I subscribe to John Martignoni's Bible Christian Society's Apologetics for the Masses newsletter. The current edition carries on a virtual debate concerning Peter as the first pope. I would like here to discuss some points that come up in that piece.
1) John and Thomas mention that the term Pope was not actually used in reference to the Bishop of Rome exclusively until about the 3rd or 4th Centuries. They don't mention why, and this is important. The term "pope" is derived from the Latin word for "father", much like the English term "papa". It was commonly used in the Early Church (East and West) to refer to the bishop of a diocese. In fact, Copts still use the term in reference to their chief bishops. Sometime in the late 3rd and early 4th Centuries, the Latin Church stopped using the term in reference to other bishops, and used it exclusively in reference to the Bishop of Rome. In fact, it is quite common in the writings of Eastern Christians to refer to the Bishop of Rome as the "Pope of Rome". For Christians in the West, the term "Pope" has certain connotation concerning headship and authority. That headship and authority existed far before the term "pope" began to refer to the holder of that headship and authority.
2) John fails to react to Thomas' statement that the Church began at Pentecost. Consider the actual text of Scripture as it recounts what happened that day: "They therefore that received his word were baptized: and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. (D-R)" Three thousand were added...added to what? To the Church, of course. The Church existed before Pentecost, but similar to a child that matures in its mother's womb, the Church matured between its conception from the pierced side of Christ, and its "birth", or manifestation to the world. Why is this an important point when discussing Peter and his primacy? Because if the Church exists prior to its epiphany to the world at Pentecost, its structure existed prior to said birth. Prior to Pentecost, Peter was the leader of the Apostles. He called for Judas' replacement. He and he alone was commanded by the Lord to "feed my sheep", "feed my lambs" in John. He is recounted to have entered the tomb, and it was to him that the Lord appeared on Easter Sunday, after appearing to Mary. In all post-Crucifixion depictions of believers, Peter is mentioned with a leading role. With such an established structure, it only seems logical that once the Church is made manifest to the world, Peter is at its head.
3) Thomas says that in Matthew 16, all of the Apostles were given the commission of Peter. This is patently false: when Christ says "I give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven" the 'you' is singular, which infers that Christ is speaking to Peter alone, not the rest of the Apostles. Likewise, the power to open and shut is reserved to the keeper of the keys (cf Isaiah 22). This being said, in his response, John fails to reinforce the concept of the key-bearer, the second in command, the vizier, the regent, who ruled under the King, with the authority of the King and in the King's stead in the physical absense of the King. Peter fulfills this role when Christ bestowed upon him the Keys.
4) John argues that the first part of Acts is about Peter. This may be true on the surface, but I think that statement, or that assertion goes against what Luke is attempting to do in the second part of Acts. Luke contends in his prefaces to Acts and Luke that he is attempting to get Theophilus up to speed on what is going on, explaining to him the phenomenon that Theophilus has been experiencing. It seems likely to me that Theophilus has heard of Paul, and the Gospel, probably even ran into some Christian communities somewhere within the Empire. Luke, then is explaining what he has experienced. Obviously, Paul is a huge part in Christianity outside of Palestine and throughout the Empire, so it is likewise obvious that Luke will introduce Paul and his ministry. However, Luke must also explain where Paul gets his authority and where he fits in within the Church. If Luke is attempting to convert Theophilus, those points need explaining so Theophilus can trust Paul's message. So, where does Paul get his authority? From the Apostles that Christ commissioned. Who are these Apostles, and Who is Christ? That last question is answered in the Gospel of Luke, while the former is partially answered in Luke and the answer is finished in Acts. In Luke, we learn who the cast of characters is: chosen by Christ, and specially tasked with spreading the Gospel. In Acts, we see how these Apostles carry out their commission, and we see the authority given to them. God sent His Spirit on the Apostles and Mary at Pentecost, and those same Apostles, led by their spokesman Peter, proclaimed the Gospel loud and clear. Just as Christ was able to heal the sick who touched His cloak, so too did Peter's shadow heal the sick. The demons fled from the Apostles, just as they fled from Christ. The first part of Acts, then establishes the veracity and true power of the Apostles and Christ's Church. We see that much of what Christ was able to do (forgive sins, drive out demons, heal the sick, raise the dead) the Apostles, more specifically Peter, are able to do. Only after Paul has met with the Apostles, and they approve his message and mission. It is with their blessing and their authority that he is sent out. Thus, Paul, in a sense, speaks with the authority of the Apostles, upon whom the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost.
So there you have it: my four cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment