Binding and loosing - Mt 18:18

[holdon]

Do you know anything about Greek grammar? Do you know what a future perfect passive means in Greek grammar? Check out NAS, ESV, NET for correct rendering on this.

A perfect passive participle does not put the whole clause, "shall have been bound" back into the past. That is the error. It is still a future tense. It's fine to render "shall have been bound", but it doesn't mean that the event therefore took place in the past. It is still a future tense by all means.

I suggest you study a little more, based on correct understanding of Greek grammar before you make statements about "disastrous" potential.

Well, a disaster would be if someone would claim that Heaven had bound (forbid) to smoke cigars (example. but you could fill in: to marry, etc..). Because him (or a group) saying so, that necessarily Heaven had already decided it.

And based on what in this text do you support this? You haven't established anything for this hypothesis based on the text.

I think the context makes it clear enough...

But what text is your hypothesis based on that the all earthly decisions have already been made in heaven?

 

[justified]

Do you know anything about Greek grammar? Do you know what a future perfect passive means in Greek grammar? Check out NAS, ESV, NET for correct rendering on this.

I know quite a bit about Greek grammar, so let's talk about it.

The form of the verbs is future perfect passive participle (actually a combination of two verbs forms that make this). And so translating it that way:

You are referring to the future εσται and the perfect middle/passive participle form δεδεμενα. I take it you mean to suggest a periphrastic construction. The periphrastic is not always so black and white as you seem to have made it here. All verbs must be taken contextually. I'm sure you acknowledge the fact that language is more than words. Thus also the same phrase in Matt. 16.19 should be taken into account. This particular construction, perfect passive with a future tense, occurs only periphrastically (Robertson Grammar, p.361). For Robertson, of course, it was simple because the solution of aktionsort -- kind of action. Thus the future perfect was the futurm exactum (ibid, p.907) and simply referred to punctiliar future action (or less commonly durative).

We know now that things are not as easily-read as we thought. The breakthroughs in discourse analysis and verbal aspect have shown that we can't simply read a word in isolation. Nor does "tense" mean nearly as much once you get out of the indicative. In participial forms, "time" is rather abstract and relative. According to my numbers (and here I have to use Strong's Tags because I'm not at a computer with Bibleworks) only Matt. 16.19; 18.18 have this explicit periphrastic construction. The other possibity is of course II Timothy 2:21: εαν ουν τις εκκαθαρη εαυτον απο τουτων εσται σκευος εις τιμην ηγιασμενον και ευχρηστον τω δεσποτη εις παν εργον αγαθον ητοιμασμενον. "if therefore someone purges himself from these things, he will be a fine vessel[1], made holy, and useful to the master, prepared for every good work. Both the participles are perfect passives.

[1]lit: vessel unto honor: that is, a vessel for special occasions.

What MUST be done is to take the passage in context, carefully. I don't have time to give a full exegesis here, and a passage such as this requires full exegesis to have justice done to it. Therefore, I will hold off.

The statement,

Chronologically, God has bound/loosed prior to the announcement by the person.

Is not nearly so clear when the context is examined.

 

[dcyates]

[/color][/size]
I know quite a bit about Greek grammar, so let's talk about it.


You are referring to the future εσται and the perfect middle/passive participle form δεδεμενα. I take it you mean to suggest a periphrastic construction. The periphrastic is not always so black and white as you seem to have made it here. All verbs must be taken contextually. I'm sure you acknowledge the fact that language is more than words. Thus also the same phrase in Matt. 16.19 should be taken into account. This particular construction, perfect passive with a future tense, occurs only periphrastically (Robertson Grammar, p.361). For Robertson, of course, it was simple because the solution of aktionsort -- kind of action. Thus the future perfect was the futurm exactum (ibid, p.907) and simply referred to punctiliar future action (or less commonly durative).

We know now that things are not as easily-read as we thought. The breakthroughs in discourse analysis and verbal aspect have shown that we can't simply read a word in isolation. Nor does "tense" mean nearly as much once you get out of the indicative. In participial forms, "time" is rather abstract and relative. According to my numbers (and here I have to use Strong's Tags because I'm not at a computer with Bibleworks) only Matt. 16.19; 18.18 have this explicit periphrastic construction. The other possibity is of course II Timothy 2:21: εαν ουν τις εκκαθαρη εαυτον απο τουτων εσται σκευος εις τιμην ηγιασμενον και ευχρηστον τω δεσποτη εις παν εργον αγαθον ητοιμασμενον. "if therefore someone purges himself from these things, he will be a fine vessel[1], made holy, and useful to the master, prepared for every good work. Both the participles are perfect passives.

