Binding and Loosing

Fencerguy · Jun 20, 2011

razeontherock said:
We can brush all that foolishness off. Our Faith is Living, and based on the Living Word Himself. (Not some dusty book. Not some mortal's teaching, either

doesnt our understanding of Scripture come from some mortal's teaching though? Do we all not look to some other human to seek verification that our understanding of Scripture is accurate? If we are all able to interpret Scripture apart from anyone else's teaching, that would seem to leave the door open to everyone becoming their own denomination....

OrthodoxyUSA · Jun 20, 2011

Fencerguy said:
I do indeed, seven years....look up a club in your area, its an incredibly intoxicating sport!!

So really its just a question of the humanity of the Scriptures....not that they containt significant, theologically relevent errors, but that they have enough influence from the human portion of their authorship that we can trust their overall validity....

It depends on what you want to discuss.

If we get into a discussion about why we do not celebrate the Jewish passover it can mean a lot.

The underlying structure of Christianity is that it is a new covenant and the old has been replaced.

I know you can see how that can get deep very quickly.

Forgive me...

Fencerguy · Jun 20, 2011

OrthodoxyUSA said:
It depends on what you want to discuss.

If we get into a discussion about why we do not celebrate the Jewish passover it can mean a lot.

The underlying structure of Christianity is that it is a new covenant and the old has been replaced.

I know you can see how that can get deep very quickly.

Forgive me...

Oh yes it can definitely become deep....I guess my only concern is that if the Scriptures were thought to contain any significant error, or that such a possibility were open, then we would have a very difficult time in knowing if anything that we know about our faith is really trustworthy...

OrthodoxyUSA · Jun 20, 2011

Fencerguy said:
Oh yes it can definitely become deep....I guess my only concern is that if the Scriptures were thought to contain any significant error, or that such a possibility were open, then we would have a very difficult time in knowing if anything that we know about our faith is really trustworthy...

I'm just saying it's not perfect... and it is not without need of being explained.

To further that idea, I would say also that the Apostolic Churches are the correct sources to draw from, and that any explaination that does not come from these sources it not Apostolic.

IOW ~ It is not correct to take a section of scripture and explain it in any other way than can be found in one or more of the Apostolic Churches.

This seperates Apostolic Christian reality (even if we don't yet understand it) from Christian fiction (such as the "Left Behind" series.

Forgive me...

OrthodoxyUSA · Jun 20, 2011

For instance... how we see the subject is scripture...

http://www.christianforums.com/t7569650/

What is the emphasis on??? faith or the sacraments?

Forgive me...

Fencerguy · Jun 20, 2011

OrthodoxyUSA said:
I'm just saying it's not perfect... and it is not without need of being explained.

To further that idea, I would say also that the Apostolic Churches are the correct sources to draw from, and that any explaination that does not come from these sources it not Apostolic.

IOW ~ It is not correct to take a section of scripture and explain it in any other way than can be found in one or more of the Apostolic Churches.

This seperates Apostolic Christian reality (even if we don't yet understand it) from Christian fiction (such as the "Left Behind" series.

Forgive me...

I think I agree with you here....

Would the Orthodox Church be the modern successor of the Apostolic churches? Or the Roman Church (from their perspective)? Does the Apostolic Succession mean that the teachings of the Orthodox church are assumed to be in line with the Apostolic churches?

OrthodoxyUSA · Jun 20, 2011

Fencerguy said:
I think I agree with you here....

Would the Orthodox Church be the modern successor of the Apostolic churches? Or the Roman Church (from their perspective)? Does the Apostolic Succession mean that the teachings of the Orthodox church are assumed to be in line with the Apostolic churches?

Many of the Orthodox Churches are truely Apostolic Churches. Such is the case with The Church of Antioch.

Some are not, but follow those Apostolic Churches.

The Church of Rome is also an Apostolic Church.

From my POV, I draw the Dogma from all of them and accept the differences between them as doctrinal. IF they disagree on a point of Dogma, I look for the older of the beliefs.

If it's not held as Dogma, I don't concern myself with it unless it counters what multiple truely Apostolic Church's Dogmatic statements.

Forgive me...

Rick Otto · Jun 20, 2011

Fencerguy said:
doesnt our understanding of Scripture come from some mortal's teaching though? Do we all not look to some other human to seek verification that our understanding of Scripture is accurate? If we are all able to interpret Scripture apart from anyone else's teaching, that would seem to leave the door open to everyone becoming their own denomination....

And everyone being a priest!=8O

Hupomone10 · Jun 26, 2011

SummaScriptura said:
It is difficult to render Mat. 16:19 and Mat. 18:18 into English, but not impossible. The resulting verb tense does not roll off the tongue well and requires some thought. Isn't it amazing how God requires us simple ones (and this all too often foolish one, (I speak of I)) to think things out?

