Binding and Loosening

[visionary]

The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus (Jewish Wars Book I, Chap. 5, para. 2):

"... these Pharisees artfully insinuated themselves into her favor by little and little, and became themselves the real administrators of the public affairs: they banished and reduced whom they pleased; they bound and loosed [men] at their pleasure; and, to say all at once, they had the enjoyment of the royal authority, whilst the expenses and the difficulties of it belonged to Alexandra."

[visionary]

"No rabbinical court can abrogate laws and institutions made by any other court, unless it is superior in both wisdom and number" ('Eduyyot 1:5). If, however, such a prohibitory law has been accepted by the entire Jewish people, no rabbinical court, even though superior to the one that introduced it, has the power of abrogating it ('Ab. Zarah 36b). In case two rabbis, or two rabbinical courts, differ in their opinions, the rule is that in questions concerning Mosaic laws (mitzvot) the more rigid decision should prevail; in questions concerning rabbinical laws (halakhot) the more lenient decision should be followed ('Ab. Zarah 7a).

So was what Yeshua doing by handing over the keys... giving us spiritual leeway?....Not to be so hard on ourselves, but grant ourselves mercy as we do to others??

[Steve Petersen]

"No rabbinical court can abrogate laws and institutions made by any other court, unless it is superior in both wisdom and number" ('Eduyyot 1:5). If, however, such a prohibitory law has been accepted by the entire Jewish people, no rabbinical court, even though superior to the one that introduced it, has the power of abrogating it ('Ab. Zarah 36b). In case two rabbis, or two rabbinical courts, differ in their opinions, the rule is that in questions concerning Mosaic laws (mitzvot) the more rigid decision should prevail; in questions concerning rabbinical laws (halakhot) the more lenient decision should be followed ('Ab. Zarah 7a).

So was what Yeshua doing by handing over the keys... giving us spiritual leeway?....Not to be so hard on ourselves, but grant ourselves mercy as we do to others??


He gave that authority to the twelve. Then he gave them a command to make disciples. Only those who have had that authority passed to them in a in an unbroken documented chain can 'bind and loose.' It is not the perogative of individual believers, IMO.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus (Jewish Wars Book I, Chap. 5, para. 2):

"... these Pharisees artfully insinuated themselves into her favor by little and little, and became themselves the real administrators of the public affairs: they banished and reduced whom they pleased; they bound and loosed [men] at their pleasure; and, to say all at once, they had the enjoyment of the royal authority, whilst the expenses and the difficulties of it belonged to Alexandra." What lead to the downfall of Israel was the unrighteous laws that were added by the authorities.

[visionary]

Yeah, the same as the unrighteous laws of this country is leading towards its down fall.

[visionary]

Yeshua was probably referring to the courts in each synagogue. The smaller ones had a three-judge court, and the larger ones had 21 or 23 judges (I need to check this again). The court was called a bet din.

There is not necessarily a negative implication in Yeshua's warning. Any member of the Jewish community knew that the bet din would have to examine anyone accused of teaching new, heretical, or blasphemous ideas, and those accusations would certainly come as Yeshua's talmidim taught in the synagogues or in the community. Those found guilty of certain offenses would be turned over to the official in charge of administering beatings with a whip. He was called the chazan. We know him today as the Cantor. Personally, I like him better when he sings or chants Torah and prayers!

At Natzeret, the congregation's leaders had obviously found Yeshua guilty of some particularly egregious blasphemy that was worthy of stoning, and, following the tradition of the sages, were planning to mercifully push him over a precipice, so that he might be dead or unconscious before the stones were dropped on him and would not suffer pain. After all, he was a friend and neighbor. It's the least one could do...

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Yeah, the same as the unrighteous laws of this country is leading towards its down fall. Yes I know. There is such a wide division in classes that the upper part does not relate to the lower part. In other words they are making laws that people can not live by, nor would they themselves live by if misfortune should befall them.

[visionary]

God authorized this binding and loosening. We are to abide by them in order to have a civilized society or as Paul says.. Romans 13:1-6
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained F53 of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

[Steve Petersen]

God authorized this binding and loosening. We are to abide by them in order to have a civilized society or as Paul says..

