Need some help on this verse...binding things on earth

[Richard_oti]

My guess is...Job 13 15 "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before Him."

Interesting translation. I have read it as to defend his way. Which, Job undoubtedly did. To the point of sin, in justifying himself rather than YHVH. Which Job repented thereof when shown by Elihu.

 

[jimd]

From my perspective, I must disagree with what Gill had to say there. For IF that were to be the case, whereever two or three should be gathered, could they not also change nearly anything they so chose? Inclusive of the doctrines of whatever church? And in so doing, attempt to start a "religion" of their own choosing and making. Let us learn the lesson of Jeroboam:

1Ki 12:32 And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he went up unto the altar; so did he in Beth-el, sacrificing unto the calves that he had made: and he placed in Beth-el the priests of the high places that he had made. 33 And he went up unto the altar which he had made in Beth-el on the fifteenth day in the eighth month, even in the month which he had devised of his own heart: and he ordained a feast for the children of Israel, and went up unto the altar, to burn incense.

If we look at Matthew 18:

Mat 18:17 And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican. 18 Verily I say unto you, what things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father who is in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

If we remove the authority of the TaNaKh, we also remove the foundation upon which the NT stands. If we remove enough of the authority, we are left basically with a form of Mithricism. Yes, I am using hyperbole.


Have we not learned:

Dan 7:25 And he shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High; and he shall think to change the times and the law;

If this "little horn" speaks against the Most High and "think" to attempt to change the set times and law, how would we discern this IF other(s) may change them by "binding and loosing"?

They, being the Apostles, you and 009 have misunderstood what Gill and I are saying.

 

[bbyrd009]

From my perspective, I must disagree with what Gill had to say there.

i usually do myself, yes

 

[bbyrd009]

The sense of the words is this, that Peter, and so the rest of the apostles, should be empowered with authority from him, and so directed by his Holy Spirit, that whatever they bound, that is, declared to be forbidden, and unlawful, should be so: and that whatever they loosed, that is, declared to be lawful, and free of use, should be so

putting me back under someone's law. Pass, but ty. No one between me and Christ, and i can tell because none of them will be there when my works are judged, see, "but Peter said" or "but the pope said" is not going to be a sufficient argument. Obviously if Indulgences and Inquisitions were once declared lawful, i am free forevermore of the spirit that even once condoned those; i have now bound them, see.

and i have no objection to your loosing them, either; they surely speak to you differently, and i am no judge. i might point out that if you need someone to tell you what right and wrong is, you have essentially disconnected, or not recognized one of your "three" parts, in keeping with my apparent Theme of the Day lol, but regardless. 1What i am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is not distinct from the Servants, though he is the master of all. There is no sin in being a child.
I will judge your works, what i am supposed to judge.

 

[jimd]

putting me back under someone's law. Pass, but ty. No one between me and Christ, and i can tell because none of them will be there when my works are judged, see, "but Peter said" or "but the pope said" is not going to be a sufficient argument. Obviously if Indulgences and Inquisitions were once declared lawful, i am free forevermore of the spirit that even once condoned those; i have now bound them, see.

and i have no objection to your loosing them, either; they surely speak to you differently, and i am no judge. i might point out that if you need someone to tell you what right and wrong is, you have essentially disconnected, or not recognized one of your "three" parts, in keeping with my apparent Theme of the Day lol, but regardless. 1What i am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is not distinct from the Servants, though he is the master of all. There is no sin in being a child.
I will judge your works, what i am supposed to judge.

putting me back under someone's law. Pass, but ty. No one between me and Christ, and i can tell because none of them will be there when my works are judged, see, "but Peter said" or "but the pope said" is not going to be a sufficient argument. Obviously if Indulgences and Inquisitions were once declared lawful, i am free forevermore of the spirit that even once condoned those; i have now bound them, see.

and i have no objection to your loosing them, either; they surely speak to you differently, and i am no judge. i might point out that if you need someone to tell you what right and wrong is, you have essentially disconnected, or not recognized one of your "three" parts, in keeping with my apparent Theme of the Day lol, but regardless. 1What i am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is not distinct from the Servants, though he is the master of all. There is no sin in being a child.
I will judge your works, what i am supposed to judge.

