Should they be taken as intensive or as consummative perfects? Is the
difference significant? Furthermore, what is being bound or loosed
respectively? I have found the commentaries sadly lacking in any
in-depth discussion. The grammars seem to favor the intensive, but
recognize that the periphrastic future perfect participle can be
consummative. The translations seem to overwhelmingly favor the
intensive.
If there is a significant difference here is it that the consummative
(shall have been bound in heaven ... shall have been loosed in heaven)
suggests that what is bound or loosed here on earth as a result of the
disciplinary steps taken in 18:15-17 is a mere reflection of what has
already been bound or loosed by God in heaven? Likewise, would the
intensive then suggest perhaps just the opposite, that it, that what is
bound or loosed here on earth is then bound or loosed in heaven either
consequently, or most assuredly (if the latter, then the temporal
sequence is not necessarily suggested)?
Or, is the perfect sufficient itself to suggest that the heavenly binding
or loosing temporally precedes the earthly binding or loosing?
>From what is the individual being bound or loosed? The whole context
seems to argue for hAMAPTIA. If so, then perhaps the idea is this: the
individual who persists in sin (as defined by his refusal to repent of
his sin in three levels of discipline) gives evidence he has never know
God and has never been set free from his sins. He should be thus
regarded as a Gentile or tax-collector, synonyms for NOQOI AND OUK hUIOI
(Heb 12:8).
Comments?
Paul S. Dixon, Pastor
Ladd Hill Bible Church
Wilsonville, Oregon