Truth Magazine

By Roger Shouse

Each generation of Christians faces challenging problems that they must identify and overcome in order to make a noticeable impact in the lives that they touch. The 1980’s are no different. The obstacles in our path toward heaven today are not the same as brethren faced in the 1960’s. In the course of time some will conquer these hindrances and go on to excel in Christ Jesus. Others will succumb to these temptations and drift in a lifetime of lackadaisical service and indifferent faith to the Lord.

One of the prevalent things I see and hear today is the attitude many have toward preaching and Bible class topics. The high gloss and glitter of the 1980’s forces us to hide our eyes to faults and shortcomings and accent only the positive and the successful. This thinking can best be summed up by the title of a book, I’m Ok, You’re Ok. This does not take away from positive preaching. Any preaching to be effective will have to be positive, powerful and personal. But I’m not ok, and neither are you! We are sinners being saved by the grace of Jesus Christ. We are in constant need of the blood of the precious Lamb. We need provoking, we need encouraging, we need prodding. Paul told Timothy to “reprove, rebuke and exhort” (2 Tim. 4:2).

I’m ok, you’re ok thinking makes one look over the congregation and say, “I’m a pretty good member.” When one measures himself with the Word of God he says, “I owe my neighbor the gospel, and I can try a little harder next time Lord!”

I’m ok, you’re ok attitudes also make us shy away from repenting of our sins. We are told to confess our sins (1 Jn. 1:9). Regardless of the nature of the local church, we should strive to acknowledge wrongs and follow the Lord believing we can become all things that he tells us.

Can you see this attitude today? Don’t be ignorant of such false schemes and fall into the trap before it’s too late. Are you growing in the Lord? Are you bearing fruit unto the Lord? Do you bring glory to God in all you do? I’m not ok, I’m forgetting the past and I am pressing on to the upward call in Christ Jesus (Phil. 3:13,14).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 11, p. 333
June 2, 1988

By J.F. Dancer, Jr.

A reader in Tennessee requested that I comment on the question of saints of God making contributions into a community fund usually designated as “The United Way,” “The United Fund,” “Community Chest,” etc. I don’t know what it is called in Grenada (if we have such). The comments I will make will be true in the Tennessee, Kentucky and Alabama campaigns as I am familiar with them and have received literature from them describing their work, who gets the money and how it is divided.

Christians are to be benevolent (Eph. 4:28). This is to be directed toward needy brethren (Acts 2:44,45; 4:34,35; 11:27-30) and to those deserving needy of the word (Jas. 1:27; Lk. 10:25-36) but they cannot give to those people or organizations that promote false teaching (2 Jn. 9-11; 2 Thess. 3:10) or laziness or immorality. When we do this we become partaker of the deeds these do which God says are “ungodly.”

Most “United Way” campaigns include the Salvation Army, Catholic, Methodist, Jewish and Lutheran organizations. These are all false religions! The donations do not go directly into the treasuries of these religions but are funneled to some charitable or family counseling organization that is controlled by the particular church. Thus it goes to support the teaching of the particular church. Usually the USO is included which is an organization that provides dances and beer for service personnel. These dances are based upon the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21) to which children of God have to stand opposed and apart.

To try to get around objections to supporting such organizations most of these united fund gathering campaigns suggest you “designate” what organization you want to receive your money. Note. they won’t allow you to make a check directly to the Boy Scouts, etc. because then it would have to go there. Your check is to be made to the fund. They then take out their share to pay operating costs and then they put it into the common fund. Each organization receives the percentage of the collected funds that was agreed upon before the money was collected. No attention is paid to the designations! It is just a ruse to beguile people who object to some of the organizations included so they will go ahead and contribute to the fund. Many businesses strive (and thus pressure employees) to have 100 percent participation and use this way to get it. Some make your contributing to this fund a requirement of your employment.

For a Christian to give (even a few dollars) to the support of false religions or to some organization that sponsors immoral events is to be “unequally yoked” with unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14). God (through Paul) said we are not to be so yoked (2 Cor. 6:14-17). Saints have to have the courage to refuse to give into the common fund that uses the money collected in a manner contrary to Bible teaching. We are to be benevolent but in a way that will enable God to be glorified and his word to be upheld. It is not so in these united fund campaigns. You may be ridiculed and pressured (I have known some to be fired from a job) to make you conform but remember the admonition of Paul in Romans 12:2 to be not conformed to the world! You belong only to God (Tit. 2:14) and everything you do is to be done in such a way that God will be glorified.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 11, p. 323
June 2, 1988

By Aude McKee

Introduction

I. Review of past lessons.

A. We have studied the origin of the Lord’s church. It had its beginning on the day of Pentecost, in Jerusalem, in the 33rd year following the birth of Christ. The record of that beginning is found in Acts 2.

