Binding and loosing

[countrymouse]

Church tradition has interpreted Jesus' words to Peter about binding and loosing as giving Peter, and thus his successors, the power to define doctrine and decide eternal destinies of individuals by either pardoning or excommunicating them. But is this what the disciples understood as Jesus' meaning?

I have come across information at this link:

http://geocities.com/Athens/Forum/9575/biblespirab.html

In the article, there is a paragraph about the rabbinical practice of "binding and loosing." It looks as though this was a matter of determining how strictly a law should be interpreted in a given case. If a law was interpreted strictly, with the maximum penalty, the rabbi had bound the commandment. If the rabbi showed leniency, he had loosed the commandment. This was not a matter of creating new commandments or doctrines.

It looks to me as though the authority Jesus gave to the Church, through the apostles, was to judge individual cases and determine how strict or how lenient to be in each situation. I can't find any reason to suppose that the Church is free to create new and strange doctrines, such as the perpetual virginity of Mary or her immaculate conception, or purgatory. Nor is she free to misinterpret Scripture so as to obscure its meaning and support teachings that merely keep the laity under the thumbs of the leadership.

Any feedback?

cm

[disciple]

and nor was this carte blanche for the church to forgive or not forgive sins on behalf of God. we can forgive others when they've trespassed personally against us but we cannot forgive or not-forgive others on God's behalf (and if someone truly repented how can one claim that God does not forgive that sin; binding seems a bit arbitrary in this sense). this is the prerogative of God alone (and the Son of Man on earth) and was a never transferred responsibility given to the church.

Mk 2:6 But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts,
7 "Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?"
8 Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, said to them, "Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts?
9 "Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven'; or to say, 'Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk'?
10 "But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" He said to the paralytic,
11 "I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home."
12 And he got up and immediately picked up the pallet and went out in the sight of everyone, so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this."

Luke 5:21 The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this man who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?"
22 But Jesus, aware of their reasonings, answered and said to them, "Why are you reasoning in your hearts?
23 "Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins have been forgiven you,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'?
24 "But, so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins," He said to the paralytic "I say to you, get up, and pick up your stretcher and go home."

[Tom Stegmaier]

cm

I think you answered your own question with the key word "tradition". Very often tradition is just opposite of the truth. The only way to determine this is to go to the Word and check it for yourself.
God has committed unto us the word.....That means
He's entrusted us to rightly divide the word, and walk on it. The quote-un-quote church cannot obscure the word, or keep you under it's thumb. This word was committed unto you. You are the Church today. It is Christ in you! No one held Jesus Christ under their thumb....That's who is in us, and that's who we are; what you do, with what you got, is up to you.

Bless
TC

[Agape Zoe]

MRS. cm

I agree with you, and spiritual abuse is an epidemic in the Church body. However, in cases where Protestants are quick to judge or shun Catholicism for this grievous crime, we often overlook where we are also guilty of the same thing. For me to explain myself fully, I may need a new thread. But when church leaders preach the Bible to motivate their congregation to give money, to evangelize, etc., with guilt…well, there's no difference between that and Catholic leaders claiming infallibility and ultimate authority. I love to meet Christians who allow Christ to be Christ in their lives, and are motivated by love as opposed to obligation.

[countrymouse]

disciple, Tom, and Zoe, I do agree.

I believe the disciples understood that Jesus took the authority of the Sanhedrin and the rabbis, to hear and decide cases, and gave it to them. Then we learn from Paul that congregations have the responsibility to reprimand, and disfellowship (if necessary) those members who blatantly practice sin and refuse to repent. If such a person repents, the congregation is under obligation to forgive and to restore fellowship. That, I think, is the meaning and extent of "binding and loosing." It's a limited authority, and it isn't arbitrary.

Grace and Peace,
cm

[Victor Joseph]

countrymouse. . .

quote: countrymouse
" I can't find any reason to suppose that the Church is free to create new and strange doctrines, such as the perpetual virginity of Mary or her immaculate conception, or purgatory. Nor is she free to misinterpret Scripture so as to obscure its meaning and support teachings that merely keep the laity under the thumbs of the leadership.

Any feedback?"

All this must seem strange to you since you don't see apostolic succession in scripture. . . (see next post) and adhere to the unbiblical notion of sola scriptura.

Mary was and is perpetual virgin. . . (she was a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus) Some protestants believe this I hear. . . but mosts just don't understand it. Re: Mt 13: 55 "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't Mary knownto be his mother and James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas his brothers?

In biblical times, as in our own, the word "brother" is used in many ways. It can indicate sibling, relative, friend, or associate. In Acts, fellow Christians are called brothers (Acts 21:7) as are Jewish leaders (Acts 22:1). In the original Hebrew, I'm told, Gen 14:14 calls Lot the 'brother of Abraham when in fact, Lot was Abraham's nephew (Gen 11:26-28). For this reason many modern translations simply use the word 'nephew' for 'brother' because that is what the Hebrew word for brother indicates. To determine the exact relationship of Jesus' "brothers," we must examine other verses to get a fuller picture. (Matt 27:56 and Mk 15:40 tell us two of these "brothers" . . . James and Joseph, are the sons of 'another' Mary. not the mother of Jesus. (Jn 19:25 identifies this other Mary as the wife of Clopas.

But maybe you have another reason for thinking this doctrine 'strange' and implausable?

she was immaculately concieved (more later) and purgatory (more later) makes sense and is found in scripture the same way the Trinity is.

As for obscuring the meaning of Scripture . . . this seems a 'matter of opinion'.
I still contend that the HS protects the Catholic Church in its interpretation as the Supreme Court protects the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. . . . . but BETTER.

In Jesus . . . God's Son & Savior. V.J.

[countrymouse]

Hi, Victor Joseph

I have been busy with another thread, and I will get back to this after the weekend, if not sooner. See you later!

cm

[Tom Stegmaier]

Originally posted by Victor Joseph

Mary was and is perpetual virgin. . . (she was a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus) Some protestants believe this I hear. . . but mosts just don't understand it. Re: Mt 13: 55 "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't Mary knownto be his mother and James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas his brothers?

In biblical times, as in our own, the word "brother" is used in many ways. It can indicate sibling, relative, friend, or associate. In Acts, fellow Christians are called brothers (Acts 21:7) as are Jewish leaders (Acts 22:1). In the original Hebrew, I'm told, Gen 14:14 calls Lot the 'brother of Abraham when in fact, Lot was Abraham's nephew (Gen 11:26-28). For this reason many modern translations simply use the word 'nephew' for 'brother' because that is what the Hebrew word for brother indicates. To determine the exact relationship of Jesus' "brothers," we must examine other verses to get a fuller picture. (Matt 27:56 and Mk 15:40 tell us two of these "brothers" . . . James and Joseph, are the sons of 'another' Mary. not the mother of Jesus. (Jn 19:25 identifies this other Mary as the wife of Clopas.

But maybe you have another reason for thinking this doctrine 'strange' and implausable?

she was immaculately concieved (more later) and purgatory (more later) makes sense and is found in scripture the same way the Trinity is.

As for obscuring the meaning of Scripture . . . this seems a 'matter of opinion'.
I still contend that the HS protects the Catholic Church in its interpretation as the Supreme Court protects the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. . . . . but BETTER.

In Jesus . . . God's Son & Savior. V.J. [/B]

V.J.

Jeremiah 2:13
For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters and hewed them out cistrens, broken cistrens that can hold no water.
As sons, and daughters of God we have the responsibility "not to handle the word of God deceptfully" but to "rightly divide the word of truth". We don't make the word fit with with our beliefs, but we see how it fits, then believe. If we hew ourselves out cisterns we are just another religeon, but if we tap into the fountain, we can walk with that power of God....
There is no power in religious tradition unless it is biblical truth, yet tradition if given enough time, and creedence will be accepted as truth; having no biblical legs to stand on people will defend it to the end.....Why is that?
As for Mary being a perpetual virgin; not only is this tradition,... but it has it's very roots in paganism along with most all of the doctrine that the Catholic church propounds as truth.
Peter being the first Pope [head of the Church], purgatory, indulgences, saints, saints day's and symbols, infallibility of the Pope, confession to Priest, Mary worship, the rosary, and the Mass, to name a few, not to mention the corruption of Easter [passover] with the pagan goddess of fertility, and it was the fifth century that the RC church commanded that the birth of Christ be observed on Dec. 25th instead of his true birth date Sept 11; to observe the birth of Sol the pagan sun-god.
I am not out to slam the Catholic Church, I do think it has some good points also, but when it comes to the truth it is either watered down, or non existant.

