For nearly two thousand years, Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 have been at the center of one of Christianity’s biggest theological debates. The Roman Catholic Church points to these verses as primary proof that Jesus gave the Church—specifically the papacy—the power to declare new doctrines, establish traditions, and even override Scripture when needed. Their reasoning is simple: Jesus said, “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” If heaven “follows” the Church, then the Church’s authority is nearly unlimited.

This interpretation is foundational to Roman Catholic theology. It is used to justify practices and dogmas that are never found in Scripture: the veneration of saints, indulgences, the infallibility of church councils, the creation of new holy days, the shift from the Sabbath to Sunday, and many other doctrines that developed centuries after the apostles died.

Notice this quote from the Catholic Encylopaedia under the section Power of the Keys:

(3) Hence there were not wanting theologians who narrowly restricted the scope of the gift, and asserted that it denoted the special prerogatives appertaining to St. Peter and his successors, and these alone. Thus Cardinal Cajetan (Opusc., I, tract. iii, De Rom. Pont., c. v) held that while the power of binding and loosing belonged to all priests, the power of the keys — authority to open and shut — was proper to the supreme pontiff; and that this expression signified his authority to rule the Church, to define dogma, to legislate, and to dispense from laws.

But Rome is not alone. Several major denominations follow the same interpretive path:

  • Eastern Orthodox, which sees apostolic tradition and church councils as infallible extensions of Matthew 16:19
  • Anglican and Episcopalian which hold that the Church has authority to establish doctrine and practice even without strict biblical support
  • Many Protestant denominations, which adopt the same “church decrees first, heaven ratifies later” view when it comes to changing moral teachings or replacing biblical commandments with church traditions

In all these cases, Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 are treated as a blank check—Jesus supposedly giving His followers the right to declare on earth what God must then honor in heaven.

But is that what Jesus actually said?

The short answer is no, and the reason becomes unmistakably clear when we look at the Greek grammar, the Jewish legal background, and the purpose of the Gospel of Matthew itself.

A Closer Look at the Greek: What the Words Actually Mean

The original Greek text of Matthew shows something most Christians have never noticed: the verbs translated “shall be bound” and “shall be loosed” are in the future perfect passive in Greek. This is not a complicated grammatical point—but it is an absolutely crucial one.

Here is the literal Greek structure:

  • ἔσται δεδεμένον — “shall have been bound”
  • ἔσται λελυμένον — “shall have been loosed”

The future perfect passive means:

  • The action is completed in the future before another future action happens.
  • The subject (earth’s binding/loosing) is acted upon by something else (heaven’s prior decree).

So a correct translation would be:

“Whatever you bind on earth would need to have been bound in heaven.”

“Whatever you loose on earth would need to have been loosed in heaven.”

Heaven does not follow earth.
Earth follows heaven.

The apostles are not creating new decrees that God must adopt.
They are declaring on earth the decisions God has already established.

In other words, Jesus is not granting legislative power.
He is granting judicial authority.

This is the exact opposite of the Catholic interpretation, which requires the verbs to be simple future passives (“will be bound”), not future perfects (“will have been bound”). But the Greek is unambiguous. Yeshuah Messiah is not handing Peter—or any church leader—the ability to make doctrine that heaven must accept.

“Binding and Loosing” Was a Jewish Legal Phrase Long Before Jesus Used It

In first-century Judaism, “binding” (asar) and “loosing” (hitir) were technical legal terms used by judges: rabbis, elders, synagogue courts, and the Sanhedrin. These expressions were never used in a legislative manner and never meant “create new doctrine.” They meant:

  • bind → forbid
  • loose → permit

When rabbis “bound” something, they ruled it was forbidden under the Torah.
When rabbis “loosed” something, they ruled it was permitted by the Torah.

But rabbis did not have the right to create laws that contradicted the Torah. Their role was always interpretive, never legislative. Their rulings had authority only to the degree that they correctly applied what God had already revealed. The Jewish historian Josephus confirms that they did not have the power to legislate- only God through Moses and the Torah did:

“Our legislator [Moses] had no regard to any of these forms, but he ordained our government to be what, by a strained expression, may be termed a theocracy [theokratia],by ascribing the authority and power to God, and by persuading all the people to have a regard to him, as the author of all good things”
Josephus, Against Apion 2.165

When Jesus used the phrase “bind” and “loose,” He was using terminology every Jew would have recognized immediately. And the Jewish understanding confirms perfectly what the Greek grammar implies: That earth judges only what Heaven has already revealed and that heaven does not submit to earth’s decrees.

Let’s look at the actual Jewish sources.

Jewish Writings That Teach “Heaven Decides First; Earth Only Confirms”

Although Jewish writings do not use the Greek future perfect tense (Hebrew and Aramaic don’t have that grammatical form), they express the exact same idea that Matthew conveys with it. Here are some examples:

1. Mishnah—Binding and Loosing as Legal Terms

Mishnah Eduyot 1:5
Rabbinical disputes are described as decisions:

  • “to bind” (to forbid)
  • “to loose” (to permit)

These are judicial decisions—not new laws—but applications of God’s already-given commandments.

2. Mishnah Nedarim 3:1

A rabbi may:

  • “bind a vow” (make it remain in force)
  • “loose a vow” (release the person)

These actions involve applying heaven’s law, not inventing new instructions.

