"Binding and Loosing" In Hebraic Thought

Matthew 16:19

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth

will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in

heaven."  

Matthew 18:18-20

"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.  Again, I tell you that

if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for

you by my Father in heaven.  For where two or three come together in my name,

there am I with them."

These two passages have caused considerable discussion in every era of the

church.  However, in recent years some have applied a new way of thinking

about theses passages that had not previously existed in the church  Which way

of thinking is correct?  It seems to me that applying a Hebraic way of

understanding these terms would bring the maximum amount of light to the

subject.

The Torah which God gave on Mt. Sinai formed the basis of relationship with

Israel.  It was both a simple and complex relationship.  On the one hand the

Torah was simple.  Yet in daily life it often became complex.  In the earliest

days, Moshe himself both instructed the people in the Torah and decided

complicated matters of law for them.  Moshe said, "Whenever they have a

dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them

of God's decrees and laws."  In time this became too much for Moshe alone and

he appointed assistants. His father-in-law, Jethro, gave this advice: 

But select capable men from all the people-- men who fear God, trustworthy men

who hate dishonest gain-- and appoint them as officials over thousands,

hundreds, fifties and tens.  Have them serve as judges for the people at all

times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they

can decide themselves. That will make your load lighter, because they will

share it with you.

In time, this group of assistants in the Torah became an institution in their

own right.  Authority soon rested among the rabbi's to interpret the meaning

of the Torah.  They would consider the principles of the Torah, and decide

issues.  The decisions which they made had the force of the original Torah

itself.  Over the centuries, Rabbinical expansion of the principles of the

Torah took place in all areas of community life.

The Rabbis were constantly called upon by their community to interpret

scriptural commands.  Was such-and-such an action permitted?  Was such-and

such a thing or person ritually clean?  The Bible, for example, forbids

working on Saturday.,  but it does not define "work."  As a result, the Rabbis

were called upon to declare what an individual was and was not permitted to do

on the Sabbath.  They "bound" (prohibited) certain activities, and "loosened"

(allowed) other activities.

In the Hebrew way of thinking, binding and Loosing is the interpretation of

the Torah.  Anyone who acted in this capacity was sitting in the seat of

Moshe.  It is easy to see why they used that term.  Since Moshe had acted in

this way when he was alive, interpreting the Torah, and since they were

carrying on that tradition, they were sitting in his seat.

Yeshua himself acknowledged the authority that resided in the teachers of the

Torah and among the Pharisees. 

Then Yeshua said to the crowds and to his disciples:  "The teachers of the

Torah and the Pharisees sit in Moshe's seat.  So you must obey them and do

everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice

what they preach.  

The early church recognized this authority and what it meant.  Cyril of

Jerusalem, writing in the mid-fourth century said, "The Scribes and Pharisees

sit in Moses' seat; for it signifies not his wooden seat, but the authority of

his teaching."

This authority found its highest expression in the Sanhedrin.  Yet it existed

down to the local town and synagogue level.  Outside the gates of the

excavated ruins of ancient Dan, I have had the opportunity to sit in a seat

where once such decisions were made.  There, the city elders gathered to "sit

in Moshe's seat."  Proverbs 31:23 gives us a sense for this:  "Her husband is

respected at the city gate, where he takes his seat among the elders of the

land."

I believe it is in this context, and with this meaning, that Yeshua spoke the

words which Matthew records. "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of

heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you

loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."  

This is an important moment in the history of Judaism and the Church.  Here is

Yeshua, the Son of God, investing the power of Moshe into the hands of his

disciples.  They now become the ones responsible for interpreting the Torah. 

This is decisive for it represents the imposition of spiritual authority. It

places within the context of the church the authority held by those who sit in

the seat of Moshe.

Once the Church was established by Yeshua, we find that this authority

continued on.  In the beginning of the Church, it was the Apostles themselves

who sat in the Seat of Moshe for the Church.  The Church which took shape had

a foundation.

