Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven

[TonyChanYT]

Peter confessed Jesus was the Christ. Jesus responded graciously in (ESV) Mat 16:

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,

i.e., the coming church

and whatever you [Peter, singular] bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

shall be
ἔσται (estai)
Verb - Future Indicative Middle - 3rd Person Singular

bound
δεδεμένον (dedemenon)
Verb - Perfect Participle Middle or Passive - Nominative Neuter Singular

The grammar shows a future perfect construct.

What kind of power was given to Peter in the context of the church?

It was the power to articulate the will in heaven concerning the church.

Berean Literal Bible:

I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you might bind on the earth shall have been bound in the heavens, and whatever you might loose on the earth shall have been loosed in the heavens."

Amplified Bible:

I will give you the keys (authority) of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind [forbid, declare to be improper and unlawful] on earth will have [already] been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose [permit, declare lawful] on earth will have [already] been loosed in heaven.”

After Jesus' resurrection, the church started to grow. An example of this authority happened in Acts 10:

10 And he [Peter] became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth.

The initiative came from above, not from Peter.

12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.”

Peter was empowered to declare foods and gentiles were clean.

Jesus repeated that binding and loosing language in Matthew 18:18

Truly, I say to you [apostles, plural], whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

On this occasion, what kind of power was given to the apostles?

Same thing. It was the power to articulate the will in heaven concerning the church.

An example of this authority happened at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:

28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

In this case, the initiative seems to come from both the apostles and the Holy Spirit. This is reflected in the ambiguity of the future perfect tense. It is also the concept of Co-Reality where both the vertical and the horizontal realities play a part together.

 

[Randy Kluth]

This is a much misunderstood verse often used and abused by Kingdom Now-type Christians, who think that Christians have been given the authority to bring angels and history into conformity with what they think "Scriptural Truth" is. That is purely a usurpation of God's Word and application of "Man's Interpretation" of what they think God's Word is, rather than God speaking through them!

The verse really implies God's trust in His people and ministers, giving them the ability to convey His forgiveness to men. "Loosing them" has the connotation of "forgiving them," as in God's willingness to forgive them on the basis of their confession of Christ. In sharing the Gospel with men, we are given the actual authority to bring God's forgiveness to them, giving them Salvation.

We are simply entrusted with God's Word, with the assurance that what we give to them in the way of the Gospel will actually produce true Salvation and a real relationship with God. Heaven is not conforming to our wishes, but rather, we are bringing Heaven's wishes to earth in the form of Salvation through our testimony to men.

On the other hand, we are also given the authority to condemn men, to "bind them," by that very same testimony. If men do not receive God's testimony, we can condemn them with authority, resulting eventually in their judgment. This is simply a validation of our testimony by "Heaven," ie by God.

 

[Phoneman777]

Peter confessed Jesus was the Christ. Jesus responded graciously in (ESV) Mat 16:


i.e., the coming church


shall be
ἔσται (estai)
Verb - Future Indicative Middle - 3rd Person Singular

bound
δεδεμένον (dedemenon)
Verb - Perfect Participle Middle or Passive - Nominative Neuter Singular

The grammar shows a future perfect construct.

What kind of power was given to Peter in the context of the church?

It was the power to articulate the will in heaven concerning the church.

Berean Literal Bible:


Amplified Bible:


After Jesus' resurrection, the church started to grow. An example of this authority happened in Acts 10:


The initiative came from above, not from Peter.


Peter was empowered to declare foods and gentiles were clean.

Jesus repeated that binding and loosing language in Matthew 18:18


On this occasion, what kind of power was given to the apostles?

Same thing. It was the power to articulate the will in heaven concerning the church.

An example of this authority happened at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:


In this case, the initiative seems to come from both the apostles and the Holy Spirit. This is reflected in the ambiguity of the future perfect tense. It is also the concept of Co-Reality where both the vertical and the horizontal realities play a part together.

