The Diving Board, Episode 15

Cameron Bertuzzi’s Conversion Testimony and the Appeal of Catholicism

And this is very significant. Not one, not even one of those Eastern bishops disputed or questioned the Pope's authority. I mean, the Eucharistic, let's just say this, the Eucharistic abuses are abuses to Jesus' DNA, his body and blood.

As I continued to study my early church father, older brothers and sisters, I started to realize that God had a plan for me that was bigger than any plan that I'd ever had for myself. And before you know it, it turned to the Catholic Church.

When I made that decision to become Catholic, everything began to fit. It was like a puzzle with the four sides that I put together with the papacy and the Blessed Mother and tradition in the Eucharist.

Let's say there's a person watching this program right now from where you were. Why should they make the same journey home that you made?

I would say investigate the history for yourself because the famous line from Cardinal Newman is to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant. And that's pretty much what happened to me. So I would say take the Catholic Church's claims, investigate them, and as my father always told me, go wherever Jesus leads you and maybe it would end up in the Catholic Church.

Episode 15 Overview: The Diving Board and the Case Against Roman Catholic Claims

Hello to everyone. This is your host, Timothy F. Kaufman, and you're listening to episode 15 of The Diving Board, the conversion of Cameron Bertuzzi, part 4. The Diving Board focuses on the testimonies of Protestants who convert to Roman Catholicism thinking that to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.

But getting deep in history is something a Roman Catholic cannot do because Roman Catholicism itself is a novelty 300 years removed from the Church of the Apostles and their disciples. Its roots do not go back any further than the end of the 4th century.

And, as we continue to show with each episode, those Roman Catholics who think they're getting deep in history are actually very, very shallow in it, embracing a late 4th century and medieval novelty as if it were the church Jesus Christ founded.

It most certainly is not. If you remember in our previous three episodes, Cameron Bertuzzi, an erstwhile Protestant online cultural commentator who recently converted to Roman Catholicism, identified two main reasons for his conversion, the Eucharist and the papacy.

Since Bertuzzi acknowledged that Roman apologist Matt Fradd's understanding of the Eucharist was very influential in his conversion, we thus far have focused largely on Fradd's interpretation of John 6, that's episode 12, and Matt Fradd's understanding of 1 Corinthians 11, that's episode 13.

In 1 Corinthians 11, 27, Paul says that to eat and drink of the Lord's Supper unworthily makes one guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Matt Fradd said that since Protestants and Catholics disagree on the interpretation of that passage, we should go back to the early writers and see what they said.

But the early church does not support him. The early writers understood 1 Corinthians 11, 27 to be symbolic and interpreted it through the lens of 1 Corinthians 10 and 1 Corinthians 12, in which Paul says that we are the body of Christ and his members, which is why we ought to love and respect and defer to one another because of Christ.

And Matt Fradd said that the early church was unanimous on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, citing Ignatius of Antioch and Cyril of Jerusalem, and as if the evidence was abundant, he said that he could go on and on and on.

So, we went on and on and on ourselves. We walked through the ancient liturgies, not only of Ignatius and Cyril, but also of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, and Cyprian of Carthage, to show that all the go-to ancient writers of the early church work against the Roman apologist and not for him.

We also visited Jimmy Akin's argument for why there is no early evidence for the papacy. As you recall, he argued that the early writers concealed the papacy to protect the occupants of the papal see, so it makes sense that there is no evidence of an early papacy.

That is really a convenient argument, an argument from silence, and Cameron Bertuzzi fell for it and accepted it at face value. In truth, the early writers indicate not only that they were comfortable disclosing their beliefs and methods and personnel in their letters, but also were offended if the correct people were not named and if there was any evidence of fraud and deceit and intentional omission in their communications.

As arguments go, it was a nice try, but it doesn't pass muster when you know how the early writers expressed themselves and what they said to each other. Finally, because Cameron Bertuzzi was so persuaded by Sue and Sona's arguments on the Peter Eliakim typology, we reviewed the method Sue and Sona used to arrive at Roman-Petrian apostolic succession in the form of a papacy to show how demonstrably ignorant he is of the original sources and how loose he is with the evidence.

What we have shown in this series is that Cameron Bertuzzi was foolish to fall for Matt Fradd's argument on the Eucharist, foolish to fall for Jimmy Akin's argument on the utter lack of evidence for the papacy in the early church, and foolish for falling for Sue and Sona's Peter Eliakim argument on the papacy.

None of them, not one, are as deep in history as they think they are, and yet all of them would swear by Cardinal Newman's dictum, to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. Well, the truth will be hard for them to swallow, but the deeper in history you go, the more Protestant the early church looks.

Roman Catholics will laugh at that statement, but that is because they are not familiar with the evidence. They are only familiar with the Roman Catholic arguments. Arguments are not a substitute for evidence.

The Foolishness of Typological Methodology

Okay, now for our concluding episode on Cameron Bertuzzi, I will offer two things to the listener. First, having listened to hours and hours and hours of Sue and Sona's defense of the Peter Eliakim typology, and having sat at his feet in his school of typology, I am going to demonstrate the foolishness of his methodology.

Using Suan's methods, I am going to construct my own typological argument in Matthew 16, namely that Peter is the new and greater Job, and therefore, by his words, Jesus intended to establish a new and greater female priesthood after Peter.

And don't worry, my team and I have been hard at work on developing a typological hermeneutic that will make sense of all of this.

What we do, at least what my team and I have been doing, is we've been developing now hermeneutics for interpreting typology.

And remember, typology is not an exact science. It is intuitive.

Typology is not a strict science. So there's some intuition that's involved here.

And trust me, it's just obvious enough that if it were any more obvious, it would be less obvious. So let's not play down what God is plainly saying to us, okay?

Yeah, but in a sense, it's already obvious, right? Even if it could be made more obvious, but at that point, then it would just be wasted effort to make it more obvious. It's like it's there.

You don't want to miss the typology, and therefore miss what he is communicating to us.

When we look at the typology here, we shouldn't dismiss it or even downplay it, because what if the same situation is going on here? As if there's a pattern that is too noticeable to be considered a coincidence.

Of course, I'm making a facetious point here, but I do want to show just how dangerous and flawed and unreliable Suanzona's methods are. Second, I will provide the actual typological reference Jesus is making here in Matthew 16, and it is nothing at all like Suanzona suggests, and certainly not, I must confess, about a female priesthood.

Okay, so here's the typology of Matthew 16. Peter is the new Job. That's right. Peter is the new Job in the New Testament. It's right there in the text, people. Let's follow in Suanzona's footsteps and establish syntactical correspondence, that is, words, similar structure, using the same phraseology in both locations, and thematic coherence, that is, consistent and similar themes between Matthew 16 and Job.

It gets really kind of uncanny once you start looking closely.

For the next few minutes, my arguments will be entirely facetious. In Matthew 16, Jesus is clearly making an allusion to God's last conversation with Job. For example, Jesus mentions a foundation of stone, binding and loosing, the gates of hell, and decrees or ordinances in heaven, and decrees and ordinances on earth.

Right?

Where else does God say things like this? In his last conversation with Job. Job 38 .6, He's speaking of the foundations and cornerstone of the whole world, of course, but the syntactical correspondence is undeniable.

It gets really kind of uncanny once you start looking closely.

Job 38 .31,.

See?

Bind and loose, both in Matthew 16 and in God's last conversation with Job.

It gets really kind of uncanny once you start looking closely.

Job 38 .17,.

It gets really kind of uncanny once you start looking closely.

Job 38 .33,.

It gets really kind of uncanny once you start looking closely.

Oh, it gets even better. In Revelation 12 .14, the church is likened to an eagle, and in Job, the eagle abideth on a rock. Revelation 12 .14, So, there's the church being described as an eagle. But in Job 39 .27 -28, in Job's last conversation with God, See?

See? Notice the thematic and syntactical correspondence between Job 39 and Matthew 16. It's clear that Jesus was making a textual allusion to it.

It gets really kind of uncanny once you start looking closely.

But wait, there's more. Think about it. Job lost his houses, lands, children, sheep, camels, and oxen when he was tested, and then got them back twofold when he passed the test. And just like Job, right after making his confession, Peter asked, And Jesus responded that Peter would be restored one hundredfold.

