Scot, I was expecting a little more on this one… especially since you promised some answers to my comment a while ago. Although I think I agree with what you have said so far, some more detail would be really good. It seems to me that the case I made in that comment might make ekklesia as having something to do with ruling (at least the legislative and judiciary functions) in the kingdom. Any thoughts?

Well said Scot, and helpful for me, especially the way you tie this together at the end.

The problem with number 8 Scot is that it is a leap which is simply not in the text. If you start from the presupposition that there is no continuing, visible, and personal authority today, then you have to make some sort of transfer of the authority granted in the text to some source. But transferring it to a collection of writings clearly didn’t work. The Protestant movement almost immediately split into multiple movements, all claiming a collection of those writings as their source of authority. And it has continued to fragment and splinter ever since. There is no visible unity and thus no credible unity at all.
I’ve read the Roman Catholic interpretation of that passage (and others) through the lens of their catechism. And I’ve now studied some of the Orthodox interpretation. While I believe I lean more toward the Orthodox interpretation, either of them seem to make more sense than attempting to transfer that authority to a static collection of writings. A book can neither bind or loose. Those are actions of a human being. A book cannot turn a key. That requires a hand.
More importantly, the visible results speak volumes. While Protestantism is approaching the point where every group of believers meeting does their own thing entirely, both the Orthodox and Roman Catholics have maintained visible unity internally through their very different approaches despite their great schism from each other. Protestants don’t even seem to try or largely even seem to consider true oneness rather than (at best) distant tolerance important.
So if the book is the authority, then it seems to have failed to do its job. I imagine I’ll be a Protestant of some description for the rest of my life. However, as one who came into Christianity from the post-Christian and increasingly pagan aspect of our culture, I’m very much aware of the truth and reality of Jesus’ words. People will believe in Jesus because they see our love and our unity. Or they largely won’t believe at all.

Good post Scot.
Scott M #3-
You stated, “So if the book is the authority, then it seems to have failed to do its job”.
First, I appreciate NT Wright’s take on the authority of Scripture by emphasizing that its authority is due to the authority of the One who inspired it. He writes,
“If we think for a moment what we are actually saying when we use the phrase ?authority of scripture?, we must surely acknowledge that this is a shorthand way of saying that, though authority belongs to God, God has somehow invested this authority in scripture….The phrase ?authority of scripture?, therefore, is a sort of shorthand for the fact that the creator and covenant God uses this book as his means of equipping and calling the church for these tasks.”
Do not the Orthodox and Roman Catholics have that same appreciation? They just think equal authority has continued in their specific institutions.
Third, you assume the diversity of Protestantism is automatically a negative thing. It may have had some positive results.
Finally, you assign the blame of the unheathly hositility and visible lack of unity of some in Protestantism to Scripture, rather than to errant individuals and/or institutions. I think there is more unity in Protestantism than is commonly assumed.

Justin,
I don’t recall the specifics of your comment, but ruling can be involved … Matthew 19:28 supports that. This text seems to deal with decisions, esp in light of Matt 18.
I’d need a more specific question brother.

Rick, I did not assign the blame to scripture. I assigned the blame to human beings and institutions who treat scripture as something other than what it is and assign responsibility to it for their own actions based on their own interpretations. And that finally is the rub. Scripture does not interpret itself. It cannot. It is always interpreted and applied by human beings. And since it is the human beings who do the interpretation, even when someone attempts to ascribe the authority to scripture, it is actually the interpreter exercising it. The Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches make interpretation an activity of the Church rather than the individual. Protestants do the reverse. Again, the results pretty much speak for themselves.
Protestantism is also riddled with interpretations of scripture which are simply historically incredible. They were completely invented in the last few hundred years. What sort of authority is that? Since I’m Baptist, I’ll stick within my own denomination and pick on our interpretation of the meaning of the “Lord’s Supper”. Whether or not you think it’s a reasonable interpretation based on scripture, there is no evidence that anyone anywhere who was vaguely orthodox believed anything like it before (as far as I can tell) Zwingli.
I’ve read Wright’s book on the authority of Scripture and enjoyed it a great deal. I’m not sure either Orthodox or Roman Catholics would have any real issue with anything he said. However, Anglicanism stands between the traditions more than any other Protestant church. It’s almost Orthodox in the way it approaches being Church.

Scott M-
I appreciate what you are saying. I do think the divisions within RC and the Orthodox churches are more prevelant than you are giving them credit for.
I also think the indidivual interpretation issue is still offset by doses of input (direct and indirect) from local churches, national denominations, and theological institutions (it will be interesting to see how the growing mega-church networks/associations will play into this).
There also is a growing appreciation of the teachings of old. This recent article speaks just to that:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/february/22.22.html
All that being said, I think God througout history has used very faulty people and institutions to accomplish his purposes (Tribles of Isreal, the Apostles, etc…). Although it can be very frustrating at times, the Holy Spirit still uses and directs His church.
The Internet Monk recently did a series on this topic of the church. Here is one of the later posts:
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-church-flawed-and-finished-5

I think you’re confusing disagreement with schism, Rick. Protestants schism or divide from each other constantly. We split churches or start new denominations (or non-denominations) essentially at will. With relatively few exceptions, over a much longer history, the Orthodox have avoided that reality. One could argue, I suppose, that the Roman Catholic Church is responsible for the Protestant tradition and thus its schisms are actually continuing schisms for which the RCC shares some responsibility. The Orthodox, in particular, acknowledge the reality of God choosing to work through fallen and fallible human beings. Exactly what “church” is it that the Holy Spirit uses today? God, of course, uses myriad things to bring people to Jesus. It can be Scripture read alone. It can be a sunset. A poem. Or even the most fragmented and divisive group of people imaginable. But is that actually Church?
I’ve read the iMonk’s series. I follow his blog and podcast and have for several years. I just don’t agree with his conclusions on this one. I understand some tiny bits and fragments of what he’s struggling with and can definitely empathize. My experience is simply pushing me toward different questions for which I seem to find different answers.
But let’s return to the text at hand. Where in this text is anything that gives the authority to bind and loose to Scripture? That was Scot’s conclusion. In John, we see the power to bind and loose given to all the apostles. But again, not to Scripture. In 1 Timothy, we see that the pillar and ground of truth is the church — again not Scripture. None of this diminishes the importance and authority of Scripture. It is deeply embedded and the Spirit speaks with great authority through it into every tradition. But Scripture must be interpreted. And it is the interpreter who is exercising the power to bind and loose, not Scripture itself. So who gets the authority to interpret?

Scot,
I followed you until #8. In practice how do we see in how this authority used. A good case would be the Jerusalem Council, which is an acknowlegement of what the Holy Spirit was doing on the ground in their midst, and not so much on an exegetically-based decision, just as Peter was moved by the dream at Simon the Tanner’s house to go to Cornelius’ house to prclaim the kingdom message. The theology/praxis of Holy Spirit in Acts is challenging to Protestant construals of the same but we can’t lose nerve. We need to be open to what Scripture actually says and wrestle with it, following it wherever it leads.

Scott Watson and others (including Scott Morizot by extension, but not directly),
The pushback on #8 surprises. What I’m saying is that Jesus grants authority to the apostles (to Peter in particular; extended in Matt 18 to the apostles); the apostle Paul says as much in Eph 2. So, Jesus grants authority to the apostles.
The NT, by and large, is apostolic witness. By logical inference, the authority that Jesus grants to the apostles in Matt 16/18, since it involves at some level gospel declaration and theological judgment, will extend to the NT.
Does it not also then extend to the Spirit’s guidance of the Church, as found in John 16? I would think so.
Does that mean a magisterium or the like? I wouldn’t want to get that official, but I believe God guides the Church through the apostolic witness.
I don’t think this guarantees unity or uniformity.

It seems to be that whatever power and authority we have been given (a grace), in whatever way it comes, whether through the reading, interpretation and action of scripture or the praying, living communities of Jesus (to name only two), ultimately it comes to us through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. John 14-16, Acts 2, Romans 8, etc. point to his ministry of guiding us into all truth, life and power to carry on the co-mission of Jesus. There may be many “keys” but one Spirit. Are we listening?

I have no problem with granting the NT authority as the written record of the apostolic witness and guidance. Nobody who is Christian should have a problem with that. Certainly no tradition does. It’s why we consider it Scripture, after all.
The problem is where you make the leap that it is now somehow Scripture which is now the ongoing guide for the Church, that is it Scripture which is binding and loosing and wielding the keys. That is not contained in this text or any other that I’ve seen. Nor does it make practical sense. When Scripture is applied to any situation, it is not Scripture acting, per se. It is the person or persons interpreting Scripture who are acting. Nobody denies the authority of Scripture. But Scripture can be wrongly interpreted as easily or even more easily than it can be rightly interpreted.
Who determines when Scripture is being or has been rightly interpreted? However you choose to answer that question, that is where you place the authority to bind and loose.