I think you and oti have completely missed the meaning of the scripture in question but that is just my opinion and you know what they say about those

 

[bbyrd009]

I think you and oti have completely missed the meaning of the scripture in question but that is just my opinion and you know what they say about those

i completely agree with the v in Q, when you put yourself in the place of the Apostle
you are "the Apostle whom Jesus loved" imo

 

[jimd]

i completely agree with the v in Q, when you put yourself in the place of the Apostle
you are "the Apostle whom Jesus loved" imo

See post #85

 

[Miss Hepburn]

These have helped me understand better these (archaic) words...bind and loosen.
From Wikipedia:
-*The expressions binding and loosing here employed are derived from the current terminology of the Rabbinic schools.
A doctor who declared a thing to be prohibited by the law was said to bind, for thereby he imposed an obligation on the conscience. He who declared it to be lawful was said to loose."*

-*Binding and loosing is originally a Jewish phrase appearing also in the NT.
In usage, to bind and to loose simply means to forbid by an indisputable authority and to permit by an indisputable authority...*

So, what would be permitted here would be permitted in Heaven.
what would be forbidden here would also be forbidden in Heaven.

To bind=to forbid (by law)
To loose= to permit (by law)
As I see it, now.

 

[jimd]

These have helped me understand better these (archaic) words...bind and loosen.
From Wikipedia:
-*The expressions binding and loosing here employed are derived from the current terminology of the Rabbinic schools.
A doctor who declared a thing to be prohibited by the law was said to bind, for thereby he imposed an obligation on the conscience. He who declared it to be lawful was said to loose."*

-*Binding and loosing is originally a Jewish phrase appearing also in the NT.
In usage, to bind and to loose simply means to forbid by an indisputable authority and to permit by an indisputable authority...*

So, what would be permitted her would be permitted in Heaven.
what would be forbidden here would also be forbidden in Heaven.

To bind=to forbid (by law)
To loose= to permit (by law)
As I see it, now.

You have the meaning correct but the question is whether it was passed on to just Peter, Just the apostles, or all believers?

 

[Miss Hepburn]

... the question is whether it was passed on to just
Peter, Just the apostles, or all believers?

Well, that's your question now...I'm good. :]

 

[jimd]

Well, that's your question now...I'm good. :]

No, it is the thread question

 

[Miss Hepburn]

No, it is the thread question

jim, I don't deserve eyes rolled at me...I wanted to know what bind and loose meant...
as I said, ''I'm good"...you can discuss Peter's involvement...go for it, with my best wishes.

 

[jimd]

jim, I don't deserve eyes rolled at me...I wanted to know what bind and loose meant...
as I said, ''I'm good"...you can discuss Peter's involvement...go for it, with my best wishes.

Sorry, didn't know you were disinterested.

 

[amadeus]

whoops...posted without adding my comment.

My guess is...Job 13 15 "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before Him."
We always see Job complimented on His great faith...but until we get to the end of the book of Job...he also had faith in his own actions for righteousness.
He all know the first half of this verse...but who quotes the second half?

I believe he repented from that.

Amen!

Anytime anyone walks in his own way instead of God's Way he walks in error, if not in sin.

"Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts." Prov 21:2

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8-9

"And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it." II John 1:6

 

[Armadillo]

You have the meaning correct but the question is whether it was passed on to just Peter, Just the apostles, or all believers?

John 11:44, And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.

Those bound in grave clothes must have them removed and who does the removing? Who did the binding?

 

[jimd]

John 11:44, And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.

Those bound in grave clothes must have them removed and who does the removing? Who did the binding?

I suppose the coroner did the binding and Jesus or those standing by did the loosing but I don't see what that has to do with the question being discussed.

 

[bbyrd009]

jim, I don't deserve eyes rolled at me...I wanted to know what bind and loose meant...
as I said, ''I'm good"...you can discuss Peter's involvement...go for it, with my best wishes.

ha, i just got the best reflection of "the defense rests" there lol, nice.

 

[Armadillo]

I suppose the coroner did the binding and Jesus or those standing by did the loosing but I don't see what that has to do with the question being discussed.

Ok.

 

[Richard_oti]

i usually do myself, yes

From my perspective / POV, it is with most of them. Can't say that I've really seen any that I put any stock into. I pretty much threw out commentaries within the first year of my "belief", and I'd be willing to say, it was probably within the first six months. Though I have since seen others use a myriad of them, can't say that I have seen much of it worth reading.

A "flavour" of Yeshayahu 2:22 comes to mind:

Stop trusting in man, who has but a breath in his nostrils. Of what account is he.

In Whom do we trust?

 

[Richard_oti]

They, being the Apostles, you and 009 have misunderstood what Gill and I are saying.

What is the overall context here:

Mat 18:15 And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established. 17 And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican. 18 Verily I say unto you, what things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father who is in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. 21 Then came Peter and said to him, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? until seven times? 22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times; but, Until seventy times seven.

That which you quoted from Gill, was in my opinion a misrepresentation of the aletheia of the matter. It followed after the way of the "little horn" from my perspective. It ran headlong into that which also did Jeroboam.