The Apostles were not charged with declaring anything that was not already in accordance with the will of heaven, contrary to the Antichrist system in Rome which claims heaven must go along with whatever the catholic hierarchy decides:

"And God Himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution, provided the penitent is capable of it...The sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it." - Dignities and Duties of the Priest

Peter did not authorize consumption of unclean things. In Acts 10, he affirms the prohibition yet remains by declaring he's never eaten that which is forbidden, and later clarifies the meaning of his rooftop vision which has nothing to do with lifting dietary prohibition, but with putting to rest racial division.

 

[TonyChanYT]

Peter did not authorize consumption of unclean things

See If you think that Jesus does not allow his followers to eat pork today and wish to wager on it, I am taking wagers here and follow up there.

 

[Tulipbee]

Peter confessed Jesus was the Christ. Jesus responded graciously in (ESV) Mat 16:


i.e., the coming church


shall be
ἔσται (estai)
Verb - Future Indicative Middle - 3rd Person Singular

bound
δεδεμένον (dedemenon)
Verb - Perfect Participle Middle or Passive - Nominative Neuter Singular

The grammar shows a future perfect construct.

What kind of power was given to Peter in the context of the church?

It was the power to articulate the will in heaven concerning the church.

Berean Literal Bible:


Amplified Bible:


After Jesus' resurrection, the church started to grow. An example of this authority happened in Acts 10:


The initiative came from above, not from Peter.


Peter was empowered to declare foods and gentiles were clean.

Jesus repeated that binding and loosing language in Matthew 18:18


On this occasion, what kind of power was given to the apostles?

Same thing. It was the power to articulate the will in heaven concerning the church.

An example of this authority happened at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:


In this case, the initiative seems to come from both the apostles and the Holy Spirit. This is reflected in the ambiguity of the future perfect tense. It is also the concept of Co-Reality where both the vertical and the horizontal realities play a part together.

Ah, TonyChanYT, you've thrown the keys of interpretation into the biblical locksmith shop, and in the Calvinistic comedy club, we'll unlock the humor with a dash of theological wit. Let's address the power dynamics in the context of the church, just like Calvin would.
Quoting John Calvin with a playful chuckle: "Ah, the keys – not a papal privilege, but a divine authority shared among the apostles. Let's tap dance through the biblical grammar!" (Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 3)
Now, onto the binding and loosing language – a comedic twist in the Calvinistic script. Quoting Calvin again: "Binding and loosing – not a papal pronouncement, but a celestial collaboration between heaven and earth. It's a divine sitcom with the apostles as the leading characters!" (Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 3)
Let's delve into the Acts 10 trance episode, where Peter gets a heavenly vision. Quoting Calvin with a wink: "Peter's dietary declaration – not a papal menu, but a heavenly endorsement of clean eating. It's a celestial cooking show with Peter as the star chef!" (Commentary on Acts)
And the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 – a divine culinary council, if you will. Quoting Calvin in a lighthearted manner: "Abstaining from idols and avoiding strangulated meat – not a papal dietary code, but a Holy Spirit-approved menu. It's a heavenly health inspection with the apostles as the food critics!" (Commentary on Acts)
But, my theological comedy companion, let's tap dance through the wrongness of the papal system, using a Gospel beat. Quoting Paul's wisdom in Galatians 1:8: "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!" Ah, a divine warning against unreliable tales!
And a little jab at Mariology – quoting Calvin with a smirk: "Flee the fictional stories of Mariology; the Gospel truth stands firm, not in unreliable tales but in the pure Word of God." (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I, Chapter 7, Section 4)
So, TonyChanYT, let's keep the theological dance floor open, twirling through scriptures, and remember that the Gospel truth is the key that unlocks the divine comedy of salvation! #CalvinisticComedyClub #TheologicalTwirlLaughs #GospelKeysUnlock

 

[RedFan]

shall be
ἔσται (estai)
Verb - Future Indicative Middle - 3rd Person Singular

bound
δεδεμένον (dedemenon)
Verb - Perfect Participle Middle or Passive - Nominative Neuter Singular

The grammar shows a future perfect construct.

I have debated this point with Greek grammarians before, and some agree with you, but most disagree. ἔσται δεδεμένον is commonly translated either as "will be bound" or "will have been bound" -- but I think "will be bound" is the better translation. The perfect participle δεδεμένον would yield "bound" either way, but the future indicative verb ἔσται would need to be future perfect to better support "will have been bound." To quote Derrett, Binding and Loosing (Matt 16:19; 18:18; John 29:23), Journal of Biblical Literature , Vol. 102, No. 1 (Mar., 1983), pp. 112-13:

"A linguistic point arises from Matt 16:19 estai dedemenon/lelymenon, 18:18 estai dedemena/lelymena. Periphrastic future perfects were common in the koine but it is open to question whether what is meant is 'shall be (already) bound, etc.,' or simply 'shall be bound, etc.' Isa 8:17 LXX, 2 Sam 22:3 LXX (quoted at Heb 2:13) and Luke 12:52 illustrate the form meaning a simple future passive (as proved, in the last case, by 12:53). Therefore, grammarians understand our passages as implying 'shall be bound, etc.'"

I won't argue what binding and loosing meant to Matthew, I am just focused on the Greek grammar here. Whether we should construe binding and loosing as forgiving and retaining (a la John 20:23) is debatable, and deserves its own post.

 

[marks]

I have debated this point with Greek grammarians before, and some agree with you, but most disagree. ἔσται δεδεμένον is commonly translated either as "will be bound" or "will have been bound" -- but I think "will be bound" is the better translation. The perfect participle δεδεμένον would yield "bound" either way, but the future indicative verb ἔσται would need to be future perfect to better support "will have been bound." To quote Derrett, Binding and Loosing (Matt 16:19; 18:18; John 29:23), Journal of Biblical Literature , Vol. 102, No. 1 (Mar., 1983), pp. 112-13:

"A linguistic point arises from Matt 16:19 estai dedemenon/lelymenon, 18:18 estai dedemena/lelymena. Periphrastic future perfects were common in the koine but it is open to question whether what is meant is 'shall be (already) bound, etc.,' or simply 'shall be bound, etc.' Isa 8:17 LXX, 2 Sam 22:3 LXX (quoted at Heb 2:13) and Luke 12:52 illustrate the form meaning a simple future passive (as proved, in the last case, by 12:53). Therefore, grammarians understand our passages as implying 'shall be bound, etc.'"

I won't argue what binding and loosing meant to Matthew, I am just focused on the Greek grammar here. Whether we should construe binding and loosing as forgiving and retaining (a la John 20:23) is debatable, and deserves its own post.

Binding and loosing are shown in a few places as meaning the law either did apply (bound) or did not apply (loosed).

Matthew 23:4 KJV
For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

Romans 7:2 KJV
For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

On this reference:

Luke 12:52 illustrate the form meaning a simple future passive (as proved, in the last case, by 12:53).

Luke 12:51-53 KJV
51) Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
52) For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
53) The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

In vs 52, "having been divided" shows a future but final result, while vs 53 shows it happening.

There shall be these having been divided from each other, as the father shall be divided from son . . .

It seems to me that this expresses a clear progression of thought without having to question whether the perfect tense should be read in that way.

I don't have my LXX ref handy . . . those will need to wait . . .

Much love!

 

[quietthinker]

Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven​

I guess that includes shoelaces?

 

[ScottA]

Peter confessed Jesus was the Christ. Jesus responded graciously in (ESV) Mat 16:


i.e., the coming church


shall be
ἔσται (estai)
Verb - Future Indicative Middle - 3rd Person Singular

bound
δεδεμένον (dedemenon)
Verb - Perfect Participle Middle or Passive - Nominative Neuter Singular

The grammar shows a future perfect construct.

What kind of power was given to Peter in the context of the church?

It was the power to articulate the will in heaven concerning the church.

Berean Literal Bible:


Amplified Bible:


After Jesus' resurrection, the church started to grow. An example of this authority happened in Acts 10:


The initiative came from above, not from Peter.


Peter was empowered to declare foods and gentiles were clean.

Jesus repeated that binding and loosing language in Matthew 18:18


On this occasion, what kind of power was given to the apostles?

Same thing. It was the power to articulate the will in heaven concerning the church.

An example of this authority happened at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:


In this case, the initiative seems to come from both the apostles and the Holy Spirit. This is reflected in the ambiguity of the future perfect tense. It is also the concept of Co-Reality where both the vertical and the horizontal realities play a part together.