Everyone that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

See?

Job was only restored twofold, but Peter will be restored one hundredfold. Peter is the new and greater Job. Fifty times greater, in fact.

It gets really kind of uncanny once you start looking closely.

And at the transfiguration, right after Peter's confession, it says Peter did not know what he was talking about. That's Luke 9, 33, where it says Peter was not knowing what he said. And the whole context of Job 38 -39 is God rebuking Job for not knowing what he was talking about.

Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

See?

Just like Peter. And Job argued with God. That's Job 40, verse 2. And Peter argued with God. That's Matthew 16, 22. Then Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord, this shall not be unto thee.

Satan asked permission to torment Job. That's Job 1, verse 11 and 2, 5. And Satan asked permission to torment Peter. That's Luke 22, 31. And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desire to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.

It gets really kind of uncanny once you start looking closely.

So, let's review the uncanny syntactical correspondence and thematic consistency between God's last conversation with Job and Jesus' conversation with Peter. Bind, loose, gates of hell, stone foundation, ordinances in heaven and ordinances on earth.

There's a similar structure. Job is tested by Satan. Peter is tested by Satan. Job argues with God. Peter argues with God. And thematic coherence. The Lord restores Job's property and children. The Lord promised to restore Peter's property and children.

Matthew 19, 29. Between Matthew and Job, it's pretty obvious that Jesus was making an allusion to Job in his conversation with Peter in Matthew 16. The rock foundation, the gates of hell, binding, loosen, heavenly decrees, earthly decrees.

The evidence in both quality and quantity is actually superior to anything that Sue and Sona produced in his halting attempt to force an Isaiah 22 allusion and typology on Matthew 16. And it's so obvious.

And I think that Jesus didn't feel the need to make it more obvious, if you will.

So, I think we can agree that authorial intent has been established. The thematic coherence is uncanny. So, if the syntactical correspondence is beyond question, and it obviously is, and the allusion is obvious, if it were any more obvious, it would be less obvious, and the authorial intent is proven, who would doubt it?

Then there must be typology. And if there is typology, then Job is a type of Peter, and Peter is the new and greater Job. But what are the implications of this typology? Well, Job was the chief priest of his family and offered sacrifices for his children.

That's Job 1, 5. Peter is a chief priest and head of a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices. That's 1 Peter 2, 5. And Peter is the first pope, a papa, if you will, commissioned to offer sacrifices for us, his children.

I think we can all agree with this, and let's be honest. Job's identity as a priest is far more obvious than Eliakim's. Listen to Sue and Sona try to draw out the evidence of a priestly role for Eliakim, and then think about how obviously priestly Job is.

Well, if you notice in the earlier part of the passage, it talks about how Eliakim wears the tunic and the girdle and the sash of Shebna. And then we also know that Old Testament priests wore tunic and sashes and girdles.

See? Job's priesthood is way easier to establish. But guess what? There's more, and this is the kicker. Remember, Job lost all of his cattle and all of his seven sons and three daughters in his trials.

That's Job 2, 19. What was Job's reward for withstanding the temptation of Satan? As a reward for surviving faithfully, the Lord restored Job's fortunes double. Double the sheep, double the camels, double the oxen, and double the asses.

But the Lord did not double his children. He only gave Job seven replacement sons and three replacement daughters. That's Job 42, 13. Why not fourteen sons and six daughters, just like he doubled all of his livestock?

Why just seven and three like he had before? Why did the Lord not give him double? Well, instead he gave him something better. Job's three daughters, Jemima, Kezia, and Karenhapuk, got something women don't normally get.

And their father gave them inheritance among their brethren. That's Job 42, 15. Now remember, in the Old Testament, except in dire circumstances, the inheritance always went to the sons. When the daughters of Zelophehad appealed to Moses, the Lord changed the law from an all-male inheritance to a female inheritance in the case that there were no living sons.

If a man dies and has no son, then you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter. That's Numbers 27, 8. So, under Moses, the right of inheritance was expanded to include women, if there were not men.

But something crazy happened with Job. Job had living genetic hereditary sons, and his hereditary daughters still got to participate in the inheritance anyway. It was an enormous expansion of the right of inheritance to include women.

