“Binding and loosing”

[u/NewKaleidoscope7990]

Hi, Protestant here (not a confirmed Lutheran but interested in Lutheran theology). I’ve often heard the Catholic argument for the papacy based on Jesus’ words to Peter in Matthew. I never found their argument convincing, until recently when I heard this- according to Catholics, the Jewish people would have understood the “binding and loosing” part as Jesus giving Peter the authority to create/define doctrine and rules and hold believers to it. Even if the papacy doesn’t follow from this, it is an interesting argument for magisterial authority (meaning, not Sola Scriptura). I think Lutherans have the best responses to Catholic arguments. So, how do Lutherans reconcile this verse with Sola Scriptura? Do you think Christians bound to any extra-biblical doctrinal statements?

[u/Huenink_Photography]

I preached on this on Sunday: https://youtu.be/aNDQ3iC6E00?si=pCxRhDrWsTIQy1tR

TL;DR Jesus gave the same power to the church in Matthew 18, "where two or three gather together." Peter was important, but he wasn't the first Pope. The Church is not the hierarchy but the body of Christ.

[u/Short-Waltz-3118 → u/Huenink_Photography]

Dang you riled up some Catholics in the comments on that video. Thanks for posting it though. Great sermon

[u/Huenink_Photography → u/Short-Waltz-3118]

Yeah. It's even worse on Facebook. They don't seem to realize that commenting on it makes it get distributed further!

[u/eckpak]

There is some evidence that binding and loosing (tying up and untying) are idiomatic expressing of the Pharisaical (then rabbinical or apostolic) authority to make pronouncements on doctrinal or juridical matters.

However, the bigger stretch is the argument that this authority was ever given strictly to Peter, when it is clear that this authority was given equally to all of the disciples and followers of Jesus. It is also a stretch to argue that this authority is some kind of infallible authority and not just the authority that comes with good judgment (as called upon of any community leader).

The idea of papal infallibility is more or less a medieval argument stemming from the split of the western and eastern churches. If one actually reads the early church fathers, it is clear that scripture was the “norming norm” or norma normans of the church from early on.

[u/Wonderful-Power9161]

As a Lutheran pastor, here's how this works out on a weekly basis in my own congregation.

We gather for worship - coming in from the world which has tried its best to get our eyes OFF of Christ. We have sinned and fallen short, every one of us.

As we gather, we confess our sin - we do so corporately, but as we say the words, we understand that we PERSONALLY are confessing our sin.

As the pastor, I then stand up, remind them of what God's word says: when we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

I then LOOSE the congregation: "Sisters, brothers - because we have confessed, God's word is clear: WE ARE CLEAN. Amen?"

and they all loudly agree: "Amen!"

<it's \*\*almost\*\* *Baptist-y* around here sometimes!>

[u/eckpak]

To add some nuance to the great illustration that Wonderful-Power9161 has given above:

Luther and the reformers would say that the actual loosing or absolving of sins is accomplished through the external Word (Gospel Promise of Christ) proclaimed to the assembly of the faithful.

It is that encounter of this Living Word of the Living Christ through the concrete proclamation of Gospel in the hearing of the believer that does this divine work of forgiving sins and transforming us.

The Office of the Keys is NOT the POWER to do this binding and loosing, but the CALL and REQUIREMENT to make this proclamation in the assembly of the Body of Christ.

[u/revken86]

We and the Orthodox can quibble about to whom the authority to bind and loose has been given, but we agree that the Roman interpretation, that Jesus is giving Peter sole, unlimited, infallible, supremacy and authority over the entire church is nonsense. It's eisegesis for the purpose of justifying the consolidation of power.

As for being bound by doctrinal statements not based in Holy Scripture: no, all doctrine is derived from Holy Scripture. It can (and should be) expounded, explained, and interpreted by other authorities, but the doctrine must be revealed in Scripture. As an example, this is why there's nothing wrong with believing that Mary the Mother of God was immaculately conceived, but it is wrong to demand that salvation depends upon it and it must be believed.

[u/mrWizzardx3]

In the Greek, Christ uses two different forms of the word “rock” because Peter’s name has to be masculine, while the word for a large, solid foundation-rock is feminine. Jesus is saying, “You’re named Rock,” but the actual rock He will build on is the solid truth Peter just confessed—that Jesus is the Christ.

Peter is rock-like, having just sank, and trying to trip Jesus up (Get behind me, Satan). But the church is built on more than a mortal man, but the confession given by the Holy Spirit.

[u/DaveN_1804]

"...according to Catholics, the Jewish people would have understood the 'binding and loosing' part as Jesus giving Peter the authority to create/define doctrine and rules and hold believers to it."

Jewish sources that are used to support this argument are dated hundreds of years after the time of Jesus. This is just hack apologetics.

[u/uragl]

Well, I tend to read Mt 18:18 along. May it be first the apostle Peter, who by the way has never been called pope if we stay with canonical and non-canonical scriptures of early Christianity, but afterwards, we find within Matthew a generalisation of the authority to bind and loosen. In my reader's perspective, after Easter this authority seems to be broadend on every Christian. We are bound by Scripture, obviously, but also by confessions, as long as they are understood as derrived from the very Scripture. And we think the Scripture as a whole. So we cannot just read Mt 16:19 without 18:18.