This can't be blanket statement, otherwise why fight the Nazis?

Sometimes authorities must be opposed.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Cheese and grapes. Cheese is binding, and grapes are loosening.:holy:

[visionary]

Cheese and grapes. Cheese is binding, and grapes are loosening.:holy:
:swoon: ^_^

[SGM4HIM]

Heres an example of loosening that was made early in Acts 5:19 that shook up many.
"It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood."

[A_Pioneer]

This can't be blanket statement, otherwise why fight the Nazis?

Sometimes authorities must be opposed.
But that opposition must be from a higher power.
The single soul in front of a tank in China only worked for a while. China broke the oppostion. Without a higher power to oppose Hitler, all of us might be speaking German.
Yeshua tells us to 'count the cost' and in one of them he gives an army analogy. So enlist the power of God in your effort. Otherwise obey the powers that be.
They don't carry the sword in vain.
:angel:
Shalom

[visionary]

Children... obey your parents... and we know how strict and how lenient different households can be.

[A_Pioneer]

Children... obey your parents... and we know how strict and how lenient different households can be.
The commandment stands no matter how strict or lenient the household. What matters is the content of the upbringing, was it from 'Godfearing' parents?
"Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it."

Shalom

[ContraMundum]

He gave that authority to the twelve. Then he gave them a command to make disciples. Only those who have had that authority passed to them in a in an unbroken documented chain can 'bind and loose.' It is not the perogative of individual believers, IMO.

Amen! :thumbsup:

Also- Yeshua giving the keys to Peter and the Apostles cannot be understood outside of the context of Is. 22.

[Steve Petersen]

Amen! :thumbsup:

Also- Yeshua giving the keys to Peter and the Apostles cannot be understood outside of the context of Is. 22.


When I posted I just knew you were going to come back with that.^_^

Up to Peter you have a case, after that only church tradition about succession. I don't think the Eastern Orthodox Church would agree with the chain of authority laid down the RCC. Nor would the Syriac church. I don't want to get off on a rabbit trail about the RCC, only to note that her authority has always been disputed.

[ElsanRandiMom]

He gave that authority to the twelve. Then he gave them a command to make disciples. Only those who have had that authority passed to them in a in an unbroken documented chain can 'bind and loose.' It is not the perogative of individual believers, IMO.
so if this is your assertion... who is documented and where is the documentation (as obviously from the last post it is not Peter and ultimately the RCC in your opinion)

[ContraMundum]

When I posted I just knew you were going to come back with that.^_^

Up to Peter you have a case, after that only church tradition about succession. I don't think the Eastern Orthodox Church would agree with the chain of authority laid down the RCC. Nor would the Syriac church. I don't want to get off on a rabbit trail about the RCC, only to note that her authority has always been disputed.

:D

I knew that you would know that I was going to come back with that! That's one reason I posted it. :)

...and I agree with your sentiments here!

:thumbsup:

[Steve Petersen]

so if this is your assertion... who is documented and where is the documentation (as obviously from the last post it is not Peter and ultimately the RCC in your opinion)

I am going to defer to ContraMundum here. He is way more educated than I will ever be about this issue.

[Lulav]

Yeshua was probably referring to the courts in each synagogue. The smaller ones had a three-judge court, and the larger ones had 21 or 23 judges (I need to check this again). The court was called a bet din.

There is not necessarily a negative implication in Yeshua's warning. Any member of the Jewish community knew that the bet din would have to examine anyone accused of teaching new, heretical, or blasphemous ideas, and those accusations would certainly come as Yeshua's talmidim taught in the synagogues or in the community. Those found guilty of certain offenses would be turned over to the official in charge of administering beatings with a whip. He was called the chazan. We know him today as the Cantor. Personally, I like him better when he sings or chants Torah and prayers!

At Natzeret, the congregation's leaders had obviously found Yeshua guilty of some particularly egregious blasphemy that was worthy of stoning, and, following the tradition of the sages, were planning to mercifully push him over a precipice, so that he might be dead or unconscious before the stones were dropped on him and would not suffer pain. After all, he was a friend and neighbor. It's the least one could do...The part I highlighted, where is this from? I have never heard of this assertion before.

[ContraMundum]

I am going to defer to ContraMundum here. He is way more educated than I will ever be about this issue.

Hey no fair!

Well, thanks for the compliment but I'd have to think about exactly what assertion is being made before I would comment further. :)

[Mikeb85]

so if this is your assertion... who is documented and where is the documentation (as obviously from the last post it is not Peter and ultimately the RCC in your opinion)

Succession to the patriarchate of Constantinople (founded by the apostle Andrew)
http://www.ec-patr.org/list/index.php?lang=en

Succession to the patriarchate of Alexandria (founded by Mark the Evangelist)
http://www.greekorthodox-alexandria.org/index.php?module=content&cid=001003

Succession to the patriarchate of Jerusalem (first Bishop being James the Just)
http://www.jerusalem-patriarchate.info/gr/patriarx_iero.htm

Just a couple examples I could find. Some of the other patriarchates had difficult to non-existant websites.

[Lulav]

Some of the other patriarchates had difficult to non-existant websites. that is too funny if you think about it. :D

[Mikeb85]

that is too funny if you think about it. :D

That priests aren't great with computers? (they don't have the most up-to-date or easy to navigate websites) Or that foreign websites have non-existant english sections and I can't read Greek/Arabic?

[johnd]

I have to say that when I first noticed this thread it sounded like a dietary issue. ;)

...more fiber...

But clearly the Lord himself gave this theological matter to the Apostles who were the witnesses of the Lord until the canon of scripture was completed (though not made official until the 4th century CE).

Because they held that office they had special commissions to perform miracles and bind and loose. I would be more impressed to see miracles of healing today than some modern day son of Sceva cursing at the floor as though the devil was in the basement looking up at him.

Be careful what you presume is your gift or authority... the seven sons of Sceva (Acts 19) and the fact that Michael the arch angel would not curse the devil (Jude 9) are testimonials enough to warn us that though he that lives in us is greater than he that lives in the world, we can get in way over our heads tampering with these kinds of things. Again I say be careful!!!

[johnd]

1 John 4:4 You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

[ElsanRandiMom]

Succession to the patriarchate of Constantinople (founded by the apostle Andrew)
http://www.ec-patr.org/list/index.php?lang=en

Succession to the patriarchate of Alexandria (founded by Mark the Evangelist)
http://www.greekorthodox-alexandria.org/index.php?module=content&cid=001003

Succession to the patriarchate of Jerusalem (first Bishop being James the Just)
http://www.jerusalem-patriarchate.info/gr/patriarx_iero.htm

Just a couple examples I could find. Some of the other patriarchates had difficult to non-existant websites.
where is the support for a requirement of documentation?

[Mikeb85]

where is the support for a requirement of documentation?

I don't quite understand the question. Forgive me...

[ElsanRandiMom]

I don't quite understand the question. Forgive me...
sure... some people have a "list" but where in scripture is this list stated to be required. :) (sorry I was not clear... I didn't sleep well last night)

[ContraMundum]

The list became necessary after the canon of scripture was closed, so it is no coincidence that it is not in scripture- like lots of things. Scripture sets the example though- geneologies are vital. Likewise, in Jewish tradition, continuity of religious authority has always been a requirement (eg. lineal proof was necessary to the priesthood) and thus lists are kept for continuity.

But, at the end of the day, one has to ask whether or not continuity is of the essence of the authority itself- that has always been the debate- how important is it? Lots of different views around.

[Lulav]

So did this disqualify the authority of the Rabbis of the day by choosing these fishermen? Or did this indicate a split of sorts but both still retained authority within their own theological understanding?

[visionary]

So did this disqualify the authority of the Rabbis of the day by choosing these fishermen? Or did this indicate a split of sorts but both still retained authority within their own theological understanding?Most excellent question.... That would seem to indicate a whole different direction in the choosing and the chosen. Born again seems to be the new criteria.... those He called, He chosen, they followed, He blesses, they are born again, and now they have what it takes to lead others to experience the same.

