Binding and loosing: a paradigm for ethical discernment from the Gospel of Matthew

Twice in Matthew's Gospel the words "bind" [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and "loose" [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] occur in what is apparently a formula that the readers are expected to recognize:

* (Jesus says to Peter), "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matt 16:19).

* (Jesus says to the twelve), "Truly, I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matt 18:18).

Notably, the immediate literary contexts for these two passages include the only two texts in Matthew (or anywhere in the New Testament) where Jesus explicitly refers to "the church"(16:18; 18:17). Thus, we may observe that Matthew closely connects the business of binding and loosing with the mission of the church that is built by Jesus (16:18) and sustained by his continuing presence (18:20). It would not be an overstatement to say that Matthew considers binding and loosing to be a constitutive aspect of the church's mission on earth.

Meaning of the terms

A majority of scholars now recognize that the terms "to bind" and "to loose" are best understood with reference to a practice of determining the application of scriptural commandments for contemporary situations. (1) The words are used in this regard by Josephus and in targumic materials. Jewish rabbis "bound" the law when they determined that a commandment was applicable to a particular situation, and they "loosed" the law when they determined that a word of scripture (while eternally valid) was not applicable under certain specific circumstances.

Other interpretations of the terms have been offered. (2) A few scholars have related them to exorcism (binding and loosing of demons--but why would the church ever want to loose a demon?). More often, interpreters throughout church history (including Luther) have thought that the terms referred to the church's authority to forgive or retain sins. The scriptural basis for the church having such authority is secure but is better derived from John 20:23. Modern scholarship has cautioned against reading the Matthean texts in light of the Johannine concept. It seems unlikely that the first evangelist would have favored the notion that the church might withhold forgiveness of sins; he seems to guard against such an interpretation of 18:15-20 via the addendum of 18:21-35 (cf. also 18:10-14).

For Matthew, the issue is the identification of sin. Final authority rests with the community to identify which behaviors constitute sin and which therefore require repentance. As in John, the person who does not heed the church's authority may be excluded from God's eschatological community, but for Matthew the problem is ethical discernment (and lack of respect for the church's role in this) rather than mere obstinacy. This is consistent with Matthew's understanding of the Great Commission as being to teach baptized people to obey the commandments of Jesus (28:20). To fulfill such a commission the church must be able to discern what obedience to those commandments entails, and the baptized persons who are to be made disciples must accept the church's teaching on such matters.

Matthew's Gospel is commonly understood as reflecting a close connection to the world of Second Temple and post-Temple Judaism. (3) Within that milieu, debates over the applicability of the law to specific situations were common; they appear already in famous arguments between the first-century schools of Hillel and Shammai and continue to be a defining part of the discussions that would ultimately be codified as the Mishnah. For example, the question was raised whether one might be guilty of stealing if one finds something and keeps it without searching for the rightful owner. When is such a search required, and how extensive must it be? The Talmud states, "If a fledgling bird is found within fifty cubits of a dovecote, it belongs to the owner of the dovecote. If it is found outside the limits of fifty cubits, it belongs to the person who finds it" (Bava Batra 23b). (4)

To use Matthew's terminology, the decision was that the law ("Do not steal") was bound when the bird was found in proximity to its likely owner; one who keeps the bird under such conditions has transgressed the law and is guilty of sin. But the law is loosed when the bird is found at a distance from any likely owner; the law against stealing does not forbid keeping the bird in that instance. Matthew's Gospel displays an awareness of such legal discussions when it refers to "the tradition of the elders" (15:2) and when it engages such questions as "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?" (19:3). Matthew's community seems to have been struggling with issues similar to those that exercised the rabbis.

It is important to note that for the rabbis (and for Matthew) loosing the law never meant dismissing scripture or countering its authority. The law was never wrong when it was rightly interpreted. The issue, rather, was discernment of the law's intent and of the sphere of its application. Thus, in the above example, the rabbis did not decide that in some instances it is all right to steal; rather, they sought to define stealing in a way that would determine just what behavior was prohibited. The logic of rabbinic argument does not always hold up to modern critical scrutiny (especially from Gentiles), and, at times, decisions to loose the law may appear to us as simple dismissals of scripture; still, they were apparently never intended as such.