Binding and loosing

[susanlo]

I have been seeing discussions lately about binding and loosing. It seems that there is a different understanding among Christians as to what is meant by binding and loosing as mentioned in Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 18:18. Some of the different understandings I am aware of are:

1. Giving the power to apostles and successors to remit people’s sins.
2. Giving Peter and his successors the ability to declare what is and isn’t sinful, including changing rules such as Lenten fasts.
3. The authority to preach the Gospel and proclaim salvation through Jesus.

I am interested to know what the understandings of various Christians are. I am also particularly interested in hearing the historical basis for this definition being understood and acknowledged in the first centuries.

 

[ltwin]

I have been seeing discussions lately about binding and loosing. It seems that there is a different understanding among Christians as to what is meant by binding and loosing as mentioned in Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 18:18. Some of the different understandings I am aware of are:

1. Giving the power to apostles and successors to remit people’s sins.
2. Giving Peter and his successors the ability to declare what is and isn’t sinful, including changing rules such as Lenten fasts.
3. The authority to preach the Gospel and proclaim salvation through Jesus.

I am interested to know what the understandings of various Christians are. I am also particularly interested in hearing the historical basis for this definition being understood and acknowledged in the first centuries.

There are also Christians (mainly among “spiritual warfare” groups along the Pentecostal/charismatic spectrum) who believe binding and loosing to be authority over Satan and demonic powers.

 

[Hatikvah]

This is an interesting topic. Binding and loosing was around centuries before the apostles and their authority, present (I believe) in Jewish schools of law, for instance, and in the state. This is a good Jewish source.

 

[pablope]

I have been seeing discussions lately about binding and loosing. It seems that there is a different understanding among Christians as to what is meant by binding and loosing as mentioned in Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 18:18. Some of the different understandings I am aware of are:

1. Giving the power to apostles and successors to remit people’s sins.
2. Giving Peter and his successors the ability to declare what is and isn’t sinful, including changing rules such as Lenten fasts.
3. The authority to preach the Gospel and proclaim salvation through Jesus.

I am interested to know what the understandings of various Christians are. I am also particularly interested in hearing the historical basis for this definition being understood and acknowledged in the first centuries.

This is quite an extensive write up…it has been awhile…I am not sure where the section is that deals with binding and loosing:

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/CHWORDIN.HTM

But look in this sections or chapters:

II. THE TWO POWERS OF THE APOSTOLIC HIERARCHY

The apostolic hierarchy divides into two great powers, the power of order and the power of jurisdiction. We must examine the basis of this division, and the nature of both powers.

CHAPTER IV: THE POWER OF JURISDICTION, SECOND MINISTERIAL CAUSE OF THE CHURCH

1. The Origin Of The Jurisdictional Power
2. Christ Head Of The Church, At Once Priest And King: His Conferring Of Two Powers On The Church, The One Sacramental, The Other Jurisdictional
3. The Two Jurisdictions United In The Apostles
4. The pontificate, which is permanent, and the apostolate, which is temporary, were, for a time, united in the same persons. Both, as we shall see, were directly conferred by Jesus on His Disciples.

D. Extraordinary Power Of Organization And Of Government; Peter’s Power Compared With That Of The Other Apostles

Just as they had exceptional authority as regards things to be taught, so the Apostles had exceptional authority as regards things to be undertaken. To them had been entrusted the execution of Christ’s design for the jurisdictional structure of the Church, her organization, her government.

 

[po18guy]

There are also Christians (mainly among “spiritual warfare” groups along the Pentecostal/charismatic spectrum) who believe binding and loosing to be authority over Satan and demonic powers.

That is indeed part of it, but Jesus said “Whatever”, which encompasses well, everything.

 

[JustaServant]

Binding and loosing?
Well, we did have to tear those spareribs away from cousin Elmer at the last church picnic.

 

[Reuben_J]

I have been seeing discussions lately about binding and loosing. It seems that there is a different understanding among Christians as to what is meant by binding and loosing as mentioned in Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 18:18. Some of the different understandings I am aware of are:

1. Giving the power to apostles and successors to remit people’s sins.
2. Giving Peter and his successors the ability to declare what is and isn’t sinful, including changing rules such as Lenten fasts.
3. The authority to preach the Gospel and proclaim salvation through Jesus.

I am interested to know what the understandings of various Christians are. I am also particularly interested in hearing the historical basis for this definition being understood and acknowledged in the first centuries.

From the Catholic perspective, article such as mentioned in post #4 would be a good read.

I would qualify that the power to bind and to loose is given only to the disciples.

Another distinction, in Mt 16:19, the commission was given to Peter only and was preceded by the ‘Key to the Kingdom of Heaven’ while in Mt 18:18 it was to all the disciples when Jesus was explaining about the forgiveness of sin. Thus that may be specifically confined to forgiveness of sin while in Mt 16:19 to Peter, it could include jurisdictional power. Such power enable Peter to decide and if delegated to the bishops/priests, whatever and how much that they can use.

Putting it rather simply.

 

[susanlo]

There are also Christians (mainly among “spiritual warfare” groups along the Pentecostal/charismatic spectrum) who believe binding and loosing to be authority over Satan and demonic powers.

Thanks. I have not heard about binding and loosing in this way before.

 

[susanlo]

This is an interesting topic. Binding and loosing was around centuries before the apostles and their authority, present (I believe) in Jewish schools of law, for instance, and in the state. This is a good Jewish source.

Thank you for sharing the article. I wonder what exactly they used the binding and loosing for in OT times. It sounds like from this article that they were excommunicating individuals and declaring fast days.

Their section on the NT references a letter of Clement to James which is a spurious letter. I have wondered about the origin of this letter, but it has many historical errors such as Peter giving his power to Clement who is the 4th pope and missing the 2nd and 3rd pope. It is also known historically, I believe, that James in Jerusalem died before Peter in Rome, so it wouldn’t make sense to write to someone who has already died. I wonder who actually did write this letter and when and why.

Also, it mentions Tertullian accepting the power to forgive sins. I had been trying to understand what Tertullian and others understood in this regard, but it seems from his writing On Modesty Chapter 21 that he disagrees with this idea of using binding and loosing in this way. He is upset with what Callistus of Rome was doing. It seems like an interesting time in history.newadvent.org/fathers/0407.htm

Tertullian had written prior to this about a 2nd repentance that had been started around this time, but it seems like he sees this as something different than the power of binding and loosing in his time. I am trying to tie it all together.newadvent.org/fathers/0320.htm

 

[ltwin]

Thank you for sharing the article. I wonder what exactly they used the binding and loosing for in OT times. It sounds like from this article that they were excommunicating individuals and declaring fast days.

Their section on the NT references a letter of Clement to James which is a spurious letter. I have wondered about the origin of this letter, but it has many historical errors such as Peter giving his power to Clement who is the 4th pope and missing the 2nd and 3rd pope. It is also known historically, I believe, that James in Jerusalem died before Peter in Rome, so it wouldn’t make sense to write to someone who has already died. I wonder who actually did write this letter and when and why.

Also, it mentions Tertullian accepting the power to forgive sins. I had been trying to understand what Tertullian and others understood in this regard, but it seems from his writing On Modesty Chapter 21 that he disagrees with this idea of using binding and loosing in this way. He is upset with what Callistus of Rome was doing. It seems like an interesting time in history.newadvent.org/fathers/0407.htm

Tertullian had written prior to this about a 2nd repentance that had been started around this time, but it seems like he sees this as something different than the power of binding and loosing in his time. I am trying to tie it all together.newadvent.org/fathers/0320.htm

By this time, Tertullian was in his Montanist phase. When he writes, “The Church has the power to forgive sins; but I will not do it, lest they commit others withal” he is quoting the Holy Spirit as revealed by one of the “new prophets” (either Montanist, Maximilla, or Priscilla). The Montanists, or the “New Prophecy” as they preferred to be called, wanted stricter discipline in the church and wanted to make it harder to be forgiven for post-baptismal sin. Essentially.

 

[susanlo]

From the Catholic perspective, article such as mentioned in post #4 would be a good read.