B. In the last lesson we observed two things: the growth of the church and the beginning of apostasy.

1. The church, from a humble beginning, grew to be a mighty army of saints.

2. But even during this period of growth warnings were sounded by the Spirit.

3. Lack of respect for divine authority brought departures from God’s pattern.

II. We are now prepared to proceed and observe the rise of the world’s first denomination. As we trace the origin of Catholicism, we will be simply tracing departures from God’s law.

Discussion:

I. To understand how Catholicism came into existence, it is necessary to have a knowledge of the organization of the Lord’s church.

A. Christ the Head (Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:20-23).

1. Christ is the head of the church universal.

2. This is the only organization the church universal has!

B. Elders to oversee. They watch for souls, rule and feed the flock.

1. Acts 11:27-30; 14:23; 20:28; Tit. 1:5; 1 Pet. 5:1-4; Heb. 13:17.

2. There are three Greek words in the New Testament that refer to this office or work:

a. Episkopos translated “bishop” and “overseer.”

(1) Titus 1:7 (see Tit. 1:5) – “bishop.”

(2) Phil. 1:1 – “bishop.”

(3) Acts 20:28 – “overseers.”

b. Poimen translated “pastor” and “shepherd.”

(1) Eph. 4:11 – “pastors.”

(2) 1 Pet. 2:25; 5:1 – “shepherd.”

c. Presbuteros translated “presbyter” and “elder.”

(1) Acts, 14:23; 1 Tim. 5:17 – “elders.”

(2) 1 Tim. 4:14 – “presbytery.”

3. In each local church there was a plurality (more than one) of elders (Acts 14:23; 20:17; Phil. 1:1; Tit. 1: 5).

4. The elders in each local church were equal in authority (see every passage where the elders are mentioned).

5. The elders had authority (rule, oversight, responsibility) only in the local church that appointed them.

a. Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-3.

b. Their authority (rule, oversight, responsibility) did not extend beyond the “flock of God among them.”

C. Deacons to serve.

1. See Phil. 1: 1; Acts 6:1-7; 1 Tim. 3:8-13.

2. Deacons are not overseers – they are special servants.

D. Evangelists, teachers and saints (Eph. 4:11; Phil. 1:1).

II. Early in the church’s history, elders began to extend their authority.

A. Step 1 – distinction made between bishop and elder (see Tit. 1:5,7).

1. Natural in group of three or four or more men, for one to be outstanding in ability and leadership (and occasionally in ambition to usurp authority).

2. Gradually, as men’s respect for Bible authority lessened, the church drifted into the practice of giving more authority to one man among the elders. This man they designated the “president” or the “presiding bishop.”

3. Thus the word bishop came at length to be applied exclusively to one elder and the rest were designated “elders” or “presbyters.”

4. This is an example of a scriptural word’s being used unscripturally.

B. Step 2 – extension of the authority of the bishop to congregations other than the one that appointed him.

1. The city church would establish churches in the neighboring towns and villages. Instead of recognizing the new congregations as independent bodies of Christians, the city church would control them through the bishop.

2. Gradually, as the city Bishops “tended their authority, they became known as Metropolitan Bishops.

C. Step 3 – the combining of churches of a large area under a single government.

1. The area became known as a diocese.

2. One of the Metropolitan Bishops graduated into a Diocesan Bishop.

D. Step 4 – by the close of the 5th century, the octopus of ecclesiasticism had spread until five centers ruled

1. Five Bishops became known as Patriarchs.

2. The centers from which they ruled were Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, and Rome.

E. Step 5 – the development of the Pope.

1. In 588, John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, declared himself Universal Bishop. In the year 588, John, Bishop of Constantinople, surnamed the Faster, on account of his extraordinary abstinence and austerity, assembled, by his own authority a council at Constantinople, to inquire into an accusation brought against Peter, Patriarch of Antioch; and upon this occasion assumed the title of ecumenical, or universal bishop” (Mosheim, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 1, p. 145).

2. Gregory the Great, then Patriarch of Rome, declared such an assumption as apostasy, and the one guilty of it “anti-Christ.” So in 588, the Catholic Church did not yet exist in its presentday governmental form.

“. . Gregory I was provoked and irritated beyond measure by the assumption of his Eastern rival, and strained every nerve to procure a revocation of that title. He characterized it as a foolish, proud, profane, wicked, pestiferous, blasphemous, and diabolical usurpation, and compared him who used it to Lucifer. . . . After the death of John the Faster in 596, Gregory instructed his ambassador at Constantinople to demand from the New Patriarch, Cyriacus, as a condition of inter-communion, the renunciation of the wicked title, and in a letter to Maurice, he went so far as to declare, that ‘Whosoever calls himself universal priest, or desires to be called so, was the forerunner of AntiChrist… (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. III, p. 220).

3. In 606, Boniface III, who had become Patriarch of Rome, acquired for himself the title of Universal Bishop.

“The disputes about pre-eminence, that had so long subsisted between the bishops of Rome and Constantinople, proceeded, in this century (7th) to such violent lengths, as laid the foundation of that deplorable schism, which afterwards separated the Greek and Latin churches. . . . Boniface II engaged (the emperor) Phocas, that abominable tyrant . . . to take from the bishop of Constantinople the title of ecumenical or universal bishop, and to confer it upon the Roman pontiff . . . thus was the papal supremacy first introduced” (Mosheim, Eccleasistial History, Vol. 1, p. 160).

III. The Catholic Church was born in the vacuum formed by the fall of the Roman Empire.

A. The Roman Empire existed from 27 B.C. to 476 A.D. (some list the fall as 395 A.D.).

1. Rome had ruled the world and then fell because of internal corruption.

2. Rome had ruled through a pyramid form of government.

3. This formed a perfect situation for the creation of the Pope.

B. 2 Thess. 2:1-12.

1. The “man of sin” could well be the Catholic Church.

2. Verse 7 points out that something restrained the “man of sin” from making his appearance, but that the restraining force would be removed. This could very well refer to the old Roman Empire.

IV. The formation of the Catholic Church was not revolutionary, but evolutionary.

A. A flower develops from the seed to the plant to the bud to the blossom, so the Catholic Church developed over a period of 500 years.

1. In fact, the Catholic Church is still developing it is a continually developing religious and political organization.

2. Every few years, new and unscriptural doctrines are adopted and enforced.

B. The seed from which the Catholic Church sprang was a lack of respect for God and his Son, and an improper attitude toward the Word.

1. Departures from truth usualy do not occur in one mighty leap, but they come gradually. Usually the common folk are able to only swallow a small dose of deviation from truth at a time.

2. But step after step after step away from God’s Word will eventually result in complete apostasy. Thus the Catholic Church is an apostate body.

3. 1 Jn. 1:6-7; 2 Jn. 9-11.

Conclusion:

1. At this point in our study, religious confusion seems uncalled for.

2. If you had been living in 610 A.D., and wanted to go to heaven, would you have joined the Catholic Church, or would you have simply obeyed the teaching of the gospel and been a Christian, a member of the church Jesus built?

3. Our plea today is, do nothing, obey nothing, be nothing but that which the New Testament teaches!

4. By obeying from the heart the simple teachings of Christ (Rom. 1:17-18), salvation must come – the right relationship with the Lord and the Lord’s people must necessarily follow!

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 10, pp. 300-301
May 19, 1988

By Wayne Greeson

If you want to get the truth on a subject the best place to go is directly to the source. For example, if you want to find out how your car runs, go to the manufacturer who made it. If you want to know about a building go to the man who built it. Likewise, the best way to get the truth concerning the church is go directly to the source, the author, the builder of the church, Jesus Christ.

The most profound statement ever made concerning the church was made by its builder, Jesus Christ, in Matthew 16:18-19. Within a few words Jesus revealed many great truths about the church which we should learn and understand. Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do men say that I, the Son of man, am?” Some thought John the Baptist. Herod thought this (Mt. 14:2). Some thought Jesus was Elijah, because of the prophecy of Malachi that the spirit of Elijah would return before the Messiah (Mal. 4:5). Others thought he was Jeremiah, who was also thought to come before the Messiah in Jewish legend (2 Esdras 2:18; 2 Macc. 2:4-7). Another Jewish theory concerning the identity of Jesus was that he was one of the prophets. This idea probably was based upon.the promise of Moses that a special prophet would arise (Deut. 18:15).

“But who do you say that I am?”, Jesus asked the disciples. Simon Peter spoke up, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” The term “Christ” referred to the Messiah, the anointed one for whom the Jews hoped and longed. But even more, Simon Peter recognized Jesus divinity by calling him the Son of God.

