Keys of the Kingdom?

[Eileen]

Jesus said in Matthew 16:19
"And I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"

Heidelberg question #83 asks:
What is the Office of the Keys?

The answer:
The preaching of the Holy Gospel and Christian discipline; by these two the Kingdom of Heaven is opened to believers and shut against unbelievers.

The further explanation states that there are two keys to open and close the doors of God's Kingdom (the church visible and invisible). As the keys are used, people are either admitted into the church or locked outside by official church preaching. The Gospel is proclaimed and the door is opened to those who believe. The door is closed to those who hear the Gospel preached and do not believe, although it is Christ alone who admits believers into His Kingdom. The second key is church discipline which is used for any who show themselves unsound either in doctrine or in life and thereby excluded from Christian Communion.

I read here on the forum Gill's commentary on this scripture and in some ways it agrees and in some ways it doesn't. Can anyone shed some light on this scripture in a simplified manner from a NCT perspective?

Thanks!

[Eileen]

I found another thread "binding & loosing" that discussed this scripture. It must be a difficult one to come to an understanding of.

I wonder if the keys do represent "preaching and discipline" and were given to the "church" does this mean the visible church? The visible church can use discipline of an erring brother or sister as a means to keep those in who belong and to cast out those who are disobedient but I can't fathom that this in any way affects the true Kingdom of God which is the invisible church and made up of the "body of Christ". There will always be wheat and tares, so who really knows but God alone?

The same with the key of preaching..The gospel is not only preached in the church by a faithful minister of the Word but by faithful believer's who preach the gospel to their neighbor ( and we know of coarse that all are our neighbor).
We are all prophets, priests and kings.

I guess I am a bit confused as to who Jesus was giving the keys of the kingdom of heaven to. Was He speaking only to Peter at the time, was He speaking to the visible church or was He speaking to the invisible church? Maybe this is one of those mysteries that will not be solved here in this temporal place and if the truth be known maybe this is something I really don't need to know........at least not now

[tomas1]

This is the best article on this subject that I have found. I think it explains "binding and loosing" and also the meaning of ekklesia very well. http://www.ntrf.org/Manual/ekklesia.htm

[Eileen]

Thanks T1 for the link. I read the article there and have re-read Gill's commentary and also Matthew Henry on e-sword. Gill and Henry are in agreement about the binding and loosing: The apostles were given the key or power to declare that some things which had been forbidden by the law of Moses were now to be allowed, ie, the eating of meats, etc. and some things which had been forbidden were now to be allowed, ie, divorce. Peter exercised this power when he was taught and subsequently taught "to call nothing unclean". The power of the key of doctrine or knowledge was exercised.

Gill says the "keys" are the abilities to open and explain the Gospel truth. Sounds like a simple true explanation.

A treasure of an article right here on the forum "A New Eccesiology" by Robert Higby (BT) on the ekkelsia. Makes me yearn for the fellowship he suggests without all the "organization".

[disciple]

Can anyone shed some light on this scripture in a simplified manner from a NCT perspective?

i don't know that it's necessary or proper to give an interpretation from a NCT perspective (or any other, for that matter). i think it's probably best to understand it within its jewish context. i don't recall what atkerson says, but here are a couple of quotes to get you steered in the right direction:

Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah by Alfred Edersheim

If hitherto it has appeared that what Christ said to Peter, though infinitely transcending Jewish ideas, was yet, in its expression and even cast of thought, such as to be quite intelligible to Jewish minds, nay, so familiar to them, that, as by well-marked steps, they might ascend to the higher Sanctuary, the difficult words with which our Lord closed must be read in the same light. For, assuredly, in interpreting such a saying of Christ to Peter, our first inquiry must be, what it would convey to the person to whom the promise was addressed. And here we recall, that no other terms were in more constant use in Rabbinic Canon-Law than those of ‘binding’ and ‘loosing.’ The words are the literal translation of the Hebrew equivalents Asar ({hebrew}), which means ‘to bind,’ in the sense of prohibiting, and Hittir ({hebrew}, from {hebrew}) which means ‘to loose,’ in the sense of permitting. For the latter the term Shera or Sheri ({hebrew}, or {hebrew}) is also used. But this expression is, both in Targumic and Talmudic diction, not merely the equivalent of permitting, but passes into that of remitting or pardoning. On the other hand, ‘binding and loosing’ referred simply to things or acts prohibiting or else permitting them, declaring them lawful or unlawful. This was one of the powers claimed by the Rabbis. As regards their laws (not decisions as to things or acts), it was a principle, that while in Scripture there were some that bound and some that loosed, all the laws of the Rabbis were in reference to ‘binding.’[3670] If this then represented the legislative, another pretension of the Rabbis, that of declaring ‘free’ or else ‘liable,’ i.e., guilty (Patur or Chayyabh), expressed their claim to the judicial power. By the first of these they ‘bound’ or ‘loosed’ acts or things; by the second they ‘remitted’ or ‘retained,’ declared a person free from, or liable to punishment. to compensation, or to sacrifice. These two powers - the legislative and judicial - which belonged to the Rabbinic office, Christ now transferred, and that not in their pretension, but in their reality, to His Apostles: the first here to Peter as their Representative, the second after His Resurrection to the Church.[3671]

On the second of these powers we need not at present dwell. That of ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ included all the legislative functions for the new Church. And it was a reality. In the view of the Rabbis heaven was like earth, and questions were discussed and settled by a heavenly Sanhedrin. Now, in regard to some of their earthly decrees, they were wont to say that ‘the Sanhedrin above’ confirmed what ‘the Sanhedrin beneath’ had done. But the words of Christ, as they avoided the foolish conceit of His contemporaries, left it not doubtful, but conveyed the assurance that, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, whatsoever they bound or loosed on earth would be bound or loosed in heaven...

...It still remains to explain, so far as we can, these two points: in what this power of forgiving and retaining sins consists, and in what manner it resides in the Church. In regard to the former we must first inquire what idea it would convey to those to whom Christ spake the words. It has already been explained,[6288] that the power of ‘loosing’ and ‘binding’ referred to the legislative authority claimed by, and conceded to, the Rabbinic College.

Similarly, as previously stated, that here referred to applied to their juridical or judicial power, according to which they pronounced a person either, ‘Zakkai,’ innocent or ‘free;’ ‘absolved,’ ‘Patur;’ or else ‘liable,’ ‘guilty,’ ‘Chayyabh’ (whether liable to punishment or sacrifice.) In the true sense, therefore, this is rather administrative, disciplinary power, ‘the power of the keys’ - such as St. Paul would have had the Corinthian Church put in force - the power of admission and exclusion, of the authoritative declaration of the forgiveness of sins, in the exercise of which power (as it seems to the present writer) the authority for the administration of the Holy Sacraments is also involved. And yet it is not, as is sometimes represented, ‘absolution from sin,’ which belongs only to God and to Christ as Head of the Church, but absolution of the sinner, which He has delegated to His Church: ‘Whosesover sins ye forgive, they are forgiven.’ These words also teach us, that the Rabbis claimed in virtue of their office, that the Lord bestowed on His Church in virtue of her receiving, and of the indwelling of, the Holy Ghost.

In answering the second question proposed, we must bear in mind one important point. The power of ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ had been primarily committed to the Apostles,[6289] and exercised by them in connection with the Church.[6290] On the other hand, that of forgiving and retaining sins, in the sense explained, was primarily bestowed on the Church, and excercised by her through her representatives, the Apostles, and those to whom they committed rule.[6291] Although, therefore, the Lord on that night committed this power to His Church, it was in the person of her representatives and rulers. The Apostles alone could exercise legislative function,[6292] but the Church, has to the end of time ‘the power of the keys.’

IVP Bible Background Commentary

Mt 16:18 Many Jews felt that the Jewish high court acted on the authority of God’s tribunal in heaven, in a sense ratifying its decrees. "Binding" and "loosing" (also 18:18) were terms regularly used for *rabbis’ legislative authority in interpreting Scripture ("prohibiting" and "permitting"), and thus could apply to judicial situations as well.

