Naked Bible Podcast 329 — Binding and Loosing

[Music] You're listening to the Naked Bible podcast. To support this podcast, go to nakedbiblepodcast.com and click on the support link in the upper right hand corner. If you're new to the podcast and Dr. Hiser's approach to the Bible, click on new start here at nakedbiblepodcast.com. [Music] Welcome to the Naked Bible Podcast, episode 329, Binding and Loosing. I'm the layman, Trey Strickland, and he's the scholar, Dr. Michaeliser. Hey, Mike. How you doing? Pretty good. I'm still waiting for There's still a sports gap going on in my life, Trey. Yeah, you and me both. So, you know, you should be watching the NBA playoffs right now, but I'm not. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I wouldn't watch those anyway, but it's it's the baseball and the football. You know, I'm wanting football. So, you know, any one of those will scratch the itch, but here we are. You know, what can you say? Yeah. Not much not much to say other than everything else is going crazy out there in the world. But at least everybody's got the podcast to listen to to help make their lives easier. There you go. That's absolutely true. That's the one thing we can hold on to. Trey, bring some order to the chaos that everybody's living in right now. Yeah. Well, you know, I have pugs, too. So, you know, they they don't seem to be bothered by any of it. They they can they can comfort us all. Yeah. You know, while they uh while they do the while they pug. Pug is a verb, by the way. It's not just a noun. It's a verb. That's true. Yeah. Yeah. And my pugs are good at it. That's funny. Yeah. Well, did you order your did you ever uh last time, Mike, we we we mentioned about the Naked Bible mask that people buy? And so since mentioned that I haven't gotten them yet. Yeah, a bunch of people have um uh ordered some since then. And uh are are you the hold up there, Trey? Like it are you like putting them together with a sewing machine at your house or what? Yeah. No, not at all. Um hold on. Yeah, I want to give Jim a shout out. He emailed me and I think he might have been the first one to uh order the uh face mask and he hasn't even gotten it either. He said he ordered it um a few weeks ago, but by the time this podcast comes out, I'm sure he's had it by then. Ask him to send some pics and stuff with him wearing it. So, I'm sure by the time this podcast airs, everybody will have gotten it. And uh I probably will have posted some pictures of it, including you, Mike. When you get it, you got post pictures of you wearing them. Oh, I will. Absolutely. I will, you know, and I'm thinking, well, we'll get them by the next quarantine. By the next pandemic. Yeah. By the next pandemic. The next shutdown. We'll we'll have our our stock of the Naked Bible uh masks there. But Oh, absolutely. I'm going to take a picture of that. That's awesome. It's great. No doubt. So, we appreciate everybody that's bought some. So, send pictures. Again, post pictures # naked Bible out there so everybody can look at your uh pictures that you take. So, all right, Mike. Anything else going on in the world that you want to talk about? No, not really. I mean, we're we're prepping for the fall term at the, you know, for the school of theology. So, I had to have everything done by the middle of July. So, again, we're we're close to sort of getting that in place. And then we have a few a few things that we can't, you know, necessarily uh bring up, you know, for discussion here yet on the podcast, but there's some other things out there that come fall um I could be working on. So, we're just about at that point where we can start making some of those decisions, including your book. Give us an update about the third uh your, you know, novel because I get tons of emails about that. When are you gonna Oh, yeah. finish third book. So, let's give everybody an update about Yeah, I'm hoping, you know, that that it'll be it'll be written like the first draft. I'm hoping it'll be, you know, and for me, first draft is sort of the, you know, a penultimate draft because I'm writing and rewriting the whole time that I'm creating what what we would call a first draft. Um, I'm hoping that's done by the end of the year. I mean, I'm into it now. I every time I look at it and do something with it, I wish it was the only thing I had to do. But yeah, I'm I'm loving it, man. Are you going to do I enjoy it? Hey, hey, did you do a contest contest for the second book? Yeah. What was that contest? Yeah, there are two people There were two people who solved the riddle of the portent. So, they both have characters uh in this in this third one. Yeah. Hope hope hope they like their characters because they're not going to change at this point. Too late now. Too late now. I didn't make any guarantees, you know. Yeah. Good guy, bad guy, normal guy, crazy woman. I mean, I like that. We'll see. Well, Mike, we're going New Testament this week. Yeah, we are. Yeah. Binding and loosing. So there there'll be some people who will see you will have seen the title and heard the title that you know they're going to know right away what what we're going to talk about here. But as promised again this is this is more material that wasn't in unseen realm that would be you know when whenever a follow-up happens and that is not in process. Again, I just have lots of things to pull from. And so, this helps me um you know, take a look at some topics and and uh you know, do some more reading and thinking about things. But this one uh again, this is this sort of has a very obvious relationship to the kinds of things we talk about in unseen realm. And in fact, we're going to start in Matthew 16, which was the gates of hell uh passage. And part of that passage, again, I I never I never did anything with in unseen realm, but you're going to see it. It has a very obvious relationship, however, historically in interpretation scholars have not seen it. And it it it's really kind of shocking. You know, there there are a handful of exceptions. And again, the work of those people are the ones that I'm going to be using and I'll mention in the in the course of this episode. And I believe one of the one of the articles I'm going to mention I put in the protected folder. So if you subscribe to the McLot newsletter, you can get access to this. But it it you know when we get to the end of this you're going to think how in the world was I mean this looks obvious and you know you're going to realize that good grief you know every time I've heard this passage talked about I've I've I've heard it talked about in one or two different ways that really just very obviously misses the boat. So you're going to have one of those experiences as well. But let me just jump into the passages. I'm going to read two passages so that you know those of you who who haven't quite you know put the binding and loosing uh language together as to where we're going to be you you'll get oriented here real quick at the outset. So the first one is Matthew 16 and I'm going to read uh verses 18 through 20. Again, this is the gates of hell passage. And Jesus says to Peter, I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell, again, this is ESV, shall not prevail against it, which is not the best translation. Basically, the gates of hell shall not withstand it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. And then two chapters later, Matthew 18 18-20, we read this. 