Why does the authority of binding and loosing only go to the Apostles in Matthew 18:18

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bobb11t
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bobb11t

Guest
Q1) in Matthew 16:17-19 why are the Keys to the kingdom of heaven and the authority of binding and loosing considered two separate “gifts”? Often quoted as the parallel verse to this is Isaiah 22:20-22 and in Isaiah it seems that the power of opening and shutting comes from the keys of the house of David. Would it then not make more sense to say that the power of binding and loosing comes from Peter having the keys?

Q2) why is it believed that only the Apostles are given the authority of binding and loosing in Matthew 18:18? Verse 1 says that Jesus is talking to his disciples. While the term disciples is used to refer to just the Apostles. I don’t see anything in this chapter that would indicate that it was just the Apostles.
Also if we say that He is only referring to the Apostles in (v.18) then why do we say that the rest of the chapter applies to everyone?

Thank you for your help in advance.
 
Bobb11t said:
Would it then not make more sense to say that the power of binding and loosing comes from Peter having the keys?
Click to expand...
The “keys” are a metaphor. Peter doesn’t have literal keys – but he does have Jesus’ grant of authority.
Bobb11t said:
why is it believed that only the Apostles are given the authority of binding and loosing in Matthew 18:18?
Click to expand...
Because they and Jesus are the only ones who appear in chapter 18.
Bobb11t said:
I don’t see anything in this chapter that would indicate that it was just the Apostles.
Click to expand...
Do you see Jesus addressing anyone else in that chapter?
Bobb11t said:
if we say that He is only referring to the Apostles in (v.18) then why do we say that the rest of the chapter applies to everyone?
Click to expand...
Sure, there are teachings that apply to all Christians – forgiveness, for instance, as well as prayer – but these teachings also appear elsewhere in the Gospels, in contexts that aren’t limited to only the apostles. So, we say that they apply to all, because they’re directed toward all, in other locations in the Gospel.
 
I still don’t see where it indicates that’s He is talking to just the Apostles. In Matthew 18:1 it says he is talking to the disciples but this can include more then just the 12.

It could be just ignorance but I also don’t know of anywhere else where Jesus talks about what to do if your brother sins against you. At least not in the way that is described in Matthew 18. Maybe you can clarify a bit?
 
Bobb11t said:
in Matthew 16:17-19 why are the Keys to the kingdom of heaven and the authority of binding and loosing considered two separate “gifts”?
Click to expand...
The “keys” and the authority to “bind and loose” are one in the same.
Bobb11t said:
Would it then not make more sense to say that the power of binding and loosing comes from Peter having the keys?
Click to expand...
Cyprian of Carthage, in “On the Unity of the Church” (the longer version), refers to the keys, stating that Peter received them on behalf of the Twelve, and that the bishops, being successors of the twelve, are all heirs of the keys, because the episcopal order is a single, undivided entity. Hence, the power of the keys belongs to ALL bishops, and not merely the bishop of Rome.

ZP
 
I could see it being interpreted that way but I don’t think you can get there from Matthew 16:16-19 alone. You would need to show that Matthew 18:18 is talking about the Apostles and not the whole church.
 
Last edited:
Bobb11t said:
I still don’t see where it indicates that’s He is talking to just the Apostles.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t say that he’s talking to others though, does it?
Bobb11t said:
In Matthew 18:1 it says he is talking to the disciples but this can include more then just the 12.
Click to expand...
It can. Matthew uses both terms. He uses “disciple” for apostle often, though.
Bobb11t said:
I also don’t know of anywhere else where Jesus talks about what to do if your brother sins against you. At least not in the way that is described in Matthew 18.
Click to expand...
Luke 17:4. There’s the example of “seven times” there, too.
 
Does it say that he is talking to only the Apostles?

Luke 17:4 does say to forgive the sins of your brother and even Luke 17:3 even says to rebuke him if he sins against you but this still doesn’t describe taking witnesses and talking the matter to the church.
 
Last edited:
Bobb11t said:
I still don’t see where it indicates that’s He is talking to just the Apostles. In Matthew 18:1 it says he is talking to the disciples but this can include more then just the 12.

It could be just ignorance but I also don’t know of anywhere else where Jesus talks about what to do if your brother sins against you. At least not in the way that is described in Matthew 18. Maybe you can clarify a bit?
Click to expand...
Look at verse 9:

9 Do you not yet understand, neither do you remember *the five loaves among the five thousand men, and how many baskets you took up?

At the feeding of the 5000 it was the Apostles who took up the baskets.
 
Bobb11t said:
That’s Matthew 16 not 18
Click to expand...
Correct but Matthew 16:19 is about the binding and loosing and verse 9 refers to the Apostles. It is pretty obvious he is speaking only to them and that the binding and loosing applies to the Apostles.
In Matthew 18 same applies. When he says his disciples we know who he means.
 
Last edited:
2 Corinthians 2:10 Not one of the 12, but he forgave sins in the person of Christ. From the D-R and the Knox:
And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.

If you shew indulgence to anybody, so do I too; I myself, wherever I have shewn indulgence, have done so in the person of Christ for your sakes,
Click to expand...
 
The Church was promised the Holy Spirit by Jesus. It received such at Pentecost. The Apostles are walking, talking tabernacles.

The binding and loosing in Leviticus was God’s “fixing the relationship with the Hebrews” by creating Levitical Priests with new laws/ordinances beyond the Ten Commandments. This was a result of Hebrews’ worshipping the Golden Calf.

That said, Moses did the Binding and Loosing on behalf of God. Moses then had assistants, elders, etc to whom authority was transferred.

So, really, its the same thing just a different side of the coin in the Old and New. Probably better understood in the Parable of the Man with the vineyard who gives debt collection task to his son.
 
Last edited:
It’s obvious from the surrounding verses that Matthew 16:19 is addressing Peter. I don’t see why the fact that this is addressed to Peter means that Matthew 18:18 must be addressed to the Apostles.
 
I’d say indirectly it is addressed to the Apostles because of their relationship with Peter. Ultimately, though to Peter.
 
Bobb11t said:
It’s obvious from the surrounding verses that Matthew 16:19 is addressing Peter. I don’t see why the fact that this is addressed to Peter means that Matthew 18:18 must be addressed to the Apostles.
Click to expand...
Only someone hoping to pick holes in Apostolic succession would interpret Matthew 16 and 18 as Jesus talking to a wider group of disciples and not the Apostles.
 
Matthew is about the Words of Christ. The Acts of the Apostles witnesses to the Church practice of laying on of hands by Apostles (something that was done in Judaism).

Again, using one verse or one book of the Bible is dangerous.
 
Bobb11t said:
Does it say that he is talking to only the Apostles?
Click to expand...
It says that He’s speaking to the ‘disciples’. Matthew uses this term often in his Gospel to refer to the Twelve. Moreover, the only other person who shows up in Matthew 18 is Peter.

Your case isn’t too unlike saying “well, there’s nothing here that says that Jesus isn’t talking to the Pittsburgh Steelers football team, so clearly, they must be there and they are likewise receiving the authority to bind and loose.” 🤔
 
It’s been done and the Saints have been wrong on several occasions. The Immaculate Conception comes to mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top