Mt 18:18 "Binding" and "loosing," terms normally used for tying up or imprisoning versus freeing or releasing, provide a natural metaphor for condemning or acquitting in a court. As terms regularly used for *rabbis’ legislative authority in interpreting Scripture, they could naturally apply to judicial situations as well.

[disciple]

http://www.studylight.org/com/jlc/vi...mt&chapter=016

III. But now to bind and loose, a very usual phrase in the Jewish schools, was spoken of things, not of persons; which is here also to be observed in the articles what and whatsoever, chapter 18.
One might produce thousands of examples out of their writings: we will only offer a double decad; the first, whence the frequent use of this word may appear; the second, whence the sense may:

1. "R. Jochanan said [to those of Tiberias], 'Why have ye brought this elder to me? Whatsoever I loose, he binds; whatsoever I bind, he looseth.'"

2. Thou shalt neither bind nor loose.

3. "Nachum, the brother of R. Illa, asked R. Jochanan concerning a certain matter. To whom he answered, Thou shalt neither bind nor loose."

4. This man binds, but the other looseth.

5. "R. Chaija said, Whatsoever I have bound to you elsewhere, I will loose to you here."

6. He asked one wise man, and he bound: Do not ask another wise man, lest perhaps he loose.

7. The mouth that bindeth is the mouth that looseth.

8. "Although of the disciples of Shammai, and those of Hillel, the one bound, and the other loosed; yet they forbade not but that these might make purifications according to the others."

9. A wise man that judgeth judgment, defileth and cleanseth [that is, he declares defiled or clean]; he looseth and bindeth. The same also is in Maimonides.

10. Whether it is lawful to go into the necessary-house with the phylacteries only to piss? Rabbena looseth, and Rabh Ada bindeth. The mystical doctor, who neither bindeth nor looseth.

The other decad shall show the phrase applied to things:

1. "In Judea they did [servile] works on the Passover-eve" (that is, on the day going before the Passover), "until noon, but in Galilee not. But that which the school of Shammai binds until the night, the school of Hillel looseth until the rising of the sun."

2. "A festival-day may teach us this, in which they loosed by the notion of a [servile] work," killing and boiling, &c., as the Gloss notes. But in which they bound by the notion of a sabbatism: that is, as the same Gloss speaks, 'The bringing in some food from without the limits of the sabbath.'

3. "They do not send letters by the hand of a heathen on the eve of a sabbath, no, nor on the fifth day of the week. Yea, the school of Shammai binds it, even on the fourth day of the week; but the school of Hillel looseth it."

4. "They do not begin a voyage in the great sea on the eve of the sabbath, no, nor on the fifth day of the week. Yea, the school of Shammai binds it, even on the fourth day of the week; but the school of Hillel looses it."

5. "To them that bathe in the hot-baths in the sabbath-day, they bind washing, and they loose sweating."

6. "Women may not look into a looking-glass on the sabbath-day, if it be fixed to a wall, Rabbi loosed it, but the wise men bound it."

7. "Concerning the moving of empty vessels [on the sabbath-day], of the filling of which there is no intention; the school of Shammai binds it, the school of Hillel looseth it."

8. "Concerning gathering wood on a feast-day scattered about a field, the school of Shammai binds it, the school of Hillel looseth it."

9. They never loosed to us a crow, nor bound to us a pigeon.

10. "Doth a seah of unclean Truma fall into a hundred seahs of clean Truma? The school of Shammai binds it, the school of Hillel looseth it." There are infinite examples of this nature.

Let a third decad also be added (that nothing may be left unsaid in this matter), giving examples of the parts of the phrase distinctly and by themselves:

1. "The things which they bound not, that they might have a hedge to the law."

2. "The scribes bound the leaven."

3. They neither punished nor bound, unless concerning the leaven itself.

4. "The wise men bound the eating of leaven from the beginning of the sixth hour," of the day of the Passover.

5. "R. Abhu saith, R. Gamaliel Ben Rabbi asked me. What if I should go into the market? and I bound it him."

1. The Sanhedrim, which looseth two things, let it not hasten to loose three.

2. "R. Jochanan saith, They necessarily loose saluting on the sabbath."

3. The wise men loose all oils, or all fat things.

4. "The school of Shammai saith, They do not steep ink, colours, and vetches" on the eve of the sabbath, "unless they be steeped before the day be ended: but the school of Hillel looseth it." Many more such like instances occur there.

5. "R. Meir loosed the mixing of wine and oil, to anoint a sick man on the sabbath."

To these may be added, if need were, the frequent (shall I say?) or infinite use of the phrases, 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, chapter 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, Acts 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 rite 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 10:28, 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 Saviour, John 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 their 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, &c.

[disciple]

The keys of the kingdom of heaven: there is general agreement that keys symbolize authority, but there is wide disagreement among scholars regarding the nature and extent of this authority given to Peter. Some scholars see here the picture of the kingdom of heaven as a large palace with doors to which Peter has been given the keys. Peter would then be the “gate keeper of heaven,” having the authority to decide who could or could not enter its gates. In support of this exegesis is the analogy between “gates” (verse 18) and “keys” (verse 19) on the one hand, and “the world of the dead (verse 18) and “the kingdom of heaven” (verse 19) on the other hand.

There is, however, an alternative interpretation according to which Peter is not the gate keeper of heaven, but the steward of the Kingdom of heaven upon earth. In this regard his primary function is that of “binding and loosing,” which would mean the authority to render the correct interpretation to the Law of Christ. Peter would then stand in contrast to the teachers of the Law of 23.13, who are the self-appointed interpreters of God’s Law.

Newman, B. M., & Stine, P. C. (1992). A handbook on the Gospel of Matthew. Originally published: A translator's handbook on the Gospel of Matthew, c1988. UBS helps for translators; UBS handbook series (Mt 16:19). New York: United Bible Societies.

[disciple]

Bind ... loose (Grk: deesees, Strongs: 1210)... (Grk: lusees, Strongs: 3089). In a sense common among the Jews, of "forbidding" or "allowing." No other terms were in more constant use in Rabbinic canon law than those of binding and loosing. They represented the legislative and judicial powers of the Rabbinic office. These powers Christ now transferred, and that not in their pretension, but in their reality, to his apostles; the first, here, to Peter, as their representative, the second, after his resurrection, to the church (John 20:23, Edersheim). "This legislative authority conferred upon Peter can only wear an offensive aspect when it is conceived of as possessing an arbitrary character, and as being in no way determined by the ethical influences of the Holy Spirit, and when it is regarded as being of an absolute nature, as independent of any connection with the rest of the apostles. Since the power of binding and loosing, which is here conferred upon Peter, is ascribed (Matt. 18:18) to the apostles generally, the power conferred upon the former is set in its proper light, and shown to be of necessity a power of a collegiate nature, so that Peter is not to be regarded as exclusively endowed with it, either in whole or in part, but is simply to be looked upon as first among his equals" (Meyer on Matt. 16:19; 18:18).

[disciple]

To "bind" (Grk: deesees, Strongs: 1210) in rabbinical language is to forbid, to "loose" (Grk: lusees, Strongs: 3089) is to permit. Peter would be like a rabbi who passes on many points. Rabbis of the school of Hillel "loosed" many things that the school of Shammai "bound." The teaching of Jesus is the standard for Peter and for all preachers of Christ.

[Eileen]

In printing out your post and reading, it appears from all of the commentaries that the binding & loosing was directly related to the whole of the Mosiac law, especially given the times...the transition time in history between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. A time when suddenly what had been bound was now loosed and what had been loosed was now bound.

My mind automatically jumps forward to today and the binding & loosing that, given to the church, is in authority for us today?

We have the complete Word of God, which is the teaching of Jesus, so is there "true" binding and loosing effectual now? I think of the commandments of man and what some believe is legal and what some don't and the freedom we have in Christ. I know the issue is huge and can't be answered in a post.

Thanks, I will continue to read. A very high standard for us all as we look to Christ as our rule of life.

[disciple]

My mind automatically jumps forward to today and the binding & loosing that, given to the church, is in authority for us today?

