The papacy is that ecclesiastical office the occupant of which is Jesus’ delegate (representative), possessing the powers of universal jurisdiction and infallibility in virtue of said occupation.
It is this office which ASR claims Jesus instituted in Matthew 16. ASR's claim constitutes hypothesis 1, or H1, my denial of H1 constitutes H2. I will examine each piece of evidence he advances for H1 by answering a series of questions about them. This will give an easy to follow format.
Format:
(1) Why does ASR think this confirms H1?
(2) Does this confirm H1 over H2?
(3) Does this afford any reason to doubt any of the premises in my Main Argument?
Question 3 is really the most important. If ASR hasn’t provided any reason to reject my Main Argument, then, it’s sound and we know Jesus didn’t institute the papacy here. I know this isn’t his rebuttal so I’m not expecting him to have addressed the argument directly.
So, what is the evidence ASR advances for his case?
(i) Peter’s name is changed in Matt. 16:18-19.
(ii) Peter receives new authority in Matt. 16:18-19.
(iii) Peter is Jesus’ temporal representative.
I’ll evaluate each in turn.
(i) Peter’s name is changed in Matt. 16:18-19:
Why does ASR think (i) confirms H1?
As far as I understand, ASR argues that Peter’s name change is significant because it indicates a change in character, and since H1 claims Peter underwent a character change here, then this confirms H1.
Does (i) confirm H1 over H2?
I don’t think Peter’s name was changed, so I don’t think (i) can confirm either hypothesis. The Aramaic Cephas was translated into the Greek Petros. This strongly implies that Petros isn’t a proper name because proper names aren’t translated. As Oscar Cullmann argues, “if we must translate them, then in order to preserve the original impact of the word Cephas we should instead of ‘Simon Peter’ have ‘Simon Rock.’” [1]
I think Petros was most likely a title.
Does (i) afford us any reason to doubt any of my premises?
Since I don’t accept (i) as an explanadum, I can’t accept it as an objection to any premise of my main argument.
(ii) Peter receives new authority in Matt. 16:18-19.
(iii) Peter is Jesus’ temporal representative.
I’ve grouped (ii) and (iii) together because it seems ASR believes the former to be included in the latter.
Why does ASR think (ii)-(iii) confirm H1?
If I’ve understood correctly, ASR accepts (ii)-(iii) as an explanandum on the basis of Jesus' re-instating the ancient office of the al habayith in Matt. 16:18-19, and takes this to practically spell papacy. [2] What is the al habayith? Simply put, the Davidic Kings had a representative who ruled over the kingdom in their name. These representatives bore the title ‘al habayith’, meaning ‘over the house’. They had the key over the house of Jerusalem (i.e., they had authority over the kingdom’s inhabitants). This office had successors who received these perks by occupation of said office. ASR finds an analogy between Jesus' giving the keys to Peter in Matt. 16 and God’s giving Eliakim the key over the house of Jerusalem in Is. 22, and takes this to strongly probablify the reinstating of the office of the al habayith in Matt. 16:18-19.
Do (ii)-(iii) confirm H1 over H2?
I will say this is one of the strongest arguments in the Catholic’s arsenal. If it succeeds it’d show that Jesus instituted an ecclesiastical office the occupant of which is Jesus’ delegate (representative), possessing the power of universal jurisdiction in virtue of said occupation. It’s arguable the Catholic can derive infallibility from this as well [3]. As per our definition of the papacy, this argument would pack a heck of a punch, satisfying the definition.
Assuming (ii)-(iii) to constitute an explanandum, they certainly do confirm H1 over H2. However, (ii) in isolation from (iii) at least equally confirms H2, and we shouldn’t accept (iii) as evidence to be explained in the first place.
That (ii) doesn’t confirm H1 over H2 can be illustrated in many different ways. Take Tertullian’s interpretation of Matt. 16:18-19 for instance, he’s the earliest exegete of these texts we know of. Tertullian thinks the powers given to Peter were personally Peter’s, and weren’t to be passed on to any successors. [4] Call this hypothesis H3. H3 contradicts H1, and the whole idea that Peter was Jesus’ al habayith. That Peter was given authority seems to be probable on both H1 and H3. They both entail that *Peter* received new authority. Since H3 is a negation of H1, and H2 is the negation of H1, if H3 is confirmed, then so is H2. So, (ii) doesn’t confirm H1 over H2. (There are many other hypotheses which (ii) confirms as well!)
None of this matters though as I’ll now demonstrate.
Do (ii)-(iii) afford us any reason to doubt any of my premises?
Neither (ii) nor (iii) object to any of my premises. Allow me illustrate. I’ll post each premise, then (ii) and (iii) and you can see that neither are relevant to any of the premises:
Premise 1: If Jesus instituted the papacy through his words in Matt. 16:18, then these words were understood to bear significant ecclesiological weight by the Christian community before the composition of Luke’s Gospel.
Does (ii) object to (1)? Well, suppose that Peter was given new authority in Matthew 16. How would this possibly negate (1)? I can’t imagine.
Does (iii) object to premise (1)? Well, suppose that Peter was Jesus’ temporal representative. I haven’t the foggiest of how this would negate (1).
Premise 2: If these words were understood to bear significant ecclesiological weight by the Christian community before the composition of Luke’s Gospel, then Luke recorded this understanding of these words in his parallel to Matt. 16:18.
Does (ii) object to (2)? Well, suppose that Peter was given new authority in Matthew 16. How would this possibly negate (2)? I have no idea.
Does (iii) object to (2)? Well, suppose that Peter was Jesus’ temporal representative. I can’t conceive of how this would negate (2).
Premise 3: Luke didn’t record this understanding of these words in his parallel to Matt. 16:18.
To me, it doesn’t matter if (ii) or (iii) negated (3), (3) is utterly beyond dispute. So, if they do conflict with (3), so much the worse for (ii)-(iii)! But, again suppose either is true and ask whether they’re relevant to (3).
In fact, these would seem to bolster my premises!
Conclusion:
We’ve seen that of the evidence proffered by ASR for H1, only (ii) counted, and it *at least* equally confirmed H2. (i) and (iii) aren’t evidences that H1 and H2 need compete over to try and explain. Further, nothing said in ASR’s opening post leads us to doubt any of the premises in my Main Argument. So, at this point in the debate, we have a sound argument against H1 and therefore should believe H2.
[1] Cullmann, Oscar. Peter. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953. p. 19
[2] Eliakim’s position is also mentions in 2 Kg. 18:18, 37; 19:2; Is. 36:22; 37:2.
In 1 Kg. 4:6, Ahishar receives the same title under King Solomon. Arza is Elah’s al habayith in 1 Kg. 16:9. Under King Ahab, Obadiah is ‘over the house’ in 1 Kg. 18:3. Other instances include 1 Kg. 10:5 and 2 Kg. 15:5.
[3] According to Matt. 16:19 if Peter binds or looses anything, heaven will too: Heaven receives Peter’s binding and loosing and confirms them. So, we can construct an argument for infallibility from this:
(1) Given any (x), if God confirms (x), then (x) is true. [Premise/ Ti. 1:2; Heb. 6:18]
(2) God confirms Peter’s bindings and loosings. [Premise]
(3) Peter’s bindings and loosings are true. [(1), (2), U.I., M.P.]
Infallibility is the prevention by God of the pope from teaching falsehoods on certain matters. Since Peter would possess the power to bind and loose only in so far as he was the al habayith, this power would pass on to successors. This practically spells out papacy.
[4] “If, because the Lord has said to Peter, “Upon this rock I will build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,’ you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? ‘On thee,’ He says, ‘will I build My church;’ and, ‘I will give thee the keys’…and, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound’…In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what key: ‘Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,’ and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance into the heavenly kingdom, in which kingdom are ‘loosed’ the sins that were beforetime ‘bound;’ and those which have not been ‘loosed’ are ‘bound,’ in accordance with true salvation…” – Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Volume IV, Tertullian, On Modesty 21, p. 99.
No comments:
Post a Comment