Stunned by Scripture. Dr. John S. Bergsma, Ph.D.

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, when Jesus says to Peter, “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,” he is conferring on Peter the authority to interpret divine law (i.e., Scripture), and promising him that heaven will back up his judgments.

      Later in life, I was again shocked to discover how clearly Jewish scholars understand the profound authority that is being conferred on Peter in this passage. The Jewish Encyclopedia explains that the authority to “bind and loose” was not merely an academic or intellectual exercise, but a divinely given power. Prominent rabbis would “bind and loose” for ancient Jews, and it was not that the rabbis “merely decided what, according to the Law, was forbidden or allowed, but that they possessed and exercised the power of tying or untying a thing by the spell of their divine authority.” The Encyclopedia continues:

      This power and authority … received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial [heavenly] court of justice (Sifra, Emor, ix.; Mak. 23b). In this sense Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees.⁵

      So, let’s put this all together. Based on the background in Isaiah 22, we come to understand that bearing the “key of the kingdom” was the mark of office of the royal steward, the man over the palace and “number two” to the king himself. Therefore, Jesus’ words to Peter in Matthew 16:18–19 confer on him the role of royal steward in his (Jesus’) kingdom, and they also grant Peter the authority to make decisions about how to interpret divine law, particularly the Scriptures. In the Old Testament, the role of the royal steward was both priestly and paternal: it was filled by a man who wore priestly garments, and he was recognized as a “papa” by all the citizens of the kingdom. Moreover, this role was not a personal charism that died with the royal steward, but it was an “office” or “station” that was filled by another when the previous occupant died or was removed.

      One has to be fairly blind not to see that this is model of the papacy!

      During my journey into the Catholic Church, I began to realize this:

      Jesus is both Son of God and Son of David; therefore, his kingdom is both kingdom of God and kingdom of David.

      Once I realized that, all sorts of things about the Bible and the Catholic Church began to make sense!

      Growing up, I never understood why the first two or three chapters of Matthew and