|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
:: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/7/2008 4:49:13 PM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 6084
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where pigeons are wearing sweaters....
Status: offline
|
The concept of "binding and loosing" is taught in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
In this verse, Jesus is speaking directly to the Apostle Peter, and indirectly to the other apostles. Jesus' words meant that Peter would have the right to enter the kingdom himself, would have general authority therein symbolized by the possession of the keys, and preaching the gospel would be the means of opening the kingdom of heaven to all believers and shutting it against unbelievers.
The book of Acts shows us this process at work. By his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-40), Peter opened the door of the kingdom for the first time. The expressions "bind" and "loose" were common to Jewish legal phraseology meaning to declare forbidden or to declare allowed.
Peter and the other disciples were to continue on earth the work of Christ in preaching the gospel and declaring God's will to men, and were armed with the same authority as He Himself possessed.
In Matthew 18, there is also a definite reference to the binding and loosing of church discipline. The apostles do not usurp Christ's lordship and authority over individual believers and their eternal destiny, but they do exercise the authority to discipline and, if necessary, excommunicate disobedient church members.
Christ in heaven ratifies what is done in His name and in obedience to His Word on earth. In both Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, the syntax of the Greek text makes the meaning clear. What you bind on earth will already have been bound in Heaven.
What you loose on earth will already have been loosed in Heaven. In other words, Jesus in heaven, looses the authority of His Word as it goes forth on earth for the fulfillment of its purpose.
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/8/2008 6:22:05 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 891
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
I have always taken these phrases to mean something a little more abstract and little less literal.
Jesus is deputizing Peter here - authorizing him to continue to defend and guard faith against heresy, to preach the good news and to establish instruction and practice of faith through the institution of Church.
Possessing the keys is a clear delegation of authority. The authority to forgive sins, the authority to hold them bound absent penitence, and the authority to decide one from another. The authority to adminster the Sacraments - etc.
This authority did not die with Peter - he passed it on to his students or followers, and they passed it down to theirs.
_____________________________
When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity...it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if he turns from the wickedness he has committed, he does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life" - Ez 18:25-28
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/8/2008 7:13:17 AM
|
|
|
Machaira
Posts: 174
Joined: 9/2/2006
From: Philadelphia, Pa.
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
Jesus is deputizing Peter here . . .
We must not forget that while Jesus spoke directly to Peter in Matthew 16:19, he gave the authority to bind and loose to all of the disciples in Matthew 18:18.
_____________________________
For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake . . . Php 1:29
Check out my blog @ www.thomasboston.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/8/2008 10:32:31 AM
|
|
|
BerianAardvark
Posts: 371
Joined: 5/10/2008
Status: offline
|
To understand the terms we must first understand their context, binding and loosing were terms in frequent use among the Rabbis, and they meant bidding and forbidding, granting and refusing, declaring lawful or unlawful, etc.
To loose and to bind were very common Jewish phrases. They were used especially of the decisions of the great teachers and the great Rabbis. Their regular sense, which any Jew would recognize was to allow and to forbid. To bind something was to declare it forbidden; to loose was to declare it allowed. These were the regular phrases for taking decisions in regard to the law. That is in fact the only thing these phrases in such a context would mean.
“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? Lightfoot (John not Gordon) A Commentary of the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica.
In Matthew 18:18 Jesus gives the same authority to loose and bind to the rest of the Disciples.
Tim
_____________________________
The Law is for the proud and the Gospel for the brokenhearted - Martin Luther
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/8/2008 12:12:21 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 4060
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: online
|
What Tim said. The phrase was commonly understood to be the making of halacha, the techniques involved in obeying scriptural commands. For example, the Law said not to work on the Sabbath but did not define work. The rabbis came up with their halacha of what constituted "work" and did not agree. Healing on the sabbath and harvesting for personal consumption were not considered work by Rabbi Hillel, while Rabbi Shammai said both were.
Jesus was giving Peter and the rest of the Apostles the right to create halacha for the Messianic community, apart from Hillel and Shammai, the leading pharasees of the previous century. By extension he was giving them the right and mandate to write the New Testament.
