V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Hmmmm . . . I’m not sure I understand you. Do you say the Chruch should not have rejected Arianism? That it should not have issued a formal statement of rejection?
- Status
P
Pax
Guest
You could not be more wrong about this.
The passage says nothing about God slaying Onan for being deceitful. Likewise, the passage does not say that God would slay someone for not following the tradition of carrying on the brothers line through the sister in law.
What the passage “clearly states” is this:
Gen 38:9-10
“But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also.”
The specific action that was displeasing to the Lord was Onan deliberately interupting the act of intercourse and spilling his seed upon the ground. That is the clear meaning of the passage and the exposition given elsewhere (i.e. the sandal treatment) in Dueteronomy utterly refutes your position.
P
Pax
Guest
Actually, people are easily persuaded by the example of their leaders. In the case of Peter, you must remember that even Paul refers to him as one of the pillars. Peter’s stature is such that the hypocrisy has a significant effect. Remember the words of Paul when it comes to scandal.
Romans 14:21-22
It is best to abstain from eating any meat, or drinking any wine, or from any other activity which might cause a brother to fall away, or to be scandalised, or to weaken.
That verse shows the power of behavior even though someone isn’t teaching something. You have a preconceived idea about the ramifications of this passage concerning Peter’s hypocrisy that is not in the text. Moreover, Peter was the one that proclaimed the teaching against circumcision of the gentiles at the 1st Council of Jerusalem. He never changed the teaching. He simply acted badly and hypocritically. Paul said that Peter was condemned. He was obviously condemned because he, himself, had already proclaimed the teaching. Likewise, Paul goes on to call it “insincerity” on the part of both Peter and Barnabas.
What you have done is superimposed your view on the text. This is known as eisegesis.
P
Pax
Guest
Here was my comment and your response:
You need to re-examine this especially by way of scripture. The “bunch of dudes” that you refer to happen to be in some rather excellent Christian company. Our Lord and Savior Jesus was never married and did not have sex and neither did the apostle Paul. Both have some wonderful things to say on the subject that are diametrically opposed to your contentions. I will assume for the moment that you do not disagree with either of them being in a position to comment on sex and marriage even though they were celibate.
" But he said to them, "Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."
Paul calls others to be celibate like himself. How is it that we are simply supposed to ignore all of this? How is it that you can give such a flippant answer to something that some Christians are called to for the sake of the kingdom? We are to be like Christ and those that are more and more like Christ for the sake of the kingdom are heeding scripture and the call of Jesus reinforced by Paul.
The Church is simply following scripture on its teachings pertaining to celibacy, marriage, and procreation. The constant teaching of Christianity until 1930 is a testimony to that truth.
You need to re-examine this especially by way of scripture. The “bunch of dudes” that you refer to happen to be in some rather excellent Christian company. Our Lord and Savior Jesus was never married and did not have sex and neither did the apostle Paul. Both have some wonderful things to say on the subject that are diametrically opposed to your contentions. I will assume for the moment that you do not disagree with either of them being in a position to comment on sex and marriage even though they were celibate.
Pardon me, but this is a ridiculous response. Perhaps you did not read further and notice my reference to Jesus praising celibacy in Matthew 19:11-12. Did you even read the passage. Let me quote it for you. It says:Well, Jesus was like, God, or something, wasn’t he? All-knowing? And Paul was inspired. They get a pass. Come on.…
…
" But he said to them, "Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."
Paul calls others to be celibate like himself. How is it that we are simply supposed to ignore all of this? How is it that you can give such a flippant answer to something that some Christians are called to for the sake of the kingdom? We are to be like Christ and those that are more and more like Christ for the sake of the kingdom are heeding scripture and the call of Jesus reinforced by Paul.
The Church is simply following scripture on its teachings pertaining to celibacy, marriage, and procreation. The constant teaching of Christianity until 1930 is a testimony to that truth.
P
Pax
Guest
Let’s see what Paul actually says about disagreements and the importance of doctrine.
Romans 16: 17-18
I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded.
Ephesians 4: 13-14
…until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.
1 Timothy 1: 3
As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,
1Timothy 4: 1
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
1 Timothy 4: 6-8
If you put these instructions before the brethren, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the good doctrine which you have followed. Have nothing to do with godless and silly myths. Train yourself in godliness;
for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.
You might also take some time to study the 17th chapter of John’s gospel. Jesus says some very significant things about unity.