3. Josephus – The Pharisees “Bind and Loose” But Cannot Create Law

Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, describes Pharisees like this:

“The Pharisees have the power to bind and loose.”

But Josephus is clear that this means interpretation of Torah—not creation of new doctrine. Their job was to decide what the Torah already required.

4. Dead Sea Scrolls (Qumran): Earth Mirrors Heaven

1QS (Community Rule) 8:5–10
The Qumran community explicitly taught that earthly judgments must reflect decisions already made in the heavenly council:

The judges “shall do according to what has been decreed in the heavenly council.”

This is exactly the same structure implied by Matthew’s future perfect passive.

5. Talmud Bavli: “The Torah Is Not in Heaven”

Talmud Bavli, Bava Metzia 59b
The famous “Oven of Akhnai” story is one of the clearest examples. When a miraculous voice from heaven tries to endorse Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling, Rabbi Yehoshua stands and declares:

“The Torah is not in heaven!”

Meaning:

  • God already gave His decision through Moses.
  • Earthly courts must follow what Heaven has already decreed, not miracles or new revelations.

This rabbinic principle is identical to the idea behind Jesus’ statement in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18.

6. Midrash and Sifre: Earthly Courts Repeat Heavenly Judgments

Tanhuma, Devarim 11 states:

“As judgment is above, so judgment is below.”

Sifre Deuteronomy 17 says earthly courts must carry out the judgments:

“revealed from heaven in the Torah.”

Again, the idea is direct: Heaven decides; earth applies.

Why Matthew, a Jew Writing to Jews, Would Never Teach Torah-Overturning Authority

The Gospel of Matthew is the most Jewish of the four Gospels. Many scholars—both Christian and Jewish—have long observed that Matthew quotes the Hebrew Scriptures more than any other Gospel writer.  He constantly shows Jesus as fulfilling the Torah and Prophets. His genealogy, structure, and teaching sections are deeply rooted in Jewish tradition. Matthew’s primary audience was clearly Jewish believers.  Because of this, Matthew opens his Gospel with Jesus declaring:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets…
I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” (Matt. 5:17)

No Jew in the first century would read Matthew’s Gospel and conclude that Jesus overthrew the Torah, annulled commandments, or handed authority to men to “change God’s law.” That would completely contradict Matthew’s purpose. So it would make no sense—absolutely none—for Matthew to record Jesus saying:

“I give the Church authority to override the Torah. Heaven will obey whatever you declare.”

Everything about Matthew’s Gospel argues against that interpretation. Instead, Matthew’s Jewish readers would immediately recognize Jesus’ words as classic rabbinic language that  describing judicial authority under the preexisting authority of heaven’s law.  A paraphrased Jewish translation of Jesus’ message would have sounded like this:

“You will be my representatives. Whatever decisions you make must reflect what the Father has already decreed in heaven. You will bind and loose according to the heavenly Torah—not contradict it.”

This reading fits Matthew’s grammar, his Jewish context, and his theological purpose perfectly.

So What Did Jesus Actually Give the Apostles Authority to Do?

Based on the Greek grammar, the Jewish legal background, and Matthew’s overall message, the correct interpretation is that  Jesus gave the apostles judicial authority—not legislative authority.  They had the same authority as the Sanhedrin and other Jewish courts of the day to make halakhic (legal) decisions.  This could be anything from community disputes, questions about clean/unclean interpretations, questions about matters of discipline or about synagogue-like rulings in the ekklesia. Their decisions were valid only when they aligned with Heaven’s already-existing will. This is what the future perfect passive communicates:

  • “will have already been bound in heaven”
  • “will have already been loosed in heaven”

Jesus did not authorize anyone to create new doctrines or override Scripture. Jesus upheld the Torah.
Matthew’s Gospel upholds the Torah. The apostles upheld the Torah. These binding and loosing are rooted in Torah, not later church tradition. Keep in mind Yeshuah rebuked the Pharisees for adding human tradition:

“You make void the word of God through your tradition.” (Mark 7:13)

He was never going to create a new system where His own followers would later do the same thing. If Jesus never granted the Church the authority to override God’s commandments, then:

  • No church can replace the Sabbath with Sunday
  • No church can add religious holidays not found in Scripture
  • No church can authorize venerating saints or praying to the dead
  • No council or pope can declare new doctrine
  • No denomination can loosen biblical commandments to suit modern culture

Any church that claims such authority is simply repeating the same error Jesus condemned in His own day: elevating human tradition over the Word of God. Jesus entrusted His disciples with a serious responsibility—not power to rewrite Scripture, but the honor of applying heaven’s eternal law faithfully on earth.

When we read Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 through first-century Jewish eyes—and with a proper understanding of the Greek—the meaning becomes clear: Heaven does not follow the Church. The Church follows Heaven.

Jesus was not handing Peter (or anyone else) the authority to create doctrine. He was restoring the proper biblical function of judges within God’s community: to apply God’s already-established will faithfully, accurately, and righteously.

Far from undermining the Torah, Jesus was affirming it—and equipping His disciples to uphold it as Heaven had always intended.

This understanding aligns with Torah observing Christians, the authority of Scripture, and the example of the early church. It honors both the Jewish background of Jesus’ teaching and the grammatical precision of the Greek text.

And most importantly—it lets Jesus speak for Himself, free from centuries of accumulated human tradition.