My OperaBinding and Loosing
Monday, January 14, 2008 5:05:44 AM
Exegetical Comments
Matt 16:19 & 18:18
(1st Draft)
Matt 16.19 δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.
I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.
Matt 18.18 Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν• ὅσα ἐὰν δήσητε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένα ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ ὅσα ἐὰν λύσητε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένα ἐν οὐρανῷ.
Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.
Purpose
The binding and loosing language of Matt 16:19 and 18:18 have been used particularly to support the sacerdotalism of the Roman Catholic church (and particularly the supremacy of Peter as the first Pope). Does this language in fact support this? This essay examines the exegetical evidence from the passages from a strictly contextual-grammatical approach. Historical-cultural background will be the subject of another essay.
Contextual Considerations
The primary theme of the passage, beginning particularly in vs. 13 (but set up in the prior sections), is the revelation of Jesus as the Messianic king and the resulting consequence of entry or exclusion from the kingdom. This theme of kingdom entrance has already been clearly established in Matthew, cf. 7:21, 11:12, and is here reinforced by a) the parallelism between the church and the kingdom of heaven (=of God, a frequent metonymy in Matthew), and b) the imagery of the keys. He who holds the keys controls the door. Similar imagery may be found in Rev 9:1-6 and 20:1-3 (cf., possibly, Isa 22:15, 22). It is significant that this language of entry is tied directly to the revelation of Christ as the Messiah. The emphasis in 16:17-18 is not so much on Peter as the confessor as on the confession itself. The central point is the fact of Christ as the Messiah, as this revelation of God’s eschatological purpose in the fullness of time (cf. Matt 5:17ff). Peter’s place as the first one so to confess Christ as leader of the apostles is important, but the text invites us to look beyond Peter and see Christ, or to see Peter’s importance as confessing Peter, with the content of the confession primary.
It is to Peter as the first confessor and the primus inter pares and representative of the disciples that these keys are given. Clearly, however, the authority of the keys will be shared by all the disciples, as the parallel passage in Matt 18:18 indicates (more on this, and particularly the interesting grammatical variations, below). The power to include and exclude, the power to grant entry or to bar entrance, is entrusted to the disciples themselves.
However, one might object, doesn’t the use of the relative neuter pronoun (ὃ ἐὰν, “whatever”) indicate a kind of movement from the specific to the general? In other words, the power may be specifically to permit or exclude entry into the kingdom, but that power could be seen as one application of a more general authority granted to Peter and his fellow disciples. The interpretation is unlikely. As Carson points out, Greek grammar will often use the neuter pronoun when referring to a class of people. While a bit ambiguous here, this is clearly the case once again in Matt 18:18, where the relative neuter plural indefinite pronoun is used in a context where people must be understood. The neuter pronoun therefore does not refer to a generalized power, but to the fact that people in general may be included or excluded with regard to the church.
This then leads to better understanding of the precise limits of the specific binding and loosing language. The construction is periphrastic, the use of the future tense of the verb “to be” with the perfect participle to complete the meaning of the verb. The actual grammar has been seen as somewhat ambiguous. Some commentators have suggested that the emphasis is on the futurity of the verb, with the perfect participle denoting the lasting effect of the decisions made. Connections are usually made to John 20:23 and Luke 12:52. Others have pointed out that the periphrastic construction is typical of the future perfect, and may be so used even in Classical Greek, even though Classical has a perfectly good non-periphrastic future perfect form.
If the purpose of binding and loosing may be derived contextually, as referring to kingdom entrance, then the precise grammatical force is not quite as important as sometimes argued. Sacerdotalism neither stands nor falls on this one passage. Nevertheless, a good case may be argued for the true future perfect usage of the verbs here, indicating that the church is ratifying the decisions of heaven with regard to kingdom entrance. The default reading of the form would be tend to be future perfect, and one would want specific evidence from the contrary that something else is intended, and there is really no such evidence here (as, for example, there is in Luke 12:52, note the parallelism with the future tense). The use of the future perfect here demonstrates that the action has already been completed in heaven, and will be echoed, so to speak by the apostles.
As pointed out above, Matt 18:18 uses nearly the identical language, but with slight variations in grammar and a major variation in context. Matt 18:15-20 concerns what today is often called “church discipline.” The focus is not so much on initial entry into God’s kingdom, as it is on those who have already been granted entry, but prove through their own actions that they truly do no belong as members of the church (this is an argument against the infallibility of the decisions made in 16:19). There are several steps to be followed in correcting these erring brethren, and if these fail, the disciples must render a “final” decision. This is still really the same theme of exclusion/inclusion, but demonstrating that it is a dynamic process rather than a one dimensional sort of choice.
The grammatical variations are the use of the neuter plural to refer to the people, rather than the singular, and the use of the plural to refer to all the disciples whom Jesus is addressing. The former is significant in that the parallelism reinforces the “people” interpretation of 16:19. The plural verbs indicate that all of the disciples are involved in these decisions, not simply Peter alone.
18:19-20 indicates that the relationship between prayer and the decision of heaven are organic and related, and that what is in view is not simply a kind dictational passing on of God’s will in some sort of infallible sense, but a true dependence on the will of God. Prayer is an essential part of the process, and should not be overlooked. The pronouncements of the disciples are not ex cathedra/ex officio fiats, but decisions steeped in prayer (cf. James 1:5).