Likewise, Paul says the following about unity:
Eph 4:1-5
I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling,
one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Phi 1:27
Only, live your life in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that, whether I come and see you or am absent and hear about you, I will know that you are standing firm in one spirit, striving side by side with one mind for the faith of the gospel,
Phi 2:1-2
If then there is any encouragement in Christ, any consolation from love, any sharing in the Spirit, any compassion and sympathy, make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.
P
Pax
Guest
I believe the case for apostolic succession by way of the bishops has been established. We also know that others were called “apostle” beyond the original twelve. Among them are Matthias, Paul, and Barnabas.
Apostolic succession, authority in doctrine and teaching are all part of the Catholic Church. It has been this way since the day of Pentecost. The Papacy and the Magesterium are necessary for teaching the truth and for confuting errors. There is an equivalent pattern in the OT and Jesus followed that pattern with the NT Church in appointing apostles, giving Peter the keys, and giving the apostles the power to bind and loose. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to assume that this authority and the heirarchy would die with the last apostle. Scripture and history both deny it.
A gifted apologist that posted on this forum before the crash wrote the following:
This was put together by SteveG
Solo Ecclesia
When faced with the obvious unworkability of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, many Protestants appeal to the supposed subjectivity of the Catholic authority as a defense. The most common argument is to claim something along the lines of what James White does. He accuses the Catholic side of using what he calls ‘Sola Ecclesia’, and claims , ‘That to set forth the necessity of an Infallible Church to interpret a Revelation that can not be interpreted is simply to move our cries of subjectivity back a single step.’
While this argument ignores the fact that even if true it still doesn’t prove Sola Scriptura (at best it means that both Sola Scriptura and the Catholic position are false), it raises a valid question. Is the Catholic understanding subjective in the same way Sola Scriptura is? This question is in no way outrageous and deserves a response. We must see if an evidentiary case can indeed be made for the Catholic understanding of authority.
At the outset we have to admit that this claim (as with any claim) can not be proved absolutely. Any understanding of history is, by nature, to some extent subjective. Any religious belief by definition is held by faith. But unlike Sola Scriptura, which is self contradictory and illogical on it’s face, a case can be made for the Catholic understanding. While that case is not self-refuting, nor contradictory, each reader must still weigh the evidence and judge if it can stand or not.
Authority and Interpretation in Jewish Culture during Jesus’ life
It would seem to me that the best place to start would be to look at what model of authority and interpretation existed during the life of Jesus. We can then look to see we can find out whether Jesus Himself had any view on that model.
The Sanhedrin
We do in fact know that a model existed. It was the Sanhedrin. During Jesus’ life the Sanhedrin was the supreme council and court of justice among the Jews. The exact origins of the Sanhedrin is a subject of debate. Some experts tie it to the council of seventy found in Numbers Chapter 11. Some have sought to link its origin to the founding of the ‘Great Synagogue’ of which tradition attributed to Esdras. Other interpretations have also been offered. Regardless of it’s origin, it is widely acknowledged (including in the New Testament (NT)) that it was the seat of religious power in Judaism at the time of Jesus.
According to the testimony of the Mishna (Sanh., i, 6; Shebuoth, ii, 2), confirmed by a remark of Josephus newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm (“Bell. Jud.”, II, xx, 5), the Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one members, president included. Jewish tradition appealed to Numbers 9:16, to justify this number and indeed the model of 70 elders in addition to Moses as ‘president’ does seem to fit fairly well.
According to what rules the members were appointed and the vacancies filled up is unclear; it seems that various customs prevailed on this point at different periods. Since the Sanhedrin had to deal frequently with legal matters, it was natural that many of its members should be chosen from among men specially given to the study of the Law; this is why we so often hear of the scribes and Pharisees in the Sanhedrin. Most of those scribes during the time of Christ were Pharisees, with other members being of the Sadducee persuasion. At any rate we are told (Sanh., iv, 4) that a semikah, or imposition of hands, took place at the formal installation of the new appointees; and there is every reason to believe that the appointment was for life.
The jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin varied in extension at different periods. At the time of the public life of Jesus, only the eleven toparchies of Judea were de jure subject to the Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem; however, de facto the Jews all the world over acknowledged its authority (as an instances of this, see Acts 9:2; 22:5; 26:12). As the supreme court of justice of the nation, the Sanhedrin was appealed to when the lower courts were unable to come to a decision (Sanh., vii, 1; xi, 2); moreover, it had the exclusive right of judgment in matters of special importance, as for instance the case of a false prophet, accusations against the high priest, the sending out of an army in certain circumstances, the enlarging of the city of Jerusalem, or of the Temple courts, etc. (Sanh., i, 5; ii, 4; iii, 4); the few instances mentioned in the New Testament exemplify the cases to which the competency of the Sanhedrin extended; in short, all religious matters and all civil matters not claimed by Roman authority were within its attributions; and the decisions issued by its judges were to be held inviolable (Sanh., xi, 2-4).
Evidence 1
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.
cont. on next post
Apostolic succession, authority in doctrine and teaching are all part of the Catholic Church. It has been this way since the day of Pentecost. The Papacy and the Magesterium are necessary for teaching the truth and for confuting errors. There is an equivalent pattern in the OT and Jesus followed that pattern with the NT Church in appointing apostles, giving Peter the keys, and giving the apostles the power to bind and loose. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to assume that this authority and the heirarchy would die with the last apostle. Scripture and history both deny it.
A gifted apologist that posted on this forum before the crash wrote the following:
This was put together by SteveG
Solo Ecclesia
When faced with the obvious unworkability of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, many Protestants appeal to the supposed subjectivity of the Catholic authority as a defense. The most common argument is to claim something along the lines of what James White does. He accuses the Catholic side of using what he calls ‘Sola Ecclesia’, and claims , ‘That to set forth the necessity of an Infallible Church to interpret a Revelation that can not be interpreted is simply to move our cries of subjectivity back a single step.’
While this argument ignores the fact that even if true it still doesn’t prove Sola Scriptura (at best it means that both Sola Scriptura and the Catholic position are false), it raises a valid question. Is the Catholic understanding subjective in the same way Sola Scriptura is? This question is in no way outrageous and deserves a response. We must see if an evidentiary case can indeed be made for the Catholic understanding of authority.
At the outset we have to admit that this claim (as with any claim) can not be proved absolutely. Any understanding of history is, by nature, to some extent subjective. Any religious belief by definition is held by faith. But unlike Sola Scriptura, which is self contradictory and illogical on it’s face, a case can be made for the Catholic understanding. While that case is not self-refuting, nor contradictory, each reader must still weigh the evidence and judge if it can stand or not.
Authority and Interpretation in Jewish Culture during Jesus’ life
It would seem to me that the best place to start would be to look at what model of authority and interpretation existed during the life of Jesus. We can then look to see we can find out whether Jesus Himself had any view on that model.
The Sanhedrin
We do in fact know that a model existed. It was the Sanhedrin. During Jesus’ life the Sanhedrin was the supreme council and court of justice among the Jews. The exact origins of the Sanhedrin is a subject of debate. Some experts tie it to the council of seventy found in Numbers Chapter 11. Some have sought to link its origin to the founding of the ‘Great Synagogue’ of which tradition attributed to Esdras. Other interpretations have also been offered. Regardless of it’s origin, it is widely acknowledged (including in the New Testament (NT)) that it was the seat of religious power in Judaism at the time of Jesus.
According to the testimony of the Mishna (Sanh., i, 6; Shebuoth, ii, 2), confirmed by a remark of Josephus newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm (“Bell. Jud.”, II, xx, 5), the Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one members, president included. Jewish tradition appealed to Numbers 9:16, to justify this number and indeed the model of 70 elders in addition to Moses as ‘president’ does seem to fit fairly well.
According to what rules the members were appointed and the vacancies filled up is unclear; it seems that various customs prevailed on this point at different periods. Since the Sanhedrin had to deal frequently with legal matters, it was natural that many of its members should be chosen from among men specially given to the study of the Law; this is why we so often hear of the scribes and Pharisees in the Sanhedrin. Most of those scribes during the time of Christ were Pharisees, with other members being of the Sadducee persuasion. At any rate we are told (Sanh., iv, 4) that a semikah, or imposition of hands, took place at the formal installation of the new appointees; and there is every reason to believe that the appointment was for life.
The jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin varied in extension at different periods. At the time of the public life of Jesus, only the eleven toparchies of Judea were de jure subject to the Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem; however, de facto the Jews all the world over acknowledged its authority (as an instances of this, see Acts 9:2; 22:5; 26:12). As the supreme court of justice of the nation, the Sanhedrin was appealed to when the lower courts were unable to come to a decision (Sanh., vii, 1; xi, 2); moreover, it had the exclusive right of judgment in matters of special importance, as for instance the case of a false prophet, accusations against the high priest, the sending out of an army in certain circumstances, the enlarging of the city of Jerusalem, or of the Temple courts, etc. (Sanh., i, 5; ii, 4; iii, 4); the few instances mentioned in the New Testament exemplify the cases to which the competency of the Sanhedrin extended; in short, all religious matters and all civil matters not claimed by Roman authority were within its attributions; and the decisions issued by its judges were to be held inviolable (Sanh., xi, 2-4).
Evidence 1
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.
cont. on next post
P
Pax
Guest
cont. from prior post
Jesus’ View
Seeing that this is the case, we must then ask if we can determine what Jesus thought of this model. Let us take a look at Matthew 23: 1-10…
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.
Regardless of the historical debate of its origins, Jesus here is linking the Sanhedrin directly to Moses and the seventy for us. Moses’ seat in the context of Christ’s comments clearly represents Moses teaching authority. Jesus is telling us the Sanhedrin now has this authority. In this statement he is explicitly endorsing that teaching authority in the model outlined above.
As an aside, this bodes ill for Sola Scriptura in a double manner. Firstly, because Jesus here endorses the teaching authority of the Sanhedrin while making no mention of Torah authority. Secondly because he is using an oral tradition Himself to teach. The ‘Seat of Moses’ is nowhere mentioned in the Old Testament (OT), but is rather an oral tradition of the Jews of that time that he assumes they will recognize.
Also note that this passage does NOT say that the scribes and Pharisees teach false doctrines. Rather, what Jesus points out is that they teach true doctrine, but they do not practice what they preach. Because they “sit in Moses’ Seat,” i.e. they teach with the authority of Moses, they must be obeyed in their teaching, i.e. their teaching is correct, but they are not to be followed by their example, “for they say, and do not.”
Evidence 1
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.
Evidence 2
The teaching authority of the Sanhedrin was explicitly endorsed by Jesus.
The New Church and Authority
It seems reasonable then to argue that if this model was endorsed by Christ, then as he was establishing His Church, he might use this same model, and his disciples would recognize it. But this can not be assumed. We must look to see if there is any indication of this.
Let us start with Matthew 18:15-18
"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. 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. 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. 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.
In this teaching we have Jesus explaining how resolution for offenses is to be handled in the Church which he is establishing. The model follows the Jewish model of the time of an escalation of the issue until it reaches the Church/Synagogue. But ultimately it is assumed that the Church will have the authority to make a definitive judgment in the matter. In order to be a judge, one must have that authority. We already know how that authority was invested in the Jewish culture and that Jesus acknowledged and endorsed that system. It is the Catholic understanding that Jesus is making a statement here that in His Church, it is His disciples who will hold such power (i.e. the ‘new’ Sanhedrin). In giving the power to bind and loose to His disciples, he is investing in them the authority to teach, interpret and be judges in His new Church.
Who is the ‘YOU’
There are two main issues that must be clarified in order to support this understanding. Firstly, who the ‘you’ is in the ‘truly’ I say to you. Secondly, whether the power of binding and loosing does indeed indicate such authority.
Via Matt. 18:1 we know that the dialogue above was a conversation between Jesus and His disciples. During the dialogue He at times expands the context of the teaching to include a wider group (see 18:5 (whoever), 18:15(brother)), but His emphatic ‘I say unto YOU’ implies that he is addressing the next statement specifically to the conversants. In addition, in the context of the preceding versus regarding the ‘church’, it would seem non-sensical (especially in light of what we know about the Jewish authority structure), to give judgmental and teaching authority to all members. If each member has equivalent authority, then there is by definition no ‘higher’ authority to which one can appeal. It would make the investing of authority and the escalation of the issue unworkable.
cont. on next post
Jesus’ View
Seeing that this is the case, we must then ask if we can determine what Jesus thought of this model. Let us take a look at Matthew 23: 1-10…
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.
Regardless of the historical debate of its origins, Jesus here is linking the Sanhedrin directly to Moses and the seventy for us. Moses’ seat in the context of Christ’s comments clearly represents Moses teaching authority. Jesus is telling us the Sanhedrin now has this authority. In this statement he is explicitly endorsing that teaching authority in the model outlined above.
