"Binding and Loosing" according to rabinic teaching

[Vetus Ordo]

V.O.

You must keep in mind that contrary to modern non-denominationalism, Classical Protestantism posited that the church, although a servant of Scripture as her sole rule of faith, had the authority to teach (via confessions of faith, preaching, etc.) and discipline her members.

So would these groups then hold that it was Church authority that established which books were inspired and thus the Canon?

Of course.

[Xavier]

Nice post, Michael. This site has more: http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm#BIBLE2

"BIBLE COMMENTARY ON "KEYS" OF MATTHEW 16:19

M. Eugene Boring (Disciples of Christ), commenting on the "keys of the kingdom of heaven," "binding" and "loosing" from Matthew 16:19 --

"The 'kingdom of heaven' is represented by authoritative teaching, the promulgation of authoritative Halakha that lets heaven's power rule in earthly things...Peter's role as holder of the keys is fulfilled now, on earth, as chief teacher of the church....The keeper of the keys has authority within the house as administrator and teacher (cf. Isa 22:20-25, which may have influenced Matthew here). The language of binding and loosing is rabbinic terminology for authoritative teaching, for having the authority to interpret the Torah and apply it to particular cases, declaring what is permitted and what is not permitted. Jesus, who has taught with authority (7:29) and has given his authority to his disciples (10:1, , here gives the primary disciple the authority to teach in his name -- to make authoritative decisions pertaining to Christian life as he applies the teaching of Jesus to concrete situations in the life of the church." (Boring, page 346)

Francis Wright Beare (Presbyterian/Reformed) --

"The 'keys' are probably not to be understood as entrance keys, as if to suggest that Peter is authorized to admit or to refuse admission, but rather to the bundle of keys carried by the chief steward, for the opening of rooms and storechambers within the house -- symbols of responsibilities to be exercised within the house of God (cf. Mt 24:45, etc.). 'Bind' and 'loose" are technical terms of the rabbinic vocabulary, denoting the authoritative declaration that an action or course of conduct is permitted or forbidden by the Law of Moses." (Beare, page 355-356)

Eduard Schweizer (Presbyterian/Reformed) --

"In Jewish interpretation, the key of David refers to the teachers of the Law (exiled in Babylon); according to Matthew 23:13, the 'keys of the Kingdom of heaven' are in the hands of the teachers of the Law. A contrast is here drawn between them and Peter. He is thus not the gatekeeper of heaven, but the steward of the Kingdom of heaven upon earth. His function is described in more detail as 'binding and loosing' ....the saying must from the very outset have referred to an authority like that of the teachers of the Law. In this context, 'binding" and 'loosing' refer to the magisterium to declare a commandment binding or not binding....For Matthew, however, there is only one correct interpretation of the Law, that of Jesus. This is accessible to the community through the tradition of Peter...Probably we are dealing here mostly with teaching authority, and always with the understanding that God must ratify what Petrine tradition declares permitted or forbidden in the community." (Schweizer, page 343)

R.T. France (Anglican/Protestant Evangelical) --

"The terms [binding and loosing] thus refer to a teaching function, and more specifically one of making halakhic pronouncements [i.e. relative to laws not written down in the Jewish Scriptures but based on an oral interpretation of them] which are to be 'binding' on the people of God. In that case Peter's 'power of the keys' declared in [Matthew] 16:19 is not so much that of the doorkeeper... but that of the steward (as in Is. 22:22, generally regarded as the Old Testament background to the metaphor of keys here), whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household." (R.T. France, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 54)"

[james03]

Most Protestants that I have argued with, believe that "the Rock" that Christ is referring to is St.Peter's confession; so the rest of the "giving of the Keys" goes back not to Peter but to this confession.

It's just not in the scripture:

And I say to thee: That thou art Cephas; and upon this Cephas I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven

Jesus changes his name to Cephas and that is what he is called after that.  And as we discussed He is using Is. 22:22 imagery to establish the office of Chief Steward or Prime Minister and gives him the power to bind and loose.

The key points are that Jesus establishes the Chief Steward that he calls the Rock.  And the Church is built upon this office which office is given a lot of authority.  This is the only interpretation that fits.

Prots talk about the "literal Word of God" and go on to really twist scripture.

[Michael Wilson]

Xavier,
thanks for the site and the quotes.

[Ragnarok]

V.O.

You must keep in mind that contrary to modern non-denominationalism, Classical Protestantism posited that the church, although a servant of Scripture as her sole rule of faith, had the authority to teach (via confessions of faith, preaching, etc.) and discipline her members.

So would these groups then hold that it was Church authority that established which books were inspired and thus the Canon?

