Agreed. But Peter receives from Jesus the additional gift of the Keys of the office of the Vizier or Vice-Regent of the eternal, redeemed Davidic Kingdom, of which Jesus is King.
The Greek doesn’t mean God would obey what the Apostles did on earth,
Did someone claim that?
...but that they would and should do on earth whatever God had already willed in heaven - representing that revealed will on earth.
"Binding and loosing" was a well established phrase in Jesus' time. It mean ultimate ecclesial authority. Parse it as you wish, but this is from the Jewish encyclopedia:
The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus ("B J." i, 5, § 2), "became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind." This does not mean that, as the learned men, they merely decided what, according to the Law, was forbidden or allowed, but that they possessed and exercised the power of tying or untying a thing by the spell of their divine authority, just as they could, by the power vested in them, pronounce and revoke an anathema upon a person. The various schools had the power "to bind and to loose"; that is, to forbid and to permit (Ḥag. 3b); and they could bind any day by declaring it a fast-day (Meg. Ta'an. xxii.; Ta'an. 12a; Yer. Ned. i. 36c, d). This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age or in the Sanhedrin (see Authority), received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice (Sifra, Emor, ix.; Mak. 23b).The authority of the Pharisees was a type for the Teaching and disciplinary authority of Christ's Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth."
Peter and the others carried out God’s directions as revealed (example, the lowering of the sheet of every kind of animal to eat in order to tell Peter that gentiles were not unclean). This privilege of manifesting binding and loosing on earth was demonstrated on the day of Pentecost when the Gospel was opened to Jews as well as with Cornelius when it was opened to Gentiles and other instances as well - at God’s instruction.
See the Jewish encyclopedia or Wikipedia regarding the term, "binding and loosing."
The Apostles could only do on earth what God already decreed in heaven. God controls the church. The church does not control God!
Of course, the Church is the Body of Christ, with Christ as Its Head, which is why Christ warns us against refusing to "listen to the church."
The church is meant to a the foundation, supporting the Word of God. The pillar that brings attention to God’s Truth. The church isn’t the truth. The Bible is truth, inspired directly by God the Holy Spirit.
The Bible is the Word of God, but in a secondary sense to Christ Himself, who is The Word (and the Way, the Truth and the Life).
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
“The Church is the Body of Christ, with Christ as Its Head.”
The local gathering of believers is the localized expression of the Body of Christ.
In a sense. But there is one faith, one Lord, one baptism. If this local congregation teaches something outside the one, true, faith, it is not perfectly united to the Body of Christ.
The entirety of all believers (not church members) of all time is the full Body of Christ.
A believer is one who believes the one, true, faith, which is everything that Christ's Church teaches. "If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector." --Jesus
Every believer, wherever found, in any age, is the Body of Christ.
See above.
“This conforms with Jesus' admonition, "if he won't listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector.””
Now you are back to misrepresentation. This passage you quote is about the local church arbitrating between believers who have a disagreement and has no meaning beyond this. Nor does any other passage say anything more.
This simplistic exegesis is self-contradictory and utterly incoherent.
Let's put your interpretation into practice.
"If your brother sins against you..."
Is contraception a sin? Until the Lambeth Conference, all Protestant denominations regarded it to be. Now none do.
My Christian brother told my children that there is nothing wrong with a bishop being a practicing homosexual. I believe that my brother has sinned against me. Which local congregation should arbitrate this dispute? The ones who support practicing homosexuals being bishops or the ones that don't?
You can probably imagine a thousand such examples. Under your rubric, no resolution to such disputes can ever be attained, making your interpretation of this passage impossible in practice.
This would make Christ's Words nonsensical, meaningless and void, which is an impossibility.
Therefore, your exegesis must be wrong.
There must exist a visible Church possessing a non-contradictory body of doctrine for Jesus' command to be practically possible.
“Constable vastly understates the authority of the office of the vice-regent in the ancient Davidic kingdom.”
That is rich! You gave me a chuckle. I thank you for that!
Thomas Constable, a good and godly man I respect and one of my former professors in seminary doesn’t “understate the office.”
OK. But be careful about placing your trust in men.
Maybe he just forgot about the following verses regarding the nature of the office of the Vizier of the Davidic Kingdom.
Isaiah 22:20-24The office of the Vizier in ancient Egypt and in the Davidic Kingdom is well attested to in Scripture.“In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him.
He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat of honor for the house of his father.
Genesis 41:39-44In the Davidic KingdomSo Pharaoh said to Joseph: "Since God has made all this known to you, no one can be as wise and discerning as you are. You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people shall dart at your command. Only in respect to the throne shall I outrank you. Herewith," Pharaoh told Joseph, "I place you in charge of the whole land of Egypt." With that, Pharaoh took off his signet ring and put it on Joseph's finger. He had him dressed in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain about his neck. He then had him ride in the chariot of his vizier, and they shouted "Abrek!" before him. Thus was Joseph installed over the whole land of Egypt. "I, Pharaoh, proclaim," he told Joseph, "that without your approval no one shall move hand or foot in all the land of Egypt."
1 Kings 18:1-6You can read his commentary on Isaiah, verse by verse. Having studied, written a commentary on the entire Bible - every single verse , taught for more than 35 years at the graduate school level in a major seminary, and then made his life work available for free on the internet, is very familiar with the entirety of Scripture, including Isaiah.So Elijah went to present himself to Ahab. Now the famine in Samaria was bitter, and Ahab had summoned Obadiah, his vizier, who was a zealous follower of the LORD. When Jezebel was murdering the prophets of the LORD, Obadiah took a hundred prophets, hid them away fifty each in two caves, and supplied them with food and drink. Ahab said to Obadiah, "Come, let us go through the land to all sources of water and to all the streams. We may find grass and save the horses and mules, so that we shall not have to slaughter any of the beasts." Dividing the land to explore between them, Ahab went one way by himself, Obadiah another way by himself.
2 Kings 15:1-7
Azariah, son of Amaziah, king of Judah, became king in the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam, king of Israel. He was sixteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned fifty-two years in Jerusalem. His mother, whose name was Jecholiah, was from Jerusalem. He pleased the LORD just as his father Amaziah had done. Yet the high places did not disappear; the people continued to sacrifice and to burn incense on them. The LORD afflicted the king, and he was a leper to the day of his death. He lived in a house apart, while Jotham, the king's son, was vizier and regent for the people of the land.
2 Kings 18:18
They called for the king, who sent out to them Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, the master of the palace; Shebnah the scribe; and the herald Joah, son of Asaph.
I'm sure he's a great guy, but I read his commentary on Isaiah 22.
Evidently, he didn't think it was worth mentioning that the Vizier was described as "a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah."
He was one of my Old Testament Bible teachers - including the Prophets. I not only had to outline Isaiah for Dr. Constable, I sat and listened to his exposition of all of Isaiah. I can assure you as an eyewitness that he is well aware of all taught in Isaiah.
Then why didn't he mention that he would be a father to Judah?
He only described the "master of the palace" as someone who controlled access to the king of the Davidic kingdom.
He didn't mention any of the passages in Kings which show the office to be extremely powerful --that of a vice-regent.
Perhaps it is just that what he wrote isn't what you heard from Rome?
The Catholic exegesis is more comprehensive and exhaustive.
“To begin with, the Bible tells us that Jesus is the King of the eternal and redeemed Davidic Kingdom. (Luke 1:32)”
Yes. He is the ruler of the Davidic Kingdom and will reign over it on earth after his return. He is also the Bridegroom of His Bride - the body of Christ as noted above.
Agreement.
"Here is how this authority is described in Isaiah 22: I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. More of this succession in office can be seen in Isaiah 22:15-25"
Yes, except that the "succession" isn't what you portray (below).
The point is that there is succession in office. So we have agreement there. And that the office is very powerful: "what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open." See passages from Kings above.
"As the King of the eternal House of David, Jesus holds the Key of David. (Rev. 3:7)"
So clearly, He hasn't given it to Peter.
The King is always the power behind the keys. And Jesus clearly gives Peter the keys in Matthew 16:19. There is no record of the keys being taken away.
Jesus makes Peter the Vizier of the eternal, redeemed Davidic Kingdom.
"Jesus gave the "keys of the kingdom," representing the office of the vice-regent of the eternal, redeemed House of David, to Peter. (Matthew 16:19)”"
Well, first, no he did not.,/i>
?
Second, if you really want to go down that road, please note that in Isaiah 22, God took the keys away from one man (Shebna) and gave them to another (Eliakim). There's your "succession." Failure!
I'm not sure what your point is. Isaiah indicates the existence of the office, and that there was succession in office.
He did this because of the pride of Shebna. So, please note, there is nothing permanent about delegated authority.
Yes. One Vizier is replaced by another, just as one King is replaced by another and one pope is replaced by another. Such is the nature of an office.
Nor does Shebna nor Eliakim get to pass on the keys to whoever they wish. Only GOD did so. No one voted. No one cast lots.