[ContraMundum]

So did this disqualify the authority of the Rabbis of the day by choosing these fishermen? Or did this indicate a split of sorts but both still retained authority within their own theological understanding?

I think that's a great question, but personally speaking, I think one should ask the those men where they got their authority from in the first place. Did they ever even have legitimate authority from HaShem? We know how the priesthood got theirs, we know about the authority of a few others (those decended from the Mosaic theocracy, prophets etc), but the pharisees are rather a different story, I think. But I also think it would be unfair of us to answer that question here. There are others who have such answers.

[ElsanRandiMom]

The list became necessary after the canon of scripture was closed, so it is no coincidence that it is not in scripture- like lots of things. Scripture sets the example though- geneologies are vital. Likewise, in Jewish tradition, continuity of religious authority has always been a requirement (eg. lineal proof was necessary to the priesthood) and thus lists are kept for continuity.

But, at the end of the day, one has to ask whether or not continuity is of the essence of the authority itself- that has always been the debate- how important is it? Lots of different views around.
so basically it's something read into the text that is not there.

I always have problems with people putting more on themselves than is actually required (and putting more on others for that matter)

**let me clarify... my problem is not with the idea of people adding traditions and such to religious practice as it is using scripture to justify it that is not directed that way... add away, but saying that this is supported by A when clearly A is not saying that is just wrong (at least in my heart it feels that way)

[Steve Petersen]

There is no question that God gave the priests and elders authority to make law:

Deu 17:8-13 (KJV) If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose; 9 And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire; and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment: 10 And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall show thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee: 11 According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall show thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. 12 And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. 13 And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.

After the return from Babylon, Ezra and the scribes seem to have taken on the mantle of legal authority in Israel. Were they legitmate?

When we get to the close of the OT, there is no more scriptural indication of how authority was handed down. By the time we get to the events of the NT, a system of transmission of authority had developed in the intervening 400 years. There are few sources for information of those intervening years. Josephus is probably the most often cited.

The Mishnah is Judaism's source for chain of authority. In tractate Avot the Mishnah lists a chain of halachic authority from Moses, to the priests, to the prophets, the Ezra and the men of the Great Assembly, to the various sages until about 200 CE.

[ElsanRandiMom]

My question is, how do you apply that today seeing as there is no real unified front to Christianity the way there is with Judaism?

[Lulav]

There is no question that God gave the priests and elders authority to make law:

Deu 17:8-13 (KJV) If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose; 9 And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire; and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment: 10 And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall show thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee: 11 According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall show thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. 12 And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. 13 And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.

After the return from Babylon, Ezra and the scribes seem to have taken on the mantle of legal authority in Israel. Were they legitmate?

When we get to the close of the OT, there is no more scriptural indication of how authority was handed down. By the time we get to the events of the NT, a system of transmission of authority had developed in the intervening 400 years. There are few sources for information of those intervening years. Josephus is probably the most often cited.

The Mishnah is Judaism's source for chain of authority. In tractate Avot the Mishnah lists a chain of halachic authority from Moses, to the priests, to the prophets, the Ezra and the men of the Great Assembly, to the various sages until about 200 CE.:thumbsup:

And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.
Hear and fear, we need more of this today!

Ezra was a priest of Aarons line so he did have the authority to act in that capacity as handed down. Also he is the one who found the law and returned the people to it, wasn't he?

Whatever was operating in Yeshua's day he doesn't seem to come against it, only the way the traditions were held above the law of G-d. So it seems to me it wasn't who had the authority, but who was abusing it.

[Lulav]

My question is, how do you apply that today seeing as there is no real unified front to Christianity the way there is with Judaism? You think there is a united front in Judaism? :)

[ElsanRandiMom]

You think there is a united front in Judaism? :)
more so than Christianity (of course, I could be mistaken as I am not even close to a Jewish religious community where I live)

[Lulav]

Well I guess it would be defined by what you mean by 'united', we are united of sorts as being Jews, but there are wide ranges in halacha/observance, and of course the great shcism of post temple Judaism and the Judaism that Yeshua taught. According to the rest of Judaism, we that believe Yeshua was/is Messiah are apostate. :)

[ElsanRandiMom]

Well I guess it would be defined by what you mean by 'united', we are united of sorts as being Jews, but there are wide ranges in halacha/observance, and of course the great shcism of post temple Judaism and the Judaism that Yeshua taught. According to the rest of Judaism, we that believe Yeshua was/is Messiah are apostate. :)
well the Yeshua thing is a given I'd think - lol

I didn't realize that the Jewish community was really that split. I knew that some were more conservative but I guess I didn't take into account what that would mean in any kind of in depth way.

[ContraMundum]

so basically it's something read into the text that is not there.

I'm not really sure what exactly you are referring to.

I always have problems with people putting more on themselves than is actually required (and putting more on others for that matter)

**let me clarify... my problem is not with the idea of people adding traditions and such to religious practice as it is using scripture to justify it that is not directed that way... add away, but saying that this is supported by A when clearly A is not saying that is just wrong (at least in my heart it feels that way)

OK...

[ContraMundum]

My question is, how do you apply that today seeing as there is no real unified front to Christianity the way there is with Judaism?

There isn't that much religious unity in Judaism in the big picture- there is a somewhat impaired cultural unity though that is the true core of Jewish unity, IMHO. I think this is normal for any belief system, though.

Christianity has a lot more unity than it appears on the surface to have. Denominations are often not regarded to be divisive of unity per se, as we can see by the fact that people tend to share books, teachers and ministries within widened inter-denominational boundaries.

[Lulav]

But when there is no true beit din this is what happens.....................

[ContraMundum]

But when there is no true beit din this is what happens.....................

I personally think it happens even with a Beit Din- lots of sects within Judaism occured during the times when there was a Beit Din.

Anyway- even a Beit Din must be based on Divine authority. Men can't make one of their own will and then dub it authoratative. It must be from G-d Himself.

[Steve Petersen]

J. B. Lightfoot in his Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica gives more than a dozen citations from rabbinic sources in which the words 'bind' and 'loose' are used to denote halakich authority to forbid and permit.

Matthew 16:19 Jesus says to his disciples that 'whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'

This has nothing to do with spiritual warfare (binding the devil; loosing the sick.) Jesus is saying that when the disciples make halakich decisions to forbid or permit certain things, God will endorse their decision. This fits the overall context of the chapter: apostolic authorty.

[Lulav]

I personally think it happens even with a Beit Din- lots of sects within Judaism occured during the times when there was a Beit Din.

Anyway- even a Beit Din must be based on Divine authority. Men can't make one of their own will and then dub it authoratative. It must be from G-d Himself.That's why I defined it with the word 'true'. ;)

[Lulav]

J. B. Lightfoot in his Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica gives more than a dozen citations from rabbinic sources in which the words 'bind' and 'loose' are used to denote halakich authority to forbid and permit.

Matthew 16:19 Jesus says to his disciples that 'whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'

This has nothing to do with spiritual warfare (binding the devil; loosing the sick.) Jesus is saying that when the disciples make halakich decisions to forbid or permit certain things, God will endorse their decision. This fits the overall context of the chapter: apostolic authorty.And that is why we see in Revelation the twelve + twelve sitting upon the thrones.

[ContraMundum]

J. B. Lightfoot in his Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica gives more than a dozen citations from rabbinic sources in which the words 'bind' and 'loose' are used to denote halakich authority to forbid and permit.

Matthew 16:19 Jesus says to his disciples that 'whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'

This has nothing to do with spiritual warfare (binding the devil; loosing the sick.) Jesus is saying that when the disciples make halakich decisions to forbid or permit certain things, God will endorse their decision. This fits the overall context of the chapter: apostolic authorty.

:amen: :thumbsup:

[ContraMundum]

That's why I defined it with the word 'true'. ;)

:thumbsup:

[ElsanRandiMom]

J. B. Lightfoot in his Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica gives more than a dozen citations from rabbinic sources in which the words 'bind' and 'loose' are used to denote halakich authority to forbid and permit.

