Binding of Sins (Matthew 18:15-20)

Note:  This post comes out of my 2023 sermon on Matthew 18:15-20.  I will focus on the word "bind."  However, you can access my post on Matthew 18:15-20 or John 20:19-31.

I want to reflect a bit more on what Jesus means when he says "Truly I tell you, whatever you BIND on earth will be BOUND in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."  I offer that this word "bind" (δεω) might have three meanings.

• Classic medieval: The binding, along with the loosing, refers to the keys of heaven which are given to the church (see Matthew 16:19).  These keys of loosing and binding will open and close the door.  As the church chooses to absolve or not absolve sins, people are moved in or blocked from heaven.
• Rabbinic:  A movement has picked up in recent scholarship to view the "binding" and "loosing" referring to the Rabbinic practice of determining, within a community, what was "bound", that is "sinful" and what was "loose", that is ''permitted." 
• Pastoral:  The binding refers here to the act of restoring a lost sheep by binding sins to Christ.

I want to unpack each of these, describe the Scriptural argument for each, its implications and its shortcomings.

Classic Medieval

In a nutshell:  The classic understanding of the office of the keys is nicely summarized by Martin Luther in his small catechism:

What is the Office of the Keys?  The Office of the Keys is the special authority which Christ has given to His Church on earth: to forgive the sins of the penitent sinners, but to retain the sins of the impenitent as long as they do not repent.

(See footnote for a longer passage of Luther) 

It is worth noting that the medieval Roman Catholic church and Luther were in agreement about what the keys did (see Aquinas on the office of the keys belonging to the church).  Luther disagreed about whether the keys belonged to the "holy Roman Catholic church" or the "holy catholic church, the communion of saints" and how the keys were dealt with through the sacramental system.

Biblical support:  All of this understanding arises from Matthew 16, Matthew 18 and John 20, in which Jesus gives the apostles authority to forgive sins and retain them.  It is worth noting that the wording is different in Matthew and John, with Matthew using the words "bind" and "loosen" and John using the words "forgive" and "hold/retain/grasp."

Implications and Shortcomings:  The mission of the church becomes clear:  act as a gate keeper for who is in and who is out of the Kingdom of God.  This clarifies and perhaps simplifies the task of the church in an age when the objectives often seem political and social.  

However, the church doors, physically and spiritually, become hard boundaries of God's mercy on earth.  As discipleship in Jesus moves from a Jewish renewal movement to an inter-continental institution, this boundary becomes a wall and the institution abuses its power, time and time again.

It also makes the point of life "getting into heaven" rather than experiencing eternal life, which begins here and now, as Jesus comes to us.

Rabbinic

In a nutshell:  This way of thinking might be new to some.  The binding and loosing, in this view, refer to the process by which community leaders, Rabbis, would determine what was morally permissible (or not) for a community.  A good article I found online by the author Kindalee Pfremmer De Long outlines it.  As she writes

In this practice of [rabbinic] binding and loosing, rabbis uphold the law as eternal and universal but recognize that new contexts require new decisions about how to bind or loose particular behaviors. 

Biblical support:  In the article by De Long, she delves more deeply into historical and linguistic support of this interpretation, which she acknowledges is solid but not exhaustively conclusive.  It is not a strictly biblical argument, per se, but one in which extra-Biblical sources allow us to better understand what the original authors (or in this case, the original speaker, Jesus) likely meant.

De Long also does not dismiss the classic way of understanding this passage.  She offers that both people may be bound or loosed (classic) and that laws or ethical standards may be bound or loosed (rabbinic).  I resonated with De Long's article, not simply in substance, but also tone.  She wrote in a generous spirit - rather than a "everyone got it wrong because we/I've discovered this social science data from the 1st century that upends everything you knew", she approached it with a "there is likely another layer to this that has impact for ministry" attitude.

Implications and Shortcomings:  In this way of thinking, Christian communities become loci of ethical and moral discernment.  For a community to exist, there must be agreed upon standards of behavior, processes for determining these standards and then means by which people are restored to the community. 

The Rabbinic perspective returns to the Achilles' heal for Protestants - once you've left the institution AND acknowledged that differences are inevitable, on what basis can you find unity and on what basis will your ethical teachings stand?  And furthermore, why attend a church that doesn't suit your moral proclivities, which increasingly means your political stances?  Like, if you disagree with your church's moral conclusion about some issue, why not leave?  In short, if your church is going to stake its hat on getting it right morally and you don't agree, why stay?

Pastoral

As a western and American, living in the 21st century, I live in just about the most autonomous and individualized culture in the earth's history.  Never before have people been less grounded in their past, including both family of origin and even biological gender.   In short, we tend to trust our feelings and are motivated to create a life, a story, an identity for ourselves, often over and against the entities that brought us to bear.  Our participation in society often amounts to signaling our virtue more than bearing one another's burdens and we move to "cancel" rather than listen.  

