Reference Publications

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

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

(3) W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964); Anthony L Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994).

(4) The citation continues with a humorous note: "Rabbi Jeremiah asked: If one foot of the fledgling bird is within the limit of fifty cubits, and one foot is outside it, what is the law? It was for this question that Rabbi Jeremiah was thrown out of the House of Study."

(5) Klyne Snodgrass, "Matthew and the Law," in Treasures New and Old: Contributions to Matthean Studies, ed. D. R. Bauer and M. A. Powell (Atlanta: Scholars), 99-128.

(6) So polemical a presentation obviously reflects the strained relations between church and synagogue. The bias of Matthew's construal is a matter of record and need not concern us here. Even those who question the historical accuracy of his attributions recognize that the reports of legal disputes reveal this evangelist's own ideas regarding what constitutes proper and improper ways of binding and loosing the law.

(7) Similar discussions are found in (later) Jewish literature. Plucking grain on the sabbath is forbidden without qualification (as equal to harvesting) in y.Sabb. 7.9b.67, but b. Sabb. 128a says, "One may pinch with the hand and eat but not with a tool."

(8) Jacob Neusner's theory is that the Pharisees (especially after 70) sought to apply laws for the purity of priests serving in the temple to the people of Israel in general. See Das pharisdische und talmudische Judentum (Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1984), 24--25, 62.

Mark Allan Powell

Trinity Lutheran Seminary

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).