I have a small misunderstanding with Carl which I hope I can clear up
speedily - I am keen to clarify a few points arising out of his detailed
reply to my post.
After quoting my understanding of Mt 16:19 and 18:18, Carl says:
>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?
To which I reply: No, it is not what is meant here. And it is not what I
said. From an earlier contributor I quoted the view,
>>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.
Then I give two problems with this understanding which I say (in my
judgement) rule it out as a legitimate interpretation of the verses in
question. I am NOT saying, as Carl understands my meaning, that "the
decision, whatever it may be, that earthly leadership makes will be a
decision that has previously been made by heavenly authority", as if earthly
leadership will find this is invariably the situation. To the contrary, I
made the point that
>>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.
Therefore (to quote my previous post again) I hold that what an individual
leader or the church leadership corporately bind upon earth MUST BE that
which (and only that which) will first have been bound in heaven, and ditto
re loosing: that is, they are required and obliged to see that their earthly
pronouncements will accord with the eternal verities of God's authority.
I trust that clarifies the small misunderstanding. On the major issue, the
meaning of the future perfect in Mt 16:19 and 18:18: Carl says, after
quoting me,
>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.
The wording of John 20:22-23 is indeed different from Mt 16:19/18:18. In
fact, they do not have a single word in common. I cannot see any reason for
coming to the view that they are referring to the same thing.
>(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.
I do not find it self-evident that Mt 18:15-17 is discussing authority in
the forgiveness and absolution of sins, nor the authority to excommunicate
an offending brother. And the whole question at issue is whether the wording
of 18:18 is conveying an "authority to bind and loose". I cannot agree that
it does, and especially not in any sense that involves excommunication. I
have looked up the standard lexica on my shelves and I do not find any
examples of DEW or LUW used in any way in connection with absolution or
excommunication. But BAGD on DEW, in discussing meaning (4) (on page 178),
cites the Aramaic equivalents of our words DEW and LUW as being "academic
language for the decision of the rabbis as to what was to be regarded as
'bound' i.e. forbidden, or 'loosed' i.e. permitted." Mounce's Lexicon says
on DEW (p.136), "in N.T., to pronounce or declare to be binding or
obligatory, or, to declare to be prohibited or unlawful Matt 16:19; 18:18";
and, in respect of LUW (p.305), "in N.T., to declare free, of privileges,
or, in respect of lawfulness Matt 16:19".
Similarly, the Word Study Dictionary (Zodhiates), on DEW in Mt 16:19 and
18:18 says (p.411f.), "This means that we as believers on earth can only
confirm what has already been decided in heaven. Heaven does not have to
confirm our pronouncements ... Here the kingdom, or church, is compared to
an edifice to which the Apostles have the keys ... Accordingly, as they shut
or open the door to anything that should be believed or rejected in the
church on earth, it must be in agreement with what God has already ordained
in heaven. ... 'Binding and loosing' were idiomatic expressions among the
rabbis denoting what these rabbis permitted the people to do or not to do.
The disciples were acting in a similar manner as the rabbis for the Jews,
but they were acting on behalf of all believers."
That is to say, in this teaching directed first to Peter and then to the
others also, Jesus tells them that what they (as church leaders) will forbid
and permit is to be only "what has already been decided in heaven".
>(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."
It is not self-evident that keys are a symbol of authority. They are the
means by which something is opened or closed. In discussing the meaning of
the keys of the kingdom of heaven we are moving one step away from the Greek
text and into the realm of theology. Well, so be it. We all realize that in
this matter those of differing traditions hold differing interpretations. As
I read the Scripture: The meaning is linked to the context, Mt 16:13-18.
Peter has just declared that Jesus is "the Messiah, the Son of the Living
God". Jesus pronounces him blessed and declares that upon this basic bedrock
(PETRA) - himself as the Son of God - he will build his church. The keys of
the kingdom of heaven, the means by which one enters the kingdom of heaven,
is receiving Christ as Lord, which follows upon the proclamation of the
gospel. Christ Jesus is the foundation upon which the church is built (1 Cor
3:11; Ephesians 2:20). Peter used the keys when he proclaimed Christ to the
crowds at Pentecost, to Cornelius in his house, and to the others we read
about in Acts. Through his preaching he opened the kingdom of heaven to all
who believe. I find no basis for holding that the keys are either (as Carl
puts it) "a generalized symbol of authority" or "specifically symbols of
authority to admit and exclude from the BASILEIA TWN OURANWN". God alone
admits to the kingom of heaven, through and upon one's faith being placed in
Christ as Lord. Neither Mt 16 nor 18 nor any other part of Scripture teaches
that this authority has been given to men.
Carl continues:
>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.
The crux of Carl's position, which he highlights by putting it in capitals
for emphasis, is: "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". This is where we differ. To the contrary, I take it
that the use of the future perfect is precisely what excludes this line of
interpretation. Rather, church leaders (in the person of Peter and the
others) are being told that what they do in the way of binding and loosing
(forbidding and permitting) must be (that is, they are to take care to see
that it only will be) what is in accord with what has been the predetermined
will of God in these matters. That is to say, church leaders MUST (i.e., are
required to) learn the nature of God's will in such matters, and are NOT
authorized to change at some point in time what have been God's foreordained
moral standards, either in the matter of what they forbid or what they permit.
I have greatly profited from Carl's wisdom ever since I joined the b-greek
list, and expect to continue to do so. But in this matter I must dissent.
Respectfully, I completely differ from the interpretation which Carl draws
from these future perfects.
Phew!! All this from a couple of future perfects. But the matters they raise
are not without their significance for the church of God.
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