_____________________________
Avatar is Saphira 5 months and Louvena at 23 months!
We are now grandparents TWICE!!
====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/8/2008 4:11:53 PM
|
|
|
BerianAardvark
Posts: 371
Joined: 5/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
What Tim said. The phrase was commonly understood to be the making of halacha, the techniques involved in obeying scriptural commands. For example, the Law said not to work on the Sabbath but did not define work. The rabbis came up with their halacha of what constituted "work" and did not agree. Healing on the sabbath and harvesting for personal consumption were not considered work by Rabbi Hillel, while Rabbi Shammai said both were.
Our Pastor is working through the book of Matthew and since it was written particularly to demonstrate to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah ( משׁיח mâshîyach) the subject of הלכה, Hălākhāh came up.
He also covered much more briefly the תּלמוּ Talmud:
(1) משׁנה, Mishnāh, “the oral doctrine and the study of it” (from shānāh, “to repeat,” “to learn,” “to teach”), especially (a) the whole of the oral law which had come into existence up to the end of the 2nd century AD; (b) the whole of the teaching of one of the rabbis living during the first two centuries AD (tannā', plural tannā'īm); (c) a single tenet; (d) a collection of such tenets; (e) above all, the collection made by Rabbi Jehudah (or Judah) ha-Nasi'.
(2) גּמרא, Gemārā', “the matter that is leaned” (from gemar, “to accomplish,” “to learn”), denotes since the 9th century the collection of the discussions of the Amoraim, i.e. of the rabbis teaching from about 200 to 500 AD.
(3) תּלמוּד, Talmūdh, “the studying” or “the teaching,” was in older times used for the discussions of the Amoraim; now it means the Mishna with the discussions thereupon.
(4) הלכה, Hălākhāh (from hālakh, “to go”): (a) the life as far as it is ruled by the Law; (b) a statutory precept.
(5) הגּדה, Haggādhāh (from higgīdh, “to tell”), the non-halakhic exegesis.
(International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)
Which was fun as I have been enjoying a lecture series on the early church that also covers this as part of the first two centuries, and as part of the origins of Hermeneutics. (delivered via pod cast from North Phoenix Baptist Church in Phoenix Arizona)
(Not bad for a Bible Believing Church...by which WE mean the whole thing, not just the last 27 books.  )
_____________________________
The Law is for the proud and the Gospel for the brokenhearted - Martin Luther
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/8/2008 7:21:15 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 891
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
We must not forget that while Jesus spoke directly to Peter in Matthew 16:19, he gave the authority to bind and loose to all of the disciples in Matthew 18:18. I believe the context of the use of two verses sheds a different meaning on one compared to the other.
In the case of Peter, the authority of the keys has principally to do with the giving of authoritative teaching, and the authority to impose or to lift excommunication - the recognition of the state of separation that some place themselves in with respect to communion with the Church.
In the case of the disciples, this context implies the authority related to excommunication, but not to authoritative teaching. This authority regarding teaching was granted to Peter alone.
The verses preceding Matt 18:18 are compelling to this argument. The context is speaking of dealing with "the brother" who repeatedly sins, or sins with no penitence.
_____________________________
When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity...it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if he turns from the wickedness he has committed, he does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life" - Ez 18:25-28
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/8/2008 7:58:26 PM
|
|
|
Machaira
Posts: 174
Joined: 9/2/2006
From: Philadelphia, Pa.
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
In the case of Peter, the authority of the keys has principally to do with the giving of authoritative teaching . . .
. . . This authority regarding teaching was granted to Peter alone.
If that were true, then only 2 of the New Testament's 27 books would be inspired and authoritative. In Matthew 16:19 Jesus calls the keys that He gives to Peter "the keys of the kingdom of heaven." 'Keys' used symbolically as they are here imply the authority to open or close something -- which is why I believe Bishop Lightfoot's explanation is right on target.
