In a rather
hit-and-miss (largely miss, to be honest) critique of Catholic teachings about
the papacy, one Protestant (Calvary Chapel) apologist, wrote the following
about the meaning of “binding and loosing,” and (perhaps unintentionally)
argues for a rather Catholic/Eastern Orthodoxy/LDS understanding thereof, as it
relates, not just to morals, but also the issue of declaring doctrines (something many Protestant
apologists claim is not in view in Matt 16:18-19; cf. D&C 124:93):
What the notion of this authoritative binding
and loosing means can be gleaned from both biblical and contemporary rabbinical
source. John Lightfoot wrote of the possibility of producing thousands of
examples of this particular concept from rabbinical writings. He asked, ‘To think
that Christ, when he used the common phrase, was not understood by his headers
in the common and vulgar sense, shall I call it a matter of laughter or of
madness?’ (Hebrew and Talmudical
Exercitations [Oxford: University Press, 1859], p. 234-40) From all
examples cited from the school of Shammai, and from the school of Hillel, both
of which were influential in the days of Christ, the meaning of quite clear.
The phrase was used with reference to doctrines
and judgements, and the idea of binding conveyed the meaning of forbidding
and loosing signified permission. That such was indeed the intention may be
inferred from such New Testament references as Matthew 13:52; 23:13; Luke
11:52. The last reference is particularly noteworthy for it connects the
concept of ‘the key of knowledge’, that is, the truth concerning entrance into
the kingdom of God. Peter and the other apostles were instructed in this
matter, and they exercised their binding and loosing authority frequently
throughout the early history of the book of Acts (see Acts 2:37-47; 3:1-26;
4:1-12; 5:17-32; 15:1-29; 21:17-26). (Henry T. Hudson, Papal Power: Its Origins and Developments [Evangelical Press,
1981], 103, emphasis added)