This all makes me acutely hungry for Matthew 18 and Jesus words about community.  More and more, in fact, I sense that God's Kingdom is a place where this individualism dissolves in Christ's grace.  I can stop having to create myself and simply let Christ define me.  While I retain a sense of distinction from others -- we do not become a blob -- I am finally able to get over myself in a way that I can be for others.  God's Kingdom allows for real community, truly communion, with God of course, but also with others.  In that light, I very much appreciated Rolf Jacobson's article about the community dynamics within Matthew 18.  Jacobson helps these words of the binding and loosing be heard in their context, namely, that of a good shepherd finding lost sheep.

If Jesus is indeed speaking about bringing people into "Life Together" as Bonhoeffer called it, what might binding look like?  Fascinatingly, Bonhoeffer ends his book with a chapter on Confession and Communion.  He extols the virtues of confession and bases participation in Holy Communion on confession.  Yet he does not mention binding of sins, but rather the proclamation of forgiveness. 

In short, a community needs to bind and loosen laws in terms of structuring life together, but given the reality of sin (see again Jacobson's article), inevitably we fill mess up before God and each other.  The only way forward is forgiveness and reconciliation.  Does this mean, then, that we have left the binding of sins behind or simply see binding as the way to remove people from the community?

μη γενιοτο (heck no!)  The community needs something bound in order for the key of loosing to work.  Sin must be dealt with.  The only binding that can actually hold a community together, then is confession and absolution, which is a binding of the sin to the cross and the freeing of the new creation for life together.

In reality, this binding will likely take weeks and be on-going given the capacity for humans to hurt ourselves and each other.  We will again and again need to bind the old sinner to the cross - our shame, our guilt, our pride, our fears, everything.  While I cannot prove it, I sense that a congregation that truly experiences this kind of forgiveness, not simply from the pulpit, but from each other (as Bonhoeffer envisions) is the kind of church that will cohere even when people disagree.  

***

PS  Longer Luther passage on the keys:

"We possess these two keys through Christ's command.  The key which binds it the power or office to punish the sinner who refuses to repent by means of a public condemnation to eternal death and separation from the rest of Christendom... The key which binds carries forward the work of the law.  It is profitable to the sinner in as much as it reveals to him his sins, admonishes him to fear God, causes him to tremble and moves him to repentance and not to destruction." ("The Keys", pg 372, LW 40)

Matthew 16:13-20

This passage occurs in the Revised Common Lectionary, Year A, most recently Aug 23, 2026.
 
Summary:  This passage presents many powerful preaching angles that I try to amplify with the Greek. 

• Confessing Christ is the work of the individual and the church
• Confessing Christ is on-going
• Confessing Christ must happen on the road of life, even in places of moral rot
• Confessing Christ happens over and against other co-religionists and their confession of who Jesus is (I include here some research by NT Wright on the various 1st century understandings of what "Messiah" meant).

For 2026, I wondered what might be worth preaching on within Matthew's version because this story comes up in both Matthew and Mark's Gospel.  I am pondering how Peter is given his identity after his confession of Christ and the way in which identifying who Christ is allows us finally to hear and be identified as who we are.  In the 21st century, we obsess over identity and an identity that is self-constructed.  But here we discover that our identity cannot be found by our own analysis, but comes from Christ.  I don't have Greek analysis for this, just simply a point I am pondering!

Idea for a children's sermon:  the whole fish, Ι-Χ-Θ-Υ-Σ, i-ch-th-u-s, thing (Jesus Christ God's Son Savior) as the most basic confession.

λέγετε (saying, 16:15) When we hear this translated in English, we hear this a personal question:  "Who do you say that I am?"  Given that Peter individually responds, it is correct in acknowledging this is a question that we must each answer individually.  However, it is worth pointing out that this is a plural question.  The whole community is asked to confess Christ, one might even argue, together!

ἠρώτα (imperfect of ἐρωτάω, asking, 16:13)  This verb here is in the imperfect tense.  Jesus is repeatedly asking them.  This adds movement and emotion to the scene, but also points to the way in which our whole lives again and again, we will need to confess Christ.

καισαρειας φιλιππι (Caesarea Philippi, 16:13):  This town is not a coincidental mention.  It was a trading hub, located along some major land routes.  It had been associated in the past with Baal (OT Canaanite god) and Pan (Greek god).  In Jesus day, it was one of the Roman capitals in the area, with immense building projects undertaken by Herod, including the construction of a temple in honor of Augustus.  In fact, city's temple to Pan was believed to be located at the gates of Hades, a direct connection to the underworld.  Philippi epitomized the Greco-Roman religious milieu of the day: a pantheistic cult that continued to give more space to emperor worship; above all, a worship of beauty, sex, power and money. 

