advertisement

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

Currents in Theology and Mission, Dec, 2003 by Mark Allan Powell

1. Acceptable binding and loosing is founded in a hermeneutic that interprets scripture in light of scripture and, specifically, recognizes the priority of certain scriptural mandates. These include the Golden Rule (7:12), a recognition of the divine preference for mercy over sacrifice (9:13; 12:7), a prioritization of love for God and neighbor (22:3d 40), and identification of the "weightier matters of the law" as justice, mercy, and faithfulness (23:23). All of these principles derive in some sense from scripture itself, and in every instance in which Jesus binds or looses laws (or criticizes the binding and loosing of laws performed by others) his decision is consistent with this hermeneutic. For example, when Jesus looses the sabbath prohibition for those who pick grain to satisfy their hunger, he does so with an appeal to the scriptural prioritization of mercy over sacrifice (12:7).

2. The authority to bind and loose is securely located in Matthean Christology and in this Gospel's christological understanding of eschatology and salvation history. Jesus possesses this authority because he is a unique manifestation of God's presence (1:23; 11:27). Thus, even apart from the appeal to mercy, his loosing of the sabbath law is justified because "The Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath" (12:8). The ultimate question for Matthew is not simply "on what basis is the law to be bound or loosed" but "who has the authority to do this." God has given the authority to Jesus (and not to the scribes and Pharisees, cf. 7:29), and Jesus in turn gives it to the church.

The two key texts

In Matthew 16:13-20, the primary concern is not with how the church will exercise its authority to bind and to loose but with the establishment of this authority and its effects. Justas Jesus' authority to bind and loose is attributed in Matthew to his christological identity, so the church's authority is grounded here in its acclamation of Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the living God." We notice too that the authority to bind and loose is described metaphorically as utilizing the keys to the kingdom of heaven. By interpreting God's will rightly, the church opens the door for God's will to be done and, hence, for God's rule to become a lived reality. Likewise, this authoritative discernment of God's will facilitates the overcoming of the gates of Hades, such that the power of death and the devil may be undone.

Matt 18:15-20 presents the church's ministry of binding and loosing as necessary for the determination of who is to be subject to church discipline. As such, we are given a glimpse of how the process might actually work within the post-Easter community. Notably, it is no longer to be exercised by one gifted leader (e.g., Peter) but is now to be exercised by the community as a whole. Again, the authority to bind and loose is grounded in Matthew's christological claims--the church possesses such authority not because Christians have shown themselves to be wiser or more faithful than Pharisees but because Christ dwells in their midst (18:20; cf. 28:20). We notice also that the church does not attempt to bind and loose laws for the world at large but only for its own community: the ministry is exercised with regard to a "sibling" (i.e., a member of the church) who is believed to be sinning. Thus, Matthew expects the church to exhibit a peculiarly Christian ethic that may or may not concur with the expectations of its social environment.


 
Comment on Article

BNET TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

  •  
    1

    gotechs

    06/08/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Binding and loosing: a paradigm for ethical discernment fr ...

    I think your topic is well written and straight-forward. I
    would, however, suggest that you look at whether our
    framework for binding and loosing is indeed scripture. I know
    this may sound odd, but when Paul was addressing the
    churches he, being full aware of the teaching of Torah, chose
    to appeal to them on the basis of what was natural and right
    within their cultural understanding, not the scriptural context.
    Though he used scripture to teach about the nature of God,
    when it came to moral application he referred to local culture.
    Consider his address to the Corinthians on the length of hair,
    or the wearing of head coverings. He went against Jewish
    practice (Yarmulkas and Nazarite practices of having long
    hair) and not local. Also, in Romans, when he addressed
    idolatry and it's leading to a type of homosexual practice
    (though I would argue this was Pederasty he was referring
    to) he never once quoted the Torah, but spoke about what
    was "natural" versus "unnatural". This natural/unnatural
    argument was cultural because he used the same argument
    regarding the length of hair (who would say that short hair
    was natural in the sense of created function). Our binding
    and loosing has to be in relation to the simple application of
    love, not scripture (according to Pauline theology).

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
advertisement
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
advertisement
Click Here

Content provided in partnership with Thompson Gale