Back to Mary: There is six "Mary"s listed

Mary the mother of our Lord: the context never leaves any room for doubt as to her identity
Mary when used of the Lords mother is always in the Greek {Mariam} the Hebrew {Miriam} as in
Ex.15:20
The other five are usually {Maria}

#2 Mary the mother of James the less and Jose
[Matt 27:56 Mk 15:40 Luke 24:10] She is called "the other Mary" [Matt 27:61 28:1] and the wife of Cleopas [John 19:25]

#3 Mary the sister of Martha, who anointed the Lord's feet [John 12:3] Mentioned by name only in [Luke 10:39 & 42 and John 11:1, 2, 19, 20, 28, 31, 32, 45, and 12:3]

#4 Mary Magdaline, of Magdala [Matt 15:39] she is always identified by this. [Matt 27:56 Mk 16:1,9
Lk 8:2 John 20:18...]

#5 Mary the mother of John Mark [Acts 12:12]

#6 Mary one of Paul's helpers [Romans 16:6]



The word is pretty clear in as to the relationship between Joseph and Mary [search the definition of
"knew" and "virgin"]

Matt 1:25 states that Jesus was Mary's "first" born son it does not say "only" son.
**Interesting to note that the words "Her firstborn" are contained in nearly all MSS, except the Vatican and Sinaitic [4 century].

There is multipal volumes of books dealing with Church history, Mary worship and it's orgins. Even the Catholic enclyopedia discloses much of this pagan adaptation.

I have a theory: If I was the advisary, and I wanted to obscure the truth so people would never rise up to the calling of God in Christ Jesus, I would protect the tradition of men.

TC

[wildboar]

While the keys of the kingdom are not the rights of the church to create new rules, I do believe they consist of the power of the church to exercise church discipline and excommunication. The article does not seem to offer any support for his binding and loosing view and I think most churches have become far too lenient in the area of church discipline, I can think of only a handful that I think have gone too far.

I would like to bring up a couple other issues associated with this passage though.

Matthew 16:15-19 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 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.

First, different words are used for Peter(Petros) and Rock(Petra). A Petros is smaller than a Petra and it is clearly a play on words. The testimony of Peter is the foundation(Petra) upon which Christ says He will build His church. In this passage Jesus is referring to Peter alone as can be seen by the use of the singular "thee" when referring to Peter. However in the other instance in which Jesus says this he uses the plural ye and thereby gives the power to the church and not to Peter alone.

Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The passage should also be interpreted in its context.

Matthew 18:11-20 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. 12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? 13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. 14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish. 15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. 18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Church discipline certainly seems to be the theme. However what should be noticed is the primary goal of church discipline is concern for the salvation of the person under discipline, removal of the leaven is a secondary concern. I would just like to make one additional point. The following is a my own more literal translation of the two passages which is also similar to how the NASB translates them:

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, having been bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be, having been loosed in heaven.

Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be, having been bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be, having been loosed in heaven.

In the original, the binding and loosing in heaven occurs prior to the binding and loosing on earth. If binding and loosing is done properly it should be a reflection of what has already been determined in heaven and not the opposite as the papist who thinks that Galileo was waiting around in purgatory for the pope to pardon him would have it.

[thepaulinator]

"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, having been bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be, having been loosed in heaven"

The "key" issue of this verse is not the binding and loosing, but it is the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Let's look at the old testament.

"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will be a seat of honor for the house of his father." (Isaiah 22:20-23)

Sound familiar to Matthew 16? This is the meaning of the profound statement of Jesus. He is placing the key to the house of david (Jesus' house) on the shoulder of Peter. In Isaiah 22:20, it says "and hand your authority over to him" These keys in Matthew are not some meytaphor Jesus made up on the spot, it has true meaning of authority.

"I can't find any reason to suppose that the Church is free to create new and strange doctrines, such as the perpetual virginity of Mary or her immaculate conception, or purgatory"

The church did not make these things up. The perpetual virginity of Mary was not questioned until 383 ad by Helvidius. If it wasn't questioned until this time, it must have existed prior to this time, and therefore, was not created as a "new and strange doctrine." The arguments provided already on this subject in this thread, were originally used by Saint Jerome against Helvidius. Saint Augustine also defended her perpetual virginity in the 4th century.

veritas aequitas et pax