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. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything, they ask, it will be done for them by my father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them. Now, in both of these passages, I'm going to just throw out some preliminary things that you can, you know, be percolating away in your head. Both of these passages have this binding, you know, and loosing language. And that that raises the obvious question, you know, what does the binding refer to? What's being bound? What's being loosed? What does loosing mean? You know, what what are the keys to the kingdom? And and here's another question. Again, this is, you know, I'm tipping tipping a little bit of the hand here. Should when we when we encounter the word heaven, should we think of heaven as the, you know, the place where where God is like the afterlife? I mean, there is a reference to the kingdom of heaven here. Okay, that that that's true. But in the kingdom of heaven, if if this is the way we're supposed to think of of all the references in heaven, what what needs to be bound in the kingdom of heaven? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. What if heaven refers to the spiritual world? Okay, the heavenlies to use language of other translations in other passages. So maybe instead of like heaven, the place where believers are and where God is and everything's perfect, maybe some of these references to heaven are just about the spiritual world, the heavenlies, and just store that away. Now, as we go through this, one thing is going to become crystal clear to you. And I hope listeners grab it fully, grasp it fully, and and this is why I'm I'm telegraphing it up front because I don't want you to miss it. This episode will be exhibit A as to why we should be using second temple Jewish material to understand the New Testament rather than rabbitic material. The rabbitic material was written centuries after the New Testament. The second temple period literature was written before the New Testament and is a context for the New Testament. The rabbitic material is not. But yet you have, you know, scholars and and commentators on these passages are constantly trying to interpret them through the filter with the assistance of rabbitic material that hadn't even been written. And that is in large part why there is a lack of clarity on these passages and why attention has been deflected away from some pretty obvious interpretive trajectories. They're going to be obvious when we get to the end here. And you're going to ask, how in the world did we miss that? Well, we missed that because we were looking at the rabbis. That's why we missed it. We weren't looking at other New Testament contexts and we weren't looking at second temple Jewish material. But we were thinking about the rabbis. This episode again is going to be exhibit A as to why second temple material should be used to to help us think about the New Testament and not rabbitic material. So again with that sort of prelude and a little bit of a challenge there, my touchpoint article for this and this is the one I put in the protected folder. Uh there's going to be another article that comes up in the course of of doing this that that is important, but this is I think this is the most important of the two is an old one. It's over 30 years old. Uh Richard H. He's h I r in the journal of biblical literature volume 104 number two. This 1985 he wrote an article called binding and loosing subtitle the mathean authorizations. Okay. So we're going to interact with this article and again he does just a beautiful job of showing you know how to intelligently navigate this language. Now here's his introduction. Okay. He says the sayings about binding and loosing reported in Matthew 16:19 and 1818 have given rise to a wide range of interpretations. Catholic scholars often have read them to mean that Jesus thereby authorized the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church, the primacy of Peter in its government, and the apostolic power of excommunication. Protestant commentators on the other hand tend to argue that the sayings either are inauthentic, those would be liberal Protestants since they're found only in Matthew or they must surely mean something other than that Jesus bestowed sassidotal authority on Peter or other apostles. In other words, Protestants basically say, well, we can't do that Catholic stuff, so it's got to mean something else. Here's goes on and says, "Protestants also have been eager to point out that nothing is said in either passage about the transmission of authority by apostles to any successors." That's certainly true. The last sentence he writes, what did Jesus authorize Peter and the others to do in these sayings? Okay, that is the fundamental question. So, what he does is he goes on from that introduction to survey interpretive proposals. And I'm going to give you a summary of most of of what he covers here. Uh the ones I think that are most relevant. Number one, there's going to be I think let's see. I'm going to sort of divide these up into two sort of buckets here. The first bucket is you have scholars that say the binding and loosing terminology must be understood in light of later rabbitic tradition. Okay? And we I've already again telegraphed the fact that that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but a lot of scholars this is where they're at in this passage, you know, to interpret this stuff. So bucket number one, the terms binding and loosing must be understood in light of later rebbitic tradition. Now there's three variations to this approach, this appeal to the rebbitic writings. First one is the language refers to the authority to release people from vows. And again, they're getting this because the the rabbis, the rabbitic literature will have passages that talk about the leadership of the Jewish community having authority to release people from their vows. So, so again, New Testament scholars will look at that and say, well, the binding and loosing, you know, okay, you this is probably what they're talking about. Again, here's the art the author of the article and me, of course, are going to say, no, this is, you know, we're barking up the wrong tree here. But again, just just stay with us. This is again the first angle for this first bucket. First bucket is we we have to look at the rabbis. So some scholars will say well when the rabbis talk about releasing people from their vows this is what this binding and loosing language is about. So here's comments as follows. He says Matthew reports that Jesus told his followers to refrain from swearing at all. You know taking vows. It's Matthew 5. It is unlikely that Matthew understood Jesus to have authorized his followers to determine whether other followers should be released from vows. In other words, you know, Jesus wouldn't have approved of any of this. So why would he give the the apostles the authority to decide, well, that's a good vow, this is a bad vow, you know, and you know, when when Jesus would have said, don't do this at all. So, you know, it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you look at it that way. Again, here's a saying that you know why why would we go you know follow this trajectory. The second again way that some scholars would say hey we need to follow the rabbis is this. They would they would argue that the binding and loosing language is