|
Dear Bert,
The Jewish Encyclopedia states:
Binding And Loosing (Hebrew, asar ve-hittir) . . .
“Rabbinical term for 'forbidding and permitting.” . . .
"The power of binding and loosing as always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra the Pharisees, says Josephus (Wars of the Jews 1:5:2), '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.' . . . The various schools had the power 'to bind and to loose'; that is, to forbid and to permit (Talmud: Chagigah 3b); and they could also bind any day by declaring it a fast-day ( . . . Talmud: Ta'anit 12a . . . ). This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age of the Sanhedrin, received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice.
(Sifra, Emor, 9; Talmud: Makkot 23b). |
"In this sense Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees who 'bind heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders but will not move them with one of their fingers'; that is 'loose them,' as they have the power to do (Matthew 23:2-4). In the same sense the second epistle of Clement to James II ('Clementine Homilies,' Introduction [A.D. 221]), Peter is represented as having appointed Clement as his successor, saying:
' I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall bind what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the Church.' "
(Jewish Encyclopedia 3:215). |
W.F. Albright, in his Anchor Bible Commentary on Matthew speaks about the keys of the kingdom that Jesus entrusted to Peter. Here's what he says,
"Isaiah 22, verse 15, undoubtedly lies behind this saying of Jesus. The keys are the symbol of authority and Father Roland DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is described as having the same authority."
Other Protestant scholars admit it too, that when Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Peter is receiving the Prime Minister's office, which means dynastic authority from the Son of David, Jesus, the King of Israel, but also an office where there will be dynastic succession.
He goes on to say some other things.
"It is of considerable importance," Albright says, "that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are discussed, the symbol of the keys is absent, since the saying applies in these instances to a wider circle. The role of Peter as steward of the kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority as was the case of the Old Testament chamberlain who held the keys."
The Church's binding and loosing authority is expressed in the 1,752 canons of the Code of Canon Law (for the Latin Church). They govern such things as how to conduct the sacraments, who can receive the sacraments, excommunication, penalties (mostly for clerics), rules affecting the organization of religious orders, definitions, rights and responsibilities, obligations, and so forth. The examples you gave pertain to secular life of lay people. There is a whole sphere of ecclesiastical life that you are overlooking.
Some obvious examples of binding and loosing are the days of fast and abstinence. The Latin Church has set Ash Wednesday and Good Friday as days of fast, and Fridays as days of abstinence from meat (only within Lent in the U.S. and some other countries). These are not of divine law, but ecclesiastical law, and violating them is a sin, not because they are intrinsically evil, but with respect to the authority of the Church, who has the authority to impose them by her binding and loosing power. Another example of binding and loosing is the discipline on clerical celibacy.
Virtually all the priests in the Latin Church are chosen from unmarried men. This is not because being a married cleric is intrinsically wrong, but because the Church has decided this is the best thing for the Church, and has created a law regarding it.
Eric |