Matthew 16:19 Jesus says to his disciples that 'whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'

This has nothing to do with spiritual warfare (binding the devil; loosing the sick.) Jesus is saying that when the disciples make halakich decisions to forbid or permit certain things, God will endorse their decision. This fits the overall context of the chapter: apostolic authorty.
again though... how is this applied? Certainly a RCC view of what is and is not acceptable is not the same as an Orthodox view or even a Messianic view. We certainly cannot all set our own rules can we?

[Steve Petersen]

again though... how is this applied? Certainly a RCC view of what is and is not acceptable is not the same as an Orthodox view or even a Messianic view. We certainly cannot all set our own rules can we?

Personally, I believe that apostolic succession became invalid when the successors of the apostles abandoned Judaism. Certainly any apostolic successor who advocated the invalidation of the Torah or persecution of the Jews was illegitmate. This would be regardless of their denomintation and pedigree.

[ElsanRandiMom]

Personally, I believe that apostolic succession became invalid when the successors of the apostles abandoned Judaism. Certainly any apostolic successor who advocated the invalidation of the Torah or persecution of the Jews was illegitmate. This would be regardless of their denomintation and pedigree.
but what is the point of being given this ability if it is abandoned (and from your post, I discern you are implying unobtainable at this time)

[ContraMundum]

but what is the point of being given this ability if it is abandoned (and from your post, I discern you are implying unobtainable at this time)


I think it's easy to claim that the Apostolic Church abandoned Judaism, but it is far harder to prove that it went too far and destroyed it's authority in ruling on such matters. It could easily be argued that the Apostolic churches indeed had the authority and charism to rule on certain Jewish traditions and conversely Gentile traditions. Personally speaking, I don't think the ancient churches did anything doctrinally wrong (I believe the church is protected by God from doctrinal error when unified), but once they became politicized they commited a large number of political and temporal errors, and many of those errors struck at the unity between the Gentile and Jewish believers. However, not everything deemed "Jewish" was good in the first place, and not everything deemed "Gentile" was necessarily bad either. The Messiah made one ekklesia to become one new man. This is a mystery that has yet to see a physical completion- but it will happen. It may look outwardly difficult to discern at times, but He is in charge and it will become what He has decreed.

[Mikeb85]

Personally, I believe that apostolic succession became invalid when the successors of the apostles abandoned Judaism. Certainly any apostolic successor who advocated the invalidation of the Torah or persecution of the Jews was illegitmate. This would be regardless of their denomintation and pedigree.

Saying that the successors of the apostles abandoned Judaism is a little simplistic. After two failed Jewish revolts, the destruction of the temple, and many other factors, the Jewish religion changed as well. The Judaism you see today is not the Judaism of 2000 years ago. And there are certainly many Jewish-based customs, symbols and whatnot in the Orthodox Christian faith today, without even mentioning the Jewish origins of the faith to begin with...

ContraMundum also gives a good explanation of things.

[visionary]

All organized religions have failings and including doctrinal failings in the sight of the Lord as Yeshua pointed out to all the different ruling factions of faith in His day.

[talmidim]

Shalom All,

It should come as no surprise that I have a different take on this issue than most. But before there is too much in the way of knees jerking into chins, I would ask for a little quiet consideration before you respond.

The context of the passage is indeed about Apostolic authority, which should immediately beg the question over what? And the answer that seems most appropriate has to do with spiritual authority (read authority over spirits) rather than anything else.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
The fact that the twelve were selected from various tribes and all walks of life seem to support this view.

I do not subscribe to the notion that the Apostles are bound by the same restrictions or operate under the same authority of the Levitical priesthood because the Apostles were not instructed to be the judges over Israel or any people for that matter - rather messengers bearing glad tidings. They intervened for the people before the Throne in heaven - as the priests did - but they did not judge the people as the priests and sages did. So the quotation from Deuteronomy seems moot to me.