One can go even further though and think about the extent to which these are all not simply dead gods, but gods of death.  At the main temple in Caesarea Philippi, which was a temple believed to be the gates of Hades, people would offer dead animal sacrifices  (http://www.generationword.com/Israel/caesarea_philippi.htm good pictures!).  Hence the importance in Peter's confession that God is a living God! 

If you want to go even further, you can study more about what worship of Pan actually entailed, but now we would have an adult only sermon.

υιος του ανθροπος  (Son of Man 16:13).  As Christians we likely recognize this title as a reference to Jesus.  In fact, we often look at this title as one that uplifts Jesus as the pinnacle of humanity.  But what exactly does this title mean?  

On the one hand, this term is associated with the Messiah and his coming in glory in the book of Daniel:

• “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.  He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. (7:13-14)

Yet, on the other hand, this particular title for an individual or humanity seems to suggest humanity's weakness:

• What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? (Psalm 8:4; See also Psalm 144:3)
• If even the moon is not bright and the stars are not pure in his eyes, how much less man, who is but a maggot-- a son of man, who is only a worm!" (Job 25:5-6)
• God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (Numbers 23:19)

God also calls Ezekiel the Son of Man a number (80?) times; it is a way of reminding Ezekiel he is not divine.  In short, calling Jesus the Son of Man ascribes both majesty but also humility to him.  (I even checked with Wikipedia to see if I was missing something here; in fact, its article emphasizes my point about this title and humility.)

χριστος  (Christos, Messiah, 16:16)  Christos is Greek for anointed.  In Hebrew, the word for anointed is Messiah.  Peter is calling Jesus the Messiah.  The Old Testament strongly associates Messiah with a king, in the line of David, one who leads and protects the people.  

• The idea seems to be that a Messiah is a divine talisman, in that he has special protection (1 Sam 26:23; Psalm 20:6).  
• Interestingly, in Leviticus (4:6 eg) the High Priest is also referred to as the "anointed" or "Messiah."  
• Furthermore, Isaiah in chapter 61, declares himself anointed for his vision, hence prophet could also be understood as the role of the anointed (Psalm 105:15 connects this as well).  

As Messiah then could be understood to capture three offices:  king, priest and prophet, which matches up with Calvin's understanding of Christ and his offices.  

While Calvin and other theologians have tried to clarify what "Messiah" means, it is helpful to remember that various first century Jewish groups had their own understanding of the word.  Different factions within that society had different senses of what a Messiah would be like and what the Messianic age would entail. It can helpful to avoid statements like:  "All of the Jews expected X out of a Messiah."  Consider Christians today -- do we all have a common vision for what the return of Christ will look like?  While I will try to summarize some thoughts on what this term meant, I do so aware that this term had a variety of meanings.

If there is any common theme for first century understandings of Messiah, it would be a theme of conquering.  While Kings, priests and especially prophets may suffer, there seems a much stronger note of victory, even theology of glory, surrounding this term.  As NT Wright puts it:  "Everyone knew that a crucified Messiah was a failed Messiah." (p. 230, The New Testament and Its World.) This would explain why Peter so soon afterwards does not want Jesus to suffer!  (In short, Peter knew his Old Testament!).  It also shows a great contrast with the ideas laid out in Daniel for what to expect from the son of man. 

I would also add that NT Wright does a great job of unpacking the Jewish understanding of "son of man" and "messiah."  In his mind they work together, in that the Son of Man refers to Daniel 7 and comes with hopes of Israel's redemption over the foreign and invading empires.  While even Wright admits the Daniel 7 is bit more ambiguous of a connection, he helpfully demonstrates the Jewish people of the 1st century had very earthly hopes.  They all wanted an end to their situation as a puppet regime of Rome; they may have understood this happening in different ways, but ultimately, it was for the same reason.  In short, no first century Jew would have said:  "I want the Messiah to come, die in a humiliating fashion, be resurrected and then promise us that if we follow him, we will die and then enter into a non-earthly eternity with God that will include lots of non-Jews."  The Messiah was to bring about the new reign of God on earth, which included the vindication of Israel (p. 234, The New Testament and Its World).

πετρος /πετρα Petros Petra:  We've all heard that Peter's name means Rock, because he was the Rock on which the church would be built.  Both words clearly have a the same first few letters (Petr), but I am not sure if we must necessarily infer that Peter the person is what the church will be built on.  Beyond some linguistic oddities (Petra is a feminine noun and ends in an a, nothing like Peter's name's ending), the far more logical thing is that the church will be built on the confession, which comes from heaven.  I think the Bible really underscores this by showing Peter's misunderstanding just a few sentences later. Luther writes a sermon delving into why this passage is about the confession of Christ and not Peter's person.

αδης hades:  See my blog post on words for hell in the Bible.  http://lectionarygreek.blogspot.com/2012/09/mark-938-50.html

Grammar note:  In the infinitive phrase "Who do you say that I am" the word "I" is in the accusative (me).  Why?  Because in the subject of an infinitive clause is in the accusative, not the nominative.