So let's just ask the obvious questions. What else was also all-male and all-hereditary in the Old Testament? That's right, the priesthood. In the Old Testament, the all-male priesthood succeeded from Aaron.

That's Numbers 18, 1. But according to Augustine, in the New Covenant, the hereditary priesthood comes from Peter. This is quoting from Against the Letter of Manny, called The Foundation. 4, paragraph 5.

The succession of priests comes from the very sea of the apostle Peter. See, the New Testament priesthood comes from Peter. Therefore, since Peter is the new Job, and Job was a sacrificing priest for his family, and because he overcame the trials of the devil, and the Lord elevated his daughters to receive an equal inheritance with his sons, now Peter, the new high priest of the Christian religion, who overcame the trials of the devil, must have established a unisex sacrificial priesthood because the Peter-Job typology is phylogenous.

That is, it favors the ordination of women as priests to offer the New Testament sacrifice. The Lord could have given him double the amount of sons and double the amount of daughters, but instead he simply elevated his daughters to be equal with his sons in regard to the inheritance.

And get a load of those girls' names. Jemima, Kizia, and Karen-Herpuk mean Dove, Spice, and I-Cosmetic, respectively. As it turns out, those are three very priestly names because according to Leviticus 12 .6, a dove is a sin offering for a son and for a daughter, that's Leviticus 12 .6.

And according to Ezekiel 24 .10, Spice makes the sacrifice, pleasing to the Lord. And what about I-Cosmetic? Isaiah 53 .11 says, Again, Isaiah 53 .11. Notice that the girls' names all relate to things that have to do with the priestly sacrifice.

I mean, it's really uncanny, isn't it?

It gets really kind of uncanny once you start looking closely.

Yes, it is uncanny. There can be only one possible conclusion here. Through this typology, it becomes clear that because Peter is the new Job, and Job's daughters were elevated to an equal inheritance with the man and the Old Testament priesthood was male and hereditary, and Peter is the new priest and is the new and greater Job, then women are supposed to be elevated to the priesthood to offer the New Testament Eucharistic sacrifice.

It is so obvious. So let's walk through the argument and then we'll take a look at some of the scriptural and patristic support for this obvious textual allusion. Premise 1. Allusion. There is a textual allusion between Matthew 16, 19 and Job 38 -39.

We'll just state it nice and clean like that. Premise 2. Typology. If there is a textual allusion, then there is a Peter-Job typology. Premise 3. So there is a Peter-Job typology. Premise 4. If there is a Peter-Job typology, it is phylogenous.

That is, it favors the ordination of women as priests to offer the New Testament sacrifice along with the men. Premise 5. So the Peter-Job typology is phylogenous. Premises 6, 7, and 8 basically say that the Peter-Job typology is more expected if there are to be women priests.

See? It's a Loctite case. Is there any New Testament and patristic evidence for this obvious typology? You bet there is. In John 1, Jesus invited the disciples to come stay with him at his house, and it was about the tenth hour.

John 1, 38 -39. And they said to him, Rabbi, which means teacher, where are you staying? He said to them, Come, and you will see. So they came and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day, for it was about the tenth hour.

Well, who else in the New Testament invited the disciples of Jesus to stay with her at her house at about the tenth hour? Lydia did. Acts 16, verses 13 -15. Now, according to Acts 3, 1, the time for prayer is the ninth hour, and if Paul and Timothy spent an hour or so preaching to her until she believed, then she also would have invited disciples of Jesus to come stay with her about the tenth hour.

And since a New Testament priest is supposed to minister in the person of Christ, and because of this uncanny connection between Jesus and Lydia inviting disciples to their house at about the tenth hour, it's clear that in the New Testament women are elevated to the same priesthood that the men are in the person of Christ, or in persona Christi, as we say in Latin.

Clearly supporting the Peter Job typology, especially since Lydia was a cellar of purple, which is a color associated with the Old Testament priesthood. See? It's uncanny. But there's more. The widows of the early church were called the altar of the sacrifice, and under the old covenant there is nothing holier than the altar, as it was called most holy.

In fact, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1383, the Christian altar is the symbol of Christ himself. So when Christ offers himself to the Father, he is acting in three roles.

