An interesting discussion it is proving to be on the future perfect in
Matthew 18:18 (and 16:19, where it also occurs).
I am not at all sure that I am convinced about the interpretational
presuppositions of some contributors, that the "binding" and "loosing"
refers to questions of discipline and seeking a pure church. I tend to see
the binding and loosing in terms of requirements which the church leadership
imposes upon the church. It is surely significant that the only occurrences
of EKKLHSIA, church, in the Gospels are in Mt 16:18 and 18:17, that is, in
the verses immediately preceding the twice-occurring saying about binding
and loosing, in Mt 16:19 addressed to Peter and in Mt 18:18 to a wider
audience (the apostles? the wider company of disciples, cf. Mt 18:1? or more
widely than this still?). The two occurrences of the binding/loosing saying
differ only in the reversing of the singulars and plurals for the verbs
"bind" and "loose", and for "heavens"/"heaven", and the hO of 16:19 versus
the hOSA of 18:18.
But I suggest that we need to direct our discussion back to the question,
Why is a rare future perfect used in these two places, instead of the much
more common future or perfect tenses? The very rarity of the future perfect
argues strongly for the answer, Because neither a future nor a perfect but
only a future perfect will convey the meaning intended here.
Taken as having a straight-forward future meaning, the saying would mean (as
Jonathan suggests),
>>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.
Which means, whatever is done on earth will be simply endorsed in heaven.
The trouble with the interpretation which we get if we treat the verb as
simply having future intent is (a) it leaves unanswered the simple question
as to why we do not find the much more common future form used here, and (b)
it teaches that "heaven" (God) will just rubber-stamp whatever decisions
about binding and loosing are made upon earth: a teaching that is very much
at variance with the acres of biblical teaching about the holiness and
sovereignty of God and the fallibility and sinfulness of humans (even if
Christian).
Taken as having a straight-forward perfect meaning, we would reach the view
put before us by James Vellenga:
>>What we bind on earth will turn out to have already been bound in heaven,
while
>>what we loose on earth will similarly turn out to have been loosed in heaven.
The two problems with this interpretation are (a) if a perfect tense meaning
is intended, why was the perfect tense form not the one used? and (b) it
assumes an overriding sovereignty of God over the human will and human
decision-making which is borne out neither by Scripture nor experience. As
James goes on to say,
>>even collegial leadership can go astray.
Let us look at it as having a future perfect form for the reason that it has
future perfect meaning. Then (irrespective in fact of the particular
interpretation which we want to attach to the concepts of binding and
loosing in these two occurrences), the meaning is that whatever is being or
to be bound upon earth is to be that which will (already) have been bound in
heaven, and whatever is being or to be loosed upon earth is to be that which
will (already) have been loosed in heaven. LUW has the sense here of to make
or declare not binding, that is, to permit. I sense that there is a general
consensus that "in heaven" means "by divine authority".
Taking the meaning of this saying to be referring to what is to be required
of Christians (in Christian behaviour, what they are "bound" to do or not do
as part of their Christian profession) and what they are not bound but
rather are free or permitted to do, I find the saying very relevant to
present-day discussions in the church. Some leaders would seek to impose
restrictions upon Christians which are not justified by the teaching of
Scripture (i.e., inventing new sins by labelling some things as sinful which
the Bible does not), and others again would proclaim that in the
circumstances of today's culture certain things which the Bible castigates
as sinful are no longer to be regarded as sinful at all.
I refrain from giving specific examples as this moves us away from the
actual text of Mt 16:19/18:18, and would probably break the guidelines for
what can legitimately be discussed on b-greek.
But I reckon one thing is certain: Mt 16:19 and 18:18 contain future
perfects because that tense conveys the intended meaning, and a future or
perfect would not. This fact pushes me to the conclusion that what Jesus is
saying is: Whatever an individual leader (16:19, addressed to Peter) or the
church leadership corporately (18:18) bind upon earth must be that which
(and only that which) will first have been bound in heaven, and what he/they
loose (i.e., permit) upon earth must be that which (and only that which)
will have first been loosed in heaven (i.e., permitted by divine authority).
I.e., we are NOT being authorized to lay down the rules: God has already
done so, and we are to be careful to adhere to these.
Ward Powers
-- Rev Dr B. Ward Powers Email: bwpowers@eagles.bbs.net.au 10 Grosvenor Crescent International Tel: +61-2-9799-7501 SUMMER HILL NSW 2130 Australian Tel: (02) 9799-7501 AUSTRALIA