Binding and Loosing

[sunlover1]

There are some references in the NT to "binding and loosing"

Jesus speaking to His disciples said (in the bold):

15 “If your brother or sister[b] sins,[c] go and point out their
fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you
have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or
two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by
the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d]17 If they still
refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to
listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or
a tax collector.

18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will

be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth
will be[f] loosed in heaven.


19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree

about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my

Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my

name, there am I with them.”


Jesus appears to be speaking to His disciples and there is some confusion
over just "who" this "authority" to bind and loose is given to.
I quoted it in context thinking that might be helpful

I say that this 'authority' is for ever believer..
by the power of the Spirit of God...

 

[Rick Otto]

Wiki:
Binding and loosing is an originally Jewish phrase which appears in the New Testament, as well as in the Targum. In usage to bind and to loose mean simply to forbid by an indisputable authority, and to permit by an indisputable authority. The Targum to a particular Psalm implies that these actions were considered to be as effectual as the spell of an enchanter.

The poseks had, by virtue of their ordination, the power of deciding disputes relating to Jewish religious law. Hence the difference between the two main schools of thought in early classical Judaism were summed up by the phrase the school of Shammai binds; the school of Hillel looses.

Theoretically, however, the authority of the poseks proceeded from the Sanhedrin, and there is therefore a Talmudic statement that there were three decisions made by the lower house of judgment (the Sanhedrin) to which the upper house of judgment (the heavenly one) gave its supreme sanction. The claim that whatsoever [a disciple] bind or loose on earth shall be bound or loosed in heaven, which the Gospel of Matthew attributes to Jesus, is probably therefore just an adoption of a phrase popular at the time.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Could they have theoretically loosed everyone from their sins?

 

[razeontherock]

Could they have theoretically loosed everyone from their sins?

If they could have, and knew they could have, it would have been sin for them not to.

 

[hedrick]

Could they have theoretically loosed everyone from their sins?

My understanding is that it is the responsibility to interpret Torah, i.e. to make specific decisions on what it does and does not mean in our current context. Rabbis or groups of them make rulings on what is and is not permitted even today. Jesus may have meant it also as pronouncing forgiveness in Jesus' name, but my understanding of the background is that this wouldn't be the primary meaning.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't telling leaders that they can arbitrarily decide to forgive some people and not others, but rather than in places where Scripture leaves latitude for interpretation, God has given them the Church the authority to make these interpretations, and will support them.

I've sometimes wondered what God's approach is to badly abusive decisions. E.g. are Jehovah's Witness members bound to refuse blood transfusions? I think their leaders have made a badly irresponsible decision, but you can argue that they misused a legitimate power. I'm quite sure that God will forgive a JW who violates the rule when his life is at risk, but I also suspect that it is to some extent a sin. Mat 23:3 seems to suggests that there is at least some responsibility to follow decisions of your Church.

However this is not an unlimited authority. It can't change what God has said. But Scripture doesn't answer all questions explicitly, particularly questions of how its teachings are to be applied in specific 21st Cent circumstances. Thus there are many questions on which a Church may make a decision (even if it's sometimes a decision to leave it to individuals). Jesus gave us the power to do so.

My sense from the passage is that it's given to the Church, not every individual. In today's situation, different churches may well make different decisions. But as long as it is an area where Scripture leaves room for interpretation, it is often still better to provide guidance. As in medicine, there are often different approaches to treating an illness. Yet you're better off picking a doctor and following his regimen than dithering because they don't always agree. There are many Christian traditions that have great wisdom. We're better off to follow one or more, accepting insights from other traditions where appropriate.

Jesus also points out in Mat 23:2 that leaders are responsible for their decisions. Note that he does not dispute that they had the authority, but says that they used it wrongly. In fact I think it's better to think of the power to loose and bind as a responsibility than authority, although obviously it's both.

 

[Fencerguy]

Could they have theoretically loosed everyone from their sins?

In my understanding its more of a direct power to bind and loose....The apostles (and subsequent appointees?) were able to forgive the sins of those that they encountered, but understood that the power given to them by Jesus was not to be applied universally

 

[Ortho_Cat]

There are some references in the NT to "binding and loosing"

Jesus speaking to His disciples said (in the bold):

15 “If your brother or sister[b] sins,[c] go and point out their
fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you
have won them over.16 But if they will not listen, take one or
two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by
the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d]17 If they still
refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to
listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or
a tax collector.

18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will

be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth
will be[f] loosed in heaven.


19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree

about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my

Father in heaven.20 For where two or three gather in my

name, there am I with them.”


Jesus appears to be speaking to His disciples and there is some confusion
over just "who" this "authority" to bind and loose is given to.
I quoted it in context thinking that might be helpful

I say that this 'authority' is for ever believer..
by the power of the Spirit of God...

How does this play out in reality then? What significance does this "power" have for every believer? Can we each forgive others of their sins?

 

[Rick Otto]

My understanding is that it is the responsibility to interpret Torah, i.e. to make specific decisions on what it does and does not mean in our current context. Rabbis or groups of them make rulings on what is and is not permitted even today. Jesus may have meant it also as pronouncing forgiveness in Jesus' name, but my understanding of the background is that this wouldn't be the primary meaning.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't telling leaders that they can arbitrarily decide to forgive some people and not others, but rather than in places where Scripture leaves latitude for interpretation, God has given them the Church the authority to make these interpretations, and will support them.

I've sometimes wondered what God's approach is to badly abusive decisions. E.g. are Jehovah's Witness members bound to refuse blood transfusions? I think their leaders have made a badly irresponsible decision, but you can argue that they misused a legitimate power. I'm quite sure that God will forgive a JW who violates the rule when his life is at risk, but I also suspect that it is to some extent a sin. Mat 23:3 seems to suggests that there is at least some responsibility to follow decisions of your Church.

However this is not an unlimited authority. It can't change what God has said. But Scripture doesn't answer all questions explicitly, particularly questions of how its teachings are to be applied in specific 21st Cent circumstances. Thus there are many questions on which a Church may make a decision (even if it's sometimes a decision to leave it to individuals). Jesus gave us the power to do so.

My sense from the passage is that it's given to the Church, not every individual. In today's situation, different churches may well make different decisions. But as long as it is an area where Scripture leaves room for interpretation, it is often still better to provide guidance. As in medicine, there are often different approaches to treating an illness. Yet you're better off picking a doctor and following his regimen than dithering because they don't always agree. There are many Christian traditions that have great wisdom. We're better off to follow one or more, accepting insights from other traditions where appropriate.

Jesus also points out in Mat 23:2 that leaders are responsible for their decisions. Note that he does not dispute that they had the authority, but says that they used it wrongly. In fact I think it's better to think of the power to loose and bind as a responsibility than authority, although obviously it's both.

Well reasoned, as usual.
And it is the perfect model for the individual conscience at work, by which we are bound to or loosed by, the truth alive in our heart.
Love covers a multitude of sins.

 

[Rick Otto]

How does this play out in reality then? What significance does this "power" have for every believer? Can we each forgive others of their sins?

"Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us"
Maybe the conscience is an altar for self-sacrifice.

 

[tadoflamb]

I say that this 'authority' is for ever believer..
by the power of the Spirit of God...

Yeah, I can see how well that's worked out for you guys.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

"Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us"
Maybe the conscience is an altar for self-sacrifice.

So if I forgive someone of their sin against me, then they are automatically forgiven in heaven for their sin?

 

[Ishraqiyun]

So if I forgive someone of their sin against me, then they are automatically forgiven in heaven for their sin?

1 John 4:8
"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. "

1 Cor 13:4-8
"Love is patient; love is kind. Love does not envy; is not boastful; is not conceited; does not act improperly; is not selfish; is not provoked; does not keep a record of wrongs; finds no joy in unrighteousness, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. "

The Father , being Love, does not even remember our wrongs to begin with. It's the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4) , the god who is not love, that keeps track of our sins and uses them against us. Our sins do not provoke the Father because the Father is unprovokeable being beyond the passions and any shadow of change.