As the offerer, the sacrifice, and the altar. And in the New Testament, Jesus said the altar and the gift that is offered on the altar are equally holy. It's Matthew 23, 19. Now, according to Polycarp in his letter to the Philippians, mid-second century, widows are the altar of God.

That's what he said in to the Philippians, chapter 4. And the Didaskalia, chapter 26, in the mid-third century, clearly associates widows and virgins not only with the altar but with the gift that is offered on the altar.

The Didaskalia says,. Again, widows and virgins are compared both to the altar and to what is offered on the altar. And we know that what is offered on the altar.

Is Jesus.

So, there is a very clear typological evidence not only from the Jesus-Lydia parallel, but also from the altar-offering parallel that we see in the Old and New Testaments and the Patristics showing that women are equated to Jesus, the high priest, and therefore a Petrian priesthood would necessarily include women offering Christ in the person of Christ on the altar because Jesus, too, is both the offered, the offerer, and the altar on which the offering is sacrificed.

Now, if Jesus' body and blood is what is offered on the altar and widows and virgins of the New Testament are called the altar itself, then women, the altar, are equated to Jesus, the gift that is offered on the altar.

But is there any patristic evidence of the Peter-Job typology? You bet there is. Pope Gregory the Great, in the 6th century, published one of his greatest works, Morals on the Book of Job. And in that work, the pope made an explicit connection between Peter, the rock foundation, in Matthew 16, and God's last conversation with Job in Job 38 -39, since both passages spoke of a house built upon a rock.

Gregory said, In Holy Scripture, when a rock is mentioned in the singular number, who else is understood but Christ? As Paul witnesses, who says, but the rock was Christ. That's a reference to 1 Corinthians 10, verse 4.

But when rocks are spoken of in the plural number, his members are described, namely holy men, who are confirmed by his strength, whom the apostle Peter doubtless calls stones,.

Saying,.

Ye are as lively stones, built together as spiritual houses. That's 1 Peter 2 -5. The eagle in Job, therefore, is said to abide in the rocks, because she is planted in the firmness of her mind in the sayings of the ancient and mighty fathers.

So that's Pope Gregory quoting Job 39 in relation to Peter, where Job says, Is it at your command that the eagle mounts up and makes his nest on high? On the rock he dwells and makes his home, on the rocky crag and stronghold.

That's Job 39, verses 27 -28.

See?

It's the Peter-Job typology confirmed in the patristics. Matthew 16 and Job 39 both refer to the church on a rock, and Pope Gregory makes that connection for us. Now, I'm sure you're saying, Yes, but is there any other patristic evidence that Peter actually had daughters who could start the unbroken line of a feminine apostolic priesthood?

Why, yes, there is. Clement of Alexandria, in Book 3 of the Stremata,.

Said,.

Peter and Philip begat children, and Philip gave his daughters to men. The Latin for children here is filios, which translates as sons in English, but we know Clement meant sons and daughters, because he immediately mentions Philip's daughters.

So clearly he means Peter and Philip both had sons and daughters. And then he only mentions the exception, that Philip's daughters got married, implying that Peter's daughters did not get married and were virgins, and therefore, priests.

Because A, the Peter-Job typology says that Peter's daughters would have received the same inheritance as his sons,.

And B,.

We know that in the Old Testament, Job's unmarried daughters got their father's inheritance. And in the New Testament, Peter not only had daughters, but we also know that they did not marry, and therefore were entitled to Peter's inheritance, right?

And what was Peter's inheritance? According to Augustine, it's the sacrificial priesthood of the New Covenant. So, when you see the whole typology, that is, the thing God is trying to tell us here through the Peter-Job typology, it's clear that the Peter-Job typology was clearly intended to show that exactly like Job, Peter's unmarried daughters received the inheritance of a female priesthood equal to that of men, because the Peter-Job typology.

Makes this clear,.

And the women of the New Testament held equal positions as the men, ministering at the altar in the person of Christ, just like Lydia, not only equating women to the altar, but also to that which is offered on the altar, like Polycarp, Clement, and the Didyscalia, and the only other person in the Bible who is most holy and is offered as the sacrifice on the most holy altar is Jesus Christ.