[And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.] That is, Thou shalt first open the door of faith to the Gentiles. He had said that he would build his church to endure for ever, against which "the gates of hell should not prevail"... "and to thee, O Peter (saith he), I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that thou mayest open a door for the bringing in the gospel to that church." Which was performed by Peter in that remarkable story concerning Cornelius, Acts_10. And I make no doubt that those words of Peter respect these words of Christ, Act_15:7; A good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel by my mouth, and believe. - J.B. Lightfoot
_____________________________
For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake . . . Php 1:29
Check out my blog @ www.thomasboston.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/8/2008 9:32:36 PM
|
|
|
PeterD
Posts: 426
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BerianAardvark
To understand the terms we must first understand their context, binding and loosing were terms in frequent use among the Rabbis, and they meant bidding and forbidding, granting and refusing, declaring lawful or unlawful, etc.
To loose and to bind were very common Jewish phrases. They were used especially of the decisions of the great teachers and the great Rabbis. Their regular sense, which any Jew would recognize was to allow and to forbid. To bind something was to declare it forbidden; to loose was to declare it allowed. These were the regular phrases for taking decisions in regard to the law. That is in fact the only thing these phrases in such a context would mean.
“To these may be added, if need were, the frequent (shall I say?) or infinite use of the phrases, ŕńĺř ĺîĺúř 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? Lightfoot (John not Gordon) A Commentary of the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica.
In Matthew 18:18 Jesus gives the same authority to loose and bind to the rest of the Disciples.
Tim
Hello BerianAardvark,
Thank you for the encouraging words, I have a question is Matthew 19:27-30 and Matthew 20:20-28 related to Matthew 16:19 and 18:18
Matthew 19:27-30
27Then Peter said in reply, "See, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?" 28Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life. 30But many who are first will be last, and the last first.
Matthew 19:28
28Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
The Apostles sitting on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, and this includes Peter with the other Apostles.
Which throne does Peter sit on when judging the twelve tribes of Israel, I read that their is a Glorious throne and twelve thrones. Peter is in with the twelve, is their a favorite throne of the twelve thrones that Peter sits on judging the twelve tribes of Israel? What about the mother of the sons of Zebedee and what she asked for relating to these thrones where judging takes place (binding and loosing)?
This reminds me of a certain mother’s request...Matthew 20:20-28
Do both Matthew 19 and 20 also relate to binding and loosing?
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/8/2008 11:22:23 PM
|
|
|
BerianAardvark
Posts: 371
Joined: 5/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Do both Matthew 19 and 20 also relate to binding and loosing?
I don't see how. The sorts of judgments that were handed down under binding and loosing are related to acceptable doctrine, the sort of judgments that would be issued form thrones would be those of civil law, two utterly different types of pronouncements.
I left out the examples of Hălākhāh (the sort of judgments involving binding and loosing, as they involve how to walk in a manner consistent with your beliefs.) that Lightfoot offered. Mostly in an attempt to keep my post to a readable minimum, but here are a few:
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
"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."
"To them that bathe in the hot-baths in the sabbath-day, they bind washing, and they loose sweating."
"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."
"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."
As you can see, even then there were "conservative" and "liberals" when it came to what would and wouldn't be acceptable behavior.
Tim
_____________________________
The Law is for the proud and the Gospel for the brokenhearted - Martin Luther
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/9/2008 9:02:35 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 891
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
If that were true, then only 2 of the New Testament's 27 books would be inspired and authoritative. The 27 books were not all "authorized" until long after Peter's time on earth...and they were authorized by the Church, were they not? Led by the successor to Peter?
I don't want to pick a fight, I'm just suggesting that the authority given Peter in an individual audience with Jesus is different than the authority granted the group in a group setting with Jesus, and that "binding and loosing" per the OP is directly related to this authority of "Church" to administer, define and defend faith - until Jesus comes again in glory to set everyone straight on these matters.
Substitute any "Church" you like for the word "Church" above - Baptist, Anglican, Lutheran - whatever. Church is authorized to state that it will use the KJV, and that the KJV shall consist of 66 Books, and that Baptisim and Communion shall be Sacramental, and Marriage shall not be - etc., etc.
This authorization is perhaps more loosely interpreted for some and more tightly for others, but Church is still the authority, and not individual congregants.