At least that's how I view things. I'm kind of hereticky though.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

1 John 4:8
"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. "

1 Cor 13:4-8
"Love is patient; love is kind. Love does not envy; is not boastful; is not conceited; does not act improperly; is not selfish; is not provoked; does not keep a record of wrongs; finds no joy in unrighteousness, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. "

The Father , being Love, does not even remember our wrongs to begin with. It's the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4) , the god who is not love, that keeps track of our sins and uses them against us. Our sins do not provoke the Father because the Father is unprovokeable being beyond the passions and any shadow of change.

At least that's how I view things. I'm kind of hereticky though.

well, perhaps they do not provoke him, but perhaps they keep us from drawing closer to him?

 

[Lion King]

1 John 4:8
"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. "

1 Cor 13:4-8
"Love is patient; love is kind. Love does not envy; is not boastful; is not conceited; does not act improperly; is not selfish; is not provoked; does not keep a record of wrongs; finds no joy in unrighteousness, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. "

The Father , being Love, does not even remember our wrongs to begin with. It's the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4) , the god who is not love, that keeps track of our sins and uses them against us. Our sins do not provoke the Father because the Father is unprovokeable being beyond the passions and any shadow of change.

At least that's how I view things. I'm kind of hereticky though.

Were do you guys come up with this stuff?

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Were do you guys come up with this stuff?

1st Corinthians. It explains the nature of love. It specifically states that it doesn't keep a record of wrongs and that it isn't provoked. The "god of this world" is the accuser. He holds our sins against us. I wouldn't make God our satan / accuser. Ha-Satan literally means "the accuser".

Paul writes about the god of this world or aion here:

"In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." 2 Corinthians 4:4

 

[Rick Otto]

So if I forgive someone of their sin against me, then they are automatically forgiven in heaven for their sin?

"Automatic" doesn't fit the model or style of activity we're discussing for me. It invokes to impersonal an interaction to do justice to the fact that it is a personal relationship dynamic at work, which conveniently places the conscience in a pivitol role. An elegnt economy of values, I'd reckon.

It's more like 'you will be shown as much mercy as you show'.

 

[Lion King]

1st Corinthians. It explains the nature of love. It specifically states that it doesn't keep a record of wrongs and that it isn't provoked. The "god of this world" is the accuser. He holds our sins against us. I wouldn't make God our satan / accuser. Ha-Satan literally means "the accuser".

Paul writes about the god of this world or aion here:

"In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." 2 Corinthians 4:4

What happens at Judgement day? What happens when the Book of life is opened?

"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." Revelation 20:12

 

[Ishraqiyun]

What happens at Judgement day? What happens when the Book of life is opened?

"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." Revelation 20:12

How do you reconcile the two? God being love and love not holding a record of wrongs and then that quote from Revelation? Does the story in revelation have a symbolic or allegorical meaning or do the two oppose each other? Revelation is a tough and highly symbolic book and I definitely can't claim to be an expert on it. I do know there was some major debate on it's inclusion in the canon as well. I would enjoy reading your method of reconciling the two though.

 

[Dorothea]

Yeah, I can see how well that's worked out for you guys.

I was watching The Mysteries of the Jesus Prayer (finally came in the mail yesterday) with my husband last night. It was absolutely phenomenal. Anyhow, I recall one of the monks they were talking to at either St. Anthony's Monastery in Egypt or at St. Catherine's Monastery at Mt. Sinai in Egypt, who said that they have elders and submit to them to release themselves of their own wills and helps with guidance. I need to write down the exact words because it was so beautiful and so true.

 

[Lion King]

How do you reconcile the two? God being love and love not holding a record of wrongs and then that quote from Revelation? Does the story in revelation have a symbolic or allegorical meaning or do the two oppose each other? Revelation is a tough and highly symbolic book and I definitely can't claim to be an expert on it. I do know there was some major debate on it's inclusion in the canon as well. I would enjoy reading your method of reconciling the two though.

Simple.

Matthew 25:31-46

"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." Matthew 25:46