Now, you might be wondering, is there any actual early evidence within living memory of the apostles of this Peter-Job typology? Oh, come on now, you're falling for Solus Patris!

If you recognize independently that the arguments stand, then, you know, you're going to have to justify why. You're only going to strictly go back to what the fathers themselves have strictly expressly, explicitly said.

Then this method is guilty of Sola Patris, because then it's saying you can only use the fathers and you can only use their interpretations, right?

Besides, if you're going to make arguments like that and ask questions like that, the burden of proof is on you,.

Not on me.

Independent of whether or not the fathers said it, does the argument hold up? So, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that they would have mentioned every single iota in detail.

And I think if you get caught up.

On overanalyzing the typology, you're going to miss what God is plainly telling us through it.

One could be accused of overanalyzing the idiom at this point.

I mean, typology is kind of intuitive. It's not an exact science.

Typology is not a strict science, so there's some intuition that's involved here.

But still, if you're going to ask questions.

Like that,.

It's like criticizing the artist for not being more clear, even though it's already obvious.

So, suppose you go into a museum and you see an artist. Now, you could go up to this painting and say, well, I mean, he could have made it more obvious.

Well, here we will end our ridiculous illustration of Suansona's methodology, by which anything can be proven typologically.

If, first,.

You don't care about sober hermeneutics, and, second, you assume that which you are attempting to prove so that all the evidence that seems to point toward your assumption.

And for the record,.

I do not believe there is a Peter-Job typology in Matthew 16, and I do not believe Jesus elevated women to the sacrificial priesthood in the New Testament. My only point was to illustrate absurdity by being absurd, and Suansona's arguments are exactly that.

Absurd. So, what does Matthew 16 actually mean? Well, let's first understand the significance of Peter's confession. We'll do that by analyzing what Jesus thought a valid confession was. John 15, 15, Jesus says, For all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known to you.

John 12, 44,.

He says,.

He that believeth on me believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And in John 17, 8, when he was making his high priestly prayer to his Father,.

He said,.

For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me, and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

So,.

The confession of Peter was that Jesus is the Son of God and that God sent him. And I think that we can all agree on that. But what did the rest of the apostles confess before Peter did? Andrew, in John 1, 41, said, We have found the Messiah, that is, the Christ, the Lamb of God, because that's what he heard John preaching about him just a couple verses earlier.

Philip, in John 1, 45, confessed, We have found him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. Keep in mind that Philip is making reference to Deuteronomy 18, 18, in which Moses, by the word of the Lord, says that God would raise up a prophet like to them that they should listen to.

Nathanael, John 1, 49, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel. So, we can say that from day one at least three of the apostles were already on board and had already confessed Christ.

Others confessed Christ crossing the sea in the storm,.

Saying,.

Of a truth, thou art the Son of God. That's Matthew 14, 33. So, what did Peter confess? He said, in Matthew 16, 16, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Mark 8, 29, Thou art the Christ. Peter answering said, The Christ of God, in Luke 9, 20, and John 6, 69, we have believed and come to know that you are the Holy One of God.

In other words, Peter confessed nothing more than what all the other disciples had already acknowledged, that Christ is the Son of God and that God had sent him.

In fact,.

Peter was not the first to confess but was the last to confess. That changes everything because Roman Catholics and even Protestants read Matthew 16 on the assumption that Peter was the first to confess, which keeps the focus on Peter and his confession and the whole conversation is read through that lens.

But if Peter was the last to confess, that fact changes the fulcrum of the entire story. So our focus turns away from Peter and his confession and turns back onto Christ and his mission. What was his mission?

John 17, 8, I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me, and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. When we change the focus from Peter to Christ's mission, the meaning of the subsequent phrases and the entire exchange changes as well.

Bind and loose here, for example, in Matthew 16 and 18, are almost always interpreted as priestly functions derived from rabbinic legal theory in which to bind is to forbid and to loose is to allow. But bind and loose were words Jesus used to describe his gospel preaching ministry, to bind up the brokenhearted and to loose the captives by the preaching of the gospel.

This we know from Isaiah 61, 1 and the Good Shepherd narrative in Ezekiel 34. In Isaiah 61, 1,.

It says,.