the passage is not immediately relevant to the question at hand — “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” — yet upon inspection, it clearly derives from the Good Shepherd Narrative of Ezekiel 34. This is evident in several ways.

First, Luke’s account of the Millstone Narrative has Jesus transitioning from the warning against offending “these little ones” — e.g. “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck” (Luke 17:2) — directly to the instructions on how to be reconciled with an offending brother: “Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him” (Luke 17:3). Clearly, dealing with trespasses is intricately related to the well-being of “these little ones.”

Second, by inspecting the three Millstone Narratives — Matthew 18:6-20, Mark 9:42-50 and Luke 17:1-4  — we may easily discern that while Luke’s and Mark’s focus is maintaining peace within the body for the sake of the sheep, Matthew’s focus is on removing the unrepentant for the sake of the sheep. All three passages derive from the Good Shepherd narrative in which the Lord’s objectives are to make the sheep to be at peace, to remove the oppressive from among them, and to ensure that the sheep know He is in their midst:

“And I will make with them a covenant of peace, … And they shall no more be a prey to the heathen …  Thus shall they know that I the LORD their God am with them” (Ezekiel 34:25, 28, 30)

    “Let him be unto thee as an heathen” (Matthew 18:17)

Jesus’ direction on how to deal with the sinning brother was not chiefly about establishing a mechanism for reconciliation and excommunication (though it is certainly at least that). Rather, the chief objective was first to keep the brethren at peace with one another— “if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother” — and barring that, to remove the oppressive, unrepentant one from the community upon the testimony of two or three witnesses: “if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” That these two objectives are in view is clearly demonstrated by the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18:23-25) that accompanies Jesus’ instructions on reconciliation and excommunication.

The king in the parable forgave an extraordinary debt (Matthew 18:27), but that forgiven servant was merciless toward another for a much smaller transgression (Matthew 18:30). The first recourse should have been to have “compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee” (Matthew 18:33). Instead of that, the unforgiving servant treated his debtor with scorn and contempt (Matthew 18:28-30), and so two or three witnesses, “his fellowservants,” reported what had happened, and the unforgiving servant was excommunicated on their testimony (Matthew 18:34). The immediate objective is reconciliation and peace, but Matthew’s account takes the matter further, emphasizing the removal of the oppressive offender from the midst of the sheep. The man who treated the sheep with such force and cruelty is removed and treated as a heathen (Matthew 18:17). As we noted above, the heathen lord their authority over others, “but it shall not be so among you” (Matthew 20:25-26; Mark 10:42-43; Luke 22:25-26).

As Ezekiel prophesied, the Good Shepherd shall remove the wicked shepherds, the evil beasts “who ruled them with force and cruelty” (Ezekiel 34:4), so the sheep can “dwell safely, and none shall make them afraid,” for “they shall no more be a prey to the heathen … neither bear the shame of the heathen any more” (Ezekiel 34:28-29).

In a similar vein, Matthew has the witnesses report the shameful behavior to the king (Matthew 18:16, 19, 20, 31), who then removes “the shame of the heathen” from among them (Ezekiel 34:28-29, Matthew 18:17, 34). “Thus shall they know that I the LORD their God am with them,” the Lord says (Ezekiel 34:30), “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them,” Jesus promises (Matthew 18:20). The end result of the Millstone Narrative of Matthew 18 is the removal of the “heathen,” and the knowledge of the sheep that the Lord is in their midst as a Good Shepherd to protect them from the wicked and unrepentant.

Thus, the Millstone Narrative in Matthew 18 is intrinsically related to the Good Shepherd motif.

    “Have peace one with another” (Mark 9:50)

While Matthew’s Millstone Narrative emphasizes the removal of the offender, Mark’s and Luke’s Millstone Narratives focus on peace among the sheep through reconciliation. Luke dwells largely on this theme: “if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day … forgive him” (Luke 17:3-4). Mark, on the other hand, omits the admonition to seek out and forgive an offending brother, but concludes with a cryptic reference to peace with one another through salt:

“For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.” (Mark 9:49-50)

This cryptic command derives from the ancient “covenant of salt” (Leviticus 2:13; Number 18:19; 2 Chronicles 13:5; Ezekiel 43:24), and answers not only to God’s promise to give the kingdom to David and his sons forever “by a covenant of salt” (2 Chronicles 13:5), but also implicitly relates to “the salt of the covenant of thy God” (Leviticus 2:13) that was to be included with all peace offerings (Ezekiel 43:24, 27). Here, in the Millstone Narratives of Mark and Luke, the “covenant of peace” is in view, particularly as it relates to the comfort and well-being of the sheep. This is consistent with the Good Shepherd narrative of Ezekiel 34:25 in which the Lord promises to “make with them a covenant of peace, and will cause the evil beasts to cease out of the land.”

We therefore observe that when the three Millstone Narratives are understood together, it is evident that all three derive from the Good Shepherd narrative of Ezekiel 34, and have the well-being of the sheep in mind — establishing peace through repentance within and keeping the “evil beasts” and  “heathen” safely without — all while assuring the flock that the Lord is the Good Shepherd in their midst. These are the three main objectives of the Good Shepherd Narrative of Ezekiel 34, and the Millstone Narratives reflect that, including the Millstone Narrative in Matthew 18.