Of course.

It still seems circular; you determine which books are correct from Church authority, and then you determine Church authority from the correct books.

You can say that the correct Scriptures came from Christ and the Apostles, and that is the start of the Church's authority - and that would solve the logical circularity of it, but it still makes it epistemologically bunk (at least the Orthodox Churches have lineages that go back to the Apostles themselves) - because even in the Book of Acts there were already heretics, like Simon Magus - God help you if you took some Gnostic or Arian texts as canon, which some Church Fathers did (for example, the Apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, which is 90% orthodox and 10% Gnostic, or the Shephard of Hermes, which is 90% orthodox and 10% Arian).

But even if you still could get past that problem of Epistemology, I just don't see any evidence of it. Even under Clement, the Bishop of Rome you have conflicts over who has proper jurisdiction in the Church, with Clement yelling at usurpers; and about 50 years later, you have Pope Victor very clearly excommunicating the Church of Polycrates for using a Jewish calendar, unlike the rest of the Church (although the rest of the Bishops, including Irenaeus, yelled at Pope Victor for needlessly creating schism in the Church), and then about 100 years later, you have disputes over appellate authority under the Cyprian Church.

If any Protestant ecclesiology is plausible, it would be the Anglicans claiming that Apostolic succession, with the fundamentals of morality and theology, are all that is necessary to have authority - at least you can use the constant schisms from the First Millennium to argue that it would violate God's omnibenevolence to condemn the illiterate Byzantine peasant to eternal fire for becoming a Miaphysite because the Emperor replaced the Chalcedonian Bishops with Miaphysites, even though both the Miaphysites and Chalcedonians have Apostolic lineages, so ecclesiology couldn't necessarily be so rigid.

[Michael Wilson]

It still seems circular; you determine which books are correct from Church authority, and then you determine Church authority from the correct books.

A Catholic would not argue in this way. He would argue that there are books that are historical, by all accepted standards of historical science. These relate the acts and life of a man that claimed to be God; that indeed He  furnished abundant proofs that he was God. He also also claimed to have established a Church with authority to teach in His name; this Church can be known by certain marks or characteristics which make it easy to identify. This Church with authority to teach, and which possesses these evident marks, is the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church teaches with divine authority that these historical books are not only historical, but also "inspired" by God.
There is no circularity in this reasoning.

[Ragnarok]

It still seems circular; you determine which books are correct from Church authority, and then you determine Church authority from the correct books.

A Catholic would not argue in this way. He would argue that there are books that are historical, by all accepted standards of historical science. These relate the acts and life of a man that claimed to be God; that indeed He  furnished abundant proofs that he was God. He also also claimed to have established a Church with authority to teach in His name; this Church can be known by certain marks or characteristics which make it easy to identify. This Church with authority to teach, and which possesses these evident marks, is the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church teaches with divine authority that these historical books are not only historical, but also "inspired" by God.
There is no circularity in this reasoning.

But you run into problems there, because the historicity of Hebrews, for example, being written by Saint Paul is rather dubious - even Origen in the 3rd century thought so.

[Michael Wilson]

Most of the books of the N.T. Are not problematic historically speaking. For example, two of the Gospels are written by close associates of Our Lord: Matthew and John; one of the other Gospels, Mark is written by a disciple; Luke testifies to having collected testimony from eye witnesses of the events. The four gospels while different in details, are over all concordant; and even if one wanted to dismiss the Gospels; practically the same information could be extracted from the letters of St. Paul. Christ's own enemies never denied that He existed; and even admitted that He worked miracles. There is even corroboration from Pagan sources. The evidence for the existence and life of our Lord is greater and more abundant than any other contemporary figure such as Augustus Caesar. There is no real basis for denying the evidence, except blind prejudice. 

[Michael Wilson]

I am interested on how some of the Protestants that are "magisterial" can claim to be the true Church; this is from a Reformed website; https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/apostolic-church/

The Apostolic Church

"So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone."
- Ephesians 2:19–20

Nicea and Constantinople, two cities in Asia Minor, hosted church councils in AD 325 and 381, respectively, in order to deal with several christological heresies. As part of their work, they also identified four important marks of the church: unity, holiness, catholicity, and Apostolicity. Today, we will examine what it means that the church is Apostolic.