As an aside, this bodes ill for Sola Scriptura in a double manner. Firstly, because Jesus here endorses the teaching authority of the Sanhedrin while making no mention of Torah authority. Secondly because he is using an oral tradition Himself to teach. The ‘Seat of Moses’ is nowhere mentioned in the Old Testament (OT), but is rather an oral tradition of the Jews of that time that he assumes they will recognize.
Also note that this passage does NOT say that the scribes and Pharisees teach false doctrines. Rather, what Jesus points out is that they teach true doctrine, but they do not practice what they preach. Because they “sit in Moses’ Seat,” i.e. they teach with the authority of Moses, they must be obeyed in their teaching, i.e. their teaching is correct, but they are not to be followed by their example, “for they say, and do not.”
Evidence 1
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.
Evidence 2
The teaching authority of the Sanhedrin was explicitly endorsed by Jesus.
The New Church and Authority
It seems reasonable then to argue that if this model was endorsed by Christ, then as he was establishing His Church, he might use this same model, and his disciples would recognize it. But this can not be assumed. We must look to see if there is any indication of this.
Let us start with Matthew 18:15-18
"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. 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. 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. 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.
In this teaching we have Jesus explaining how resolution for offenses is to be handled in the Church which he is establishing. The model follows the Jewish model of the time of an escalation of the issue until it reaches the Church/Synagogue. But ultimately it is assumed that the Church will have the authority to make a definitive judgment in the matter. In order to be a judge, one must have that authority. We already know how that authority was invested in the Jewish culture and that Jesus acknowledged and endorsed that system. It is the Catholic understanding that Jesus is making a statement here that in His Church, it is His disciples who will hold such power (i.e. the ‘new’ Sanhedrin). In giving the power to bind and loose to His disciples, he is investing in them the authority to teach, interpret and be judges in His new Church.
Who is the ‘YOU’
There are two main issues that must be clarified in order to support this understanding. Firstly, who the ‘you’ is in the ‘truly’ I say to you. Secondly, whether the power of binding and loosing does indeed indicate such authority.
Via Matt. 18:1 we know that the dialogue above was a conversation between Jesus and His disciples. During the dialogue He at times expands the context of the teaching to include a wider group (see 18:5 (whoever), 18:15(brother)), but His emphatic ‘I say unto YOU’ implies that he is addressing the next statement specifically to the conversants. In addition, in the context of the preceding versus regarding the ‘church’, it would seem non-sensical (especially in light of what we know about the Jewish authority structure), to give judgmental and teaching authority to all members. If each member has equivalent authority, then there is by definition no ‘higher’ authority to which one can appeal. It would make the investing of authority and the escalation of the issue unworkable.
cont. on next post
P
Pax
Guest
cont. from prior post
In light of the context that Church functioning is what is actually being discussed, and in light of the Jewish model, it seems more reasonable to posit that Jesus is investing this authority in His ‘disciples’. It is also important to mention that in context of Matthew, ‘disciples’ was a much more restrictive term than crowd, or followers. I personally believe that a full reading of Matthew strongly suggests, that for whatever his purpose, Matthew did not acknowledge any other of the disciples than the twelve. Even a more expansive reading using the context of Luke, which tells us that the full circle of disciples (as opposed to followers) totaled at most seventy (hmmm, that number seventy again, another tie to the existing Jewish model?) is still fairly restrictive.
Binding and Loosing
The crucial issue is whether authority is what is being given by Jesus in this teachings. What did He mean by the terms “bind” and “loose?” These words were commonly used by Jewish rabbis. New Testament scholars agree that “binding and loosing,” when used in this way, retain the basic meaning that they had in the Jewish culture of the first century.
For example, the THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT states under the entries for “deo” and “luo” (the Greek words for binding and loosing used in Matthew), "Jesus does not give to Peter and the other disciples any power to enchant or to free by magic. The customary meaning of the Rabbinic expressions is equally incontestable, namely, to declare forbidden or permitted, and thus to impose or remove an obligation, by a doctrinal decision."1 TDNT draws the conclusion that this is the meaning of the words as used in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18.
cont. on next post
In light of the context that Church functioning is what is actually being discussed, and in light of the Jewish model, it seems more reasonable to posit that Jesus is investing this authority in His ‘disciples’. It is also important to mention that in context of Matthew, ‘disciples’ was a much more restrictive term than crowd, or followers. I personally believe that a full reading of Matthew strongly suggests, that for whatever his purpose, Matthew did not acknowledge any other of the disciples than the twelve. Even a more expansive reading using the context of Luke, which tells us that the full circle of disciples (as opposed to followers) totaled at most seventy (hmmm, that number seventy again, another tie to the existing Jewish model?) is still fairly restrictive.