Typically the Davidic king bestowed the keys on the Vizier of his choosing. Even in this case, God didn't literally reach down from heaven and transfer the keys from Shebna to Eliakim.
Please note too that even Eliakim FAILED in his responsibility.
Actually is was Shebna. Shebna sinned and was punished. Sometimes popes sin, and it's not impossible to believe that God may punish them.
say to this steward,People who trusted in either Shebna or Eliakim were disappointed. Our trust isn’t in people - even when chosen for a brief period. Our trust is in an unfailing God. Isaiah 22:25 is a prophecy of the failure of Eliakim.
to Shebna the palace administrator:
What are you doing here and who gave you permission
to cut out a grave for yourself here,
hewing your grave on the height
and chiseling your resting place in the rock?
17“Beware, the Lord is about to take firm hold of you
and hurl you away, you mighty man.
The Church doesn't teach that the pope is sinless.
And I trust Jesus, the King of the eternal, redeemed Davidic Kingdom, when He established the office of His Vizier on earth, for His Church on earth, which has the power to "bind and loose."
Yet when you read posts from Catholics, who undoubtedly copy and paste from Catholic sites that are echo chambers of Rome and not of God’s Word, you get a selected reading that picks and chooses.
Or in this case, better exegesis.
In this instance, they try to stitch together something that exalts Peter to be more than Christ said...
See above.
“Agreed. But Peter receives from Jesus the additional gift of the Keys of the office of the Vizier or Vice-Regent of the eternal, redeemed Davidic Kingdom, of which Jesus is King.”
Which is why I pointed out there is a strong case Peter will have a particular authority over the Jewish Nation under Christ in the Kingdom that will be above the other Apostles who will each rule over a Jewish tribe.
“Did someone claim that?”
Pretty much you. You asked what difference there was between what you claimed and what I pointed out to you.
“Binding and loosing” was a well established phrase in Jesus’ time. It mean ultimate ecclesial authority. Parse it as you wish, but this is from the Jewish encyclopedia:”
Yes, you are (theoretically) back to Peter’s future role in the Davidic Kingdom on earth. Not the church.
“The authority of the Pharisees was a type for the Teaching and disciplinary authority of Christ’s Church, “the pillar and foundation of truth.””
That goes to the severe problem of calling something a type that the Bible does not identify as a type. At least you realize the Pharisees totally screwed up what mattered - the recognition of Messiah. Not to mention every other thing Christ castigated them for.
“Of course, the Church is the Body of Christ, with Christ as Its Head, which is why Christ warns us against refusing to “listen to the church.””
Yes, when arbitration is involved and a decision was reached. Beyond that, no.
“The Bible is the Word of God, but in a secondary sense to Christ Himself, who is The Word (and the Way, the Truth and the Life).”
The Scriptures are what God directly inspired. It is what we have, plus the Holy Spirit to lead us into that truth.
“In a sense. But there is one faith, one Lord, one baptism.”
Sure. One Church that includes all true believers (not taress) of all time. One Lord Jesus. One baptism.
“If this local congregation teaches something outside the one, true, faith, it is not perfectly united to the Body of Christ.”
It may not be a part a church any longer. See Revelation. Note how CHRIST disciplines the churches.
“A believer is one who believes the one, true, faith, which is everything that Christ’s Church teaches.”
Well, no. Historically no.
“If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector.” —Jesus
Deceiver, as pointed out.
“This simplistic exegesis is self-contradictory and utterly incoherent.”
No, it is commanded.
“Let’s put your interpretation into practice.”
“Is contraception a sin?”
No. Some may be. The act of preventing pregnancy is not by definition sin in the Scriptures.
“Until the Lambeth Conference, all Protestant denominations regarded it to be. Now none do.”
Great.
“My Christian brother told my children that there is nothing wrong with a bishop being a practicing homosexual.”
Perhaps your brother is an idiot. Or perhaps he is ignorant. Or perhaps he isn’t your brother in Christ. Or perhaps...
“I believe that my brother has sinned against me.”
Doesn’t sound like he did. I suggest you take him aside and say, “in our family, we follow the Scriptures that identify homosexuality as a sin and a disqualification for the ministry. Yes, I understand that many of our current clergy are homos - and maybe you’ve heard of the Vatican Gay Mafia - but those are aberrations. In any case, as a friend, please don’t ever tell my kids homos are fit for ministry. If you do, I will cut off our relationship to protect my kids.”
“Which local congregation should arbitrate this dispute? “
None. You should go directly to your “brother.”
“You can probably imagine a thousand such examples.”
