oy vey. Peter had thus the honour of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles.
Unfortunately, Barnes puts on the brakes before he gets to the part about Peter receiving the keys to the kingdom of heaven. That's indisputably an office of power given to Peter. Leave that out, and sure, Peter looks like some kind of ecclesial wedding planner going out and setting the stage for Paul and James. But included in the scope of Jesus' calling Peter "Rock", receiving the keys to the kingdom is clearly an appointment of power. Peter is the man at the gate. Jesus literally relinquishes his decision-making authority to Peter ("because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.") It's a verse which is ignored at the peril of those who wish to fit Peter into the crowd of other apostles instead of recognizing the very words of Christ as evidence par excellence of his anointed mission ("feed my sheep").
More than all, it is not said here or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter should have infallible successors who should be the vicegerents of Christ, and the head of the church.
An incredible statement. Barnes' thus believes that the will of God was to establish a Church that would be prone to error following the life of Peter? If he can extrapolate that, one could also extrapolate that Jesus only wanted the Apostles to make disciples of "all nations" that existed during their lifetime and just stop there.
God cannot create anything which is privated, except he who suffers the transmission of Original Sin from his parents upon conception. If the Church is truly the body of Christ, there can be ZERO error. Any privation in the establishment of the Church is a declaration that God created something evil (deprived of goodness in some way). Therein lies the infallibility of the Church in teaching on faith and morals.
"I will make you the honoured instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church."
Yes - if the "keys to the kingdom" were not explicitly given over to Peter. But they were, and thus, authority over all others. That verse cannot be simply tossed aside. It is indisputably a handing over of power which is guarded by that which the Father reveals to Peter. So, in essence that power is entitled to Peter, but with the guidance of heaven. Why was this necessary? Because Christ willed for a visible Church that would make present His incorporeal Trinitarian life to us lowly humans whose "eyes have not seen" the actual nature (substance) of God.
And if it can be agreed that Peter received wisdom and authority at the outset of the Christian faith - theoretically - in order to guard the Church from error, why would God suddenly pull the rug out from His own people when many articles of faith had yet to be defined? (Triune God, the hypostatic union, the very divinity of Christ) The battle of the Church against the Gnostics, the Montanists, the Aryans, etc. is either proof that the Church was given infallible authority, or the world has been consigned to theological error for almost two thousand years. (Really - it's the word of the Church versus the word of the heretics. If the imbued authority of the Church in the matters of faith and morals is not evident, the possibility exists that the Gnostics were right.)
Barnes' Notes on the New Testament
Verse 19. And I will give unto thee, etc. A key is an instrument for opening a door. He that is in possession of it has the power of access, and has a general care and administration of a house. Hence, in the Bible, a key is used as a symbol of superintendence, an emblem of power and authority. See Isaiah 22:22;; Revelation 1:18; 3:7. The kingdom of heaven here means, doubtless, the church on earth, See Barnes "Matthew 3:2". When he says, therefore, he will give him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he means that he will make him the instrument of opening the door of faith to the world--the first to preach the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles. This was done, Acts 2:14-36,; 10:1. The "power of the keys" was given to Peter alone solely for this reason; the power of "binding and loosing" on earth was given to the other apostles with him. See Matthew 18:18. The only pre-eminence, then, that Peter had, was the honour of first opening the doors of the gospel to the world.
Whatsoever thou shalt bind, etc. The phrase to bind and to loose was often used by the Jews. It meant to prohibit and to permit. To bind a thing was to forbid it; to loose it, to allow it to be done. Thus they said about gathering wood on the sabbath day. "The school of Shammei binds it"--i, e. forbids it; "the school of Hillel looses it"--i. e. allows it. When Jesus gave this power to the apostles, he meant that whatsoever they forbid in the church should have Divine authority; whatever they permitted, or commanded, should also have Divine authority--that is, should be bound or loosed in heaven, or meet the approbation of God. They were to be guided infallibly in the organization of the church,
(1.) by the teaching of Christ, and
(2.) by the teaching of the Holy Spirit.
This does not refer to persons, but to things--"whatsoever," not whosoever. It refers to rites and ceremonies in the church. Such of the Jewish customs as they should forbid were to be forbidden; and such as they thought proper to permit were to be allowed. Such rites as they should appoint in the church were to have the force of Divine authority. Accordingly, they forbid circumcision and the eating of things offered to idols, and strangled, and blood, Acts 15:20. They founded the church, and ordained its rites, as of Divine authority.