Binding and loosing - Mt 18:18

[winsome]

I'm sure everyone is familiar with the binding and loosing in Mt 16:19 and Mt 18:18
Her is the NRSV version:

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 (Mt 18;18)

I've looked at several Bibles and they all have more or less the same wording - we bind & heaven follows, we loose and heaven follows.

But I heard the other day that this is mistranslating the greek and that it's actually the other way round. I looked up this passage in the Amplified Bible and this is what I found:

Truly I tell you, whatever you forbid and declare to be improper and unlawful on earth must be what is already forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit and declare proper and lawful on earth must be whatever is already permitted in heaven. (Mt 18:18) Mt 16:19 is similar but this is clearer.

So this is saying we have to discern what is already bound in heaven and then apply that on earth, and discern what is already loosed in heaven and then apply this on earth - rather different.


Any comments?

 

[dcyates]

I'm sure everyone is familiar with the binding and loosing in Mt 16:19 and Mt 18:18
Her is the NRSV version:

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 (Mt 18;18)

I've looked at several Bibles and they all have more or less the same wording - we bind & heaven follows, we loose and heaven follows.

But I heard the other day that this is mistranslating the greek and that it's actually the other way round. I looked up this passage in the Amplified Bible and this is what I found:

Truly I tell you, whatever you forbid and declare to be improper and unlawful on earth must be what is already forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit and declare proper and lawful on earth must be whatever is already permitted in heaven. (Mt 18:18) Mt 16:19 is similar but this is clearer.

So this is saying we have to discern what is already bound in heaven and then apply that on earth, and discern what is already loosed in heaven and then apply this on earth - rather different.


Any comments?

The Holy Bible to this day is the world’s best-selling work of literature. However, at the same time, it is also a work of ancient literature, and as such, can be notoriously difficult to interpret. One such matter has to do with the interpretation of Jesus’ use of the terms ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ in Matt 16.19 and 18.18. It's been thought by some that it has to do with either binding or loosing demons, or that it deals with church discipline, where it has been proposed that ‘loosing’ is used to indicate the reestablishment of a repentant sinner to fellowship and ‘binding’ refers to removing from fellowship an unrepentant sinner.

However, after having read through such early Jewish writings as several of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Mishnah, it instead becomes clear that during this time these terms came to possess more idiomatic connotations where ‘loosing’ implied ‘to allow’ and ‘binding’ suggested ‘to forbid’.

Now, I would not expect anybody to simply take my word for this without further elaboration to support it. Firstly, in making his pronouncement to Peter, it is most likely that Jesus was deliberately echoing the passage from Isa 22.22: “I will place the keys of David’s palace on his shoulders; and what he unlocks none may shut, and what he locks none may open.”[1] Given this link, it would appear that Jesus, as the representative of the “house of David,” has given the key—symbolizing authority—to Peter, his princeple disciple, who will then exercise authority on earth, even as Jesus as the Son of Man exercised authority on earth (see Mk 2.10//Mt 9.6//Lk 5.24).[2]

Assuming the accuracy of this, does this passage from Isaiah have to do with either the reestablishment or removal of sinning Israelites from their community? On the contrary, we should take the p’**** (or “plain sense”) of this passage and rather recognize that it deals with making forensic judgments and halakhah, not ones of whether or not to remove someone from ecclesiastical fellowship.

Secondly, as NT scholar D.A. Hagner suggests, after rehearsing the various options proffered over the years by different interpreters of Matthew regarding the intent of this phrase and how we are to best understand the meaning of the terms ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’:

In its primary meaning, the phrase “binding and loosing” refers to the allowing and disallowing of certain conduct, based on an interpretation of the commandments of the Torah, and thus it concerns the issue of whether or not one is in proper relationship to the will of God (contrast the reference to the Pharisees’ misuse of their authority [note implied ‘keys’!] in 23.13).[3]

​

Granted, the Hebrew words for ‘bind’ and ‘loose’ each appear with more than one meaning in the OT. ‘Bind’, for instance, can mean ‘tie up’ (Jdgs 15.12, 16.11), ‘imprison’ (2 Kgs 17.4), ‘hitch’ a cart, wagon, or chariot (Gen 46.29), or ‘tether’ an animal (Gen 49.11); but suffice to say by the time of Jesus the word ‘bind’ had acquired an additional meaning—‘bind’ in the sense of ‘prohibit’. Similarly, ‘loose’ had acquired the opposite meaning—‘permit’.

