Chapter Two

  Dr. Jay Snell Newsletter Feed and Free Bonuses

The Main Reason To Deny That Healing And Prosperity Belong To Christians Now, Defined, Examined, Refuted And Destroyed.

       We determined in Volume II of this work that the advocates of the God-Looked-Down Theory accepted as fact the great Jewish blunder of disconnecting Moses' law from Abraham's promises.  Then, they built their theology upon this blunder.  In doing so, they erected a "new" covenant where none exists and structured their theology of a "new" Church upon this non-existent "new" covenant.  As such, their "new" Church is also disconnected from Abraham's blessings of healing and prosperity, in addition to salvation.  For the advocates of the God-Looked-Down Theory, then, both the new covenant and the Christian Church are "brand-new" in time.  As such, their "brand-new" in time covenant and Church are themselves disconnected from the Abrahamic blessings of healing and prosperity.  For them, then, the Church began either at John 20:22 or fifty days later at Pentecost.

     This is most crucial.  If the advocates of the God-Looked-Down Theory can prove the existence of a "new-in-time" Church, based upon a "new-in-time" covenant, they can make up their own "new" rules for it.  As such, they can "say" it includes healing and prosperity or they can "say" it doesn't.  And modern Christianity, with very few exceptions, "says" healing and prosperity are excluded from the modern "new" Church.  But if we can prove on the one hand that no such entities as a "new" covenant and "new" Church exist, and on the other hand prove that the Church of today is simply the historic unfoldment of the Abrahamic Covenant, then healing and prosperity belong to Christians NOW.  In this volume, we do just this.

            To support their view of a "brand new in time" Church which began, according to their theology, either at John 20:22 or Pentecost, they give three basic reasons which we examine and refute below.

 Reason #1 Why the Advocates of the God-Looked-Down Theory View the Church as "Brand New" in Time and Disconnected From Abraham's Blessings of Healing and Prosperity

       They say the term "Church" is a word found only in the New Testament and not in the Old Testament at all.  But the facts do not support this view.

     To begin with, the English word "Church" translates the Greek word EKKLASIA.  This word combines two Greek words, EK, which is the Greek preposition meaning "out of" with KALEO which means "to call."  The combination, then, means "to call out of," or simply "an assembly of people called out of the mass of humanity."  This word is used in the New Testament 115 times.  The translators translated it with the English word "Church" 112 times and with the English word "assembly" 3 times.  It is the Greek word used when the New Testament writers referred to "the Church."

     In Acts 7:38, Stephen used EKKLASIA in referring to Moses when he "was in the church (EKKLASIA) in the wilderness with the angel who spake to him in Mount Sinai...."  Here, then, is a clear cut New Testament example of the Church (EKKLASIA) in the Old Testament.  If the Church did not exist until Pentecost, why did Stephen use the same word that's translated "Church" throughout the New Testament? Had he been referring to a group totally different from "the Church," he could have (and would have) used another word to describe them.  There were many Greek words he could have used to keep from leaving the impression that "the Church" was in existence in the wilderness.  Why didn't he, if "the Church" only began at Pentecost?

     Furthermore, the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, uses the Greek Word for Church (EKKLASIA), almost one hundred times.  These translators used EKKLASIA     to translate the Hebrew word QAHAL.  This word in its noun form means "assembly, company, congregation or Church."  Its verb form means "to assemble or to gather." No wonder these translators used EKKLASIA (Church) to translate it.  QAHAL means the same thing as EKKLASIA: "an assembly of the ones called out."

     This fact can be demonstrated by considering the ways in which QAHAL is translated in the English Bible (KJV).  Young’s Concordance says that its verb form is translated three times as "assemble selves;" one time as "be assembled;" twice as "be gathered;" three times as "be gathered together;" eight times as "gather selves together;" five times as "assemble;" four times as "gather;" ten times as "gather together;" and once as "to be gathered."  Its noun form is translated seventeen times as "assembly;" seventeen times as "company;" eighty-six times as "congregation;" and three times as "multitude."  In other words, the above translations of QAHAL are the exact meanings of EKKLASIA.  We see it translated in the KJV as the "congregation (QAHAL) of Israel" and the "congregation (QAHAL) of the Lord."

     In addition, the LXX translates QAHAL as "synagogue" about 36 times.  "Synagogue" is the translation of the Greek word SUNAGOGE, which combines the Greek preposition SUN meaning "together with" and the Greek verb AGO meaning "to bring."  The combination then means "to bring together."

     From the above, the kinship between QAHAL, EKKLASIA, and SUNAGOGE thrusts itself upon us.  And no wonder these same basic words are all variously translated by the English equivalents of congregation, Church, assembly, synagogue, etc.  All these words mean basically the same thing.  Consequently, they are all applied to the same group of people, the Abrahamic Seed Group.  And since the expression, "the Abrahamic Seed Group" encompasses within its borders the saved of both Testaments, the same basic words must be employed to define this particular group in both Testaments.  This is precisely what we find in Scripture.  In other words, the Abrahamic Seed Group (the saved Remnant out of the "congregation of Israel," the "congregation of the Lord" (QAHAL), "the synagogue" (still QAHAL) and the saved out of Christendom) is the EKKLASIA or the Church.

     Therefore, to declare that the term "Church" does not exist in the Old Testament just won't wash.

 Reason #2 Why the Advocates of the God-Looked-Down Theory View the Church  as "Brand-New" in Time and Disconnected From Abraham's Blessings of Healing and Prosperity

      The advocates of the God-Looked-Down Theory teach that the Church has to be "new in time" because in Matthew 16:18, Jesus himself declares the Church to be a future undertaking.  They interpret Jesus' remarks to Peter to mean the Church is to have its beginning at some point future to the time of Matthew 16:18.  But, this is not what the passage says.  What, then, did Jesus mean if he did not mean to imply that the Church must begin in time future to Matthew 16:18?

     Jesus said... "thou are Peter (PETROS - "little rock") and upon this rock (PETRA - "the large foundation or bed-rock"), I will build my church (EKKLASIA); and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18).  "Will build" is the translation of OIKODOMEO.  This Greek word combines OIKOS or "house" with DOMEO, meaning "to build a house."  In this passage, Matthew casts it in the Future Tense.  In the following section, we shall examine two things: what exactly does OIKODOMEO mean and just exactly what is the significance of the Future Tense in this context?

            OIKODOMEO means literally to build a house, structure, city, etc.  It also means to repair, restore, rebuild, embellish or amplify a building. (See Matthew 23:29; 26:61; 27:40; Mark 15:29).  Paul used this word in Galatians 2:18 to signify a "re-building" or a "building again."  He said, "For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor" (Galatians 2:18).  Notice here, the "things" Paul speaks of "rebuilding" or "building again" are not structures or physical buildings.

          This word is also used in reference to the Church which also is not a physical structure per se.  In reference to the Church, this word signifies the "building up" or the "edifying" of the Church.  Peter says "Ye also as living stones, are built up a spiritual house..." (1 Peter 2:5).  "Built up" translates OIKODOMEO.  Under this head also, OIKODOMEO is translated by our English word "edify" seven times in the Greek New Testament.  "Edify," as all know, means to "build up."  For this reason, Luke said, "Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified;..." (Acts 9:31).  "Were edified" is the translation of OIKODOMEO.  The other six references where OIKODOMEO is translated by some form of "edify" are 1 Corinthians 8:1; 10:23; 14:4 twice; 14:17; and 1 Thessalonians 5:11.  In each of these passages, OIKODOMEO, translated "edify," means to build up, strengthen, or benefit some member or aspect of the Church.  It does not mean to "start-up something that never was."

     Even the noun form of this word speaks to the spiritual "building up" or "edifying" of the Church.  For Paul not only says, "Ye are God's building" (noun form of OIKODOMEO, 1 Corinthians 3:9), he also leaves instructions "...that the church may receive edifying" (1 Corinthians 14:5).  He instructs for "the edifying of the church" (1 Corinthians 14:12).  He said "Let all things be done unto edifying" (1 Corinthians 14:26).  See also 2 Corinthians 10:8; 12:19; 13:10; Ephesians 4:12; 4:16; and 4:29.  In all the above translations, "edifying," translates the noun form of OIKODOMEO, the same word Jesus used in Matthew 16:18.  At this point, the question begins to surface in our consciousness: Did Jesus mean he would start-up a Church which had never existed before, and build it (OIKODOMEO), starting at some point in the future, or did he mean he would simply "build up" (OIKODOMEO), the QAHAL - SUNAGOGE - EKKLASIA composed of the Abrahamic Seed Group that had been in existence since Genesis chapter 12?

            The answer becomes obvious as we now consider the particular way in which the tense of OIKODOMEO is used in Matthew 16:18, and translated into English by "will build."  In this passage, "will build" is a Greek construction called the Progressive or Durative Future.  This use of the future tense simply denotes an action that continues throughout a future time.  This use has nothing to do with beginning something at some future point, or as implied, a "future start-up."  It signifies action that is presently in progress and will continue progressing in future time.  Different Greek grammarians call it by different names, some Durative, some Progressive, and some Linear, but the idea is the same: present action that continues into the future.

 W.W. Goodwin doesn't name it.  He just defines it as "future action...in its progress" (WWG p. 268).

 Brooks and Winbery call it a Progressive Future, reminding us of two things: the emphasis is upon the future progress of the action and the expression "keep on" should be used to translate it (BW p. 87).

 William G. MacDonald calls it a Linear Future and says its "action will continue throughout a future time" (WGM p. 32).

 Dana and Mantey name it the Progressive Future and declare it denotes the idea of progress in future time (DM p. 192).

 Burton calls it the Progressive Future and relates it to an action which will be in progress in future time (EDB p. 32).

 J. Harold Greenlee doesn't name it.  He just defines it as "action in progress in future time" (JHG p. 50).

 J. H. Moulton calls it a Durative Future (MI p. 149-150), and illustrates it by Hebrews 13:6.  "...I will not (keep on) fearing what man shall do unto me," which is a Durative Future.  Since the Lord is with him now (v.5), the Lord is, therefore, His helper now.  Consequently, beginning now, he will not be fearing into the future concerning man's harm.

 A. T. Robertson calls it a Durative Future (ATR p. 889), and gives several Scripture illustrations listed below.

 John 10:5 - The sheep know and respond only to the master's voice now.  Consequently, the voice of a stranger they will not follow now and will "keep on not following it" in the future.  Instead, they will flee from him now and will "keep on fleeing from him" in the future.

 Luke 10:19 - Since Jesus had given the disciples the power to tread on serpents, scorpions and all the power of the enemy, that present possession of the given authority or power made it impossible for anything to hurt them, beginning then, and continuing into the future.  So he said, "...nothing shall by any means hurt you, beginning now and keep on hurting you into the future."

 Matthew 18:21 - Peter wants to know how many times he should forgive a sinning brother.  "...Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me now and 'keep on sinning against me in the future' and I will forgive him now and 'keep on forgiving him in the future' "?  In this context, both "sinning" and "forgiving" are Durative Futures.

 Matthew 5:21, 27, 33 - Robertson cites these Scriptures as Durative Futures.  In verse 21, the one that kills,  "shall keep on being in danger of the judgement."  Verse 27 states, "...Thou shalt not keep on committing adultery:"  Verse 33 states, "...Thou shalt not keep on forswearing thyself...."

 In RD p. 301, he cites Matthew 12:21 which declares, "And in his name shall the Gentiles trust now and keep on trusting in the future."

      Several of the grammarians listed above cite Philippians 1:6 to illustrate the Durative future: "Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you (in the past) will keep on performing it (in the future) until the day of Jesus Christ:"

     Many of them cite Philippians 1:18, as illustrating the Linear Future.  This verse declares since Christ is preached, "I rejoice now and will keep on rejoicing into the future."

     Other Scriptures illustrating the Progressive, Linear, Durative future might be added here.  But, the above demonstrates thoroughly the Greek construction used to define an action going on now will "keep on going on" into the future.

     Now, the Abrahamic Seed Group, and them alone, have composed the "Membership Roster" of the QAHAL - "Synagogue" - EKKLASIA from Genesis unto this present moment.  Beginning in Genesis, and throughout the Gospels, the Father has been "building up" the Abrahamic Seed Group (QAHAL - "Synagogue," EKKLASIA - "Church").  In the Gospels, the Son is seen as "keeping on building up" the Abrahamic Seed Group (QAHAL "Synagogue," EKKLASIA - "Church") (Matthew 16:18).  In the Acts through this present moment, the Holy Spirit is "keeping on building up" the Abrahamic Seed Group (QAHAL - "Synagogue," EKKLASIA - "Church").  Consequently, the followers of the God-Looked-Down Theory absolutely can not use Matthew 16:18 to prove their "brand-new-in-time Church view," i.e., the Church beginning at John 20:22 or at Pentecost fifty days later.  In other words, they can not use Matthew 16:18 to deny healing and prosperity to Christians now.

     Why?  Because Jesus' use of the Durative, Progressive, Linear Future "will build" in Matthew 16:18, described an ongoing process that began in Genesis and will never terminate.  Why will it never terminate?  Because the process covers only one group of people: the Abrahamic Seed Group.  This group is covered by one Abrahamic Covenant composed of one set of eternal promises from one eternal God.  And since eternal, the "building up" will never cease.  Even in Heaven He will continue our spiritual enlargement, our "building up," throughout eternity.

     Matthew 18:15-17 furnishes rock solid proof that "will build" in Matthew 16:18 means "keep on building up" and not a new, future undertaking of a "brand-new-covenant- church-entity-thing" beginning either at John 20:22 or Pentecost.  Read these three verses carefully in your Bible.  In these verses Jesus instructs his disciples on how to deal with a trespassing brother.  Verse 15 says "go" tell him his fault privately.  Verse 16 says "take" one or two more as witnesses if he fails to respond privately.  Verse 17 says "tell" it to the Church if the previous instructions go unheeded.

     To get around the obvious fact that the Church was in existence long before Pentecost, the advocates of the God-Looked-Down Theory interpret Matthew 18:15-17 as Jesus instructing his disciples on what to do with a trespassing brother in the "future Church."  By "future Church," they mean the Church that would come into being in the future (either at John 20:22 or the day of Pentecost), according to their theological theory.  By simply stating that Matthew 18:15-17 applies to the Church in the future, they can get around the fact that it is mentioned here.  They can also maintain their view that "Will build" in Matthew 16:18 refers to a "brand-new-covenant-church-entity-thing" that, according to them, is to begin in John 20:22 or Acts chapter two on the day of Pentecost.  But, will the Greek text permit them to interpret Matthew 18:15-17 as future?  No!

            The Greek text of Matthew 18:17 proves the Church was in existence then and there, and that Jesus' instructions concerned the people who heard him then and there and not in some future Church by some future people.  How does the Greek text prove that Matthew 18:15-17 was a "then and there" situation?  By the fact that "go" in verse 15 is a Present Imperative, "take" in verse 16 is an Aorist Imperative, and "tell" in verse 17 is also a Present Imperative.  How then, do these three Greek Imperatives prove that Jesus refers to a "then and there" people and a "then and there" Church and not some future people and some future Church?  The following simple discussion of the Greek Imperative Mood will answer the preceding question to the readers' complete satisfaction.

 How the Imperative Mood Shows That Jesus Spoke to a "Then and There" Church and Not Some Future Church

      Four moods occur in the Greek New Testament: Indicative, Subjunctive, Optative, and the Imperative.  The Imperative is the mood used when a Greek (as in English) intended to influence the will of another person to do his bidding.  Every Greek grammar in existence describes the Imperative mood this same way.  It is used to exercise the will of the speaker over the will of those he is addressing with the firm intention of securing immediate action on their part corresponding to his desire.  In other words, the Imperative is used "when you are trying to get someone to do what you want them to do then and there.

     Moulton said the Imperative had a "decided tone about it" (MI p. 172).  He said the Imperative carried "stress" and the context determines how much (MI p. 172).  He quoted Hermogenes who "asserted harshness to be a feature of the Imperative" (MI p. 172).  And on page 173, he uses "instant" and "urgent" to describe the tone of the Imperative.  These characteristics are also inherent in our English Imperative.  And to these we might add such terms as "desperate, frenzied, emphatic and insistent" (JWV P. 216).

     Furthermore, Moulton said that "Imperatives are normal in royal edicts, in letters to inferiors and among equals when the tone is urgent, or the writer indisposed to multiply words..." (MI p. 173).  Concerning the Imperative in the New Testament, he said, "The prophet is not accustomed to conciliate his hearers with carefully softened commands; and in the imperial edicts of him who "taught with authority," and the ethical exhortations of men who spoke in his name, we find naturally a large portion of imperatives" (MI p. 173).  And, concerning the use of Imperatives even in prayer, Moulton said, "To God we are bidden by our Lord's precept and example to present the claim of faith in the simplest, directest, most urgent form with which language supplies us" (MI p. 173).  Of course, this simplest, directest, most urgent form is the Imperative.

     The Imperative is used to convey positive commands, requests, prayers, entreaties, permissions, etc., when any of the above are urgently wanted, needed, desired or demanded.  And all the above needs and desires can cause one to feel stress, harshness, urgency, and instancy described above.  Then, he conveys this stress and harshness to others by the tone of his voice and his demeanor when he communicates these needs in the Imperative Mood.  In other words, whether it involves the strongest command, an urgent prayer request, or the request for simple permission, the tone of the Imperative can reproduce any of the above characteristics of harshness, and urgency according to the degree in which the speaker feels them.

     Request, entreaties and permissions usually involve inferiors urgently addressing their superiors.  Equals addressing equals (peers) also fits in here.  But, positive commands usually involve those in the superior position addressing their subordinates in specific cases.  This is the scenario in Matthew 18:15-17.  Jesus is the superior addressing his inferiors (his disciples) about the specific case of a trespassing brother.

     It should go without saying that the Imperative applies to those to whom it is addressed.  As noted earlier, every Greek grammar speaks of two wills: the one demanding and the one being demanded.  The Imperative always pertains to those to whom the demand is directed and no one else.

     In requests, entreaties and permissions between equals (peers) and between inferiors (subordinates) and their superiors, those making the urgent, even desperate request may have to wait for a response.  But this is not the case between a superior and the subordinates.  The Imperative positive command given by the one in supreme authority is to be obeyed at once by those to whom it is directed.  It does not apply to the future.  More than this, the Imperative positive command by the one in authority never had a future significance.  Now, if this is the case, then Jesus, could not possibly have meant for His disciples to tell of a trespassing brother to a Church that did not exist and would not exist for almost two years in the future.

     Now, I am going to allow leading Greek authorities to demonstrate my point for me, i.e., the Greek Imperative positive command given by one in authority never had a future significance.  Consequently, it must be obeyed at once by those to whom it is addressed.

     Greek grammarian Kuhner said, "The Imperative always refers to time present to the speaker" (TJM p. 30).  And Jelf agrees, "The Imperative is always considered to be in the time present to the speaker" (TJM p. 30). These statements are significant for our study.  This means that Jesus could not possibly have intended his remarks in Matthew 18:17 to apply to a future Church but to the Church then in existence.

     Further, Robertson explains why the Imperative is always considered present to the speaker.  He said, "There never was a future imperative" (ATR p. 876).  Moulton said the same thing.  He said the future imperative "never existed" (MI p. 151).  And Robertson - Davis declare "There is in the New Testament no future in the imperative" (RD p. 299).  McCrossan nails it to the floor.  He said, "All Present and Aorist Imperatives, expressing positive commands by the one in supreme authority, are always given to the people then present, and never, never, never have a future significance" (TJM p.73). "...these Present and Aorist Imperatives in positive commands always demanded immediate obedience by the persons to whom they were then spoken and never, never, never had a future significance" (TJM p. 71).  Then how could Jesus be referring to a Church not in existence in Matthew 18:17?  He could not.  The Imperative positive command by the one in supreme authority was a "then and there" language construction.  This means that the Church was in existence "then and there."  Otherwise, Jesus would not have used the Greek Imperative as the vehicle for what he said.