Here is a pretty literal take on Mt. 18:18 in English from Young's Literal Translation:

"Verily I say to you, Whatever things ye may bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever things ye may loose on the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens." (YLT)

The part of this verse that cannot be translated into English without interpretation is the "binding" and "loosing" part. It was a phrase used within Judaism to describe what a rabbi does. When a rabbi "binds" in his teaching, he forbids a thing, when a rabbi "looses" in his teaching, he permits a thing.

Rabbi Yeshua binds: "It shall not be so among you!"

Rabbi Yeshua looses: "Do not stop him!"

It is truly amazing how many wrong-headed ideas have originated due to the poor state of this verse in translation in the history of the Church.

All things considered, I still feel the Amplified handles the overall situation best:

"Truly I tell you, whatever you forbid and declare to be improper and unlawful on earth must be what is already forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit and declare proper and lawful on earth must be what is already permitted in heaven."

I got a kick out of your signature.

I'm catching up on this thread, so this might already have been responded to or may seem out of sync with the latest posts. But to comment on your post and the OP...

In a brief and limited study on this, what I found agrees with what you said here. And this passage relates to John 20:23 as well, since it cannot be in the sense of eternal forgiveness and eternally declared righteous that Jesus said this to the disciples/soon-to-be-apostles, eternal life and the new birth not being according to "the will of man" (John 1:13) but by the individual receiving Christ through faith (John 1:12).

Actually, at this point after reading your post it was interesting to go back and read the OP, which made more sense now as I can see that the context before this Matt. 18:18 verse is absolutely essential to the proper application of it. I would say that Matt. 16:16 means the same thing as 18:18, given that this context of 18:18 is actually how the early church was given guidance. The apostles got together and made a very short list of stuff that would be restricted (bound) and things that would be allowed (loosed):

Acts 15:28,29
"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials:
that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell."

I found the following, which supports what you mentioned, and also Otto in his first post. It and may be too long or not interesting to some, but was interesting to me. I'll include it in the next post so as not to make my comment on yours too long...

Blessings,
H.

Hupomone10 · Jun 26, 2011

Whatsoever thou shalt bind ...
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 forbade 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 commanded the Gentile converts to abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood Acts 15:20; and, in general, they organized the church, and directed what was to be observed and what was to be avoided. The rules laid down by them in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles, in connection with the teachings of the Saviour as recorded in the evangelists, constitute the only law binding on Christians in regard to the order of the church, and the rites and ceremonies to be observed in it.
- Albert Barnes Notes on the Bible (Barnes can be looked up on Wiki)

Blessings,
H.

Hupomone10 · Jun 26, 2011

Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth
"This mode of expression was frequent among the Jews: they considered that every thing that was done upon earth, according to the order of God, was at the same time done in heaven: hence they were accustomed to say, that when the priest, on the day of atonement, offered the two goats upon earth, the same were offered in heaven. As one goat therefore is permitted to escape on earth, one is permitted to escape in heaven; and when the priests cast the lots on earth, the priest also casts the lots in heaven. See Sohar. Leviticus fol. 26; and see Lightfoot and Schoettgen.

"These words will receive considerable light from Lev. 13:3, 13:23 : The priest shall look upon him (the leper) and pronounce him unclean. Hebrew וטמא אתוvetime otho, he shall pollute him, i.e. shall declare him polluted, from the evidences mentioned before. And in Lev. 13:23: The priest shall pronounce him clean, וטהרו הכהvetiharo hacohen, the priest shall cleanse him, i.e. declare he is clean, from the evidences mentioned in the verse. In the one case the priest declared the person infected with the leprosy, and unfit for civil society; and, in the other, that the suspected person was clean, and might safely associate with his fellows in civil or religious assemblies. The disciples of our Lord, from having the keys, i.e. the true knowledge of the doctrine of the kingdom of heaven, should be able at all times to distinguish between the clean and the unclean, and pronounce infallible judgment; and this binding and loosing, or pronouncing fit or unfit for fellowship with the members of Christ, being always according to the doctrine of the Gospel of God, should be considered as proceeding immediately from heaven, and consequently as Divinely ratified.

"That binding and loosing were terms in frequent use among the Jews, and that they meant bidding and forbidding, granting and refusing, declaring lawful or unlawful, etc., Dr. Lightfoot, after having given numerous instances, thus concludes: -

“To these may be added, if need were, the frequent (shall I say?) or infinite use of the phrases, אסור ומותר bound and loosed, which we meet with thousands of times over. But from these allegations the reader sees, abundantly enough, both the frequency and the common use of this phrase, and the sense of it also; namely, first, that it is used in doctrine, and in judgments, concerning things allowed or not allowed in the law. Secondly, that to bind is the same with, to forbid, or to declare forbidden. To think that Christ, when he used the common phrase, was not understood by his hearers in the common and vulgar sense, shall I call it a matter of laughter, or of madness?