We have the complete Word of God, which is the teaching of Jesus, so is there "true" binding and loosing effectual now? I think of the commandments of man and what some believe is legal and what some don't and the freedom we have in Christ. I know the issue is huge and can't be answered in a post.

i would agree with you eileen. i do not think it is good and proper exegesis to extend this willy nilly to whomever we please (the roman catholic and protestant interpretations both seem to be very liberal with the verse and apply it beyond the original audience...i.e., the disciples/apostles). i wonder what exegetical basis there is for extending the statement in this way (i.e., to apply to all gospel teachers or to apostolic succession).

anyway, i think it best to understand this as being an application to the composition and development of the law of Christ in the ministries and writings of the apostles (cf. Acts 15). i see no exegetical basis for reading this any other way. but that's just my two cents...

[tomas1]

I think this privilege, (binding and loosing) might still be used by the church today, as when the church collectively decided that slavery and polygamy were wrong even though the Bible doesn’t specifically forbid their practice. Another example would be when an individual congregation decides that alcohol or dancing will be unacceptable for them.
The guidelines for the use of this power would include not forbidding something that the Bible specifically permits or permitting something the Bible specifically forbids. Also the whole church must make the decision and not just it’s leaders (Acts 15:22-23) and the decision would only be binding in the congregation or congregations that accepted it willingly.

[disciple]

I think this privilege, (binding and loosing) might still be used by the church today, as when the church collectively decided that slavery and polygamy were wrong even though the Bible doesn’t specifically forbid their practice. Another example would be when an individual congregation decides that alcohol or dancing will be unacceptable for them.
The guidelines for the use of this power would include not forbidding something that the Bible specifically permits or permitting something the Bible specifically forbids. Also the whole church must make the decision and not just it’s leaders (Acts 15:22-23) and the decision would only be binding in the congregation or congregations that accepted it willingly.

what exegetical basis is there for extending this principle beyond the apostles? are these later things actually forbidden by God because particular congregations decide that they are wrong (or right)? where does this end and how does this end? is the law of Christ continually changing or is it now delivered once and for all in the teachings of Christ and the apostles contained in the writings of the NT? i personally think it is safer and more exegetically sound to opt for the latter.

[GraceAmbassador]

what exegetical basis is there for extending this principle beyond the apostles? are these later things actually forbidden by God because particular congregations decide that they are wrong (or right)? where does this end and how does this end? is the law of Christ continually changing or is it now delivered once and for all in the teachings of Christ and the apostles contained in the writings of the NT? i personally think it is safer and more exegetically sound to opt for the latter.

Dear Tomas1:

Doug is correct! All that it had to be "bound and loosed" has already been established. Otherwise we would have "churches" passing on decree and edicts that would later be held as holy as the Word of God itself. Isn't that what happened to the Roman Catholic Church?

The Apostles have not left any authority by proxy for the "churches" today to be "binding and loosing" at random in one issue or another. Not by Bulls (the papal kind), not by edicts, not by creeds or "conventions". Not even tradition can be held, understood or interpreted as something that was "bound or loosed" if that means a modification, addition or completion of the Holy Writ.

The Charismatic movement has made a mockery of this precept, but they are not the only ones. We can find "binding and loosing" accross the board in denominations today. Check what has been made of baptism, tithing, the keeping of the sabbath as examples of "binding and loosing".

Unfortunately, in my humble opinion, every time I hear a "binding an loosing" sermon, I feel that God is the one that is being "bound" (if that would be possible) and the only "loosing" is that of bad theology...

One very simple and easy to follow rule of thumb, and one whereby one can find assurance that he is "binding" in the eyes of God and that is "loosing" of the ties that prevent me from living a life that glorifies God is just simply to stick to Apostolic Doctrine, the Gospel. To me that is the only "binding and loosing" that I care for today!

As to the key to the kingdom, if we take "key" to mean anything that "opens" it is not hard to conclude that the one thing that opens the door of kingdom is the MESSAGE of the Gospel. The MESSAGE of the Gospel is Christ.

Just my 1 1/2 cents worth...

Milt

[Eileen]

Thanks for the feedback, appreciated.