I would qualify that the power to bind and to loose is given only to the disciples.

Another distinction, in Mt 16:19, the commission was given to Peter only and was preceded by the ‘Key to the Kingdom of Heaven’ while in Mt 18:18 it was to all the disciples when Jesus was explaining about the forgiveness of sin. Thus that may be specifically confined to forgiveness of sin while in Mt 16:19 to Peter, it could include jurisdictional power. Such power enable Peter to decide and if delegated to the bishops/priests, whatever and how much that they can use.

Putting it rather simply.

The article shared does have a lot of good information in it. It is understood very differently from what other non-Catholic Christians understand it to mean.
How do we know who has the power to bind and loose? Is that part of apostolic succession? Did the apostles and the first few generations of Christian leaders understand and use the powers of binding and loosing?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

The article shared does have a lot of good information in it. It is understood very differently from what other non-Catholic Christians understand it to mean.
How do we know who has the power to bind and loose? Is that part of apostolic succession? Did the apostles and the first few generations of Christian leaders understand and use the powers of binding and loosing?

So your primary issue is with apostolic succession.

I understand why as most SS practicing Christians want things spelled out for them scripturally. I’ve had this discussion with my own family members and it goes no where because of their unrealistic expectations from their hard-liner protestant conditioning, imo.

The problem, though, is that there is no evidence to suggest that the early church was anything but Apostolic.

 

[mattp0625]

The article shared does have a lot of good information in it. It is understood very differently from what other non-Catholic Christians understand it to mean.
How do we know who has the power to bind and loose? Is that part of apostolic succession? Did the apostles and the first few generations of Christian leaders understand and use the powers of binding and loosing?

There are various sources that prove this to be so.

The book of Acts shows Peter healing the lame in the name of Jesus, leading the disciples, etc.

History and the bible prove he went from Jerusalem to Antioch to Rome. As such, essentially, the center of Christianity went as he went.

 

[mattp0625]

The article shared does have a lot of good information in it. It is understood very differently from what other non-Catholic Christians understand it to mean.
How do we know who has the power to bind and loose? Is that part of apostolic succession? Did the apostles and the first few generations of Christian leaders understand and use the powers of binding and loosing?

There are various sources that prove this to be so.

The book of Acts shows Peter healing the lame in the name of Jesus and leading the disciples.

History and the bible prove he went from Jerusalem to Antioch to Rome. As such, essentially, the center of Christianity went as he went.

 

[mattp0625]

In addition to working miracles in the name of Jesus, Peter also put an anathema on Ananias.

Ignatius of Antioch, in the first century, also indicated that nothing should be done without the bishop (authority of apostolic succession). He also wrote of the apostles.

History shows that Ignatius was likely in Antioch at the time of Peter.

The primary reason the apostles knew they had the power to bind and loose is Jesus told them so.

Apologies for the duplicated post.

 

[gazelam]

Here are a couple of links that describe the LDS view of binding and loosing.

eom.byu.edu/index.php/Sealing

eom.byu.edu/index.php/Elijah

LDS believe that marriages performed with the proper Priesthood authority can endure beyond the grave and that this is part of what is meant by the Apostles binding something on Earth that remains bound in Heaven. I hope this helps…

 

[rcwitness]

I have been seeing discussions lately about binding and loosing. It seems that there is a different understanding among Christians as to what is meant by binding and loosing as mentioned in Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 18:18. Some of the different understandings I am aware of are:

1. Giving the power to apostles and successors to remit people’s sins.
2. Giving Peter and his successors the ability to declare what is and isn’t sinful, including changing rules such as Lenten fasts.
3. The authority to preach the Gospel and proclaim salvation through Jesus.

I am interested to know what the understandings of various Christians are. I am also particularly interested in hearing the historical basis for this definition being understood and acknowledged in the first centuries.

Good question susanlo,

Id like to learn about some first century references also. First, may i ask what your Christian community believes the reference to mean?

 

[Micosil]

There are also Christians (mainly among “spiritual warfare” groups along the Pentecostal/charismatic spectrum) who believe binding and loosing to be authority over Satan and demonic powers.

