Bind And Loose

[dairygirl4u2c]

bind and loose.

i never got a very good explanation from catholics about matthew 18 and isaiah 22 respectively below.

he's not talking about peter, and i don't know of any common interpretation about these verses below from a catholic perspective.
mostly just rationalizations, cause it dones't seem like jesus would be saying things about "where two or three of you are in my name, you can bind and lose" if he meant that binding and losing power to peter exclsuvely.

[quote]5Moreover 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.
16But 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.
17And 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.
18Verily 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.
19Again 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.
20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.[/quote]

[quote]22 6 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.
23 I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family;
24 7 On him shall hang all the glory of his family: descendants and offspring, all the little dishes, from bowls to jugs.
25 On that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg fixed in a sure spot shall give way, break off and fall, and the weight that hung on it shall be done away with; for the LORD has spoken.[/quote]

ideas?

Edited September 30, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[MilesJesu]

I don't think there is supposed to be a real close connection between Mt 18 and Is 22 in terms of binding and loosing. The connection of Is 22 is more closely aligned with Mt 16 where "open and shut" along with "the keys" have a closer parrallel. The most critical connection between the two lies in the keys which is prominent in both Is 22 and Mt 1passages.

To bind and loose is a rabbinic term that refers to authority among God's people. In Mt 18, the other disciples are given the power to bind and loose but keys are not mentioned nor is a specific office.

Peace,

MilesJesu

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='MilesJesu' post='1667662' date='Oct 1 2008, 11:03 AM']I don't think there is supposed to be a real close connection between Mt 18 and Is 22 in terms of binding and loosing. The connection of Is 22 is more closely aligned with Mt 16 where "open and shut" along with "the keys" have a closer parrallel. The most critical connection between the two lies in the keys which is prominent in both Is 22 and Mt 1passages.

To bind and loose is a rabbinic term that refers to authority among God's people. In Mt 18, the other disciples are given the power to bind and loose but keys are not mentioned nor is a specific office.

Peace,

MilesJesu[/quote]


how can you say "open and shut" go along more with teh keys? that was actually my point: if they go with the keys, that hurts the catholic position, cause hte issiah verse said that the person who got that authority fell like a peg. the peter's power can fall like a peg too, arguably, then. bind and loose then doesn't mean what catholic say.

as per mattehw 18. he wasn't talking to the other "apostle" but rather the other "disciples" as you said. that means anyone can bind and loose, doesn't it? shouldn't this detract from matthew 16 too, given that they too have bind and loose power? you're not aying we're all infallible?

how can keys have so much weight if everyday people, and people who fail like in isiah have that bind and lose power?

the whole of the catholic argument rests in matthew 16 on "bind and loose". these observations i have and that you're reinforcing illustrate that now all the interpretaion for catholics rests on the use of "keys". if that verse doesn't have teh "bind and loose" argument with the exclusiveness of it being tied to the keys, how can anyone be so sure catholics are right that keys means what they say?

Edited October 1, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[thessalonian]

"if he meant that binding and losing power to peter exclsuvely. "

It is not meant for petre exclusively. Matt 18 points toward the councils which have the same binding and loosing authority as the Pope.

As for the falling like a peg verse, not every verse in the prophecy about Isaiha has to be fullfilled in Peter. When Jesus said "The gates of hell shall not prevail" this showed that that part of the prophecy was not a part of the spiritual fullfillment in Peter. It was only a part of the physical/literal fullfillment in Eliakim taking the reigns from shebna. The peg of Peter is fastened in Christ rather than in the law which to me is what the following is about:

"And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father's house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons."

[thessalonian]

By the way as I understand it "open and shut" is the same rabbinical term for binding and loosing. Again Peter alone is given binding and loosing authority and also Peter in concert with all the Apostles in Matt 18. this is akin to the papacy and the councils.

