Interesting questions, and ones for which (1) I suspect there will be many
interesting responses, and (2) I don't have near enough time for more than
a quickie response right now, so let me state a couple unscholarly opinions:
(a) I think that the tradition (Jesus-saying, early church understanding of
authority underlying communal or leadership decisions) here in Mt 18:18
ought to be studied carefully in connection also with Mt 16:19 and Jn
20:21-23. The periphrastic future perfect appears in Mt 16:19 as well as in
Mt 18:18, while the "tense" in Jn 20:21-23 it is the "ordinary" -- not the
periphrastic -- perfect passive. The verbs used in the Johannine passage
are different, AFIHMI, KAATEW, and the specific content is indeed SINS.
Personally I think the same underlying tradition is reflected in all three
of these passages.
(b) I think the fundamental sense of the future-perfect (and it cannot be
overemphasized just how rare the future perfect is in all of Greek--I don't
think I've seen more instances in over 40 years of reading Greek than can
be counted on more than the fingers of two hands) is the same as that of
the perfect tense in John: the full efficacy and authority of a decision
made by the collective leadership (in Mt 18:18, Jn 20:21-23) or by the
personal leadership granted in Mt 16:19 to Peter alone (if one understands
this is a bestowal of personal authority upon Peter--that's another
discussion altogether!). That is to say, in my personal judgment, the
question is not a matter of "intensive" or "consummative" but of the full
weight of FINALITY implicit originally in the perfect as bearer of the
sense of STATIVE aspect. Decisions on matters of such weight and importance
made by church authorities have finality of authority: the future perfect
means that one should not expect them such decisions to be overruled by
heavenly authority.
(c) Finally, I want to say that it seems to me that two factors are clearly
discernible in Mt 18 as a whole--in the chapter on Church Discipline: (a)
the authority of excommunication does indeed lie within the earthly
leadership of the church, but (b) the Jesus of this chapter so
circumscribes and warns against the use of that authority against
individuals that one might do well to avoid ever exercising that authority
even though it is in one's (collective) hands: better to bring the lost
sheep back than to dismiss him/her forever from God's flock. That is
consistent with another theme in Matthew's eschatological teaching: that
judgment (i.e. condemnation) is a privilege of God and Christ, not one that
the individual or perhaps even the church community should deign to
exercise; moreover, in the parable of good grain and weeds, it is suggested
that one not endeavor to root out the weeds in the acres of God's harvest
but leave them for the Harvester to dispose of as He sees fit.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(704) 675-4243
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/