refers to the authority to tell people what activities or behaviors they can or cannot do. You know typically the idea is that this pertains to what scripture has already revealed. So, so the idea is put forth again in in terms of like enforcement of what scripture teaches that this sort of cast the apostles now like the Israelite judges or the interpreters of scripture. you know, the apostles sort of become this this body, this group that when there's a a difference of opinion about the law or about some teaching or something, they, you know, they're the ones to go to and and appeal and and and check that out. or when it comes to a behavior that the apostles can say, you know, thumbs up, thumbs down, do that, don't do that. You know, that that they're they're a locust of authority now in in terms of doing exugesus in terms of biblical interpretation. Okay, now that sounds a little more reasonable, but you know, here's uh counters this by noting Matthew 23:8, which basically seems directly opposed to the idea. So, Matthew 23:8, let me just look that up and I will I'll read it to you real quickly. Matthew 23:8 says as follows. You are not to be called rabbi for you have one teacher and you are all brothers. Well, that kind of, you know, runs in the face of, you know, of this other idea. I mean, Jesus is saying, look, you're not rabbis. Okay, so Matthew 23:8 sort of runs right into that. Here's also would argue that there's really nothing in the immediate context about teaching or discipline within the church community. He writes, quote, "Matthew and Luke report that Jesus sanctioned obedience to the law, not its interpretation." Unquote. And he he makes a few references here so we can kind of tell what he's talking about. For instance, in Matthew 5:17, Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. And truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not a Yoda or a dot, a jot or a tit will pass from the law till all is accomplished. So, you know, Jesus is stressing obedience there. He's not like, look, you don't have to worry about this or that, you know, interpretation or whatever. You know, there Jesus becomes the fulfillment of all these things. You know, whoever relaxes one of these least commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, Jesus adds in Matthew 5:19. But whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. So your job is each of you individually. You're not supposed to be rabbis. You're just supposed to obey. You know, you're supposed to to follow me, all of you. Okay? So, so that's just an example where here's would say look Jesus if he wanted to sort of establish a teaching magisterium here. Uh he wouldn't have said you're not rabbis and and he wouldn't have said look just follow me just just you know love God love God love your fellow man and you know follow me you know he he doesn't establish a school of you know little group of scholars that's going to parse every passage and all this kind of stuff. So, you know, again, here's, you know, he adds more to it, but I'm summarizing here. He's saying, uh, you know, this is maybe a little better than the first one, but it's not really that good. It's got problems. Third one, third variation of, hey, we we need to let the rabbis tell us how to read binding and loosing is that the authority, you know, the ideas of binding and loosing is that the authority of church leaders uh is given to them to exclude people from the church and the believing community. So it's it's sort of a it's sort of a church discipline idea that that the binding and loosing here refers to who gets in the church and who's who stays in and who gets kicked out. Again, there are a couple of problems with this. The the verbs that are used here, you know, binding is is deto and and loosing is luo. These these basic verb forms and there there are variations of that uh that use those roots. But the verbs here really don't have the semantic range of putting you in a community and kicking you out. You know, a meaning of the verbs to speak of a ban or an expulsion would be exceedingly unusual. And and honestly, I would say, and here's he doesn't use this word, but he you can tell he's angling for it. Basically, this is contrived, you know, and and and another problem is who would determine this standard, you know, like who stays in, who gets kicked out for every congregation? Like, like how do you do that? I mean, you're always going to have things come up that, you know, you you know, for for churches today that still, you know, remember that there is a thing called church discipline. You know, first Corinthians 5, you know, Paul Paul gets into this. That's not the only passage, but you do have these things come up where someone needs to be expelled from the community. When you go to those passages, it's not a grocery list. Again, there are some broad principles there. So, how how would this passage in Matthew 16, which doesn't really specifically say this anyway, and the verbs don't really mean this elsewhere, how would we know how to take this pretty vague language and make it applicable everywhere? How would we know that? you know, of course the the Catholic Church is going to solve this because they're they you know, they have the apostolic succession, the pope and all this kind of and they and they they literally just made a list, you know, they you know, and you know, even even that varied historically about excommunication and all that kind of stuff, but but this is again in part how they would argue the authority to do that. And here's a saying, you know, it's really hard to make the verbs point that direction. Now, evangelical commentators, I'm only pulled out one example here, but I I mean I I've I looked at several just out of curiosity. You know, evangelical commentators are in one of these three trajectories as well. This this let's appeal to the rabbis bucket. This is where you're going to find a lot of evangelical commentators. Kirstenburgger for example says in a Jewish context the expression binding and loosing describes the activity of a judge who declared persons innocent or guilty and thus quote bound or quote loosed them from the charges made against them. Well, is that really what's in the passage? I mean, where's where's how do we go from this language to just assuming it's judicial? Well, you appeal to the rabbis. You know, that stuff that was written hundreds of years later. Again, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You know, you have to you have to sort of read that into, you know, the New Testament. Again, what this is really going to come down to is there's just a much easier way to parse this. But this is where a lot of people are. You know, Carson's somewhere in the orbit here. Other New Testament scholars, there there's sort of a fixation on one of two things to be honest with you. If you if you look this up in commentaries, people are either fixated on appealing to the rabbis, rabbitic literature, or they spend all their time, the commentators spend all their time talking about the verb tenses. Well, is it like ongoing authority? Is it, you know, is it a perfect, you know, tense? Is it a present? You know, you know, what would it be if this was the condition you would expect this form or that form? And they they they spend all the time, you know, talking about the the verb forms and the grammar or the appeal to the rabbis. and they fail as we'll see to do something pretty simple. Now the second bucket, okay, first bucket is we appeal to the rabbis. That's how we understand this. The second bucket is here's puts it this way. There are those who would say now don't look at the rabbis but the meaning is to be understood in terms of John 20:23 and thus refers to the authority of the disciples to forgive or withhold forgiveness of sins. Let me just read you John 20:23. You know what he is bringing up here. Let's see here. I'm going to go I'll go back to verse 19. On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews. Again, this is this is post-resurrection here. Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you." When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. And the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. And Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I'm sending you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them. If you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld." Now, you notice there's no binding and loosing language there. But there are commentators who will say we need to parse Matthew's statements by this passage and link this this binding and loosing to this forgiveness or not you know forgiveness or nonforgiveness of sins. So that this is the second bucket. Now here's in his article he's I'll just be he's not buying this. He writes, "Elsewhere, Matthew seems to say that Jesus expected his followers to forgive those who offended them without need for special authorization or benefit of clergy." And he cites a bunch of verses, Matthew 5:23-26, Matthew 6:12-15, Matthew 18:21-35. And he he continues, he says, "Matthew 18:18 may refer to forgiving sins committed against someone else, though nothing in the context so indicates." So he's like, "Well, what would this mean?" You know, you ask the question, why should we go from the binding and loosing passage that language over to John 20:23? And the answer is, well, we just we just do that because Jesus gives an authorization in both passages. So both of those passages must be talking about the same thing. Well, that that's a huge assumption for one thing. You know, a little sidebar here. We'll get back to to our binding and loosing here. A sidebar on John 20:23 because I know people are going to say, "Well, what what does it mean?" I'm going to I'm I pulled two selections from two commentaries that I think summarize the point in John 20:23. We summarize what the point is, and it isn't that humans have the power or authority to forgive sins like in a salvation or really even a moral sense. The idea is basically the right to cast judgment on who is embracing Jesus and his work on the cross and who isn't. Okay, here's from Andrew Lincoln. This is his commentary on on John 2005. He writes this in this gospel's discourse. Sin is primarily failing to acknowledge the revelation of God in Jesus. And of course, he's referring to John because John's all about showing that Jesus is the son of God. Okay, that's that's the whole theme of the book. So he's saying in this in the Gospel of John, the discourse about sin when sin's talked about is primarily failing to acknowledge the revelation of God in Jesus. Jesus' words and works have been depicted as bringing about a judgment which the recipients make on themselves as they either respond in belief or expose their sinful state of unbelief. The same holds for the future work of the spirit about whom Jesus said that when he comes he will convict the world of sin because they do not believe in me. Okay, that's the Lincoln quote. So orienting the the talk about forgiving and not forgiving sin to do you believe in Jesus or don't you? We're going to judge you on the basis of whether you embrace Jesus as a son of God or you don't. Next quote is from uh Jay Ramsey Michaels again his commentary in the Gospel of John 2010. Michaels writes, "What exactly then is Jesus promising his disciples?" Again in John 20:23 it appears to be a corollary of John 13:20 which says the person who receives whomever I send receives me and the person who receives me receives the one who sent me unquote. So Ramsay says it appears to be a correlary of that while taking into account as well the negative equivalent now preserved in Luke 10:16. quote, "The person who hears you hears me, and the person who rejects you rejects me, but the person who rejects me rejects the one who sent me." And Jesus, that was Jesus speaking, he's talking about God. And that's the end of the verse. So Ramsay Michaels continues. He says, "In short, the disciples are being given authority to act as Jesus' agents in the course of their mission and consequently as agents of God himself. through them the Holy Spirit or advocate will both quote convict the world of sin unquote. It's John 16:8. And forgive sin. So he'll convict the world of sin and he'll forgive sin. The sins they will forgive are not sins against them personally. Okay? This this isn't what Michaels is saying. This isn't what Jesus is talking about when he when he says this to the disciples. You know, the sins they'll forgive aren't sins committed against them personally. And again he cites these passages from Matthew that you know Lincoln cited and here's cites as well how they are rather the sins of the world generally and unbelief in particular. He refers back again to John 16:8 and9 but sins of every kind. Those whom they forgive because their message is accepted. God will forgive those whose sins they retain as Jesus sometimes did because the message was rejected. God will not forgive. In short, God will ratify and validate their mission, the mission of the apostles because God is their father. Okay, verse 17 in John 20. He has given them authority to become children of God. John 1:12. And consequently to act on his behalf. So what's John 20:23 talking about with this? You know, you can, you know, whoever he he tells the disciples, you know, whoever you forgive, they'll be forgiven. Whoever you don't forgive won't. Again, these two commentators are are saying, look, this language, what it really has to do with is do people as you go out into the ministry, as you go out and preach what you've seen and heard, again, this is a post-resurrection scene. is you go out from here and you tell people those who believe they're going to have their sins forgiven and you can you can tell them that they will have their sins forgiven. Your sins are forgiven if you believe this message and and you know God will forgive them because they believe the gospel. If they don't believe you have every right to stand there and say your sins are not forgiven. They can only be forgiven if you believe this but you don't believe it. So therefore do the math. Okay. So I I think that is the most coherent way to look at John 20:23 and I'm you know obviously with here and we would both say this has nothing to do with Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 the binding and loosing. So let's go back there. So here's again you know comments after going through other views you know he he has one or two but I again these these are the big ones the appeal to the rabbis or you appeal to John 20:23. So he goes through this section about the other views and then he he writes this sort of as by way of a of a summary at that point in his article. He writes it is surprising I love this paragraph. It's it's so like yeah no kidding. He says, "It is surprising that none of these