Finally, these renderings are amply supported by their use within rabbinic literature. The Jewish sages were frequently called upon by their respective communities to interpret scriptural commands. Was such-and-such an action permitted? Was such-and-such a thing or person ritually clean? Was this-or-that acceptable in reference to the Torah? The Bible, for example, forbids working on Shabbat. However, it does not define ‘work’. As a result, the rabbinic sages were called upon to declare what an individual was and were not permitted to do on the Sabbath. They thereby ‘bound’ (prohibited) certain activities, and ‘loosed’ (allowed) others. The Mishnah, for example, is filled with rabbinic rulings on what is ‘loosed’ (permitted) or ‘bound’ (forbidden).

[Gamaliel] washed on the first night after the death of his wife. Said to him [his students], “Did not [our master] teach us that it is forbidden (literally, ‘bound’) for a mourner to wash?” He said to them, “I am not like other men, I am frail.”

Berakhot 2.6[4]​

He who sells produce in Syria and said, “It is from the Land of Israel [and thus liable to tithing]”—he [the purchaser] must tithe [the produce]. [If the vendor subsequently said,] “It is tithed,” he is believed, for the mouth which forbade (‘bound’) is the mouth which permitted (literally, ‘loosed’; in other words, the mouth that now allows this produce to be eaten, by declaring it has already been tithed, is to be trusted since it is the same mouth that earlier forbade it from being eaten until the tithe was paid, by claiming it was produced in the Land of Israel).

Demai 6.10[5]​

He who vows not to have milk is permitted (‘loosed’) to eat curds. And Rabbi Yose prohibits (‘binds’) [eating curds]…. He who takes a vow not to eat meat is permitted (‘loosed’) to eat broth and meat sediment. And Rabbi Judah prohibits (‘binds’) [him from eating broth and meat sediment]…. He who vows not to drink wine is permitted (‘loosed’) to eat a cooked dish which has the taste of wine. [If] he said, “Qonam if I taste this wine,” and it fell into a cooked dish, if there is sufficient [wine] to impart a flavour, lo, this is permitted (‘loosed’).

Nedarim 6.5-7[6]​

In summary, it thus becomes obvious that the Greek translator of Matt 16.19 has used δειν and λύειν, the standard Greek translations of the Hebrew words ‘bind’ and ‘loose’, even though it is obvious that in this context these words effectively mean ‘forbid’ and ‘permit’, not ‘bind’ and ‘loose’. Jesus is therefore giving Peter the authority to make decisions regulating the life of the Church. He confers upon Peter symbols of authority, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Decisions or rulings Peter makes will have the authority of Heaven behind them, with ‘Heaven’ likely being an evasive synonym for ‘God’. Thus his decisions will be upheld by God. What Peter forbade, Heaven would forbid. What Peter permitted, Heaven would permit.

This movement Jesus created (by that I mean the Church) was a new phenomenon in Jewish history. Situations would soon arise which none of the Jews of the movement had ever had to previously face, circumstances about which the Bible gave no instructions, situations with which even the sages—contemporaries of Jesus—had not had to deal. Decisions would have to be made and solutions found. Even more frightening, Jesus, their teacher, would no longer be there to make the decisions, to inform them as to what was permitted and what was not. Peter and the other leaders of the Church would now take his place. They were not; however, to be indecisive for fear they might come to the wrong conclusions. They had the authority to make judgments. God would be with them. He would endorse their decisions.

The Apostles, like the sages, were called upon by their community (again, the Church) to interpret Scripture, settle disputes, and find answers in times of crisis. Sometimes they were compelled to deal with relatively petty complaints: the complaints, for instance, of the Greek-speaking Jews that their widows were not being treated as well as the Hebrew-speaking widows in the daily distribution of food (Acts 6.1-6). At other times, the Apostles were required to settle comparatively raging controversies, controversies which possessed the potential to cause irreparable division in the Church. One such controversy is described in Acts 15: the altercation over whether to admit Gentiles into the Church without circumcising them and without commanding them to keep the Law of Moses. The decision that was reached is a classic example of how the leaders of the early Church exercised their authority to ‘bind’ and ‘loose’.

The Apostles and elders convened in Jerusalem to discuss the problem and there was much debate. Peter spoke (vv. 7-11), and then James (vv. 13-21). Peter’s attitude was probably crucial, since it was to him that Jesus originally gave the authority to make such judgments affecting the Church. Fortunately for people like you and me, Peter ‘loosed’. He ruled that the yoke of the commandments was too heavy for former Gentiles (cf. v. 10). They should not be required to keep the Law of Moses or to undergo circumcision. Peter released them from that obligation and James concurred. He too ‘loosed’: “It is my judgment that we should not cause difficulties for those Gentiles who turn to God” (v. 19). But, on the other hand, James ‘bound’ (v. 20) as well. He ruled that it was necessary for Gentiles who became believers to distance themselves from idolatry and cult prostitutes (“unchastity” is a poor translation; the Hebrew/Aramaic equivalent of the Greek noun here always has to do with prostitution), and to abstain from eating meat from which the blood had not been removed (cf. Lev 7.26; i.e., the meat of animals that had been strangled rather than bled to death). James bound or prohibited these things. Following their speeches, the rulings of Peter and James, including the prohibitions of James, were confirmed by the rest of the leadership, and later by the entire Church (v. 22).


[1] For a thorough delineation of the links between Matt 16.19 and 18.18 with Isa 22.22, see J.A. Emerton, “Binding and Loosing—Forgiving and Retaining,” JTS 13 [1962]: 325-31.


[2] It should probably be noted before we go much further that I am not making this argument in order to advocate for Petrine authority (although I suppose it could be thus used). For whatever it’s worth, I think it useful at this point to make it clear I am not Roman Catholic but rather worship at an evangelical Lutheran church.


[3]However, as correct as this interpretation may be, it is ultimately misleading; Hagner of course refers to “the phrase ‘binding and loosing’,” and how it in itself “refers to the allowing and disallowing of certain conduct” (p. 473). This leaves the reader with the impression that ‘binding’ means ‘allowing’ while ‘loosing’ is to be equated with ‘disallowing’.


[4] See Rabbi Jacob Neusner’s The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1988): 6.


[5] Ibid, 46.


[6] Ibid, 417f.

 

[winsome]

Thank you dcyates. That is very clear and very helpful.

 

[dcyates]

Thank you dcyates. That is very clear and very helpful.

Hey, thank you for the kind words. Quite honestly, I'm just grateful you took the time to read it (I have to admit, I often tend to gloss over many of the more lengthy posts myself).

 

[justified]

Dycates, is that your work? I'm quite impressed. Very nicely done.

 

[Nazaroo]

I'm sure everyone is familiar with the binding and loosing in Mt 16:19 and Mt 18:18
Her is the NRSV version:

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 (Mt 18;18)

I've looked at several Bibles and they all have more or less the same wording - we bind & heaven follows, we loose and heaven follows.

But I heard the other day that this is mistranslating the greek and that it's actually the other way round. I looked up this passage in the Amplified Bible and this is what I found:

Truly I tell you, whatever you forbid and declare to be improper and unlawful on earth must be what is already forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit and declare proper and lawful on earth must be whatever is already permitted in heaven. (Mt 18:18) Mt 16:19 is similar but this is clearer.

So this is saying we have to discern what is already bound in heaven and then apply that on earth, and discern what is already loosed in heaven and then apply this on earth - rather different.


Any comments?

Yes.

My respect for the Amplified NT just went up by about 20 percentage points.

 

[holdon]

Yes.

My respect for the Amplified NT just went up by about 20 percentage points.

Why? Because it is wrong. Regardless of what "binding and loosing" mean. The text does not say: "you will bind whatever is bound in heaven", but "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven also."

It seems to me that the Amplified version is amplifying a mistake.

 

[justified]

No, the Amplified Bible is not a translation. It doesn't claim to be. It is an interpretation aid. It cannot be wrong in its translation if it does not attempt to be a translation.

 

[Nazaroo]

No, the Amplified Bible is not a translation. It doesn't claim to be. It is an interpretation aid. It cannot be wrong in its translation if it does not attempt to be a translation.

Well said.

So much of translation is interpretation too, in any case.

Take the 200 or so unknown fauna and flora mentioned in the O.T. for instance.

hapax legomena. apac legomena

 

[holdon]

No, the Amplified Bible is not a translation. It doesn't claim to be. It is an interpretation aid. It cannot be wrong in its translation if it does not attempt to be a translation.

Then it gives the wrong interpretation...

 

[justified]

Then it gives the wrong interpretation...

So what is the right interpretation?

 

[holdon]

So what is the right interpretation?

That those on earth are given a mandate which is ratified in heaven.

 

[WAB]

That those on earth are given a mandate which is ratified in heaven.

Indeed so... those on earth have been given... so logically the Giver must not be on earth... they have beeen given a mandate which has been, and now is (present tense) ratified (from Latin ratus: determined) in heaven. The Amplified would appear to be correct.

 

[dcyates]

Dycates, is that your work? I'm quite impressed. Very nicely done.

I can state unequivocally that it is all mine--aside from that which is quoted and referenced, of course. And again, thank you for the kind words. It's always nice for an old guy like me to receive a compliment.

 

[holdon]

Indeed so... those on earth have been given... so logically the Giver must not be on earth... they have beeen given a mandate which has been, and now is (present tense) ratified (from Latin ratus: determined) in heaven. The Amplified would appear to be correct.

Explain this one again.

 

[filosofer]

Well, before everyone continues on this dark path...

The form of the verbs is future perfect passive participle (actually a combination of two verbs forms that make this). And so translating it that way:

"Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven."

So, it is not a case of Christians (one, as in Peter, or many disciples) running around carrying this "big stick" of absolute power that heaven has to follow around bowing to the authority of the person. Rather, when the person binds or looses, the person is announcing that which has already been announced/completed in heaven. God is not following us around; rather we are doing God's business by announcing what he has already done.

Chronologically, God has bound/loosed prior to the announcement by the person.

In Christ's love,
filo

 

[Nazaroo]

Well, before everyone continues on this dark path...

The form of the verbs is future perfect passive participle (actually a combination of two verbs forms that make this). And so translating it that way:

"Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven."

So, it is not a case of Christians (one, as in Peter, or many disciples) running around carrying this "big stick" of absolute power that heaven has to follow around bowing to the authority of the person. Rather, when the person binds or looses, the person is announcing that which has already been announced/completed in heaven. God is not following us around; rather we are doing God's business by announcing what he has already done.

Chronologically, God has bound/loosed prior to the announcement by the person.

In Christ's love,
filo

Good analysis.

 

[bluered]

it makes sence to me

 

[holdon]

Well, before everyone continues on this dark path...

The form of the verbs is future perfect passive participle (actually a combination of two verbs forms that make this). And so translating it that way:

"Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven."

I don't think your grammar is right here. The future tense makes it a future event.

Also, the problem would persist in the sense that whatever a Christian person would do (in matters of binding and loosing), he could claim it that it was already done so in heaven..... This is potentially disastrous.

The overal sense of the passage is, I think, that while the King of the kingdom of heaven is no longer present, he confers a certain authority to His representative on earth, the assembly.
So, if someone had a grief, he could not go to the King and present his matter. He is therefore instructed to try to resolve it on his own, then bring the help of another person, if that would not do it, he could bring the matter before the assembly. The assembly then would be the ultimate instance to resolve the matter and authority is conferred (assembled in My Name) to that assembly on earth and bound and loosed in heaven.
It is important to remark that this conferred authority does NOT mean infallibility. That is a completely different matter.

 

[filosofer]

I don't think your grammar is right here. The future tense makes it a future event.

Do you know anything about Greek grammar? Do you know what a future perfect passive means in Greek grammar? Check out NAS, ESV, NET for correct rendering on this.

Also, the problem would persist in the sense that whatever a Christian person would do (in matters of binding and loosing), he could claim it that it was already done so in heaven..... This is potentially disastrous.

I suggest you study a little more, based on correct understanding of Greek grammar before you make statements about "disastrous" potential.

The overal sense of the passage is, I think, that while the King of the kingdom of heaven is no longer present, he confers a certain authority to His representative on earth, the assembly.
So, if someone had a grief, he could not go to the King and present his matter. He is therefore instructed to try to resolve it on his own, then bring the help of another person, if that would not do it, he could bring the matter before the assembly. The assembly then would be the ultimate instance to resolve the matter and authority is conferred (assembled in My Name) to that assembly on earth and bound and loosed in heaven.
It is important to remark that this conferred authority does NOT mean infallibility. That is a completely different matter.

And based on what in this text do you support this? You haven't established anything for this hypothesis based on the text.

In Christ's love,
filo