"(c) The Future Perfect ... There was never much need for this tense,
perfect action in future time. It is rare in ancient Greek and in the
LXX ... The only active forms in the NT are EIDHSW (Heb 8:11) and the
periphrastic form ESMAI PEPOIQWS (Heb 2:13, LXX also). Both of these are
intensive ... In HZOUSIN (Lk 19:43) we have a practical future perfect
(intensive). For the rest the future exactum is expressed only by means
of the perfect part. and EIMI. This idiom is found in the LXX (the
active in ... the passive in Gen 41:36; Ex 12;6). NT examples are ... Mt
16:19 ... 18:18 .... Lu 12:52. These all seem to be extensive. For a
sketch of the future perfect see Thompson, Syntax of Attic Greek, p. 225
f. This tense died before the future did."
I wonder what insights Thompson might have in his sketch. Probably
pretty sketchy.
At any rate, it does seem that the options are two: taking it extensively
(your #1955 below) or taking it intensively (#1956).
If it is to be taken intensively, then the sense of the verse is simply
to assure them that whatever they shall bind or loose on earth most
assuredly will be bound or loosed (by God) in heaven. This raises an
interesting question. Does their binding or loosing precede or follow
the binding or loosing in heaven? I don't think we can force the
completed action of the perfect here to necessarily be action antecedent
to their actual binding or loosing, can we? Let's assume not. Could it
not be that the heavenly binding or loosing is done simultaneously with,
or actually follows that of the earthly binding or loosing? Let's push
this a little farther.
Assuming (for the sake of argument) that the heavenly binding/loosing
does not precede the earthly, then verses 19-20 would seem to suggest
that whatever 2 or 3 Christians agree on in prayer that God is bound to
honor and actually promises to do so. The idea, then, is that (as
Jonathan Robie quizzically pondered earlier) we can have the assurance
that when 2 or 3 of us pray together for the repentance of a sinning
"brother," then it is sure to happen.
This poses a theological problem (its consideration IS essential to our
exegesis here). We know that if we ask anything according to His will
(QELHMA, 1 Jn 5:14-15) then God hears us, and that He will answer that
prayer. We know also we ask and receive not, because we ask amiss to
consume it upon our own lusts and desires (Jas 4:3). Is it safe to say
that God does not always answer our prayers (at least concerning the
repentance of sinning individuals) even when 2 or 3 Christians agree on
it? If He does not, then it was not His QELHMA, for if it was, then He
would have answered it accordingly (1 Jn 5:14-15).
Thus, it seems much better to interpret verses 19-20 in line with praying
according to God's will (QELHMA). If 2 or 3 Christians pray
together in accord with God's will, then it will be answered. The prayer
itself, then, is not something that precedes God's will, but follows it
and is in accord with it.
Since verses 19-20 reiterate (PALIN) the instruction of verses 15-18, the
affect is that we ought consistently to take the FPPPP in v. 18 as
extensive. What is being bound or loosed on earth is a reflection of
what has already been bound or loosed in heaven, just as the prayers
being offered in verse 19 are in accord with God's established will.
Paul Dixon
On Wed, 30 Jul 1997 12:20:30 -0400 "Carl W. Conrad"
<cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> writes:
>At 9:03 AM -0400 7/30/97, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
>My apologies for misstatement. This is what in the classical
>grammatical tradition is called a "Future More Vivid" rather than a
>"Present General" Condition: the Protasis envisions any conceivable
>occurrence of an action or event which will necessarily entail the
>consequence indicated in the Apodosis, which is normally in the Future
>Tense (Smyth says--#2323, 2326--"or any noyher form referring to
>future time."),
>
>
>Addendum: I've been endeavoring to do what I ought to have done when
>Paul Dixon first raised the question about these Future Perfects,
>namely, to consult the grammars regarding the sense of the future
>perfect. Curiously, I don't find that either BDF or Wallace recognize
>even the existence of the Future Perfect Tense (although I'll grant
>that there may be some discussion of it that I've missed).
>
>
>However, Smyth, albeit briefly, discusses the Future Perfect and its
>syntax in ##1955-1958). I cite what seem to me the more significant
>points:
>
>#1955: "The future perfect denotes a future state resulting from a
>completed action: ANAGEGRAYOMAI 'I shall stand enrolled,' DEDHSETAI
>'he
>shall be kept inprison; hH QURA KEKLHiSETAI 'the door will be kept
>shut.'"
>
>#1956: "When stress is laid upon complete fulfilment, the future
>perfectmay <italic>imply</italic> rapidity, immediate consequence, or
>certainty, of action accomplished in the future: FRAZE, KAI PEPRAXETAI
>'speak, and it shall be done instanter' Aristophanes, Pl. 1027, EUQUS
>ARIAIOS AFSTHXEI: hWSTE FILOS hHMIN OUDEIS LELEIYETAI 'Ariaeus will
>soon withdraw, so that we shall have no friend left'
>
>'Xen. Anabasis 2.4.5."
>
>#1957: "The future perfect may have an imperative force (1917):
>EIRHSETAI GAR T'ALHQES 'for the truth shall (let it) be spoken'
>Isocrates 1.7.76.'
>
>
>Ithink one of the neatest features of Smyth is his translations.
>
>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/
>
>