interpretations attends to passages where terms for binding and loosing appear intestamental Jewish sources or elsewhere in the New Testament." Let me just stop there. hears is like, you know, it's kind of surprising that, you know, the the scholars who are discussing this and they're talking about the rabbis and, you know, a couple of them are going to talk about John 20:23. It's like they don't look up the terms in second temple Jewish literature and they don't even look them up where they appear elsewhere in the New Testament. Remember, John 20:23 didn't even have the binding and loosing language in it. So, here's like that's kind of surprising. I would say, yeah, yeah, it really is. He continues and he says interpreters who rely on Stra and Berbeck's commentary this they have a very famous u collected you know set of works on um how how rabbitic material and New Testament material you know intertwined it's it's like a a rabbitic commentary in the New Testament you know they fared out all that material so he says interpreters who rely on that you know the straen berbeck which is primarily based on the talmud and the midash you know, don't ever get, you know, to this other stuff. He says, "This view again, this this dependence on the rabbis often seems to suppose that the Intertestamental literature is of little or no importance as background for New Testament terminology and beliefs. Terms for binding and loosing appear with a wide range of meanings in the Septuagent. For example, Judges 16:6, Judges 16:13, Job 38:31, Isaiah 22:21, Isaiah 66:1. He has a whole, you know, grocery list here. And he goes into Enoch and Tobit and some of these other passages. And this is his last sentence in the paragraph. None of these passages, these second temple passages, anticipates the later puditive rabbitic usages. Basically what he means by that is hey if you look at the second temple stuff it it doesn't support any of these rabbitic trajectories. So hey you know suggestion pro tip you know interpretive pro tip here. Let's look at the second temple Jewish material instead of the rabbitic stuff. And this is what he does in his article. He he shifts at this point to the view he's going to argue for and again how to defend it. So he he basically says this in one sentence. Here's what he's going to argue for. Binding and loosing refers to exorcism and authority over supernatural powers of darkness. That's what it is. It's not the the rabbi, you know, turning the apostles into judges and, you know, about excommunication and setting up apostolic succession. It's not about any of that. binding and loosing refers to exorcism and authority over supernatural powers of darkness. And here's how he builds the case. Okay, we're going to go through what what he does here. And you know what? It it's it's a lot more transparent than you would think. You know, because when I say that, you know, to some of you this might sound intuitive, and that's good because again, when we get to the end, you're going to you're going to sort of feel that way. Everybody, I think, is going to feel that way. But some of you are sort of mentally already there. But others will say like my boy you know really you know binding and loosing isn't that just like pop culture language for demons you know well let let's see so his first leg on this journey is he says that passages you know he said let's look at passages that use the terminology and we'll find that there are passages that use these same verbs in again second temple you know Jewish material intertestamental material that do in fact use it to describe binding of demons and loosing demonic acts, you know, people who are oppressed, you know, by demonic powers, supernatural, you know, evil. So he writes this. He says,"Most commonly intestamental writings in the New Testament, the terms binding and loosing refer to the binding of Satan or satanic beings." In other words, demons and the loosing of such beings or their earthwile victims," unquote. So he's saying, "Hey, most of the time, if you actually go look up these words where they appear in the New Testament and elsewhere, guess what? It talks about binding demons or you know exercising demons from people and releasing them loosing you know the demon from the person and delivering that person. So some examples that he he offers here again using the same you know verbs is tobot. Tobot is kind of the obvious one if you've ever read the Apocrypha. Tobat has a you know a sort of a big scene a big buildup you know to a scene where there's an angel in the story Raphael who binds the demon Asodius this is Tobot 3:17 and Tobot 83 when Asodius is bound the woman he was afflicting whose name is Sarah is freed now when she's freed the part about her freeing doesn't use the same loosing verb even though the binding is the same but the loosing verb is used of exorcisms elsewhere where you know in in literature the same period the cognate verb apoluo is used with respect to the freeing of persons from demons in Josephus's description of exorcisms for example it's antiquities 8.2.5 2.5 paragraph 46. Then he goes to Enoch. He goes to Enoch and writes this, you know, as he's discussing Enoch. So here's a section of of his article. He writes several instances of such terminology and he's talking about the binding and loosing Greek verbs. now occur in first Enoch, Jubilees and the testaments of the 12 patriarchs mainly in connection with accounts of the previous binding of the evil spirits in the days of Noah and the perspective binding of Satan or Bellal at the end of the age. Certain of the watchers, notably Aazelle and Shemyaza, had corrupted the world of human beings. Consequently, God commanded Raphael, there's Raphael again, now he's showing up in Enoch. God commands Raphael, quote, "bind Aazelle hand and foot and cast him into the darkness and let him abide there forever. And on the day of the great judgment, he shall be cast into the fire." That's 1 Enoch 10:4 11-13. In 1 Enoch 88, we read that the fallen angels described as stars and beasts, evidently the sons of God from Genesis 61-4 were quote bound hand and foot and cast into an abyss of the earth unquote apparently by the angels Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Thano. Such also was to be the fate of sinners who had not experienced judgment during their life on earth. So that's his little paragraph about, hey, you know, we get this this binding and loosing language in Enoch and Jubilees and some of these other books where the reference are very clear. So then he moves on. Again, I'm just trying to summarize. It's it's a lengthy article. So again, just my effort to summarize this. If you want again to read the article, you subscribe to the newsletter, go to the protected folder, you can have it there. So here's moves on to what he calls the most significant parallel to Matthew's language. He writes this, "Perhaps the most significant intertestamental and second temple references to the binding or overpowering of Satan and the demons are found in the testaments of the 12 patriarchs. The classic passage in Testament of Levi 18:es 12 through 10-2 refers to the activities of the new priest whom God would raise up as king in the era to come." It's it's an obvious messianic reference. And it says this, "He shall open the gates of paradise. He shall remove the threatening sword against Adam. He shall give to the saints to eat from the tree of