[1]lit: vessel unto honor: that is, a vessel for special occasions.

What MUST be done is to take the passage in context, carefully. I don't have time to give a full exegesis here, and a passage such as this requires full exegesis to have justice done to it. Therefore, I will hold off.

The statement,

[/color]
Is not nearly so clear when the context is examined.

Excellent points, justified. As much as I respect and normally agree with filosofer (if his flag is indicative, he's a fellow Irishman, after all), the type of hermeneutical word study he advocates for here has seen its day; the manner in which we all of us use language simply doesn't work this way. Whenever we speak or write, are we really all that aware of the fact that the verb we may have just used was a 'future perfect dative of the passive voice in the optative mood'? And what's more, you're entirely correct that we're no longer all that certain just as to what is intended by 'tense' vis-à-vis Greek verb conjugations. (You and I didn't happen to share the same Greek prof, did we?)

 

[discipleship8]

I am glad people actually read the word in its context, i know i didn't at first, because i went to a penticostal church.

 

[GenemZ]

I'm sure everyone is familiar with the binding and loosing in Mt 16:19 and Mt 18:18
Her is the NRSV version:

Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven (Mt 18;18)

I've looked at several Bibles and they all have more or less the same wording - we bind & heaven follows, we loose and heaven follows.

But I heard the other day that this is mistranslating the greek and that it's actually the other way round. I looked up this passage in the Amplified Bible and this is what I found:

Truly I tell you, whatever you forbid and declare to be improper and unlawful on earth must be what is already forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit and declare proper and lawful on earth must be whatever is already permitted in heaven. (Mt 18:18) Mt 16:19 is similar but this is clearer.

So this is saying we have to discern what is already bound in heaven and then apply that on earth, and discern what is already loosed in heaven and then apply this on earth - rather different.


Any comments?

Jesus was working within a Jewish way of thinking. What he was doing was transferring authority, the authority of the rabbis who sat in the seat of Moses, to his own disciples. The term is called "Halakhah."

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9038847

Halakah had to do with rules and regulations for the believer community which sat outside of the realm of direct comment from within the Law. Such as, "was it acceptable for a woman to comb her hair on the Sabbath?"

Now, that I just made up. But, its an example of the authority that the spiritual leaders were granted. They would "bind or loose" according to their Biblical knowledge and common sense. God set up this system for church community authority.

It could be abused (as the leaders in Jesus day had done). Or, it could be for blessing when the community was positive to following after God's Word. Abuses of Halakah was rampant in Jesus day. Here is an example of what I speak of.

Luke 11:46 niv
"Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them."

They were binding and loosing the people with abusive regulations by the authority granted them when they were the assigned to establish Halakah. They were being abusive in their authority. Jesus said they were.


Matthew 23:4 (New King James Version)
"For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers."

Yet, Jesus never commanded a rebellion.

Matthew 23:1-3 niv
"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."

Jesus was telling his disciples that he was to grant them this same authority over his Church age believers (future tense) when they come into power as Apostles. That is why we see the future tense!

They were to bind and loosen. That is why there were later on church councils given. Of course, just like in Jesus day, along the way there have been abuses along with good overseeing authority.

Two or more were required to agree on an issue before it was to officially become Halakah.

Matthew 18:17-20 (New International Version)
"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.



"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will bebound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.



"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

It was also to be used in settling community disputes amongst believers. If two agreed on an issue then it was to be honored as community law within a local church; or depending, for the universal church at that time (Acts 15:29).


Like anything else. There could be abuse or blessings, coming from this authority. There is no guaranteed ex cathedra with Halakah. It must agree with God's Word in how it influences those under Halakah for to be a blessing. Yet, God honors the choices made. Be it for good. Or, be it for cursing. It will be bound in Heaven! (and held against those who abuse their authority). Jesus warned that those under them, must obey the abusive rabbinical Halakah. For, it was bound in Heaven to have this authority.

Matthew 23:1-3 niv
"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."

If enough believers are positive to Truth under such a rule. The Lord will raise up a Luther type to lead the way out of the tyranny that has organized. But, until that happens, they need to obey. That is, as long as the believers are not breaking civil law in what they are demanded. God can use such abuse of Halakah as a means to test positive believers and use it for future blessing when the truth sets them free.


Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[filosofer]

You are referring to the future ????? and the perfect middle/passive participle form ????????. I take it you mean to suggest a periphrastic construction. The periphrastic is not always so black and white as you seem to have made it here. All verbs must be taken contextually. I'm sure you acknowledge the fact that language is more than words. Thus also the same phrase in Matt. 16.19 should be taken into account. This particular construction, perfect passive with a future tense, occurs only periphrastically (Robertson Grammar, p.361). For Robertson, of course, it was simple because the solution of aktionsort -- kind of action. Thus the future perfect was the futurm exactum (ibid, p.907) and simply referred to punctiliar future action (or less commonly durative).

We know now that things are not as easily-read as we thought. The breakthroughs in discourse analysis and verbal aspect have shown that we can't simply read a word in isolation. Nor does "tense" mean nearly as much once you get out of the indicative. In participial forms, "time" is rather abstract and relative. According to my numbers (and here I have to use Strong's Tags because I'm not at a computer with Bibleworks) only Matt. 16.19; 18.18 have this explicit periphrastic construction. The other possibity is of course II Timothy 2:21: ??? ??? ??? ???????? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????????? ??? ????????? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ????????????. "if therefore someone purges himself from these things, he will be a fine vessel[1], made holy, and useful to the master, prepared for every good work. Both the participles are perfect passives.

[1]lit: vessel unto honor: that is, a vessel for special occasions.

What MUST be done is to take the passage in context, carefully. I don't have time to give a full exegesis here, and a passage such as this requires full exegesis to have justice done to it. Therefore, I will hold off.

Since I have been out of town for several days, I have not had time to respond (and just got back tonight, so my response will short).

I find it interesting that you are trying make a point with your comment "We know now..." referring to discourse analysis. And I agree there is significant progress made in discourse analysis, etc. But you haven't really addressed that here. And yet your references are only to Robertson's Grammar which is 70+ years old, and is not always to be trusted even as a resource from that era, and Strong's which is a secondary resource, and your trying make points about "primary study" of the Greek text and contemporary advances in word studies, grammar, discourse analysis?

I think there is a disconnect here.


In Christ's love,
filo

 

[StevenMerten]

But I heard the other day that this is mistranslating the greek and that it's actually the other way round. I looked up this passage in the Amplified Bible and this is what I found:

Truly I tell you, whatever you forbid and declare to be improper and unlawful on earth must be what is already forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit and declare proper and lawful on earth must be whatever is already permitted in heaven. (Mt 18:18) Mt 16:19 is similar but this is clearer.

So this is saying we have to discern what is already bound in heaven and then apply that on earth, and discern what is already loosed in heaven and then apply this on earth - rather different.
Any comments?

Hello winsome,

I am Catholic and I see you indicate yourself as Catholic also. For two thousand years the Church has based the sacrament of Reconciliation on Jesus' promise to loost sins in heaven that the Church, on earth, calls upon Him to loost. If one were to believe this Amplified Bible definition then one would have to believe that the priest, in loosting sins, is saying, "Your sin is now permitted in heaven and on earth". This is not what the priest is saying. The priest is saying that by the power granted by Jesus Christ, you are forgiven (loost) of your sin. What you have done is still sin but, by the power invested in the Church through Jesus Christ, your sin is forgiven.

NAB MAT 16:13

Jesus replied, "Blest are you, Simon son of John! No mere man has revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. I for my part declare to you, you are 'Rock,' and on this rock I will build my church, and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it. I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

​

NAB JOH 20:20

At the sight of the Lord the disciples rejoiced. "Peace be with you," he said again. "As the Father has sent me, so I send you." Then he breathed on them and said: "Recieve the Holy Spirit. If you forgive men's sins, they are forgiven them; if you hold them bound, they are held bound." ​

NAB MAT 18:17

"If he ignores them, refer it to the church . If he ignores even the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. I assure you, whatever you declare bound on earth shall be held bound in heaven, and whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be held loosed in heaven." ​

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten