>
> 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?
See preceding paragraph.
> 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.
At this point, I believe we're agreeing.
> 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".
>
I think that the divine authority is implied, but it seems
to me that the NT writers had a more concrete idea of "in heaven"
than that -- a notion that is only slightly removed, if at all,
from "in the skies." Paul talks about being "caught up to
the third heaven," and the author of Ephesians refers frequently
to the overheavens (as in 1.3: "EN TOIS EPOURANIOS). It seems
there was a fairly concrete notion of a hierarchy of sky-y levels,
and that in passing from this AIWN to the next, we are also
passing to "a new sky and a new land" (2 Pet 3.13 or Apoc. 21.1,
for example).
Given this, there may also be a more concrete notion of the
binding or loosing being found already to have been made effective
in the other AIWN/OURANOS/GH.
Regards,
j.v.