life. And the Holy Spirit shall be on them. And Bellyar shall be bound by him. And he shall give power to his children to tread upon the evil spirits." Now here's goes on and says similar hope you know this this again ultimate messianic hope here comes to expression in the testament of Simeon chapter 6:es 5-6 testament of Zebulun 98 the assurance that human beings will have power to quote tread upon unquote or subdue the evil spirits means that these spirits will no longer be able to harm them such clearly seems to be the meaning of Jesus' statement to the 70 when they return from their mission reporting reporting that they have found the demons subject to them in his name. Quote, "Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you." That's Luke 10:19. The enemy here, of course, is Satan. Now, let me just break in here. You know, he's he's given you a few examples here. He's talked about, hey, you know, we might want to look in the New Testament, you know, because when we look up binding and loosing other in other places in the New Testament, you get the binding of Satan and demons. Then you get loosing of demons from people, you know, and he goes out to second temple literature and he comes up with, you know, these examples here. I mean, you you could stop right here and I think you could say you've made the case. I mean, it just makes good sense. The parallels are quite strong and they make it clear that in second temple Judaism the language of binding and loosing was commonly associated with binding supernatural evil powers and the loosing refer to the deliverance from those powers. But the New Testament itself, I mean there's there's more there's even more to this than than the examples he's given. The New Testament itself uses the same verbs of exorcism and which includes the binding and loosing language. And it's amazing how commentators miss that. Okay. The New Testament itself uses this the same verbiage in these contexts in other places that you know here's hasn't even gotten to yet. Again nowhere in in very good commentaries on Matthew even even my favorite my personal favorite is France's commentary. You don't even see this discussed. I mean I look through them and it's like why aren't you guys discussing this? And what you see again is they're fixated on the rabbitic material or some grammatical form in the passage. They're literally missing the forest for the trees when it when it comes right down to it. And they're appealing to anacronistic material, the rabbitic stuff. So here's goes on and and again just listen to this. I mean it it's just remarkable. He says the terms binding and loosing also appear in the gospels in connection with you know exorcisms. The locust classicus for binding is Mark 3:27 in parallels. The parable about binding a strong man and plundering his goods. The context makes it clear that the strong man represents Satan andor his demons. In many of the reported exorcisms, the demon is ordered or thrown out. To cast out evidently means the same thing as to bind a demon. In other words, you you you have the power over it. Now, okay, here's continues. Matthew follows Mark in describing Jesus exorcism of demons in terms of binding. Matthew 12:29, through exorcism or binding, the demon is brought under control by the one who has superior power. The sense of Mark 3:27 is that by binding the demon, the earthw wild demoniac is liberated from his afflicting demon. Thus, binding and loosing occurs simultaneously. The demon is bound while its victim is loosed. The term luane to loose occurs with just this meaning in Luke 13:16. Quote, "And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound for 18 years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day." Here the terms Dne to bind, [Music] detomos, the word translated bond. Here these two terms relate to Satan's activity. presumably through the demons in afflicting his victims. A related idea is expressed by the verb the moon used in the exorcism story in Mark 1:25 which is the same as Luke 4:35. Literally it means to tie shut or silence. Silencing the demons elsewhere seems to have been part of Jesus' technique in rebuking. That is overpowering them. The term to bind is used then both with respect to the affliction of a person by Satan or demons and to the binding of a demon or of Satan by an exorcist who thereby frees or looses the earthwile victim. Now goodness that looks obvious if you again you could almost want to tell the commentators you know if you would just put Stra and Billerbeck down put it back on the shelf and you just used your Bible software to concord the lemmas you would have found these passages if you would have looped in Greek text of the second temple period you would have found more and it's like problem solved it just seems so obvious and I would say it is obvious But again, this is like I said at the beginning of of the episode, this is exhibit A of of how, you know, interpreters can get distracted by the rabbitic material which is later and and it's like they never get around the the methodology is backwards to the second temple material. Now, you know, in the in the process of of what Hirs is doing in that section about exorcism, he refers to another article, and I'm not going to get into this one necessarily. I I think, you know, I I I may have put this in the folder, too. If I I'll have to go look after the episode, and if I haven't, I I'll put it up there so you can go look for it. But this is by HC Key. That's K. And the the the title is Community of the New Age Studies in Mark's Gospel. It's a book. Okay. So, this is part of it's an essay in this book. So, Community of the New Age Studies in Mark's Gospel and he writes on page 108, Jesus' exorcisms have the effect of binding the strong man and thus preage the end of his control. Key also has a journal article. This is probably what I'll put in because I I don't I don't know that I even have the book. I'd have to go look at it and photocopy it, but I know I have the article. The article is entitled, and it's really the same subject, the terminology of Mark's Exorcism Stories. That's from New Testament Studies, volume 14, 1968. It's an old article, but it, you know, it it goes through the language. Goes through the language. Now, again, this this really looks just painfully obvious. You You've got this language in the New Testament. We got it in the second temple period. What are we doing looking at the rabbis? Again, it's just it just kind of that it just happens. Okay, it just happens. And and I suspect sometimes and it it really, you know, sort of hit me with this one and I've suspected at other times, you know, and you know, I understand everybody's human here, but sometimes I think that commentators really only look at what other commentators have said and they wind up sort of imitating that. And in this case, I think that's pretty obvious. Everybody sort of defaults to the rabbitic stuff. And it would it would be nice like if if somebody would have just run the searches and looked at the second temple period stuff, you would have gone in a totally different direction and one that actually makes sense. Okay? You know, so here's actually, you know, goes on he discusses other things in this in this article. I'm just going to I'm going to read a few few other passages just so that you can get the feel for some of the other things he's he's talking about here. He writes on one page, "Behold, um