Binding and Loosing
The crucial issue is whether authority is what is being given by Jesus in this teachings. What did He mean by the terms “bind” and “loose?” These words were commonly used by Jewish rabbis. New Testament scholars agree that “binding and loosing,” when used in this way, retain the basic meaning that they had in the Jewish culture of the first century.
For example, the THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT states under the entries for “deo” and “luo” (the Greek words for binding and loosing used in Matthew), "Jesus does not give to Peter and the other disciples any power to enchant or to free by magic. The customary meaning of the Rabbinic expressions is equally incontestable, namely, to declare forbidden or permitted, and thus to impose or remove an obligation, by a doctrinal decision."1 TDNT draws the conclusion that this is the meaning of the words as used in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18.
cont. on next post
P
Pax
Guest
cont. from prior post
A. T. Robertson, one of this century’s leading Greek scholars, also comments on Matthew 16:19: "To
Concerning Matthew 16:19, William Hendriksen states, "The very wording - note
Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament, under the entry "de " (to bind), states, “…by a Chaldean and rabbinic idiom to forbid, prohibit, declare illicit: Matthew 16:19; 18:18.”
In Matthew 18, Christ is clearly giving the disciples an authoritative power to teach doctrine in His Church. But these cites also reference Matthew 16:19 as well. Let us take a look now at Matthew
16:Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17: And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
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 bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Here we have Christ giving this power specifically to Peter at the same time as giving him a new name of ‘Rock’ (Cephus, Petros) (chronologically this occurred earlier). So he specifically singles Peter out and gives him this authority. Why was this necessary if he was going to do so later in Matt 18. The ‘key’ to this is in the first part of the statement ‘I will give you the keys to of the kingdom of heaven’. He single Peter out because he is giving him something additional that he won’t give the other disciples in Matt. 18. So what do the keys represent?
The image of the keys is probably drawn from Isaiah 22:15-25 usccb.org/nab/bible/isaiah/isaiah22.htm where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David,” which he authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (Isaiah 22:22 usccb.org/nab/bible/isaiah/isaiah22.htm)). It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. If Jesus is not giving some additional rank or authority to Peter alone, then what can it mean that Jesus not only singled him out for this blessing, but also gave the blessing with a second ‘gift’ (the keys) as well. The Protestant view that Peter here is given nothing special defies logic and again makes a statement of Jesus meaningless.
The Best Evidence - Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 In Action
If the ‘interpretations’ of the above two passages are unconvincing, then we can look elsewhere in the NT to see how Peter and the others understood Jesus’ teaching on binding and loosing by examining their actions as recorded in the Book of Acts. Acts 15 records a dispute that arose about the behavior of Gentiles who were recently becoming part of the church. Their customs were far different from the Jews, who then made up most of the church. Should the new Gentile converts be required to be circumcised and to keep other requirements of the Law of Moses? So how was this issue resolved?
1:But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2: And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
We see Paul and Barnabas heading up to the first council at Jerusalem for a resolution. They go to the ‘Apostles and Elders’ to have the issue decided. So what happens next?
6:The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7: And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8: And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 9: and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. 10: Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11: But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” 12: And all the assembly kept silence;
What happens is that the apostles and elders debate the issue, Peter rises (note that his rising ends the debate), and gives his decision in very clear terms ‘We believe…, just as they will’. Not ‘We believe…so the should’, but ‘We believe…just as they will’. This is a definitive statement. And all the assembly kept silence. A few moments later, James concurs with Peter (this would have been ecclesiastically appropriate since they were in Jerusalem, and James was the bishop of the Church in Jerusalem). No further burden was to be placed upon the Gentile Christians. The apostles herein exercised the power of binding and loosing, as given by Jesus, and Peter took the lead role in doing so. The authority to bind and loose is the authority to declare what is God’s mind on a matter of doctrine or practice. This is what the early church did in Acts 15.
cont. on next post
A. T. Robertson, one of this century’s leading Greek scholars, also comments on Matthew 16:19: "To
bind' in rabbinical language is to forbid, to loose’ is to permit.Concerning Matthew 16:19, William Hendriksen states, "The very wording - note
whatever,' not whoever’ - shows that the passage refers to things, in this case beliefs and actions, not directly to people. Binding and loosing are rabbinical terms, meaning forbidding and permitting."3Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament, under the entry "de " (to bind), states, “…by a Chaldean and rabbinic idiom to forbid, prohibit, declare illicit: Matthew 16:19; 18:18.”
