Ryan

Don wrote:

To bind is to forbid some act and to loose is to permit some act, as a Jewish idiom used in the Mishnah.

I must ask, the day before the Jerusalem council met, was circumcision required by God for the salvation of the Gentiles? Or were the gentiles permitted to continue in sexual immorality and now they must not? I think that in this Jerusalem council, nothing was changed but the minds of the Jewish believers who were trying to impose on the Gentiles something that is neither required for the Jewish believers nor the Gentile believers… neither before nor after the council met! They were merely coming to a recognition of Christ as the fulfillment of the ceremonial laws, that the moral commandments of God still stood for all (“For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath,” Acts 15:21, NASB). If at this council they had decided to the contrary that physical circumcision of the Gentiles was required, most likely Paul would have stood up and condemned them all for it. They had no power to change what God had already established.

I have no idea what “declaring someone is bound to their sin” means.

Perhaps Numbers 15:30-31 will help:
“But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt will be on him.” (NASB)

So perhaps it would have been better to say that the guilt of sin is what is bound; the unrepentant person is not released from their sin and its burden…and its curse.