he's quoting um the the statement about u I think it's Mark Mark 10. Uh I can't remember Luke 10. Uh I have to go look that up, but he he's quoting that the tread on serpents passages. I don't know which gospel it's in, but he writes this." So Jesus says, "Behold, I have given you authority, exusia, to tread upon serpents and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you." This statement here says in effect summarizes the substance of the kind of authorization reported in Mark 6:7 in parallels. The assurance and also probably Jesus saying in Matthew 10:16 are echoed by Paul in Romans 16:20. I would have you wise as to what is good, Paul says, and guile us as to what is evil. Then the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. What is new for Jesus' disciples is that they have found this power effective. They have been exercising demons. Jesus own authority over the demons has been a source of amazement from the beginning of his public activity. Mark 1, you know, for example, now the disciples too have authority over the demons, not as often is asserted because Satan has been bound, but because as stated in Luke 10:19 and elsewhere, because Jesus has given them this power. Further support here's continues for our hypothesis may be gained from the wider context of the synoptic and other New Testament accounts of Jesus' activity. According to the synoptic reports, Jesus' pattern of activity consisted primarily of preaching repentance and the future coming of the kingdom and healing and exercising demons. These activities are inherently interrelated. Both the preaching and the healings and the exorcism were were preparatory to the coming of the kingdom of God. uh you know he's going to take all this back to Matthew 16 which is really founding language of of the church and the kingdom you know the gates of hell are not going to be able to withstand you and it seems obvious again in hindsight that he would connect all these things and it refers to the authority given to believers over the powers of darkness okay exorcisms you know breaking the bonds of of you know demonic entities and so on and so forth which he did in the gospels, he gave them authority to do this. And it it just again, if you actually look up the terminology, the binding and loosing language shows up in all these other passages where where Satan and demons is mentioned. You know, we don't have Satan and demons mentioned specifically in Matthew 16 or 18, but but his point is that look, you know, all these other passages have it. It makes good sense in the context of both those Matthew passages. We've got a second temple, you know, Jewish textual trail of evidence that that the terms are used this way. So that's what it means. I mean this again this is his argument. Now he he actually goes on to connect this with Revelation 12. Okay, this is the war in heaven passage and everybody thinks it's a you know some prime evil rebellion. I've commented on this many times that the war in heaven there breaks out in response to the birth of Jesus and and you know the birth of the Messiah and the Messiah is you know caught up you know to heaven. You know that that's reference to the resurrection and so on and so forth. you know, basically the the birth and the ministry and the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus like in one verse, you know, a couple verses in Revelation 12. It's just sort of encapsulated there, the birth and then the return to, you know, to the father. So, here's connects this binding and loosing language to that heavenly conflict as well. And he writes this in Luke 10 and that's I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven which again I've commented a lot on on the podcast and written about. In Luke 10 the connection between exorcism of demons and the fall of Satan is this through the defeat of his demons on earth. Satan who is still powerful in heaven or in the heavenlies is being overcome. The defeat of the demons means that Satan himself is doomed. This apparently is also the sense of revelation 12 7-11. The seer is assured that Satan will be defeated in heaven. Again, the spiritual world, though his final afflictions must be afterwards must afterwards be endured on earth. Revelation 12:12. As in the saying in Mark 3 about the binding of the strong man, so it would seem also that the sayings in Matthew 16:18 refer to the defeat of the demons on earth having its counterpart in the overcoming of Satan in heaven or in the heavenlies. Now again just to to summarize when you you know when you think about Luke 10 I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Again I've I've commented and written about this a lot. Basically the message is that this that statement is made in conjunction with Jesus beginning his ministry. He inaugurates you know the the kingdom ministry in Luke chapter 10. He sends out the 70 which indicates that he is the Messiah not just for the Jew but also for all the nations. The 70 nations that were disinherited at Babel. The disciples come back and they're excited. Now the demons are subject to us and all this sort of stuff. And and the whole, you know, then Jesus says, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven." Again, as I have argued elsewhere that this is about the the delegitimization, the defeat of Satan's agenda. If you are a member of the kingdom of God, this is basically what Luke 10:18 is about. If you're a member of the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ, okay, then Satan has no more claim on you at all. If you're a member of God's kingdom, and again, in New Testament theology, you loop all this other stuff in. You're in Christ. You're in union with Christ. You know, you're one with Christ. Okay? If you're in that kingdom, if you're in that body, you will have eternal life. which means what happened in in in the fall no longer applies to you. You will conquer death. You will have eternal life because Christ is going to going to rise and he did rise. Okay? And Satan has no more legal claim over you at all. You are you are no longer estranged from God. You have been brought back into relationship with him. So the Genesis 3 problem is is fixed. And this is what Jesus is all alluding to in conjunction with the announcement of the kingdom of God. And that announcement operates in tandem with demonstrations of power over Satan and demons. I mean all these things as as here's has said go hand in hand. And when you go to Revelation 12 again the war breaks out in heaven and you know the the the satanic forces are are defeated and whatnot because they can't stop the child who's born to bring this kingdom, the one who will rule the nations with a rod of iron. And that that passage is quoted in Revelation 12. They can't stop him from rising from the dead, going back to the father, and sitting down at the right hand of power. It's done. They're toast. And so these things again operate in tandem. These passages operate in tandem. And this this takes us to the the keys of the kingdom reference, okay? Because we're going to see that in Revelation as well. So Harris writes this, "The reference to keys of the kingdom of heaven in Matthew 16:19 also has possible exorcistic connotations. In Revelation 20, an angel is seen coming down from heaven at the end of the age, quote, holding in his hand the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain," unquote, in order to seize and bind Satan and imprison him in the pit for a thousand years. Here as in Matthew 16 key is associated with binding and also with the pit that is Hades and it is clear that all this has to do with overpowering Satan. In the one case it is the key to the pit in the other the key to the kingdom of heaven. In Revelation 1:18, the risen Jesus declares, quote, "I have the keys of death in Hades," unquote, again suggesting power o against the forces of evil. The connection between the keys of the kingdom of heaven and binding and loosing in Matthew 16:19, "Then may well be this." Here's writes, "When the disciples bind Satan and the demons, the latter's ursw victims are loosed and made ready for their new life in the kingdom of heaven." Again, the binding, the loosing, the keys, the kingdom language, it all refers to the same thing. If you believe, if you are a member of this kingdom, if you take this Jesus to be the Messiah of Israel, and you believe in his death, burial, and his resurrection, if you are a member of that kingdom, then Satan's hold on you is broken. His authority is broken. He is the one bound now, not you. And you are released. You are loosed. And Jesus is telling the apostles, "This is your message. This is your ministry. And when you go out again, you have the authority. You have the authority not only to resist and confront, you know, not, you know, I mean, if you get into a situation where you're dealing with a demon or whatever, I mean, know that you have this authority because you are residents of the kingdom. You are children of God. You have the authority to be called the children of God. Okay? Know all these things and go forth and do this. And if anyone believes, you can look at them in the eye. Well, Luke John 20:23 into this. You look them in the eye and say, "Your sins are forgiven." Not because I say so, but because you believe in the message that we have and you're a member of this kingdom and Satan has no longer any hold over you and any authority. If you don't believe, your sins are not forgiven and you are still bound. You know, it's a simple coherent kind of message. You know, again, this this even this isn't the whole article. He goes on into Aramaic incantation texts from the second temple period. again more more like you know exorcistic you know demonic you know confrontation texts and language and he shows the binding and loosing terminology is there he has a section on the early Christian community you know early Christian writers they're saying the same thing you know they connect the binding and loosing you know with what we just talked about the the authority over you know Satan and demons and so on and so forth again none of that early stuff second temple early Christian communion. Nobody's nobody's saying let's go check with the rabbis. Nobody's doing that. But but this is where you wind up in commentaries on this passage and it it's it's a distraction. It's a deflection and ultimately it just it leads to confusion. So you know this this is what you have. I I I'm going to end the episode this way. I think this is the best quote from the article because it's, you know, if I had written this, it would have more it would it would probably not be as nice, but he he writes this. He says, "Strange as it may seem to many modern interpreters, Jesus evidently took Satan and the work of exercising demons literally and seriously. At all events, we have no basis in the texts for supposing otherwise. That's just that's just those are wonderful two sentences, but I love it. Strange as it might sound to modern interpreters, Jesus actually took this stuff seriously. Yeah. Yeah, he did. He did. You know, so I wanted to do this episode. I'm hoping again this is this is helpful because I do get questions on this passage, the binding and loosing thing. did not address it in unseen realm. But I think this article again by by heres again if if you get it, you know, if you're if you're you're collecting these sorts of things and using them for reference, you know, for your own study, it's great. It has lots of source citations, but but I really wanted to get into it because like I said at the very beginning, this is exhibit A, okay? It it just makes sense to first look in New in the New Testament, you know, for these terms and then we might want to widen the search to the Septuagent. That takes us into the second temple period. And what about that other Greek stuff being written in the second temple period? Are these terms used in a particular way there? That's what we should be doing. Those are the things that frame the New Testament. the things that have preceded, the things that operate alongside, especially, you know, when they when they have a a very clear intimate relationship attachment to the Hebrew Bible, you know, from which and out of which and on the basis of which we get New Testament theology, you know, it it ought to seem obvious, but this is a this is a terrific example, and I use terrific in in a two-edged sword way. This is a terrific example both in terms of its clarity, you know, and its, you know, its instructive power here to show that we should not reflexively be thinking about what the rabbis are thinking when it comes to the New Testament. They're chronologically removed. And in this case, it's very clear that they're just not they're not helping. Okay? Sometimes they they do help because they they might interpret a passage in the Hebrew Bible in a certain way that that you know sets your mind, you know, off in a in a certain direction. It gives you something to check. Is is that interpretation workable in in the Old Testament's own ancient Neareastern context? Yeah, it is. Well, that's really helpful. Sometimes that happens. Other times it takes you 180 degrees away from where you need to be. So, this is a good example, good topic for illustrating that. And I hope again this is helpful. So Mike, is this podcast safe to say this is Unseen Realm 2? I mean, is this going to eventually be in a book form? I mean, you're you're going to get Well, yeah. I mean, there would be some discussion of Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 and this other stuff. I mean, we it would be expanded upon, you know, because we can we can go to all these passages. We can show, you know, this or that connection. you know, stuff's always better, you know, in written form because there it is and you can re-reference it. You know, here we have to kind of watch our tame even though we typically throw that to the wind. But, um, yeah, you know, this kind of stuff is going to be in that book if it ever exists. But the good news is even if that book never exists, at least it exists here, you know, which is why we're we're trying to cover some of this ground. I'll keep pushing to make sure it exists. And uh, We'll be looked forwarding. I don't want to call it a a Cifian burden. You know, you know who Seephus was. Yeah. Oh, yeah. He's in Greek in Greek mythology, he's he's he's punished by having to push the big stone up the mountain every day. And he never gets to the top. Oh, yeah. We'll be looking forward to exhibit B next week, Mike. And uh All right. And with that, I want to thank everybody for listening to the Naked Bible Podcast. God bless. Thanks for listening to the Naked Bible podcast. To support this podcast, visit www.nakedbibleblog.com. To learn more about Dr. Heiser's other websites and blogs, go to www.drmssh.com. [Music]