Looking for some help/critique on an article on apostolic succession

by corpusdei 4 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  corpusdei

  I just finished up on an article examining the idea of apostolic succession. I think I've done a fair job of examining the other side of the issue than that put forward in the Reasoning book, but the idea itself is one that I'm pretty unfamiliar with (and what I do remember is incredibally rusty). Can anyone point out any factual or logical issues that I may have made here?

  ---

  Apostolic Succession

  The concept of apostolic succession isn't one that tends to come up in the majority of religious discussions. Nevertheless, it acts as a central core for the Roman Catholic Church claiming its legitimacy as the owner of the "One True Religion" title, and disagreements over apostolic succession has been at the root of several major schisms within the Church. The long and short of the belief is the idea that the apostle Peter was the first Pope, with the other apostles functioning as bishops, and the line of catholic papacy has run in a direct succession from that point to today. As the Witnesses, much like every single other religion out there, believe that they are the "One True Religion", it comes as no surprise that they consider the idea of apostolic succession to be incorrect.

  Several primary points are involved when considering the idea. First, that the Peter and the apostles functioned with divine authority. Secondly, that their authority was transferable (leading to a succession). Third, that this succession of apostolic authority continued past the original apostles.

  A primary scripture held to show that Peter held a primary authority is Matt. 16:18, in which Jesus tells him "Also, I say to you, You are Peter, and on this rock-mass I will build my congregation". As the greek for "Peter" and "rock" are similar, and the words are the same in aramaic (the language that Jesus would likely have been speaking in), it may seem to maintain that claim. The Watchtower does make a legitimate point when stating "in his expression "on this rock" Jesus used a feminine demonstrative pronoun, translated "this," which he would not have done had he meant that Peter is the rock on which his congregation was to be built. It was, no doubt, because this feminine demonstrative pronoun made it apparent that Jesus intended to distinguish between Peter and the rock on which his congregation was to be built that Matthew when translating into Greek used two different nouns, Petros and petra. We cannot imagine Matthew’s being so careless as to use two different nouns if Jesus had not intended to make any distinction. And so we have a modern literal translation of Jesus’ words as follows: "You are Peter [Petros, masculine], and on this rock-mass [petra, feminine] I will build my congregation." (Watchtower 7/15/1957)

  This, however, does not completely address the idea of apostolic authority, which is backed up in many other portions of scripture. From a scriptural standpoint, there is a basis to support that:

  1. Jesus acted with divine authority transferred to him (John 7:16-17; 12:49)
  2. The apostles were given divine authority that included the powers to bind and loose (Matt 16:9; 18:8), forgive sins (John 20:21-23), baptize (Matt 28:18-20), and make disciples (Matt 28:18-20)
  3. Christianity is an apostolic religion, founded on the apostles (Eph 2:20)
  4. The apostles constituted a hirarchy of authority that the first century church looked to for guidance (Acts 15:1-30; 2 Cor 2:5-11; 1 Cor 11:27)

  Was apostolic authority transferable?

  We've already seen that the apostles acted with divine authority. With that, the second point in question is whether this authority was transferable, and more importantly, did the apostles do that? The answer is clear - with the betrayal of Judas, his authority as an apostle was transferred to Matthias (Acts 1:20-26). The authority of his office is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin.

  Was there a transfer of authority past the original apostles?

  Again, the answer to this question has scriptural basis. As the number of Christians grew, and with it the need for additional oversight, the apostles put in place a transfer, or succession, of authority to additional men, stating "So, brothers, search out for yourselves seven certified men from among you, full of spirit and wisdom, that we may appoint them over this necessary business; ... and they selected Stephen, a man full of faith and holy spirit, and Philip and Proch'orus and Nica'nor and Ti'mon and Par'menas and Nicola'us, a proselyte of Antioch; and they placed them before the apostles, and, after having prayed, these laid their hands upon them." (Acts 6:3-6). This practice continued in other congregations (Acts 14:23)

  Also consider:
  Col 1:25 - Paul refers to the his position as an official position (a stewardship)
  1 Tim. 5:22 - Timothy is advised to be cautious about those he appoints to positions of authority, indicating the power inherent in the position
  2 Tim. 2:2; 4:1-6 - Paul institutes a succession of apostolic authority to Timothy and indicates that the succession should continue

  Differing Views

  After considering all this it's important to note that, inasmuch as a significant amount of scriptural basis can be found in support of the concept, there is just as much basis to reject the idea. Further, the Witnesses are not unique in that stance, as a rejection of the Catholic claim of their legitimacy through apostolic succession is a major factor in the schism between Catholicism and the Protestant branches of Christianity. Points such as a disagreement that the apostle Peter was ever in Rome, as well as criticism of the historical behavior of the Papacy come into play as well. Ultimately, the question of apostolic succession begins to seem like a moot point. All religious organization claim their belief system to be the "One True Religion, with the Witnesses being no different - the choice of whether to follow one doctrine or another, or to abandon them as the inherently flawed product of superstition and mythology, should be made only after a careful, rational, logical and objective examination of not only the beliefs and consistency of the religion, but more importantly the behavior of its leaders and the organization as a whole.
• 

  Bobcat

  Not to be a critic, but just to share some of what I learned when researching this:

  This is the third paragraph above:

  A primary scripture held to show that Peter held a primary authority is Matt. 16:18, in which Jesus tells him "Also, I say to you, You are Peter, and on this rock-mass I will build my congregation". As the greek for "Peter" and "rock" are similar, and the words are the same in aramaic (the language that Jesus would likely have been speaking in), it may seem to maintain that claim. The Watchtower does make a legitimate point when stating "in his expression "on this rock" Jesus used a feminine demonstrative pronoun, translated "this," which he would not have done had he meant that Peter is the rock on which his congregation was to be built. It was, no doubt, because this feminine demonstrative pronoun made it apparent that Jesus intended to distinguish between Peter and the rock on which his congregation was to be built that Matthew when translating into Greek used two different nouns, Petros and petra. We cannot imagine Matthew's being so careless as to use two different nouns if Jesus had not intended to make any distinction.

  My thoughts:

  If I remember correctly, there is some evidence that Matthew originally wrote his gospel account in Aramaic. If so, the statement about Matthew not being careless about genders does not apply. In other words, he would have used the same word for "Peter" and "rock." The Greek translation of the original would have been forced to make a distinction in genders between "Peter" and "rock" simply as a matter of grammer.

  Another thing to keep in mind is that Jesus specifically gave Simon the name "Cephas" (Peter). That argues that there was a purpose for doing this. Matthew 16 would account for this purpose. Otherwise, the purpose for his name change goes unstated.

  Another point to note: If, as the Society (and some others) holds, that Matthew was the first and earliest gospel account written, it would account for why the other gospel accounts did not have the pericope in Mt chap.16. Peter was prominent in the early years of the congregation (after Jesus death). But within several decades he lost that prominence. Thus (if as said) Matthews account was first, it explains why he included the account and the others didn't simply because they were written after that brief early prominence. (The statement about 'building the congregation on this rock' would have the connotation that Peter was used prominently to establish it. Which he did, as the book of Acts attests.)

  I've read two extesive writeups on this subject. One was the NICNT on Matthew by RT France. The other was an online writeup. (If I can find the link I'll send it in another post.) Both of these writeups made the interesting point that were it not for the subsequent Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession, there would be little question that Peter was who Jesus was referring to when he said "rock." In other words, most of those who argue that Peter was not the rock are trying to disprove the Catholic doctrine. But that came afterwards and is, in effect, a red herring.

  Having said all that, I also note that your article is about Apostolic succession and not Mt chap.16 per se.

  I have other things to do at the moment, so I'll check back with you later. Hope this much helps some.

  Take Care.
• 

  Isidore

  Greek scholars-even non-Catholic ones-admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant "small stone" and "large rock" in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew's Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek-an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros andpetra simply meant "rock." If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used.

  Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter's role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.

  There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter's faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ's flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

  For the record, I am a ex JW who is now a Roman Catholic.
• 

  Bobcat

  Isidore:

  Thanks very much for the info about the Greek of 'Peter' and 'rock' and the link to Isaiah 22. (So I'll be off to research that ...)

  And in the third paragraph of your post - All very good detailed confirmation of Peter's early prominence.

  Thanks again, and Take Care (From an ex RC who is currently a JW - but won't be for long if they ever find out I think Peter is the 'rock' of Mt 16)
• 

  corpusdei

  Thanks to both, that's excellent info that I wasn't aware of. Particularly regarding Peter - it was making me twitchy that I didn't have anything really substantive to address that.