He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who

were near.  For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. 

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens

with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of

the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy

temple in the Lord.

God gave the Levites as a gift to the Tabernacle.

I myself have selected your fellow Levites from among the Israelites as a gift

to you, dedicated to the LORD to do the work at the Tent of Meeting. But only

you and your sons may serve as priests in connection with everything at the

altar and inside the curtain. I am giving you the service of the priesthood as

a gift. Anyone else who comes near the sanctuary must be put to death.

When Paul wrote Ephesians, he drew upon this concept for the various roles in

the Church.  He described these workers in the Church as gifts.  To them, a

primary role was assigned.

It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be

evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for

works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all

reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become

mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.  Then we

will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here

and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men

in their deceitful scheming.  Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in

all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ.  From him the

whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and

builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

The Apostles stepped into their role and took charge of the Church.  We see

their authority in the instructions to Titus especially, and also to Timothy. 

Paul told Titus to "straighten out what was left unfinished".  Then he

proceeded to instruct Titus on what to say to the older men, the older women,

the younger women and the young men.  He told Titus to "remind the people" of

certain  truths, which of course sets that truth on a higher priority level

than some other truth.

We also see Apostolic authority being exercised in the Acts 15 Council.  On

that occasion, they met to discuss the requirements for Gentiles.  The

question was, how was the Torah to be applied to them.  What was necessary for

their salvation?  After hearing various sides of the question, James said, "It

is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the

Gentiles who are turning to God. 

What gave James the right to have a "judgment" in the first place?  He was

exercising the authority of the seat of Moshe.  Indeed, this was clearly more

than just their opinions, for when they sent the letter out it was under the

authority of what "seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.."  They were

laying claim to divine authority as well as their own.  Tertullian summarized

the events of Acts 15:

When first the Gospel thundered and shook the old system to its base, when

dispute was being held on the question of retaining or not the Law;  this is

the first rule which the apostles, on the authority of the Holy Spirit, sent

out to those who were already beginning to be gathered to their side out of

the nations:  "It has seemed (good)," say they, "to the Holy Spirit and to us

to cast upon you no ampler weight than (that) of those (things) from which it

is necessary that abstinence be observed;  from sacrifices, and from

fornications, and from blood:  by abstaining from which ye act rightly, the

Holy Spirit carrying you.

In making the Acts 15 decision, the Apostles and elders were sitting in the

seat of Moshe, using the power of binding and loosing.  If they did not have

this power, then what different would their opinions make.  However the Church

has always recognized this authority.  Once again, we turn to Tertullian, the

Father of Latin Christianity, for his commentary on the authority of the

Apostles and elders to make this decision.

Moreover, in that dispute about the observance or non-observance of the Law,

Peter was the first of all to be endued with the Spirit, and, after making

preface touching the calling of the nations, to say, " And now why are ye

tempting the Lord, concerning the imposition upon the brethren of a yoke which

neither we nor our fathers were able to support?  But however, through the

grace of Yeshua we believe that we shall be saved in the same way as the.:" 

This sentence both "loosed" those parts of the law which were "abandoned, and

"bound" those which were reserved.  hence the power of loosing and of binding

committed to Peter had nothing to do with the capital sins of believers;  and

if the Lord had given him a precept that he must grant pardon to a brother

sinning against him even "seventy time sevenfold," of course He would have

commanded him to "bind" -- that is, to "retain" -- nothing subsequently,

unless perchance such (sins) committed against the Lord, not against a

brother.  For the forgiveness of (sins) committed in the case of a man is a

prejudgment against the remission of sins against God.

For Tertullian, this is evidence of binding and loosing.  Again and again, we

find the Apostles and elders acting in the authority of Moshe.  In effect, the

New Testament is the Apostolic application of the principles found in the

Torah.  The Church has always accepted the right of the Twelve Apostles to do

this and gave to their writings the same force as what we call the Old

Testament Scripture.  In the same sense that Torah formed the basis of the

Covenant with God, so the New Testament now forms the basis of our Covenant

with God and we are thereby formed into the People of God.