Over time in the early church, the concept of Apostolic succession became very important. Often, we think of Apostolic succession as referring primarily to the idea that a bishop was ordained by a bishop, who was ordained by a bishop, who was ordained by a bishop, all the way back to the Apostles, who were the first to ordain any bishop. According to this view, one identifies the church primarily by finding the validly ordained bishop. That concept of Apostolic succession has been important in Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and even some Protestant traditions such as Anglicanism. We lack the space to analyze the concept biblically; we will just say that most of the Reformed tradition has rejected this concept of Apostolic succession because it is not found clearly in Scripture. That does not mean that the Reformed lack an understanding of Apostolic succession. For the Reformed tradition, it is succession of true doctrine that has primacy of place. Being able to trace a lineage of validly ordained persons, while not entirely insignificant, is secondary. In other words, you identify the church by its fidelity to Apostolic doctrine.

Though the visible bishop was important, the early church likewise saw doctrinal succession as primary. Otherwise, the church would not have ejected validly ordained bishops who taught heresy, such as Nestorious. But what is most important about making doctrine primary is that Scripture commends this view of Apostolic succession. One of Paul's concerns in the final epistle he wrote before he died was that people would entrust his doctrine—the Apostolic gospel—to men after him (1 Tim. 2:1-2). In today's passage, he tells us that the church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:19-20). If Apostolic doctrine is not the foundation of a given church, that church has ceased to be a church.

How do we find the Apostolic church? We look for the church that is true to what the Apostles taught, the church that proclaims such doctrines as the Trinity, penal substitutionary atonement, and justification by faith alone. A church that maintains such doctrines can truly be called the Apostolic church. It is faithful to the Apostles' teachings and purposes.
Coram Deo

Because God Himself is truth (John 15:26), He prizes the truth of the gospel. The primary defining mark of a true church is that it is faithful to Apostolic doctrine. If we do not prize the Apostolic and prophetic teaching of the Old and New Testaments, our churches will cease to be Apostolic. Let us guard the faith once delivered to the saints and ordain only those men who will do the same.

So this website claims to be followers of R.C. Sproul.
On the subject of Apostolicity, how do they claim to have "Apostolic Succession" without sacramental bishops?
Also, how do they claim that "penal substitutionary atonement" and "justification by faith alone" are apostolic doctrines?

[Tennessean]

I am interested on how some of the Protestants that are "magisterial" can claim to be the true Church; this is from a Reformed website; https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/apostolic-church/

The Apostolic Church

"So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone."
- Ephesians 2:19–20

Nicea and Constantinople, two cities in Asia Minor, hosted church councils in AD 325 and 381, respectively, in order to deal with several christological heresies. As part of their work, they also identified four important marks of the church: unity, holiness, catholicity, and Apostolicity. Today, we will examine what it means that the church is Apostolic.

Over time in the early church, the concept of Apostolic succession became very important. Often, we think of Apostolic succession as referring primarily to the idea that a bishop was ordained by a bishop, who was ordained by a bishop, who was ordained by a bishop, all the way back to the Apostles, who were the first to ordain any bishop. According to this view, one identifies the church primarily by finding the validly ordained bishop. That concept of Apostolic succession has been important in Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and even some Protestant traditions such as Anglicanism. We lack the space to analyze the concept biblically; we will just say that most of the Reformed tradition has rejected this concept of Apostolic succession because it is not found clearly in Scripture. That does not mean that the Reformed lack an understanding of Apostolic succession. For the Reformed tradition, it is succession of true doctrine that has primacy of place. Being able to trace a lineage of validly ordained persons, while not entirely insignificant, is secondary. In other words, you identify the church by its fidelity to Apostolic doctrine.

Though the visible bishop was important, the early church likewise saw doctrinal succession as primary. Otherwise, the church would not have ejected validly ordained bishops who taught heresy, such as Nestorious. But what is most important about making doctrine primary is that Scripture commends this view of Apostolic succession. One of Paul's concerns in the final epistle he wrote before he died was that people would entrust his doctrine—the Apostolic gospel—to men after him (1 Tim. 2:1-2). In today's passage, he tells us that the church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:19-20). If Apostolic doctrine is not the foundation of a given church, that church has ceased to be a church.

How do we find the Apostolic church? We look for the church that is true to what the Apostles taught, the church that proclaims such doctrines as the Trinity, penal substitutionary atonement, and justification by faith alone. A church that maintains such doctrines can truly be called the Apostolic church. It is faithful to the Apostles' teachings and purposes.
Coram Deo

Because God Himself is truth (John 15:26), He prizes the truth of the gospel. The primary defining mark of a true church is that it is faithful to Apostolic doctrine. If we do not prize the Apostolic and prophetic teaching of the Old and New Testaments, our churches will cease to be Apostolic. Let us guard the faith once delivered to the saints and ordain only those men who will do the same.

So this website claims to be followers of R.C. Sproul.
On the subject of Apostolicity, how do they claim to have "Apostolic Succession" without sacramental bishops?