Your hypothesis assumes that human logic is correct. It's not

Consider/remember this is that same Peter, lovable as he was, whose previous actions were rebuked by Jesus, saying to him (calling him by name) "Get behind Me, Satan!", and who "three times denied knowing" Jesus who then dressed him down by asking Peter three times "Do you love me?", in an act of redeeming him.

Indeed, Peter was the focus of much of what occurred and can be referenced in the gospels--not so much for his goodness, but for his being a likable guy that many could relate to. As such, he was not given honor, but was made an example of--that we all are imperfect and are in need of redeeming, and yet are to help in feeding the sheep in spite of ourselves.

Which comes down to the "keys." Anyone of us, if asked if we have access to God-- What would we say? "No, only Peter was given the keys?" Yet the greatest of Christian denominations has wrongly believed that very thing!

Consider also then, that it was also Peter (a servant of Christ Jesus) who warned and foretold the reality of what was to come, saying, "But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction." And the rest is history.

 

[TonyChanYT]

Peter did not authorize consumption of unclean things.

Is it okay for Christians to eat pork today?

 

[TonyChanYT]

the future indicative verb ἔσται would need to be future perfect to better support "will have been bound."

There is no future perfect tense in Koine Greek.

 

[RedFan]

There is no future perfect tense in Koine Greek.

"Resources for Reading the Greek New Testament" : "Koine Greek has 7 Tenses: Present, Imperfect, Future, Aorist, Perfect, Pluperfect, Future Perfect. The last 2, Pluperfect (Past Perfect) and Future Perfect, are rare."

"The Future Perfect tense appears less than 10 times in the New Testament. The experts disagree as to how it should be translated. It might be an action begun now and completed in the future, or it might be that it is begun and completed in the future. As with all translation issues, context is the deciding factor." Carden, Annoted Grammar Koine Greek (2017), p. 35.

 

[TonyChanYT]

The Future Perfect tense appears less than 10 times in the New Testament.

Thanks for the info. Can you list these occurrences?

 

[RedFan]

Thanks for the info. Can you list these occurrences?

Not easily, because of their periphrastic construct, which makes it harder to hunt them down. Some see Matt. 16:19 and 18:18 as examples, but as noted in the sources I cited, the context can dictate otherwise. That's the debate, I suppose.

 

[TonyChanYT]

Not easily, because of their periphrastic construct, which makes it harder to hunt them down. Some see Matt. 16:19 and 18:18 as examples, but as noted in the sources I cited, the context can dictate otherwise. That's the debate, I suppose.

Define future perfect tense in Koine.

 

[RedFan]

Define future perfect tense in Koine.

I would view it as referring to an action or event that will be complete within a particular future time. How would you define it?

 

[TonyChanYT]

I would view it as referring to an action or event that will be complete within a particular future time. How would you define it?

I would view it similarly. Let me clarify. Define future perfect tense in Koine in terms of conjugational form.

 

[RedFan]

I would view it similarly. Let me clarify. Define future perfect tense in Koine in terms of conjugational form.

Being a periphrastic construction it won't be conjugated with a singe specific verb ending. It will generally have a perfect participle trailing a future stem verb ending, normally the future indicative of εἰμί

 

[TonyChanYT]

I have debated this point with Greek grammarians before, and some agree with you, but most disagree. ἔσται δεδεμένον is commonly translated either as "will be bound" or "will have been bound" -- but I think "will be bound" is the better translation. The perfect participle δεδεμένον would yield "bound" either way, but the future indicative verb ἔσται would need to be future perfect to better support "will have been bound." To quote Derrett, Binding and Loosing (Matt 16:19; 18:18; John 29:23), Journal of Biblical Literature , Vol. 102, No. 1 (Mar., 1983), pp. 112-13:

Now, the above makes no sense since there is no stand-alone conjugation to make the verb ἔσται future perfect.

Can you quote the context from Derrett's paper?

 

[RedFan]

Now, the above makes no sense since there is no stand-alone conjugation to make the verb ἔσται future perfect.

Can you quote the context from Derrett's paper?

Here is the whole paper.