Jesus responded by indicating that Simon Bar-jona, the son of Jona, was blessed, spiritually favored, for flesh and blood, that is man (Gal. 1:16; Eph. 6:12), had not revealed to Simon Jesus’ divine nature but the heavenly Father. How had the divinity of Jesus been revealed to Simon and the rest of the apostles? Through the miracles and teachings of Jesus (see Mt. 14:22-23; Jn. 17:6-8).

Since the Father had revealed Jesus’ divinity to Simon, son of Jona, Jesus was now going to reveal something to Peter, the disciple of Jesus (“And I also say to you. . . “). Jesus told Peter and the rest of the disciples of his grand purpose and plan to build his church.

“Upon This Rock”: The Foundation

There is a lot of controversy on who or what the “rock” is, referred to by Jesus in this passage. Some popular theories include: (1) Peter; (2) Christ; and (3) Peter’s confession of Christ.

Was Peter the rock upon which Jesus was going to build? The Catholic Church makes this claim and it uses Matthew 16:18 in an attempt to support the position and powers of the pope. Catholics are not alone in their view, there are also many Protestant commentators who support this view, while at the same time rejecting the authority of the pope. The main argument in support of this position is that the name “Peter,” which Jesus designates his disciple, means “rock.”

The Greek and the context of Jesus’ statement do not support the Catholic claim. The name “Peter” is not the same word in Greek as the word “rock” used by Jesus. The Greek word for “rock” is petra, it is feminine and means ‘.’mass of rock” (Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 984). Thayer defines petra as “a rock, ledge, cliff a rock, a large stone” (Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 507). “Peter” comes from the Greek word petros, which is masculine and refers to a “detached stone or boulder, or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved” (Vine, Ibid.)

Greek scholar, Marvin Vincent, pointed out the differences between petra and petros. “In the classical Greek the word (Peter, ‘Petros’) means a piece of rock, as in Homer, of Ajax throwing a stone at Hector (‘Iliad,’ vii., 270), or of Patroclus grasping and hiding in his hand a jagged stone (‘Iliad,’ xvi., 734) . . . The word (rock, ‘petra’) is feminine and means a rock, as distinguished from a stone or a fragment of rock (petros, above). Used of a ledge of rocks or rocky peak. In Homer (‘Odyssey,’ ix., 243), the rock (petra) which Polyphemus places at the door of his cavern, is a mass which two-and-twenty wagons could not remove; and the rock which he hurled at the retreating ships of Ulysses, created by its fall a wave in the sea which drove the ships back toward the land (‘Odyssey’ ix., 484)” (Vincent I Vincent Word Studies of the New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 91; original emphasis).

The foundation of the wise man’s house was a petra, a large mass of rock, not a petros, a small stone (Mt. 7:24). Also, petra refers to rocks split at Jesus’ death (Mt. 27:5 1), the tomb of Jesus was in petra (Mt. 27:60), and when God’s wrath is displayed men hide themselves in petra (Rev. 6:15-17). Peter (Petros) is not and cannot be the rock (petra) upon which Jesus promised to build his church.

Some contend Jesus is the rock. While Christ is certainly designated as a rock and foundation elsewhere, the view that Jesus is the rock in the immediate context of this passage also has some difficulties. Vincent reminds us of the context of Jesus’ statement, “Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: ‘On this rock will I build'” (Vincent, Ibid., p. 92).

Probably the most prominent view among members of the church is that the “rock” of Matthew 16:18 is “Peter’s confession.” Too often commentators want to emphasize what they call “Peter’s confession” and overlook the immediate significance that Jesus placed upon Peter’s statement. Christ did not characterize Peter’s statement as a confession but as a revelation! Jesus plainly says what Peter said was not from man, “flesh and blood,” but from the Father. The “rock” to which Jesus refers is the divinely revealed truth, Jesus is the Christ the Son of God. The difference between the confession of a man and the revelation of God is vast and significant. Myriads of churches and kingdoms have built upon the mere confessions of men, but the church Jesus promised to build was going to be established upon the truth of Jesus’ divinity as revealed by the Father.

The identity of “this rock,” as the divinely revealed truth concerning Jesus, can be seen in the immediate context of Jesus’ response to Peter. Robertson points out that, “The emphasis is not on ‘Thou art Peter’ over against ‘Thou art the Christ,’ but on Kago (“And I”): ‘The Father hath revealed to thee one truth, and I also tell you another’ (McNeile) ” (Robertson, Word Pictures In the New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 131). The parallel between verses 16, 17 and 18 illustrates the identity of “this rock” to which Jesus refers.

The basis or foundation of the church built by Jesus is the fact that he indeed is the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God! Jesus was “declared to be the Son of God with power . . . by the resurrection from the dead . . . (upon this basis) you are also the called of Jesus Christ” (Rom. 1:46). Paul established a congregation at Pisidia by preaching Jesus was the Son of God as demonstrated by his resurrection (Acts 13:29-39). Paul wrote, “If Christ is not risen, then our preaching is vain and your faith is also vain . . . And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; and you are still in your sins!” (1 Cor. 15:14-17)

Jesus is described as a foundation elsewhere in the N.T. in that he has been declared the Christ, the Son of God by the resurrection. “For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). The church has been “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone” (Eph. 2:2). “This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:11-12).

“I Will Build”: The Builder

Jesus pronounced himself as the builder of his church. This fact had been prophesied, “Behold, the Man whose name is the Branch! From His place he shall branch out, And He shall build the temple of the Lord; Yes, He shall build the temple of the lord. He shall bear the glory, And shall sit and rule on His throne” (Zech. 6:12-13).

Not just any man could build the Lord’s church. Not John Calvin, not Martin Luther, nor Henry VIII, John Wesley, John Smyth, Mary Baker Eddy or any other man or woman. It took the Son of God. “Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it” (Psa. 127:1).

“My Church”: – The Building

The “church” refers not to a physical building, but to “those called out” a group of people called together for a purpose. The term “church” in Greek mean “[o]riginally an assembly of citizens, regularly summoned. So in New Testament, Acts 19:39. The Septaugint uses the word for the congregation of Israel, either as summoned for a definite purpose (1 Kings 8:65), or for the community of Israel collectively, regarded as a congregation (Gen. 28:3) . . . The Christian community in the midst of Israel would be designated as (an ekkIesia)” (Vincent, Ibid., p. 93).

“The word church means literally those called out, and often means an assembly or congregation. See Ac. 19:32, Gr.; Ac. 7:38. It is applied to Christians as being called out from the world. It means sometimes the whole body of believers, Ep. 1:22; 1 Co. 10:32. This is its meaning in this place. It means, also, a particular society of believers worshiping in one place, Ac. 8:1; 9:31; 1 C. 1:2” (Barnes, Barnes’ Notes, Matthew, p. 170). Peter describes Christians “as living stones. . . being built up a spiritual house” (1 Pet. 2:5).

“My Church”: The Owner, The Name, and The Number

The church, those called out of the world, do not own themselves. The church is a “purchased possession” (Eph. 1:14). In 1 Peter 2:9, Christians are described (in KJV) as a “peculiar people.” This does not mean that Christians are strange people. In the Greek the idea is “an obtaining, an acquisition,” a possession. The church, Christians, are owned by someone.

Jesus claimed to be the owner of the church when he called it “my church.” He is the owner of the church because he bought it and built it. The purchase price was his own blood. Paul described the church as “the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). Peter reminds Christians, “you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver and gold . . . but with the precious blood of Christ” (1 Pet. 1:18-19).

How should the church built by Jesus be designated? Before Peter and the rest of the apostles, he identified the church as “my church.” He bought it. He built it. He owns it. The church is his bride (Eph. 5:24-29) and his body (Eph. 1:22-23). To identify his church with the name or doctrine of men would be blasphemy. The church should be identified by the name of its builder and owner and called Christ’s church (see, Rom. 16:16).

How many different churches today belong to Christ? Consider what Christ said. He said he would build “my church” not “my churches”! He went further and said “the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. ” Christ built just as many churches as can fit into the pronoun “it.” “There is one body” which is his church (Eph. 4:4; 1:22-23). While there may be many “so-called” churches, Christ built only one church (see 1 Cor. 8:5-6).

“Hades Shall Not Prevail Against It”: – The Duration Where the King James version reads “Hell” in Matthew 16:18, a more accurate translation is “Hades.” Hades is the unseen world, the place where the spirits of those who have died are kept and it is often used to signify death. Christ presents two figurative buildings, his church or kingdom and the house or kingdom of Death (Hades). “In the Old Testament the ‘gates of Hades’ (Sheol) never bears any other meaning (Isa. 38: 10; Wisd. 16:3; 111 Macc. 5:51) than death, McNeile claims. See also Psa. 9:13; 107:18; Job 38:17. . . It is not the picture of Hades attacking Christ’s church, but of death’s possible victory over the church. ‘The ekkiesia is built upon the Messiahship of her master, and death, the gates of Hades, will not prevail against her by keeping Him imprisoned. . .’ (McNeile). Christ’s church will prevail and survive because He will burst the gates of Hades and come forth conqueror. He will ever live and be the guarantor of the perpetuity of His people or church” (Robertson, Ibid., Vol. 1, pp. 132-133).

On the day of Pentecost, the church was established upon the evidence that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, as demonstrated by the resurrection. Peter preached that the resurrection demonstrated Jesus had conquered Hades or death (Acts 2:22-36). (See, v. 24 “it was not possible that he should be held by it”; v. 31 “his soul was not left it in Hades.”)

The Christ’s victory over Hades or death assures the members of Christ’s church that they also will be victorious over death. On this ground, Daniel was told that God’s kingdom would never be destroyed (Dan. 2:44). Likewise, the Hebrew writer proclaims we have received a “kingdom which cannot be shaken” (Heb. 12:28). “. . . [T1he Lord affirms that death shall have no power over the members of the Church; they shall be able to rise superior to its attacks, even if for a time they seem to succumb; their triumphant cry shall be, ‘O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?’ (1 Cor. 15:55)” (Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 15, Matthew, p. 136).

“The Keys of the Kingdom”: – The Authority

A key is an instrument used to open a door and one who possesses a key has the power and authority of access. Thus, a key is often used in the Scriptures as a symbol of power and authority. For example, God promised the Messiah, “The key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; and he shall shut, and none shall open” (Isa. 22:22). And, the risen Lord is said to have “the keys of death and of Hades” and “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Rev. 1:18; 3:7).

Therefore, “the keys of the kingdom,” Jesus promises Peter, represent the power and authority to open the door of the kingdom, church. Peter used this power, given to him by the Lord, to open the door of the church through the preaching of the gospel, first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles (Acts 2:14-36; 10). Peter reminded his brethren of this privilege during the apostolic council at Jerusalem. “. . . Peter rose up and said to them: ‘Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe'” (Acts 15:7).

The binding and loosing, Jesus mentions, represents authority in the kingdom. “No other terms were in more constant use in Rabbinic canon-law than those of binding and loosing. They represented the legislative and judicial powers of the Rabbinic office” (Vincent, Ibid., p. 96). “To bind a thing was to forbid it; to loose it, to allow it to be done. Thus they said about gathering wood on the Sabbath day, ‘The school of Shaminei binds it’ – i.e. forbids it; ‘the school of Hillel looses it’ i.e. allows it. When Jesus gave this power to the apostles, he meant that whatsoever they forbade in the church should have divine authority; whatever they permitted, or commanded, should also have divine authority -that is, should be bound or loosed in heaven, or meet the approbation of God” (Barnes, Ibid., p. 171).

While Peter alone was given the power of the “keys,” the privilege of first opening the church to the world, he was not alone in the power of “binding and loosing.” The privilege of authority in the kingdom or church, through binding and loosing, was given to all the apostles (see Mt. 18:18-20).

This power or authority, Jesus delegated to his apostles, was not arbitrary nor based upon their human wisdom. The binding and loosing of the apostles was to be based upon what had already been bound and loosed in heaven and revealed to them. Robertson points out that this is exactly the construction of the Greek, “Note the future perfect indicative (shall have already been bound, shall have already been loosed), a state of completion. All this assumes, of course, that Peter’s use of the keys will be in accord with the teaching and mind of Christ” (Robertson, Ibid., Vol. 1, P. 134). Elsewhere, Jesus promised the apostles they would be guided into all truth, which they would bind and loose, by the Holy Spirit (Jn. 16:13; 1 Cor. 2:13; Gal. 1:11-12).

Conclusion

The words of Jesus in Matthew 16:17-18 teach so many truths concerning the church he built. All Jesus promised, he accomplished. He built his church and founded it upon his deity as demonstrated by his resurrection. Peter stood up on the day of Pentecost, after Jesus’ resurrection, and opened the door to the kingdom. Peter preached Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God as shown by his resurrection. “Then those who gladly received his word were baptized . . . and the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved” (Acts 2:41, 47). And, for those who become a part of Christ’s church, even death does not separate them from the love of God (Rom. 8:39). Become a part of Christ’s triumphant church and share in his victory over death.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 10, pp. 307-308, 311
May 19, 1988