STA, I feel your example is poor and not worth the church interceding. Yes there are thousands of similar bad examples that a church should not get involved in.
“Under your rubric, no resolution to such disputes can ever be attained, making your interpretation of this passage impossible in practice.”
Well, no, bad examples, like yours are going to result in straw men.
Take a better example. Two (actual believers) businessmen agree to some business deal. One feels the other cheated him. He believes he has been defrauded. He goes to his brother and the brother says he sees it the other way. They agree to go their mutual church or agree on which church can arbitrate. The church elders hear both sides and make a decision. IF one of the brothers is a member of that church and he won’t listen to the church decision, the church can use its collective wisdom among the elders to discipline him. If it is the other guy, they can contact his church and fully explain the situation.
It happens in the Christian world I worship in. Typcially, real believers find a way to come to an agreement before it comes to that point.
“Therefore, your exegesis must be wrong.”
In this case, your straw man argument was wrong.
“There must exist a visible Church possessing a non-contradictory body of doctrine for Jesus’ command to be practically possible.”
Not so.
“OK. But be careful about placing your trust in men.”
I’m not. I’m showing you the silliness of claiming he would miss something he taught verse by verse for more than 35 years.
“Maybe he just forgot about the following verses regarding the nature of the office of the Vizier of the Davidic Kingdom.”
No STA. If you look at his commentary on Isaiah, which is free online - you will find that passage. I already pointed out the transference to Eliakim in verses 22-25.
Evidently, he didn’t think it was worth mentioning that the Vizier was described as “a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah.”
“Then why didn’t he mention that he would be a father to Judah?”
He did.
22:20–21 The Lord also predicted that He would appoint Eliakim to a special position of authority, complete with the symbols of that authority, to replace proud Shebna. He would become a father to the people of Jerusalem in that he would care for them sacrificially at God’s appointed time.
Constable, T. (2003). Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Is 22:20).
“He only described the “master of the palace” as someone who controlled access to the king of the Davidic kingdom.”
I suggest you look again.
“He didn’t mention any of the passages in Kings which show the office to be extremely powerful —that of a vice-regent.”
Oh, did you read his commentary on Kings? Both books?
“The Catholic exegesis is more comprehensive and exhaustive.”
Sure! They are trying to make Peter into more in the Church than Christ did. That takes quite an “exhaustive” effort. It takes a running start, dipping here and there, attempting to stitch things together and make a case.
The point is that there is succession in office. So we have agreement there. And that the office is very powerful: “what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” See passages from Kings above.”
There was no passed on succession. Shebna failed. God stepped in.
“The King is always the power behind the keys. And Jesus clearly gives Peter the keys in Matthew 16:19. There is no record of the keys being taken away.”
Says he holds the key. You said He already gave it away. Are you making the argument that He passed Peter a duplicate set of keys?
“Jesus makes Peter the Vizier of the eternal, redeemed Davidic Kingdom.”
Disagree, if you are attempting to imply that the CHURCH is the “eternal, redeemed Davidic Kingdom.”
“I’m not sure what your point is. Isaiah indicates the existence of the office, and that there was succession in office.”
Failure by sin was the method of succession.
“Yes. One Vizier is replaced by another, just as one King is replaced by another and one pope is replaced by another. Such is the nature of an office.”
So, you are arguing that Pope, an office not found in the list of Church offices, is transferred using the really bad sin method. As soon as one pope sins sufficiently enough, they throw it like a hot potato to another guy? I ask this because Shebna was removed directly by God because of sin. That isn’t succession friend. That is failure.
“Typically the Davidic king bestowed the keys on the Vizier of his choosing. Even in this case, God didn’t literally reach down from heaven and transfer the keys from Shebna to Eliakim.”
He spoke through his Prophet, Isaiah, that this is what He was doing.
“Actually is was Shebna. Shebna sinned and was punished. Sometimes popes sin, and it’s not impossible to believe that God may punish them.”
A multitude of popes not only failed, but were evil. Not only did Shebna fail via sin, Eliakim failed.
“The Church doesn’t teach that the pope is sinless.”
The Scriptures don’t teach there is a pope. History teaches us vividly that popes of your denomination have frequently been downright pagan and evil.
“And I trust Jesus, the King of the eternal, redeemed Davidic Kingdom, when He established the office of His Vizier on earth, for His Church on earth, which has the power to “bind and loose.”
By any chance, do you live in Colorado?
“Or in this case, better exegesis.”
Eisogesis is never better exegesis.
Best
Have you considered my woman; Mary?