Acts20.com

The Hebraic idiom, binding and loosening has everything to do with determining what is permitted and forbidden, clean or unclean, lawful or unlawful and it is evident from the context it is Jesus' intention to extend this authority to Peter first (Matthew 16:19,in context of building His church), and then practically to the church in general (Matthew 18:15-20).This was a very familiar practice in 1st-century Judaism, and is the principle found in the Jerusalem Council.The Council examined the issues from Scripture and debated the issue. When James announced his decision he cited prophecy as a basis and announced the Gentiles were to be accepted into the fellowship of believers without placing the yoke Peter referred and they were to refrain from idolatrous practices, including abstaining from the contaminated by idols, fornication, strangled meat and meat not drained.Requiring them to turn their backs on their former life-style was not an easy task because in many ways they were repudiating a life-style that gave them protection from Rome's persecution and jeopardize their livelihood. It seemed good is to expression an opinion, much like the opinion of the court, to do two things. The opinion of the apostles, elders (upon which the household of God finds its foundation for the Apostolic Faith, Ephesians 2:20, with Jesus being the cornerstone), and the whole church, to first select Paul and Barnabas to inform the Gentile-dominated congregations of the Council's decision.Second, it seemed good or was the opinion of the Holy Spirit and to the Council to lay no greater burden than these essentials - refrain from idolatry.

you see, Brad knows more and is more spiritual and is more authoritative than the disciples (taught personally by Jesus, present at the transfiguration, given the promise of authority to bind and loose, present at Pentecost and responsible for turning the world upside down through the power of the Holy Spirit). Brad is the ultimate authority and Brad says Peter and the boys got it all wrong. He and those who agree with him are the only ones who have it all right.I wish Brad would have stayed with our poor misguided Church of God (tongue in cheek of course) because it would be much more economical and efficient just to have him replace all of the Ordained Bishops and make all of the wise, Scriptural and practical recommendations to the General Assembly. After all, if he knows more than Peter, Paul and the rest of the early Church fathers then he certainly knows more than us Ordained Bishops even though many of us have 4 or 5 decades of prayer and study of the Scriptures behind us.

Overreact much? I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!My website: www.bradfreeman.comMy blog: bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/

Any scripture to support your OT/Hebraic view of binding and loosing?It wouldn't surprise me for the term binding loosing to have a meaning in the oldness of the letter. Neither we, nor the disciples, serve in the oldness of the letter.But it does seem that the meaning of the term in the newness of the Spirit is clear I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!My website: www.bradfreeman.comMy blog: bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/

is years of studying the Hebraic background of Matthew's Gospel. What is important in understanding some of the exchanges between Jesus and the Pharisees is knowing the cultural context of those exchanges.The full context of Jesus' declaration is this: Jesus' giving the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven is to give Peter authority. In this context Peter is given authority through binding and loosening, a common expression perhaps better understood as whatever you forbid and whatever you permit; or, whatever you declare lawful and whatever ever you declare unlawful.This concept is reiterated in Matthew 18:15-20where the Church sits in judgment of the offender who refuses to be reconciled with the offended and is brought before the church to determine if indeed a sin has been committed and if it is determined it is and the offender still refuses to repent and reconcile, then he is to be excluded from the fellowship, or let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector (vv. 17).To this Jesus adds, Truly I say to you, what ever you bind [marg. forbid] on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose [marg. permit] on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. (vv. 18).In Matthew 19:3we find Pharisees coming to Jesus asking if it was lawful, or permitted, for a man to divorce his wife for any reason. They wanted to know how His interpretation and position regarding the subject. Did He permit divorce? If so, under what conditions.I agree Jesus indeed came to set free the captive and bind up the broken-hearted, but that does not need a loose or erroneous application of the expression binding and loosening. The HammerMi kamocah ba'elim AdonaiWho is like you, Adonai, among the mighty? (Exodus 15:11

I do not find it all that surprising. Is this a topic handled extensively in the words of Jesus in the Gospels? For a thousand years, God's interaction on the earth had been primarily through the people of Israel. The Israelites were used to the idea that they related to God through the covenants with Abraham and Moses. They weren't used to this idea, new to them, but indicated in the prophets, that God would gather Gentiles for Himself as well. Some things take time to learn. When Gentiles started coming to the faith, then the Jewish believers in Jerusalem were confronted with the issue.

Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Luke 24:44,45I don't think Jesus left them guessing. I just believe there will always be a draw into legalism, the knowledge of good and evil, searching the scriptures for rules to keep (Jn 5:39), as a means of trying to find life.

I think a more reasonable interpretation in regard Acts 15, instead of seeing it as a case where the Spirit did NOT lead the apostles into all truth as Jesus promised, is to consider the possibility that Brad Freeman may be interpreting the passage a bit wrongly.Jesus was against teaching people to eat meat offered to idols in Revelation. I Corinthians gives us reasons why it is wrong to eat meat offered to idols. One of the big ones is the issue of conscience. Even so, Paul does not recommend going into an idol's temple and eating. He warns of provoking the LORD to jealousy and of having fellowship with demons. He does work out some of the grey areas. If you buy meat at the market, you don't have to ask questions about whether the meat was offered to idols. If someone offers you meat at a feast without commentary, you can eat it. If he says it was offered to idols, you don't eat it. Someone with a conscience can eat only vegetables (Romans 8.)This isn't the 'leaven' of legalism. That isn't the issue. Nowhere is having a weak conscience called 'leaven.' And this isn't the type of legalism that has to do with trusting in something other than Christ for salvation. Having conscience issues over food offered to idols is not the leaven of the Pharisees and Saducees that Jesus warned against.James and the council of Jerusalem addressed the issue of Gentile circumcision and food consistent with what was revealed in Old Testament scripture

Didn't say the Spirit failed in Acts 15. The Spirit was leading the church in the right direction, toward freedom. I'm sure you've experience this same leadership.

Keeping the law is not leaven. The issue with the Galatians was people seeking to be justified by the law. Judaizers were trying to convince Gentiles that they had to be circumcised to relate to God through the Law. Feeling it is wrong to eat some kind of meat is not the same kind of 'legalism.' It does not attack the core issues of the faith.The food that God has given man is first 'herbs' and then later meat, but not the blood. We see this in Genesis