Has this authority ceased in the Church.  We say that the Church today has the

right to apply the Scripture to issues that are not mentioned directly in

Scripture, following the practices of "binding and loosing", and sitting in

the seat of Moshe.  That this power can be abused is evident in twenty

centuries of church history.  We have seen what happens when this authority is

assumed by ever narrower aspects of the church.  The term  "ex cathedra" means

"from the chair."  Using this expression is an attempt by Roman Catholics to

claim that the Church is infallible when it speaks "ex cathedra" because it is

speaking from the "Seat of Moshe."  But the "Seat of Moshe" was not for

purposes of adding to the Scripture, but to give an official interpretation on

areas that were not clearly spelled out.

In modern evangelical understanding, binding and loosing has nothing to do

with the authority of the Church except as it might relate to spiritual

warfare.  This error in thinking springs from a fundamental error in

understanding about the Gospel of Matthew.  What many today do not understand

is that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew.

That Matthew was originally written in Hebrew is the unanimous view of the

Church Fathers.  Papias said, "Matthew put together the oracles of the Lord in

the Hebrew language."  Irenaeus said Matthew was written to the Jews:  "The

Gospel according to Matthew was written to the Jews.  For they laid particular

stress upon the fact that Christ (should be) of the seed of David."  Cyril of

Jerusalem also noted:  "Matthew, who wrote the gospel, wrote it in the Hebrew

tongue."  These are not obscure figures.  Rather, they form the mainstream of

the early church.

At present, no original copy of Matthew has ever been found in the Hebrew. 

However, if theses early fathers are correct, what exists in Greek is a

translation of the Hebrew.  As such, it is subject to certain weaknesses. 

Translations of this period often did not translate the sense of a passage,

rather they tended to follow the actual or literal words.

In particular, Hebrew idioms did not always make the transition intact.  We

know when someone says "his eyes fell to the floor," not to take that

literally.  But consider the problem of a translator.  What is an idiom, and

what should be taken literally?  We see this weakness reflected in the

translation of the term "good eyes" in Matthew.  This is a Hebrew idiom for a

generous person.  But that is not particularly clear in the Greek.

What about "binding and loosing" as spiritual warfare?

The idea of "binding" and "loosing" has risen to the forefront in some current

teaching on spiritual warfare.  What is interesting is the absence of these

two ideas in the spiritual warfare that is mentioned in the Bible.  If it were

to be such an important part of warfare, one would expect to find it more

prominently mentioned in the Scripture.  In fact, it is most  noticeable for

its absence.  In my opinion, far more emphasis is given to this idea than is

warranted from the Scripture.  At best, it is only a minor weapon among many

weapons.  More likely, it doesn't even exist as a weapon of spiritual warfare.

Why do some believe that "binding and loosing" are aspects of our spiritual

warfare?  Surprisingly, this is a new concept that has almost no history in

the church.

The Belief that demons can be "bound" or that angels can be "loosed" is based

upon a new interpretation of Matthew 16:10 and Matthew 18:18.  These passages

are interpreted to apply to spirit beings because of the phrases "bound in

heaven" or "loosed in heaven."  As the logic goes, since spirit beings exist

in heaven, this passage must apply to them.  (It is not clear how the passage

could apply to demons which are not generally associated with heaven.)

What I call the "bind-loose theology" is heavily based upon a special

interpretation of the "strong man" passages in Matthew 12:29, Mark 3:27, and

Luke 11.  In these passages, Yeshua is showing that only a superior power can

drive out demons.  He then uses the example of a well armed strong man who

defends his house until someone stronger "attacks and overpowers" him, robbing

him of his goods.