I find it revealing that Paul planted a maximum of about thirteen churches in His entire lifetime and claimed no "rulership" over any. He would keep in touch and try and keep them on track, but he never lorded himself over any congregation. And the model that should have evolved would have been congregations where the leader was Yahshua and the elders were the ones that spent the most time in prayer and well doing. I see nothing in scripture that suggests otherwise, except where the traditions of man (Judaism early on and Christianity later on) insinuated themselves between man and his Maker.

There is nothing in scripture that suggests a linear ascension of power likened to a kingship for the Apostles, the "sent ones". There was however a clear distinction between their spiritual authority and the secular authority of all governmental bodies. They were called to be emissaries of a different kingdom than any found on this earth. And I think the same applies today to us as applied to them then. We are commanded to submit in all humbleness to the powers that be - except where they transgress the commandments of the Father. And we, like them, are commanded to intercede in prayer for all the brethren, Jew and Gentile alike. Nowhere are we commanded to judge them, or build big building for them or amass wealth from them. Quite the contrary.

Spiritual authority comes from Elohim and not man. I think our Master made Himself clear on the subject when He declared His hatred of the doctrine of Nicolaitans - those who exercise power over the laity and place themselves between Elohim and His children.

In short, I see binding and loosing as spiritual halacha only - declaring something righteous or not before the throne of the Father while seeking remedy and interventions. I have personally witnessed many miracles small and great, some as a result of my prayers. But I do not consider myself in any position of authority. In my mind, this all goes back to Matthew 23. Give them their due in a secular sense, but don't be like them. That is my take on things.

In His Love,
Phillip

[visionary]

Shalom All,

It should come as no surprise that I have a different take on this issue than most. But before there is too much in the way of knees jerking into chins, I would ask for a little quiet consideration before you respond.

The context of the passage is indeed about Apostolic authority, which should immediately beg the question over what? And the answer that seems most appropriate has to do with spiritual authority (read authority over spirits) rather than anything else.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
The fact that the twelve were selected from various tribes and all walks of life seem to support this view.

I do not subscribe to the notion that the Apostles are bound by the same restrictions or operate under the same authority of the Levitical priesthood because the Apostles were not instructed to be the judges over Israel or any people for that matter - rather messengers bearing glad tidings. They intervened for the people before the Throne in heaven - as the priests did - but they did not judge the people as the priests and sages did. So the quotation from Deuteronomy seems moot to me.

I find it revealing that Paul planted a maximum of about thirteen churches in His entire lifetime and claimed no "rulership" over any. He would keep in touch and try and keep them on track, but he never lorded himself over any congregation. And the model that should have evolved would have been congregations where the leader was Yahshua and the elders were the ones that spent the most time in prayer and well doing. I see nothing in scripture that suggests otherwise, except where the traditions of man (Judaism early on and Christianity later on) insinuated themselves between man and his Maker.

There is nothing in scripture that suggests a linear ascension of power likened to a kingship for the Apostles, the "sent ones". There was however a clear distinction between their spiritual authority and the secular authority of all governmental bodies. They were called to be emissaries of a different kingdom than any found on this earth. And I think the same applies today to us as applied to them then. We are commanded to submit in all humbleness to the powers that be - except where they transgress the commandments of the Father. And we, like them, are commanded to intercede in prayer for all the brethren, Jew and Gentile alike. Nowhere are we commanded to judge them, or build big building for them or amass wealth from them. Quite the contrary.

Spiritual authority comes from Elohim and not man. I think our Master made Himself clear on the subject when He declared His hatred of the doctrine of Nicolaitans - those who exercise power over the laity and place themselves between Elohim and His children.

In short, I see binding and loosing as spiritual halacha only - declaring something righteous or not before the throne of the Father while seeking remedy and interventions. I have personally witnessed many miracles small and great, some as a result of my prayers. But I do not consider myself in any position of authority. In my mind, this all goes back to Matthew 23. Give them their due in a secular sense, but don't be like them. That is my take on things.

In His Love,
Phillip
:thumbsup: God has got to have inspired you to write that.:bow: Sometimes we all get so caught up in the things of the world, we lose sight of the spirit which God intended to run things. :clap: Thank you for bringing us back to the apostolic approach in this matter. :thumbsup:

[Yusuphhai]

In case two rabbis, or two rabbinical courts, differ in their opinions, the rule is that in questions concerning Mosaic laws (mitzvot) the more rigid decision should prevail; in questions concerning rabbinical laws (halakhot) the more lenient decision should be followed ('Ab. Zarah 7a).

So was what Yeshua doing by handing over the keys... giving us spiritual leeway?....Not to be so hard on ourselves, but grant ourselves mercy as we do to others??


More rigid(mitzvot) and more lenient(halakhot) in the new period, But much more "believers" like the later but reject the former.Hmm.

[Lulav]

Originally Posted by visionary http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=44164871#post44164871)
In case two rabbis, or two rabbinical courts, differ in their opinions, the rule is that in questions concerning Mosaic laws (mitzvot) the more rigid decision should prevail; in questions concerning rabbinical laws (halakhot) the more lenient decision should be followed ('Ab. Zarah 7a).

So was what Yeshua doing by handing over the keys... giving us spiritual leeway?....Not to be so hard on ourselves, but grant ourselves mercy as we do to others??
I don' know Vis.

You have heard it written______________________

But I tell you__________________________

which was easier?

[visionary]

I don' know Vis.

You have heard it written______________________

But I tell you__________________________

which was easier?Make it hard on yourself and easier on others...??:scratch:

[yeshuaslavejeff]

When athletes are planning to be in the olympics (I know, I know, it's ung-dly; but for dramatization please continue)

in say, 7 years,
do they sit on a couch.? Work out 30 minutes a day? 3 days a week ?
..
Again,
When Dr. Max Gerson discovered a cure for cancer, for and with which he testified BEFORE CONGRESS to get it legally approved,
back around 1940
he was LENIENT with some of his patients, some of who died.
.
That they died was not unexpected (most had been terminal)
but
Dr.Max Gerson over 2 decades discovered that the MORE STRICT HE WAS, THE MORE SURVIVED CANCER FREE FOR A NORMAL LIFE...
So he regretted for his patients sake that he had been lenient (in their diet) with them.

In the Torah, Isn't It Written "Strict Discipline as THE WAY TO LIFE"
??

Once again, some martyr of Yeshua in the last century
pointed out from Scripture and as history shows over the first 300 years A.D. and for the last 1708 years to wit that the Body in Yeshua never reached the point described so wonderfully in and throughout the Scripture

(I think in or with specific reference to the Keys to the Kingdom and also binding and loosing)

In summary it looks to me like very strictness is needed, but hardly ever achieved,
and , obviously, is must be (?) a willingly Joyfully given obedience even unto the loss of everything and Joyful in Deatth(/sleep?) as well.
(if anyone considers anything their own, or if anyone thinks they know anything, then Joyful Full Obedience to Yahweh is still a goal of experience and maturity to move toward)


i.e. It is a very very very difficult goal to be found Faithful in Messiah HaMeschiach

just like an athlete hoping to win the gold
or
a troup of 12 hoping to defeat 12,000 -
they must avoid diligently hypocrisy and entanglement in/with worldly things...

and who cares to do that ?

[visionary]

Binding and loosening is like the different between the different types of food you eat and what it does to you.

[Lulav]

Make it hard on yourself and easier on others...??:scratch: Yes and No.

When he says, 'you have heard it was said' like Matthew 5:21 about killing, he defines it by saying

'But I tell you'.................this is new halacha, ( not new commandments) and yes, it is harder, especially in this case as he was telling them that murder starts in the heart and if you are angry with a brother 'without a cause', (thus unrighteous anger), then you are guilty of the same thing. this is a harsher judgment. Same thing with his halacha on adultery, it's not just the physical act but if a man only thinks about it, lusting in his mind, then he has done the equivalent of the physical act in G-ds eyes.

It is harder, because it shows that you aren't just responsible for your actions but your thoughts as well. So if those he put in charge use this halachic teaching I don't see where it would be this:

Not to be so hard on ourselves, but grant ourselves mercy as we do to others??We are to grant mercy to others in how we judge them because we will be judged in the same manner. But we must be harder on ourselves and not just hold ourselves up to the letter of the law, but the spirit as well.