In Matthew 18, Christ is clearly giving the disciples an authoritative power to teach doctrine in His Church. But these cites also reference Matthew 16:19 as well. Let us take a look now at Matthew
16:Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17: And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
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 bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Here we have Christ giving this power specifically to Peter at the same time as giving him a new name of ‘Rock’ (Cephus, Petros) (chronologically this occurred earlier). So he specifically singles Peter out and gives him this authority. Why was this necessary if he was going to do so later in Matt 18. The ‘key’ to this is in the first part of the statement ‘I will give you the keys to of the kingdom of heaven’. He single Peter out because he is giving him something additional that he won’t give the other disciples in Matt. 18. So what do the keys represent?
The image of the keys is probably drawn from Isaiah 22:15-25 usccb.org/nab/bible/isaiah/isaiah22.htm where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David,” which he authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (Isaiah 22:22 usccb.org/nab/bible/isaiah/isaiah22.htm)). It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. If Jesus is not giving some additional rank or authority to Peter alone, then what can it mean that Jesus not only singled him out for this blessing, but also gave the blessing with a second ‘gift’ (the keys) as well. The Protestant view that Peter here is given nothing special defies logic and again makes a statement of Jesus meaningless.
The Best Evidence - Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 In Action
If the ‘interpretations’ of the above two passages are unconvincing, then we can look elsewhere in the NT to see how Peter and the others understood Jesus’ teaching on binding and loosing by examining their actions as recorded in the Book of Acts. Acts 15 records a dispute that arose about the behavior of Gentiles who were recently becoming part of the church. Their customs were far different from the Jews, who then made up most of the church. Should the new Gentile converts be required to be circumcised and to keep other requirements of the Law of Moses? So how was this issue resolved?
1:But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2: And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
We see Paul and Barnabas heading up to the first council at Jerusalem for a resolution. They go to the ‘Apostles and Elders’ to have the issue decided. So what happens next?
6:The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7: And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8: And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 9: and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. 10: Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11: But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” 12: And all the assembly kept silence;
What happens is that the apostles and elders debate the issue, Peter rises (note that his rising ends the debate), and gives his decision in very clear terms ‘We believe…, just as they will’. Not ‘We believe…so the should’, but ‘We believe…just as they will’. This is a definitive statement. And all the assembly kept silence. A few moments later, James concurs with Peter (this would have been ecclesiastically appropriate since they were in Jerusalem, and James was the bishop of the Church in Jerusalem). No further burden was to be placed upon the Gentile Christians. The apostles herein exercised the power of binding and loosing, as given by Jesus, and Peter took the lead role in doing so. The authority to bind and loose is the authority to declare what is God’s mind on a matter of doctrine or practice. This is what the early church did in Acts 15.
cont. on next post
P
Pax
Guest
cont. from prior post
Evidence 1
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.
Evidence 2
The teaching authority of the Sanhedrin was explicitly endorsed by Jesus.
Evidence 3
Jesus invests teaching/doctrinal authority (previously held by the Sanhedrin) for His church in His disciples. His disciples recognize this commission and demonstrated such by exercising that authority.
Argument 1
Jesus intended for an authoritative body to exist in His church which would be able to teach on doctrinal issue (i.e. necessity of circumcision). That body was established and consisted of His Disciples (the Apostles and elders). That body recognized it’s authority and exercised it over the rest of the Church body. The body likewise recognized that authority and looked to it to resolve disputes (i.e. Paul and Barnabas were sent up to that body to get a judgment).
Evidence 1
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.
Evidence 2
The teaching authority of the Sanhedrin was explicitly endorsed by Jesus.
Evidence 3
Jesus invests teaching/doctrinal authority (previously held by the Sanhedrin) for His church in His disciples. His disciples recognize this commission and demonstrated such by exercising that authority.
Argument 1
Jesus intended for an authoritative body to exist in His church which would be able to teach on doctrinal issue (i.e. necessity of circumcision). That body was established and consisted of His Disciples (the Apostles and elders). That body recognized it’s authority and exercised it over the rest of the Church body. The body likewise recognized that authority and looked to it to resolve disputes (i.e. Paul and Barnabas were sent up to that body to get a judgment).