Luke's account emphasizes that the strong man is "attacked and overpowered,"

not mentioning anything about tying him up (binding).  Matthew says the strong

man must first be tied up before his house can be robbed.  Mark, like Matthew,

mentions that the strong man must first be tied up before the attacker can rob

the house.

If Yeshua meant to give this story as an illustration of "binding," Luke

missed the point entirely and is leading us astray from the message.  Luke's

failure to mention "binding" is not misleading, however, because the point of

the passage is not about "binding," but about the effect of superior power.

This is the emphasis which Tertullian gave to it.  Notice that Tertullian,

following Luke, retains the concept of superior power without getting into

"binding:"

"Well, therefore, did He connect with the parable of "the strong man armed,"

whom "a stronger man still overcame," the prince of the demons, whom He had

already called Beelzebub and Satan; signifying that it was he who was overcome

by the finger of God, and not that the Creator had been subdued by another

God."

Unfortunately, "binding the strongman" has become dogma in some circles.  One

book in my library, whose authors I respect highly for  their service in

missions, builds it's whole spiritual warfare concept around an improper

interpretation of this passage.  A better understanding is found in the

historic interpretation of "binding."

I think caution regarding "binding and loosing" as spiritual warfare is in

order.  There are several reasons why I take this view.

First, no group or denomination in Christianity has ever interpreted these

passages in this way before the last part of the 20th century.  Of course,

being a new doctrine or understanding does not necessarily mean the new

doctrine in untrue.  However, new doctrines need to be examined very carefully

to see how they fit with the whole counsel of the Bible, and with the

interpretation of that same Scripture over the centuries.

Second, over the centuries, the "binding" and "loosing" passages have been

interpreted along the lines of the authority of the disciples to "sit in the

seat of Moshe."   This means interpreting Scripture and conducting the affairs

of the Church.  The Catholic Encyclopedia expresses this idea when it says,

"These powers, consisting of a "binding" and a "loosing" in the spiritual

order on earth,  that is, all powers necessary to the well-being of the

kingdom, were recognized by the apostles from the rabbinical terms for

"binding," that is, of granting or forbidding, as contained in the Torah.  The

Catholic view, which is shared by the other branches of the historic Christian

church, has always been that binding and loosing were part of the authority

granted to the Church, and are expressed in the idea of the "power of the

keys.

Third, only Matthew records this idea, probably because he was the only one,

according to Eusebius and the others we have cited, to write his original text

of the Gospel in Hebrew.  The passage regarding "binding" and "loosing" is a

Jewish idiom translated word for word from the Hebrew into the Greek. 

Unfortunately, even though the words of the idiom were translated correctly,

the meaning was clouded in such a literal translation.

Vine's Dictionary says  "the application of the Rabbinical sense of forbidding

is questionable."  However, prior to expressing that conclusion, Vine does

give this passage its classical "spiritual  authority" slant when he says,

"The Lord's words to the Apostle Peter in Matthew 16:19, as to binding, and to

all the disciples in 18:18, signify, in the former case, that the Apostle, by

his ministry of the Word of Life, would keep unbelievers outside the kingdom

of God, and admit those who believed.  So with regard to 18:18, including the

exercise of disciplinary measures in the sphere of the local church; the

application of the Rabbinical sense of forbidding is questionable." 

Notwithstanding the questions raised by Vine, Dr. Roy Blizzard takes the

historic view held by Catholics and Orthodox, but for a different reason.  He

cites Jewish texts to show that "binding" and  "loosing" were the terms

applied to the work of the rabbi's in interpreting Scripture, allowing some

things but denying other based on their interpretation of the meaning of the

Torah.  So if the rabbi said you were not allowed to walk more than a few

hundred yards on the Sabbath, he was "binding" certain behavior.  Although

Yeshua criticized the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, he did require his

disciples to obey their interpretations.  We have already shown Yeshua saying,

"The teachers of the Torah and the Pharisees sit in Moshe's seat.  So you must

obey them and do everything they tell you." 

Fourth, of the many passages dealing with spiritual warfare, there is a

noticeable absence of any teaching regarding "binding and loosing." In my 

book, Hedges, I demonstrated that there is a great deal in the Bible about

spiritual warfare, examining every passage in the Bible on the topic of the

relationship between humans and spiritual entities.  In light of the extensive

Bible passages, why does Paul omit "binding and loosing" in his classic

passage in Ephesians 6?  Why does James only talk about resisting the devil,

stopping  far short of the idea of "binding"?  Why only resist, when you could

"bind"?  Indeed, why is there no plain statement linking "binding" and

"loosing" with any part of spiritual warfare?

The answer is that "binding and loosing," the way it is being taught in some

quarters of the Church, is not adequately rooted in Biblical teachings on

spiritual warfare.

What the Bible does say is that Satan will be "bound" and "loosed."  However,

the reference is to Satan being bound in the future.  No one is binding him

today. 

"And I saw an angel come  down  from heaven, having the key of the  bottomless

pit and a great chain in his hand.  And he laid hold on the dragon, that old

serpent, which is the  Devil,  and Satan, and bound him a thousand years.  And

cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him,

that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand  years  should

be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season."

This future tense is the only proper application of this concept to spiritual

warfare.

Fifth, if Satan is being "bound" as often as people are saying the words,

their "binding" certainly does not last very long.  If the "bind the devil"

people are indeed "binding" the devil" somebody needs to figure out how long

their "binding" of the devil lasts.  Then, they could line up people all over

the world on a "24-hour Bind Chain" to keep "binding" Satan, so he never gets

loose again. 

Some might suggest that only demons are being bound, not Satan himself.  Is it

possible, then, that we might eventually come to a point where all the demons

are bound in chains  of darkness and none are free to roam the earth?  Would

this leave only Satan alone to do all the evil work?

One problem with using "binding" and "loosing," as if it were a new aspect of

spiritual warfare, is we are totally without support  for just what it means

to "bind" the devil.  Who knows what it means?  What can Satan do when he is

"bound"?  Unlike G-d, Satan is not omni-present.  There is only one of him,

and he is limited to one place at a time. According to this new interpretation

of "binding," when one person has "bound" Satan, is he prohibited from doing

anything to anyone else?

The further one probes this new idea of "binding," the more questions are 

raised.  I am suggesting the reason all this becomes so imprecise when the

details are exposed, is because the whole notion is without Biblical

foundation.  Yeshua had many contacts with the devil and demons, but He is

never described as "binding" the demons.  No New Testament writer ever

describes anyone ever "binding" the devil.

In Luke 13, the sick woman was freed from her infirmity.  It is plain enough

that Yeshua was involved in a physical healing because he laid his hands upon

her, something which is never done with someone under the power of a demon. 

It is unfortunate that the old King James uses the phrase "spirit of 

infirmity" because some have suggested this was a demon of infirmity. 

However, would Yeshua "loose" a demon?  Would not "bind-loose" theology say

the demon should have been "bound" rather than "loosed"?  The Luke 13 passage

would not support the "bind-loose" theology.  Indeed, this passage would have

to be explained away because of Yeshua "loosing" the women from her infirmity.

In some respects, I am reluctant to speak against the current usage of

"binding" because I hesitate to undermine anyone engaging in spiritual

warfare.  However, if there is no authority in the Scripture for this

"binding," it is better to stop now than to continue building on sand.  It is

better to get back to biblical warfare than to continue on in a fools

paradise.  In war, firing blanks doesn't kill the enemy.  We need effective

warfare with live ammunition.

On the other hand, I believe God is able to understand our hearts rather than

our precise words.  I think God knows when we "bind" the devil that we are

really praying "deliver us from evil," and He takes appropriate action, in

spite of our theology or our words!

By Dr. Joseph B. Fuiten