_____________________________
When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity...it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if he turns from the wickedness he has committed, he does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life" - Ez 18:25-28
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/9/2008 10:34:10 AM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1433
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
The 27 books were not all "authorized" until long after Peter's time on earth...and they were authorized by the Church, were they not? Led by the successor to Peter?
No, not really. They were authorized by the church, which was certainly not the Catholic Church at the time (Council of Hippo was in 393, the Great Schism wasn't until 1054, even the Coptics hadn't split yet), but they were not led by the Bishop of Rome (the successor of Peter), they were led by the Bishop of Carthage, as he was the de facto host of the council. The council was in North Africa, not Rome.
I've been reading Acts, and frankly, Peter does not seem like that big of a deal. If he had really been the great and mighty leader of the church from day one, you would expect a lot more "Peter said do this, so we all did it, because he's the boss". You don't see that. The Apostles pretty much did their own thing based on the leading of the Spirit. In fact, quite the opposite, if you look at Galatians 2...
Galatians 2:11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
That really, really doesn't sound like Peter was the boss or specially equipped to be the sole dispenser of the faith there.
So, it seems much more likely that the assignment of the "keys" is about the spreading of the Gospel, and that the authority to "bind and loose" is what other posters have described it very well as. I don't see why it would be necessary for there to be different "types" of binding and loosing with a special type assigned to Peter, especially if you're insisting that the binding and loosing is a matter of the church, not an individual... and all of the Apostles certainly consituted the "church" at the time.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/9/2008 11:33:24 AM
|
|
|
BerianAardvark
Posts: 371
Joined: 5/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Doghouse The 27 books were not all "authorized" until long after Peter's time on earth...and they were authorized by the Church, were they not? Led by the successor to Peter?
Machaira didn't say authorized he said "inspired and authoritative."
The books weren't authorized, but recognized as inspired and authoritative, in other words as canonical (canon being a rule or standard).
And actually as early as 144 AD when Marcion picked and chose (then edited) the books that he thought authoritative reducing them to a highly expurgated edition of Luke and some (again highly edited) versions of some of the Pauline Epistles. The rest of the local congregations (which did happen to be in Rome, but long before the idea that the Bishop of Rome was any more special than any other bishop) reacted strongly to this, as may be imagined, expelling him form the church and returning the (rather sizable donations) he had made.
If there had been no concept in that day of which book were authoritative and inspired there would not have been such an uproar over Marcion's creating his own canon. It wasn't until some time later that the canon was closed (meaning that there was a final list, nothing more to be added or removed) though the Eastern church didn't accept some of the books until much later.
This site has a very good article on how the canon was arrived at as well as tables showing who among the early church thought what was authoritative (and in some cases to what degree) http://www.ntcanon.org/index.shtml
Marcion's canon accelerated the process of fixing the Church's canon, which had already begun in the first half of the 2nd century. It was in opposition to Marcion's criticism that the Church first became fully conscious of its inheritance of apostolic writings. According to [Grant] (p. 126): "Marcion forced more orthodox Christians to examine their own presuppositions and to state more clearly what they already believed". (from that site)
Tim
_____________________________
The Law is for the proud and the Gospel for the brokenhearted - Martin Luther
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/9/2008 2:28:14 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 891
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
OK...Ctrl-Alt-Del to this discussion.
Let me try a different tact here. Forget Catholic And Protestant (if you can) for a minute. Jesus knew He would die. Jesus may have known that He was to be resurrected. And having been resurrected, Jesus knew He would leave earth, post-resurrection, to find Himself seated at the right hand of God, His father (presumably).
Can I get an amen to that?
So knowing this or anticipating His limited time in person in front of the Apostles, there was a need to establish that Jesus was not the sole authority, in that the Church would develop, faith would spread, catechumens would query and answers would have to be provided. Answers about space travel, and in-vitro fertilization, and Internet use. Things that Jesus could not have possibly spoken about to a bunch of 1st century followers.
Jesus established an authority then - in the institution of Church and in an individual associated with Church - and I state that this authority can primarily be divided into a couple of loose categories. One of them is the discernment, definition, guardianship and instruction of faith. It is the authority that interprets for us, from the deposit of faith (largely captured by New Testament Scriptures), that instruction regarding Internet use, And space travel, etc., since these things are not specifically addressed directly in the deposit of faith.
Secondarily, Jesus did define an authority to recognize those that are aware of Church, are somewhat knowledgeable of it, and have chosen to place themselves outside of communion with it.
Still with me...I hear the gears starting to grind out there....
So all I am saying is that Jesus address to Peter is unique, and is separate from Jesus address to "the disciples", in Chapter 18. I don't believe that this is Matthew stuttering or repeating himself - I believe he is telling us something here. Something about the role of Peter and the revelation to him by God as to the identity of Jesus. The chapter 16 cite says precious little about Peter, and a whole lot about God, in my reading. Whereas the context of the instruction in 18 follows from the preceding dialog of how to bring an errant brother back into the fold.
Everyone who is familiar with Peter knows him to be a goofball - for want of a better term - and freely admits this. Just goes to show you what God can accomplish from simple clay (kind of takes the excuses away for us resource-filled super-geniuses, doesn't it?)
The point though is the larger picture of authority. Jesus was not going to be with us for a while (we're still waiting, aren't we...) and He was establishing a "succession plan" that would assure the continuity of Church after the death of the Apostles (or "the disciples" as used in chapter 18). This authority is what has led Christianity to canonize a set of Scripture (27 books from 114+ that laid some kind of claim to Apostolic authority). Some thing or someone had to sort this out.
My claim is that it wasn't a person, but the collection of persons making up the institution of Church. The Church built by Jesus, upon the foundation...yada, yada, yada.
The authority of Chapter 16 resides within an office of the Church, while the authority of Chapter 18 resides in Church. It then becomes a discussion of distinguishing these two authorities.
All in my humble opinion, of course.
Earthless - feel free to jump into this anytime, brother....
_____________________________
When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity...it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if he turns from the wickedness he has committed, he does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life" - Ez 18:25-28
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/9/2008 3:30:41 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1433
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
Okay. But the problem is what you're reading into that. You're claiming that it means that Peter is the leader of all of the Apostles as a result of what Jesus said to him. There is no indication that that is the case, not in Acts, where one would expect such a leadership role to be spelled at, and quite the contrary is indicated in Paul's confrontation of Peter, which very clearly demonstrates that Peter was not considered to be an authority of any kind by the other Apostles (Peter got the stupid idea from James in the first place, and then had to be straightened out by Paul.)
So, there's no indication that the "keys" are some sort of leadership specialty instead of just being the Gospel truth that Peter had just uttered, or that Peter gets special "binding and loosing" super-powers on a scale the other disciples did not.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/9/2008 9:20:00 PM
|
|
|
PeterD
Posts: 426
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline
|
Hello Doghouse and Zhi,
How does this sound relating to Paul binding and loosing Peter?
Galatians 2:11
Paul Opposes Peter
11But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
Hebrews 12:1-29
Do Not Grow Weary
"My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,
nor be weary when reproved by him.
6For the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives."
2 Peter 3:14-18
Final Words
14 Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. 18But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
In verse 17 I believe Peter is remembering Paul's rebuke and then being restored again in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
It sounds like the Apostle Peter understood what the Apostle Paul said that day when Paul opposed Peter to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.
Did Paul loose Peter that day or did Paul bind Peter, I believe Peter was shaken loose from the false and was found again in God's Grace because Peter heard the Lord through the Apostle Paul. And this is why Peter supports Paul later in his letters (2 Peter 3:14-18)
1 Corinthians 4:21
"21What do you wish? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love in a spirit of gentleness?
Proverbs 13:24
24 Whoever spares the rod hates his son,
but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/10/2008 1:18:30 AM
|
|
|
BerianAardvark
Posts: 371
Joined: 5/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Let me try a different tact here. Forget Catholic And Protestant (if you can) for a minute.
And the way to do that is to step back and ask how would a first century Jew have understood binding and loosing, NOT what does my twenty first century Christian mind think it said, should have said. And demonstrably, they did NOT see it as giving Peter the reins of the church. If they had understood Jesus to have said that then the bickering about who was to be the greatest in the kingdom would have ceased because the Rabbi had spoken. But it didn't, that particular bit if oneupmanship continued unabated.