     Furthermore, in the Greek New Testament, the future tense is confined primarily to only one of the four Greek moods which is the Indicative.  In other words, the other three moods, i.e., the Imperative, Subjunctive and Optative do not utilize future time at all.  Robertson and Davis verify this fact.  They state, "There is in the New Testament no future in the other modes (subjunctive, optative, imperative)" (RD p. 299).  Dana and Mantey agree.  They state, "The future is primarily an indicative tense...." (DM p. 191).  Notice that this statement, by restricting the future primarily to the Indicative mood, excludes any use of the future with the Imperative.  Finally,  Brooks and Winbery stated the future tense "...primarily expresses future time in the indicative mood" (BW p. 87).  They made no mention of any usage of the future tense in the Imperative mood because none exists.  In other words, by confining future time to the Indicative, they exclude it from the Imperative.  Then how could Jesus be giving a positive command in the Imperative to apply to a future Church when the Imperative has no future significance?  He could not.  The Church was in existence "then and there," a full year or two before Pentecost.  Consequently, the view that Jesus "will build" his Church in the future, starting at Pentecost or John 20:22 is in serious trouble.  The Greek Imperative demands a present application to a "then and there" Church since the future is not a part of the Imperative landscape at all.  But, there's more which renders the "brand-new-covenant-church-entity-thing, impossible.

     In New Testament Greek, we find six tenses: the present, imperfect. future, aorist, perfect and pluperfect.  Except for some rare occurrences of the perfect tense (Moulton calls these "scanty relics" - MI p. 176), the Imperative only has the present and aorist tenses.  Note well, the future as well as the imperfect, pluperfect, and for practical purposes, the perfect tense is excluded from use with the Greek Imperative.  Again, how could Jesus refer to a future Church?  He could not.

     Once again, all noted Greek authorities are going to make our case for us, i.e., that the present and aorist tense are the only tenses utilized in the Greek Imperative and not the future tense. (So the reader will feel comfortable with the expressions "present" and "aorist" tense, we will briefly describe them here.  In Greek, the "time of action" is secondary to the "kind of action."  In the "present," the "kind of action" is continuous as in a straight line.  In the "aorist," the "kind of action" is seen as complete.  In the present, action is in progress, continuous, going on now, durative.  In the aorist. the action is no longer continuing.  It is complete or finished and therefore past.)  Now, let the Greek authorities speak for themselves.

Mare said, "The basic tenses of the imperative are present and aorist" (WHM p. 69).  And he makes no mention of any use of the future tense with the Imperative Mood because none exists.

 Machen stated, "The imperative mood occurs in the New Testament almost exclusively in the present and aorist tenses" (JGM p. 177).  He then describes the difference between the aorist and present tenses in the Imperative, but says nothing about the future tense usage with the Imperatives (JGM p. 180).

 Voelz declared, "...the usage of both the present and the aorist tense is quite complex..." (JWV p. 215), in the Imperative Mood.  But, he never mentions any use of the future tense with the Imperative Mood because there is no future time involved when the Imperative Mood is used in the New Testament.

 Goodwin maintained, "...the tenses chiefly used are the present and aorist" (WWG p. 272), in the Imperative Mood.  He then describes the difference between the present and aorist tenses, never mentioning any use of the future tense with the Imperative Mood.

 Davis described the difference in meaning between the two tenses used with the Imperative Mood.  He said the present tense describes durative action while the aorist tense describes punctual action (WHD p. 168).  But, he made no mention of any use of the future tense with the Imperative Mood, again, because none exists.

 Since the Imperative employs only the present and aorist tenses, and not the future, how can Jesus refer to a future Church in Matthew 18:17? He can not!  But let the Greek authorities continue speaking to us here.

 Turner described the difference between the present and aorist tenses when used in the Imperative Mood.  He said, "...the present is durative or incomplete or iterative and the aorist punctual or constantive" (M III p. 74).  But, he makes no mention of any use of the future tense with the Imperative Mood.  He describes no future kind of action in conjunction with the Imperative since none exists.

 Hewett stated, "Greek has two tenses in the Imperative: the present and the aorist" (JAH p. 188).  He then describes the difference in these two tenses.  But he made no mention of any usage of the future tense with the Imperative because none exists.  The Greek Imperative is a "here and now" mood.  It is used when we want something "now."

 Chamberlain declared "The present imperative may have any of the characteristic ideas of linear action.  The aorist Imperative usually has a note of urgency in it" (WDC p. 86).  But he said nothing about a future Imperative because none exists.  Then how can anyone maintain that Jesus referred to a future Church in Matthew 18:17?  They can't.  The Church existed "then and there," long before John 20 or Pentecost in Acts 2.

 Moule maintained, "Logically, one would expect the remarks already made about Aktionsart to hold good for the tenses of the Imperative; i.e., an Aorist Imperative ought, one would think, to represent a command to do something instantly, or once for all;...whereas a Present Imperative ought to refer to repeated or to protracted or to attempted action" (CFDM p. 20).  He further remarked, "In general the Present Imperative commands (or, with MA. prohibits) continued or habitual action, the Aorist a specific action" (CFDM p. 135).  But, he described no future tense kind of action with the Imperative because none exists.

 Dana and Mantey quoted the early grammarian, Winer, that the Aorist Imperative denotes summary action "to be undertaken at once" (DM p. 300).  They, then, cite Matthew 16:24 and use the term, "at once" to signify that the Imperative in this verse should not be obeyed in some future tense (time).

 Summers concluded "The imperative mood appears in the New Testament in the present and aorist tenses" (RS p. 111).  He then describes the difference between the Imperative present and aorist (RS p. 112).  But he never mentions the future tense with the Imperative because they are never used together.

 Moulton describes the Present Imperative as durative action and the Aorist Imperative as concise action (MI p. 173-174).  But he makes no reference to any future tense kind of action in the Imperative because none exists.

             No wonder Robertson said, "There never was a future imperative" (ATR p. 878).  No wonder Moulton said a future imperative "never existed" (MI p. 151).  No wonder Kuhner said "The Imperative always refers to time present to the speaker" (TJM p. 30).  No wonder Jelf said, "The Imperative is always considered to be in the time present to the speaker" (TJM p. 30).  No wonder McCrossan said that the Greek Imperatives in positive commands by the one in supreme authority demands immediate obedience by the people to whom it is addressed and never, never, never has a future significance.

          But, it is the wonder of all wonders that the advocates of the God-Looked-Down Theory can go right in the face of the Greek text and maintain that Jesus referred to a future Church in Matthew 18:17. The Imperatives used by Jesus demand the view that the Church existed "then and there," even before his death and resurrection, to say the least of John 20 or Pentecost.  There never was a future Imperative!  Consequently, there never was a future Church in either Matthew 16:18 or Matthew 18:17.

     T. J. McCrossan has an excellent section on these verses in his book, Christ's Paralyzed Church X-Rayed.  He gives examples of the three Greek Positive Imperatives used in verses 15, 16 and 17, demonstrating that these same Positive Imperatives, "go," "take," and "tell" always demand immediate obedience by the one to whom it is addressed and never has a future significance.

     The Present Imperative "go" in verse 15 translates UPAGO.  (Since the Imperative is Present, it denotes continuous action, i.e., a "continuous going."  A good translation is "be going" rather than just "go" in the KJV.) This word combines two Greek words.  HUPO, meaning "under" with AGO, meaning "I lead or bring."  McCrossan cites Matthew 8:4; 8:13; 8:31; 9:6 and 27:65 as examples of UPAGO as Imperative positive commands.  In each case, UPAGO or "go" was commanded by the one in authority and received immediate obedience by the one to whom it was addressed with no future significance at all (TJM pp.72-73).

     As concerning UPAGO in verse 15, he said, "Examine every single case in both the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), and in the Greek New Testament, where UPAGO (Imperative) is used to express a positive command by the one in supreme authority, and you will find that this command always demanded immediate obedience by the person or persons to whom it was given and never, never had a future significance.  This same rule holds good throughout all Greek Literature.  Because of this established fact, we know for a certainty that, in Matthew 18:15-17, Christ was giving these positive commands to His own...church...who was then listening to him and not to a people not yet in existence" (TJM pp. 73-74).

     The Aorist Imperative in verse 16, "take" is the translation of PARALAMBANO, the combination of PARA meaning "parallel" or "by the side of" and LAMBANO, meaning "I take."  The aorist tense here means that the obedience (the taking) is to be decisive and complete or completely in one act.  They are not to drag it out continuously as in the present, but do it completely, finishing it.

     McCrossan gives two New Testament and three Old Testament (Septuagint-LXX) examples of the Aorist Imperative PARALAMBANO: Matthew 2:3; 2:20; Genesis 22:2; 43:12; and Exodus 2:9.  And all these Aorist Imperatives were obeyed at once, "Because all positive commands in the Greek Present or Aorist Imperative, when given by the one in supreme authority in the matter specified, always demanded immediate obedience by the person or persons to whom they were given, and never had a future meaning" (TJM p. 76).  In addition, he said, "If we were to quote 500 more passages with positive commands in the Present and Aorist Imperatives - commands given by the one in the supreme authority - we would find that this rule always holds good; for such commands never, never had a future significance" (TJM p. 77).  Then, he said, "...everything Christ said in Matthew 18:15-17, when addressing his Church was for that group...who were then present and listening to these positive commands" (TJM p. 77).

     The Present Imperative in verse 17 is EIPE, which means "to tell." Since this is present tense, it denotes action as durative or continuous.  A good translation of this Imperative, then, is "be telling!' rather than just "tell" as in the KJV.

