At 1:26 AM -0400 7/31/97, Ward Powers wrote:
>At 09:03 97/07/30 -0400, Carl Conrad replied to my earlier post on this topic.
>
>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.
>
> . . . 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
>. . .
>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.
I confess that I did indeed misunderstand Ward's argument and intent. I
think I understand it now and I can see its appeal--that decisions made by
the earthly authority of the church must be in accord with what the divine
will holds. I can only say, however, that I am not convinced that is what
the text really means.
>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.
I will grant that the wording is quite different. What makes me think that
it reflects a common oral tradition of authority vested in the disciples is
(a) the explicit authority given to the disciples in Jn 20:22-23 along with
their sending and the gift of the spirit matches the context of Mt 18:15-20
(which I see as a unit) and its concern with excommunication of the
unrepentant sinner, and (b) the view that I expressed in my earlier message
about the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" and Mt's recurrent formula, EAN
MH ... OU MH EISELQHiS EIS THN BASILEIAN TWN OURANWN. Furthermore, I would
not assume that the wording would coincide as in the case of the so-called
"Q" passages in Mt and Lk, where a Greek-language prototype is assumed to
underly both Matthaean and Lucan phrasing, but rather I would assume that
the same tradition of authority vested by Jesus in the disciples underlies
the phrasing in both Mt and Jn. This may be wrong, but it's what I think.
>>(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."
(a) The linkage of Mt 18:15-17 and 18:18-20 is a matter of judgment. My own
view of Matthew's redactional style leads me to think that the
juxtaposition of these two blocks, granting that they may not have been
transmitted together, is deliberate on his part and reflects his
understanding of how the church leadership should deal with an unrepentant
sinner and of the authority the church has to do so.
(b) I will not deny that the weight of lexicographical authority is against
my view (although I have no scruples about bucking lexicographical
authority if I think it is wrong). It may well be that rabbinical usage
does underly the meaning of DEW and LUW here. I do wish that 16:19 were not
so heavily overladen with theological controversy over Petrine authority,
because I think one's views on that matter tend to influence how one reads
that whole context. Nevertheless, I would note here the warning of Louw and
Nida that I cited at the outset: one ought to conside the full range of
understandings of DEW and LUW before reaching oe's own conclusions about
what they must mean at Mt 18:18 and 16:19.
>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".
>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.
Yes, this is theological interpretation and indeed it is the traditional
Protestant inerpretation of the passage. I once found it more convincing
than I do now, although I am myself Protestant. I now think there is a
tradition of Petrine leadership in the synoptic gospels as well as in
John's gospel, but this tradition will be interpreted differently by
different persons. But as for the authority given to men, I pointed
yesterday to Mt's version of the story of the Healing of the Paralytic,
where Mt 9:8 explicitly states, IDONTES DE hOI OCLOI EFOBHQHSAN KAI
EDOXASAN TON QEON TON DONTA EXOUSIAN TOIAUTHN TOIS ANQRWPOIS. In fact the
only EXOUSIA in question is (9:6) EXOUSIAN EPI GHS ... AFIENAI hAMARTIAS.
And while it is the "Son of Man" who exercises this authority in this
instance, but some would argue that the plural ANQRWPOI points
proleptically to this authority exercised by church leadership. I am not
arguing for or against this interpretation, but simply noting that there is
more than way of understanding Matthew's conception of authority in the
church.
>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.
My thanks again to Ward; I hope that I have cleared up the point or two on
which I misunderstood his position and that I have further clarified my own
position. I still think Ward's understanding of the future perfect is
unnatural, while he holds it is the only way to make sense of it.
>Phew!! All this from a couple of future perfects. But the matters they raise
>are not without their significance for the church of God.
Yes indeed! Conceivably even as significant as that Iota of difference
between HOMOIOUSIOS and HOMOOUSIOS that split eastern and western
Christendom apart.
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/