Matthew 18:18-20 is an important section of the discourse of Matthew 18 and one of the most important passages for Matthew's theology. The near identical wording of Mt. 18:18 to Mt. 16:19b-c gives this section even further importance. Mt. 16:17-19 has long been a source of disagreement about the place of Peter or the structure of the church in early Christianity, so the connection of Mt. 18:18 to Mt. 16:19b-c closely ties one important passage of Matthew to another. This thesis proposes a new interpretation for Mt. 18:18-20 and also for Mt. 16:19b-c, though the primary aim of the thesis is directed to the new interpretation of Mt. 18:18-20. The entire section of Mt. 18:18-20 is an expression of a central and repeated emphasis of Matthew's theology, his emphasis on divine causation in human behavior. The heaven-first order of binding and loosing in Mt. 18:18 expresses the conviction that God causes a person to repent (which does not deny there also being human causation). When the sinner of Mt. 18:15 looses his sin from himself through repentance, and when disciples respond by treating him as if his sin were loosed, such loosing has already occurred in heaven because God caused the person to repent. When the sinner holds fast to his sin and thus is treated by disciples in kind as if his sin were indeed bound to him, this is so because of the absence of such divine influence to repentance or because of the withdrawal of such influence in cases where the sinner has resisted it. It is thus appropriate to say that what has been loosed or bound on earth has already been loosed or bound in heaven. This explains the periphrastic future perfect verbal forms of Mt. 16:19b-c and 18:18. Matthew moves from the focus primarily on sin in Mt. 18:18 to a focus on conflict in Mt. 18:19. When two persons reconcile and thus resolve conflict, such reconciliation will have been divinely caused. The apodosis of Mt. 18:19 gives information about the cause of the event of the protasis. Something similar happens in Mt. 18:20, where the presence of the exalted Jesus mediates the presence of God, who works together with the exalted Jesus to bring reconciliation for the name of Jesus. Such an interpretation is the basis for renaming the discourse. It is a repentance discourse. This proposal for Mt. 18:18-20 avoids problems that have plagued previous interpretations of these verses. It does justice to the periphrastic future verbal forms and respects the linguistic evidence of Mt. 18:18-20. It also allows the interpreter to find a triad of triads structure that aligns the repentance discourse with the structure of the preceding discourses and with Matthew's use of triads in non-discourse material. Further, though this proposal is defensible on its own, it is also in continuity with Matthew's emphases on reconciliation and divine causation prior to Mt. 18. The results of this study are significant for source and redaction critical assessment of Mt. 18, for understanding Matthew's theology, and for understanding his conception of righteousness.

This dissertation will explore the relationship between human agency and divine agency by bringing the work of Albert Borgmann into conversation with the approaches to preaching found in the New Homiletic. It asks: on what authority is the practice of preaching built? The New Homiletic movement began as a criticism of traditional (logical/propositional) approaches to preaching that emphasised the authority of the preacher. Alternatively, the New Homiletic relies on narrative and dialogical modes of preaching to relocate authority within the experience of the listener. The New Homiletic has made progress by shifting authority from the preacher, but this shift does not go far enough. The question of authority must be framed by way of God’s authority as the primary authority of preaching. This dissertation will draw on the work of Albert Borgmann. Central to Borgmann’s work is the effect of technology on society which he calls the device paradigm. The device paradigm describes the cumulative effect of replacing things with devices. Devices sever the relationship between the means and ends of all things and encourage a life of consumption of commodities. An overemphasis on methodology in preaching risks commodifying preaching by separating the means of preaching from its ends. As an alternative, this dissertation presents preaching as a focal practice. Focal practices are Borgmann’s proposal to counter to the disengaging nature of devices. By putting significant things, focal things, at the forefront of one’s life a person can build their life around engagement. Preaching is a focal practice. The effective power of preaching is external to the practice of preaching, and it is God, as the focal thing, who gives it authority. Building on the principles of Polynesian navigation, the preacher will be presented as a navigator. The preacher cannot create the change they wish to see in their congregation. Instead, they work to orient the community to what God has done, what God is doing, and what God will do. / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

i Sanders (1977:114) contends that “[s]in comes only when man actually disobeys; if he were not to disobey he would not be a sinner.” This thesis was thus motivated to critique Sanders’s contention in relation to sin and human accountability in Second Temple Judaism. Before delving into various understandings of sin and human accountability of Second Temple Judaism, in Chapter 2, I deal with the Weltanschauung of Second Temple Judaism. It was observed that Israel’s covenantal history is far from discontinuous with creation at a time of severe theological, sociological, and political plights in spite of the presence of sin and evil. In Chapters 3, I deal with how the authors of 1 Enoch and Jubilees understood the presence of sin and evil. Even though the Watcher story in these Enochic traditions serves to attribute the origin of sin to the fallen angels, it was observed the Watcher story cannot quench Second Temple Jews’ uneasiness in relation to the presence of sin and evil. In Chapter 4, I deal with Qumran literature. By focusing on the term yetzer ra both in pre-Qumran and in Qumran writings, it is worth noting that Qumran literature shows a tendency to realize the severity of the sinfulness of humanity in a complicated and radicalized manner. When looking at first century Jewish (4 Ezra and 2 Baruch) and early Christian (Romans and James) literature in Chapter 5, it was observed that the authors of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch came to develop further pessimistic anthropologies distinct from their predecessors in the Second Temple period. However, for them, a possibility is open for the few righteous remnants to obey divine commandments. It can be said that their understandings of sin and human accountability appear to be synergistic. For Paul and James, however, the paradigm of the relationship between divine agency and human agency is shifted from synergism to monergism in terms of the Jesus Christ event. / Thesis (PhD)--University of Pretoria, 2017. / Old Testament Studies / PhD / Unrestricted