>Should they be taken as intensive or as consummative perfects?
Hmmm...what exactly do "intensive", "consummative", and "extensive" mean here?
Being just a little Greek, I haven't been bitten by many future perfects, so
I turned to Smyth and Robertson to see what they had to say. As Carl points
out, future perfects are very rare, and I suspect they are used quite
intentionally. They are marked forms, for the linguists out there.
Smyth says that most future perfects are periphrastic, middle in form, and
passive in meaning. He also says the following:
1. The future perfect denotes a future state resulting from a completed action
2. When stress is laid upon complete fulfilment, the future perfect may
imply rapidity, immediate consequence, or certainty, of action accomplished
in the future.
3. The future may have imperative force.
4. When the perfect has the force of a present, the future perfect is used
like a simple future.
Points 3 and 4 intrigue me. If the future can have imperative force, could
Matthew 18:18 possibly mean "whatever you may have bound on earth, let it be
bound in heaven, and whatever you may have loosed on earth, let it be loosed
in heaven?"
Or should I invoke 4 here? Smyth says that when the perfect marks the
enduring result rather than the completed act, it may often be translated by
the present. It seems that "be bound" and "be loosed" would be good examples
of this. So maybe it just means "whatever you may have bound on earth, it
will be bound in heaven, and whatever you may have loosed on earth, it will
be loosed in heaven"?
Paul Dixon again:
>>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?
Well, if it applies to sin, which seems likely, I find it fascinating that
it is sandwiched between the parable of the lost sheep and the parable of
the unmerciful servant, giving us clear guidelines for how often we should
forgive our brothers and sisters. I think this was what Carl meant when he
referred to the thrust of Matthew 18 as a whole. The overriding concern must
be to win them back, and church authority must be practiced in the context
of generous forgiveness. I guess that's why Jesus didn't tell a parable of
the chicken, emphasizing how the farmer cuts the chicken's head off.
Back to Carl again:
>(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.
I largely agree; yet Jesus *did* seem to indicate the need to exercise this
authority at times. Yet I can't quite believe that he *never* wanted us to
exercise this authority. If he didn't, why would he be telling this parable?
But I still don't quite get it. If they are kicking him out of the church,
what is it that they would be asking for in verse 19?
Matt 18:15 (RSV) "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his
fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your
brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with
you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three
witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if
he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and
a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask,
it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three
are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
Could it be that they are asking for the brother's repentence, binding sin
and Satan, and loosing the Spirit's influence? Yet verses 18-19 seem to give
assurance for whatever they ask, and 17 makes it clear that the brother may
still decide not to listen.
This little Greek is not yet satisfied that he understands the passage...
Jonathan
***************************************************************************
Jonathan Robie jwrobie@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~jwrobie
POET Software, 3207 Gibson Road, Durham, N.C., 27703 http://www.poet.com
***************************************************************************