At 12:35 AM -0400 7/30/97, Ward Powers wrote:
>Fellow Greekers:
>
>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 think that this perception does indeed explain the sort of authority that
has been historically claimed by the "heirs of Peter" whether they be Roman
Catholic or leaders elsewhere in Christendom. But I am not so convinced
that this MUST be the intent of "binding" and "loosing" in our Matthaean
texts in question. Nor am I satisfied that "sins" cannot possibly have been
what the evangelist Matthew had in mind specifically in Mt 18:18. Three
factors weigh in here in my mind:
(1) the passage in John 20:22-23 (... ENEFUSHSEN KAI LEGEI AUTOIS,'LABETE
PNEUMA hAGION; AN TINWN AFHTE hAMARTIAS AFEWNTAI AUTOIS, AN TINWN KRATHTE
KEKRATHNTAI.) For my part, I am inclined to believe that this passage in
John reflects the same tradition, even if the words are different, as the
passage in Mt 18:18.
(2) Ward appears to me to separate 18:18 from 18:15-17. While I will admit
that 18:18 (and again 18:19-20) may have been originally transmitted in
tradition independently of 18:18, I think that these two units constituting
18:18-20 have been made to follow directly upon 18:15-18 in order to link
the forgiveness and absolution of sins to authority invested in the
disciples by Jesus (compare Mt 9:6-8, where the evangelist underscores EPI
GHS regarding this authority and then in 8 Mt explicitly speaks of TON QEON
TON DONTA EXOUSIAN TOIAUTHN TOIS ANQRWPOIS, and the EXOUSIA in question is
authority to forgive sins). I think that Matthew INTENDS the reader to see
the authority to excommunicate an offending brother as specifically
referred to in the authority to bind and loose in 18:18.
(3) Ward admits that Mt 16:19 and 18:18 need to be understood in
conjunction, as both use the future perfect passive and both also use the
verbs LUW and DEW. I admit that these verbs may admit broader meanings than
merely those of "unbar" and "bar," but what specifically should be said of
the KLEIDAS THS BASILEIAS TWN OURANWN in 16:19? Are these keys just a
generalized symbol of authority? Or are they specifically symbols of
authority to admit and to exclude from the BASILEIA TWN OURANWN? Inasmuch
as "enter into the Kingdom of Heaven" is a distinctly Matthaean formula
(e.g. 5:20, 18:3), I am inclined to think that admission to and exclusion
from the Kingdom of Heaven is the precise referent to the "Keys of the
Kingdom of Heaven."
>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.
Something about the logic of this understanding of the conditional clause
strikes me as "fishy." Ward says: "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)."
What we have here is a present general condition; despite the fact that it
is called "present," it neverthless refers only to the future, and
specifically to any future circumstance in which the "individual leader or
the church leadership corporately" may bind or loose X on earth. Ward wants
to read this in temporal terms: heavenly time and earthly time are
contemporaneous, supposedly. And the decision, whatever it may be, that
earthly leadership makes will be a decision that has already PREVIOUSLY
been made by heavenly authority. Earthly authority (of church leaders, at
least) cannot possibly make a decision which has not been previously
divinely ordained! Is that really what is meant here?
Again I would submit that the future perfect tense here is being
misunderstood. A perfect tense expresses the condition of completeness or
completion appropriate to the verb in question. So John 20:23 uses AFEWNTAI
and KEKRATHNTAI of whatsoever sins that the church leadership AFHi or
KRATHi. I don't think this means anything more or less than the future
perfects of Mt 16:19 and 18:18. As I've argued before, I think that the
meaning of the future perfect in those two verses is that the decisions
made by earthly church leadership WILL HAVE AUTHORITATIVE STATUS--not that
they will have been authorized before those decisions are made. Rather, in
both passages, I think that the future perfects are meant to assure the
"heirs of Peter" and the "apostolic succession" that they should make their
decisions solemnly with assurance of heavenly ratification.
And I will go one step further than I ought to go and say that I don't
understand this to mean that, if an unrepentant sinner has been
excommunicated from the church, he or she cannot ever be readmitted. Rather
I would assume that should such a sinner come to repentance, then he or she
might yet be forgiven a four-hundred-and-ninety-first time, and that
forgiveness also will have heavenly ratification. I have added this note
for clarification's sake, lest I be misunderstood as suggesting that (a)
repentance is not important, or (b) decisions made by church leadership are
irreversible. I don't think either (a) or (b) is implied by the
interpretation I've suggested for Mt 18:18 and 16:19.
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/