The image of the keys is not infrequent in Scrip- ture (cf. Is 22-^ Rev l'»). ' The key (nnso, also -tS?) to the prophets, as well as to the Rabbis, was the symbol of physical and moral authority and power ' (Wiinsclie, A ewe Beitrarje, p. 195). The kingdom of heaven, here to be understootl of the Messianic theocracy about to be established, is likened to a house or paljice, of which our Loril promi.ses that St. Peter shall be the chief steward or major-domo, who is entrusted with full authority over every- thing which the house contains. The keys are not merely those of the outer doors of the house, which give the holder power to admit or to eject ; the porter's ottice is only a part of the authority com- mitted to St. Peter. They are the keys ot inner chambers also, giving command, for example, of i he 'treasures' from which it will be his duty (Lk 12-'-) to feed the household. As the house is at the same time 'the kingdom,' it is evident that the aullio- rity is of very wide range. In the passage of Isaiah, wliich ofVers the nearest parallel (though it is to be observed that the sing, is there used, not the plur.), the thought of the kej' suggests an indis- putable power of ingress and egress, both for the holder and for others at his discretion — a power (.as interpreted in Rev 3") of granting or withholding opportunities and facilities of various kinds.
In this last view the ' power of the keys ' leads on naturally to the power of ' binding and loosing,' which, though not the same as the power of the keys, may be regarded as one of the chief exer- cises of that power. The ' binding ' and • loosing ' is not the binding and loosing of persons but of things— not 'whomsoever thou shalt loose,' but 'whatsoever.' To 'bind' (hidk';'), in rabbinic language, is to forbid; to 'loose' (Tn.iS) is to permit. Lightfoot says that ' thousands of ex- amples' of this usage might be produced. One instance may suttice. ' Concerning the moving of empty vessels [on the Sabbath day], of the filling of which there is no intention : the scliool of Shammai binds it, the school of Hillel looseth it' (Hieros. Shabb. fol. 16, 2, quoted by Lightfoot, Exercit. upon St. Matt. p. 23S). It is the power of laying down the law for his fellow-disciples, like a true Rabbi, which is thus bestowed upon St. Peter. Or perliaps it is more exact to say that it is the power of interpreting in detailed application the hiw which GoJ has laid down in general terms. Authority is given him to say what the law of God allows, and what it forbids; .and the iiiomise is added that his ruling shall be upheld in heaven, — and is con.sequcntly to be regarded as binding upon the consciences of Christians. The power of binding and loosing is in fact the power of legislation for the Church.
PO\A'ER OF THE KEYS
POWEK OF THE KEYS
31
The gift of ' the keys ' is not expressly bestowed on any one else besides St. Peter, but the legis- lative power is afterwards extended to others (Mt 18"). It is not certain who are the persons there addressed. 'The disciples' mentioned in v.' are doubtless the apostles, or at any rate include some of the apostles ; but it is not easy to prove that the power of binding and loosing is there bestowed upon them exclusively. That opinion, however ancient and however widely held, involves the further conclusion that the promises which follow, and ni)on which the binding and loosing power is made to depend, are to be simUarly restricted. It is, accordinjr to this interpretation, to the apostles alone that Christ promises that the prayer of two of them shall be heard, and that where two or three are gathered in His name, He will be there. This is dilticult to suppose. We must accordingly conclude that the binding and loosing power lirst bestowed upon St. Peter is not represented in NT as an exclusive privilege of the apostles. It is the common privilege of the Christian society — even of a small brancli of it — when acting in agreement (v.'") and solemnly assembled in (or ' to ') Christ's name as its ground of union ( v.*>). In this case, however, the power appears to be connected with judicial discipline over individual members of the society. The ' binding and loosing ' are not, in this case any more than elsewhere, to be inter- preted as the absolving and retaining of sins ; they seem to mean the prescribing what the ofl'ender is to do and not to do. But, in case of his refusal to comply with these requirements of ' the Church,' he IS to be treated as 'a heathen man and a publican,' i.e. as excommunicate ; and the resist- ance to the authority of the Church is to be considered as resistance to the will of Heaven. The prayer of the slighted Church will be heard, for Christ Himself is present at the gathering, And Heaven will give its sanction to the sen- tence (see interestmg parallels in Wiinsche, p. 218).
There is, accordingly, a close connexion between the authority to bind and loose and the authority to absolve and retain sins (Jn '20^). The discipline which prescribes what the sinner must do, on pain of encountering a sentence at once earthly and heavenlj', cannot but involve a ' |)ower of the keys' in the (inaccurate) sense which that term has borne in the Church since patristic times.