Jesus’ Answer was in the context of a Good Shepherd

Having now reviewed all four rebukes that Jesus directed at the ungodly ambition of the apostles, we see that all four actually derive from the Good Shepherd narrative of Ezekiel 34, while drawing on the bad shepherd illustration of Zechariah 11. Here again, Jesus’ answer to their question, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”, was to admonish them to embrace their role as good shepherds—protecting the sheep from scandal, avoiding causing that scandal themselves, seeking the lost and making sure the sheep are at peace within while keeping the “heathen” safely without.

Thus, when Jesus chastises the apostles for their ambition, and concludes with their obligation to bind and to loose, it is clear that His words arise from the natural soil of the Good Shepherd narrative of Ezekiel 34. We must take that context into account when translating δήσῃς (dēsēs) in Matthew 18:18. Keeping in mind again that Jesus had been speaking in the past perfect tense, we can say with confidence that the verse ought rather be rendered,

“…and whatsoever thou shalt bind [up] on earth shall have been bound [up] in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18:18)

The context of the statement was that of a Good Shepherd delivering the Good Tidings to the sheep—binding up the brokenhearted and loosing them from the oppressor. Indeed, in the parable in which these teachings were illustrated, the king would have bound up the poor servant’s wounds, for his oppressor had “laid hands on him, and took him by the throat” (Matthew 18:28), and released him from his captivity, for his oppressor had “cast him into prison” (Matthew 18:30).

The object of “bind” and “loose” in Matthew 18:18 is not the sins of the brethren in Matthew 18:15-17, but rather the wounds and the shackles of the poor servant in parable of Matthew 18:23-25. The Greek word in Matthew 18:18 is “bind,” but the context is plainly established by the binding up of the brokenhearted in Ezekiel 34, and the commission Jesus had received from His Father in Isaiah 61. It should therefore be rendered accordingly here: “bind up” and “bound up.”

“Shall Have Been Bound … and Loosed … in Heaven”

As we have noted several times, Jesus was speaking in the past perfect tense in Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18. Thus, His promise to the apostles was that whatever wounds they “bound up” on earth by the preaching of the Gospel shall have been “bound up” in Heaven, and whatever shackles they loosed on earth by the preaching of the Gospel shall have been “loosed” in Heaven.

By viewing these passages through the lens of Petrine authority, the Roman Catholic is led down the path of Papal infallibility with the ostensible full faith, credit and authority of the heavenly court of reconciliation, and thus into the folly of entrusting his eternal soul to the carnal whims of Peter and his successors. But when these passages are viewed through the lens of the Good Shepherd Who was commissioned by His Father to bind up the brokenhearted and to loose the captives, we are led to the sure foundation, the Rock of the Father’s words, and the infallibility of His election:

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” (John 5:24)

“No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:” (John 6:44)

The preaching of the Good Tidings is effectual for the binding up of the brokenhearted and the loosing of the captives, not because God had endorsed a Petrine Sanhedrin to govern the church on earth, but for the simple fact that the Word of the Father cannot possibly fail in the purpose for which He sent it:

“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:11)

He sent His Word to save His people. And thus, when the Good Tidings were preached, the hearers “glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48). Whatever broken hearts the Good Tidings bind up on earth, shall have already been bound up in heaven, and whatever shackles the Good Tidings loose on earth, shall have already been loosed in heaven. Because “he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4), by “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8), who “was foreordained before the foundation of the world” (1 Peter 1:20) “by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” the Good Tidings (1 Corinthians 1:21).

The proper Scriptural rendering of “bind” and “loose” thus establishes God as the sole administrator of election, forgiveness, reprobation and damnation, and relieves “Peter” and his successors from the awful burden of administering the effectual calling of the Father.

But, but, but… what about “Remit” and “Retain”?

When Jesus commissioned the apostles to preach the Good Tidings, He said,

“Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.  …  Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” (John 20:21-23)

Unfortunately, because the dominant interpretation of Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 has for so long been that of “binding” and “loosing” from sins, or granting or withholding forgiveness, Matthew 16 and 18 are then used to interpret John 20:23, as if Peter and the other apostles had the personal authority to forgive or to deny forgiveness. However, because we are able to extract “binding” and “loosing” from that errant historical interpretation, we find that Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 simply cannot serve as the interpretive lens through which John 20:23 is understood.

Setting aside Matthew’s language of “binding” and “loosing” as the interpretive lens through which John’s “remit” and “retain” are viewed, we now turn to the Scripture to find that sins are remitted not by an apostolic prerogative to bind and to loose (for Matthew did not say that), but rather by the preaching of the Word. We will continue on that theme in our next entry.

---

* It is curious, and perhaps even notable, that when telescope technology became sufficiently advanced, we determined that Pleiades was indeed a tightly bound constellation of stars trapped in their mutual gravity well, while the three stars of the Belt of Orion were independent, isolated stars, each one tens of light years from the others, and each in succession tens of light years further distant from earth—and thus, loosed from any significant mutual gravitational attraction.