[tomas1]

what exegetical basis is there for extending this principle beyond the apostles?
I said “I think and might” I’m not completely sure so I am willing to listen but here are my 2 cents. Binding and loosening is actually mentioned twice

chapter 16:15-20

16:15He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16:16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
I think that in this instance Peter stood as a representative of the wider community who would later make the same confession.
16:17Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Notice God not Peter gets the credit for his confession

16:18I also tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.
I think the foundational rock here is the Gospel not the man Peter

16:19I will give to you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; and whatever you release on earth will be released in heaven."
Note that Peter did not use the “keys” when the issue of circumcision came up instead he participated in a council in which he was only one voice. The loosing in that situation came from the “apostles and the elders, with the whole assembly.” (Acts 15:22)

In Matt chapter 18
Jesus explains that the Disciples are not yet ready to be a part of the church (Kingdom).
18:1In that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who then is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven?"
18:2Jesus called a little child to himself, and set him in the midst of them, 18:3and said, "Most assuredly I tell you, unless you turn, and become as little children, you will in no way enter into the Kingdom of Heaven 18:4Whoever therefore humbles himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Verses 5 through 14 surely address the future church as a whole and not just the Disciples. In verse 15-20 Jesus speaks about the power of his Church
We can restore wayward brothers
.
18:15"If your brother sins against you, go, show him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained back your brother.
Or in the proper circumstances we can “turn him over to Satan"
18:16But if he doesn't listen, take one or two more with you, that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 18:17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the assembly. If he refuses to hear the assembly also, let him be to you as a Gentile or a tax collector.
WE can truly bind and loose
18:18Most assuredly I tell you, whatever things you will bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever things you will release on earth will be released in heaven.
But a lone believer can’t do this he must be a “church”
18:19Again, assuredly I tell you, that if two of you will agree on earth concerning anything that they will ask, it will be done for them by my Father who is in heaven.
The reason this is possible is not because of some talent or virtue on our part but because Jesus is in our midst
18:20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them."

When was this power revoked? If it can be revoked what about the rest of Scripture?

[Eileen]

Do you think then that the power of the "keys" in part is the dicipline administered by the church Thomas1? The verses you quoted are given for our instruction concerning offences.

In my original post using the Heidelberg as my understanding of the "keys" it states that one of the keys is discipline. I believe wholeheartedly in church discipline as a means God has given to not only protect and keep the church free from leaven but as a means for repentence for each individual believer. We do practice scriptural discipline in our church.

Matthew 18:18 Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. This scripture follows our instructions on how to reconcile with a brother so if this scripture is talking about discipline what is being bound or loosed??? To me that is the important consideration here....yes, power is given but power to bind and loose what?? Any thoughts?

[Brandan Kraft]

NTRF messed me up in many ways and helped me in many ways. Their teachings on binding and loosing as well as so called modern day apostles are really WAY OFF. My main complaint with them as well as searching together is their focus (and was mine for a while) is church practice instead of the Gospel of Grace. There is a lot of good that has come out of these publications, but it's disheartening to see them neglect the central focus of Scripture.

[tomas1]

My Sunday school class has been discussing fantasy movies like Harry Potter recently. Some think they are inappropriate for Christians some think they are harmless. It would be cool to come to a consensus and be able to tell my children something on this that carried more weight than just my view. Surely God does have an opinion on trivial matters like these.

When I stand alone my sinful nature might deceive me as to what his will is but when we stand together I think we can as a church get closer. Iron sharpens Iron. For the life of me I don’t see why this is scary.

[Eileen]

I have been taught that those areas that God has not addressed in scripture are "indifferent" areas or God would have addressed them. So to have "men" decide instead what is legal or not in those areas is what we call "men's commandments" (which include such things as smoking, movies, dancing, etc. and much, much more) and we are warned in scripture to not follow those. They have no value in and of themselves.

What my conscience may allow may be sin for another ( and vice verse) so for me I have to be careful and not have a list of do's and dont's that God doesn't give in His Word. It seems one of the hardest things we do in this Christian life is to walk by faith. 1 Cor 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me but I will not be brought under the power of any.

However as you said, counsel we are to seek from our fellow believers and pray for wisdom as He gives it liberally to all who ask in faith believing they will receive. James 1:5,6

I don't think it is scary to talk about anything concerning our faith and our practice, coarse that is just my 1 cent