The literature of the era clearly states what the Jewish understanding of binding and loosing was as well, as shown by the examples (I selected only a few out of forty, and those forty had been selected from a myriad as representative.
I agree we need to forget our doctrinal baggage, but you are advocating doing so then arguing from the presupposition that it means what a certain church's dogma states without regard for the historical non-Christian meanings and understanding were. Yet the Jesus and all twelve disciples were first century Jews, and their understanding would have to have been based upon that. One of the prime rules of hermeneutics is that a passage cannot mean something today that it didn't mean when it was written.
Tim
_____________________________
The Law is for the proud and the Gospel for the brokenhearted - Martin Luther
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/10/2008 5:23:46 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 891
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
You're claiming that it means that Peter is the leader of all of the Apostles as a result of what Jesus said to him. No, not exactly. What I am claiming is that God revealed to Peter the identity, the substance, of Jesus, and Peter demonstrated the acceptance of this revelation, in faith, in Chapter 16. Whether or not this acceptance of God's revealed truth makes him greater or lesser, leader or not, is another discussion - one that I am trying to avoid at this point. To this day, there remain people of great faith who are very poor administrators, or leaders for that matter. So what?
How different it would be if the person we were talking about in Chapter 16 was Barnabas. Or - where is the Church that has been historically tied to Paul and Timothy - tied by Apostolic succession to those two individuals? Or anyone defined as "Disciple" in Chapter 18?
Is the reference to Peter in Chapter 16 relevant, or coincidental? Are we to interpret this as Peter standing in for every Church pastor, or the significance of Peter being the historical pedigree of what Jesus intended to be "the Church", built upon the foundation...etc, to be?
_____________________________
When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity...it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if he turns from the wickedness he has committed, he does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life" - Ez 18:25-28
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/10/2008 10:16:46 AM
|
|
|
BerianAardvark
Posts: 371
Joined: 5/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
quote:
ORIGINAL: BerianAardvark
(Not bad for a Bible Believing Church...by which WE mean the whole thing, not just the last 27 books. )
So only NON-bible believing churches should look at rabbinic literature? Anyone truly interested in how the original NT documents would have been understood needs to have at least a basic understanding of the Mishnah and Talmuds. (BTW, there are 2 talmuds)
I am aware of the Babylonian Talmud, I even have a partial copy (about a third and that runs ten volumes)
NEW EDITION OF THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD
Original Text Edited, Corrected, Formulated, and Translated into English
BY MICHAEL L. RODKINSON
First Edition Revised and Corrected
BY THE REV. DR. ISAAC M. WISE
President Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, O.
Rodkinsons' ten-book edition, the only extensive one currently in the public domain, contains complete translations of the 'Festivals' and 'Jurisprudence' sections of the Talmud. Rodkinson only finished about a third of the Talmud. All ten volumes were prepared at Sacred-texts and are available here in their entirety.
It is in my to be studied as time allows file.
Are you aware that the Complete Tanach with Rashi is available on line through Judaica Press?
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm
Tim
Beware of Ichthus
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/10/2008 12:06:41 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1433
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
Mmm, I think that's more a matter of convenience than anything. After all, there *is* an apostolic succession still available to James as well (and Mark, Thomas, Andrew, Paul...). If ya'll couldn't claim Peter was super-special, then perhaps you'd pick someone who could be made out to be the successor of John ("the disciple that Jesus loved") who Jesus handed over His own mother to for safekeeping, or Paul, who was converted by divine intervention, or whoever. Whenever you're trying to make a single person out of a larger group super-special, you can usually find excuses to do so.
For that matter, other than an apocryphal book, there's no evidence that Peter founded the church in Rome anyway... in fact there's Scriptural indications to the contrary.
But, Aardvark is correct. Why would we not understand binding and loosing in the context it was given? The context in which it was understood in that time period is pretty obvious.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/10/2008 6:37:23 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 891
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the B | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
I am kidding---I do not pretend to fully understand anything but have seen abuse and manipulation of various passages for personal benefit, KWIM. So I really want to learn from you all and gain wisdom. Thank you. 
LL