To this, therefore, do these words amount: When the time was come wherein the Mosaic law, as to some part of it, was to be abolished, and left off, and, as to another part of it, was to be continued and to last for ever, he granted Peter here, and to the rest of the apostles, Mat_18:18, a power to abolish or confirm what they thought good, and as they thought good; being taught this, and led by the Holy Spirit: as if he should say, Whatsoever ye shall bind in the law of Moses, that is, forbid, it shall be forbidden, the Divine authority confirming it; and whatsoever ye shall loose, that is, permit, or shall teach that it is permitted and lawful, shall be lawful and permitted. Hence they bound, that is forbade, circumcision to the believers; eating of things offered to idols, of things strangled, and of blood, for a time, to the Gentiles; and that which they bound on earth was confirmed in heaven. They loosed, that is, allowed purification to Paul, and to four other brethren, for the shunning of scandal; Act_21:24 and, in a word, by these words of Christ it was committed to them, the Holy Spirit directing, that they should make decrees concerning religion, as to the use or rejection of Mosaic rites and judgments, and that either for a time, or for ever.

“Let the words be applied by way of paraphrase to the matter that was transacted at present with Peter: ‘I am about to build a Gentile Church,’ saith Christ, and to thee, O Peter, do I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that thou mayest first open the door of faith to them; but if thou askest by what rule that Church is to be governed, when the Mosaic rule may seem so improper for it, thou shalt be so guided by the Holy Spirit, that whatsoever of the law of Moses thou shalt forbid them shall be forbidden; whatsoever thou grantest them shall be granted; and that under a sanction made in heaven.’ Hence, in that instant, when he should use his keys, that is, when he was now ready to open the gate of the Gospel to the Gentiles, Acts 10, he was taught from heaven that the consorting of the Jew with the Gentile, which before had been bound, was now loosed; and the eating of any creature convenient for food was now loosed, which before had been bound; and he in like manner looses both these.

“Those words of our Savior, Joh_20:23, Whose sins ye remit, they are remitted to them, for the most part are forced to the same sense with these before us, when they carry quite another sense. Here the business is of doctrine only, not of persons; there of persons, not of doctrine. Here of things lawful or unlawful in religion, to be determined by the apostles; there of persons obstinate or not obstinate, to be punished by them, or not to be punished.

“As to doctrine, the apostles were doubly instructed.
1. So long sitting at the feet of their Master, they had imbibed the evangelical doctrine.
“2. The Holy Spirit directing them, they were to determine concerning the legal doctrine and practice, being completely instructed and enabled in both by the Holy Spirit descending upon them. As to the persons, they were endowed with a peculiar gift, so that, the same Spirit directing them, if they would retain and punish the sins of any, a power was delivered into their hands of delivering to Satan, of punishing with diseases, plagues, yea, death itself, which Peter did to Ananias and Sapphira; Paul to Elymas, Hymeneus, and Philetus, etc.”

"After all these evidences and proofs of the proper use of these terms, to attempt to press the word, into the service long assigned them by the Church of Rome, would, to use the words of Dr. Lightfoot, be “a matter of laughter or of madness.” No Church can use them in the sense thus imposed upon them, which was done merely to serve secular ends; and least of all can that very Church that thus abuses them."

- Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible (Clarke can be looked up on Wiki)

Blessings,
H.

Fencerguy · Jun 27, 2011

From Matthew Chapter 16, Verse 18: The Primacy of Peter, for another perspective...

"The Council of Ephesus, 431 AD
No one doubts, in fact, it is obvious to all ages that the holy and most Blessed Peter, head and Prince of the Apostles, the pillar of faith, and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race. First Vatican Council, 1870, The First Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, Chapter 2 Therefore if anyone says that the blessed Apostle Peter was not constituted by Christ the Lord as the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant, or that he received immediately and directly from Jesus Christ our Lord only a primacy of honor and not a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction: anathema sit.
Christ continues with the conferral of the "keys" which appears to be a clear statement of a position of leadership authority. Mt 16:19-20 I will give you (singular) the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
This biblical commission echoes one other conferral of keys in the Bible. Eliakim receives the keys of the royal palace. Is 22:22 I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. Apart from this passage, there is no background in biblical language for binding and loosening. In Rabbinical Judaism, the words signify rabbinical decisions; to bind is to give a decision that imposes an obligation, and to loose is to give a decision that removes an obligation. "

Binding and Loosing

Fencerguy

Defender of the Unpopular!

More options

OrthodoxyUSA

Well-Known Member

More options

Fencerguy

Defender of the Unpopular!

More options

OrthodoxyUSA

Well-Known Member

More options

OrthodoxyUSA

Well-Known Member

More options

Fencerguy

Defender of the Unpopular!

More options

OrthodoxyUSA

Well-Known Member

More options

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides

More options

Hupomone10

Veteran

More options

Hupomone10

Veteran

More options

Hupomone10

Veteran

More options

Fencerguy

Defender of the Unpopular!

More options

Similar threads

Binding and Loosing

Defender of the Unpopular!

Well-Known Member

Defender of the Unpopular!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Defender of the Unpopular!

Well-Known Member

The Dude Abides

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Defender of the Unpopular!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency