Category: Apostolic Succession (Page 2 of 7)

Did Irenaeus of Lyons teach sola scriptura?

July 8, 2017 / Robert Arakaki / 6 Comments

Irenaeus of Lyons

Sola Scriptura’s Epistemological Problems (3 of 4)

A Response to David Roxas (3 of 4) See also: (2 of 4) and (1 of 4)

David Roxas asked:

2. Are you contradicting the above statement of Irenaus [sic] which says the Scriptures are “the ground and pillar of our faith” or do you equate the later corpus of the Fathers and the body of oral (and mostly liturgical) tradition with Scripture?

Answer: It is good that Mr. Roxas cited Irenaeus of Lyons, an early Church Father, who wrote:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies 3.1.1; ANF p. 414; emphasis added)

However, Mr. Roxas made the error of cherry-picking a quote of a Church Father in order to claim support for the doctrine of sola scriptura, while ignoring other passages that support Apostolic Tradition. In the quote provided by Mr. Roxas, Saint Irenaeus noted that the Gospel was first proclaimed orally, then later transmitted in writing, but nowhere did he put the written Apostolic teaching over the oral proclamation. Consider also the following quotes from Irenaeus in the passage that follows the one cited by David Roxas.

In the next chapter, we see Irenaeus affirming Apostolic Tradition — “that tradition which originates from the apostles.”

2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they [Gnostics] object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. (Against Heresies 3.2.2; ANF p. 416; emphasis added)

In this passage we learn that Apostolic Tradition is preserved through the episcopacy — “the succession of presbyters.” This is significant. A Protestant would say that Apostolic Tradition is preserved through Scripture alone, but this is not what Irenaeus teaches. In the next chapter Irenaeus likewise links Apostolic Tradition to the succession of bishops.

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times . . . . (Against Heresies 3.3.1; ANF p. 416; emphasis added)

The danger of cherry-picking the Church Fathers is that an isolated sentence can be misread and made to support the Protestant position. This is why it is important that the early Church Fathers be read in context. At the beginning of the third book of Against Heresies, Irenaeus recounts how he sought to refute the Gnostic heretics. First, he appeals to Scripture, which is written Apostolic Tradition. When that does not work, then he appeals to oral Apostolic Tradition – an approach different from Protestantism’s sola scriptura! Irenaeus treats written and oral Apostolic Tradition as equal and complementary to each other.

One might argue that Irenaeus was advocating sola scriptura when he referred to Scripture as the “ground and pillar of our Faith,” but then we must also take into account the witness of Scripture. In 1 Timothy 3:15 Apostle Paul referred to the Church as the “pillar and foundation of the truth.” We find no historic reference of a breach between the Apostle Paul and Irenaeus. Rather, the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) is complementary to Scripture as the source of Christian doctrine and practice.

If Mr. Roxas wants to show that Irenaeus held to sola scriptura, he will need to show where Irenaeus taught: (1) that written Apostolic Tradition is more authoritative than oral Apostolic Tradition, (2) that true Apostolic Tradition is preserved exclusively through Scripture, not through the succession of bishops, and (3) that the Church can fall into error, but Scripture will be there to correct the Church.

Church Fathers and Scripture

Mr. Roxas asked: 2. “Are the writings of the Fathers and the liturgy of the church ‘theopneustos?’ [God-breathed]”

Answer: Yes. If we believe that Christ bestowed the Holy Spirit on the Church at Pentecost (Acts 2) and that as a consequence of Pentecost there is a charismatic gift of teaching (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11, Romans 12:7) then we must conclude that the gift of teaching is inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is the basis for Orthodoxy’s understanding that the writings of the Church Fathers are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Without this belief that the Holy Spirit is at work in the Church, we are left with the situation of fallible men doing their best figuring out what Christ’s words and the later epistles meant. Or worse yet, that the Church suffered a catastrophic fall into spiritual darkness early on.

Mr. Roxas’ question assumes that the writings of the Church Fathers and the Church’s liturgy stand apart from Scripture, but that is quite impossible. First, much of the writings of the Church Fathers are exposition or application of Scripture. The lesser inspiration of the patristic literature can be seen in the weight that the Orthodox Church gives to the patristic consensus over the particular writings of individual Church Fathers.

Second, much of the Liturgy is either Scripture or paraphrase of Scripture. The Sunday Eucharist should be seen as a continuing Pentecost flowing from Acts 2 down through history for two thousand years until today. Since it is impossible to confess that Jesus is Lord without the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3) or to pray without the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 2:18), we can only conclude that our worship in the Sunday Liturgy is inspired by the Holy Spirit. So, the answer to Mr. Roxas question is: “Yes” and “Yes.”

Dositheus – Patriarch of Jerusalem Source

Irenaeus and the Confession of Dositheus

David Roxas asked:

How does the Confession of Dosiethus [sic] agree with Irenaus [sic] when said confession is adamant that Christians should not read the Scriptures because they are obscure and require initiation into the secrets of theology?

Answer: David Roxas’ question here assumes that Irenaeus and the Confession of Dositheus are at odds with each other. (Note: In 1672, the Orthodox Church issued the Confession of Dositheus which formally condemned Reformed theology.) However, as noted earlier, Mr. Roxas took Irenaeus out of context and misconstrued him to teach sola scriptura (Against Heresies 3.1.1). The larger context of Against Heresies shows that Irenaeus believed that Scripture must be understood with Apostolic Tradition (Against Heresies 3.2 & 3.3).

Similarly, it is important that we read and understand the Confession of Dositheus (1672) in context. The excerpt below is taken from the response to Question 1: “Ought the Divine Scriptures to be read in the vulgar tongue by all Christians?”

No. Because all Scripture is divinely-inspired and profitable {cf. 2 Timothy 3:16}, we know, and necessarily so, that without [Scripture] it is impossible to be Orthodox at all. Nevertheless they should not be read by all, but only by those who with fitting research have inquired into the deep things of the Spirit, and who know in what manner theDivine Scriptures ought to be searched, and taught, and finally read. But to those who are not so disciplined, or who cannot distinguish, or who understand only literally, or in any other way contrary to Orthodoxy what is contained in the Scriptures, the Catholic Church, knowing by experience the damage that can cause, forbids them to read [Scripture]. Indeed, it is permitted to every Orthodox to hear the Scriptures, that he may believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation {Romans 10:10}. But to read some parts of the Scriptures, and especially of the Old [Testament], is forbidden for these and other similar reasons. For it is the same thing to prohibit undisciplined persons from reading all the Sacred Scriptures, as to require infants to abstain from strong meats. (Emphasis added.)

The first thing to note from this excerpt is that the Confession of Dositheus affirms the divine inspiration of Scripture. The second thing to note is that all Orthodox Christians are permitted to hear the Scriptures: “it is permitted to every Orthodox to hear the Scriptures.” This makes sense as one cannot avoid hearing the Scriptures read out loud during the Sunday Liturgy. If one listens attentively to the hymns and prayers in the Liturgy, one will learn to understand the Bible in accordance with the teachings of the Church. This might rub certain Protestants the wrong way, especially those who have the attitude: “Nobody can tell me what the Bible means; I can read the Bible for myself.” The third thing to note is that the Confession recognizes that without the proper training and education, one could very well end up misreading Scripture and teaching heresies. This agrees with what the Bible clearly teaches in 2 Peter 3:16 in which the Apostle Peter wrote:

He [Apostle Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (Emphasis added.)

Here the Apostle Peter acknowledges that people who lack the necessary preparation are likely to misinterpret the meaning of Scripture. It is important to keep in mind that this passage in the Confession of Dositheus was in reaction to the plethora of strange readings of Scripture coming out of the Reformation that the Orthodox bishops in the 1600s found at odds with Holy Tradition. Thus, the stress on the need for supervised reading of Scripture is well founded.

The account of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts subverts sola scriptura. In response to Deacon Philip’s question: “Do you understand what you are reading?,” the Ethiopian answered: “How can I unless someone explains it to me?” (Acts 8:31-32) Here we have a literate and pious man requesting help to rightly understand God-breathed Scripture. Note that Philip did not advocate the sola scriptura approach – that all Scripture being God-breathed is perspicuous (clear in meaning) and that all that is needed for right understanding is more prayer or more careful study of Scripture. Instead what we see here is an ordained clergyman – Philip was ordained to the office of deacon in Acts 6:5 – giving him the authoritative Apostolic interpretation of Scripture. Philip as a deacon was part of the Apostolic traditioning process.

So my answer to Mr. Roxas’ question is: There is no disagreement between Irenaeus and the Confession of Dositheus to begin with. Both affirm that Scripture must be read in the context of Tradition. The Confession’s strictures on the reading of Scripture make sense in light of the misreadings then stemming from the Protestant Reformation which was causing confusion and conflict in the Christian world.

In conclusion, Irenaeus of Lyons did not teach sola scriptura. Rather, he taught Scripture-in-Tradition which is the Orthodox Church’s approach to the Bible. Given that Irenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was the disciple of the Apostle John, and in light of Irenaeus’ reputation as the leading theologian of the second century, Protestants need to reconsider their position on sola scriptura.

Robert Arakaki

The Apostolic Failure of the Reformed Church

February 5, 2017 / Robert Arakaki / 24 Comments

Beauty so ancient and so new

Some of the readers of the OrthodoxBridge have questioned whether there is in fact a trend of Protestants converting to Orthodoxy. One important evidence can be found in “Searching for the Historic Christian Church: The Allure of Eastern Orthodoxy” by Pastor Mike Brown. The article opens with:

In the past five or six years, I have known several people who have left Reformed Christianity for Eastern Orthodoxy. Their reasons for making that decision varied. Some were mesmerized by the beauty of the Divine Liturgy. Others found Eastern Orthodoxy (hereafter EO) to offer a greater appreciation for mystery and religious experience than what they had known as a Protestant. All of them, however, were attracted by and eventually convinced of EO’s claim to be the original church founded by Christ. (Emphasis added.)

While small, the number of Reformed Christians becoming Orthodox has become a matter of pastoral concern. Among the converts are longtime seasoned elders and pastors well-read in Reformed theology. Dissatisfaction with the shallowness of contemporary worship and a hunger for a connection with the Ancient Church are compelling people to become Orthodox. Pastor Brown notes:

Many Protestants and evangelicals attest to feeling disconnected with the ancient church, and desire greater certainty that the church they attend has not been drastically changed by the world over the passing centuries.

Pastor Brown broke down the quest for the Ancient Church into three attractions: (1) continuity in worship, (2) continuity in doctrine, and (3) continuity in church government. In the first part, he gives an assessment of Orthodoxy’s claim to antiquity, then presents what the Reformed tradition has to offer. He is to be commended for his generally accurate presentation of Orthodoxy. In doing so, he avoids the fallacy of the straw man argument that often mars Reformed critiques of Orthodoxy. In the second part of his article, Pastor Brown seeks to show that “there are good reasons for Reformed Christians to be confident that they belong to the historic Christian church” and that there is thus no need for them to convert to Orthodoxy.

Part 1 – Pastor Brown’s Critique

Continuity in Liturgical Worship

Pastor Mike Brown challenges Orthodoxy’s claim to historical continuity in worship. He writes:

However, regarding EO’s claim to unbroken succession in its worship, I make two observations. First, the notion that the Divine Liturgy has been in place since the days of the apostles is misleading and grossly oversimplified. While it is true that certain components of the Divine Liturgy were present in the liturgies of the ancient church (i.e. Scripture reading, weekly communion, the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer and creeds, etc.), there is no evidence that the basic form of the Divine Liturgy was used by the apostles or universally practiced by churches in the first few centuries. (Emphasis added.)

I found what Pastor Brown meant by “the basic form of the Divine Liturgy” in this critique to be vague. Is he referring to a regular pattern of worship or to something specific like the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom? It seems Pastor Brown understands Orthodoxy’s claim to continuity of worship to consist in its possessing a fixed, detailed order of worship from Day One. This can be seen in the phrase “looking identical” in the quote below.

Likewise, the most reliable documents from the post-apostolic early church, such as the Didache (c. 2nd century) and Justin Martyr’s First Apology (c.155-157), provide us with evidence that worship in the ancient church consisted of Scripture reading, preaching, singing, the Lord’s Prayer, and weekly communion. These, however, show no signs of looking identical to the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Church. In fact, the oldest surviving liturgy in use by EO today is the “Liturgy of St. James,” which dates no earlier than the 4th century. EO’s claim that its liturgy has remained unchanged since the days of the apostles is unsubstantiated and overstated. (Emphasis added.)

Orthodoxy has never made the claim for a fixed Liturgy from Day One. Nor has it claimed that the Divine Liturgy looked identical to the worship of the New Testament Church. Anyone reading early church history will soon realize that this was not the case. During the first three centuries, a general shape of the liturgy prevailed across the world, even in the midst of diverse practices. In time Christian worship became uniform and fixed in order and form. Indeed, Pastor Brown’s use of “looking identical” indicates he does NOT understand, or intentionally hyperbolizes Orthodox continuity!

The flaw in Pastor Brown’s critique is his focus on external form without taking into account the inner meaning of Christian worship. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese’s website article “Introduction to the Divine Liturgy” which he quoted from took care to stress the continuity in inner meaning:

But whatever were the various forms of the Divine Liturgy of the primitive Church, as well as of the Church of the final formation of the Divine Liturgy, the meaning given to it by both the celebrants and the communicants was one and the same; that is, the belief of the awesome change of the sacred Species of the Bread and Wine into the precious Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the Lord. (Emphasis added.)

Pastor Brown comes close to constructing a straw man argument especially in light of the fact the article takes care to note that underneath the variation in outward form in Christian worship has been the constant belief in the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist.

Form versus Inner Meaning

Central to Christian worship from the start was: (1) the celebration of Christ’s death and resurrection in the Eucharist, and (2) the belief in the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist. An examination of early Christian worship and the writings of the early Church Fathers show the universality of these two defining elements. These two elements define Orthodox worship even today. It would be unthinkable for an Orthodox parish to have a Sunday service that consists only of the Liturgy of the Word or for the priest to declare that Eucharist was just symbolic. What is not central to Orthodox worship is a long sermon in which the pastor shows off his rhetorical skill and unique exegetical insights week after week. Indeed, in the Liturgy the Orthodox priest essentially disappears behind the form of the Liturgy and attention is focused on the worship of the Trinity.

When we compare Reformed worship with early Christian worship two facts become apparent: (1) a new form of Sunday worship has emerged that is sermon-focused and (2) the rejection of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. In his attempt to show how Reformed worship conforms to early Christian worship Pastor Brown brings to the reader’s attention Calvin’s Genevan Psalter of 1542, which was “according to the custom of the ancient church.” However, invoking historical documents like the 1542 Genevan Psalter or Calvin’s Institutes 4.17.44 does not negate the fact that a new pattern of worship has come to dominate the Reformed tradition. Two questions quickly reveal the flaw in Pastor Brown’s claim:

Is it the norm for Reformed churches to celebrate the Lord’s Supper every Sunday?
Is it the norm for Reformed churches to teach and affirm that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper?

In most instances, the answer will be “no.” It is interesting to note that in Note 25, Pastor Brown cites Michael Horton’s article “At Least Weekly” and Keith Mathison’s book Given For You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper to show that an attempt is being made in Reformed circles to recover historic Christian worship. What he does not realize is that this very attempt at recovery is an admission that something has been lost. It is no wonder that many Reformed Christians are feeling the loss and are looking to Orthodoxy to regain it.

The Orthodox conversions Pastor Brown is trying to halt are happening even in the most liturgical and sacramental churches in the Reformed community. Indeed, something historic has been lost, otherwise there would be little interest among Reformed folks in learning about the Liturgy and Eucharistic practices in the Early Church. This loss is compelling many to find their roots in the Orthodox Church. Retreating back only as far as Calvin and the 1500s, has not satisfied many.

Probably the greatest disconnect has been with respect to the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist. The vast majority of Protestants and Evangelicals today believe that the Holy Communion (Eucharist) is just a symbol. This marks a major break from historic Christian worship. Ignatius of Antioch noted that it was the heretics who denied that the Eucharist “is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ” (Letter to Smyrnaeans 7.1). Interestingly, John Calvin in no uncertain terms denounced the teaching that the Eucharist is symbolic as an “error not to be tolerated” (“Confession of Faith Concerning the Eucharist” in Reid p. 169). Is it not striking that nowhere in his article does Pastor Brown discuss the consecration of the bread and wine or the real presence in the Eucharist? Could it be that these are unimportant issues for him? Or perhaps too dangerous to broach?

Pastor Brown seems to think that, by following certain historic practices, Reformed churches are “preserving a connection to the worship of the ancient Christian church.”

By retaining ordinary practices such as the Lord’s Prayer, Psalmody, and weekly communion, we can be confident that we are worshiping God in the same way as the ancient church, and have not merely followed a new tradition.

All of these elements are, of course, important to historic Christian worship but are they enough? The desire for a retrun to historic worship, in reaction to the excesses of contemporary worship, is only part of the reason that people are drawn to Orthodox worship. Many are drawn to a worship that goes beyond intellectual stimulation to real communion with God. Perhaps they are drawn to the mystical reality behind the liturgical forms but overlooked by Pastor Brown? Many inquirers are tantalized by the promise given by Christ himself:

For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. (John 6:55-56)

Orthodoxy believes that, in the Eucharist, the bread and the wine become the body and blood of Christ and that when we go up for Holy Communion we actually partake of the body and blood of Christ.

Right Doctrine

Many Reformed Christians are drawn to Orthodoxy out of a need for assurance that what they believe is not man-made doctrine, but the historic Christian Faith. Pasto Mike Brown writes:

A second area where many Christians complain of feeling an historic void in their faith is doctrine. Just as they want to be confident that they are worshiping God the same way the apostles and early church did, they also want to be sure that the teachings and beliefs of the church they attend conform to that history as well.

Pastor Brown responds to this hunger for historic doctrine by criticizing Orthodoxy for its “superficial” theology. He notes:

Thus, it is difficult not to find EO’s claim to uninterrupted continuity in its doctrine to be superficial as they possess no unifying confession on matters of essential Christian doctrine beyond the seven Ecumenical Councils. It is unsatisfactory and unfair to ignore debates on important biblical teaching simply because those debates arose in the west after the 8th century. (Emphasis added.)

My response: “Why is it so important that a religious tradition have a detailed theological confession? What does it have to do with historical continuity?” Pastor Brown’s concern with detailed theological systems is historically conditioned, reflecting Protestantism’s intellectual roots in Medieval Scholasticism, e.g., Thomas Aquinas. Where Western theology seeks to understand God with the intellect, Orthodox theology starts from the understanding that genuine knowledge of God comes through prayer and worship.

Pastor Brown’s complaint about Orthodoxy’s theology being “superficial” is perplexing. Many of the original Protestant confessions have become historical curiosities that many, including pastors and elders, tend to honor only in name. In recent years, many of these detailed statements of faith have been replaced by broadly-phrased confessions of lowest common denominator. It is ironic in the face of the Reformed tradition’s plethora of confessions that Pastor Brown would complain that Orthodoxy has “no unifying confession.” There is no unifying confession for the Reformed tradition either! Where the Lutherans have the Book of Concord, there is no similar unifying confession for the Reformed tradition. While the Westminster Confession is probably the most widely known, it is not the doctrinal standard for the entirety of the Reformed tradition.

How effective are detailed confessions for preserving doctrinal orthodoxy? Pastor Brown is probably too embarrassed to make mention of the fact that his denomination, the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA), was the result of a schism in the 1990s when a sizable group felt the Christian Reformed Church in North America was moving away from the truths of the Reformation. Apparently, the split resulted from tensions between theological conservatives and liberals. Those who are interested in the details of the split might be interested in reading Robert P. Swierenga’s Burn the Wooden Shoes: Modernity and Division in the Christian Reformed Church in North America (2000). Is it not telling that the so-called Three Forms of Unity (the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Synod of Dort) have been unable to guarantee doctrinal stability in the face of theological liberalism for the past two centuries? The lesson here is clear – even detailed, precisely-worded confessions are not strong enough to withstand the onslaught of modernity.

While Orthodoxy may not have a precise theological system like Protestantism, there is within Orthodoxy a hidden strength that most Protestants do not see – liturgical theology. In the Divine Liturgy doctrine is fused with worship. If one listens to the hymns and prayers, he will hear every Sunday the core dogmas of the Christian Faith: the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Good News of Christ’s saving death and resurrection. Although alien to Protestantism, liturgical theology is an ancient way of doing theology. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote: “But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion” (Against Heresies 4.18.5). Basil the Great in his On the Holy Spirit defends the divinity of the Holy Spirit from the trinitarian prayers used in the Liturgy. The ancient saying “Lex orandi, lex credendi” (the rule of prayer is the rule of belief) describes how our worship informs our doctrine.

Continuity in Church Governance

Another reason why many Reformed Christians find Orthodoxy appealing is its claim to apostolic succession. God is the God of history. He created mankind then acted through men within human history. The historical books and the detailed genealogies in the Bible point to the importance of our roots in history. Just as genealogies were part of the Mosaic covenant community, Israel, so likewise is apostolic succession the genealogy of the new covenant community, the Church. It is proof that there exists a historic, unbroken continuity that links the present-day episcopacy back to the original Apostles. Without history, Christianity would be a philosophical system of abstract ideas, rather than a concrete way of life and a community of people.

In his critique, Pastor Brown draws on Michael Horton’s argument that the Galatian churches’ succumbing to the Judaizing heresy was enough to refute Orthodoxy’s claim that doctrinal orthodoxy is preserved by means of apostolic succession. However, the episcopacy does not stand alone, but in the context of the Church Catholic. The notion of an independent bishop is self-contradictory. If one bishop falls into error, his fellow bishops will be there to correct him. Is it not curious that Pastor Brown failed to mention the role of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 in resolving the crisis that erupted in Galatia? The Jerusalem Council provided the precedent for the Ecumenical Councils. In the Councils, apostolic succession in its collective expression functioned to preserve right doctrine.

As a Reformed theologian, Michael Horton is hostile to the episcopacy. For him, apostolic succession takes place through the gospel. Reading Horton’s assertion that what counts is preaching the same gospel that the Apostles proclaimed one can’t help but wonder if by “gospel” he means the doctrine of sola fide which was supposedly “recovered” by Martin Luther in 1517. The Good News of Jesus’ death and resurrection has always been part of the historic Christian Faith, but the categories of imputed righteousness versus infused righteousness so crucial to sola fide are nowhere to be found among the early Church Fathers. It was not until after Anselm of Canterbury’s Cur Deus Homo set forth the satisfaction theory that the theological foundations for Luther’s sola fide was possible. If none of the early bishops taught sola fide, this makes sola fide suspect historically. It is a theological innovation alien to historic Christianity. It is no wonder then that Pastor Brown and Michael Horton are critical of Orthodoxy’s claim to apostolic succession. Disavowing the historic episcopacy gives them the liberty to read the Bible according to their Protestant convictions.

For a discussion of: (1) the meaning of imputed and infused righteousness see the Theopedia article “Imputed Righteousness,” (2) the novelty of imputed and infused righteousness see my article “Response to Michael Horton,” and (3) the novelty of sola fide see my article “Response to Theodore – Semi-Pelagianism, Sola Fide and Theosis.”

Part 2 – Pastor Brown’s Apologia for Reformed Christianity

Church Fathers

Many Christians are naturally drawn to Orthodoxy because of its historic roots in the early Church. Pastor Brown responded to this by noting that the Protestant Reformers, most notably John Calvin, drew heavily on the early Church Fathers. However, to selectively quote the early Church Fathers does not in any way prove that one shares in the same faith as the early Church Fathers. None of the Church Fathers taught sola scriptura or sola fide – the two key teachings of the Protestant Reformation. Calvin and other Reformers engaged in cherry picking the Church Fathers to legitimize their novel Protestant doctrines. While they did quote from the Church Fathers, they did not subject their theology to the patristic consensus. This was because, under sola scriptura, the Reformers’ own readings of the Bible had greater authority than the Church Fathers’. Calvin praised the early Church Fathers when they supported his views and scorned them when they differed from his views. This implied that Calvin knew better than the Church Fathers! (Rock and Sand pp. 131-132.)

Pastor Michael Brown concedes that he and his fellow Reformed ministers could do a better job of “showing Reformed theology’s continuity with ancient and medieval theology.” My response is: “They could do a better job of reading the early Church Fathers with an open mind.” When I was studying church history at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, I read the early Church Fathers in order to improve my Protestant theology. Early on, I found the Church Fathers perplexing. This confusion was cleared up when I came to the realization that the early Church Fathers were not Protestant and that Protestantism was altogether different from the early Church. Facing up to this discontinuity was disturbing and disheartening, but brought clarity to my reading of the early Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils. The Protestant Reformation of the 1500s emerged from a different cultural and theological context. The Reformers’ theology was influenced by the medieval papacy, medieval canon law, an excessive reliance on Augustine of Hippo, the Via Antiqua of medieval Scholasticism, and far more than normally acknowledged, the Via Moderna of Renaissance humanism. Pastor Brown and others like him are mistaken if they think that selectively quoting the Church Fathers will take them back to the Faith of the early Church.

Icons

With respect to icons, Pastor Mike Brown stresses the Reformed tradition’s iconoclasm and argues that icons constitute a break from the historic continuity of Christian worship. He presents two lines of arguments: (1) patristic and (2) biblical.

For the “ample evidence” that icons were not tolerated in the early church, Pastor Brown gives three sources: (1) Irenaeus of Lyons, (2) Epiphanius of Salamis, and (3) the Synod of Elvira. The first thing to note is that Pastor Brown is being very selective with the evidence he presents to the reader. He makes no mention of any pro-icon sources. For the sake of fairness, he should at least have mentioned theological classics like John of Damascus’ Three Treatises on the Divine Images and Theodore the Studite’s On the Holy Images. Even more striking is his failure to mention the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicea II, 787). Failure to mention these important evidences leaves the Reformed inquirer in “blissful ignorance.”

I was surprised that Pastor Brown cited Irenaeus of Lyons, one of the greatest Church Fathers, as being against icons. However when I read the passage cited (AH 1.26.6), I was disappointed to find that he had misread Irenaeus. Furthermore, the correct citation is 1.25.6, not 1.26.6. As a service to the reader I present the passage mentioned by Pastor Brown.

Others of them employ outward marks, branding their disciples inside the lobe of the right ear. From among these also arose Marcellina, who came to Rome under [the episcopate of] Anicetus, and, holding these doctrines, she led multitudes astray. They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles. (Emphasis added.)

A careful reading of Against Heresies 1.25.6 makes it very clear that Irenaeus is describing and criticizing the practices of the Gnostics, a heretical group. It is astonishing that Pastor Brown paid no attention to the sentence: “They style themselves Gnostics.” I suspect that this blooper is largely due his unfamiliarity with the early Church and that in his haste he unwittingly projected Reformed iconoclasm onto Irenaeus of Lyons.

Reformed apologists like to cite the story of Epiphanius entering a church and ripping down a curtain with an image embroidered. Epiphanius was no obscure figure but a recognized saint. For Reformed apologists this is major evidence in support of iconoclasm. This argument is not new. As a matter of fact it is the exact same argument made by the iconoclasts in the early Church. Theodore the Studite and John of Damascus knew of it and responded by noting that if one were to visit Epiphanius’ church one could see it decorated with images and Gospel stories. Furthermore, both Church Fathers asserted that the anecdote was a spurious forgery. Theodore the Studite in his On the Holy Icons wrote this hypothetical debate over icons:

Heretic: Epiphanius is one of them, the man who is prominent and renowned among the saints.

Orthodox: We know that Epiphanius is a saint and a great wonder-worker. Sabinus, his disciple and a member of his household, erected a church in his honor after his death, and had it decorated with pictures of all the Gospel stories. He would not have done this if he had not been following the doctrine of his own teacher. Leontius also, the interpreter of the divine Epiphanius’ writings, who was himself bishop of the church in Neapolis in Cyprus, teaches very clearly in his discourse on Epiphanius how steadfast he was in regard to the holy icons, and reports nothing derogatory concerning him. So the composition against the icons is spurious and not at all the work of the divine Epiphanius. (“Second Refutation” §49; p. 74)

A modern assessment of Epiphanius’ alleged iconoclasm can be found in Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Christian Tradition Vol. 2, page 102. It is important that Protestants inquirers know that even evidence like this presented by Reformed apologists their arguments are by no means slam dunks. There is another side of the story. To give the inquirers only one side of the argument is not fair to them.

But, what if the anecdote about Epiphanius is valid? What if one saint turned out to be an iconoclast? This is where the patristic consensus comes in. John of Damascus notes:

Nor can a single opinion overturn the unanimous tradition of the whole Church, which has spread to the ends of the earth. (On the Divine Images “First Apology §25; p. 32)

According to the patristic consensus, no single person’s opinion can represent the Christian Faith. This view must be expressed by the Church Catholic. Using poetic language, Theodore points out that a single swallow’s song does not mean that spring has come. It is worth noting that iconoclasm is not even a Protestant position, but peculiar to one strand of Protestantism, the Reformed tradition.

Reformed apologists like to cite the Council of Elvira as evidence against icons. The inquirer should be aware of three issues. First, Pastor Brown needs to show why we should give a minor local synod preference over an Ecumenical Council (Nicea II). An Ecumenical Council represents the ruling of the Church Catholic on a disputed issue. One cannot cherry-pick the councils on the basis of what one likes or does not like. Second, to endorse a council implies that one is willing to follow the rulings issued by that council. Pastor Brown accepts Canon 36 which seems to prohibit images, but then he ignores Canon 26 which imposes the Saturday fasts. Third, it is not clear from the original Latin whether Canon 36 stemmed from opposition to icons in general or whether it was out of concern that images painted on church walls would be vulnerable to vandalism (keep in mind that this synod was held during the height of the ferocious Diocletian persecution). The Synod of Elvira’s alleged iconoclasm stems from a faulty translation of the original Latin. Steven Bigham, an Orthodox priest, translated Canon 36 as follows:

It has seemed good that images should not be in churches so that what is venerated and worshiped not be painted on the walls. (in Bigham p. 161; emphasis added)

To sum up, the evidence that Pastor Brown presents for iconoclasm in the early Church is scanty and weak. He misread Irenaeus of Lyons. His anecdote about Epiphanius of Salamis was deemed a forgery by two notable Church Fathers. There is evidence that Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira cited by Reformed apologists is based on a flawed translation of the original Latin. In all fairness to Protestant inquirers, Pastor Brown should have alerted them to the issues relating to his evidences and the arguments in defense of icons in the early Church. Keeping Protestant inquirers in ignorance is not doing them a favor.

For his biblical critique of the Orthodox veneration of icons, Pastor Brown invoked the Second Commandment. However, one cannot just invoke the Second Commandment. There are important exegetical issues that need to be addressed. First, it is important to read the Second Commandment in its context. The First Commandment’s monotheism suggests that the Second Commandment was directed against the worship of the pagan deities of Egypt and Canaan, not against the use of images in Israelite worship. Second, in the latter half of Exodus one finds God instructing Moses to incorporate images into the Tabernacle (Exodus 26:1, 31). The entirety of the Mosaic Tabernacle, including the images, was intended to promote the true worship of Yahweh. The use of images was continued in Solomon’s Temple (2 Chronicles 3:7, 14). This suggests that there is indeed a biblical basis for the use of images in places of worship. Interested readers can read my article “The Biblical Basis for Icons.”

Little is known about Christian worship prior to the fourth century. Reformed Christians infer from this silence that the early Church was devoid of icons. However, if we take into account the striking images found in the Jewish synagogue and Christian church in Dura Europos that date back to the mid 200s one is confronted with positive evidence for the use of images in early Christianity. The archaeological evidences found in Dura Europos together with the biblical and patristic evidences taken together present a powerful witness in support of the use of icons in early Christianity. This is something that Reformed apologists have yet to address.

Differences in Personal Perspectives

I suspect that Pastor Brown’s enthusiasm for the Reformed tradition stems from his having been part of Calvary Chapel. In comparison to Calvary Chapel, which traces its origins to the Jesus Movement of the 1960s in California, the Reformed tradition is much more historic, going back to the Reformation of the early 1500s. Its teachings are definitely deeper in comparison and its worship more liturgical than Calvary Chapel’s informal approach. His glowing assessment of the Reformed tradition is further colored by his being part of the UCRCNA. As a new denomination that emerged in the 1990s, the UCRCNA is still a young and vigorous denomination. Sociologically, because schism functions as a method of self-selection that excludes rival views, it is not surprising that Pastor Brown has enjoyed oneness of mind among his fellow pastors and parishioners.

My personal perspective is different from Pastor Brown’s. Unlike Pastor Brown’s Reformed denomination which resulted from a schism, Congregationalism in Hawaii has a history of continuity going back to the Puritans. My being an Evangelical in the liberal UCC gave me a quite unique perspective on the Reformed tradition. This perspective was further refined when I was at Gordon-Conwell in Massachusetts, the heartland of New England Puritanism, and interacted with UCC liberals during that time. As a result of these experiences, I was able to appreciate the historic legacy of John Calvin and the New England Puritans while seeing up front the realities of liberal mainline Reformed Christianity. Unlike Pastor Brown’s unreserved enthusiasm for the Reformed tradition, my assessment was a mixture of respect, dismay, and consternation. My time in a liberal Reformed denomination caused me to question the long-term viability of the Reformed tradition, which made me open to Orthodoxy and the Ancient Church.

The Challenge for Reformed Apologetics

It seems that Pastor Mike Brown is unaware of how much the ground has shifted in the Reformed-Orthodox dialogue. In recent years, new Orthodox pro-icon apologia have emerged that refute the Second Commandment argument on exegetical grounds, draw on recent archaeological findings, and critically analyze the theological basis of John Calvin’s iconoclasm. These arguments are being raised by former Protestants who are familiar with Reformed iconoclasm and who, after prolonged study of the Bible and the Church Fathers, have come to embrace the pro-icon position of Orthodoxy. Interested readers can read my earlier articles, where I have discussed in greater detail the anti-icon arguments raised by Reformed Christians. I also recommend Gabe Martini’s detailed response to Pastor Steven Wedgeworth’s iconoclasm. Questions about the formal principle (sola scriptura) and material principle (sola fide) of Protestant theology have emerged causing a number of Protestant pastors and theologians to convert to either Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

Reformed apologists cannot simply repeat what worked in the past and ignore the newer arguments and issues raised by Orthodox apologists. They need to show that they are aware of these new arguments and are willing to engage them. Sadly, it does not appear that Pastor Brown shows a familiarity and mastery of this new material.

Christ United Reformed Church — “Reformed Worship Explained“

The Apostolic Failure of the Reformed Church

Pastor Mike Brown’s argument can be summed up: “We have the same things the Orthodox Church has. They have liturgies; so do we. They cite the Church Fathers; so do we. They have creeds; so do we. You don’t have to become Orthodox to be part of the Ancient Church. Reformed Christianity is Ancient Christianity!”

My response to all this is: “Come and see!” Visit an Orthodox Sunday Service. Experience the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom which dates back to the fifth century. Talk to the local Orthodox priest. Ask him what the Orthodox Church teaches about Christ, the Trinity, and prayer. Compare the Orthodox Church of today with the early Church. Follow the guidance of the Prophet Jeremiah:

Stand at the crossroads and look;

Ask for the ancient paths,

Ask where the good way is and walk in it,

And you will find rest for your souls.

(Jeremiah 6:16, NIV; Emphasis added.)

Robert Arakaki

Recommended Reading

Robert Arakaki. 2013. “A Response to John B. Carpenter’s “Icons and the Eastern Orthodox Claim to Continuity with the Early Church.” OrthodoxBridge.com (16 September)

Robert Arakaki. 2012. “Response to Michael Horton.” OrthodoxBridge.com (10 May)

Robert Arakaki. 2011. “The Biblical Basis for Icons.” OrthodoxBridge.come (12 June)

Robert Arakaki. 2011. “Calvin Versus the Icon: Was John Calvin Wrong?” OrthodoxBridge.com (19 June)

Steven Bigham. 2004. Early Christian Attitudes toward Images.

Pastor Mike Brown. 2016. “Searching for the Historic Christian Church: The Allure of Eastern Orthodoxy” in www.ChristURC.org. (9 December)

“Synod of Elvira” Wikipedia.

Gabe Martini. “Is There a Patristic Critique of Icons?” (Part 3 of 5) (Council of Elvira) 20 May 2013.

Gabe Martini. “Is There a Patristic Critique of Icons?” (Part 4 of 5) (Epiphanius of Salamis) 22 Ma 2013.

Gabe Martini. “An Orthodox Response to John Calvin on Icons: Icons and Idolatry.” Pravoslavie. 6 December 2014.

Rev. George Mastrontonis. N.d. “Introduction to the Divine Liturgy” in Goarch.com

Jaroslav Pelikan. 2011. Imago Dei: The Byzantine Apologia for Icons.

J.K.S. Reid, ed. 1964. “Confession of Faith Concerning the Eucharist” in Calvin: Theological Treatises p. 169.

Carly Silver. 2010. “Dura-Europos: Crossroad of Cultures.” Archaeology Magazine (11 August)

Josiah Trenham. 2015. Rock and Sand: An Orthodox Appraisal of the Protestant Reformers and Their Teachings.

Does Isaiah 22 Prove the Papacy?

January 30, 2017 / Robert Arakaki / 19 Comments

Whatever you (sing.) bind on earth will be bound in heaven (Matthew 16:19)

In a recent email, a Protestant inquirer, investigating the claims of Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, brought up Isaiah chapter 22 which seems to support the Roman Catholic papacy. He wrote:

I feel drawn to Catholicism again. However, I will remain realistic about Catholicism’s current situation and crisis: post-Vatican II Catholicism is a mess. While I sympathize with the traditionalists, I don’t wish to affiliate myself with a radical fringe of zealots who appear at times to lack the central Catholic virtue of charity. However, I simply can’t explain away the papacy. Although your explanation of the “Rock” passage was quite convincing, the Latins would claim that whether or not the rock refers to Peter’s confession or his personage, the promise of the keys of the kingdom established a monarchical papacy centered around the Petrine see of Rome. They claim that this imagery also bears an unmistakable connotation of authority and the office of vicarship and they highlight the similarities between the passage in the Gospel of St. Matthew and the book of Isaiah, chapter 22. (Emphasis added.)

My Response

Jesus’ Promise to Peter

In Matthew 16, one of the more important passages in the Bible, Peter makes the confession that Jesus is the Christ, the long awaited Messiah. In response, Jesus declares him blessed, gives him a new name “Peter,” and bestows on him the power of the keys.

18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:18-19; NIV, emphasis added.)

This passage has been one of the most highly contested in the Bible. Roman Catholic apologists have used it to assert papal supremacy, and Protestants have responded with counter-arguments. One longstanding issue was what Jesus intended when he bestowed on Simon the new name “Peter” and what he meant when he declared that upon “this rock” he (Christ) would build his church. More recently, the keys have become a matter of debate.

Scott Hahn’s Discovery

One of the challenges of understanding Jesus’ promise to give Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” (τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν) is what exactly the keys referred to. Scott Hahn argues that Isaiah 22 gives an important clue for understanding Christ’s promise to Peter in Matthew 16.

20 In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. (Isaiah 22:20-22; NIV, emphasis added.)

For Scott Hahn, Christ giving Peter the keys was comparable to the king bestowing the keys on his vizier. The vizier in ancient Israel was the second in command much like the way in today’s White House the second most important person is the Chief of Staff, not the Vice President. Because only one vizier serves the king Hahn proceeded to reason that this supports the monarchical understanding of the papacy.

Isaiah 22 in the Historical Context

The prophetic oracle in Isaiah 22 was given to two viziers to King Hezekiah: Shebna (v. 15) and Eliakim (v. 20). For both men the message is one of judgment: Shebna will be thrown away (v. 17) and Eliakim will be like a peg in the wall sheared off (v. 25). For more historical background on the two men and their relationship to King Hezekiah, one should read Isaiah 36-37 and 2 Kings 18.

Being clothed with a robe and sash, and given a chariot were part of the ceremonial vesting of the vizier before he took office. A similar vesting ceremony can be found in Genesis 41:41-43 in which Pharaoh gave Joseph his signet ring, dressed him in fine linen, put a gold chain around his neck, and gave him a chariot to ride in. No mention of a key is made but the similarities are clear. A similar vesting ceremony is hinted at in the book of Esther (Esther 3:1, 6:7-10, 8:2, 10:3). Mention is made of a royal robe, a chariot, and a signet ring, but not of a key. Thus, a comparative analysis of ancient Near Eastern political practices from Egypt during the Hyksos pharaohs 1720 to 1550 BC, the Judaean kingdom circa 700 BC, to the Persian kingdom circa 400 BC shows common elements in the installation of the vizier but the bestowal of a key seems to be a practice confined to Israel. The phrase – what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open – is a poetic way of saying that as vizier Eliakim would have the final say, that is, no one could reverse his decisions.

What do the Keys Refer to?

The paucity of references to “keys” in the Bible makes for a challenging exegetical question. There are two Old Testament references: Isaiah 22:22 and Judges 3:25. There are six New Testament references: Matthew 16:19, Luke 11:52, and Revelation 1:18, 3:7, 9:1, and 20:1. The word “key” has a range of meaning. Judges 3:25 refers to a literal, physical key to the Moabite king Eglon’s private chamber. In Luke 11:52 Jesus used “key to knowledge” to refer to the Jewish rabbis’ teaching authority, i.e., to interpret and apply the Torah. Key can refer to power over something, e.g., Jesus’ victory over death and Hades (Revelation 1:18), an angel having the power to open the Abyss (Revelation 9:1), and Archangel Michael named as the angel having the key to the Abyss (Revelation 20:1).

Do Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 Line Up?

The validity of Scott Hahn’s pro-papacy apologia rest on the two passages being parallel to each other. But do they line up? A closer examination shows that while there are some parallels between the two, there also exist divergences. Christ’s promise to Peter has two elements:

The keys of the kingdom of heaven, and
The power to forgive sins.

Isaiah’s prophecy to Eliakim has two elements:

The keys to the house of David, and
The power to make final decisions.

The first element shows a rough similarity. The keys of the house of David bestowed on Eliakim in Isaiah 22 can be viewed as a prophetic type that is fulfilled when Christ bestowed the keys of the kingdom of heaven on Peter in Matthew 16. When we compare the second element, the power of the keys, we find a divergence. What Jesus gave to Peter was not so much administrative but priestly authority, the power to grant absolution. Scott Hahn can make a typological argument – the first element: the keys of the house of David are equivalent to the keys of the kingdom of heaven, but to assert that the second element: the power to open and close doors are equivalent to the power of binding and loosing is something of a stretch.

It should be noted that the Orthodox Study Bible (OSB) has a different reading for Isaiah 22:22:

I will give him the glory of David, and he shall rule, and no one will oppose him. (OSB)

This difference reflects the fact that where, for example, the New International Version (NIV) relies on the Hebrew Masoretic text, the OSB uses the Greek Septuagint. I checked my copy of the Septuagint found no mention of the Greek word for key (κλεὶς). For Orthodox Christians, this is worth noting as Orthodoxy gives the Greek Septuagint priority over the Hebrew Masoretic text. In other words, if Hahn were to apply Isaiah 22:22 from the Septuagint to Matthew 16:19 to justify the monarchical papacy, he wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.

Isaiah 22 Fulfilled in Revelation 3:7

The New Testament is the Old Testament fulfilled. Jesus claimed that he came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17). So where do we find the New Testament fulfillment of Isaiah 22? I argue that the fulfillment of Isaiah 22:22 is found in Revelation 3:7. Let’s compare the two passages with bold fonts for the first element (the key) and italics for the second element (the power of the keys). Isaiah 22:22 reads:

I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. (NIV)

Revelation 3:7 reads:

These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. (NIV)

Where Matthew 16 provides a rough parallel to Isaiah 22, a much closer fit can be found in Revelation 3:7. The first and second elements in both passages parallel each other. So, if one wants to argue for a New Testament fulfillment of Isaiah 22 the best place to look is in Revelation 3, not in Matthew 16.

How does Isaiah 22 inform our reading of Revelation 3? The answer is simple and straightforward. Isaiah 22 provides some useful cultural information but nothing like a magic decoder ring. In Isaiah 22 the key was a symbol of authority and the language about shutting and opening meant having irreversible authority. So in Revelation 3:7, when Jesus says he holds the key of David he is asserting his being the Messiah who has supreme authority. The power of the keys can also refer to Christ’s sovereignty over history. The power of the keys in Revelation 3:7 lays the foundation to verse 8: “See, I have placed before you, an open door that no one can shut.” Jesus has given the church in Philadelphia an “open door,” an opportunity of some sort. This understanding of the power of the keys is much more straightforward than Scott Hahn’s convoluted attempt to make the keys stand for the monarchical papacy. What we have here is an attempt to force a round peg into a square hole. It can be done, but the peg is going be damaged in the process.

Whatever you (plural) bind on earth will be bound in heaven (Matt. 18:18)

The Power of the Keys Given to the Apostles

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus noted that with the keys came the power to bind and to loose. “To bind and loose” is a rabbinic term for rabbis’ authority to declare things permitted or forbidden. Where in Judaism Moses was the Lawgiver and the Jewish rabbis had the authority to bind and loose members of the Jewish community, Jesus as the Inaugurator of the New Covenant bestowed covenantal authority upon his Disciples to “bind and loose” over the New Covenant Community – the Church. The Orthodox Study Bible notes for Matthew 18:18-20 has this to say about “binding and loosing”:

The authority to bind and loose sins is given to the apostles and transmitted to the bishops and presbyters they ordained. This authority is given for the sake of the salvation of the sinner. The sinner, “seeing that he is not only cast of out of the Church, but that the bond of his sin will remain in Heaven, he may turn and become gentle” (JohnChr). (Emphasis in original.)

Exegetical Red Herring

To focus on the word “key” detracts from the main thrust of Jesus’ promise to Peter, the power to bind and loose, i.e., the authority to absolve sins. The critical exegetical question here is whether the power to bind and loose that Christ bestowed on Peter in Matthew 16:19 was to one single person (which would support the monarchical model favored by Roman Catholics) or to the Twelve (which would support the conciliar model favored by Orthodoxy). If we ask whether the “you” in Matthew 16:19 is in the singular (σοι) or plural form (ὑμῖν), the answer is the former. So, if one makes “key” the focus of one’s investigation, then the evidence will point to the monarchical understanding. However, if we focus on the power to bind and loose, we find evidence of more than one person being granted this power. Matthew 18:17-18 shows the same power of binding and loosing given to a collective group. The pairing of binding “δήσῃς” and loosing “λύσῃς” in Matthew 16:19 have their parallel in Matthew 18:18: binding “δήσητε” and loosing “λύσητε.” Significantly, the two verbs in Matthew 18:18 are in the second person plural which supports the Orthodox conciliar understanding of ecclesial authority. The difference between the second person singular and plural is evident to one reading the King James Version which uses “thy,” “thee” and “thou” to indicate second person singular and “you,” “ye,” and “your” to indicate second person plural.

