Table of Contents
Parent: JesusWordsOnly
Apostolic Decisions Were Binding In Heaven Only When Reached Jointly
An example of the Apostles acting as judges over a case is when they decided to add Matthias as the twelfth apostle. This was their remedy for the transgression they found Judas had committed. (Acts 1:1).
Peter did not assume a superiority, and declare Matthias an apostle. It was a joint decision. Why did the apostles act this way on such a matter?
Because Jesus made it quite clear that the apostles, if they wanted their judicial decision to be binding in heaven, had to act jointly, and not in solitary fashion. (Matt. 20:2627.) With regard to the question of a twelfth apostle, the apostles recognized this was the kind of decision they wanted bound in heaven, and not just on earth. That's why the apostles acted jointly.
35.A judge's authority extends to remedies for transgression, even if sometimes third parties must fulfill the vow of another.
This is the true import of Jesus' lesson to the apostles in (Matt. 20:26-27). Unfortunately, the translators do not assist us. They leave the meaning obscure. The correct translation is:
(25) But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the
supreme magistrates [archon, plural) of the Gentiles lord against
them, and their great ones exercise a full privilege over them.
(26) Not so shall it be among you: but whosoever would become
first (protos) among you shall be your servant ( diakonos,
deacon);
(27) and whosoever would be first [protos) among you shall be your
slave ( doulos ). (Matt.20:26-27.)
Jesus is talking to twelve new judges who shall be supreme over Israel. He is contrasting how supreme judges operate among the Gentiles. He wants the apostles to be sure not to copy how an archon operated among the Gentiles. An archon acted as the first over and above other magistrates, as a supreme solitary magistrate. An archon did so in his jurisdiction, thereby lording it over the people.
How do we know this was Jesus' intention? First, because in context, Jesus is speaking to twelve judges he just gave such similar supreme judicial power over Israel. Second, Jesus was being disparaging of acting first among other judges, which is something we will in a moment discuss was the archon practice. Lastly, Jesus used the word archon to precisely mean such a supreme magistrate in Luke 12:58. When the Luke passage is translated, archon is always translated as magistrate. Somewhat perplexingly, in (Matt. 20:26-27), its plural is always translated as rulers.
Vine s New Testament explains what archon meant in Luke 12:58. It says that archon, a 'ruler,' denotes, in Luke 12:58 'a local authority, a magistrate,' acting in the capacity of one who received complaints, and possessing higher authority than the judge, to whom the 'magistrate' remits the case.
Thus, when Jesus speaks of an archon in Luke 12:58, Jesus is talking about someone whose role included acting as a supreme court justice who acted alone. Archons in that judicial role did not function in a council to apply existing law to new cases. They acted as first among judges who were beneath them, reviewing cases sent them by lower level judges.
Why was Jesus concerned the apostles might copy the Gentile archon approach and behave as first over other judges, and thereby lord it over the church of Christ?
Jesus' intent is obvious when you compare the binding authority among judges under Jewish law of that era.
In Jewish legal tradition as of the first century, supreme judicial authority was always held by a joint committee. It was never held by a solitary individual. Jewish law required judicial decisions at the supreme level of the Sanhedrin to be done by joint votes. ( Tractate Sanhedrin, Herbert Danby trans. (1919) at 68.)
This ancient text Tractate Sanhedrin then explained the binding nature of joint decisions:
If in a case, the majority decreed a thing to be unclean, it was unclean; if clean, it was clean. Thence did the legal decision go forth and spread abroad in Israel.
36.See Footnote 31, page 492.
As John Gill notes, time and time again these judicial rulings of the Sanhedrin were said in the Talmud to be binding in heaven as on earth. 36 Thus, when Jesus gives the twelve a similar power to bind/find guilt or loose/forgive sin, they knew He meant such authority was to be exercised jointly. Consequently, when Jesus condemns the Gentile archon practice of operating as the first among what should be equals, we know Jesus is extolling the Jewish format of joint judicial decision-making. Just as the Sanhedrin believed their joint council rulings were bound throughout Israel, the apostles were being told similar joint action by themselves on judicial matters would be binding on heaven as on earth.
Roman Catholic authorities ignore this background because they wanted to invest the solitary pope with a supreme authority acting as first among all officers of the church. Their entire theory of papal infallibility was on the presumption that Peter could be deduced to be first among the twelve. Not only did Jesus fault the apostles when they started to speculate who was the most important among them ((Mark 9:33-34)), but here in (Matt. 20:26-27), Jesus gave clear direction against this principle. There is to be no first apostle among apostles on judicial matters. Jesus uses the word first twice to disparage the superiority principle among apostles on judicial issues. Jesus warned that such a unilateral approach can potentially lead to abuse of judicial power. It was not in Roman Catholicism's interest to bring out Jesus' meaning. Thus, they buried it.
Yet, since the same approach serves treating the solitary-speaking Paul, assumed to be a true apostle, as a solitary binding oracle, Paulunist Protestants leave in place the Roman Catholic tradition. No one faults the idea that a single apostle could act just like an archon. Jesus, in truth, abhorred this idea.
Thus, even if Paul were a valid thirteenth apostle, and even supposing Jesus meant a binding decision could extend to more than judicial decisions, Paul could not act in this regard on his own say-so.
Yet, in Scripture, the only evidence of a joint apostolic judicial decision is in Acts 1:23-24. To remedy Judas' transgression, the twelve put forth two candidates for a twelfth to replace him. Then they let the lot decide. Interestingly, there is no evidence in scripture of a joint decision by the apostles over doctrine.
This means there was never any judicial decision by the twelve apostles confirming Paul was an apostle or a prophet. Paul thus never enjoyed a finding by the apostles about himself that was binding in heaven by the twelve which would ever give us justification to treat Paul's words as binding over Christ's church.