Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (ESV)The ESV puts it the way we're used to it. The NASB, Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (LITV), and Young's Literal Translation (YLT) all take into account this verb tense. And it appears to turn the whole thing on its head.
Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. (NASB)
Truly I say to you, Whatever you bind on the earth will be, having been bound in Heaven. And whatever you loose on the earth will be, having been loosed in Heaven. (LITV)
Verily I say to you, Whatever things ye may bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever things ye may loose on the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens. (YLT)
Many people understand the text to say that God (in heaven) is required to do whatever we command (bind or loose). We bind it and He's required to concur in heaven. Or loose it. But that's not what the verb tense implies. In the traditional translations it is, but in these more literal ones it is reversed. Whatsoever we bind on earth has already been bound in heaven (or loosed). The completion of the "has been bound in heaven" is in the "bound on earth," not vice versa. Those who are doing the binding or loosing are doing so at the behest of heaven, not as instructions for heaven.
This is important given the context. Matthew 18:15-20 is about what to do in the case of a sinning believer. There is a process (Matt 18:15-17) that ends, if not in repentance, with "let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." That's not pleasant. That's actually somewhat scary. Can we actually do that? Can we declare this person among the unbelievers? On whose authority? The text above -- Matthew 18:18 -- answers that question. If you go through that process precisely as instructed -- aiming to restore, hoping for repentance, out of deep and abiding love for your brother -- and he doesn't repent, you are acting out what heaven has already done. You are completing the work God already began. You are arriving at a foregone conclusion as intended by God.
To me this radically changes the image I had of this process. It's not about righteous indignation. It's not about "holier than thou." It's not about telling God who's good and who's bad. It is a humble ending to a humble beginning following God's instructions for God's sure ends. That feels a lot different. It puts the emphasis on the hand of God rather than the tools that hand is holding.
12 comments:
It's almost as if "righteous anger" is pointless because the outcome of whatever we're angry about has already been determined. I guess we could say that God's sovereign plan trumps our anger regardless of how righteous that anger may be.
My concern would be that this could be taken to an extreme and used as an excuse not to actively pursue action in areas where we are part of the Kingdom of God as it exists on earth.
Since love and restoration is the aim and key, "righteous anger" doesn't work well and "don't actively pursue action" doesn't work well. Neither satisfies those fundamental premises. On the other hand, we ... even we Christians ... are not negligent in making excuses for our refusal to obey, aren't we?
Stan,
No, we're very good at making excuses. I hadn't specifically thought about it in the way you put it, but you make an excellent point. "Righteous anger" is highly unlikely to bring someone to restoration. So the question then becomes, what is the goal of those who highly value "righteous anger"? I don't see how angry attacks are likely to show love and produce restoration.
I've been told in the past that sometimes people will only respond to anger. I wholly disagree, but that's their "justification". No matter how wrong-headed it is.
I am certain that most of our "righteous anger" -- our angry responses -- don't accomplish what God intends (because, you know, He said so (James 1:20)). On the other hand, since Jesus got angry (think "cleansing the Temple"), we shouldn't rule it out entirely. Just mostly.
As far as I can tell, the only times Jesus got angry were when He saw God's holy things being desecrated. We're told in prophecy that He would have a zeal for the Lord. The principle I take away is that the only place for righteous anger is when God's holiness is made a mockery of.
Indeed. Jesus's toughest responses were to those who failed to regard His Father's house as holy and to the false teachers of Israel.
It is strange that Jesus was very zealous in defending His Father's house, and holiness to the point of anger and violence, and we don't see anything similar anywhere else. It could be an indication of what He thought was most important. I tend to think that "righteous anger" can be addictive because of the feelings of power it can give. At some point it always deem to focus more on the anger, and less on the righteous or be defined by the angry person not by God. I suspect that there is a reason why self control is a fruit of the spirit and anger is not.
It gets even stranger when we realize that Jesus did NOT respond in anger when they attributed His work to Satan, but simply warned them about how close they were to the unpardonable sin.
Yes it does. It's almost like us following Jesus' example when it comes to anger or force would limit using those things to only those matters that strike at the holiness of God. That maybe it's not appropriate when it comes to other things.
I think so. We're told to be "slow to anger" and that our anger doesn't accomplish God's righteousness. We are told to "be angry," but only short term ("Be angry and don't sin. Don't let the sun go down on your anger.") Anger should be rare and short-lived, apparently.
Actually looking at the entirety of what scripture tells us about anger, self control, and the like seems like such a reasonable approach. Rather than taking an instance or two out of the context of the entirety of Jesus' life, teachings, and the NT and using those as an excuse to live in an extended state of anger.
Post a Comment