Saturday, January 6, 2007

Matthew 18:18

"Losing It on Binding"

I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

As Jesus speaks to the disciples, the concept of "binding and loosening" is introduced. This is a difficult passage and two solutions immediately arise:

1. The Church determines who gets into heaven or not.
The ability to bind and loosen is also presented in Matthew 16:17-19, just after Jesus says He will build His church. Peter had just confessed Christ, and Jesus responded that He will give them the keys to heaven. Of course, the Catholic Church has understood this passage to be the introduction of Peter's papacy. They believe Jesus was introducing the church's role in determining (and possibly controlling) the salvation of individuals. Even without a papacy, some other groups claim they are necessary for salvation.

Problem: It's contra-gospel. Two weeks ago, a couple of cult members stood on my porch. I presented the gospel to them and asked where I fell short. Their answer: I needed to come under the authority of their church. Apparently, unless my baptism was administered by their elders and unless I worship in their facility and read their "extra book" Christ's work is insufficient. Salvation is no longer about Christ alone, but about the authority of sinful men to determine who gets in and who gets out?

This perspective is not only in the Roman Church, but several other groups adhere to a form. They may not believe they can stop a person from becoming saved, but they believe church discipline can remove one's salvation. Since Matthew 18:18 is placed in the middle of a discussion on church discipline, some believe that when a person is disciplined they are removed from salvation in Christ. Of course, the problem here is that salvation cannot be lost. Even if it could be lost, would God really allow humans, who cannot see the heart, to determine a person's eternal destiny? Clearly, this cannot be the case.

2. It's a hard passage so we should just ignore it.
This is classically the approach to difficult passages. If the reader recognizes the difficult reading, and an immediate solution is not readily available, then it may be best to ignore what is being said. We can release ourselves from any potential application by stating there is no possible way to understand what Jesus was talking about. Of course, the fact that it is placed in the middle of a passage on church discipline helps with this perspective. Since much of the western church has decided that church discipline is antiquated, it naturally flows to ignore other portions.

Problem: For starters, there is no excuse for the fact that many churches do not practice church discipline. It is plainly spelled out and very application driven, so we can not argue that the entire passage is difficult to understand. Second, it is clear that Jesus believes He is making a clear statement by beginning with "I tell you the truth." He is not trying to veil anything or speak in parables at this moment. The difficulty with church discipline is not in understanding it, but in acting upon it.

But recently, I have heard another option. This option does not merely dismiss the text, but takes it rather seriously. However, while still accepting church discipline, it attempts to keep too much authority from the church.

3. We misunderstand binding and loosening.
Since many take binding and loosening to be the permission the church has to control a person's eternal destiny, clearly those people misunderstand the passage. The King James Version says:
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Jesus seems to be saying we can bind and loosen things on earth as well as in heaven. Certainly the idea of loosening seems understandable. The gospel message can set people free. But what possibly could binding refer to? I've recently heard it suggested that binding is a positive thing. For instance, take a look at Isaiah 61:1:
The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners;
Through the gospel, we have the opportunity to loosen people from their captivity and bind their broken hearts. Jesus is telling us that He is passing this ability, through the gospel message, to us.

Problem: The language transition is difficult to follow, since it has to go from Hebrew to Greek. However, the Septuagint provides some perspective. In Isaiah 61:1, it uses ιασασθαι, meaning to bind up a wound. According to Kittel, this term is ideally used to state God's gracious turning with favor toward sinners. However, in Matthew 18:18, the author uses δέω. In fact, when δέω is used with loosening, it always conveyed the concept of holding one captive. For Jesus to use δέω to convey setting a wound would not only be an improper word to use, but would also be quite deceptive to his entire listening audience. Furthermore, the illustration of "keys" makes no sense in Matthew 16. One can not set a wound with keys. Clearly, Jesus was speaking to the disciples about captivity and freedom.

So what was Jesus saying? Perhaps a different translation could help:
Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. (NASB)
As written in the NIV and KJV, one may assume that heaven responds to our decisions. However, as the Greek text (and the NASB) reflect, we are actually responding to that which has already happened in heaven. It is not that God waits for the decision of the disciples, and then responds accordingly in heaven. In its context, Jesus is stating that if the church properly follows the discipline process (by responding where Scripture speaks as Scripture directs) it will come to the conclusions of heaven. The authority to bind and loosen is Christ's alone, but the church has the opportunity to reflect that authority if it responds as He has instructed.

The church should discipline for Jesus has called us to do it. However, we discipline to reflect the perspective of Christ, not to create our own perspective. He is not changing according to our decisions, but we should all be willing to change according to His.

4 comments:

Keith's Blog said...

Hi Dan . . .

I've been somewhat delinquent on responses to the blogger-world recently; sometimes there are just too many items to keep up with.

I did want to mention, though, that you are on the right track with your Matthew 18:18 article. The use of the future perfect tense is the solution to the suggested dilemmas. We cannot isolate 18:18 from 16:19 where the same construction is introduced with the same reality. Thus, we cannot separate the building of the Church (evangelism) from the ongoing purity of the Church (discipline/discipleship). Both binding and loosing can be negative or positive depending on that from which the person is being bound or loosed. Most notably, it is bad to be bound in sin and loosed from Christ and His Church; conversely, how good it is to be bound to Christ and His Church and loosed from the power of sin!

Keith Shearer

danny2 said...

thanks keith,

good thoughts with both being positive or negative.

hope ministry is treating you well.

Brad said...

Hey Danny. There's a good deal of rabbinical authority behind the idea that "binding and loosing" refered to one's authority to interpret the ethical requirements of the scriptures. Don't know all the arguments pro and con, but what little I've read seems convincing.

danny2 said...

well, according to kittel, the term "binding and loosening" together (sorry, i'm in beckley west virginia right now, so i can't give the exact words) was even used in spell casting by pagans.

the concept was that if binding and loosening were used together, they were never intended to be complimentary statements, but contrasted elements...i could either place someone under a spell, or release them from it.

to give a modern idea. i could say something was like comparing "apples to oranges." now you and i both know that is a statement which means two objects aren't really comparable.

however, if i said that to you, with that knowledge of how you would take it in it's original form...but was actually MEANING that they were quite similar (afterall, they are round fruit) that would be misleading for me to do so.

for Jesus to say "binding and loosening" (knowing His listening audience has always heard that as opposite features) and mean two positive features exibited in the gospel, would be terribly misleading to His audience.

as for whether Christ was giving the disciples the authority to interpret the ethical requirements of Scripture or not...it seemed to me that much of His teaching already established that. therefore, He would simply be telling them to teach what He has taught.