That actually is a part of it; this is why it is bishops who have the fullness of the Sacraments, and it is a bishop who authorizes a priest to perform exorcisms. The priest gets the authority from the bishop.

 

[rcwitness]

his is another metaphor, expressing the supreme power and prerogative of the prince of the apostles. The keys of a city, or of its gates, are presented or given to the person that hath the chief power. We also own a power of the keys, given to the other apostles, but with a subordination to St. Peter and to his successor, as head of the Catholic Church. — And whatsoever thou shalt bind, &c. All the apostles, and their successors, partake also of this power of binding and loosing, but with a due subordination to one head invested with the supreme power. (Witham) — Loose on earth. The loosing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence: the power of which is here granted. (Challoner) — Although Peter and his successors are mortal, they are nevertheless endowed with heavenly power, says St. John Chrysostom nor is the sentence of life and death passed by Peter to be attempted to be reversed, but what he declares is to be considered a divine answer from heaven, and what he decrees, a decree of God himself. He that heareth you, heareth me, &c. The power of binding is exercised, 1st. by refusing to absolve; 2d. by enjoining penance for sins forgiven; 3d. by excommunication, suspension or interdict; 4th. by making rules and laws for the government of the Church; 5th. by determining what is of faith by the judgments and definitions of the Church. (Tirinus) — The terms binding and loosing, are equivalent to opening and shutting, because formerly the Jews opened the fastenings of their doors by untying it, and they shut or secured their doors by tying or binding it. (Bible de Vence) — Dr. Whitby, a learned Protestant divine, thus expounds this and the preceding verse: “As a suitable return to thy confession, I say also to thee, that thou art by name Peter, i.e. a rock; and upon thee, who art this rock, I will build my making laws to govern my Church.” (Tom. i, p. 143.) Dr. Hammond, another Protestant divine, explains it in the same manner. And p. 92, he says: " What is here meant by the keys, is best understand by Isaias xxii. 22, where they signified ruling the whole family or house of the king: and this being by Christ accommodated to the Church, denotes the power of governing it."

 

[rcwitness]

… what is meant by binding and loosing as mentioned in Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 18:18.

It’s Matthew 16:19 (to be technical)

15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 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.” 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

Here is the Haydock commentary:

And I will give to thee the keys, &c. This is another metaphor, expressing the supreme power and prerogative of the prince of the apostles. The keys of a city, or of its gates, are presented or given to the person that hath the chief power. We also own a power of the keys, given to the other apostles, but with a subordination to St. Peter and to his successor, as head of the Catholic Church. — And whatsoever thou shalt bind, &c. All the apostles, and their successors, partake also of this power of binding and loosing, but with a due subordination to one head invested with the supreme power. (Witham) — Loose on earth. The loosing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence: the power of which is here granted. (Challoner) — Although Peter and his successors are mortal, they are nevertheless endowed with heavenly power, says St. John Chrysostom nor is the sentence of life and death passed by Peter to be attempted to be reversed, but what he declares is to be considered a divine answer from heaven, and what he decrees, a decree of God himself. He that heareth you, heareth me, &c. The power of binding is exercised, 1st. by refusing to absolve; 2d. by enjoining penance for sins forgiven; 3d. by excommunication, suspension or interdict; 4th. by making rules and laws for the government of the Church; 5th. by determining what is of faith by the judgments and definitions of the Church. (Tirinus) — The terms binding and loosing, are equivalent to opening and shutting, because formerly the Jews opened the fastenings of their doors by untying it, and they shut or secured their doors by tying or binding it. (Bible de Vence) — Dr. Whitby, a learned Protestant divine, thus expounds this and the preceding verse: “As a suitable return to thy confession, I say also to thee, that thou art by name Peter, i.e. a rock; and upon thee, who art this rock, I will build my*making laws to govern my Church.” (Tom. i, p. 143.) Dr. Hammond, another Protestant divine, explains it in the same manner. And p. 92, he says: " What is here meant by the keys, is best understand by Isaias xxii. 22, where they signified ruling the whole family or house of the king: and this being by Christ accommodated to the Church, denotes the power of governing it."