     McCrossan gives three New Testament examples and two LXX examples of the Present Imperative EIPE: Matthew 27:7; Luke 7:41; 13:32; 1 Chronicles 17:4; 21:10.  In all five, the positive commands were obeyed at once, because, "...when positive commands are given in the Present or Aorist Imperative by the one in the supreme authority, in the matter specified (as in Matthew 18:15-17), those commands always demand immediacy by the person or persons to whom given.  Such positive commands have no future reference" (TJM p. 80).  "Since this is true (and no one can successfully refute this law of Greek grammar), then we know that Christ's Church did exist at Matthew 18:17, when Christ Himself gave these positive commands in the Present and Aorist Imperative, to his own selected group...and commanded them to tell certain matters to the Church" (TJM p. 81).  This proves most conclusively that, if Christ had here been addressing a future Church, not yet in existence, he would never have given these positive commands in the Present and Aorist Imperative.  Using these positive Imperatives tells us, as clearly as the Greek language can possibly express the fact, that he spoke these words (Matthew 18: 15-17) to his own selected group of followers then listening to him" (TJM p. 81).

     Had Jesus been commanding a future Church, he would have used the future tense which was an accepted way a Greek made future commands.  In a sense, this "Volitive Future" as it was called was sort of a substitute for the Imperative.  But when we say "sort of a substitute," we must bear in mind that Imperative commands were to be obeyed "then and there" and future commands were "future events" uttered in strong language that were to be obeyed in the future.

     We should emphatically mark it, however, that Jesus' commands were always in the Imperative.  He never used the Volitive Future to give a positive command.  Turner affirms this position.  He said "Jesus' own commands are imperative" (M III p. 86).  McCrossan also affirms this position.  He said, "Had Christ been here addressing a future church, a church not yet in existence, He would have used the future tense..." (TJM p. 82).  McCrossan then points out that Jesus did use the future tense when referring to future events, but not positive commands.  He then cites Matthew 7:21-23; 10:26;13:29-30; 20:19; and 25:31-46 as examples of Jesus' use of the future tense for future events but not positive commands.  Jesus' commands were always Imperative.

     Two apparent contradictions arise in the Greek New Testament to the above discussion.  They are John 2:19 and Revelation 22:11.  But,  John 2:19 is not a positive command.  It is an Imperative of condition and should be translated as a conditional clause.  Brooks and Winbery translate this passage beginning with "if," i.e., "If you destroy the temple, I will rebuild it in three days" (BW p. 117).  Concerning the Imperatives in Revelation 22:11, Robertson says they "are probably hortatory" (ATR p.947). Consequently, Imperative positive commands require immediate obedience by the ones to whom directed, and have no future significance.

     McCrossan said, "Let any Greek scholar read carefully (as we have done) the works of Demosthenes, Plato, Aristotle, Aristophanes, Euripedes,  Aeschylus, Sophocles, Thucydides, Homer, Herodotus.  Xenophon's Anabasis and Memorabilia, and the writings of the early Greek fathers, and he will find - as we have found - that this law of Greek grammar can always be relied upon, viz., when the one in the supreme authority, in the matter specified, gives a positive command in the Present and especially in the Aorist Imperative, that command always demands immediate obedience by the person or persons to whom given.  It never has a future significance" (TJM p. 29).

     Finally, EKKLASIA (Church) in both Matthew 16:18 and 18:17 is used with the Greek Definite Article (our English word "the").  Remember, we have previously shown two major uses of the Greek Definite Article.  The first use was as a "pointing finger."  This use declared that something was unique in its class, that it stood out from all the rest.  This use made something distinctively particular.  In these contexts, the Greek Definite Article declared that Jesus is not speaking about "any" Church, "some" assembly, or just "a" gathering, but specifically he is speaking about "the one and only Church composed of the Abrahamic Seed Group which began with Abraham himself."

     The other use of the Definite Article previously examined was to denote previous reference.  This use identifies something as being the same as the one previously mentioned.  On page 68 in Volume I, we illustrated this use of the Article with Matthew 2:7.  In this passage, we knew that the wise men in verse 7 and the wise men in verse 1 were not two different groups of wise men.  This use of the Article helped us to know that the wise men in verse 7 were the same group of wise men previously mentioned in verse 1.

     Consequently, this use of the Article in Matthew 18:17 refers back to "the" Church in Matthew 16:18, identifying them as "the same Church" in both places.  In other words, Jesus is not building up one Church in 16:18 and instructing his disciples to tell on a sinning brother to a "totally different Church" in 18:17, i.e., "the Church" in both passages is "the same identical, one and only Church composed of the Abrahamic Seed Group."  And since we proved with the Greek Imperative that "the Church" in 18:17 was in existence "then and there" and since "the Church" in 16:18 is the same identical Church, it was "then and there" also.  Therefore, Jesus never said he would begin at some future time to build a future Church.  He was "then and there" building up (OIKODOMEO) "the Church" and he stated that in the future he would "keep on building up" the same "then and there" Church he discussed with his followers in Matthew 18:17.  From the preceding discussion, the theology of the God-Looked-Down Theory is false.  "The Church" did not begin at either John 20:22 or Pentecost.  It was existing even before the death and resurrection of Jesus.

     Jesus is "building up" his Church (that has been going on since Abraham) in Matthew 16, and his Church is still in existence in Matthew 18, long before his death, resurrection or Pentecost.  Consequently, the advocates of the God-Looked-Down Theory can not use these passages to prove their "brand-new Church" theory.  They prove just the opposite.  The Church is the historic unfoldment of the Abrahamic Covenant.  Its members are the Abrahamic Seed Group from Genesis throughout eternity.  This is so, since the Greek Definite Article is used with both occurrences of the word "Church" in Matthew 18:17.  This use of the Article makes it the "definite specific" Church composed of the Abrahamic Seed Group.  This use of the Article forbids the view that Jesus is speaking of just "a" church, "some" church, or just "any" church or gathering or group.  He is speaking of "the" one and only Church which was "then and there" in existence when he was speaking.

            The Church began in eternity and included the saved before Abraham.  For our study, though, we begin with Abraham.  Beginning then, in Genesis 12, the Church included Abraham and Sarah.  Then Isaac and Jacob are added.  As the Church continued to develop, it took on the form of a nation in Egypt.  It took on the form of a theocracy under Moses.  Under David the Church became a monarchy.  At John 20:22 the Church became permanently indwelt by the Holy Ghost, making it a living organism.  At Pentecost the Church received power.  During the millennium the Church will undergo other changes.  And during the eternal state she will experience even more developmental changes.  She will never cease to develop, grow and enlarge her spiritual capacities throughout eternity.

     Hendriksen sums it all up.  He said, "The passage (Galatians 3:6-9; cf. verses 14, 26-29) clearly teaches the important truth—by many so deplorably rejected—that the church of both dispensations, the old and the new, is one.  All believers dwell in the same tent (Isaiah 54:1-3).  When the old dispensation ended it was not necessary to pitch a new tent; the old one was simply enlarged.  All of God's children are represented by the same olive tree.  The old tree did not have to be uprooted; new branches were grafted in among the old (Romans 11:17).  To each of the saints the same promise is given: "I will be your God."  Wrote how this promise runs through both Testaments (Genesis 15:1, 2; 17:7, 8; Exodus 20:2; Deuteronomy 5:6; Joshua 1:5; 2 Chronicles 20:17; Jeremiah 15:20; 24:7; 30:22; 31:33; Ezekiel 11:20; Zechariah 8:8; 13:9; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Hebrews 8:10; Revelations 21:3, 7).  All are saved by the same faith in the same Savior (Genesis 15:6; Isaiah 53; Jeremiah 23:5.6; Matthew 1:21; John 3:16; Acts 4:12; 10:43; 15:11; Romans 3:24; 4:11).  Apart from us those of the old dispensation do not reach perfection (Hebrews 11:40).  The names of all God's people are written in the same book of life.  There are not two of those books: one for the old and one for the new dispensation; there is only one (Exodus 32:32, 33; Psalms 69:28; Daniel 12:1; Malachi 3:16, 17; Luke 10:20; Philippians 4:3; Revelations 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27; 22:19).  All are foreknown, foreordained, called, justified (by faith), and glorified (Romans 8:29, 30).  All partake and will partake of the glories of Jerusalem the Golden, the city on whose gates are written the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel, and on whose foundation stones are engraved the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb (Revelation 12:12, 14).  Cf.  John 10:16; 17:11.

     Once this is understood the Bible becomes a living book, for we begin to realize that when God says to Abraham, "Fear not...I am your shield and your exceeding great reward...your God," he is speaking also to us.  This central promise concerns all believers of both dispensations, for all those that are of faith are Abraham's children and heirs (Galatians 3:29).  No clearer language could have been used than that which is found in Romans 4:22-24.  There Paul, having again made mention of the fact that Abraham's faith "was reckoned to him for righteousness," adds, "But not for his sake alone was it written that it was reckoned to him, but for our sake also" (NTC - Galatians pp. 125, 126).

     For those who deny that healing and prosperity belong to Christians.  Scripture forbids their "setting-up" a "brand new" Church and writing their own rules for it.  And, of course, their "rules" eliminate healing and prosperity.  But, once the Church is viewed as being composed of the Abrahamic Seed Group based upon Abraham's BARAK-EULOGIA-Blessings, then healing and prosperity becomes a "given," i.e., "given" to us in the Abrahamic Covenant.  Christians, therefore are members of the Church whose roots and foundation are the Abrahamic Covenant, not a "brand-new-covenant-church-entity-thing" devised by the God-Looked-Down Theory.

     The above position is demonstrated beyond any doubt in the next chapter.  There, we show why Jewish Christians are continuously inheriting their Abrahamic blessings of healing and prosperity right now.

            The third reason given by the pushers of the God-Looked-Down Theory in their desperate bid to hang on to a "new" Church, concerns the "mystery" (MUSTERION) of the Church.  According to them, the Church was "hidden" in the Old Testament, but is now revealed fully in the New Testament.  Later in this volume, we shall also examine, refute, and destroy this "straw man" as we have the others.  The Church is composed of Abraham and his Seed Group, beginning in Genesis and continuing throughout eternity.

Copyright 1996 - 2007
Date Last Updated: February 26, 2008
PO Box 59  ¦  Livingston, TX  ¦  77351
936-327-3676
http://jaysnell.org