[1000 silverlings]

Here's what MacArthur says about "binding and loosing". It goes back to Jewish law and has nothing to do with forgiveness of sins, or catching the devil.

The concept of binding and loosing was a rabbinical concept. Binding and loosing is an old, archaic thing. It would be permitting and forbidding in our terms. And, Jesus said to the Apostles, you remember “that whatever you forbid on earth, shall have been forbidden in Heaven, and whatever you permit on earth shall have been permitted in Heaven.” In other words, He is simply saying, when you act in agreement with the revelation of God, Heaven is acting on your behalf.

[count-your-change]

Use of the terms ‘binding and loosing’ may be archaic but not necessarily far from the meaning of the words used in the Greek, “aphiemi” or “aphientai”.
From Strong's:
from apo - apo 575 and hiemi (to send; an intensive form of eimi, to go); to send forth, in various applications (as follow):—cry, forgive, forsake, lay aside, leave, let (alone, be, go, have), omit, put (send) away, remit, suffer, yield up.

And Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon agrees. #863.

Binding and loosing thus were of broad meaning but clearly the actions had already taken place by God's decision and Peter could affirm that by inspiration.

[metmom]

The concept of binding and loosing was a rabbinical concept. Binding and loosing is an old, archaic thing. It would be permitting and forbidding in our terms. And, Jesus said to the Apostles, you remember “that whatever you forbid on earth, shall have been forbidden in Heaven, and whatever you permit on earth shall have been permitted in Heaven.” In other words, He is simply saying, when you act in agreement with the revelation of God, Heaven is acting on your behalf.

Which fits in very well with Peter's vision in Acts 10 and God's command to go to Cornelius and the Jews recognition that the Gospel was meant for the Gentiles, too.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you both so much for sharing your insights, dear brother and sister in Christ!

[Quix]

Quite plausibe. There is at least one other plausible interpretation . . . Yours is probably the more kosher in terms of a lot of sensibilities and assumptions.