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Regarding “Binding and Loosing”, it’s obvious that Jesus left this authority with the Church, but then Catholics are chastised for using this God-given authority.
It’s almost like, “What do you Catholics think you are doing, using something that Christ left with you”?!? The same goes for the authority to absolve the Faithful of their sins.
It’s almost like, “What do you Catholics think you are doing, using something that Christ left with you”?!? The same goes for the authority to absolve the Faithful of their sins.
H
Hilde89
Guest
Hi:wave:
Wow, a lot of posts. I didn’t expect that.
So have I understood this right? The quote is about being given the authority to absolve(or not to absolve) sin? The reason I got confused is because this quote is so often brought up to prove papal infallibility scripturally.
Wow, a lot of posts. I didn’t expect that.
So have I understood this right? The quote is about being given the authority to absolve(or not to absolve) sin? The reason I got confused is because this quote is so often brought up to prove papal infallibility scripturally.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
No, the quote is about how to resolve issues that may bring Christians closer to God (fasting on Fridays, for example), issues that have not been dealt with prior to a situation (cloning and embryonic stem cell research come to mind), and the authority to absolve sin. I’m sure I’m missing out on a few.Hi:wave:
Wow, a lot of posts. I didn’t expect that.
So have I understood this right? The quote is about being given the authority to absolve(or not to absolve) sin? The reason I got confused is because this quote is so often brought up to prove papal infallibility scripturally.
The Pope, with this authority, can issue or rescind Disciplines.
G
geekborj
Guest
I agree to being greed as one reason of Onan’s death.
However, it is clear that there are several reasons why Onan is punished by God in the story. Why are we ignoring some yet highlighting only one or two?
Indeed, if one says that he was killed by God because of Onan’s greed, does that justify contraception? Is it not also clear that Onan’s actions also involve adultery (in the mind) because of his “prevention” of procreative power of marital act? Onan’s action is one of the best ways to illustrate the importance of being open to procreation for every marital act. This is the reason why the Church uses it first and foremost for Her defense of being against any means of contraception. As for greed and other “major” sins, a lot can be used not just Onan’s case. But of course, you may do so if you please.
Throwing back the question, “how could you justify contraception using the Word of God?” that is, if it can be done.
P
Pax
Guest
I really don’t mean to ignore the related dimensions of Onan’s sin. What I am pointing out is that the action that Onan took that kindled God’s anger and precipitated his death is clearly indicated by the passage itself. The related issues did not precipitate the slaying of Onan. ckemptson has been attempting to play this down in such a way that he can contend that contraception is “not” forbidden by scripture in so far as Onan’s story is concerned. I think that both you and I agree would disagree with his position.
D
Deacon_Joseph
Guest
Saint Peter and Saint Paul chose St. Linus as the successor to St. Peter in Rome.
P
Pax
Guest
One more thing on celibacy and its merits. If it is so bad then someone needs to explain the following passage from the book of Revelation:Well, Jesus was like, God, or something, wasn’t he? All-knowing? And Paul was inspired. They get a pass. Come on.
…
It could also be argued that Paul’s preference for celibacy was, in part, due to his expectation of an imminent return of Christ. If we were all celibate, the church wouldn’t last long.
…
Rev 14:3-5
And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.
P
planter654
Guest
I agree and isn’t funny you used bible verses that you now think I am “capable of understanding”! If I quoted them you would say I am twisting them or I or others do not understand what it truly means! Only the Catholic Church can do so.
Any way I truly agree with you, but that warning can work both ways! So you and I must understand when the scriptures say made no Idol in the image of man or womand or bird.
Yes, everything outside of God, is vainty!
God Bless
P
planter654
Guest
The “Keys of Knowledge” Were given where and said where? In Jerusalem. Jesus used smbols when he preach. Keys more than one, Knowledge because St. Peter had learnt from God who Jesus was! Jesus even comments on this and tells Peter. You did not learn this from me, but you learnt this from my Father! God has choosen Peter for a purpose and Jesus knew his Father did so! Peter was given the “KEYS OF KNOWLEDGE”
In the old Testament and I will find it. It backs up what the “Keys” mean. Keys means more than “ONE” For it is written-----for they have taken away the “Keys of Knowledge”!
GOD BLESS
In the old Testament and I will find it. It backs up what the “Keys” mean. Keys means more than “ONE” For it is written-----for they have taken away the “Keys of Knowledge”!
GOD BLESS
- Status