It is faithful to the Apostles' teachings and purposes.

Also, how do they claim that "penal substitutionary atonement" and "justification by faith alone" are apostolic doctrines?

Sproul is well known in Reformed and Presbyterian denominations, and his lectures are easy to find. He made a video series against Catholicism.

[Michael Wilson]

Yes, but as a theologian justifying his beliefs, how does R.C. Sproul or his Reformed denomination justify the position that "apostolicity doesn't depend on the sucession of bishops all the way back to the Apostles, but to doctrines that they hold to be correct". How do they arrive at an infallible certainty that these doctrines are in fact the correct ones?

[Tennessean]

Everything must align with TULIP, or its wrong. For Calvinists.  Presbyterians in particular would say General Assemblies and Synods (Councils) were guided by the Holy Spirit in times past, and that the Popish Hierarchy subverted good religion. That it was up to the Elders (Bishops) to restore the country (England, Scotland) so religion could spread. This would simply happen. People would know TULIP just because they had an Athias Bible, or King James Bible, that contained protestant footnotes telling them so. Same way everyone in America and now those countries we evangelize believe in the Pre-Tribulation Rapture or whatever. If the people believe it, it must be true.

[Santantonio]

"The corresponding Aramean "shera" and Hebrew "hittir" (for loosing the prohibitive spell) have no parallel in the Bible."

yet more evidence that Christ was not "Jewish".

He was judean and the samaritans recognized him as one.

To what degree was Jesus a Judean? That's a big topic. Anyway, I didn't say He was not a Judean in some respect,
such as being born in Bethlehem, of Joseph's house, etc. (It is debatable whether Mary was a Levite or Judahite),
yet not all Judahites were Judeans, some were Galileans. Like He tells the Samaritan woman, not, properly translated,
that "salvation is OF the JEWS", but rather, "salvation cometh OUT OF JUDEA".

We shouldn't derail the thread topic, as there is no disagreement between our posts ipso facto... He wasn't Jewish,
and to some degree was a Judean. These two are not mutually exclusive in any way.

[Michael Wilson]

If the B.V.M. Wasn't of the family of David and therefore Judean, then neither was our Lord. Joseph was also of the tribe of Juda of the family of David; as both the genealogies of the B.V.M. And of St. Joseph are in St. Matthew and St. Luke.
Here are a few references from the N.T.

"Who when he had heard, that it was Jesus of Nazareth, began to cry out, and to say: Jesus son of David, have mercy on me."[Mark 10:47]
"And he cried out, saying: Jesus, son of David, have mercy on me."[Luke 18:38]
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham:"[Matthew 1:1]
"And behold two blind men sitting by the way side, heard that Jesus passed by, and they cried out, saying: O Lord, thou son of David, have mercy on us."[Matthew 20:30]
"And Jesus answering, said, teaching in the temple: How do the scribes say, that Christ is the son of David?"[Mark 12:35]
"And as Jesus passed from thence, there followed him two blind men crying out and saying, Have mercy on us, O Son of David."
[Matthew 9:27]

Of the seed of Abraham:

"And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice."
[Genesis 22:18]
[14] That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Christ Jesus: that we may receive the promise of the Spirit by faith. [15] Brethren (I speak after the manner of man,) yet a man's testament, if it be confirmed, no man despiseth, nor addeth to it.[16] To Abraham were the promises made and to his seed. He saith not, And to his seeds, as of many: but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.[Galatians 3. ]

A prophet like Moses of the Israelite nation: 

"The Lord thy God will raise up to thee a PROPHET of thy nation and of thy brethren like unto me: him thou shalt hear:"[Deuteronomy 18:15]

The Lord will give him the throne of David His father:

"And there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root."
[Isaias (Isaiah) 11:1]
His empire shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of peace: he shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom; to establish it and strengthen it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth and for ever: the zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this."
[Isaias (Isaiah) 9:7]
"AND I WILL SET UP ONE SHEPHERD OVER THEM, and he shall feed them, even my servant David: he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd."
[Ezechiel (Ezekiel) 34:23]

[aquinas138]

Like He tells the Samaritan woman, not, properly translated,
that "salvation is OF the JEWS", but rather, "salvation cometh OUT OF JUDEA".

Incorrect; the Greek gives ????? ?? ???????? ??? ???? ?????????? ???????, which definitely refers to the people, not the region, as the name of the region is feminine, whereas this is masculine plural. It is also unambiguous in Syriac, which being a dialect of Aramaic, is probably similar to the Galilean dialect; in any event, the Syriac translators clearly understood it as the people.