Scot M (#12),
Are you perhaps making too much of a distinction between written and oral communication? Even in a system in which a living, breathing person (or group of persons) makes authoritative edicts, those edits can be misinterpreted by those under authority. You even see this in the early part of Acts when Jesus commands his apostles to go out to the world and they stay in Jerusalem. Any time that you are dealing with communication, there is potential for misinterpretation.
So, is written communication less authoritative than oral communication? I don’t think so. Case in point the letters of Paul. He communicated authoritative edicts to his churches (1 Cor 5, for instance, among a myriad of others) that needed to be interpreted by the recipients. Presumably, there would be an elder or group of elders in Corinth who would have received Paul’s instructions and carried them out. Because his instructions were written and not oral, there would be a greater potential for misunderstanding. But does that remove all authority from the letter? I don’t think, or why write a letter?
I don’t think that written communication carries less authority than oral communication does–even if there is a greater potential for misunderstanding. Now, does the death of the apostles mean that their letters have lost authority? Again, I don’t think so. No one denies that the reader brings something to the table when it comes to communication through a text. The question is, how much? Does Jesus’ command, “Love one another,” lose it’s authority just because it is relayed by the Gospel writers through a text to us 2000 years later? Are we completely unable to recover authorial intent? I don’t think so.
I think we all agree that the apostles had authority. The degree to which a reader accurately reflects the intent of the author is the degree to which the reader projects the authority of that author. Will it ever be 100%? No. Does it have to be? I don’t think so. Does it mean that all interpretations are equal and the text is meaningless? No.
I recommend Philip Eslers’s New Testament Theology: Communion and Community.

Matt,
Thanks for this, but I didn’t raise the issue of oral vs. literary at all. What I was saying is that our NT is an expression of apostolic authority. (Now that I think of it, maybe my comment about RCC and EO could be taken that way; I didn’t mean it that way.)

Perhaps I misunderstood your point, then. I have no problem agreeing that the NT, if interpreted in a manner consistent with the apostolic intent, is an expression of apostolic authority. If that’s even a matter of question or dispute, then it’s in circles I don’t frequent.

Scott M (#s3, 12, and 15)
I think I misunderstood your comment(s). I apologize for that. (Perhaps it’s an illustration of what I was talking about.) Are you wrestling with the basis of Scriptural authority? Is your question, Are they authoritative because they are in the Bible, or because they were written by people in authority?

Matt, Paul always sent his letters with someone who had heard him deliver them for writing, knew the intent of their content, and could in turn deliver them for Paul to the recipients at least something close to the manner Paul would have delivered them had he been able to come in person. They are essentially oral lectures or homilies delivered in writing through the medium of a representative of Paul. We see Peter later commenting that people are already twisting and distorting things Paul wrote. (I also love the comment that some of the things Paul says and writes are hard to understand.)
We have difficulty from more than one perspective. First, it is proven that written text is more likely to be misunderstood than oral communication. (Actually there are studies about the amount of miscommunication in person, via videoconference, via teleconference, and via writing. The further removed you are from direct personal interaction, the more likely miscommunication becomes.) We also know that translation introduces error in understanding. When something was said or written in a different language, it is more likely to be misunderstood in translation. We know that differences in time, even within the same society, introduce more likelihood of misunderstanding. We are more likely to misunderstand something written in 19th century America than something written today. And we know that cultural differences lead to much miscommunication as well.
So what do we have in Scripture? We have a written text translated from other languages from a time two thousand and more years ago written in a cultural milieu vastly different from our own. You can certainly read it on your own (at least in translation, which means you already have the historical interpretation of the translators as a filter). And you’ll even understand some of it. But unless you learn or someone teaches you all of the above and then, on top of that, explains how Jesus interpreted and reinterpreted the entire “OT” in light of himself, can you ever rightly and fully interpret Scripture for yourself?
So the ones who determine what Scripture means to you are those interpretive voices to whom you give weight. And since that is also true for the interpreters themselves, you develop a chain of interpretation. What’s the root of your chain? You should be able to trace it and figure it out, at least for specific ideas. I’m discovering that’s even easier in my Protestant tradition because most of the ideas aren’t actually very old at all. I mentioned one. I could do the same for others. It’s not about what Scripture does or does not say. It’s the interpretation that shapes.

Scot M,
Thanks for your thoughts. I don’t think we are far apart in what we believe regarding the authority of Scripture. I come from a Baptist tradition and, like you, see some serious problems with a lot of their dogma. You mentioned the relative newness of their view of the Lord’s Supper and you rightly mentioned that you could add many more (eschatology, for example).
I also think we are both concerned with the way that the authority of Scripture is used. Scriptural authority isn’t just about theology–it’s about life. It’s about the pastor that says “divorce is always wrong because it says so in the Bible.” We are never just dealing with hypotheticals–we are dealing with real issues that effect real people.
I agree with everything you said about the spectrum of communication. Reading a translated text from an unknown author written to people we don’t know in a culture we misunderstand about issues we don’t fully grasp is a LOT different than hearing something face to face. Am I more likely to misunderstand your post on a blog than I would be face to face? Absolutely. But, does that keep me from blogging? Apparently not. Just because we are more likely to misunderstand Scripture today does not mean that we are unable to understand it in a meaningful way.
I think that we have the tools available to know authorial intent in a meaningful way. Koine Greek isn’t my native tongue, but I learned it. I may not live in first century Rome, but that doesn’t mean I am clueless about their world. I think we can work to put together many of the missing pieces in biblical interpretation. Will we ever get every piece? No.
I am not sure I agree with what you said about Paul. Certainly, Paul sent emissaries with his letters and certainly these emissaries would explain in more detail what was on his heart (Col 4:7-9). But I don’t think the emissaries were a substitute for the letter (or else, why write a letter). Also keep in mind that Ephesians and Colossians at least were circular letters, as was John’s letter to the seven churches in Asia (Revelation). I don’t see how a personal emissary could be around to answer questions after the letter was read in each of these cases. And yet, the authors still felt it valuable to write. I don’t think the use of an emissary removes the barrier in communication posed by a letter.
I agree with you that there isn’t a rock-solid inerrant interpretation that anchors the chain of interpretation. But I don’t think we need one. We deal with uncertainty in communication every day. I don’t know with complete certainty what you wrote in post #17, but I think I understand it enough to offer a response.
Thanks for your thoughts. I miss these kinds of discussions since I got out of school.

Scot, I went back and found my comment on your post entitled “Keys of the Kingdom 2″ on January 8. Here is what I said, with a few edits:
“Scot, I have some questions that I?ve always wanted answered regarding this topic. Each pertain to my understanding of Matthew 16 and the correspondence of ekklesia to kingdom. Is it possible that Jesus uses ekklesia as the political organization that rules (possibly legislates and judges) over the kingdom? In Matthew 16:18, Jesus asks his small band who the Son of Man is? a phrase with a lot of political meaning if taken from Daniel 7 (very little meaning if taken from Ezekiel). Then Jesus takes it a step further asking them who they think he might be? obviously implying that he may be such a figure. Peter then really crosses the line? You are the Messiah (the one who will free us from the empire), the Son of God (a title given to Caesar). Interestingly, this whole scene takes place right outside of Caesarea, the political capital of Rome in that region. And isn?t ekklesia used in the Roman empire at this time to describe the local group of powerful citizens of the Roman empire that meet together in each town/city to discuss town business? Isn?t Jesus stating that he will build his own ekklesias, as opposed to Caesar?s ekklesias? Then Jesus says that he will give the keys/authority of the kingdom to this little band of followers. Then two chapters later, Jesus addresses the process of how to handle disputes in this new ekklesia? a new non-Roman ekklesia. It seems to me that the ekklesia is a local government of the new kingdom that serves the new Caesar Jesus Christ. Basically, they make decisions and settle disputes in their region of the kingdom. Just as in the Roman empire, most people were not citizens, but this local group of citizens made decisions affecting the non-citizens around the city/town.”
So, am I getting this right, making too many leaps of interpretation, or something else entirely? It seems to me if I am somewhere near correct on this, then this has a lot of implications for this kingdom discussion, what the church is in relation to the kingdom, and what our role today is.

One element of the passage you’ve not commented on is the reference to the “gates of hades.” Jesus says the gates of hades “will not prevail.” The analogy may well be to city gates, which might prevail against an attacking army. Therefore, the Kingdom is viewed as a force assaulting these gates.
“Hades” is the underworld, the realm of the dead, but not necessarily hell. Therefore, Jesus seems to be predicting a full frontal assault on the gates of the city of death.
An alternative theory — and perhaps a better one — is that this is a reference to the “gates of hades” in Caesarea Philippi, where the Greek god Pan was said to have been born and where Pan worship took place. A spring came out of the ground — and in the Greek mind, this was from the underworld. Hence the area was known as the Gates of Hades (an entrance to the realm of the underworld). Jesus was actually speaking in Caesarea Philippi (Matt 16:13).
A good case can be made that Jesus was prophesying an assault by the Kingdom on Greek idolatry, as this was the center of the Pan cult and a place of ritual prostitution and bestiality. http://peoplesheep.blogspot.com/2007/03/where-are-your-gates.html
Either way, the Kingdom is envisioned as a potent force for change that cannot be resisted by even the most powerful enemies of God.

Jay, you bring up the aspect I think is so compelling in the text. The gates of Hades either referring to the fountain cave or to the actual city gates in Caesarea. I occasionally hear people say that the gates of hades referred to one particular gate in the city where various messiah/insurrection/terrorist figures were taken for crucifixion (i.e. the gates of death). I’ve never came across any commentary mentioning this theory– so it makes me question it, although it sounds super plausible.