Matt 16:19 & 18:18
(1st Draft)
Matt 16.19 δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.
I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.
Matt 18.18 Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν• ὅσα ἐὰν δήσητε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένα ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ ὅσα ἐὰν λύσητε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένα ἐν οὐρανῷ.
Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.
Purpose
The binding and loosing language of Matt 16:19 and 18:18 have been used particularly to support the sacerdotalism of the Roman Catholic church (and particularly the supremacy of Peter as the first Pope). Does this language in fact support this? This essay examines the exegetical evidence from the passages from a strictly contextual-grammatical approach. Historical-cultural background will be the subject of another essay.
Contextual Considerations
The primary theme of the passage, beginning particularly in vs. 13 (but set up in the prior sections), is the revelation of Jesus as the Messianic king and the resulting consequence of entry or exclusion from the kingdom. This theme of kingdom entrance has already been clearly established in Matthew, cf. 7:21, 11:12, and is here reinforced by a) the parallelism between the church and the kingdom of heaven (=of God, a frequent metonymy in Matthew), and b) the imagery of the keys. He who holds the keys controls the door. Similar imagery may be found in Rev 9:1-6 and 20:1-3 (cf., possibly, Isa 22:15, 22). It is significant that this language of entry is tied directly to the revelation of Christ as the Messiah. The emphasis in 16:17-18 is not so much on Peter as the confessor as on the confession itself. The central point is the fact of Christ as the Messiah, as this revelation of God’s eschatological purpose in the fullness of time (cf. Matt 5:17ff). Peter’s place as the first one so to confess Christ as leader of the apostles is important, but the text invites us to look beyond Peter and see Christ, or to see Peter’s importance as confessing Peter, with the content of the confession primary.
It is to Peter as the first confessor and the primus inter pares and representative of the disciples that these keys are given. Clearly, however, the authority of the keys will be shared by all the disciples, as the parallel passage in Matt 18:18 indicates (more on this, and particularly the interesting grammatical variations, below). The power to include and exclude, the power to grant entry or to bar entrance, is entrusted to the disciples themselves.
However, one might object, doesn’t the use of the relative neuter pronoun (ὃ ἐὰν, “whatever”) indicate a kind of movement from the specific to the general? In other words, the power may be specifically to permit or exclude entry into the kingdom, but that power could be seen as one application of a more general authority granted to Peter and his fellow disciples. The interpretation is unlikely. As Carson points out, Greek grammar will often use the neuter pronoun when referring to a class of people. While a bit ambiguous here, this is clearly the case once again in Matt 18:18, where the relative neuter plural indefinite pronoun is used in a context where people must be understood. The neuter pronoun therefore does not refer to a generalized power, but to the fact that people in general may be included or excluded with regard to the church.
This then leads to better understanding of the precise limits of the specific binding and loosing language. The construction is periphrastic, the use of the future tense of the verb “to be” with the perfect participle to complete the meaning of the verb. The actual grammar has been seen as somewhat ambiguous. Some commentators have suggested that the emphasis is on the futurity of the verb, with the perfect participle denoting the lasting effect of the decisions made. Connections are usually made to John 20:23 and Luke 12:52. Others have pointed out that the periphrastic construction is typical of the future perfect, and may be so used even in Classical Greek, even though Classical has a perfectly good non-periphrastic future perfect form.
If the purpose of binding and loosing may be derived contextually, as referring to kingdom entrance, then the precise grammatical force is not quite as important as sometimes argued. Sacerdotalism neither stands nor falls on this one passage. Nevertheless, a good case may be argued for the true future perfect usage of the verbs here, indicating that the church is ratifying the decisions of heaven with regard to kingdom entrance. The default reading of the form would be tend to be future perfect, and one would want specific evidence from the contrary that something else is intended, and there is really no such evidence here (as, for example, there is in Luke 12:52, note the parallelism with the future tense). The use of the future perfect here demonstrates that the action has already been completed in heaven, and will be echoed, so to speak by the apostles.
As pointed out above, Matt 18:18 uses nearly the identical language, but with slight variations in grammar and a major variation in context. Matt 18:15-20 concerns what today is often called “church discipline.” The focus is not so much on initial entry into God’s kingdom, as it is on those who have already been granted entry, but prove through their own actions that they truly do no belong as members of the church (this is an argument against the infallibility of the decisions made in 16:19). There are several steps to be followed in correcting these erring brethren, and if these fail, the disciples must render a “final” decision. This is still really the same theme of exclusion/inclusion, but demonstrating that it is a dynamic process rather than a one dimensional sort of choice.
The grammatical variations are the use of the neuter plural to refer to the people, rather than the singular, and the use of the plural to refer to all the disciples whom Jesus is addressing. The former is significant in that the parallelism reinforces the “people” interpretation of 16:19. The plural verbs indicate that all of the disciples are involved in these decisions, not simply Peter alone.
18:19-20 indicates that the relationship between prayer and the decision of heaven are organic and related, and that what is in view is not simply a kind dictational passing on of God’s will in some sort of infallible sense, but a true dependence on the will of God. Prayer is an essential part of the process, and should not be overlooked. The pronouncements of the disciples are not ex cathedra/ex officio fiats, but decisions steeped in prayer (cf. James 1:5).