[dairygirl4u2c]

in my opinion, it seems like quite a leap to say that matthew 18 is referring to bishops when they are in council. i know, i'm using words that belittle your psoition "bishop" etc as that's obviously not in the passage. but even looking at it as a rudimentary coucil, i don't see how you would get even that.
he's talking to random christians it looks like. not the apostles. not elder etc.

[MilesJesu]

I will do my best to answer your questions. To discuss this topic in detail requires a little bit of depth and time.

Mt 18 uses: "18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you [b]bind [/b]on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you [b]loose [/b]on earth shall be loosed in heaven. "

Mt 16 uses: "18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you [b]bind [/b]on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you [b]loose [/b]on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

In each case, "bind and loose" is used. This means that they share is some authority. You are absolutely correct in this aspect. However, to say:

[quote]as per mattehw 18. he wasn't talking to the other "apostle" but rather the other "disciples" as you said. that means anyone can bind and loose, doesn't it? shouldn't this detract from matthew 16 too, given that they too have bind and loose power? you're not aying we're all infallible?[/quote]

Goes too far. In Mt 18:13, the discussion is made with "his dicisples." Certainly, in some way we can insert ourselves in this passage, however, the first and primary reading would require us to understand that Jesus chose his 12 disciples from [b]all [/b]his followers. (Ref Mk 3:13-17). The Twelve were separate and chosen from Jesus' other followers.


[quote]how can you say "open and shut" go along more with teh keys? that was actually my point: if they go with the keys, that hurts the catholic position, cause hte issiah verse said that the person who got that authority fell like a peg. the peter's power can fall like a peg too, arguably, then. bind and loose then doesn't mean what catholic say.[/quote]

In this case, sure, the "open and shut" go with the keys. But the key distinction I was trying to make is that in the case of Mt 16, [b]only Peter [/b][u][/u] is given the keys. In Mt 18, [b]no one else[/b] is given the keys.

As for the significance of the keys, in Is 22, Shebna is being replaced by Eli'akim. Eliakim is given Shebna's [b]robe[/b], and [b]authority [/b]and is [b]to be a father[/b]: "21 and I will clothe him with your [b]robe[/b], and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your [b]authority [/b]to his hand; and he shall be a [b]father [/b]to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah."

Eliakim is the one given the key in 22: "I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David" And only Eliakim is promised by God that "23 ...I will [b]fasten him like a peg in a [u]sure[/u] pl[/b]ace, and he will become[b] a throne of honor to his father's house[/b].

Isaiah does not say Eliakim will fall like a peg. On the contrary, it says that Eliakim will be [b]fastened like a peg in a sure place[/b]. Shebna who was the one who fell and is being replaced. This is a type for Old and New but also specifically involving individuals.

Cont...

Edited October 4, 2008 by MilesJesu

[MilesJesu]

Cont...

[quote]how can keys have so much weight if everyday people, and people who fail like in isiah have that bind and lose power?[/quote]

The keys have weight because as we discussed in Is 22, Eliakim was to be over the "household." Shebna was in a particular "office" in the House of David the King. Keys have always symbolized power and authority hence the ceremony of being given the "keys to the city." But again, the Catholic argument is not that eveyone has the keys. Just like in Isaiah, only one person is given the keys. Mt 16 says that one person was Peter. Mt 1:1 puts the context of Mt in this Davidic context with: "1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, [b]the son of David[/b]"

Also, the people given the power to bind and loose was not everyone who ever followed Jesus. The example I gave before in Mk 3 is replayed numerous time throughout the scriptures as found in Acts 1, Acts 15, and even with Paul when he selects leaders in the various Churches. All these people have the power to bind and loose to some degree, but it is only 1 who was given the keys. You stated:

[quote]the whole of the catholic argument rests in matthew 16 on "bind and loose". these observations i have and that you're reinforcing illustrate that now all the interpretaion for catholics rests on the use of "keys". if that verse doesn't have teh "bind and loose" argument with the exclusiveness of it being tied to the keys, how can anyone be so sure catholics are right that keys means what they say?[/quote]

Actually, there are many more passages that lead Catholics to understanding the role of the heiarchy in the Church. Mt 16 is the most clear example because the plain meaning of keys as used in scripture deals with authority: Is 22, Mt 16, Rev 3:7. Any other substitution of a meaning for the keys would be "unbiblical."

I hope this helps address the questions you pose. They are very good questions and relating the various passages can be difficult. The common misconception of the Church is that the Pope is like the CEO and calls all the shots across all aspects of the Church, world wide. This is not the Catholic understanding as Bishops share in his authority to bind and loose in their respective dioceses.

Peace,

MilesJesu

[dairygirl4u2c]

you say that the peg was secured, and someone other than the peg fell. but the passage itself says the peg fell:

"the peg fixed in a sure spot shall give way, break off and fall"

the keys were given in david, and it don't mean what catholics say, and so why should we think ti means that in matthew 16?

also, "bind and lose" is detracted from, whatever the case, by virtue of that "peg" falling.
and i also think it detracted from matthew 18.

i don't see how you're getting "apostles" in the matthew 18 verse. it doesn't sayanything about them that i can see.
(also you seem to be refering to that passage as if it's gneerlly to disciles andthen other times to apostles so i'mnot sure what you're referring to)

but anyways whatever the case

Edited October 5, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[MilesJesu]

[quote]you say that the peg was secured, and someone other than the peg fell.[/quote]

In Is 22, who was Shebna and who was Eliakim? I think it is important to nail down this distintion. Also, what do you understand as having happened to them? I think we are not reading this in the same way.

[quote]the keys were given in david, and it don't mean what catholics say, and so why should we think ti means that in matthew 16?[/quote]

What do YOU think the keys mean in Is 22 and again in Mt 16?

Peace,

MilesJesu

[MilesJesu]

[quote]the keys were given in david, and it don't mean what catholics say, and so why should we think ti means that in matthew 16?[/quote]

If one were to look at the context of the entire bible to see the use of keys/key you will find:

Keys: Used twice.

Mt 16:19
Re 1:18

Key: Used 5 times.

Jud 3.25
Isa 22:22
Lu 11:52
Re 3:7
Re 9:1
Re: 20:1

In looking at these passages and usages, we can see that Jesus was not giving Peter a physical key to put on a key chain to open a passageway as found in Jud 3:25, Re 9:1 and Re 20:1.

Rather, the keys denote authority and power and would be the consistent usage of the meaning of the keys.

Peace,

MilesJesu

[MilesJesu]

[quote]i don't see how you're getting "apostles" in the matthew 18 verse. it doesn't sayanything about them that i can see.
(also you seem to be refering to that passage as if it's gneerlly to disciles andthen other times to apostles so i'mnot sure what you're referring to)[/quote]

Good point. I moved to quickly without explaining myself. Thank you.

I think the passage does apply to each of us. That is our "birthright" to some degree as we are all annointed priest, prophet and king in Christ. However, in this particular passage, it is in cluded in the context of Church discipline:

[[indent]i]15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. [/i][/indent]

It escalates from two (you and the brother), to several in the church, to finally, the whole of the church. In the whole of the church, there are leaders that have been appointed to serve in this role as shown in Acts 1, 14, 15, 22 and throughout the writings of Paul and commissioning of Timothy and Titus. It is in this specific context that the passage applies to the disciples and then, to some degree, to all of us. It has a dual meaning.

Additionally, with this in the background, Peter asks a questions in verse 21: "21 Then Peter came up and said to him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?"

This is why I think the passage applies primarily to the apostles/twelve disciples and then in addition to all of us.

Peace,

MilesJesu

[dairygirl4u2c]

also 'chair of peter' often means just the roman church, in the early church writings. nothing hinting at infallibility.
and, 'see of peter' was applied a lot to many churches back then.
and, the argument that the keys gives the popes infallibility or something akin to that without using that word, is not present in the early church.


[quote]Eastern Orthodox view

Eastern Orthodox theologians agree that in Matthew 16:18, "rock" is a likely reference to Peter personally.[15] Moreover, Eastern Orthodox theologians follow such Fathers as St. John Chrysostom by clarifying that "rock" simultaneously refers to Peter (instrumentally) as as well as Peter's confession of faith which has ultimate significance in establishing the Church.[16]

Some Orthodox scholars do not see Peter has being in any way above the other apostles, arguing that Peter did not have power and authority over them during Christ's public ministry. There were no positions of power between the twelve, only "degrees of intimacy" or "degrees of honor." According to this view, Peter has a weak symbolic primacy or primacy of honor (in the sense of a purely honorary primacy). Other Orthodox scholars follow St. John Chrysostom and the Byzantine[17] tradition in seeing Peter as the icon of the episcopate[18] with his title of protos (first) implying a certain level of authority over the other apostles. In this traditional Orthodox and Patristic view, the Church is the local Eucharistic assembly ("the diocese" in today's terminology) and the one who holds the "Chair of Peter" (St. Cyprian's expression) is the bishop. As a result, the primary of Peter is relevant to the relationship between the bishop and the presbyters, not between the bishop of Rome and the other bishops who are all equally holding Peter's chair.

As John Meyendorff explained: "A very clear patristic tradition sees the succession of Peter in the episcopal ministry. The doctrine of St Cyprian of Carthage on the “See of Peter” being present in every local Church, and not only in Rome, is well-known. It is also found in the East, among people who certainly never read the De unitate ecclesia of Cyprian, but who share its main idea, thus witnessing to it as part of the catholic tradition of the Church. St Gregory of Nyssa, for example, affirms that Christ “through Peter gave to the bishops the keys of the heavenly honors,” and the author of the Areopagitica, when speaking of the “hierarchs” of the Church, refers immediately to the image of St Peter. A careful analysis of ecclesiastical literature both Eastern and Western, of the first millennium, including such documents as the lives of the saint, would certainly show that this tradition was a persistent one; and indeed it belongs to the essence of Christian ecclesiology to consider any local bishop to be the teacher of his flock and therefore to fulfill sacramentally, through apostolic succession, the office of the first true believer, Peter... There exists, however, another succession, equally recognized by Byzantine theologians, but only on the level of the analogy existing between the apostolic college and the episcopal college, this second succession being determined by the need for ecclesiastical order. Its limits are determined by the Councils, and - in the Byzantine practice – by the “very pious emperors.” (The Primacy of Peter, p. 89)

Orthodox historians also maintain that Rome's authority in the early Eastern Roman (or Byzantine) empire was recognized only partially because of Rome's Petrine character, and that this factor was not the decisive issue. Moreover, the Orthodox view is that Rome's privileges were not understood as an absolute power (i.e. the difference between primacy and supremacy). In the East, there were numerous "apostolic sees", Jerusalem being considered the "mother of all churches," and the bishop of Antioch could also claim the title of successor to Peter, being that Peter was the first bishop of Antioch. "Canon 28 of Chalcedon was for [the Byzantines] one of the essential texts for the organization of the Church: 'It is for right reasons that the accorded privileges to old Rome, for this city was the seat of the Emperor and the Senate.' ... The reason why the Roman Church had been accorded an incontestable precedence over all other apostolic churches was that its Petrine and Pauline 'apostolicity' was in fact added to the city's position as the capital city, and only the conjunction of both of these elements gave the Bishop of Rome the right to occupy the place of a primate in the Christian world with the consensus of all the churches."[19][/quote]

Edited April 27, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[thessalonian]

The councils, as well as the ordinary magesterium, have the same authority, i.e. binding and losing (opening and shutting in rabbinical terms) as the Pope so that is the connection. Pretty simple really. Catholicism is not a dictatorship.

Edited April 27, 2009 by thessalonian