15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. 18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (KJV)

However, a reader of the NIV will not be able to spot the shifts in number due to the NIV’s usage of the modern “you” which includes both the singular and the plural under the same word form which necessitated my inserting [plural] into the excerpt below. [More recent NIV translations usage of gender inclusive language, e.g., “your brother and sister,” forced the translators to render “him” as “them” muddying the waters even further! Perhaps the NIV translators should consider using the Southern y’all in the next edition.]

15 If your brother sins against you, go and point out his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won him over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If he still refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. 18 I tell you the truth, whatever you [plural] bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you [plural] loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. (NIV)

Since Matthew’s Gospel was written for a Jewish audience it comes as no surprise that we find Jesus using the Hebraic expression of binding and loosing. This means that to locate similar passages elsewhere it helps not just to look for formal (word-for-word) equivalent but also for dynamic (meaning-for-meaning) equivalent. A parallel passage can be found in John’s Gospel in one of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances. In John 20:21-23 we read:

21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you [plural] forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you [plural] do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Here Jesus is speaking not to Peter alone but to Peter and the Disciples. John, writing to a non-Jewish audience, refrained from using Hebraisms and instead has Jesus talking plainly about bestowing upon the Disciples the power to forgive sins. Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament entry for κλεὶς (kleis) (vol. III pp. 752-753) likewise notes the parallel between Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23. What is important to note here is that John used the second person plural endings for the verb “forgive” (ἀφῆτε) in verse 23. One might expect that Jesus would bestow this authority exclusively to Peter but here he gives it to the Disciples. Jesus breathing on the Disciples indicates that the power to forgive sins is not so much a juridical power but more of a prophetic charisma that results from union with the Risen Christ. This charismatic and conciliar understanding of the power to “bind and loose” is much closer to Orthodoxy than to Roman Catholicism with its papal monarchy and legalistic ethos.

While it might be asserted, as Scott Hahn did, that the situation in Matthew 18:15-18 is like the king’s cabinet with the Prime Minister having the final say, this is projecting the modern parliament onto the ancient Church through reasoning by analogy. What is striking is what Scripture does not say: (1) in Matthew 16:19 Jesus did not give the power of the keys exclusively to Peter and (2) Jesus did not subordinate the authority of the Twelve to Peter in either Matthew 18:18 or John 20:23. This leaves Prof. Hahn’s Prime Minister/Cabinet analogy more a conjecture than a reasoned argument.

Furthermore, if the parliamentary model holds true then we would see Peter having the final say at the Jerusalem Council. However, it was James the bishop of Jerusalem who said: “It is my judgment” and instructing the Council “we should write to them.” (Acts 15:19-20) To argue that James was merely echoing Peter’s views is to argue from silence. Similarly, we would expect the First Ecumenical Council (Nicea I, 325) to have been presided over by the bishop of Rome or his representative. In fact, Nicea I was presided over by Emperor Constantine or Bishop Hosius of Cordova (Spain) (NPNF 2nd Series Vol. 14 p. xiii). Pope Sylvester had sent two legates to the Council, but they did not preside over it. To sum up, the empirical, historical evidence does not agree with the pro-papacy argument. One gets the sense that pro-papacy apologists are trying to force the messiness of church history into their neat model of the monarchical papacy.

Summary

The pro-papacy argument using Isaiah 22:22 to explain Matthew 16:19 would be persuasive if there exists a strong parallel between the two passages. However, the stronger parallel is in Revelation 3:7. Another weakness is that the pro-papacy argument focuses on the keys, not on the power that go with the keys. When we look at the power that comes with the keys we find a divergence. Where Matthew 16:19 refers to the power to bind and loose, Isaiah 22 refers to opening and closing doors. This means that the crucial cross-passage for Matthew 16:19 would be Matthew 18:18 in which Jesus spoke about the power to bind and loose, not Isaiah 22 which spoke of a different kind of power. In Matthew 18 Jesus used the second person plural to describe the power to bind and loose. This means that power of the keys that Jesus gave to Peter in Matthew 16:19 is given to the other Apostles as well in Matthew 18:18. This undercuts the argument for the Roman papacy and supports Orthodoxy’s conciliar understanding of the Church.

Matthew 18 has greater relevance for understanding Matthew 16 than Isaiah 22. The Isaiah 22 passage is much further removed in terms of time and genre, whereas Matthew 18 has the same source (Jesus) and is in the same book as Matthew 16. Matthew 18:18 can be seen as a follow up and expansion on Matthew 16:19. Scott Hahn’s pro-papacy argument derived from applying Isaiah 22 to Matthew 16 is to put it bluntly a stretch. It suffers from gaps in its logic (focusing on the similarity in the keys while ignoring the dissimilarity with respect to the power of the keys) and it fails to take into account two superior sources for understanding Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23. To sum up, the attempt to prove a pro-papacy position through Isaiah 22 has serious flaws and therefore not convincing. While this article refutes the pro-papacy argument, it does not let Protestants off the hook. The power of the keys point to the bestowing of covenantal authority to the Church for the liturgy, sacraments like confession, and the bishops’ teaching authority. This bestowing of covenantal authority which began with the Twelve continues to the present day in the Orthodox Church through its episcopacy.

Protestants’ Vulnerability

The goal of this article has been to convince Protestants who take the Bible seriously and who feel compelled by Scott Hahn’s pro-papacy argument from Isaiah 22 that there is another way of reading Matthew 16:19 that is faithful to Scripture, consistent with church history, and does not rely on convoluted arguments. Many Protestants and Evangelicals know little about church history and have been brought up to uncritically accept anti-Catholic propaganda. This makes them vulnerable to Roman Catholic apologetics, especially with respect to the papacy. Former Protestants like Scott Hahn who know their Bible backwards and forwards, trained in theology, knowledgeable in church history, and well versed in patristics make formidable opponents. The challenge for Protestants is to develop a Protestant approach to the Petrine primacy that takes into account the biblical and historical evidences. As a former Protestant who earned his M.A. in church history from one of Evangelicalism’s leading seminary, I would say that doing this would be very difficult to pull off. However, there is an alternative to surrendering to the Roman papacy and that is to embrace Ancient Church that exists today in Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy recognizes the bishop of Rome as the first among equals but rejects the claim to papal supremacy. It affirms the conciliar nature of the Church but rejects the monarchical papacy.

Robert Arakaki

Recommended Reading

“Does Combining Isaiah 22 With Matthew 16 Lead Us To A Papacy?” Triablogue

“Scott Hahn on the Papacy” Catholic-Page

Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament — κλεὶς (kleis) Vol. III pp. 744-753.

Category: Apostolic Succession (Page 2 of 7)

Did Irenaeus of Lyons teach sola scriptura?

The Apostolic Failure of the Reformed Church

Does Isaiah 22 Prove the Papacy?

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives